Let's Sit and Talk...

[Sundance]

This is tricky. I remember in my teaching career and trying to help some students who were sensitive. (Thank God the extremes were pretty rare.) All comments by me were seen as negative. There was little I could do to help them. They'd been living in the 'positive self-esteem' school of parenting far too long. Cursing at and hitting other kids on the playground was just their unique personality shining through, to the parents. (I exaggerate for effect.)

The point is that someone may FEEL that they're giving you constructive criticism, but if you feel it isn't it isn't.

I agree with you, Vinayaka-ji! I feel as though I, myself, have learned so much through listening to the various individuals who have raised, I think, excellent criticisms of my approach as a Bahá’í to their own religions. It's really given me some things to consider.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, but I think you know what I'm going to say...

Ya'quub, I meant the four religions which took birth in India. Of course, there are Jews, Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrians Indians, no less than any other Indian, many from them have made great sacrifices for India, but these religions did not have their birth in India. I have not included Ahmadiyyas among Indian religions (though Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was an Indian) because they consider themselves to be Muslims. Is my explanation sufficient?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm going to respond .. I know a bit about what I'm talking about regarding this.

Yes, you know. In my time, I was also a salesman, now my son is. Can't sell a telephone directory just by quoting its price. Great post.

As opposed to what other kind?

Destructive criticism, naturally. When a person does not pay attention to the replies.

(What? You don't honestly believe that we Bahá’ís are a close-minded bunch, do you?)

All Abrahamic religions are closed-minded and Bahais are no exception. That is the first principle with them (la ilaha illa'llah). They said it was Mohammad, you say it is Bahaullah, Ahmadiyyas say it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Christians say it is Jesus. Is there any difference?

 

[Windwalker]

If someone had came to me looking for a religion, I would absolutely encourage them to find something better for them. My religion doesn't work for everybody, and that's all right! Every person, I believe, should investigate different religions for him- or herself, worship at different houses of worship, read the writings of other religions, and use their heart and mind in discerning which one most speaks to them. I would even go as far as accompanying them on their journey! (What? You don't honestly believe that we Bahá’ís are a close-minded bunch, do you?)

This is an admirable thing. Out of curiousity, can you think of an example where another religion offers something yours does not that might be better for some people? I'm curious to hear an example of what you see that other religions offer that yours does not.

I will get back to my other responses, but this is a fascinating line of discussion for me.

 

[Windwalker]

That is the first principle with them (la ilaha illa'llah). They said it was Mohammad, you say it is Bahaullah, Ahmadiyyas say it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Christians say it is Jesus. Is there any difference?

Actually "la ilaha illa'llah" translates "There is no God but one". It's the 2nd part of the athon "Mohammadan rasul Allah" translates Muhammad is the prophet of God". I get your meaning though, yes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. should investigate different religions for him- or herself, worship at different houses of worship, ..

I agree with the first part but not with the second. I know all that is to know about Bahais without ever needing to worship at their house of worship. Internet is a great help.

Actually "la ilaha illa'llah" translates "There is no God but one". It's the 2nd part of the athon "Mohammadan rasul Allah" translates Muhammad is the prophet of God". I get your meaning though, yes.

Bahais do not say say 'Baha'ullah rasulallah' because initially their adherents were from Islam. They were living in an Islamic country and did not want to annoy the majority, so they said Baha'ullah is a manifetation from Allah, Noor-allah or whatever, coined a new word. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in a similar way, became the Mahdi, since no one else could be a 'nabi' anymore. That line finished with Mohammad. Joseph Smith too became a prophet. One could not be the 'anointed son of God' because that position was taken up by Jesus. David Koresh became a Jesus and was killed. Different strategies, some succeed, some don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

All Abrahamic religions are closed-minded and Bahais are no exception. That is the first principle with them (la ilaha illa'llah). They said it was Mohammad, you say it is Bahaullah, Ahmadiyyas say it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Christians say it is Jesus. Is there any difference?

I have certainly asked myself that.

Abrahamics are all so exotic. Except for Judaism, that is. They seem to make a point of calling a bet on a specific deity and prophet the "universal deity".

 

[Sundance]

This is an admirable thing. Out of curiousity, can you think of an example where another religion offers something yours does not that might be better for some people? I'm curious to hear an example of what you see that other religions offer that yours does not.

I will get back to my other responses, but this is a fascinating line of discussion for me.

Good question! Sikhi Scripture, for example, The Guru Granth Sahib, contains the Writings of not only the Sikh Gurus, but also Hindu and Muslims saints, too. Our Sacred Writings do not.

 

[Sundance]

All Abrahamic religions are closed-minded and Bahais are no exception. That is the first principle with them (la ilaha illa'llah). They said it was Mohammad, you say it is Bahaullah, Ahmadiyyas say it is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Christians say it is Jesus. Is there any difference?

Ouch. Duuuuuude.....that's cold.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ouch. Duuuuuude.....that's cold.

Cold? Perhaps. But that may be a necessary observation when it comes to strict monotheisms that insist on being universal religions.

 

[Sundance]

Cold? Perhaps. But that may be a necessary observation when it comes to strict monotheisms that insist on being universal religions.

Uh.....Luis? Monotheism in Bahá’í Writings goes much deeper than you might think, y'know?

 

[LuisDantas]

Uh.....Luis? Monotheism in Bahá’í Writings goes much deeper than you might think, y'know?

Deep enough to no longer insist on being monotheism, then?

 

[Sundance]

Deep enough to no longer insist on being monotheism, then?

Dude, what's your issue with monotheism?

 

[Windwalker]

Good question! Sikhi Scripture, for example, The Guru Granth Sahib, contains the Writings of not only the Sikh Gurus, but also Hindu and Muslims saints, too. Our Sacred Writings do not.

Well, yes, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. That's only looking at the surface differences. Buddhism has the thousand-armed Avalokiteshvara and Christians don't. But what I am asking what sort of spiritual benefit for their growth do you see, say Christianity offering that yours does not, or Buddhism does that yours does not. To me, to be able to identify those differences would show a genuine knowledge of other religions and sees them as completement what your does not have. For instance, you might say to someone, "I think you would benefit from a path of service to others. You should consider joining a Christian monastery." Or another example, "I think you would benefit from a path of deep meditation. You should consider being a Buddhist".

So again, what does the Baha'i NOT have as a spiritual path, that other religions do? Do you see that it as a "universal" religion means it's a one-stop-shop for all aspects of spiritual truth and growth? Or in what sense do you see it as universal?

 

[LuisDantas]

Dude, what's your issue with monotheism?

Monotheism as a personal style isn't all that bad.

As a core tenet of a proselitist religion, though, it is very much an issue. It is an arbitrary restriction into the personal interpretations of the sacred.

Presenting it as "truth" instead of the personal preference that it truly is poisons any doctrine. It amounts to teaching adherents that they are not allowed to have their own perceptions of the sacred, and also that they should be judgemental of those who are not lucky enough to fit the preconceptions of monotheism.

To talk about an universal religion that is also explicitly monotheist is to exercise in direct contradiction.

 

[Sundance]

Well, yes, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. That's only looking at the surface differences. Buddhism has the thousand-armed Avalokiteshvara and Christians don't. But what I am asking what sort of spiritual benefit for their growth do you see, say Christianity offering that yours does not, or Buddhism does that yours does not. To me, to be able to identify those differences would show a genuine knowledge of other religions and sees them as completement what your does not have. For instance, you might say to someone, "I think you would benefit from a path of service to others. You should consider joining a Christian monastery." Or another example, "I think you would benefit from a path of deep meditation. You should consider being a Buddhist".

So again, what does the Baha'i NOT have as a spiritual path, that other religions do? Do you see that it as a "universal" religion means it's a one-stop-shop for all aspects of spiritual truth and growth? Or in what sense do you see it as universal?

Well,

Y'know, dude, I can't even write anymore.......



(I'm gonna....uhhhhhh... show myself out.)

 

[Windwalker]

Well,

Y'know, dude, I can't even write anymore.......



(I'm gonna....uhhhhhh... show myself out.)

Does this mean you're not sure how to answer that, or for some reason you're done with our discussion? That would be unfortunate. I've been learning some things about Baha'i I've not really understood through my line of questions. I guess I'm really looking for an understanding of what understanding Baha'i as a universal religion means? What does that look like?

What's an interesting thought to add to this about Baha'i being considered as a universal religion is that Christianity also historically saw itself that way. The term catholic means universal. What that looked like for them was that they initially crossed borders embracing others outside the established religious institutions. That was a good thing, of course. It broke down the barriers of exclusive religion, where people had to become "them" in order to be included, to where inclusiveness allowed others in without major hurdles and restrictions. It was in effect an expansion of their own borders through themselves relaxing their own demands of inclusiveness.

But as the course of time and human institutions go, where the claim "There is neither Greek nor Jew but all are One in Christ" was open and universal, a third category became established where it in effect could now be read, "There is neither Greek nor Jew anymore, but Christians and Pagans." The attitude of inclusiveness is a sign of a true spiritual awareness and depth. But when those in charge lack that, the term "universal" becomes more a slogan than an actuality.

Again, I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about the Baha'i specifically. I'm just speaking with a certain degree of legitimate skepticism based upon my own experience and understanding of human nature, religion, and spiritual awareness in general. As I said, I tend to have a rather penetrating gaze trying to see all facets of something without assuming any position of judgement. I'm always hopefully optimistic to see what I would expect to see of those who have a more 'universalist' approach.

To make one last point about the term Universalist itself. That term too has become somewhat tainted in more modern times. For instance in Christianity today you have "Christian Universalists". What in their minds that Universal embrace of God looks like, is that while no one is excluded, everyone will eventually be "saved", that God sends no one to hell. This is accomplished in their minds by the belief that when people die, in heaven they will get to meet Jesus Christ and they will all end up accepting him in the end. In other words, everyone becomes Christian!

That's not exactly what I would consider a Universal religion. To me actual "Oneness", is not in the sense of sameness, but in the sense of Unity. There is a major difference between unity and uniformity. They are not at all the same thing. Unity requires diversity to exist. Uniformity eliminates or reduces diversity into a manageable sameness. It restricts Love to it's own self-image. What many call unity is nothing other than a basic conformity of beliefs.

Genuine Unity is NOT realized through maintaining a set of common governing beliefs! It comes from what is in the Heart which is able to see this mystical Reality in all of us in equal measure. It celebrates diversity, rather than trying to unite it under a common teaching or doctrine, or under the name of some prophet, some banner flag of common interest. That entire direction is towards uniformity, which is the opposite of Unity. This is something very few truly understand. And this is a discussion I would wish to have with you to see how you see Baha'i fitting into that.

 

[Windwalker]

Windwalker..

Thanks for your post. I think you may be focusing on an importantr issue and I hope you'll have time to explore it further.

This is interesting. I swung back around to your post here after posting my last one this morning. I actually did explore it further in that post from this morning.

It's not that Baha'is are "looking" for commonalities and forgetting the uniqueness of their own Faith.... What we acknowledge is that over time and with the changes and exegeses of the challenges facing humanity there are different remedies prescribed for the time that are suited to that time... Humanity overtime matures and faces new challenges hence the need for appropriate laws and perspectives of the era.

While I agree that many changes and challenges face everyone, I am having a problem with what I am hearing here that there are "prescribed remedies" for those times. I have a real problem with that actually. Inherent in this "prescribed remedies" which you further elaborate on as "the need for appropriate laws and perspectives of the era," there seems to exist this "top down" approach of God, to the Prophet, to humanity. I'm not sure how to put my finger on this exactly, and for me who weaves his way through things with words, that's no small thing. I'm going to make an attempt at this. Please bear with me.

While in principle it is true we need to find better and more sustainable approaches, I think the "bottom up" approach is actually better. It comes from us, something we create for ourselves through our own awakening realizations in the face of need. In fact his has always been the reality of it it anyway. This is how evolution works. The key difference is in how we take this and are able to get other people "on board" with these new approaches. And this comes to the whole issue at hand I think I'm having a real problem with here.

The "prophet model", as I'll call it for this discussion, is taking what are these evolving realizations and promoting them for people to adopt them through putting them into the mouth of an authority sanctioned and approved by God. It is believed that people will pay head to the Voice of God telling them to clean up their act more easily just some human organization. It's hard to explain this. People at the "mythic-level" function from the "top-down" approach of external authorities telling them truth from above. This way they listen and grow through respect and obedience to authorities who "know better". It is very much the same thing as a when a child views their parent as all-knowing and wise, and despite their own little rebellious sides, know that "father knows best".

But as a child grows up and becomes mature, he realizes that his parents are really no different than himself now as an adult. They had to figure this stuff out too the same way he ultimately had to! Ultimately, everyone one must as they can't continue to live life simply "obeying" their parents. That's only for a time in their lives. They have to learn for themselves. He learns to understand that his parent's "authority" in his mind as a child, was simply a matter of them learning through their own experiences and knowledge, exactly the same way he had to, and that he had "granted" them that role out of his own personal need. A child "needs" to be told. They do not have the depth yet to make these 'big-picture' decisions yet in life.

When it comes to spiritual development, it is important to understand that it is in fact a distinctly separate line of development, just as there are other distinct lines of development in our lives. While someone in society may be a mature adult in other areas, having going through the stages of development, of maturation in that area of their lives (social responsibilities, for instance), they may have not yet development in the spiritual line of development. They are still looking to external authorities, the "parent role" to set the boundaries and rules for them to follow. They have not come to realize that their parents, the "prophets" are really not magical beings the way we imagined our parents were god-like creatures when we saw them through our eyes as a child. They have not realized that Jesus Christ was actually just someone like them who truly grew up spiritually. But in the eyes of children, it's so far above them he appears as a god, like his parents did.

Again, it's important to understand spiritual development as an actual distinct line of development, passing through the same stages of growth as other areas, and that these different lines mature at different rates. So someone how is an adult socially, may be at the toddler stage spiritually, imaging his parents are gods. When they become mature spiritually, their spiritual intelligence line has blossomed, they have successfully internalized their parents, and themselves are now their parents, or in the case of religion, they themselves are now "the prophet" whom they looked up to as a child. I have a saying that captures this. "It is better to call Jesus your brother, than to call him Lord." That means you too are now that prophet. You realize you are him. You realize your parents are basically the same as you.

Okay, so now all that groundwork to make what I think is my point. The "top down" approach of the Prophet (assumed parent role), takes on this aire of infallibility for the children (religious authority). But the problem with this is that in a Modern Age, we have and are becoming far too self-aware for that "prophet model" to function. Solutions to our problems have to be owned by us, not given over to the control and administration of our parents (prophets and religious authorities). These solutions, as I have said, have always, always been a "bottom up", grown and evolved realization all along. It is simply our mythologies that make them "from above" to us out of our need as immature people not yet ready to assume ownership and full responsibility for ourselves in figuring things out for ourselves.

It is my belief the solution is not another "parent' figure telling us the "new revelation" for the "current age"! What we truly need, is for all of us to grow up! We need to awaken spiritually and these "revelations" become our normal state of being as we creatively find solutions to our own problems through our own maturity! That's the problem I have with the prophet-model. It perpetuates immaturity. It perpetually demands obedience to external authority, rather than guiding us to take over the role of the parent to be the parent ourselves, to ourselves.

There's an interesting verse in the Old Testament that stands out to me in light of this. It says "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions." Think about what this is saying! Everyone will be prophets! I think what this envisions is a time when we have matured to the point "revelation" is our perpetual normal state. And THIS is Enlightenment. This is the goal, not another prophet for another age, but us awakening and owning the responsibility in ourselves as Enlightened souls in the world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I've been learning some things about Baha'i I've not really understood through my line of questions. I guess I'm really looking for an understanding of what understanding Baha'i as a universal religion means?

Well WW, if you fail to find it elsewhere, check with me.

What's an interesting thought to add to this about Baha'i being considered as a universal religion is that Christianity also historically saw itself that way. The term catholic means universal.

And Muslims say that every one is born a Muslim. Oh, these monotheistic religions. Toubah.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Uniformity eliminates or reduces diversity into a manageable sameness. It restricts Love to it's own self-image.

That is what 'Advaita' is. Make any distinction whatsoever, be it religions, people, races, human, animals, vegetation, stones, air, water, and it stops being 'Advaita'. 'Advaita', A - no, dvaita - duality. 'Eko Brahma, dwiteeyo nasti' (Brahman is one, there is no second). And it is not necessary to consider Brahman to be a God. That is how I am an advaitist and atheist.