Who was Baha'u'llah?

[InvestigateTruth]

Why do you call it "fanatical"? I asked this several times... Is there any other religion in the world today that the Baha'is agree with completely and can say that their beliefs and practices are true? Usually, I hear Baha'is say that all of the other religions have been corrupted by people adding things in and by misinterpreting things. So, why wouldn't a Baha'i think that their brand new and uncorrupted teachings aren't superior to the teachings and practices of all the other religions?

It is not their brand new. It is a brand new! That is the difference between a fanatical, and a humble believer.

 

[Trailblazer]

I always hear Christians say they have God's Holy Spirit in them, and how God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit speaks to their hearts. And... I wouldn't be surprised if some Baha'is feel they can "hear", in a spiritual way, the voice of God guiding them.

I don't hear a voice but I feel like I am being guided. Of course a feeling cannot be proven.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just because there are Bahais who do not follow Bahai Faith fully or correctly, does not mean the origin of Faith is not Godley.

Godly or not Godly comes after you give evidence for existence of a God. Since you have not done so and your people say that no evidence can be given for your God or his manifestation, the question of being Godly does not even arise.

 

[danieldemol]

Just because there are Bahais who do not follow Bahai Faith fully or correctly, does not mean the origin of Faith is not Godley.

And conversely, just because there are people who do follow Baha'i faith fully or correctly, does not mean the origin of the Baha'i faith *is* God in my view.

For example if I follow road rules fully, does it mean the road rules are the divine faith of God? Then why do road rules differ from country to country, and why can we trace their origins to human governments?

Likewise with the teachings of these contradictory humans that some have elevated to being alleged "Messengers" then followed their teachings. We can trace their origins to humans and no further in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think you hit upon something important later in your posts that explains this. How I used to see it was in very externalized, concrete-literal terms. How I see things now, is highly abstract and subtle, and beyond into causal and nondual realities. It's much less in absolutist black and white terms than before. It's a great deal more fuzzy than that. More details on that later.

I'm not a literalist like some Christians are on their scripture. I see all scripture and Baha'i Writings in a symbolic way. The Baha'i Writings themselves teach this. What is important is not what is on the surface.

And that, verily, God is powerful in all things, and that the signs (or verses) have exoteric and esoteric meaning, and neither their outward preventeth their inward, nor doth their inward prevent their outward meaning.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3, p. 608)

In such utterances, the literal meaning, as generally understood by the people, is not what hath been intended. Thus it is recorded: "Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá'im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth." He also saith: "We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 254)

I definitely don't know 70 or 71 meanings for each knowledge or word! But I can see different meanings for the same passage, not just one. I don't know about abstract.

As a footnote, isn't this the person who claimed that humans did not evolve from other animal species, and we were always humans from the beginning? If so, that is a problem for a claim of an "infallible interpretation". If that is how he interpreted Bahaullah. Either he or both of them made a very fallible error.

That is just some people's interpretation of what Abdu'l-Baha said. You can't go by what some Baha'i or group of Baha'is tell you.

While I'll agree they are points of view, they are also descriptions of direct experiences, not just merely conjectures. They are trying to describe actual encounters, which happened to be the same as what I experienced. This is why I find Truth in these things. Because they reflect my own experiences.

So to repeat, they are expressing the reality of their experiences. That's different than just mere speculation. Keep that in mind.

Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments. Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration. That is to say, there are four criteria or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions. We will first consider the criterion of the senses. This is a standard still held to by the materialistic philosophers of the world. They believe that whatever is perceptible to the senses is a verity, a certainty and without doubt existent. For example, they say, "Here is a lamp which you see, and because it is perceptible to the sense of sight, you cannot doubt its existence. There is a tree; your sense of vision assures you of its reality, which is beyond question. This is a man; you see that he is a man; therefore, he exists." In a word, everything confirmed by the senses is assumed to be as undoubted and unquestioned as the product of five multiplied by five; it cannot be twenty-six nor less than twenty-five. Consequently, the materialistic philosophers consider the criterion of the senses to be first and foremost.

But in the estimation of the divine philosophers this proof and assurance is not reliable; nay, rather, they deem the standard of the senses to be false because it is imperfect. Sight, for instance, is one of the most important of the senses, yet it is subject to many aberrations and inaccuracies. The eye sees the mirage as a body of water; it regards images in the mirror as realities when they are but reflections. A man sailing upon the river imagines that objects upon the shore are moving, whereas he is in motion, and they are stationary. To the eye the earth appears fixed, while the sun and stars revolve about it. As a matter of fact, the heavenly orbs are stationary, and the earth is turning upon its axis. The colossal suns, planets and constellations which shine in the heavens appear small, nay, infinitesimal to human vision, whereas in reality they are vastly greater than the earth in dimension and volume. A whirling spark appears to the sight as a circle of fire. There are numberless instances of this kind which show the error and inaccuracy of the senses. Therefore, the divine philosophers have considered this standard of judgment to be defective and unreliable.

The second criterion is that of the intellect. The ancient philosophers in particular considered the intellect to be the most important agency of judgment. Among the wise men of Greece, Rome, Persia and Egypt the criterion of true proof was reason. They held that every matter submitted to the reasoning faculty could be proved true or false and must be accepted or rejected accordingly. But in the estimation of the people of insight this criterion is likewise defective and unreliable, for these same philosophers who held to reason or intellect as the standard of human judgment have differed widely among themselves upon every subject of investigation. The statements of the Greek philosophers are contradictory to the conclusions of the Persian sages. Even among the Greek philosophers themselves there is continual variance and lack of agreement upon any given subject. Great difference of thought also prevailed between the wise men of Greece and Rome. Therefore, if the criterion of reason or intellect constituted a correct and infallible standard of judgment, those who tested and applied it should have arrived at the same conclusions. As they differ and are contradictory in conclusions, it is an evidence that the method and standard of test must have been faulty and insufficient.

The third criterion or standard of proof is traditional or scriptural -- namely, that every statement or conclusion should be supported by traditions recorded in certain religious books. When we come to consider even the Holy Books -- the Books of God -- we are led to ask, "Who understands these books? By what authority of explanation may these Books be understood?" It must be the authority of human reason, and if reason or intellect finds itself incapable of explaining certain questions, or if the possessors of intellect contradict each other in the interpretation of traditions, how can such a criterion be relied upon for accurate conclusions?

The fourth standard is that of inspiration. In past centuries many philosophers have claimed illumination or revelation, prefacing their statements by the announcement that "this subject has been revealed through me" or "thus do I speak by inspiration." Of this class were the philosophers of the Illuminati. Inspirations are the promptings or susceptibilities of the human heart. The promptings of the heart are sometimes satanic. How are we to differentiate them? How are we to tell whether a given statement is an inspiration and prompting of the heart through the merciful assistance or through the satanic agency?

Consequently, it has become evident that the four criteria or standards of judgment by which the human mind reaches its conclusions are faulty and inaccurate. All of them are liable to mistake and error in conclusions. But a statement presented to the mind accompanied by proofs which the senses can perceive to be correct, which the faculty of reason can accept, which is in accord with traditional authority and sanctioned by the promptings of the heart, can be adjudged and relied upon as perfectly correct, for it has been proved and tested by all the standards of judgment and found to be complete. When we apply but one test, there are possibilities of mistake. This is self-evident and manifest.
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 252)

You can't go by just experience that can be faulty, you have use other criteria also to get a good approximation of the truth. The experience can be misinterpreted.

My egoic self is certainly not God. But God is within me. As God is within you. If you remove the ego, then what is left? I think the answer is "God". "I live, and yet not I, but Christ", says Paul.

We experience God within us, but how is that to be interpreted? I have to not only just rely on how I interpret my experiences but also test it against my understanding of the Word of God, which is of course fallible also. I just do the best I can.

Anyway, I do believe you have had experiences that you understand in a certain way, and I've had mine, which may not be as highly spiritual as yours, I don't know, but I don't find my spiritual experiences to be incompatible with the Baha'i Writings, and I interpret then according to my understanding of those Writings, which I will not apologize for. My interpretation at any time can change, and my experiences evolve over time.
Truthseeker said:
The outer being must reflect their inner being.

I teach this all the time. Jesus said, "Make clean the inside of the cup first, then the outside will be made clean". But this is a process, I should note.

Yes, that could be a criteria that Abdu'l-Baha didn't mention at the time. The experience should lead to good actions.

 

[Truthseeker]

I touched on this last night but will repeat it here. I do not see these as "concepts that people came up with". No. Rather they are descriptions of actual realizations through actual experience. This is what mysticism is. It's not theological or metaphysical or fanciful speculations about something that the imaginations comes up with (which can have some value). Mysticism rather is about actual data gathering research. It is about exploration. It is about direct experiential encounters.

You also have to interpret what these experiences mean, what reality they indicate. I won't accept an interpretation of my experience that is incompatible with my own reason striving to understand the Writings. I don't think my spiritual experiences have contradicted how I understand the Writings, and I have to go by my own experiences.

That's the problem with claiming infallible sources. It's like these fundamentalists who escape any self-responsibility and agency and make grandiose claims, "It's not my words, but God's words!". That is utter nonsense and a self-delusion. It's hiding inside of a box, not stepping out and dancing free under the the light of the sun.

Well, I agree with that. Often they just take the surface meaning and don't dig down to further meanings. It also needs to be tested by reason, by inspiration, by spiritual experiences if you will.

And yet the Buddha himself said everyone can become a Buddha. Everyone Can Become a Buddha.

It depends on whose Buddhist scriptures you are talking about. There are so many things attributed to Buddha He could not have said them all! I know there are scriptures where Buddha said that anyone can become a Buddha. What He said was not written down for centuries, and they say memorized all that time. How do we even know when someone is recounting something passed down by memorization, or when someone made that up along the way!

But what we can "get rid of" or what we can "overcome" is that we no longer self-identify with that egoic-self, as the ultimate reality of who and what we are. This is what it means to "die to yourself" and live in the Spirit. When we realize "I have a body, but I am not my body. I have an ego, but I am not my ego", then we begin to be able to transcend that view of ourselves into something higher or greater than the egoic self. We become liberated from its chains it holds upon us.

This all depends on beliefs. We can get and closer to that but I doubt we get there. It's possible that I'm understanding this wrong myself! My stand on this depends on my understanding of the Baha'i Writings, which could be wrong.

It didn't take as long this time to answer you, not so exhausting. I hope this doesn't go on forever. I don't know if we're done yet. I hope these get shorter and shorter if we're not done.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There are so many things attributed to Buddha He could not have said them all!

Lol. Y’all talk all the time about how your dude wrote countless texts.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not a literalist like some Christians are on their scripture. I see all scripture and Baha'i Writings in a symbolic way. The Baha'i Writings themselves teach this. What is important is not what is on the surface.

If it is symbolic in nature, then why are you in a couple moments insisting upon materialistic proofs? That is mistaking symbolisms as concrete-literal objects. It is mistaking fingers pointing to the moon, as the moon itself.

I definitely don't know 70 or 71 meanings for each knowledge or word! But I can see different meanings for the same passage, not just one.

This underscores my argument from the outset that while someone may claim their source in infallible and inerrant, there are as many different ways to interpret the meaning of those words as there are people. Therefore, claims of infallible sources becoming meaningless, when it's one person screaming, "This is what he said!" ignoring the fact that it is his own interpretation he is actually argument for as being what is infallibly understood. "It's not my words, but God's!". That is a fallacy.

I don't know about abstract.

It means that a symbol is representative of an abstract idea or concept that is hard to codify and put into concrete-literal terms. If the Divine is truly Ineffable, which it is, then that means anything you have to say about it is going to be of necessity abstract. Ideas about it are by default going to be nebulous and vague, even though there is a very real and tangible referent, apprehended through experience.

That is just some people's interpretation of what Abdu'l-Baha said. You can't go by what some Baha'i or group of Baha'is tell you.

No, those were his exact words quoted to me by the other poster. Just as most every Baha'i I have ever seen includes exact quotations, I recall reading those very words from the source itself, not what that poster thought he said.

But just to add here, what was said was not about some transcendent metaphysical concept which opens itself to multiple interpretations, but a statement of fact about the scientific reality about the origin of the human species. There's a difference in citing your source material to show that they were just plain wrong on that account. But perhaps memory doesn't serve me correctly, and you can find his quotes on that very subject itself to look at again?

Every subject presented to a thoughtful audience must be supported by rational proofs and logical arguments.

Says who? We are not talking about science here. If I were to stand before and audience and speak about my views of the Divine, I'm not going to be able to offer proofs of these. However, if pressed, I certainly could explain the basis behind the formations of my ideas, rooted and grounded in firstly experience, then attempt to explain the logical, or mental frameworks that I use to support the ways I attempt to talk about that experience. I could offer concepts of others, that support that same view, and so on and so forth.

Proofs are of four kinds: first, through sense perception; second, through the reasoning faculty; third, from traditional or scriptural authority; fourth, through the medium of inspiration.

Not really. This is a very limited, and not very accurate depictions of how we has humans gain knowledge. First of all, these are not really "proofs", but simply modes of knowing. What he calls "proofs", are really more simply 'supports', for a hypothesis. They are not proofs, in the sense that they can be affirmed objectively by any dispassionate 3rd party.

In reality there are three basic modes of knowing: sensory (which he is correct about above); mental (which he calls the reasoning faculty above); and spiritual (which he maybe, possibly is alluding to in what he calls "inspiration", but I don't think that's how he means it).

When it comes to knowing about the material world, we firstly use the sensory mode. This is simply sensorimotor cognition, or "the eye of flesh". Then we use the mental mode which is the conceptual domain of thoughts of ideas and language. This is "the eye of mind". Then there is the "eye of spirit" which the immediate intuition of the transcendent, which goes beyond the domain of reason and the mind experience, and beyond the domain of the sensorimotor experience.

This then can be broken out further into 5 modes, or directions of knowing: Putting them in reverse order from the bottom to the top, 5) flesh to flesh; 4) mind to flesh; 3) mind to mind; 2) mind to spirit; 1) spirit to spirit.

If we use any of our five (or more) basic senses to experience something directly and our bodies respond to, say the taste of something, that is mode 5 above, or flesh to flesh. If we then think about and consider that experience, that is mode 4 or mind to flesh. If we think about our thinking, or we consider the thoughts and ideas of others, that is mode 3, or mind to mind. If we think about spiritual senses and experiences of the spirit, that is mode 2 or mind to spirit. If we have direct meditative experience of the spiritual with our spirit, that is mode 1, or spirit to spirit up at the top.

So taking what he just said above, let's fit those into this more accurate model I presented. His 'sense perception' would be mode 5, or the eye of flesh to flesh. His reasoning facility would be either modes 4, 3, or 2,, the eye of mind, depending upon what the mind was thinking about and attempting to analyze. His 3rd or tradition or scriptural authority, would be still be the "eye of mind", in a "mind to mind" or mode 3 type of knowing of "proof" as he calls it. His 4th or the 'medium of inspiration', would again still be the eye of mind, thinking about spiritual truths, or mode 4.

In summary, pretty much all his "proofs" are the mental mode of knowing. It is trying to "reason" God, or spirit. The focus is not on letting the Spirit speak to spirit, or mode 1 knowing. It is all a rationalized approach to the spiritual. It is the difference between thinking about God, verus knowing God.

He is not correct in saying that when you speak to others you must offer reasoning proofs. You can, and should speak from the heart, from the spirit, to the spirit. Or at best, from the spirit to the mind to the body. The 'proofs' of the divine do not come from the mind, but from the soul or spirit itself.

​

"The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit we are the children of God". Ro. 8:16​

That's the true proof, beyond the reasoning mind.

 

[Windwalker]

You also have to interpret what these experiences mean, what reality they indicate. I won't accept an interpretation of my experience that is incompatible with my own reason striving to understand the Writings.

Well, there you go then. Exactly why I find fault with it. It limits understanding to church dogma. This far, and no farther. Only what the authority tells you is the limit.

Where does true growth come in? Where does liberty come in? Where does true understanding come in? If it's only what someone outside of yourself tells you, then you have given all of your agency, your freedom, your individuality over to an external authority. There is no participation, no integration. No actual becoming. There is only conformity to an external authority.

I do not for one minute accept that as the ultimate spiritual goal for any human being. Yes, listen to teachers. Listen to authorities. But you must, be able to question to grown. Otherwise, you are only a good soldier following orders. For many, they are comfortable with that. "Just tell me what to believe, sir!" But that then defines the limits of where they can grow to. I see spirituality being far more than that. That's the basic orientation. But the goal is to Awaken. Not to simply being a student.

I don't think my spiritual experiences have contradicted how I understand the Writings, and I have to go by my own experiences.

I would say this, that if you were to have experiences that challenge your beliefs, which are to say the least a good, positive and expected thing!, the that is where true growth begins to happen. Doubt is the handmaiden of Faith. It works in service of faith, to move us forward beyond being stuck in our world of comfortable beliefs, the familiar where we believe we find security.

Faith on the other hand, rests in the Unknown. It climbs upward on the currents of doubt, taking us beyond the limits of our beliefs.

Well, I agree with that. Often they just take the surface meaning and don't dig down to further meanings. It also needs to be tested by reason, by inspiration, by spiritual experiences if you will.

You just contradicted what you said above. If your spiritual experiences tests your beliefs, you should re-examine your beliefs, not dismiss your experience because it conflicts with your beliefs, as you suggested above. You said it right this time, perhaps unintentionally.

It depends on whose Buddhist scriptures you are talking about. There are so many things attributed to Buddha He could not have said them all! I know there are scriptures where Buddha said that anyone can become a Buddha.

It is not just Buddhism that teaches this, it is also Hinduism. It is also found in Christian mysticism. You see, here is the problem I am hearing with the Baha'i faith. You are calling into question the validity of these things, because they contradict your "authority". This is why the whole system of prophets and infallible messengers, is problematic for me. What you are doing with it right here.

This is why I find fault in the claim this as universal religion that embraces all other religions. These are, as I've said and still maintain, the mystical core of these major religions. The ultimate Goal, is liberation and unity with the Divine, or 'salvation', or moksha, or enlightenment. But yet, you are disqualifying that and replacing it with a top-down system of religious authorities who get to "correct" all of that, while not actually even understanding what it is.

What He said was not written down for centuries, and they say memorized all that time. How do we even know when someone is recounting something passed down by memorization, or when someone made that up along the way!

So what? Again, I don't see this idea of infallible absolutistic authorities to be the point of a spiritual path at all. At best, they are guides, teachers of Wisdom and the Way. But not like the Inquisition, which routes out all heresy and declares with absolute authority from the Papal Throne, what is approved doctrine or not. That is a system of religious control, not teachers pointing the way for followers to realize the Transcendent.

This all depends on beliefs. We can get and closer to that but I doubt we get there.

Then by all means, test your doubt and let go off all your ideas about God, sit quietly in meditation, open yourself to the Divine, and see what happens.

Here is a fantastic prayer from the Christian mystic Meister Ekhart that is the peak of full surrender to the Divine. This is why beliefs as well, must be surrendered. Because are we encountering God, or are we simply encountering our beliefs and ideas about God, our mental view of God, the "eye of mind", instead of the "eye of spirit", as I touched on in my previous post? Meditate on this:

"I pray God, make me free of God, that I may know God in his Unconditioned Being". ​

And again,

"The eye through with I see God is the same eye through which God sees me; my eye and God's eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing, one love"​

This is what it means to transcend the ego, transcending our ideas about this and that that we hold onto for security. This is how it is experienced when we do let go. This is a real experience that I have had, and others do as well. "I live, and yet not I, but Christ". Buddhamind, Enlightenment, Mosha, Unity Consciousness.

These are all real things. If you believe these are only for your prophets, than either you are wrong, they are wrong, or I am a prophet. But I do not consider myself one, so that leaves the former two as the more valid possibilities.

It's possible that I'm understanding this wrong myself! My stand on this depends on my understanding of the Baha'i Writings, which could be wrong.

This is wise.

 

[CG Didymus]

We experience God within us, but how is that to be interpreted? I have to not only just rely on how I interpret my experiences but also test it against my understanding of the Word of God

To me, people experience and interpret those things like God speaking to them or guiding them by what they belief. A Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pentecostal Christian vs. a Fundamentalist Christian etc will all be different but will conform to what their religious beliefs teach them. Like some Native Americans fasted and prayed until they had a vision. A spirit animal might come to them in a vision or a dream. But it is what they expected to happen. A spirit animal probably wouldn't appear to a Catholic Christian, but Mary might. Just like some Baha'is have a vision of Abdul Baha. Is any of it real? Could be, but it's all different. So, could it be just their imaginations or maybe even there is a spirit world, but that spirit world is made up of all these things? But, then again, maybe those spirit worlds are only in our imagination.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is not just Buddhism that teaches this, it is also Hinduism. It is also found in Christian mysticism. You see, here is the problem I am hearing with the Baha'i faith. You are calling into question the validity of these things, because they contradict your "authority". This is why the whole system of prophets and infallible messengers, is problematic for me. What you are doing with it right here.

That's a problem for me too. The Baha'is Faith is "one" with all religions and compliments the teachings of all religions as long as we go by what the Baha'i Faith tells us what those true beliefs and teachings in those other religions really are.

 

[Windwalker]

That's a problem for me too. The Baha'is Faith is "one" with all religions and compliments the teachings of all religions as long as we go by what the Baha'i Faith tells us what those true beliefs and teachings in those other religions really are.

And what makes that even more problematic, is that they don't understand what those teachings and beliefs truly are. For instance, the mystical realization that "we are God", is misunderstood as claiming the ego is "equal to God", as if it were "a god".

It has no grasp of the concept of nonduality. While this is fine, as not a lot of people who are strictly dualistic understand that either. There are plenty of dualistic religions out there. But to say that this is the latest and greatest, while ignoring and lacking any knowledge of nondual schools of thought, and assuming they must be in error, this is clearly wrong. The most advanced religions are the nondualist ones, such as Advaita Vedanta, as well as Tibetan Buddhism.

These are not merely speculative theological thought, they are full out discipline practice in order to realize this nondual oneness. It is a verifiable realization that anyone can perform for themselves, if they are willing to follow the injunctions and do the practices. Then there are others who have these types of experiences spontaneously, which category I fell into.

These are well-researched, repeatable, "provable" in that sense experiences. And to simply ignore these without any due consideration at all, does not speak well for any religion claiming to embrace all the religions and consider themselves the latest, most up to date version of religion with the truer and surer light. That simply rings hollow. But I could be proven wrong.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

But what we can "get rid of" or what we can "overcome" is that we no longer self-identify with that egoic-self, as the ultimate reality of who and what we are. This is what it means to "die to yourself" and live in the Spirit. When we realize "I have a body, but I am not my body. I have an ego, but I am not my ego", then we begin to be able to transcend that view of ourselves into something higher or greater than the egoic self. We become liberated from its chains it holds upon us.

I’m with you on de-identifying with the “egoic-self” and identifying with the spirit of Christ. Except you take a major step after that in de-identifying with the body, which makes sense because that is the only way you can escape the egoic-self since it is lord of the body.

By doing so, you are conceding the body. That is not the endgame. We are to make the spirit of Christ lord of our body, so I would encourage you to reconsider de-identifying from your body with phrases like “I am not my body.”

The self is split between the egoic-self and the self that identifies with Christ. You have “come to Christ” by identifying with the latter. Your egoic-self must do the same.

The idea is that we re-identify with the egoic-self and lead it down the path Christ has prepared. Nobody gets left behind - all become one in the body with Christ as lord.

 

[Windwalker]

I’m with you on de-identifying with the “egoic-self” and identifying with the spirit of Christ. Except you take a major step after that in de-identifying with the body, which makes sense because that is the only way you can escape the egoic-self since it is lord of the body.

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. What I am talking about is not disowning of denying that you have an ego, or that you have a body. Unlike what some people gravely misunderstand you cannot "get rid of" the ego, anymore than you can get rid of your body and still be alive in this world.

What I said, is "I have a body, but I am not that body. I have an ego, but I am not my ego". The point of this is how we self-identify, what the center of gravity is in our self-awareness. For instance, a young child when asked to tell us who they are will typically point to their body and say "This is me". When you ask an older teen to tell us who they are, they will talk about their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their friends, and the like.

What this is showing is that there is a shift in development from a child whose center of self-identification is their bodies. As we get older, that center of self-identification shifts to our ego.

Spiritual development will take someone beyond that egoic self-identification to a larger, or transcendent spiritual reality. So while I may still have an ego, just like I still have a body, I do not see that who I am is limited to those. I am still me, in my ego and in my body, but I am more than that.

Put another way, we are not humans on a spiritual journey. We are Spirit on a human journey. When we begin to see ourselves like this, then we can say, I have a body, but I am not the body. I am spirit with a body. And so forth.

By doing so, you are conceding the body. That is not the endgame. We are to make the spirit of Christ lord of our body, so I would encourage you to reconsider de-identifying from your body with phrases like “I am not my body.”

While I am not separate from the eternal, I also have a unique form distinct from yours. Even though we are One, we are also Many. This is what nonduality is.

The self is split between the egoic-self and the self that identifies with Christ. You have “come to Christ” by identifying with the latter. Your egoic-self must do the same.

This is what I mean by I have an ego, but I am not my ego, or I am not ruled by an exclusive egoic identification and the center of gravity of my life.

The idea is that we re-identify with the egoic-self and lead it down the path Christ has prepared. Nobody gets left behind - all become one in the body with Christ as lord.

I don't think we're saying too much differently here, but it's difficult to put this paradox into words. I would say that the egoic self is illuminated by the Self. In this sense, we "walk in the Spirit". There is the finite walking in the Garden with the Lord, so to speak drawing off that metaphor.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying. What I am talking about is not disowning of denying that you have an ego, or that you have a body. Unlike what some people gravely misunderstand you cannot "get rid of" the ego, anymore than you can get rid of your body and still be alive in this world.

What I said, is "I have a body, but I am not that body. I have an ego, but I am not my ego". The point of this is how we self-identify, what the center of gravity is in our self-awareness. For instance, a young child when asked to tell us who they are will typically point to their body and say "This is me". When you ask an older teen to tell us who they are, they will talk about their personalities, their likes and dislikes, their friends, and the like.

What this is showing is that there is a shift in development from a child whose center of self-identification is their bodies. As we get older, that center of self-identification shifts to our ego.

Spiritual development will take someone beyond that egoic self-identification to a larger, or transcendent spiritual reality. So while I may still have an ego, just like I still have a body, I do not see that who I am is limited to those. I am still me, in my ego and in my body, but I am more than that.

Put another way, we are not humans on a spiritual journey. We are Spirit on a human journey. When we begin to see ourselves like this, then we can say, I have a body, but I am not the body. I am spirit with a body. And so forth.


While I am not separate from the eternal, I also have a unique form distinct from yours. Even though we are One, we are also Many. This is what nonduality is.

This is what I mean by I have an ego, but I am not my ego, or I am not ruled by an exclusive egoic identification and the center of gravity of my life.

I don't think we're saying too much differently here, but it's difficult to put this paradox into words. I would say that the egoic self is illuminated by the Self. In this sense, we "walk in the Spirit". There is the finite walking in the Garden with the Lord, so to speak drawing off that metaphor.

I do understand what you’re saying. Let me ask you this: do you feel like you occupy a sort of transcendent space? Like you are not “of the world” compared to other people or how you used to be?

Do you feel sort of detached or flat emotionally? I understand you had a profound spiritual experience, and you still hold a deeper self-understanding, but would you say the felt sense of that experience has pretty much faded?

 

[Windwalker]

I do understand what you’re saying. Let me ask you this: do you feel like you occupy a sort of transcendent space? Like you are not “of the world” compared to other people or how you used to be?

Good questions. I'll see if I can try to explain it with any clarity. I wouldn't per se refer to it as a transcendent "space". I see the transcendent more in terms of an Atmosphere, in which we "live and move and have our being". Typical egoic living, living inside my head, in my thoughts and ideas about myself and reality, is generally unaware of that Presence, or Atmosphere.

When I am consumed and focused on reality as the content of this "thought world", as I call it, with all its concerns and anxieties and forms of distractions, then I experience a disconnect with that Presence of the Transcendent. When I redirect my gaze, so to speak, or am not allowing myself to be consumed with the "cares this world" in the sense of my primary focus in 'thought world', then I am much more aware or awakened to that Atmosphere, or that Transcendent.

In that state or condition of being, I become much more in fact in this world, in the sense of truly connected and grounded to and with Reality. It is that thought-world that is the unreality, or the mental construct of reality that we mistake as Reality. At the same time though, I am able to recognize that those that are, to use that biblical metaphor "in the world", are in fact simply doing what we all do who are unaware of that transcendent Atmosphere in which we "live and move and have our being".

Being "in the world" in that sense really means that world system, or modes of perceptions of reality being caught up in them and interacting with them, like gerbilles living in their constructed habitrail worlds, unaware of the greater reality beyond the constructs that define their world for them.

Here's the thing about nonduality though. Is I can, and should be able to navigate that human habitrail world, without loosing sight that it is a constructed, ultimately non-reality. "You are in the world, but not of the world", I feel captures the meaning of these. To live successfully in the world, we need a foot in both worlds.

We have to be grounded to the earth as living human beings, yet drawing our energies from "above", or from that Transcendent Reality that is in all that exists. It is that Source, that we have to be Aware of, and draw from, in order to not lose ourselves in the illusion of our constructed thought-world.

Do you feel sort of detached or flat emotionally?

No. That can be and is a stage one goes through in letting go of the illusion of thought-world, or the mental construct of reality as reality. It is sort of a no-man's land. But I think it's better understood as "neutral", rather than flat. Being flat emotionally generally indicates apathy, or a loss of energy.

But where I am increasingly moving into is joyful living, where there is genuine authentic emotional responses to Reality, as opposed to the ups and downs emotions of the egoically constructed reality of emotional attachments to those objects of desire, be those material or relational.

The better term also that "detachment", is non-attachment. The former suggest being dead or disconnected. The latter is more neutral, where the emotions are more just quite, being reserved without attachments. There is difference.

I understand you had a profound spiritual experience, and you still hold a deeper self-understanding, but would you say the felt sense of that experience has pretty much faded?

Again, a very good question. From my first experience of that Oneness many decades ago until now, there was at first a fading of that back into where I was previously as my main mode of being. However, the impact of that experience had forever changed my perception of Reality and Truth. It had then set me in the direction to attempt to find my way Home to return to that and experience once again total Liberation and Joy unspeakable.

Fast forward though my journey into religion trying to find guidance on that path of return, then out of religion as it failed that goal for me, through many trials and errors, through many ego projects to find that Peace again, to discovering the practice of meditation. Once I started a meditation practice, that doorway was immediately opened again, and since that, through long series of removing obstacle after obstacle from within, letting go, relaxing, surrendering, and so forth, I am very much more touching into that ever Present Reality, both in the world and in myself.

The fact that initial Satori or Awakening experience had happened spontaneously, it was both a massive blessing which literally save me from a collapsing darkness, and a challenge in that I had wanted everything to instantly go back there again as it had initially. That I have now, decades later come to recognize was my ego avoiding truly coming to terms with those things that I was and have been attached to as an avoidance of full release.

So today, it is the same as before, but simply different degrees of that same Light. It progresses. Perhaps it is better understood as Kensho.

 

[Muffled]

Baha'u'llah revealed the word of God just as much as Jesus did. Imo.

I believe that reveals you don't know much about the Bible and that you do not know god personally.

 

[Muffled]

OP: You have not given all the possibilities. Do Bahais consider Bahaollah as the return of Jesus? As far as know, they consider Bab to be that.
However, you have not included one possibility that Bahaollah was a scamster who fooled some Iranians in believing that he was a 'manifestation' of Allah, and his three generations (son and great-grandson) had to do no work and live in luxury with the funds provided by his followers. He was a dynastic messenger. I would have said yes to that.

I believe he was sincere and not necessarily deluded but certainly his understanding of things does not come from God.

 

[Muffled]

That is so important. Some religions seem to expect their followers to never doubt and to never question the beliefs of their religion. So, automatically, if the beliefs of another person in another religion contradicts theirs, the other person is the one that is wrong. The Baha'is are kind of like that, so how can there really be any true respect and understanding and acceptance of the beliefs of the other person? I don't think there can. They have to feel their beliefs are superior.

I believe I could see that if he were really God but he isn't. However it would be true of Jesus because He is God. So any other claims of speaking for God have to pass the test of what Jesus says.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that reveals you don't know much about the Bible and that you do not know god personally.

I believe that reveals I know much about the Bible.
I don't know God personally. Nobody does.