What if we accepted each others Religion?

[Vinayaka]

Both 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Efendi were both leaders of the Baha'i Faith and authorised interpreters of the writings. The current head of the Faith, the Universal House of Justice can not interpret the writings though they can clarify and elucidate. There is an argument in regards whether the scope of authoritative interpretation should be extended to matters of history and other religions. I persona;;y avoid using the word infallible.

I'm certainly close to Buddhism through family and ties to Japan. Over the years the phrase Maitreya Buddha has never arisen and I would presume it would be as meaningless to my family as Kalki Avatar is to you. I regards Buddhism and Hinduism as religions with Divine origins. I'm comfortable praying in Buddhist and Shinto Temples and shrines as I am anywhere else.

But how can an interpreter interpret if there is nothing to interpret?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But how can an interpreter interpret if there is nothing to interpret?

There was a lifetime of Instruction from Baha'u'llah to interpret.

Abdul-Baha was exiled with Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha was the first to recognise the Station of Baha’u’llah ever since he was a young child, always served Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah was the teacher of Abdul-Baha, so Abdul'baha had years of instruction from Baha'u'llah that was not recorded. We do not know what was said on these subjects, it is plausible to conclude they were discussed in the many hours of discussion.

Abdul-Baha likewise instructed Shoghi Effendi, so no Baha'i needs to doubt that their knowledge is from Baha'u'llah and no people knew the Message better than the appointed Exemplar and Guardian.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

What Baha'is say is more than their "view" or "opinion. They are claiming they have the correct view... the right interpretation. And the Buddhists, themselves, have the wrong view.

That is only you projecting what you think the Baha'is are thinking onto the Baha'is.
Besides, not all Baha's think the same way, so maybe some Baha'is are claiming they have the correct view and some Baha'is are not claiming that.

 

[Trailblazer]

if I'm getting this right, is the infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha. Some folks seem to say that he is the sole authoritative interpreter. But with regard to Krishna, it sounds like there was nothing at all to interpret, so then it's not interpretation at all, but new teaching, originating with Abdu'l-Baha.

Abdu'l-Baha was appointed by Baha'u'llah to interpret Baha'u'llah's Writings. He was not appointed to reveal new teachings, yet many new teachings originated from Abdu'l-Baha.

I only wish the Baha'is would admit that Abdul-Baha took it upon himself to do what He was not given authority to do. Using the flimsy excuse that Abdu'l-Baha was the Center of the Covenant does not cover it. He either had the authority vested in him to add to what Baha'u'llah wrote or he did not.

Many if not most Baha'is believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible so he could never make a mistake, but that is another subject. He either had the authority vested in him to add to what Baha'u'llah wrote or he did not.

I don't believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible. I know at least one mistake he made but I am not going to share it here.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Two things...
"Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. "

"Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. "

He not only had to have existed, but he has to have taught about the Abrahamic God. And, because he is a manifestation of this God, his teachings alone are the truth from that God.

Just knowing the very basics of the Buddha story, I don't see how it fits into the Baha'i interpretation. Yet, for Baha'is, it has to fit. That is what the argument is... are the Baha'i true and correct? If so, then the truth about what Buddhism is and what the Buddha taught are what the Baha'i Faith says he taught. And that means for hundreds of years, Buddhists have been believing and teaching the wrong things.

That's incredibly important... Because if the Baha'is are right, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and the others are partially wrong or maybe even completely wrong. That puts a lot of proving to do for the Baha'is, if they expect others to believe that... And they can't.

They can get liberal and nominal believers in the other religions to go along with them, but it's not like those people had a very deep commitment into their old beliefs. For them, the Baha'i Faith is no doubt a wonderful religion. They join and do what? Keep practicing and believing in their old religion? No, they believe and practice the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.

And it's great for most of them. Some do drop out, but many stay. So, what's the problem with that? Baha'is are told to go "teach" the Faith. Tell others the Promised One has come. And to tell the people that we are heading for disaster, and our only hope is to unite and work together... Then in the fine print it says... that to truly solve the problems of the world, we must believe and trust in the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Nothing else is going to save us. No other messenger is coming... not for several hundred more years.

They say the Christ, Maitreya, Kalki, the Mahdi has already come. All in the same person, their prophet. Is it true? Is there proof? Is there even any reasonable evidence to believe them? They think so. But they've already told us what that evidence is. And some of us aren't all that impressed. And we doubt and question it. They don't have anything else to offer... except time will tell.

Since I first heard of them, fifty years ago, I think in some ways they've gone backwards. Back then there was talk of the "lessor" peace happening by the year two thousand. They believed the Baha'i Faith was going to finally become recognized as a major religion and come out of "obscurity". Baha'is were going out on what they called "mass teaching" projects to make more converts. In the 80's they put out their "Promise of Peace" statement and had a big peace conference in San Francisco. What happened?

The belief is that all the religions are true. I lived in Burma for 5 years and Thailand fo one year and India for a few months. I found that many Buddhists and Hindus accepted Baha’u’llah fulfilled their scriptures. But it is up to each individual to do his/her own research and follow his/her own heart. I can only search for myself and not. provide proof or evidence for anyone else. What is proof and evidence for me may be different for each and every person. So I can only say my beliefs are true for me. Others have to decide for themselves their own path in life and we are all human so we accept that we think differently and don’t all agree on everything. Despite that we can still be friends.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not being too fussed about the origins is not a problem for a Buudhist. No Buddhist, Bahai or historian can categorically say for sure whether Siddy existed - I fail to see how this minor dismissal is a problem for Buddhists because what fundamentally matters to a Buddhist is whether or not one accepts the teachings, whatever or whoever is the source. Lots of the sutras of Mahayana are attributed to other people, rather than Siddy. But again, who wrote them doesn't ultimately matter, it is the words that matter. The "problem" of course lies with the Bahai story. Siddy had to exist because the Bahai story declares him to be a messenger of the abrahamic deity. Lose Siddy and you've lost the essence of the story.

There's no problem for most Baha'is reconciling what we know about the history of Siddhartha Buddha and Buddhism with being a Baha'i. There's no problem for most Baha'is recognizing the diverse beliefs Buddhists hold, including atheism and general disinterest in their own history. What I'm seeing is some Buddhists have trouble with a Baha'i perspective of a theistic Buddha. In summary the Western atheistic Buddhist vs the Baha'i theistic Buddha.

The problem is trying to reconcile the two Buddhas. If we don't have a clear view of an historical Buddha, then we can't resolve the differences. The lack of any authenticated text of Buddha allows atheists to have an atheistic Buddha. It also allows the Baha'i to have a theistic Buddha.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Firstly I am only referring to the major religions.

Next I’m speaking of accepting the Founder and the spiritual teachings such as virtues and prayer etc not the laws. The administration of each faith would remain.

So Christians would accept Buddha and Muhammad, Buddhists would accept Christ and Baha’is etc

And instead of segregating ourselves in our own churches, pagodas, temples and synagogues, we would visit each others places of worship to meditate and pray together. We Baha’is already do this and read from all the sacred scriptures of each religion in all our services.

In this way we can celebrate our diversity. I think in many places this is happening and also interfaith breaking down barriers. I myself I accept all the major religions and their Founders and Holy Books and find this enriches me greatly. So I read something Christ or Buddha said and it’s a great experience. Christ says to love and Buddha says to fight hate with love and that the greatest of all conquerors is he who conquers his own self. So much wisdom from all these faiths. Why should we deprive ourselves.? If you have any favourite verses please feel most welcome to share them.

My opinion on this is, if you are already excluding other religions, that defeats the entire point.

 

[Secret Chief]

There's no problem for most Baha'is reconciling what we know about the history of Siddhartha Buddha and Buddhism with being a Baha'i. There's no problem for most Baha'is recognizing the diverse beliefs Buddhists hold, including atheism and general disinterest in their own history. What I'm seeing is some Buddhists have trouble with a Baha'i perspective of a theistic Buddha. In summary the Western atheistic Buddhist vs the Baha'i theistic Buddha.

The problem is trying to reconcile the two Buddhas. If we don't have a clear view of an historical Buddha, then we can't resolve the differences. The lack of any authenticated text of Buddha allows atheists to have an atheistic Buddha. It also allows the Baha'i to have a theistic Buddha.

The Buddha was just a human being. The three marks of existence, specifically anatta and anicca, are irreconcilable with the Bahai view of Buddhism. Falls at the first hurdle.
Much of Mahayana Buddhism is based on authenticated texts of real people eg Eihei Dogen, founder of Soto Zen, philosopher and poet - born in 1200 and died in 1253. Does he get mentioned in Bahai texts? Was he a messenger of a god? Or was he wrong? Or irrelevant? Or ignored? Or not heard of?
It seems to me that what Bahai "accept" is their own recasting of Theravada and a dismissal of Mahayana and Vajrayana.

 

[Vinayaka]

There was a lifetime of Instruction from Baha'u'llah to interpret.

Abdul-Baha was exiled with Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha was the first to recognise the Station of Baha’u’llah ever since he was a young child, always served Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah was the teacher of Abdul-Baha, so Abdul'baha had years of instruction from Baha'u'llah that was not recorded. We do not know what was said on these subjects, it is plausible to conclude they were discussed in the many hours of discussion.

Abdul-Baha likewise instructed Shoghi Effendi, so no Baha'i needs to doubt that their knowledge is from Baha'u'llah and no people knew the Message better than the appointed Exemplar and Guardian.

Regards Tony

Baha'u'llah was his father as well. It's very understandable that the son would see his own father in a very high light. Almost all children do that, it's natural in a family. So basically he could come up with anything he wanted to, and nobody would doubt it. He could say, 'once upon a time in the garden, my father told me stories of Krishna, and now I'll relate them to you.' etc. etc. So we'll actually never know whether or not Baha'u'llah said anything at all on any topic that wasn't recorded.

Do you know why the kin relationship is totally avoided when this comes up? Both the idea of appointing your own son to the heir, or CEO, or whatever, is never mentioned. Personally, I see it as important in understanding the history.

 

[Vinayaka]

Abdu'l-Baha was appointed by Baha'u'llah to interpret Baha'u'llah's Writings. He was not appointed to reveal new teachings, yet many new teachings originated from Abdu'l-Baha.

I only wish the Baha'is would admit that Abdul-Baha took it upon himself to do what He was not given authority to do. Using the flimsy excuse that Abdu'l-Baha was the Center of the Covenant does not cover it. He either had the authority vested in him to add to what Baha'u'llah wrote or he did not.

Many if not most Baha'is believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible so he could never make a mistake, but that is another subject. He either had the authority vested in him to add to what Baha'u'llah wrote or he did not.

I don't believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible. I know at least one mistake he made but I am not going to share it here.

How about the 'flimsy' excuse that he was the son?

 

[Vinayaka]

The belief is that all the religions are true. I lived in Burma for 5 years and Thailand fo one year and India for a few months. I found that many Buddhists and Hindus accepted Baha’u’llah fulfilled their scriptures. But it is up to each individual to do his/her own research and follow his/her own heart. I can only search for myself and not. provide proof or evidence for anyone else. What is proof and evidence for me may be different for each and every person. So I can only say my beliefs are true for me. Others have to decide for themselves their own path in life and we are all human so we accept that we think differently and don’t all agree on everything. Despite that we can still be friends.

In India, according to several sources, the retention rate is about 5%. Village Indians, especially the illiterate, will sign anything.

 

[loverofhumanity]

My opinion on this is, if you are already excluding other religions, that defeats the entire point.

My understanding is that the major religions are inclusive of the majority of humanity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In India, according to several sources, the retention rate is about 5%. Village Indians, especially the illiterate, will sign anything.

I don’t think it matters because Indians I met are already very tolerant and unprejudiced people who we Baha’is can learn a lot from. I had some beautiful Indian people send us a meal today. I was feeling hungry. Didn’t know what I felt like eating. At that moment there was a knock on the door and my dear Indian friend, more brother by now, was standing at the door in 41° heat with a bag of curry he came to drop off. His son drove him and he didn’t stay just returned home. So much to learn from the wonderful culture of these people more important than just rhetoric. Their qualities I doubt I will ever have and my wife and I think the world of them. So if anyone I’m the one in need of transformation when I come across such pure souls.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don’t think it matters because Indians I met are already very tolerant and unprejudiced people who we Baha’is can learn a lot from. I had some beautiful Indian people send us a meal today. I was feeling hungry. Didn’t know what I felt like eating. At that moment there was a knock on the door and my dear Indian friend, more brother by now, was standing at the door in 41° heat with a bag of curry he came to drop off. His son drove him and he didn’t stay just returned home. So much to learn from the wonderful culture of these people more important than just rhetoric. Their qualities I doubt I will ever have and my wife and I think the world of them. So if anyone I’m the one in need of transformation when I come across such pure souls.

Seems a little hot. My internet weather said a high of 28 yesterday, and 25 today. Maybe you live in some 'heat island'. It seems like you meet this Indian friend of yours every second day or so. I've never heard of a 'bag' of curry, and trust me, I've been around in this area, but then 'curry' is a very generic term. It can mean perhaps 100 specific things.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Seems a little hot. My internet weather said a high of 28 yesterday, and 25 today. Maybe you live in some 'heat island'. It seems like you meet this Indian friend of yours every second day or so. I've never heard of a 'bag' of curry, and trust me, I've been around in this area, but then 'curry' is a very generic term. It can mean perhaps 100 specific things.

These Indian couple are visiting their family from Melbourne so they are staying in my town. They brought some plastic containers of curry and cake. They are different Indian friends from the Hindu lady that drops in sometimes. They have visited a few times all of them regularly. The lady is a Hindu and this couple are Catholics . The curry was I think beef or lamb and some pork with rice. We struggle my wife and I in this heat wave. Tomorrow it’s going to be 39°.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

My understanding is that the major religions are inclusive of the majority of humanity.

Uh no, otherwise people would not have persecuted others from the past to the present.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Uh no, otherwise people would not have persecuted others from the past to the present.

A lot of religions are offshoots of the major religions so for example Islam have around 2 billion, Christianity another 2 1/2 billion then there’s Jews, Buddhists and a very large number of Hindus at least a billion. Who do think should be included?

 

[JustGeorge]

A lot of religions are offshoots of the major religions so for example Islam have around 2 billion, Christianity another 2 1/2 billion then there’s Jews, Buddhists and a very large number of Hindus at least a billion. Who do think should be included?

It would take a long time to list all of the excluded religions... maybe a better question would be who many Baha'is think should be excluded, and why?

I have also yet to see a Baha'i explain why they use the term "Hindu" when a closer term would be Vaishnaivism. They exclude Saivas, Shaktas, and Smarthas(three other major branches within Hinduism), but do not address this.

 

[Vinayaka]

A lot of religions are offshoots of the major religions so for example Islam have around 2 billion, Christianity another 2 1/2 billion then there’s Jews, Buddhists and a very large number of Hindus at least a billion. Who do think should be included?

Atheists, in particular, but also many indigenous. It's everyone, for me, but then I'm a Hindu, not a Baha'i.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It would take a long time to list all of the excluded religions... maybe a better question would be who many Baha'is think should be excluded, and why?

I have also yet to see a Baha'i explain why they use the term "Hindu" when a closer term would be Vaishnaivism. They exclude Saivas, Shaktas, and Smarthas(three other major branches within Hinduism), but do not address this.

True. For practical reasons it’s impossible to list all the religions. There is truth everywhere. In science, in humanism in man made organisations which do a wonderful service to help people all over the world.

But Baha’is believe there is actually only one religion progressively revealed throughout the ages to meet the needs of each age. “This is the changeless faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.” (Baha’u’llah)

To be recognised as a major religion or a part of ‘progressively revealed’ religion, Baha’is believe it must be inaugurated by a Manifestation of God.

In about the last 7,000 years of known history we believe that God progressively revealed His religion through certain Manifestations. The Ones we believe revealed His religion are Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha’u’llah and after about a thousand years another Manifestation will appear.

Each Manifestation gave laws and teachings for the people and age in which He appeared and covenanted with His followers that He would send them another Teacher in due time. So ideally Hindus would have accepted Buddhism, Jews - Christianity and Christians -Islam and there would only have been one religion. But because we have free will we are free to reject the subsequent Manifestation and most did leaving humanity fragmented and disunited.

As with Hinduism. I don’t know why but it’s also a definition used by the wider community which is misleading I agree and I at first didn’t realise that there were so many sects. Aren’t Vausnavism believers Hindu too? So are you saying the term ‘Hindu’ should not be used at all? The term is used online everywhere. When is it ever ok then to use the term ‘Hindu’.?