Very well!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Sit and Talk...
- Thread starter Sundance
- Start date
Very well!
Sirius Star
Member
Sure we are, always. We must kill all of the hostages just to go save all those savages.
arthra
Baha'i
I was going to suggest here that there was a text many may be unaware of ..entitled The Dabistan or School of Manners (The Religious beliefs, observations, philosophic opinions and social customs of the nations of the East) originally in Persian...there was considerable Persian cultural influence in northern India.. The book was fairly well known to literary groups in Persia. The author was a Mohsan Fani. It was believed to have been composed around 1650 CE. Wikipedia has an article on the book at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabestan-e_Mazaheb
Baha'u'llah also corresponded with Zoroastrians such as Manikchi Sahib who was an emissary for the Parsees of India and these writings are now published as the "Tabernacle of Unity".
So I think there's evidence that there was fairly substantive knowledge of the dharmic religions in Persia in the time of Baha'u'llah.
There are actually very few references in the Writings to Buddha and Krishna as such.
Also I was going to suggest that it's not unusual for there to be a kind of redefinition of previous revelations. Jesus in my view redefines earlier Judaism. Muhammad redefines Judaism and Christianity ..through the revelations of the Qur'an.
The Ninth Letter of the Living to accept the Bab was from India Sa'id-i-Hindi:
Shaykh Sa'id-i-Hindi, an Indian, was among the Letters of the Living. An Indian dervish travelled to Chihrfq in response to a dream in which the Bab appeared to him, accepted his Lord and was given the name by Him 'Qahru'llah' (the Wrath of God). Others from India attained the presence of Bahá'u'lláh and of 'Abdu'l-Bahá.
(BW - Baha'i World Volumes, Volume 18, p. 246)
Mujan Momen composed an essay on the relationship between Baha'i Faith and Hinduism:
http://bahai-library.com/momen_hinduism_bahai&chapter=4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabestan-e_Mazaheb
Baha'u'llah also corresponded with Zoroastrians such as Manikchi Sahib who was an emissary for the Parsees of India and these writings are now published as the "Tabernacle of Unity".
So I think there's evidence that there was fairly substantive knowledge of the dharmic religions in Persia in the time of Baha'u'llah.
There are actually very few references in the Writings to Buddha and Krishna as such.
Also I was going to suggest that it's not unusual for there to be a kind of redefinition of previous revelations. Jesus in my view redefines earlier Judaism. Muhammad redefines Judaism and Christianity ..through the revelations of the Qur'an.
The Ninth Letter of the Living to accept the Bab was from India Sa'id-i-Hindi:
Shaykh Sa'id-i-Hindi, an Indian, was among the Letters of the Living. An Indian dervish travelled to Chihrfq in response to a dream in which the Bab appeared to him, accepted his Lord and was given the name by Him 'Qahru'llah' (the Wrath of God). Others from India attained the presence of Bahá'u'lláh and of 'Abdu'l-Bahá.
(BW - Baha'i World Volumes, Volume 18, p. 246)
Mujan Momen composed an essay on the relationship between Baha'i Faith and Hinduism:
http://bahai-library.com/momen_hinduism_bahai&chapter=4
I have noticed that the Bahai Faith considers itself a revealed and Abrahamic religion, IMO quite properly. At the same time, it seems to have a sincere hope of at least connecting with other religions as well, even going beyond the Abrahamics, Zoroastrism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
I have no issue with any attempts at understanding other beliefs. When done in good will, those can only be constructive, often enormously so. Yet the Bahai goal seems to go beyond simple mutual understanding. It self-imposes what are IMO inherently conflicting goals, as it attempts to impose the expectations of an Abrahamic, monotheistic, revealed religion while reinterpreting non-Abrahamic traditions.
Personally, I think an actual Dharmic approach is indispensable for any true religious practice, and that puts me at odds with the expectations of Bahais. Having the freedom and the immediate ability to disregard inherited concepts of revelation, of scripture, of specific conceptions of deities and even of using any concept of deity whatsoever is not optional for a religion that truly hopes to be accessible and meaningful for all people. It is a problem that all proselistis Abrahamic faiths have to deal with and which, far as I can tell, can't really be solved without the decision to essentially borrow a page from Hinduism and letting go entirely of any hopes of an unified doctrine or other Abrahamic trappings. When I first learned of Bahais, I actually assumed that they were not at all Abrahamic for those very reasons. It surprised me considerably to learn, first, that Bahais do talk of God - apparently, a singular God - all the time, and then that they nonetheless expect to be compatible with other faiths in general and Hinduism and Buddhism specifically.
A related issue is that the Bahai Faith, far as I can tell, is actually very centralized, albeit also fairly participative. It seems to make a very sincere, dedicated effort to have a consistent voice without refusing to hear from anyone.
I guess the bottom line is that I am surprised, even shocked, that a religion with the stated goals of the Bahais did not yet decide that it can't afford to be Abrahamic. Of course, that is not all that difficult to understand once one realizes how Abrahamic Bahaullah's approach towards religion was. It may even be argued that a non-Abrahamic approach would not fly at the time and place where the Bahai Faith was born. But that does not really help in solving the conflict that I see.
So I want to ask why the Bahai Faith is (far as I can tell) monotheistic, Abrahamic and revealed. It seems to me that an obvious reason is because it was originated by Bahaullah, who had such an approach towards religion. A perhaps more significant reason would be because it originated in a culture that had largely Shia Islam expectations about religion and therefore might well have trouble even imagining non-Abrahamic beliefs. Yet the Bahais have long since spread far beyond the regions with predominantly Muslim populations, so the opportunity to widen its religious parameters has certainly been found. But perhaps not without sacrificing too much of its own origins and expectations. It seems to me that you have no real desire to let go of Bahaullah's parameters, and that those are simply not amenable to non-Abrahamic perspectives.
Truth be told, I am not sure there is a point in attempting to make the Bahai Faith explicitly Dharmic either (although I do recommend a Dharmic approach for every single person, to be sure). The writings and core teachings are much too monotheistic and Abrahamic and would dissolve into irrelevance if such an effort were seriously pursued. Odds are that exactly that did in fact happen with some frequency in the century-plus of Bahai history, leading to some people leaving the Faith entirely.
On the other hand, Abrahamic Faiths have had an undeniable demographic success, so it may probably be argued that it just suits the Bahai Faith well to remain as such. I will disagree, but then again I have no stake on the demographic success of those religions.
I have no issue with any attempts at understanding other beliefs. When done in good will, those can only be constructive, often enormously so. Yet the Bahai goal seems to go beyond simple mutual understanding. It self-imposes what are IMO inherently conflicting goals, as it attempts to impose the expectations of an Abrahamic, monotheistic, revealed religion while reinterpreting non-Abrahamic traditions.
Personally, I think an actual Dharmic approach is indispensable for any true religious practice, and that puts me at odds with the expectations of Bahais. Having the freedom and the immediate ability to disregard inherited concepts of revelation, of scripture, of specific conceptions of deities and even of using any concept of deity whatsoever is not optional for a religion that truly hopes to be accessible and meaningful for all people. It is a problem that all proselistis Abrahamic faiths have to deal with and which, far as I can tell, can't really be solved without the decision to essentially borrow a page from Hinduism and letting go entirely of any hopes of an unified doctrine or other Abrahamic trappings. When I first learned of Bahais, I actually assumed that they were not at all Abrahamic for those very reasons. It surprised me considerably to learn, first, that Bahais do talk of God - apparently, a singular God - all the time, and then that they nonetheless expect to be compatible with other faiths in general and Hinduism and Buddhism specifically.
A related issue is that the Bahai Faith, far as I can tell, is actually very centralized, albeit also fairly participative. It seems to make a very sincere, dedicated effort to have a consistent voice without refusing to hear from anyone.
I guess the bottom line is that I am surprised, even shocked, that a religion with the stated goals of the Bahais did not yet decide that it can't afford to be Abrahamic. Of course, that is not all that difficult to understand once one realizes how Abrahamic Bahaullah's approach towards religion was. It may even be argued that a non-Abrahamic approach would not fly at the time and place where the Bahai Faith was born. But that does not really help in solving the conflict that I see.
So I want to ask why the Bahai Faith is (far as I can tell) monotheistic, Abrahamic and revealed. It seems to me that an obvious reason is because it was originated by Bahaullah, who had such an approach towards religion. A perhaps more significant reason would be because it originated in a culture that had largely Shia Islam expectations about religion and therefore might well have trouble even imagining non-Abrahamic beliefs. Yet the Bahais have long since spread far beyond the regions with predominantly Muslim populations, so the opportunity to widen its religious parameters has certainly been found. But perhaps not without sacrificing too much of its own origins and expectations. It seems to me that you have no real desire to let go of Bahaullah's parameters, and that those are simply not amenable to non-Abrahamic perspectives.
Truth be told, I am not sure there is a point in attempting to make the Bahai Faith explicitly Dharmic either (although I do recommend a Dharmic approach for every single person, to be sure). The writings and core teachings are much too monotheistic and Abrahamic and would dissolve into irrelevance if such an effort were seriously pursued. Odds are that exactly that did in fact happen with some frequency in the century-plus of Bahai history, leading to some people leaving the Faith entirely.
On the other hand, Abrahamic Faiths have had an undeniable demographic success, so it may probably be argued that it just suits the Bahai Faith well to remain as such. I will disagree, but then again I have no stake on the demographic success of those religions.
Duly noted, Luis. Oh, thanks immensely for responding! I'll try to respond in a kind spirit.
Uh.....well, the Bahá’í Faith is an Abrahamic faith, y’know? Nothing can be really done about that, although what can be done is, on my end (as a Bahá’í), I can seek to understand each of the Religions intrinsically, by studying, asking questions. It has become clear to me, dear Luis, that there are misconceptions that we Bahá’ís do have about other religions and that our job, I believe, if we are to do ourselves a favor, must be to approach them, not in a spirit of arrogance, but rather, in the spirit of ignorance (‘not-knowing’).
Though, to be fair, there is also a very evident misunderstanding of our beliefs by followers of other religions, but that's for another day. Peace and blessings!
I truly do thank you, Luis.
One of the most blatant misconceptions I've seen involves what Bahá’ís believe about God. It is, I believe, far more nuanced than people give it credit for. It goes deeper than merely saying there is one God. Yes, of course, we believe in a single God. Though, God is described in Bahá’í Writings in ways both personal and impersonal (though, so many individuals on the outside don't understand this). Coming from this, we understand that it is one and the same Ultimate Reality (and this is where, again, many people mess up). The names, forms, conceptions (some personal, others impersonal) of God in the various religions are thusly not seen as inferior to our own, or invalid, rather they are all (including ours) seen as inaccurate, y’know?
While in concept this seems sincere, the issue I see is that the claim of "revelation", or a "superior revelation" for the current age, places in one's mind that their understanding is the superior one, the more complete updated version of truth than others have. The entire notion of revelation itself assumes being authoritatively told the truth about something, and that one is to place their faith in the authority of the that 'revealed truth'. That does not leave much room for learning from others. That leaves one believing that others' views are inferior, and that they have the superior teachings from their prophet whom God revealed their religion through. It leads to a certain self-assured smugness of their views over others, because they have at the center of their religion the new prophet for the age. In my view, that smugness is completely misguided and undeserved. In my personal experience with Baha'is that "smugness" is something I have always felt was present in their willingness to listen to others, and I believe this is why.
Last edited:
That's rather off.
Do you care to explain why what I suggested is off? You wanted to have a sit and talk. I'm open to understanding how my thoughts about the Bahai does not reflect its reality. Please explain. Is my understanding of how you view 'revealed truth" inaccurate?
I'll say I have only a cursory knowledge of Baha'i and would like to do a bit of background reading before entering the discussion. While I can dig up some resources on my own, what's a web resource that you would consider a good reference, @DJ_sXe ?
You've got beautiful temples, by the way. My main exposure to Baha'i was visiting one of them in the Chicagoland area. The building itself and the surrounding garden were wonders of modern architecture. They had a museum of sorts in there, but it's been some years since I visited, hence my memory of what Baha'i is about is rather poor.
You've got beautiful temples, by the way. My main exposure to Baha'i was visiting one of them in the Chicagoland area. The building itself and the surrounding garden were wonders of modern architecture. They had a museum of sorts in there, but it's been some years since I visited, hence my memory of what Baha'i is about is rather poor.
Sort of, yes. We Bahá’ís believe that while our faiths most reflect the needs of the present age, this doesn't render previous Religions invalid. Neither do we believe that we have the fullness of Truth. The Truth, rather like a complete understanding of God, is so far removed from all of us. To claim that we're right and other Religions are wrong is an act of hubris. Such exclusivist thinking has no place whatsoever in the Bahá’í Faith.
Hey, Q, the Mashriqu-l’Adhkar in Chicago is very beautiful.
I'd recommend www.bahai.org and www.bahai-library.com, as far as web resources.
Ok, but I didn't claim Baha'is think they're "right" and others are "wrong", nor that they believe other religions are invalid. None of your interpretation of my words is accurate. My words were they think they have the superior understanding, and others inferior views. That is not the same as saying they claim absolute truth, and all others are in error. It's saying they assume a certain 'smugness' that they have the "fuller" revelation for the day, and that others subsequently are dealing in "lesser" truths from an earlier age, and earlier prophets for their religions.
Now, while I don't disagree with the idea of evolving truth, which is something I myself believe in, my suggestion is that this smugness is the result of beliefs in prophets as special oracles chosen selectively by God to gift mankind with newer, higher truths through their religion they started. It's the whole authoritative truth claim of revealed religions that creates this imbalance. In the case of the Baha'i, the claim that there are different prophets for different ages, and theirs is the most recent for this age, puts in their mind they have the fuller truth than others do; that others are not living in the fullness of the truth that they have which was revealed to them by their prophet more recently than theirs. Is this incorrect?
Last edited:
Windwalker, you are making it sound like we believe in our own superiority over other religions, which we don't.....
So this "unifying vision of the future." Should I take this to mean that Baha'i wish to position itself as a universal religion (but not necessarily the universal religion, as in only we should exist and other religions should go away)?
Do you believe your prophet reveals the new truth that others did not have?
No, rather Bahá’u’lláh confirms the essential truths taught in previous Religions, while at the same time, bringing new ways to understand them and also new Teachings. Each of the Messengers have done this, WW!
So this is essentially a type of the Perennial Philosophy being taught through the symbolic model of the Abrahamic Prophet of God, rather than as in Modern times by philosophers and scholars. In other words, it would be as if Aldous Huxley lived in a part of the world where new, revelatory truths people realized were interpreted and mythologized as prophetic revelation. Aldous Huxley would have been elevated and revered as a prophet of God ushering in the New Era, and a movement surrounding him would evolve into a full-blown religion in a short period of time. This pattern is commonplace. Some survive, and others don't.
Again, as I've suggested, the very minute this happens, that the new way of understanding becomes wrapped in the symbol of "divine revelation", or new Teachings as you capitalized it, they become binding truths to be accepted and believed in, not teachings one can challenge, reconsider, or outright reject when new information comes along. The Prophet of God is Authority, and to challenge the Prophet is seen as a challenge and affront to God Himself. When that pattern happens, if their prophet has the "new way" to understand these "essential truths, when others continue to believe the "old way", they are by default seen as "lesser understandings," outdated, or "for that time" views, while themselves hold the new Truth to teach them, like parents would their younger children.
Do you believe your group has the most current revelation, and those that don't have it are living in a lesser light than what was revealed to your prophet?
While we as Bahá’ís do believe that our Faith is the one revealed for our Day and Age, we don't teach that people who are not Bahá’ís are living in a lesser light. God forbid! Every time a Messenger of God appears is like the Divine Springtime. Bahá’u’lláh was not the first, nor is He the last. In His Gleanings, Bahá’u’lláh promises us that,
“these Mirrors will everlastingly succeed each other, and will continue to reflect the light of the Ancient of Days. They that reflect their glory will, in like manner, continue to exist for evermore, for the Grace of God can never cease from flowing. This is a truth that none can disprove.”
Oh, dear Windwalker. This is beautiful!