What is your Belief? A statistic for RF

[TransmutingSoul]

You do see how you just moved the goal posts there, right?

Also, thank you for the link (that I already provided you in the previous post).


Not as defined multiple times in this thread.

More than a couple of times in this thread, it has been stipulated that a revealed religion is a religion revealed by God or words of God.

By this definition, these are certainly not revealed scriptures.

As has been suggested to you and other Baha'i multiple times on this forum, if you want to know something about Hinduism or Hindu scripture, ask a Hindu instead of making stuff up as you go.

In the context of the OP and in all cases there are only two sources for revealed religions. The OP is yet to address the two sources in any detail, as the thread was derailed.

The first source is the Divine. A source no one owns, yet our individual mind and our collective minds have access to it. Used in a Divine way, no one owns it, it is shared for the good of humanity by Messengers, Prophets, Sages, etc. It has unlimited potential for good and has a long lasting influence. Using the Bible to state an example, this is known as true prophecy.

The 2nd source is revealed from our own selves, this type or revelation is always self serving. These revelations steal from the divine sources to feed the self based objective. It has very limited influence, destine to fade away. Using the Bible again as an example, this is known as false prophecy.

All faiths that are revealed from the 1st source, would have the same basic principles.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They are non-revealed as we have defined "revealed" for the purpose of this thread as it pertains to a revealed religion.

I see the definition needed to be expanded to lessen the confusion, as revealed religions do have two sources. Each culture has a way to describe the cycle that repeats from the two sources. Good-Evil, Ying-Yang, Karma(cause and effect)

They all, in one way or another,explain the continuity of the cycles of light and dark. Good revelation and actions, in contrast to bad revelation and actions.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree. Hinduism (and all the Dharmic religions in general) are non revealed. They are more like mathematics. They eternally exist and can be directly grasped by a sufficiently prepared mind.

Oh, c'mon now. The non-Hindus here know far more about Hinduism than we Hindus do. Ask them yourself. (heavy s)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh, c'mon now. The non-Hindus here know far more about Hinduism than we Hindus do. Ask them yourself. (heavy s)

I see there are people that would like to explore the interconnectedness of all revealed faiths, all the wonderful possibilities and others that do not.

Regards Tony

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see there are people that would like to explore the interconnectedness of all revealed faiths, all the wonderful possibilities and others that do not...

...regardless of how contrived that "interconnectedness" may be.

 

[Yazata]

The non-revealed aspect doesn't mean unrevealed by gods, it means there's no intermediary you must have between yourself and accessing that spiritual path. One that doesn't include gods in my case.

Where would that leave Buddhism, particularly the early Buddhism of the Pali canon?

It's arguably a revealed religion, since the Buddha revealed the path that he taught in his many discourses.

But the Buddha is in no way an intermediary. He taught very explicitly that seekers shouldn't accept a religious teaching as true because it's taught in some scripture, or taught by some revered teacher (even him), or because it was arrived at through reasoning and inference. One should only accept a religious teaching as true when one has directly experienced that truth for him or herself.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Where would that leave Buddhism, particularly the early Buddhism of the Pali canon?

It's arguably a revealed religion, since the Buddha revealed the path that he taught in his many discourses.

But the Buddha is in no way an intermediary. He taught very explicitly that seekers shouldn't accept a religious teaching as true because it's taught in some scripture, or taught by some revered teacher (even him), or because it was arrived at through reasoning and inference. One should only accept a religious teaching as true when one has directly experienced that truth for him or herself.

I don't consider Buddhism to be a revealed religion either. Currently on the site we have Buddhism placed in the Dharmic category. The only religions by themselves mentioned in the Non-revealed category are Shinto, Confucian, Taoism, Deism and Native American DIR. It's not a perfect system, for example I don't consider Deism a religion at all, but a category in which religions reside. But because certain US founding father era people considered it its own religion, it has stayed there. Ditto Native American religions have both revealed and non-revealed religions, but the revealed ones are revealed to only a select group.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

...regardless of how contrived that "interconnectedness" may be.

God given, all of it.

Regards Tony

 

[Secret Chief]

As has been suggested to you and other Baha'i multiple times on this forum, if you want to know something about Hinduism or Hindu scripture, ask a Hindu instead of making stuff up as you go.

Bahais aren't asking, they're telling.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thus revealed from that contemplation and self enquiry?

In the end, there is no escaping that they are revealed, no matter the source. It would be much easier to find the common ground.

Much more logical and easier to admit those scriptures were revealed, the source is the only thing in question and since the person you said revealed them had disciples and was a revered rishis, that lends credence that he considered them spiritual guidance.

"In Indian religions, a rishi (Sanskrit: ऋषि IAST: ṛṣi) is an accomplished and enlightened person. They find mentions in various Vedic texts. Rishis are believed to have composed hymns of the Vedas. The Post-Vedic tradition of Hinduism regards the rishis as "great yogis" or "sages" who after intense meditation (tapas) realized the supreme truth and eternal knowledge, which they composed into hymns.[1] The term appears in Pali literature as Ishi; in Buddhism they can be either Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, Arahats or a monk of high rank."

Links here.

Vyasa - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is definitely a description of revealed scriptures.

Regards Tony

Please give examples of non-revealed religions (as offered in the poll).

 

[Secret Chief]

Please choose one of the options.

Please give examples of non-revealed religions.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please give examples of non-revealed religions.

Actually, I learned the term "non-revealed religions" only from RF. When I learned that there is such a belief as "non-revealed", I understood that, there are some Religions that did not believe in a god, or that, a god was not the center of the religion. However, RF has a list of Non-revealed Religions:

Non-Revealed Religions DIR

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Secret Chief]

Oh, c'mon now. The non-Hindus here know far more about Hinduism than we Hindus do. Ask them yourself. (heavy s)

When I want to learn something more about Soto Zen I always ask a Bahai. They're so wise, unlike those deluded, oh what are they called...oh yes...Buddhists.

 

[Secret Chief]

Actually, I learned the term "non-revealed religions" only from RF. When I learned that there is such a belief as "non-revealed", I understood that, there are some Religions that did not believe in a god, or that, a god was not the center of the religion. However, RF has a list of Non-revealed Religions:

Non-Revealed Religions DIR

www.religiousforums.com

I suspect the RF listing requires amendment. Whaddya say @SalixIncendium ?

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't consider Buddhism to be a revealed religion either. Currently on the site we have Buddhism placed in the Dharmic category. The only religions by themselves mentioned in the Non-revealed category are Shinto, Confucian, Taoism, Deism and Native American DIR. It's not a perfect system, for example I don't consider Deism a religion at all, but a category in which religions reside. But because certain US founding father era people considered it its own religion, it has stayed there. Ditto Native American religions have both revealed and non-revealed religions, but the revealed ones are revealed to only a select group.

Indeed - I think the categories need an overhaul.

 

[sayak83]

What is shruti and apaurusheya then?

See my post. Post 54.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I see the definition needed to be expanded to lessen the confusion, as revealed religions do have two sources. Each culture has a way to describe the cycle that repeats from the two sources. Good-Evil, Ying-Yang, Karma(cause and effect)

They all, in one way or another,explain the continuity of the cycles of light and dark. Good revelation and actions, in contrast to bad revelation and actions.

Regards Tony

Yin and yang do not have two sources, are not a cycle of good and bad as light isn't "good" and dark isn't "bad," or even oppositional. Light = Good and dark = bad dichotomy is an Abrahamic belief not shared by Shinto or Taoism or Confuscianism. Both are necessary for either to exist and never ending. Practices which use yin and yang have no utopia where dark doesn't exist, and there is no source which is all good. The source is conceptual state not a being, isn't sentient or intelligent or actively shaping things any more than gravity is, it's just a description of characteristics things in the universe have and how they change.

Constantly trying to shoehorn other faiths to be analogous to your own only does a disservice to the way people actually practice those faiths.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Indeed - I think the categories need an overhaul.

I doubt we will be doing any big sweeping changes, both because of the practical hassle of reorganizing a thread tree the size of RF and on such an old platform. The last time we did major DIR revisions it broke a bunch of forums. But also because what's revealed vs non-revealed is still a matter of debate even among experts. So if there is a perfect solution everyone would be happy with, we don't have it now. And we don't really need it to be perfect, so long as it's functional enough.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I doubt we will be doing any big sweeping changes, both because of the practical hassle of reorganizing a thread tree the size of RF and on such an old platform. The last time we did major DIR revisions it broke a bunch of forums. But also because what's revealed vs non-revealed is still a matter of debate even among experts. So if there is a perfect solution everyone would be happy with, we don't have it now. And we don't really need it to be perfect, so long as it's functional enough.

How hard would it be to change the name of the "Non-Revealed Religions" forum to "Other Non-Revealed Religions"? Is that something that an admin has access to? It wouldn't require any major overhaul and might bring a bit more accuracy to the DIR categories so it wouldn't appear that those religions under that header are the only non-revealed religions there are.

 

[Vinayaka]

I finally figured out what the debate is. First you ask people what they think, or in this case, how they categorize themselves. After they answer, you tell them they are wrong, and that starts the debate. So it would be like me trying to convince Salix that he doesn't actually live in the US, but he lives in Argentina, and it's his delusions about where he lives that only makes him think he lives in the US.