How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

You can not have a result that is no preceded by a cause, thus the foundation of compassion is Compassion itself. Anything less, is lack of Compasssion.

Compassion exists even if we choose not to use it. This is Applicable to all virtues.

Thus we now ask where do we find the source of True Compassion?

My opinion is by looking at the Great Beings.

Regards Tony

Hmm. I'd think the source of compassion is god or the other way around?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can not have a result that is no preceded by a cause, thus the foundation of compassion is Compassion itself. Anything less, is lack of Compasssion.

Compassion exists even if we choose not to use it. This is Applicable to all virtues.

Thus we now ask where do we find the source of True Compassion?

My opinion is by looking at the Great Beings.

Regards Tony

If the source of compassion is the great beings (god?), what is the source of christianity and buddhism that both religions would support your answer-great beings-not the other way around?

And if the source is the great beings why would you say they are the source and not god?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Rats. I was sound asleep when my dream lead me on the bus, missed the turn, and into a dark whole. Dont know what thats about.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But my questions and subject were why you talk other an individuals faith by telling me they (as a group) are divided and dont seek bahauallah, etc?

If god is to judge, why not encourage christians to believe only in christ and not bahaullah? Can you encourage people to follow their own beliefs without stating your own as a prerequiste of them?

My second question is because you see christians as divided and turned from the "real" faith (i.e. those who see the secomd coming vs those who dont), you are talking about individuals not a group of people (not generalizing). Therefore, the peace you want comes from seeing people divided rather than encouragjng people above in Their beliefs to work together Without bahauah.

If it was only god to judge, why express that we are flawed when only god can tell if we are: god of hindus, god of muhammad, god of christians/jesus, god of bahai, god of jews?

If its only god to judge, why see negativity in division instead of similarities among those who disagree with you?

Not similarities as in we have the same faith and goals, we dont. See similarities by working together in a goal we all agree with.

Can you do that or do you only see people undivided if bahaullah is not involved?

To me personally all people are people. But why would I tell Christians to ignore Baha’u’llah when He is mentioned in almost all the prophecies in the Bible regarding the end times?

I am only calling to their attention what is written in their own Holy Books. Baha’u’llah is not just my belief. He was promised in the Bible to both the Jews and Christians.

Christ said when He returned He would unite all humanity into ‘one fold and one shepherd’. This statement anticipates that there will be division when He returns.

Of course when He returns He can reprimand His followers for disobedience. That is His Divine Right.

So we do not see our belief as separate from other religions but the FULFILLMENT of their beliefs. So we accept all the scriptures as well that all their prophecies regarding the Promised One have been fulfilled.

Fulfillment is not a separate belief. It is the same belief but fully accepted not partially accepted.

Reaching an awareness that the prophecies have all been fulfilled will take time as most Christians or followers of other Faiths follow what their leader or monk or priest says so they do not search out truth necessarily using their own mind and so follow blindly and may never learn the truth as a result.

Most people who have accepted Baha’u’llah have turned away from priests or what is popular and listened with an open mind to what He has to say.

But you think about it. Unless we all accept our common humanity how will we ever establish peace? That is the teaching of Baha’u’llah for today. To accept all humanity as our family regardless of race, religion, nationality, class or gender.

To me this is the only path to peace to accept all humanity as one family. It doesn’t mean all humanity must become Baha’is.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is true that people turn to their leaders but what I have seen on the forums is that they turn to their Bibles and their interpretations of those verses... They will not consider any interpretation other than their own interpretation and they cannot look at anything else BUT the Bible, so that puts them in a box...

Yes they turn to their Bible but if you note their replies it’s just a stock reply that’s been bandied around for centuries by their priests is sermons.

They’ve been told Christ hasn’t returned and to argue against it as anyone claiming to be Him must be a false prophet so that all you’ll get is the same circular argument repeating parrot fashion that Baha’u’llah is false without any reasoning involved.

Which Christians if any still await Christ’s return anymore?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If the source of compassion is the great beings (god?), what is the source of christianity and buddhism that both religions would support your answer-great beings-not the other way around?

And if the source is the great beings why would you say they are the source and not god?

You do not believe in God, so I did not bring in that aspect.

We can not know the Essence of God (Analogy the Sun). We need a filter to Look at the Sun, in the analogy, the Filter is the Great Beings.

By looking at their lives and teachings we can learn True Virtues and still not acknowledge the source. Is this how you see the Virtues shown by and taught by Buddha?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Rats. I was sound asleep when my dream lead me on the bus, missed the turn, and into a dark whole. Dont know what thats about.

Light at the end of the tunnel

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

You do not believe in God, so I did not bring in that aspect.

We can not know the Essence of God (Analogy the Sun). We need a filter to Look at the Sun, in the analogy, the Filter is the Great Beings.

By looking at their lives and teachings we can learn True Virtues and still not acknowledge the source. Is this how you see the Virtues shown by and taught by Buddha?

View attachment 20271

Regards Tony

Tony just an awesome analogy! Should be a Baha’i poster.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes they turn to their Bible but if you note their replies it’s just a stock reply that’s been bandied around for centuries by their priests is sermons.

They’ve been told Christ hasn’t returned and to argue against it as anyone claiming to be Him must be a false prophet so that all you’ll get is the same circular argument repeating parrot fashion that Baha’u’llah is false without any reasoning involved.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Which Christians if any still await Christ’s return anymore?

It seems to me it is most Christians, but I am not talking to a lot of Christians except on forums... Somewhere on a website I think I read that 80% of American Christians are still waiting... That is 60% of the American population...

 

[loverofhumanity]

You took the words right out of my mouth.

It seems to me it is most Christians, but I am not talking to a lot of Christians except on forums... Somewhere on a website I think I read that 80% of American Christians are still waiting... That is 60% of the American population...

The thing is a lot of the symbolic language used, Baha’u’llah said, was to test peoples sincerity. Because it’s an enormous gift that one must prove ones worthiness to receive.

It entails being willing to search everywhere including outside the accepted norms and traditions. It’s very hard for many to take that step because of fear they’ll be led astray. So it feels safer to remain in one’s comfort zone.

I think only if a person is really intensely searching then they’ll take that chance and detach themselves from what they’ve been told and trust God will guide them.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You do not believe in God, so I did not bring in that as

Its confusing because Im not a trinitarian. You got to talk about the sun so I understand the rays. Easier that way.

Hmm. That would mean all religions that talk to god one on one are blinded. Im sure when one believes in god they wont be blinded anymore least that sounds like the case in hinduism.

The Buddha says dont depend on astetics, brahmas devas, teachers, tradition, lineage of teaching, hearsay, logic, collection of text, inferiential reasoning...not even himself without recieving direct knowledge (the sun) not through anyone else: great beings included. SN 3:65

We can not know the Essence of God (Analogy the Sun). We need a filter to Look at the Sun, in the analogy, the Filter is the Great Beings.

I dont understand the need for a prophet. God yes, prophet no. God would be the moon. We can see the moon but we cant reach it (pretending we are back fifty years ago for point). It turns letting us see its sides also by the earth. By no means impossible to study. The Buddha is a human. He needs sun glasses too.

By looking at their lives and teachings we can learn True Virtues and still not acknowledge the source. Is this how you see the Virtues shown by and taught by Buddha?

I dont recieve virtues from The Buddha. I read them from The Dharma and experience the source and result by direct experience via action/deeds not belief and reading.

The source in The Buddha Dharma isnt god so what other souce could I find in The Dharma given virtues are a result from the source not the causes themselves?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Light at the end of the tunnel

Regards Tony

Haha. Probably. Fell back to sleep around 3am. Least I got a good rest to study today.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes they turn to their Bible but if you note their replies it’s just a stock reply that’s been bandied around for centuries by their priests is sermons.

They’ve been told Christ hasn’t returned and to argue against it as anyone claiming to be Him must be a false prophet so that all you’ll get is the same circular argument repeating parrot fashion that Baha’u’llah is false without any reasoning involved.

Which Christians if any still await Christ’s return anymore?

Is there anything positive about christians rather than saying where you feel they and Their bible are at fault?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

First of all these are good questions, I am out of time this morning, but offer these thoughts.

Its confusing........Hmm. That would mean all religions that talk to god one on one are blinded. Im sure when one believes in god they wont be blinded anymore least that sounds like the case in hinduism.

The Buddha says dont depend on astetics, brahmas devas, teachers, tradition, lineage of teaching, hearsay, logic, collection of text, inferiential reasoning...not even himself without recieving direct knowledge (the sun) not through anyone else: great beings included. SN 3:65

This is why you will find Baha'u'llah has said we must each investigate our Faith. Given the advice of Buddha of what not to depend upon, to me it is now very critical to find out exactly what did Buddha really say. Consider the example of the Bible and the Doctrine that was written into the Bible that now forms part of unquestionable loyalty. Jesus the Christ did not say Trinity, but Trinity is Fundamental Belief. Who made this Fundamental, it was not Jesus the Christ?

As Buddhist texts have traversed oral transmission for a greater time then Biblical Texts, it is much more likely that the advice from Buddha may have been slightly altered over time.

We are to depend on no one but our own selves for Faith. Where we put that Faith is in the pure Teachings, the Buddha is the source of the teachings you pursue, but what has been added?

I dont understand the need for a prophet. God yes, prophet no. God would be the moon. We can see the moon but we cant reach it (pretending we are back fifty years ago for point). It turns letting us see its sides also by the earth. By no means impossible to study. The Buddha is a human. He needs sun glasses too.

The moon is reflected light we see best in the dark of night. In that Analogy we still have God the Sun who illuminates the Moon who is the Great Being. I see the Human Buddha as a Filter, I see the Spiritual Buddha as eternal.

I dont recieve virtues from The Buddha. I read them from The Dharma and experience the source and result by direct experience via action/deeds not belief and reading.

The source in The Buddha Dharma isnt god so what other souce could I find in The Dharma given virtues are a result from the source not the causes themselves?

As the Dharma is not tied down to a single meaning in English it is not easy to get a concept of it. But it seems to be the Eternal Laws and Practices. From what I see, this may be originally based the Unchanging aspect of God and His Laws. As you do not believe in God, the source to you would have to come from the minds of men.

To me the Buddha confirms this unchanging aspect of Faith in His Message and then portrays and teaches the virtues, to renew the direction of Humanity.

I see all things must have a source.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I remember you said we can talk about a sutta verse. How can we talk about the truth of the physcial dharma when everything I post is not correct interpretation if its not consistant with bahaullah's point of view?

First of all these are good questions, I am out of time this morning, but offer these thoughts.

Take your time. Just got back from the store and cleaning my apartment.

This is why you will find Baha'u'llah has said we must each investigate our Faith. Given the advice of Buddha of what not to depend upon, to me it is now very critical to find out exactly what did Buddha really say. Consider the example of the Bible and the Doctrine that was written into the Bible that now forms part of unquestionable loyalty. Jesus the Christ did not say Trinity, but Trinity is Fundamental Belief. Who made this Fundamental, it was not Jesus th

We investigate The Buddha not The Dharma. He said he is subject to death just as you and I.

The point is not to find out what The Buddha says. If thats the case, if he said you wont die youd believe him. Goes beyond the teacher.

Cant compare The Dharma with the bible. The trinity is in the bible just youre more focused on words and content in this but see context in other places. That-I dont understand.

As Buddhist texts have traversed oral transmission for a greater time then Biblical Texts, it is much more likely that the advice from Buddha may have been slightly altered over time.

Altered???

How can we talk about the suttas if you believe they are altered?

We are to depend on no one but our own selves for Faith. Where we put that Faith is in the pure Teachings, the Buddha is the source of the teachings you pursue, but what has been added?

Ourselves? No god?

We put faith in our sources not the product of the source as the source. You god and me The Dharma. The Buddha isnt part of this equation.

The moon is reflected light we see best in the dark of night. In that Analogy we still have God the Sun who illuminates the Moon who is the Great Being. I see the Human Buddha as a Filter,

You get My analogy, right?

As the Dharma is not tied down to a single meaning in English it is not easy to get a concept of it. But it seems to be the Eternal Laws and Practices. From what I see, this may be originally based the Unchanging aspect of God and His Laws. As you do not believe in God, the source to you wo

Sounds like what you believe my belief Should be and since I dont believe in god, I am following an altered dharma.

True? Yes..no..

To me the Buddha confirms this unchanging aspect of Faith in His Message and then portrays and teaches the virtues, to renew the direction of Humanity.

Virtues are the same; source is not.

I see all things must have a source.

Yes. They arent virtues. What is the source of The Buddha's compassion and how is the same as The source of bahaullah's compassion?

 

[Trailblazer]

The thing is a lot of the symbolic language used, Baha’u’llah said, was to test peoples sincerity. Because it’s an enormous gift that one must prove ones worthiness to receive.

It entails being willing to search everywhere including outside the accepted norms and traditions. It’s very hard for many to take that step because of fear they’ll be led astray. So it feels safer to remain in one’s comfort zone.

I think only if a person is really intensely searching then they’ll take that chance and detach themselves from what they’ve been told and trust God will guide them.

Yes, most people want to remain in their own comfort zones and they are afraid of being led astray. A lot of that is unconscious. What comes across consciously is "I am right and you are wrong."

I think you are right that if people already have a religion or an idea about God that they are happy with, they will not be open to looking any further. I had no religion or ideas about God so I was able to see the Baha'i Faith clearly as soon as I encountered it, untarnished by any confirmation bias.

If people are in love with what they have, why would they be seeking anything else? I often wonder how many people just want the Truth about God, whatever that is. The criteria for a true seeker are pretty steep...

“O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth…..

That seeker must, at all times, put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, must detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vain-glory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence and refrain from idle talk.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 264-265

From: Tablet of the True Seeker

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes. They arent virtues. What is the source of The Buddha's compassion and how is the same as The source of bahaullah's compassion?

Carlita, I will look back over this post tonight. Have a small window at work ( Morning break).

The answer to that question is God, they are both Mesengers born of the Holy Spirit (Rays of the Sun), the Filter, the Mirror, the giver of life to us.

Lets try another Anology without God, just to show you what we call God.

Buddha is the seed to which will sprout all the growth possible in this world.

No matter what we think and discover, we will not find the Source of the seed, it is the age old question, what came first the Chicken or the egg?

This is what is seen as God, the unknowable source of all things. We do not have the capaciy to see beyond the seed, to see beyond the Buddha.

Buddha as the seed of Compassion, plants that in our heart and we feed it with Faith and deeds. From this the beauty of the Flower of Compassion sprouts.

Buddha is the seed of all Virtues and thus likewise each seed we plant in our heart from the Buddha and then feed it with Faith and Deeds. The beauty of a great garden can now takes shape and can be seen.

Ran out of time.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Altered???

How can we talk about the suttas if you believe they are altered?

I guess any further discussion first needs to confirm how accurate are these records.

Research has found these statements;

"What the original teachings were, Buddha Vacana ("word of the Buddha") has been the subject of debate and historical argument for centuries.......the teachings passed down over a period of many centuries as an oral tradition before being committed to writing. During this time they were codified in a form suitable for easy memorization and chanting. Academics are in disagreement over the content of the original source teachings that gave rise to these various recessions and the numerous traditions and scriptures that arose later based on these".

"...Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later..." "The Pāli Canon was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha."

Pāli Canon - Wikipedia

I would see this view as the most likely fate of the original word of Buddha;

Views concerning agnosticism
Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.

Some scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD. Gregory Schopen argues that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position was criticized by A. Wynne."

My position would be that anything that has been recorded as coming from the Buddha, would need to be balanced with thoughts from other Great Beings.

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess any further discussion first needs to confirm how accurate are these records.

Research has found these statements;

"What the original teachings were, Buddha Vacana ("word of the Buddha") has been the subject of debate and historical argument for centuries.......the teachings passed down over a period of many centuries as an oral tradition before being committed to writing. During this time they were codified in a form suitable for easy memorization and chanting. Academics are in disagreement over the content of the original source teachings that gave rise to these various recessions and the numerous traditions and scriptures that arose later based on these".

"...Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later..." "The Pāli Canon was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha."

Pāli Canon - Wikipedia

I would see this view as the most likely fate of the original word of Buddha;

Views concerning agnosticism
Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.

Some scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD. Gregory Schopen argues that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position was criticized by A. Wynne."

My position would be that anything that has been recorded as coming from the Buddha, would need to be balanced with thoughts from other Great Beings.

Regards Tony

Nice.

I'd have to get on a desktop to read this better when I get to the school.

Keep a few things in mind

1. Buddhism is a practice faith first, suttas/sutras second (Buddha/Dharma/Shangha not Prophet/Scripture/universal community

2. As such, are you saying (again and again) we are practicing incorrect teachings based on your interpretation of our practice and Not our own?

3. I will find documents about the suttas and how they are seen from a monastics perspective not a historian.

To be continued

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm.

Take your time--please please do!

Edit: I made it reader friendly. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it more length friendly given I wanted to add quotes and resources a well.

Point 1

"What the original teachings were, Buddha Vacana ("word of the Buddha") has been the subject of debate and historical argument for centuries.......the teachings passed down over a period of many centuries as an oral tradition before being committed to writing. During this time they were codified in a form suitable for easy memorization and chanting. Academics are in disagreement over the content of the original source teachings that gave rise to these various recessions and the numerous traditions and scriptures that arose later based on these".

I'm coming from a non-historical but more experiential and spiritual view. If someone proved (not debated) if Bahaullah is true to his word, and he was not, does that change your spiritual outlook and benefits? If so, why and how?​

Point 2

Oral traditions are not set in stone.

It's the telephone game preserved by monastics to be accurate as much as "possible." It is not like abrahamics who depend on the words to be 100 percent true or it is not spiritual. None of the suttas are accurate by content because that is the nature of human oral transmission. Things get lost in the process. It's not a sacred scripture faith.

Point 3

The Buddha's existence

This is interesting.

(I listened to this; good documentary)
1hr Long

This is a documentary of The Bones of The Buddha. It discusses whether they actually found the Buddha's remains, the search, and some of the things they found and put together. Similar to Jesus' story and how they try to prove his existence as well.

Point 4

I agree that the suttas are not all said by The Buddha.

In the sutras themselves, The Buddha says (or his monks that heard The Buddha) says that The Buddha wanted his disciples and other buddhas to continue the suttas and sutras. He mentioned that The Dharma (not the physical Dharma) is fully written and true.

For example again I ask:

​

1. Is there such thing as suffering?
2. Is there a way from suffer?
3. What is the way of suffering? (Is there a way out of it?)
4. Is there a method out of suffering? What is that method?​

Point 5

The Buddha realized these truths (among thousands). He did not create them. If these are altered, then every human must be perfect without suffering.

If that’s correct, then much of the Pali Canon dates from that time, soon after the Buddha died. Now that doesn’t mean that it’s all the words of the Buddha. The later sutras were memorized by monks as he taught and they checked their understanding with him. But the earlier ones were remembered many years later. Especially the accounts of his birth and his early years as a prince are stories retold many years after the actual events.

a. Which of The Suttas did The Buddha actually say.

b. This is something interesting I'ma read a bit later.
The Oral Transmitting of Early Buddhist Literature(pdf)

c. The Authenticity of the Pali Canon
This is sooo beautiful It's proven with the suttas as well.

Think about it. If you are proving the truth of Bahaullah through his texts and not historians, why would I not do the same first and foremost with the suttas before looking outside for the truths (not Truth) that is within life itself?​

Point 6

"...Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later..." "The Pāli Canon was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha."

Nods. Yes.

Point 7

I would see this view as the most likely fate of the original word of Buddha;

Views concerning agnosticism
Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus. Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.

Agnostic?

5. How does "not knowing" if the physical dharma is true affect the truths of The Dharma itself?

6. Are people agnostic about the simple fact of suffering?​

Point 8

Some scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD. Gregory Schopen argues that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position was criticized by A. Wynne."

Yes. A lot of which was written from the suttas (like the bible and The Church) were not taken verbum. Instead, different councils of monastics discussed what was actually from The Buddha at teh time of first transmission until now and continuing preserved by monastics themselves.

According to Buddhist tradition it was Ananda, the main disciple of the Buddha, who repeated the discourses of the Buddha during the First Buddhist Council. These teachings were memorized by 500 practitioners and during many generations they were passed on orally. After a number of centuries, combined with the growth of the Buddhist community, variations in these teachings turned out to be inevitable, which is why the accuracy of these texts is sometimes challenged. Ancient History Encyclopedia (Hate Wiki )

and

It was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately 454 years after the death of Gautama Buddha.[a] It was composed by members of Sangha of each ancient major Buddhist sub-tradition. It is written in Pali, Sanskrit, and regional Asian languages.[5] It survives in various versions. The surviving Sri Lankan version is the most complete. Wiki Pali Canon

The issue isn't the authenticity of the dharma. We can argue that forever and that doesn't change the facts of what the dharma talks about regardless who said it or not.

But the problem is saying that the dharma says anything about god.

Let me ask. Where in the suttas does it mention The Buddha believing in god in order to achieve enlightenment? God meaning Brahma not the god of abraham?​

If the suttas were altered, then why go off the suttas if you don't believe it as written? What makes what you take as true buddhism when you see fault in the suttas where there is none in The Dharma itself?​

As for authenticity (I read the whole Wiki)

Point 9

Most scholars do agree that there was a rough body of sacred literature that a relatively early community maintained and transmitted.[32][f]

Much of the Pali Canon is found also in the scriptures of other early schools of Buddhism, parts of whose versions are preserved, mainly in Chinese. Many scholars have argued that this shared material can be attributed to the period of Pre-sectarian Buddhism.[citation needed] This is the period before the early schools separated in about the fourth or third century BCE.

Some scholars see the Pali Canon as expanding and changing from an unknown nucleus.[33] Arguments given for an agnostic attitude include that the evidence for the Buddha's teachings dates from (long) after his death.

Agnostic about the origin and transmission not the content.

Interesting The Buddha adopted some of the teachings himself. In The Lotus Sutra, it says The Buddha said (by his disciple) that The Buddha changes his message to meet the times of the people.

Not Bahaullah, Jesus, etc. Same message. Nothing changed.

I'd have to read it in full. There is a lot of information on the Wiki and I don't know if you read it all or skimmed it. However, it seemed like the scholars agreed with that the Nikayas do exist and they do hold the teachings about The Buddha (video too; good one). They also agree that it is hard to know whether The Buddha actually said some of his words and they also agree that his disciples were said to remember The Buddha's Words in order to transmit the teachings from then, now, and today.

All are relevant as is.

Let me ask, why is this true and not altered?
​

Point 10

The Bahá'í teachings uphold all parts of the Eightfold Noble Path: right view, right aim or right-mindedness, right speech, right action, right living or livelihood, right effort or endeavour, right mindfulness and right contemplation.[5]

But the rest are not true and have been altered?​

when in both cases, the facts are uncertain.

That, and is your faith dependent on the authenticity of Bahaullah's writings or the spiritual benefit for which what you read you experienced is true regardless if it can be proven or not?​

You gave me something to chew on.

I don't want to go in circles so I rather we discuss, ask, and answer each other's questions at our own timing (ha. not all at once, mind you) than skip over to another point without addressing the one we are on currently.​