What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Secret Chief]

Buddha said that he was not the first Buddha ever to appear and that another "supremely enlightened" Buddha was still yet to come.

What do you make of what I posted earlier? viz:

The Pali literature (the earliest) of the Theravada tradition includes stories of 28 previous Buddhas. Were they messengers of your god as well?

In some Sanskrit and northern Buddhist traditions a bhadrakalpa (fortunate eon) contains up to 1,000 Buddhas. Were these all messengers of your god too?

 

[CG Didymus]

As to reincarnation it depends on interpretation. Our understanding is that the qualities return.

I was wondering which verses that mention reincarnation are you interpreting? So, I asked...

What are the Hindu Scriptures that talk about reincarnation? Do you know what they are? I get the feeling that the Baha'i interpretation doesn't fit. But, to be fair to you, let's take a look at them and see.

We have to look at those verses? What was the meaning of the word translated as "reincarnation"? What was the context of the verses where reincarnation is mentioned? Does the Baha'is interpretation fit and make sense?

Which specific Hindu scriptures are you referring to?

You are the one that said that the Baha'is have interpreted reincarnation to mean that the "qualities" have returned. If you don't know the verses in the Hindu Scriptures, then how do you know the Baha'i interpretation is correct?

Baha'is do the same thing to Christians with the resurrection. Baha'is say it doesn't mean a literal, physical resurrection but is being symbolic and means a "spiritual" resurrection. But, when we look at the verses in the gospels, it is clearly claiming that the dead body of Jesus was gone, and he had come back to life.

Both the resurrection and reincarnation could be wrong. They could be just things that the writers of the Scriptures made-up. But with the resurrection, I think the writers, all four of them, tell a story that has Jesus coming back to life in some sort of flesh and bone body. And, with reincarnation, I think the writer is saying that the soul lives on after the body dies, and to progress and to grow spiritually, it comes back into a different body.

Both these could be wrong. But it makes the writers wrong. The Baha'is need the stories, because they are part of the Scriptures of those religions, to be true, just not literally true. Baha'is need a way to explain away how those things got accepted and believed by the followers in those religions, but how they got it wrong. The Baha'i explanation? The followers misinterpreted the "true" meaning of those Scriptures. The mistakenly took the resurrection and reincarnation way too literally. For Baha'is, those things were symbolic. The Baha'is say the "true" meaning was, for the resurrection, was that the spirit of Jesus rose, and, for reincarnation, the "qualities" of a person return in somebody else.

Look at the verses in Hindu Scriptures. Does the Baha'i interpretation work? Does it make sense? I think that the best explanation, if reincarnation is not true, that the writer just made-up the concept and pushed it off as being the truth.

But, who knows, for me, I think it would be just fine to come back and experience life in a different body in a different place and time. What better way for the soul to gain experience and wisdom?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I do not think so, since proselytizing means convert or attempt to convert, and debating does not mean that anyone is trying to do that.

Proselytize: convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. https://www.google.com

Proselytizing implies intent to convert people from one opinion or belief to another.
It is impossible to know another person's intent unless they tell you. It is highly arrogant to claim to know another person's intent, especially after they tell you that is NOT their intent.

What Baha’is are enjoined to do is share our Faith.

“Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 289​

But that does not mean we share it with people who are not interested. However, in a conversation about religion on a public forum, we cannot know who is interested and not, so it is perfectly appropriate to share what we believe, just like everyone else does.

Sharing is not proselytizing. Proselytizing implies intent to convert but sharing does not imply intent to convert.
Nobody has any way of knowing the intent of any other person.

Baha’is are only supposed to “teach” the Baha’i Faith to people if they have shared and someone is interested in learning more about it.

Share: give a portion of (something) to another or others. https://www.google.com

Teach: show or explain to (someone) how to do something.https://www.google.com

This kind of thing doesn't create the impression that you don't proselytize.

The impression it creates is that you're happy to try to gaslight people about your proselytizing.

 

[CG Didymus]

What do you make of what I posted earlier? viz:

The Pali literature (the earliest) of the Theravada tradition includes stories of 28 previous Buddhas. Were they messengers of your god as well?

In some Sanskrit and northern Buddhist traditions a bhadrakalpa (fortunate eon) contains up to 1,000 Buddhas. Were these all messengers of your god too?

So, is this thread about accepting each other's religions and their prophet, founder, or manifestation, which ever one applies? Or about what Baha'is believe and say is true about the other religions?

If it is about accepting each other's religions, then why aren't Baha'is doing that? We have Buddhists, Hindus and I think there's been some Christians here. Does LH and any of the other Baha'is accept what you and the others here believe? Do they really accept your religion as you believe it and practice it? Would LH and any of the other Baha'is feel perfectly fine with what is said, taught and done at your religion's gatherings?

I really, really doubt it. I think there would be many things that they don't agree with and believe are false teachings.

But, If I were a Baha'i, and wanted to find potential converts, I'd tell them exactly the type of things being said here. "All religions are one. We all have so many things in common. We keep believing and following the teachings that separate us? We are one human family. We share one planet. Truth is not divided. There is only one truth. We must all put aside our differences and learn to live together in peace."

There's bound to be some people that would agree with that. Then I'd hit them with the next step. "There is only one God. He has sent messengers throughout time to teach us the truth. But it's been a progression of truth. We, when mankind was in its infancy, could bear or understand the complete truth. So, these messengers only revealed what could be understood by the people at the time. Today, however, humanity has become mature enough spiritually to understand... We are one. True religion has always been one. It has always taught people to love one another and not to hate. Now, we as a people, can say, there is one Earth and mankind is its citizens."

Then the next step... "God has sent a new messenger..." Of course, it's their prophet Baha'u'llah. Every religion that seeks converts does similar things. They start with meeting you where you are at and then take you on a journey into their truth.

Maybe LH is telling the truth. He really does accept our beliefs and religions. But lots of us have had those proselytizing religious people try and befriend us and show us love and kindness only to later try and cram their beliefs down our throats. But what else can they do? It's not like we will ever know or hear of their religion and beliefs if they don't do that. Or they could be honest up front. But, you know, I don't think that would work. Most of us would probably slam the door in their face.

 

[Link]

I not only reject all other religions except mine, I reject all interpretations of Quran but the one from God and Ahlulbayt (a), so let alone rejecting other religions.

 

[Secret Chief]

Would LH and any of the other Baha'is feel perfectly fine with what is said, taught and done at your religion's gatherings?

Nope.

Most of us would probably slam the door in their face.

On the rare occasion I've been doorstepped by a JW they soon give up with me!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you make of what I posted earlier? viz:

The Pali literature (the earliest) of the Theravada tradition includes stories of 28 previous Buddhas. Were they messengers of your god as well?

In some Sanskrit and northern Buddhist traditions a bhadrakalpa (fortunate eon) contains up to 1,000 Buddhas. Were these all messengers of your god too?

The Baha'i Writings state there has been many Prophets, the records have mostly been lost for a lot of them. It is also stated that in the future, the academia will pursue the records for possible Messengers, this age has more important issue. Unity is required before any academic pursuits will produce any lasting fruit.

"Thus there have been many holy Manifestations of God. One thousand years ago, two hundred thousand years ago, one million years ago the bounty of God was flowing, the radiance of God was shining, the dominion of God was existing."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 108

There is also more than one type of Prophet. The Messengers get their Message direct from God, other receive that message through these Messengers.

Now is not the time for this, unity of humanity is the urgent issue.

Regards Tony

 

[crossfire]

Here I will quote a Baha'i online who knows something about this. I can do no better than this:

In the predominant Western practices of Buddhism, many followers insist that the Buddha’s teachings are non-theistic, and that Buddhists do not believe in a Creator. Let’s examine that premise.


Several scholars and historians believe that the Buddha, recognizing Vedic Hindu society's super abundance of gods, decided that any further discussion of God could only lead to dogmatic distraction. They conclude that the Buddha’s elegant solution simply involved talking about the reality of the human condition, the best way to live to avoid suffering, and how to move toward a spiritual state of nirvana.


Because of those teachings and the practical way the Buddha transmitted them to his followers, many still make the mistake of thinking that the Buddha did not believe in God. The Buddha, however, clearly proclaimed in Udana 8:3 of the Khuddaka Nikaya:




This, clearly, is God stripped of all anthropomorphism. It is the Reality that makes salvation or nirvana possible, and it’s consonant with Tillich’s definition of God as “the Ground of all Being” and with Baha'u'llah's description of God as “an Unknowable Essence” in the Baha'i writings:





Not only did the Buddha believe in God, he had special knowledge of God, proclaiming to his disciple Vasettha in Sutta 1:43 of the Tevijja:




The Buddha also made clear that he did not reveal everything he knew of God. A scriptural passage, SN 5:437, explains the Buddha’s selectivity in revealing knowledge to us, when the Buddha asks:


Now what think ye, brethren? Which are more, these few simsapa leaves that I hold in my hand, or those that are in the simsapa grove above?


Few in number, Lord, are those simsapa leaves that are in the hand of the Exalted One: far more in number are those in the simsapa grove above.


Just so brethren, those things that I know by my super-knowledge, but have not revealed, are greater by far in number than those things that I have revealed. And why brethren have I not revealed them?




This is the Buddhist version of Christ’s statement in John 16:12: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now;”...

It is true that most forms of Buddhism speak little of a Creator. But creation stories actually fill very little of Western scripture, as well. What really fills that scripture are accounts of historical events and attempts to describe our attraction for the Being to Whom we are connected, our wonder at being in the world, and our discovery of what leads to personal and social advancement or abasement. This is also what fills Buddhist scripture. At heart, the Baha’i teachings say, Eastern and Western religion have the same goal and are occupied with the same tasks:






In the book “The Four Noble Truths”, the Dalai Lama makes the same basic point very well, too:


For a non-Buddhist, the idea of nirvana and a next life seems nonsensical. Similarly, to Buddhists, the idea of a Creator God sometimes sounds like nonsense. But these things don’t matter; we can drop them. The point is that through these different traditions, a very negative person can be transformed into a good person. That is the purpose of religion — and that is the actual result.

Unborn and Unoriginated: Buddhism and the Creator

This is what Buddha said: you are out of your mind if you conjecture about the origin of the world:

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

www.accesstoinsight.org

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."​

 

[crossfire]

Here I will quote a Baha'i online who knows something about this. I can do no better than this:

In the predominant Western practices of Buddhism, many followers insist that the Buddha’s teachings are non-theistic, and that Buddhists do not believe in a Creator. Let’s examine that premise.


Several scholars and historians believe that the Buddha, recognizing Vedic Hindu society's super abundance of gods, decided that any further discussion of God could only lead to dogmatic distraction. They conclude that the Buddha’s elegant solution simply involved talking about the reality of the human condition, the best way to live to avoid suffering, and how to move toward a spiritual state of nirvana.


Because of those teachings and the practical way the Buddha transmitted them to his followers, many still make the mistake of thinking that the Buddha did not believe in God. The Buddha, however, clearly proclaimed in Udana 8:3 of the Khuddaka Nikaya:




This, clearly, is God stripped of all anthropomorphism. It is the Reality that makes salvation or nirvana possible, and it’s consonant with Tillich’s definition of God as “the Ground of all Being” and with Baha'u'llah's description of God as “an Unknowable Essence” in the Baha'i writings:





Not only did the Buddha believe in God, he had special knowledge of God, proclaiming to his disciple Vasettha in Sutta 1:43 of the Tevijja:




The Buddha also made clear that he did not reveal everything he knew of God. A scriptural passage, SN 5:437, explains the Buddha’s selectivity in revealing knowledge to us, when the Buddha asks:


Now what think ye, brethren? Which are more, these few simsapa leaves that I hold in my hand, or those that are in the simsapa grove above?


Few in number, Lord, are those simsapa leaves that are in the hand of the Exalted One: far more in number are those in the simsapa grove above.


Just so brethren, those things that I know by my super-knowledge, but have not revealed, are greater by far in number than those things that I have revealed. And why brethren have I not revealed them?




This is the Buddhist version of Christ’s statement in John 16:12: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now;”...

It is true that most forms of Buddhism speak little of a Creator. But creation stories actually fill very little of Western scripture, as well. What really fills that scripture are accounts of historical events and attempts to describe our attraction for the Being to Whom we are connected, our wonder at being in the world, and our discovery of what leads to personal and social advancement or abasement. This is also what fills Buddhist scripture. At heart, the Baha’i teachings say, Eastern and Western religion have the same goal and are occupied with the same tasks:






In the book “The Four Noble Truths”, the Dalai Lama makes the same basic point very well, too:


For a non-Buddhist, the idea of nirvana and a next life seems nonsensical. Similarly, to Buddhists, the idea of a Creator God sometimes sounds like nonsense. But these things don’t matter; we can drop them. The point is that through these different traditions, a very negative person can be transformed into a good person. That is the purpose of religion — and that is the actual result.

Unborn and Unoriginated: Buddhism and the Creator

"The unborn" refers to the underlying conscious awareness that you cannot observe to arise and pass away, as other thoughts, emotions, and mental states arise and pass away which you can observe arising and passing away.

 

[Secret Chief]

The Baha'i Writings state there has been many Prophets, the records have mostly been lost for a lot of them. It is also stated that in the future, the academia will pursue the records for possible Messengers, this age has more important issue. Unity is required before any academic pursuits will produce any lasting fruit.

"Thus there have been many holy Manifestations of God. One thousand years ago, two hundred thousand years ago, one million years ago the bounty of God was flowing, the radiance of God was shining, the dominion of God was existing."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 108

There is also more than one type of Prophet. The Messengers get their Message direct from God, other receive that message through these Messengers.

Now is not the time for this, unity of humanity is the urgent issue.

Regards Tony

So nowt to do with Buddhism then.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So nowt to do with Buddhism then.

It is 100% to do with the Buddha and any other Buddha that walked the Earth, as the promised return of Maitreya the "World Teacher" has tied the Buddha to all Faiths and the One God.

Most likely it has naught to do with some branches of modern Buddhism, which is a product of materialism.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

some branches of modern Buddhism

Which are these? And what texts do they focus on?

Do you not think it might be a tad arrogant to claim to understand Buddhism better than Buddhists?

 

[Secret Chief]

materialism

What?! Where did this come from??

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What?! Where did this come from??

Motivated reasoning, I'd bet. He needs a reason to disregard the types of Buddhism he disagrees with as not "real" Buddhism.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you make of what I posted earlier? viz:

The Pali literature (the earliest) of the Theravada tradition includes stories of 28 previous Buddhas. Were they messengers of your god as well?

That's interesting, I never heard that before. I don't know if those Buddhas were previous messengers of God, but they might have been minor prophets.
A messenger of God is considered a major prophet who establishes a new religion.

Baha'is believe that there have been major and minor prophets and that prophets have come to every nation over the course of time. We also believe that messengers of God have been sent ever since mankind has existed, so that would mean that there were messengers the predate the Buddha, although we may not have a record of them since that could have occurred before the art of writing was invented.

In some Sanskrit and northern Buddhist traditions a bhadrakalpa (fortunate eon) contains up to 1,000 Buddhas. Were these all messengers of your god too?

It seems to me that those could have been minor prophets, since major prophets (messengers) only appear every 500-1000 years, according to Baha'i beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

This kind of thing doesn't create the impression that you don't proselytize.

The impression it creates is that you're happy to try to gaslight people about your proselytizing.

I am not trying to change anyone's impression of me. I am only presenting accurate information.

If you (or anyone else on this forum) thinks I am proselytizing that is coming from you, and I am not going to change what you think.
It does not matter to me what you think because I know I am not proselytizing, since I know I am not 'attempting to convert' anyone to my religion, which is one definition of proselytize. I also know I am not advocating or promoting a belief or course of action, another definition pf proselytize.

Only I know what my motivations are. Nobody else knows, since they cannot read my mind.

I do not care if people believe in my religion, which is why I am not advocating or promoting it or trying to convert anyone to it.
I am only responsible to God for my own beliefs, not for the beliefs of other people.

I firmly believe what Baha'u'llah wrote:
“For the faith of no man can be conditioned by any one except himself.” Gleanings, p. 143

 

[McBell]

proselytize​

advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)​

​

Google definitions​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Which are these? And what texts do they focus on?

Do you not think it might be a tad arrogant to claim to understand Buddhism better than Buddhists?

What?! Where did this come from??

I have the power of observation as everyone else has. I do not need and will not argue the point. An internet search is all that is needed, to find practices motivated by material gain.

That is applicable to all Faiths, not just Buddhist.

All the best, over and out. Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

I have the power of observation as everyone else has. I do not need and will not argue the point. An internet search is all that is needed, to find practices motivated by material gain.

That is applicable to all Faiths, not just Buddhist.

All the best, over and out. Regards Tony

So no branches, no texts, nothing. Surprise.

 

[crossfire]

It is 100% to do with the Buddha and any other Buddha that walked the Earth, as the promised return of Maitreya the "World Teacher" has tied the Buddha to all Faiths and the One God.

Most likely it has naught to do with some branches of modern Buddhism, which is a product of materialism.

Regards Tony

What?! Where did this come from??

I have the power of observation as everyone else has. I do not need and will not argue the point. An internet search is all that is needed, to find practices motivated by material gain.

That is applicable to all Faiths, not just Buddhist.

All the best, over and out. Regards Tony

It's not really skillful communication to write something then refuse to explain what you actually meant by what you wrote. But hey, whatever.