What if we accepted each others Religion?

[TransmutingSoul]

Who is asking you to become a Baha'i or join any religion for that matter? Being outside the realm of religion is where you have been most comfortable for many years. Why change?

That is the key to it all. The change is only made by our own selves.

Living the life and uttering very few words, would be the best example of Faith in action.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

It can be! There's no party line on this. There are varying understandings, particularly between the two major traditions - Theravada and Mahayana. What you're suggesting is more the former than the latter I think. With the latter you can go down the route of bodhisattvas amongst other stuff. Sudden enlightenment, brief enlightenment, ongoing enlightenment, potential enlightenment... is sitting Buddha enlightenment? Should one even use the word enlightenment....? I should have been a JW...

- Divisions of Buddhism - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

- Buddha-nature - Buddhist beliefs - Edexcel - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

From the second link...

Mahayana Buddhism teaches that everyone can achieve enlightenment. Mahayana Buddhists believe that all humans have the nature of the Buddha within them already. It is a seed within all of them that has the potential to grow. This is referred to as Buddha-nature and essentially means that people have the ability to become enlightened like the Buddha.​

​

An arhat is a ‘worthy one’ or a ‘perfected person’. Theravada Buddhists believe that an Arhat is someone who has reached enlightenment and ended their suffering by following the path taught by the Buddha. Theravada Buddhists believe that an arhat has ‘blown out’ the Three Poisons of greed, hatred and ignorance and so has been able to attain nibbana.​

Once a person becomes an arhat, they are free from the cycle of samsara and will not have to be reborn again once they die. After death, they achieve nibbana and are fully enlightened.​

​

Buddhism, or any other religion, might be right it might be wrong... but for the followers of any religion, it is right. The Baha'is are in that awkward position of needing the religion to be true while some of its teachings to be false. Unfortunately, some of the core beliefs are included in what Baha'is say is false.

That's why I think that if all the other religions just take the "essence" of their religions, to do good and love everybody, then the only religion left standing with all of its beliefs still intact... is the Baha'i Faith.

To me that's not accepting or respecting each other's religions, it is making them irrelevant. And in a Baha'i world, they would be.

Baha'is have a world government and religious and social laws that replace religion and secular governments. And, since they say it, all came from the one true God, it is what we all should accept and believe. And like I tell them, what they say and believe might be true. It's just that I have my doubts.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The unity of humanity will commence with a joint effort by all Nations, from the ruins of a godless age, it will not be the Baha'i directly instigating this process.

That is just the plain simple truth

So sayeth……who?
Your crystal ball?
Nostradamus?
The little voices in your head?

Pray tell, o soothsayer, when do you anticipate this “godless age” to commence and how long might it last before it succumbs to ruin?

it is not having a go at any individual, just the mindset of an age where materialism, predudices religious disunity and conflict dominate the minds of humanity.

Would this be the current age where religious disunity (which of course is caused by unyielding fidelity to contrary religious doctrines) and prejudices (many of which are based on or at least exasperated by religious bigotry) create the conflicts which dominate the minds of humanity?

Couldn’t be….. at least not the “godless age” you prophesied, since the “religious disunity and conflict” dominating the minds of humanity attests to the adherence to varying concepts of gods being paramount in the minds of humanity.

 

[Secret Chief]

From the second link...

Mahayana Buddhism teaches that everyone can achieve enlightenment. Mahayana Buddhists believe that all humans have the nature of the Buddha within them already. It is a seed within all of them that has the potential to grow. This is referred to as Buddha-nature and essentially means that people have the ability to become enlightened like the Buddha.​

​

An arhat is a ‘worthy one’ or a ‘perfected person’. Theravada Buddhists believe that an Arhat is someone who has reached enlightenment and ended their suffering by following the path taught by the Buddha. Theravada Buddhists believe that an arhat has ‘blown out’ the Three Poisons of greed, hatred and ignorance and so has been able to attain nibbana.​

Once a person becomes an arhat, they are free from the cycle of samsara and will not have to be reborn again once they die. After death, they achieve nibbana and are fully enlightened.​

​

Buddhism, or any other religion, might be right it might be wrong... but for the followers of any religion, it is right. The Baha'is are in that awkward position of needing the religion to be true while some of its teachings to be false. Unfortunately, some of the core beliefs are included in what Baha'is say is false.

That's why I think that if all the other religions just take the "essence" of their religions, to do good and love everybody, then the only religion left standing with all of its beliefs still intact... is the Baha'i Faith.

To me that's not accepting or respecting each other's religions, it is making them irrelevant. And in a Baha'i world, they would be.

Baha'is have a world government and religious and social laws that replace religion and secular governments. And, since they say it, all came from the one true God, it is what we all should accept and believe. And like I tell them, what they say and believe might be true. It's just that I have my doubts.

I don't imagine Bahai even consider the two broad categories you refer to above. Bahai seems to have just picked one or two lines from the Pali canon (the sole foundation of Theravada) to justify their claim regarding Buddhism. Wisely perhaps Bahai goes nowhere near disparate other Buddhisms such as Pure Land, Tendai Lotus, Chan or Tantric. Or other important texts such as the Diamond Sutra. Or other important figures such as Nagarjuna. Or other important concepts such as sunyata. No, best just stick with the prophet thing.

 

[CG Didymus]

On a personal level if a newer belief system such as the Baha'i Faith works and the an older belief system doesn't work then go with the newer system. If an older belief system works then there needs to be something better about the new system to change.

All of them work for those that believe. But what do we do when we have to work and live with people that have different beliefs than ourselves?

Marxism type communism is an example of an atheistic movement where religion was actively suppressed and discouraged. I don't see that it worked very well.

Extreme, fundamentalist sects of any religion don't work well either. More liberal and moderate sects, I think, have a large number of nominal believers. Both very well could be seen as being an "opiate" to the people.

That is fine. Muhammad is recorded in the Quran as saying "Let there be no compulsion in religion". Its up to each of us to work out what works best.

Lots of religions forced their beliefs on others. That's gotta be considered to be a little compulsion, isn't it?

I can't see everyone accepting Jesus as their Lord and Saviour any time soon.

If the things in the NT unfold like the Born-Again Christians believe, then only true Christians will be left. The Christ returns and gets rid of all the rulers and evil people. And don't Baha'is believe that some day that all people will believe in one, true religion?

Who is asking you to become a Baha'i or join any religion for that matter? Being outside the realm of religion is where you have been most comfortable for many years. Why change?

Why do Baha'is "teach" the Faith? If it's not to get others to believe it? I'm not "comfortable" accepting all the claims and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith as being true. But I'm not comfortable accepting all the beliefs of any of the religions. Some of them, sure... but not all of them.

But, because the Baha'i Faith claims to be from God, it is meant to be completely believed, and a follower is expected to fully commit to living by and obeying Baha'i teachings. Anything less, and I'd question whether or not they truly believe.

Hey, but it's good to hear from you now and again. I know you and the other Baha'is mean well.

 

[CG Didymus]

The unity of humanity will commence with a joint effort by all Nations, from the ruins of a godless age, it will not be the Baha'i directly instigating this process.

That is just the plain simple truth, it is not having a go at any individual, just the mindset of an age where materialism, predudices religious disunity and conflict dominate the minds of humanity.

Regards Tony

"Godless" age? Really? Anyway... Does Christ return before all the bad things happen or during? And then fixes things? Some prophecies in the Bible and the NT make it sound like when Jesus, for the Christians, or the Messiah, for the Jews, I don't know what Muslims expect, but what I thought was that the trials and tribulations happen... then the Christ comes.

Baha'is have the "Christ" come, die, leave his teachings, expect his followers to start building the Baha'is "new world order" as the "old" world starts to crumble. And that things get worse and worse until the people have no other hope but to turn to the Baha'is to save us all. Or something like that.

Oh, and didn't Shoghi Effendi say that there would be many cities nuked and "vaporized"? And that all happens after the Messiah has come and gone?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't imagine Bahai even consider the two broad categories you refer to above. Bahai seems to have just picked one or two lines from the Pali canon (the sole foundation of Theravada) to justify their claim regarding Buddhism. Wisely perhaps Bahai goes nowhere near disparate other Buddhisms such as Pure Land, Tendai Lotus, Chan or Tantric. Or other important texts such as the Diamond Sutra. Or other important figures such as Nagarjuna. Or other important concepts such as sunyata. No, best just stick with the prophet thing.

All they need is one. If more than one sect has teachings they can use, then all the better. But with a Buddhist sect that mentions anything about a God and a future return, that's all they need. The other sects can be explained away by saying that they added in false doctrines and beliefs into the "original" teachings of the Buddha. What those "original" teachings were? Who knows? No wait, I do know. It is what the Baha'i Faith says were the true teachings.

And like I keep repeating, core beliefs like rebirth in Buddhism, reincarnation in Hinduism, and the resurrection of Jesus are all things that get throw out as being either false doctrines or things that the followers misinterpreted as being literal when they were meant to be symbolic.

And again, that's not accepting the other religions.

 

[Secret Chief]

And like I keep repeating, core beliefs like rebirth in Buddhism

meant to be symbolic.

That might depend on the tradition/school. I think in the Theravada, the words of the Buddha include stuff about actual rebirths until nirvana is achieved (apparently the Buddha claimed he could recall his many past lives). But in something like Zen.....naaah. Rebirth is moment to moment.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a nice sentiment, but if by believers you mean believers in the god of Abraham through any of the religions derived from Judaism, it's those rational minds of which you speak that will prevent that from happening.

I hear you since my rational mind would not allow that either. None of the atheists I knew who became believers became Christians or Muslims, and most of them had left Christianity before they became believers.

Although the Baha'i Faith is considered by scholars to be an Abrahamic religion, since Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham, the Baha'i Faith is more of a new age religion, since it brought new teachings for the age we live in.

There is no rational argument that ends, therefore God. One can only get to that belief through faith, and many people including me (aren't you glad I didn't write myself rather than me?) understand that that is an undesirable way to decide what is true about the world, and are unwilling to commit what they see as the intellectual "sin" of belief by faith.

You are correct in saying that here is no rational argument that ends, therefore God. I do not believe in God because of a rational argument, I simply know God exists. It is not like I said to myself, "I am not sure that God exists but I am going to believe by faith." I do not believe by faith because I know. How I know is not something I can explain, and that certainty does not come from any religion, it comes from Baha'u'llah.

You've just erected a barrier when you excluded the irreligious. And what does being as brothers mean beyond simply treating others respectfully when interacting with them? You imply that you see yourself as my brother. What does that mean for me? Nothing, I think. I treat you as you treat me, and I don't feel like we're brothers if that means that I owe you more than being courteous to you.

And here's another barrier to getting along. Many have no interest in your religious beliefs and never will. You will always see them as opposing unity as you envision it.

And another. You keep putting space between us. With every comment like that one, I think less of your religion's ability to do anything for mankind.

And another.

I see those barriers that some Baha'is put up between themselves and atheists and I don't like them. Those barriers separate me from the rest of the Baha'is who think that way, since I do not think like that. On other forums I was posting in before I came here all by best friends were atheists.

There are some beliefs that Baha'is hold that I have no interest in, such as community building which is supposed to be the beginnings of the new world order. I feel like I am supposed to be on board because I am a Baha'i but my lack of interest makes it very difficult to fit in with the other Baha'is. My late husband was a Baha'i, but he understood me so we could get along.

It is no secret that Baha'is hold some beliefs about God that I take issue with, but I try to keep those to myself except with the one close Baha'i friend I have, @Truthseeker, since I trust him to not be judgmental.

You probably saw the comment quoted above about being brothers versus being respectful. You're neither regarding atheists. And the feeling is contagious, dontchaknow. I resent that your religion teaches you to think like that and find it off-putting. The most I can offer you is tolerance and politeness, which is respect in the weak sense, the strong sense being admiration. You are seemingly unaware of how divisive your comments are.

It is not the Baha'i Faith that teaches them to think like that regarding atheists. The Baha'i Faith teaches that we are all one people.

I do not think that Baha'is who make divisive comments are aware that they are divisive. They simply cannot think outside of the religion box. That is easy for me to do because I don't fit in the religion box and I often feel like I don't fit in anywhere. What I try to do is see the good in everyone, including their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and learn from what good they have to offer.

We have one, and it works if allowed to: humanism. Humanists labor to repair the discord caused by religions, wealth and power concentration, and authoritarianism. And it does it with action using government and action in the daily life of the humanist, not merely chanting kumbaya or issuing position papers.

Ideally, Baha'is could work alongside humanists, and I think they do in the outer world. A few people on this forum are certainly not representative of what Baha'is are doing worldwide.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not "comfortable" accepting all the claims and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith as being true. But I'm not comfortable accepting all the beliefs of any of the religions. Some of them, sure... but not all of them.

I am not comfortable accepting all the claims and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith either, but that is not why I am a Baha'i.
I am a Baha'i because I believe that Baha'ullah was a Messenger/Manifestation of God, period, end of story.

But, because the Baha'i Faith claims to be from God, it is meant to be completely believed, and a follower is expected to fully commit to living by and obeying Baha'i teachings. Anything less, and I'd question whether or not they truly believe.

Humans are imperfect, so that means Baha'is are not perfect. That means we cannot completely believe or completely live by everything the Baha'i Faith teaches. As you know the standards are very high, so all we can do is our best to follow the teachings and obey the laws.

Regarding activities that Baha'is take part in, Shoghi Effendi said that at a minimum we should go to Feast and give to the Fund, and he said that is enough if that is all we can do. Ever since I heard that I have been going to every Feast and making a donation to the Fund after that Feast, even though I do not take part in any other Baha'i activities.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All of them work for those that believe. But what do we do when we have to work and live with people that have different beliefs than ourselves?

Sometimes religious beliefs don't work well for individuals, and they can't see it.

Where I live, we're very multicultural as with many areas of the USA. If we live by core values that are present in most faiths such as love, repect, fairness and reasonableness most of us do OK.

Extreme, fundamentalist sects of any religion don't work well either. More liberal and moderate sects, I think, have a large number of nominal believers. Both very well could be seen as being an "opiate" to the people.

Maybe religion is the opiate to the masses but it is another thing to ban religion outright.

Lots of religions forced their beliefs on others. That's gotta be considered to be a little compulsion, isn't it?

Coercion and forced convertions have been the modus operandi for many empires throughout history.

If the things in the NT unfold like the Born-Again Christians believe, then only true Christians will be left. The Christ returns and gets rid of all the rulers and evil people. And don't Baha'is believe that some day that all people will believe in one, true religion?

The older I get, the less interested I am in religious fundamentalism of any kind.

At some stage in the future the Baha'i writings envisage a time when the majority of the earth's inhabitants become Baha'i. I can't see that happening anytime soon.

Why do Baha'is "teach" the Faith? If it's not to get others to believe it? I'm not "comfortable" accepting all the claims and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith as being true. But I'm not comfortable accepting all the beliefs of any of the religions. Some of them, sure... but not all of them.

But, because the Baha'i Faith claims to be from God, it is meant to be completely believed, and a follower is expected to fully commit to living by and obeying Baha'i teachings. Anything less, and I'd question whether or not they truly believe.

Hey, but it's good to hear from you now and again. I know you and the other Baha'is mean well.

Its great to have conversations about the nature of reality, including religion. I learn a lot and its a relief from the challenges of day to day work. Nice chatting as always.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Which book of Buddhist Scriptures prophecies about Maitreya? What does it say? How do we know these prophesies came from Buddha?

Buddhism came from India. Why would the Buddha have been teaching about the one God as believed by the Abrahamic religions and not the many Gods of Hinduism?

Then, of course, there is rebirth. Baha'is deal with that like they do with the resurrection of Jesus and just say it was "symbolic". But why symbolic? Why not just wrong? That is to Baha'is. Why not a belief and concept that made sense to the people in those times and in that culture? Why make it something that was misinterpreted to mean actually getting reborn into a different physical body when the Buddha, supposedly, was only talking symbolically?

People are free to believe whatever they wish. We were asked for our understanding of reincarnation and provided it with references or quotations from Baha’u’llah.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's a nice sentiment, but if by believers you mean believers in the god of Abraham through any of the religions derived from Judaism, it's those rational minds of which you speak that will prevent that from happening. There is no rational argument that ends, therefore God. One can only get to that belief through faith, and many people including me (aren't you glad I didn't write myself rather than me?) understand that that is an undesirable way to decide what is true about the world, and are unwilling to commit what they see as the intellectual "sin" of belief by faith.

You've just erected a barrier when you excluded the irreligious. And what does being as brothers mean beyond simply treating others respectfully when interacting with them? You imply that you see yourself as my brother. What does that mean for me? Nothing, I think. I treat you as you treat me, and I don't feel like we're brothers if that means that I owe you more than being courteous to you.

And here's another barrier to getting along. Many have no interest in your religious beliefs and never will. You will always see them as opposing unity as you envision it.

And another. You keep putting space between us. With every comment like that one, I think less of your religion's ability to do anything for mankind.

And another.

You probably saw the comment quoted above about being brothers versus being respectful. You're neither regarding atheists. And the feeling is contagious, dontchaknow. I resent that your religion teaches you to think like that and find it off-putting. The most I can offer you is tolerance and politeness, which is respect in the weak sense, the strong sense being admiration. You are seemingly unaware of how divisive your comments are.

We have one, and it works if allowed to: humanism. Humanists labor to repair the discord caused by religions, wealth and power concentration, and authoritarianism. And it does it with action using government and action in the daily life of the humanist, not merely chanting kumbaya or issuing position papers.

Not excluding the irreligious at all. Being at one with all people and accepting them as brothers basically means we get along enough not to put ourselves at the risk of going to war. You see the world today? Russia ‘respects’ America and America ‘respects’ inssmuch as they are civil to one another perhaps diplomatically but they hate each others guts and could nuke each other anytime. I prefer that they be close brothers than respect each other but any day have a nuclear war. But that’s just me. Some might prefer outward respect accompanied with nuclear annihilation. Brothers is best in my book.

 

[McBell]

Cain and Abel were brothers, right?
In fact, if memory serves, they are actual brothers.
Not brothers in the sense of the word being used in this thread.

What happened to those brothers?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Cain and Abel were brothers, right?
In fact, if memory serves, they are actual brothers.
Not brothers in the sense of the word being used in this thread.

What happened to those brothers?

Not talking about brothers in name or blood but brothers as in brotherly love. Humanity needs to transform inwardly in order to achieve real peace.

 

[McBell]

Not talking about brothers in name or blood but brothers as in brotherly love. Humanity needs to transform inwardly in order to achieve real peace.

Way to miss the point.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Way to miss the point.

If I missed the point then please explain.

 

[CG Didymus]

Buddha prophesied a future Buddha.

You said this, and I asked this.

Which book of Buddhist Scriptures prophecies about Maitreya? What does it say? How do we know these prophesies came from Buddha?

To do as Baha'is say and "investigate" the truth, we should find out where these prophecies came from and what they say.

Next Buddha never denied God. That does not mean He did not teach there was a God. By inference He did teach about God. He said that the future Buddha would teach the ‘same truths’ that He taught. If Baha’u’llah is Maitreya and He teaches the oneness of God then it’s abundantly clear to me that Gautama also taught the oneness of God but that these teachings were lost or changed.

What?

Buddhism came from India. Why would the Buddha have been teaching about the one God as believed by the Abrahamic religions and not the many Gods of Hinduism?

What did Buddha supposedly say about there being a God?

Baha’is believe that the promises foretold by religions of the past have been kept by the coming of Baha’u’llah. So we are really believing in all religions because we are accepting their Promised One Who their scriptures tell them to turn to. Those who reject the Promised One are in effect rejecting their own scriptures.

There are also prophecies about false prophets and Messiahs. How do we know the Baha'i prophet is not one of the false ones?

People are free to believe whatever they wish. We were asked for our understanding of reincarnation and provided it with references or quotations from Baha’u’llah.

People aren't always "free" to believe whatever they wish. People have been put to death for not believing the religion of the land. Even Baha'is cast out people that don't believe correctly.

 

[CG Didymus]

Buddha prophesied a future Buddha.

Here's what I found... Two paragraphs in the "Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta".

"And in that time of the people with an eighty thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an Arahant fully-enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-Farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now. He will thoroughly know by his own super-knowledge, and proclaim, this universe with its devas and maras and Brahmas, its ascetics and Brahmins, and this generation with its princes and people, just as I do now. He will teach the Dhamma, lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle, lovely in its ending, in the spirit and in the letter, and proclaim, just as I do now, the holy life (brahmacarya/celibacy) in its fullness and purity. He will be attended by a company of thousands of monks, just as I am attended by a company of hundreds.​

​

"Then King Sankha will re-erect the palace once built by King Maha-Panada and, having lived in it, will give it up and present it to the ascetics and Brahmins, the beggars, the wayfarers, the destitute. Then, shaving off hair and beard, he will don yellow robes and go forth from the household life into hermit life under the supreme Buddha Metteyya. Having gone forth, he will remain alone, in seclusion, ardent, eager and resolute, and before long he will have attained in this very life, by his own super-knowledge and resolution, that unequalled goal of the holy life (brahmacarya), for the sake of which young men of good family go forth from the household life into hermit life, and will abide therein.​

Then this...

The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya is found in the canonical literature of all Buddhist sects (Theravāda, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna)​

​

While a number of persons have proclaimed themselves to be Maitreya in the years following the Buddha’s death, none have been officially recognized by the sangha and the mass of lay Buddhists. A particular difficulty faced by any would-be claimant to Maitreya's title is the fact that the Buddha is considered to have made a number of fairly specific predictions regarding the circumstances that would occur prior to Maitreya's coming, including the notions that the teachings of the Buddha would be completely forgotten, and that all of the remaining relics of Sakyamuni Buddha have been gathered in Bodh Gaya and cremated...​

​

• Budai, the Chinese monk who lived during the Later Liang Dynasty (907–923 C.E.) mentioned above, is likely the most popular claimant to the mantle of Maitreya (despite his utter refusal involve himself in worldly politics). His depiction as the Laughing Buddha continues to be very popular in East Asian culture.
• Gung Ye (ruled 901–918), a Korean warlord and king of short-lived state of Taebong during the tenth century, claimed himself to be a living incarnation of Maitreya and ordered his subjects to worship him. His claim was widely rejected by most Buddhist monks and later he was dethroned and killed by his own servants.
• In 613 the monk Xiang Haiming claimed himself Maitreya and adopted an imperial title.[10]
• In 690 Empress Wu Zetian inaugurated the Second Zhou dynasty, proclaimed herself an incarnation of the future Buddha Maitreya, and made Luoyang the "holy capital." In 693 she replaced the compulsory Dao De Jing in the curriculum temporarily with her own Rules for Officials.[11]
• Lu Zhong Yi, the 17th patriarch of I-Kuan Tao, proclaimed himself to be an incarnation of Maitreya.
• L. Ron Hubbard (1911 – 1986), founder of Dianetics and Scientology, suggested he was "Metteya" (Maitreya) in the 1955 poem Hymn of Asia. His editors indicated, in the book's preface, specific physical characteristics said to be outlined—in unnamed Sanskrit sources—as properties of the coming Maitreya; properties which Hubbard's appearance reportedly aligned with.
• Raël, founder of the Raëlian church, claims to be Maitreya based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Agama Sutra (Japanese: Agon Sutra),[12] an ancient text said to be written by Buddha himself. Raël has claimed directly to people attending Asia Raëlian Church seminars, that someone born in France, a country which is often symbolized by the cock (or rooster), west of the Orient, meets the criteria of the Maitreya. Rael himself claims to be this individual.[13]
• Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the fulfillment of the prophecy of appearance of Maitreya. Bahá'ís believe that the prophecy that Maitreya will usher in a new society of tolerance and love has been fulfilled by Bahá'u'lláh's teachings on world peace.[14]

Have you found anything that supports your claim that Baha'u'llah is the Maitreya?

​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here's what I found... Two paragraphs in the "Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta".

"And in that time of the people with an eighty thousand-year life-span, there will arise in the world a Blessed Lord, an Arahant fully-enlightened Buddha named Metteyya, endowed with wisdom and conduct, a Well-Farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed, just as I am now. He will thoroughly know by his own super-knowledge, and proclaim, this universe with its devas and maras and Brahmas, its ascetics and Brahmins, and this generation with its princes and people, just as I do now. He will teach the Dhamma, lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle, lovely in its ending, in the spirit and in the letter, and proclaim, just as I do now, the holy life (brahmacarya/celibacy) in its fullness and purity. He will be attended by a company of thousands of monks, just as I am attended by a company of hundreds.​

​

"Then King Sankha will re-erect the palace once built by King Maha-Panada and, having lived in it, will give it up and present it to the ascetics and Brahmins, the beggars, the wayfarers, the destitute. Then, shaving off hair and beard, he will don yellow robes and go forth from the household life into hermit life under the supreme Buddha Metteyya. Having gone forth, he will remain alone, in seclusion, ardent, eager and resolute, and before long he will have attained in this very life, by his own super-knowledge and resolution, that unequalled goal of the holy life (brahmacarya), for the sake of which young men of good family go forth from the household life into hermit life, and will abide therein.​

Then this...

The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya is found in the canonical literature of all Buddhist sects (Theravāda, Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna)​

​

While a number of persons have proclaimed themselves to be Maitreya in the years following the Buddha’s death, none have been officially recognized by the sangha and the mass of lay Buddhists. A particular difficulty faced by any would-be claimant to Maitreya's title is the fact that the Buddha is considered to have made a number of fairly specific predictions regarding the circumstances that would occur prior to Maitreya's coming, including the notions that the teachings of the Buddha would be completely forgotten, and that all of the remaining relics of Sakyamuni Buddha have been gathered in Bodh Gaya and cremated...​

​

• Budai, the Chinese monk who lived during the Later Liang Dynasty (907–923 C.E.) mentioned above, is likely the most popular claimant to the mantle of Maitreya (despite his utter refusal involve himself in worldly politics). His depiction as the Laughing Buddha continues to be very popular in East Asian culture.
• Gung Ye (ruled 901–918), a Korean warlord and king of short-lived state of Taebong during the tenth century, claimed himself to be a living incarnation of Maitreya and ordered his subjects to worship him. His claim was widely rejected by most Buddhist monks and later he was dethroned and killed by his own servants.
• In 613 the monk Xiang Haiming claimed himself Maitreya and adopted an imperial title.[10]
• In 690 Empress Wu Zetian inaugurated the Second Zhou dynasty, proclaimed herself an incarnation of the future Buddha Maitreya, and made Luoyang the "holy capital." In 693 she replaced the compulsory Dao De Jing in the curriculum temporarily with her own Rules for Officials.[11]
• Lu Zhong Yi, the 17th patriarch of I-Kuan Tao, proclaimed himself to be an incarnation of Maitreya.
• L. Ron Hubbard (1911 – 1986), founder of Dianetics and Scientology, suggested he was "Metteya" (Maitreya) in the 1955 poem Hymn of Asia. His editors indicated, in the book's preface, specific physical characteristics said to be outlined—in unnamed Sanskrit sources—as properties of the coming Maitreya; properties which Hubbard's appearance reportedly aligned with.
• Raël, founder of the Raëlian church, claims to be Maitreya based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Agama Sutra (Japanese: Agon Sutra),[12] an ancient text said to be written by Buddha himself. Raël has claimed directly to people attending Asia Raëlian Church seminars, that someone born in France, a country which is often symbolized by the cock (or rooster), west of the Orient, meets the criteria of the Maitreya. Rael himself claims to be this individual.[13]
• Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh is the fulfillment of the prophecy of appearance of Maitreya. Bahá'ís believe that the prophecy that Maitreya will usher in a new society of tolerance and love has been fulfilled by Bahá'u'lláh's teachings on world peace.[14]

Have you found anything that supports your claim that Baha'u'llah is the Maitreya?

​

Maybe you can consider the accuracy of this prediction.

".. Buddha is considered to have made a number of fairly specific predictions regarding the circumstances that would occur prior to Maitreya's coming, including the notions that the teachings of the Buddha would be completely forgotten.."

This same principle is also found in the Bible and the Quran, that the return happens when the teachings are forgotten and neglected.

Regards Tony