Truth in all the World's Religions?

[InvestigateTruth]

You realize that there is a roomful of claimants to being Maitreya, I hope?

Yes, I assume that there has been others in the past to claim to be Maitreya. Do you know anyone else, other than the Baha’is?

That's why, such claim should be investigated carefully.

By the way, just before appearance of Buddha, did anybody gave the news about appearance of a teacher?

For example, before Jesus appear, John the Baptist gave the news to people. Or in the case of Baha'u'llah, it was The Bab, who gave the news, that He would appear. In case of Muhammad, it was 4 people, that years before muhammad Claimed He would appear. In the case of Moses too, there was someone.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Ok, so, seems like Buddha had predicated the need for someone to come again.
Did Buddha give any signs that would be used to recognize the Maitreya?

Actually, Baha'u'llah also talked about another Manifestation who shall come in 1000 years or so.

I'm not sure how literally I take these things, but yes. Buddha said the world would be without dharma when Maitreya comes. He said that Maitreya would be born at night and die at night. He said that Maitreya would have thousands of followers compared to his hundreds. He said Maitreya would be born with the auspicious birthmarks he himself was born with, in exactly the same places on his body. Since we don't know specifically what Buddha's birthmarks were or where they were located, this is impossible to verify. It's not important anyway. Speculating about Maitreya will do no good, but putting the Buddha's dharma into practice does a world of good.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, I assume that there has been others in the past to claim to be Maitreya. Do you know anyone else, other than the Baha’is?

That's why, such claim should be investigated carefully.

By the way, just before appearance of Buddha, did anybody gave the news about appearance of a teacher?

For example, before Jesus appear, John the Baptist gave the news to people. Or in the case of Baha'u'llah, it was The Bab, who gave the news, that He would appear. In case of Muhammad, it was 4 people, that years before muhammad Claimed He would appear. In the case of Moses too, there was someone.

Buddha spoke of previous Bodhisattvas prior to him in many Mahayana teachings. He also spoke of Rama and Krishna. This would agree with what Hindus claim of Buddha being an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, but bear in mind most Mahayana do not take these things literally, and not all schools contain these ideas.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I assume that there has been others in the past to claim to be Maitreya. Do you know anyone else, other than the Baha’is?

Quite frankly, I don't think the matter is worth of much attention at all. But here is a start.

Maitreya Buddha : Maitreya Claimants

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Actually for the Buddha, it is the monk Asita (Kala Devala) who gave the news.
Baha'u'llah taught in the Book of Certitude that one of the signs of the Manifestations is that, they must have a Herald. Someone who would give the news before He (The Manifestations) actually appears.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Actually, there is a difference. The Baha'i scriptures doesn't say, if someone doesn't believe in Baha'u'llah, he goes to Hell. It emphasizes on human spiritual virtues as well as unity of mankind in diversity.

I wouldn't be so quick on this:


"O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.

Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another.

Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty [Baha'u'llah] hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity."

-- Tablet of Ahmad


I have been an institutionalised Baha'i for a year, supporting the Haifan cause, and when I left the Faith, I did not leave Baha'u'llah, but rather the institution. When the Haifan Baha'i Faith pulls the 'Independent Investigation of Truth' the belief is that everyone is entitled to that, until they reach the Haifan Baha'i Faith as the pinnacle of Humanity's salvation.

I believe that truth is in all religions, personally. But whenever an individual organised religion proclaims that there is 'truth in all religions' generally the Abrahamic faiths, they proclaim that it has pieces of truth which agree with that particular faith, until the differences arise; those differences are seen as a form of superiority, and triumphalism abounds.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Sometimes I wonder why the Bahai Faith claims influence of the Dharmic religions. It's very Abrahamic approach to religion really makes one wonder if it even understands what Dharma is.

Actually, the Haifan Baha'i Faith's claims that Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the Maitreya and the Kalki Avatar in Buddhism and Hinduism are actually new... Baha'u'llah, as seen so far, had no influence in the East, and the closest would be his contact with Zoroastrians.

I would say that many Baha'is put an Abrahamic spin on the concept of Dharma in order to further the claim of Baha'u'llah.

Don't get me wrong; I believe in Baha'u'llah - I just don't believe in his relation with the Haifan organisation.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Also, there are no sects in the Baha'i Faith. Like other religions, there have been attempts to make sects, but because the organization of the Faith is well described in the Baha’i writings, none of the attempts has been successful and they never grew significantly.

Maybe because some Baha'is shun them, call it spiritual poison, and call them Covenant-Breakers?

I see nothing wrong with the Orthodox Baha'is or the Unitarian Baha'is or the unenrolled Baha'is... they are all legitimate representations of the Baha'i Faith.

[youtube]q2F-mV4rsNA[/youtube]
YouTube - Baha'u'llah's great grand-daughter - Baha'u'llah's great grand-daughter, who is a Unitarian Baha'i.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the Maitreya and the Kalki Avatar in Buddhism and Hinduism are actually new....

Actually it's not new. Shoghi, the Gardian, said that in God Passes By:

"He [Baha'u'llah] alone is meant by the prophecy attributed to Gautama Buddha Himself, that “a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship” should, in the fullness of time, arise and reveal “His boundless glory.” To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the “Most Great Spirit,” the “Tenth Avatar,” the “Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”


So, it's not something new.

 

[Surya Deva]

I do not believe that truth is plural. I think other religions are wrong.

The cause of suffering is not because of Adam and Eve did something wrong. The cause of suffering is the egoic drives of human beings. If they can gain contorl over their egoic drives they will not suffer.

After death you do not go to heaven or hell and then face judgement one day on Earth with Jesus coming back on a cloud. Your soul will go into the mental plane where it will experience its mental states vividly and then it will reincarnate again. The process will continue until the soul has resolved all its karmas. The soul is eternal.

God is not a personal parental figure in heaven that punishes and rewards, talks to people and inteferes in human affairs. God is an abstract ultimate reality that underlies of all existence and that is knowable by all humans by attaining transcendence.

Jesus is not the only divine being. Jesus is one of many thousands of sages, masters and saints that have walked on this planet. Every human being has the capacity to reach such heights.

God did not create this world in 6 days and rest on the 7th. The universe has existed for eternity and and it is governed by natural laws. It is constantly expanding and contracting and within it exists infinite universes, and universes within universes. It is a big place

God did not make Adam and eve and put them in the garden of Eden. Humans being have evolved over billions of years of natural evolution from single celled organisms etc

You do not get salvation by simply accepting a belief system. You get liberation by practicting Yoga sadhana and attaining self-realization.

It is not possible that my religion be true and others religions be true as well. Either mine is false or theirs is false. I believe mine is true.

 

[Katzpur]

How true do you think this is? That all the world's religions probably have some truth, and all the founders of those religions taught a similar message, except for cultural differences? To use an example, Muhammad. Muhammad put the majority of his life into reforming what was an extremely barbaric society. He did have time to teach good things in-between, but most of us his life had to be devoted to defending himself against attackers. How different would Muhammad have been if he had lived in a society that allowed him to be more easy going? Even Muhammad taught very similarly to other teachers, but cultural differences sometimes obscure that. Do you think it's true that all the world's religions contain truth?

Here are a couple of statements on the subject from the LDS leadership. (The first one could probably be considered "official" while the second one is not, but they essentially say the same thing.)

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

In addition, we are taught that we should be “be willing to receive the truth…no matter who has it.”

 

[SoulTraveler]

“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”

The LDS church isn't as open and ecumenical as the above post seems to claim. It claims that it is the authentic Church of Jesus Christ, that it contains the fullness of the gospel contained in the Christian bible (modified by Joseph Smith), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, ect. This is similiar to what the Catholic Church claims:

"the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen gentium, 8).

The CC also teaches that those Churches, "Ecclesiastical Communties' and non-Christians, because they are not Catholic (not in full communion with Rome) are defective to varying degrees.

The LDS Church teaches that all the other churches are 'dead,' hence the requirement for the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.

So while both are somewhat ecumenical towards other denominations and religions, they nonetheless make exclusive truth claims, believing that they are special in their knowledge and understanding of 'the Truth' and all others are defective relative to them.

No one making exclusive truth claims can be completely sincere and without ulterior motives when dealing with others.

As long as we have religions believing this, and there are many others, there will continue to be conflict. They will never be able to coexist without competition (or often worse) until they reform or die.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It is not possible that my religion be true and others religions be true as well. Either mine is false or theirs is false. I believe mine is true.

yes, if religions have different messages, they can not be all true. As you mentioned in those examples, there are differences. But it really depends how the verse are interpreted. In our view, all religions are true. The examples that you gave regarding creation in 6 days, or Adam and Eve, in our view, are not to be taken literally.
Thus, if something is not logical or different in religions, in our view, it's due to misinterpretations.

 

[YmirGF]

yes, if religions have different messages, they can not be all true.

Heaven forbid that none of them are "true", eh?

 

[Penumbra]

How true do you think this is? That all the world's religions probably have some truth, and all the founders of those religions taught a similar message, except for cultural differences?

Many of the religions have very different messages, to the point of their central messages being complete opposites in some cases. Some religions wholly consist of theistic worship, while other religions reject the existence of gods entirely. Some religions promote the concept that liberation can only come from within, while other religions promote the concept that liberation can only come externally. Of the theistic ones, some described gods are vengeful and jealous, while others are perpetually loving. Some believe in many gods, while others believe in only one. Some religions teach to destroy their enemies, and others teach nonviolence. Some religions disregard animals almost entirely while others elevate them to a very high status. So no, I don't think it's a true statement at all to say that the founders of religions taught similar messages.

As for whether all the world's religions have some truth- that's a pretty broad statement and it would hard for it to not be correct. So yes, I agree. Even if a given religion has bad methodology for determining truth, and if their beliefs and practices are based on very inaccurate things, it would be difficult for them to get everything wrong. At least by chance or accident, most worldviews have to get at least a few things right. And some religions get a lot of things right.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Actually it's not new. Shoghi, the Gardian, said that in God Passes By:

"He [Baha'u'llah] alone is meant by the prophecy attributed to Gautama Buddha Himself, that “a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship” should, in the fullness of time, arise and reveal “His boundless glory.” To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the “Most Great Spirit,” the “Tenth Avatar,” the “Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”


So, it's not something new.

When I meant that it is new, I meant that it is an imposition by Baha'u'llah's followers, and not by Baha'u'llah himself.

The followers like Shoghi Effendi and Abdu'l-Baha utilise these externally religious nuances to give more credence to Baha'u'llah's Claim of being the Promised One of all ages, but it was not necessarily claimed by Baha'u'llah Himself to be specifically the 'Maitreya' or the 'Kalki Avatar' or as you described in Shoghi Effendi's English, 'Vishnu-Yasha.'

One can never fully understand Baha'u'llah; neither Shoghi Effendi nor Abbas Effendi will ever understand his station. His station as a Manifestation of God is not from what he claims to be, but rather in his words and writings themselves. Baha'is are called upon the Creative Word to find spiritual life itself.

The one thing that I feel that Baha'is have put behind them is Baha'u'llah's original desire for being in complete brotherhood with people of different faiths. They have made an invisible division between 'Baha'is and non-Baha'is,' (that is, those who follow the Universal House of Justice and those who do not), and have busied themselves with clusters, Ruhi books, Anna's Presentation, Musical Firesides, and other forms of proselytising to bring in 'unity in conformity' rather than 'unity in diversity.'

I felt that Shoghi Effendi has institutionalised the Faith that Baha'u'llah never intentioned it to be. Baha'u'llah's vision was world-embracing; people could accept his claim as the Manifestation of God for this Age, follow Baha'i principles, and yet still be part of their churches, mosques, temples, etc. After all, Abdu'l-Baha was purported to follow Ramadan and attend mosque prayers. Baha'u'llah's teachings were to bring about grassroots revolution, evolution, and progress into the success of humanitarian development, and not its regression.

 

[Surya Deva]

. So yes, I agree. Even if a given religion has bad methodology for determining truth, and if their beliefs and practices are based on very inaccurate things, it would be difficult for them to get everything wrong. At least by chance or accident, most worldviews have to get at least a few things right. And some religions get a lot of things right.

This is why I would claim my religion has got it right. It has a scientific method for arriving at the truth. The truths of Hinduism were arrived at through the pramana scientific method(perception, inference, testimony) and through rigorous dialectical debate between different schools of thought(materialism vs nihilism vs realism vs dualism vs monism vs atheism vs theism) It is not surprising that the facts modern science have discovered are consistent with Hinduism.

 

[Gaura Priya]

This is why I would claim my religion has got it right. It has a scientific method for arriving at the truth. The truths of Hinduism were arrived at through the pramana scientific method(perception, inference, testimony) and through rigorous dialectical debate between different schools of thought(materialism vs nihilism vs realism vs dualism vs monism vs atheism vs theism) It is not surprising that the facts modern science have discovered are consistent with Hinduism.

I have to agree that Hinduism with all its diversity and chaos, is also one of the most tolerant religions on the Earth that also has unity amongst its denominations. It allows the intellectual to be of several schools of thought; it gives the atheist the perception of an awe-striking creation full of laws and order; it gives the theist a devotional platform to express eirself towards the inner Divine; it gives the most base of men or women a glimpse of spiritual awakening; it grants the intelligentsia the gift of 'knowing' Dharma proper in complete self-realisation.

Hinduism is definitely founded by God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[/font][/color]

yes, if religions have different messages, they can not be all true. As you mentioned in those examples, there are differences. But it really depends how the verse are interpreted. In our view, all religions are true. The examples that you gave regarding creation in 6 days, or Adam and Eve, in our view, are not to be taken literally.
Thus, if something is not logical or different in religions, in our view, it's due to misinterpretations.

But if nothing is different between "true" religions, then no new "true" religion has added anything to the discussion since the first one was established. All the religions that came afterward were entirely pointless.

Or are you really saying that all religions are only true to the extent that their tenets align with Baha'i teachings?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But if nothing is different between "true" religions, then no new "true" religion has added anything to the discussion since the first one was established. All the religions that came afterward were entirely pointless.

Actually as I posted in #2, the fundamental of all religions is the same. But each religion builds on the previous religion's spirtual truth, and has new teachings.

For example, grade 2 math builds on the grade 1 math class. but the do not contradict. I believe religions are also prograssive.

here I quote from post #2 again:

All Religions have 2 parts:

1) Fundamental spirtual laws, 2) Material and daily Laws.


"...the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Mu[FONT=Times Ext Roman,Times Ext Roman]h[/FONT]ammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen.

These divine qualities, these eternal commandments, will never be abolished; nay, they will last and remain established for ever and ever. These virtues of humanity will be renewed in each of the different cycles; for at the end of every cycle the spiritual Law of God—that is to say, the human virtues—disappears, and only the form subsists.....These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet. ​

The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times. " Abdulbaha - Some Answered Questions​