How different Great Religions are?

[InvestigateTruth]

We all know, that there are identical teachings in Great Religions. They all teach spirituality, they all say, treat other people fairly, be righteous, do not commit sexual immorality, so on. They all speak identical symbolic language and similar prophetic statements.

But what are the differences, and if all of them are inspired from One source, how can there be such differences?

Most people probably believe, they are not from the same source.

Probably most agree that one of the greatest differences between them, is what happens to us after death. In Buddhism and Hinduism it appears that, their scriptures describe rebirth, whereas in Quran, Bible, or Avesta, it appears to be describing resurrection of the dead.
Now, obviously Rebirth, and Resurrection are totally different, if taken literally.

In my view, Manifestations such as Buddha, Muhammad or Jesus are one and the same Spirit. These Holy Beings are like a wise and all-knowing doctor. Their teachings are like medicine, for the ill Body of mankind.
If an ill Person is not willing to take his medication, and the doctor tricks him in ways to get him to take the medication in order to save him, can we say the doctor is blameworthy?

For instance when Buddha appeared, people were doing immoral things. He came to them with a set of teachings, to make them free from these illnesses.
However, these people had already certain beliefs in their culture. For example They had already believed in reincarnation. Had Buddha confronted them, saying to them, their belief in reincarnation is false, they could not stand it. They would have been disturbed, and would not listen to His main teachings, which was to train their spirituality (the Medicine). Thus, when Buddha came to them, outwardly spoke in their agreement. In my view, this why, we can see, Buddha appears to be speaking of rebirth. However, if we read His discourses carefully, and think deeply about what He says, we see that, He is not speaking of a literal rebirth in this world. He gives it a new definition of Rebirth.

What are your thoughts?

 

[WalterTrull]

Have you noticed there are tall people, short people, white yellow red brown and black people? All people. All the children. Why not religious differences?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Have you noticed there are tall people, short people, white yellow red brown and black people? All people. All the children. Why not religious differences?

People have the right to believe in any Religion they want.

 

[Spirit of Light]

We all know, that there are identical teachings in Great Religions. They all teach spirituality, they all say, treat other people fairly, be righteous, do not commit sexual immorality, so on. They all speak identical symbolic language and similar prophetic statements.

But what are the differences, and if all of them are inspired from One source, how can there be such differences?

Most people probably believe, they are not from the same source.

Probably most agree that one of the greatest differences between them, is what happens to us after death. In Buddhism and Hinduism it appears that, their scriptures describe rebirth, whereas in Quran, Bible, or Avesta, it appears to be describing resurrection of the dead.
Now, obviously Rebirth, and Resurrection are totally different, if taken literally.

In my view, Manifestations such as Buddha, Muhammad or Jesus are one and the same Spirit. These Holy Beings are like a wise and all-knowing doctor. Their teachings are like medicine, for the ill Body of mankind.
If an ill Person is not willing to take his medication, and the doctor tricks him in ways to get him to take the medication in order to save him, can we say the doctor is blameworthy?

For instance when Buddha appeared, people were doing immoral things. He came to them with a set of teachings, to make them free from these illnesses.
However, these people had already certain beliefs in their culture. For example They had already believed in reincarnation. Had Buddha confronted them, saying to them, their belief in reincarnation is false, they could not stand it. They would have been disturbed, and would not listen to His main teachings, which was to train their spirituality (the Medicine). Thus, when Buddha came to them, outwardly spoke in their agreement. In my view, this why, we can see, Buddha appears to be speaking of rebirth. However, if we read His discourses carefully, and think deeply about what He says, we see that, He is not speaking of a literal rebirth in this world. He gives it a new definition of Rebirth.

What are your thoughts?

A lot of wise words in this OP
The way i understand the truth is that those we see as Buddha, Jesus, or other teachers of spiritual paths/religions do teach similar teachings because they have cultivated up to enlightenment, and because they sometimes have somewhat different wisdom level they see truth from different levels and thereby their teachings will look somwhat same. But there will be some different aspects too.

 

[Komori]

I have done quite a bit of research into the idea of reincarnation (tanāsukh) as it relates to Islam and as the doctrine was expressed by certain heterodox Shī'a groups, and though I've yet to completely make up my mind on this issue, I'll bite.

First of all, I don't really think there is any real conflict between reincarnation as expressed in dharmic religions and the idea of Heaven and Hell found in Abrahamic religions, provided that you are aware of the inner (bāṭin) spiritual reality of Heaven and Hell as expressed in the writings of numerous heterodox Islamic sects and "post-Islamic" movements, including those of the Bahāʿī Faith. If you affirm Heaven and Hell to be nothing more than spiritual states dependent upon affirming the truth of God and His Prophet, rather than physical locations we inhabit in the hereafter, then what is the need to (incorrectly, I think) reinterpret the doctrine of reincarnation in such a way? But of course, I'm just playing with ideas here; I don't necessarily believe in reincarnation.

Second, as for the idea that Buddha can be accepted as a prophet-messenger in the Islamic lineage, it is a weird one. It certainly has precedent in the writings of certain Muslim thinkers, but it is an idea that seems to have made its way into Islam via Manichaeism, which affirmed Buddha as one of the prophets. Whereas you could make a decent case for including Hinduism as part of the Islamic lineage of true religions—and this has been done in the form of Satpanth, a synthesis of Ismāʿīlism and Vaishnavist Hinduism—including Buddha as one of the Islamic prophets requires some severe stretching of the truth. Now, I'm not a Buddhist, nor have I studied the subject at length, but even with my cursory knowledge of Buddhism, I realize that, to do this, you would have to assume that the doctrines of the Buddha have been so greatly corrupted as to not even slightly resemble his original doctrines. This is a very extreme form of taḥrīf, an Islamic doctrine which Bahāʿuʿllāh himself explicitly rejects (see Kitāb-i Īqān, para. 93):

Verily by “perverting” [referring to taḥrīf] the text is not meant that which these foolish and abject souls have fancied, even as some maintain that Jewish and Christian divines have effaced from the Book such verses as extol and magnify the countenance of Muḥammad, and instead thereof have inserted the contrary. How utterly vain and false are these words! Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it? Moreover, the Pentateuch had been spread over the surface of the earth, and was not confined to Mecca and Medina, so that they could privily corrupt and pervert its text. Nay, rather, by corruption of the text is meant that in which all Muslim divines are engaged today, that is the interpretation of God’s holy Book in accordance with their idle imaginings and vain desires.

So how do you square this?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course they do, but if all religions were the same, people could and probably would practice all religions simultaneously.

Of course the Religions are not the same.

They don't. That's proof enough for me that there are vast and irreconcilable differences in both belief and practice, between all faiths.

There are practices that are different in each Religion. For example, in Jewdaism, Moses asked them to keep the Law of Sabbath. In Bahai Faith there is no such a Law. Because in our view, God gave them a different set of practices or social laws according to the needs of their time and place. Such differences, are not in need of reconcilation to show Religions are given by the same God. God is not a robbot to repeat same thing ti everyone. Our Age, is a newer age. It needs a new guidence.
Other differences, such as belief if Ribirth vs Resurrection in my view are reconcilled. As i have explained in OP, why Buddha appeares to talk about Rebirth.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I have done quite a bit of research into the idea of reincarnation (tanāsukh) as it relates to Islam and as the doctrine was expressed by certain heterodox Shī'a groups, and though I've yet to completely make up my mind on this issue, I'll bite.

First of all, I don't really think there is any real conflict between reincarnation as expressed in dharmic religions and the idea of Heaven and Hell found in Abrahamic religions, provided that you are aware of the inner (bāṭin) spiritual reality of Heaven and Hell as expressed in the writings of numerous heterodox Islamic sects and "post-Islamic" movements, including those of the Bahāʿī Faith. If you affirm Heaven and Hell to be nothing more than spiritual states dependent upon affirming the truth of God and His Prophet, rather than physical locations we inhabit in the hereafter, then what is the need to (incorrectly, I think) reinterpret the doctrine of reincarnation in such a way? But of course, I'm just playing with ideas here; I don't necessarily believe in reincarnation.

Second, as for the idea that Buddha can be accepted as a prophet-messenger in the Islamic lineage is a weird one. It certainly has precedent in the writings of certain Muslim thinkers, but it is an idea that seems to have made its way into Islam via Manichaeism, which affirmed Buddha as one of the prophets. Whereas you could make a decent case for including Hinduism as part of the Islamic lineage of true religions—and this has been done in the form of Satpanth, a synthesis of Ismāʿīlism and Vaishnavist Hinduism—including Buddha as one of the Islamic prophets requires some severe stretching of the truth. Now, I'm not a Buddhist, nor have I studied the subject at length, but even with my cursory knowledge of Buddhism, I realize that, to do this, you would have to assume that the doctrines of the Buddha have been so greatly corrupted as to not even slightly resemble his original doctrines. This is a very extreme form of taḥrīf, an Islamic doctrine which Bahāʿuʿllāh himself explicitly rejects (see Kitāb-i Īqān, para. 93):


So how do you square this?

I believe Buddha spoke of Rebirth, and I do not believe those quotes which are attributed to Buddha are corrupted, as in altered in the Suttas.

Let me, make it clear, what I meant in OP, by giving an example from Writings of Bahaullah:

"We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Daystar of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?"
Book of Iqan

I specifically want to draw attention to the bolded part. Baha'is in no wise believe there are different levels of heaven, and that Jesus went to the fourth one! Neither Bahaullah teaches such a thing. But why He is talking about it then?!!
Because, the people of His time, already had such a belief, thus, Bahaullah in order to communicate with them from some common point to teach them more, He uses same expressions or belief that people are already familiar with.
Same with Buddha. He spoke of Rebirth, not because He believed it to be true, and not because He wanted to teach Rebirth, but because people of His time already believed in it, and thus He used what they are familiar with as a common ground to teach them farther. But if we read His discourses we see He is giving it a different meaning: Buddha defines 'death' as a death of spirituality within. He then says, when people commit sin, or defile themselves, they die (spiritually), and then when they feel their spirit is weak and dead, they seek to be born, meaning they want their spiritual power to be revived. This spiritual death and rebirth can happen many times in our lives. He then goes on and explains, if we want to be liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth, we must follow His path, and perform His teachings.

 

[PureX]

A divine spirit inhabits all of humanity, but that spirit gets expressed through the uniqueness of each human individual. So, of course, there are going different religions, just as there are different human cultures. And there are going to be different religious myths, and admonishments, and traditions, just as there are different languages spoken, and styles of clothing worn, among us. But the divine spirit within us remains the same, just as the human spirit remains unique, at their essence. We all love, and want to be loved. We all want to live in peace and security, and free from unnecessary suffering. Even as we all seek our own ideal of what it means to live fully and freely, as ourselves.

 

[Quintessence]

My thoughts are that all indigenous (Pagan/Polytheist) religions must not be on the Baha'i list of "Great Religions" because they do not fit your narrative. I might be able to get upset about that, except I'm rather glad that they do not fit your narrative. We can be the Great Religions that come from an entirely different source and don't get homogenized under your umbrella.

 

[Valjean]

Have you noticed there are tall people, short people, white yellow red brown and black people? All people. All the children. Why not religious differences?

But all are really just various shades of brown. amen

People have the right to believe in any Religion they want.

...as long as they don't promote it by force.

 

[Vinayaka]

My thoughts are that all indigenous (Pagan/Polytheist) religions must not be on the Baha'i list of "Great Religions" because they do not fit your narrative. I might be able to get upset about that, except I'm rather glad that they do not fit your narrative. We can be the Great Religions that come from an entirely different source and don't get homogenized under your umbrella.

My faith most certainly doesn't fit either, and I'm happy for it as well. In fact, Baha'i itself doesn't fit, because it's not a great religion, but a relatively small obscure faith. People are free to believe whatever they wish, and thank goodness for diversity. Most adherents of most faiths can get along amiably with each other despite fully knowing and recognising the vast differences. I think that all one needs to do is some real honest and deeper looking at other faiths to see this, not some simplistic and vague overview lovey dovey stuff.

Doctors, when analysing what's wrong with a patient, often have to look deep in order to resolve the issue with that particular patient. I would refuse to go to a doctor that prescribed the same medicine to everyone. He just couldn't cure me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My thoughts are that all indigenous (Pagan/Polytheist) religions must not be on the Baha'i list of "Great Religions" because they do not fit your narrative. I might be able to get upset about that, except I'm rather glad that they do not fit your narrative. We can be the Great Religions that come from an entirely different source and don't get homogenized under your umbrella.

Who were the founder(s) of the religions you talk about? We have to see, case by case.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is true that all religions, without a single exception, come from the same source -- and that source is the human mind, trying to understand things for which no answers are available, and to find comfort in the face of the unknown, unknowable, and often terrifying.

It should not be too surprising, therefore, that there are many different religions, and that all have proposed different answers with some similarities. The differences arise because we are each different from one another. The similarities arise because we share modes of thought and experience by nature of our shared human nature.

 

[Vinayaka]

Who were the founder(s) of the religions you talk about? We have to see, case by case.

Lots of religions have no founders. Mine is another one of them too. Paganism, as I understand it, just sort of happened. I can't speak for Q.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It is true that all religions, without a single exception, come from the same source -- and that source is the human mind, trying to understand things for which no answers are available, and to find comfort in the face of the unknown, unknowable, and often terrifying.

It should not be too surprising, therefore, that there are many different religions, and that all have proposed different answers with some similarities. The differences arise because we are each different from one another. The similarities arise because we share modes of thought and experience by nature of our shared human nature.

Why do you think, Only, the Founders of great Religions, such as Jesus, Buddha, and Bahaullah have identical teachings, and symbolic expressions on many subjects? In a few recent threads I have shown Some of those identical things that I'm referring.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Lots of religions have no founders. Mine is another one of them too. Paganism, as I understand it, just sort of happened. I can't speak for Q.

It does not make sense that a Religion does not have a Founder, and just happened. It could be that, it is very old. Who wrote the scriptures of your religion? Shavism scriptures. The main one scripture. Who is or are its Author(s) according to the Book? Who claims to be its Author?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do you think, Only, the Founders of great Religions, such as Jesus, Buddha, and Bahaullah have identical teachings, and symbolic expressions on many subjects? In a few recent threads I have shown Some of those identical things that I'm referring.

Don't you think "identical teachings" is just a bit of a stretch? I find their teachings differ in quite profound ways...certainly Buddha never claimed that "no man comes to the Father, but through me." Nor did Jesus ever teach anything like karma, since he assumed that God could and would alter anything (even if nobody understood the rules by which he made such decisions).

 

[Vinayaka]

It does not make sense that a Religion does not have a Founder, and just happened. It could be that, it is very old. Who wrote the scriptures of your religion? Shavism scriptures. The main one scripture. Who is or are its Author(s) according to the Book? Who claims to be its Author?

Nobody knows. There is no founder. But I suppose you know far more about my faith than I do. Maybe I'll ask my grue.

Edited to add... Perhaps the wiki article will help elucidate Hinduism for you. Please note what it says about 'founder' in the first paragraph.

Hinduism - Wikipedia

 

[Vinayaka]

Don't you think "identical teachings" is just a bit of a stretch?

A bit? Even 'similar' might make some sense. But 'identical'? Then there are the atheists, agnostics, and humanists. They're all probably identical too.

 

[Valjean]

We all know, that there are identical teachings in Great Religions. They all teach spirituality, they all say, treat other people fairly, be righteous, do not commit sexual immorality, so on. They all speak identical symbolic language and similar prophetic statements.

But what are the differences, and if all of them are inspired from One source, how can there be such differences?

Most people probably believe, they are not from the same source.

They certainly don't seem to be inspired from a common source.

Most religions are tribal. Most have certain teachings about propriety, but these apply only in-tribe, and have nothing to do with any deity. What deities/spirits there are are simply magical Nature manifestations, like incorporeal wildlife.

Even among the handful of 'major' religions there are big differences.
The Abrahamic religions posit a judgemental, easily annoyed, rulemaker God, who must be appeased or He will harm you. At some point a life after death was introduced and became quite popular, but no levels of consciousness or altered realities were taught. We were the same individuals before and after death.

The Vedic religions, on the other hand, are all about levels of reality and altering consciousness.
Popular deities began as anthopomorphic manifestations of natural phenomena like fire, rain, or animals,
but they weren't lawgivers or judges. Spiritual welfare had nothing to do with judgement or "salvation." The religious goal wasn't salvation or an idealized earthlike Heaven. There were layers of subjective realities, and religious philosophy was focused on transcending these and achieving a universal consciousness.

Buddhism is a psychotherapeutic modality. It's goal is to eliminate suffering by right thinking. Various cultures have draped it with deities and customs, a theology and an already existing belief in rebirth and progress through levels of consciousness.

Probably most agree that one of the greatest differences between them, is what happens to us after death. In Buddhism and Hinduism it appears that, their scriptures describe rebirth, whereas in Quran, Bible, or Avesta, it appears to be describing resurrection of the dead.

The greatest difference, I think, is metaphysical. Abrahamic religions believe the world is real, that a divine lawgiver judges us on our compliance with His list of rules, and that after death we're either condemned to eternal torment or to an unchanged awareness in an idealized Earth.

The Eastern philosophies believe the world is a dream and the goal is to wake up to expanded realities with a very different level of awareness. There is no lawgiver or judge.

For instance when Buddha appeared, people were doing immoral things. He came to them with a set of teachings, to make them free from these illnesses.
However, these people had already certain beliefs in their culture. For example They had already believed in reincarnation. Had Buddha confronted them, saying to them, their belief in reincarnation is false, they could not stand it. They would have been disturbed, and would not listen to His main teachings, which was to train their spirituality (the Medicine). Thus, when Buddha came to them, outwardly spoke in their agreement. In my view, this why, we can see, Buddha appears to be speaking of rebirth. However, if we read His discourses carefully, and think deeply about what He says, we see that, He is not speaking of a literal rebirth in this world. He gives it a new definition of Rebirth.
What are your thoughts?

But wasn't Buddha more concerned with life and spiritual progress via the eightfold path than with life/rebirth after death?