Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Baha'u'llah revealed the word of God just as much as Jesus did. Imo.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who was Baha'u'llah?
- Thread starter InvestigateTruth
- Start date
And this is exactly what I said at the outset. You cannot accept what I am saying because to do so would not fit within your beliefs. You have only two choices, reconsider your understanding, or double-down and accuse me of being delusional about my own experience in order to preserve your beliefs.
And why can we not experience the Infinite as a finite being? Can a fish experience the ocean, while being a fish? As I said to the other poster, if God is Infinite, then that means there is nowhere that God doesn't exist. That includes both surrounding you and inside of you. So you can experience God within you and around you.
Don't think that I am saying I grasped or comprehended the Infinite. Hardly. There is nothing in what you quoted that denies what I said. Truly, it is utterly incomprehensible. I instantly can and do say this. But that I touched it, is not to be denied. One cannot comprehend or fathom the Divine with the mind, but you certainly can apprehend it, to taste it, to swim within it, to experience it holding you in its incomprehensible arms. An infant cannot comprehend its mother, but it certainly can experience her.
What I experienced was timeless, eternal, and infinite, beyond all shadow of any doubt. But it was only a sliver of infinity, within an infinity of infinities, but itself was infinite. Beyond comprehension. Beyond fathoming, being overwhelmingly infinite in but the smallest touch of it. Buddhists refer to this as Emptiness. Hindus refer to this as Nirguna Brahman. Christians refer to this as Godhead, I refer to it as Reality, or Source, or Ground of all being.
It is impossible to put it into words. This is why it is called the Ineffable.
I don't know if it goes against Baha'i belief or not. There are some Christians who think it goes against Christian beliefs, but that is due to their misunderstanding the nature of mystical union with Christ. The same probably applies to Baha'is as well. There are those who understand it, and those who don't get it. But I can't say for sure. I can however speak with a fair depth of knowledge of Christian beliefs and practices.
But briefly, there is no such thing as being "equal" to Christ, or equal to God. You are thinking of the human ego, claiming equality with God. Nothing could be further from the truth or reality of it. Take what the Apostle Paul said as an example. "I live, and yet not I, but Christ in me". In other words, Paul is a vessel for the Christ, not an equal to the Christ. It is Christ in him, that is that very nature of the Divine itself that lives, not Paul's egoic self.
I want to add something here that occurred to me. Baha'is claim that their religion embraces all religions and is the fulfillment of them. Yet, if what you are saying is true, you are rejecting all the mystic traditions of all the great religions of the world. You certainly have to deny Hinduism and its teaching of the Atman, or the true Self, which is the recognition of our true nature a Brahman, or "God". You have to reject Christian mysticism, which recognizing our true nature as "Christ consciousness", or Oneness with the Divine. You have to reject Buddhism whose primary goal is to realize Buddha Mind, or the true nature of who and what we are once the ego is let go of.
All of these are the core teachings of these major religions. And yet you say they are all wrong, while claiming to embrace them? Can you explain this?
And again, Bahai's are failing to recognize the mystical heart of the great world religions. "Peter cannot become Christ" is true in the sense that our egoic self cannot be God. BUT, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. ", (Gal. 2:20) This is Atman. This is Buddha Mind. This is Christ consciousness. The ego has been surrendered, and the true Self, which is the Divine, is allowed to live in me.
This is the core mystical teachings of all religions, except maybe not Baha'is? I wouldn't know. But you did say you couldn't get far in the mystical texts because you're too analytical, so maybe it's you who simply doesn't understand, the same as many Christians who don't get it either? I suspect that is probably the case.
That's up to you. Depends how willing you are to try to understand what all the world's religions are teaching about mystic union with the Divine. If you're unwilling to consider them as potentially true, or that perhaps you don't understand something in your own religion, which is possible, then we are only at an impasse because you have stopped being willing to look at it.
Last edited:
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Oh, no! I didn't see your correction until now. What will @Windwalker think?Did you mean to say:
That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can't be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.
Sorry I keep catching your typos.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I think he understood what you meant to say but I'd get over there and do damage control just in case.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Why do I have to reconsider my beliefs? You cannot accept that people have faith in a Manifestation after investigating if He was one, which is what I did. That is a gulf between you and me. Your arguments are not persuasive to me. I have been studying the Baha'i Writings for over 50 years and I have reason to believe in Him and not you. You are just a regular human being, just like me.
What you experiencing are the attributes of God, not the essence of God. The attributes of God are best embodied in the Manifestation of God. We can best know God through that Manifestation of God. We can also see the attributes of God in fellow human beings, but only the Manifestation is the perfect reflection of those attributes. There is a mysterious exception to this, Abdu'l-Baha, who is not a Manifestation but was created as a perfect reflection of God's attributes He did not evolve to become perfect, He was created as a perfect reflection, I believe, but perhaps cannot prove to other Baha'is. No one can evolve to reflect perfectly the attributes of God, he has to be created that way.
The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 114)
Can you say definitively say that you are not experiencing the attributes of God, and experiencing the essence of God instead? We cannot comprehend the attributes of God, either, as explicated by Baha'u'llah, or experienced within ourselves.
The text I quoted in the previous post was not really the appropriate one, I now realize. It didn't advance the discussion in the right way. That quote did not get to the heart of what I am saying now. Sorry for an inappropriate quote.
Last edited:
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
The quote at the end where Abdu'l-Baha said "For example, Peter cannot become Christ" is meant to show there is a solid basis for believing that for us. That is not the only text that indicates that. There are plenty of others that are perhaps more clear about that. I now see that the statement "Peter cannot become Christ" may not necessarily be interpreted as saying that, that it could be construed differently. In essence, a Manifestation is a higher order of creation than us. That is clear in the Baha'i Writings.
Yes, it's true that we don't believe that Atman is part of the essence of God. You are just describing a dominant thread in Hinduism. Definitely the Atman or soul reflects potentially all of the attributes of God, but not the essence. The universe is a reflection of God's attributes, but is not part of God.
No, we don't, not at all. We don't hold with the school of Buddhism what says we can evolve to become Buddha, the Mahayana however. Buddhahood is someone that is impossible to reach, though we can evolve closer and closer to reflecting the Buddha nature. We can't evolve into perfect beings.
We say that some followers are not correct in their understanding. There is a difference between was is taught and what is believed. Baha'is are no exception to this, but a lot has been revealed that makes some things clear to us. That is part of progressive revelation, more and more is revealed over time. This does not make Baha'u'llah superior to previous Prophets or Manifestations our Writings clearly say. Each says what is appropriate at the time when and where they appear as prescribed by God. Unfortunately, this has ben seen as "appropriating" these other religions. No, ideally, we are not imposing this understanding that we have on people of other religions. We are supposed to share our understandings, not impose them on others. This is just how we see things.
I just have a different point of view than you do. No need to have hard feelings if we discuss this in the right way. I have failed to do that sometimes with you.
Actually, the way you worded it originally was correct. I understood your meaning. Here's how you originally stated it. "That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.". In other words what goes against Baha'i belief is that we can be equal to Christ".
By adding "cannot" in the sentence, that makes it a double-negative, which makes it a positive. So inserting that into the sentence thusly, "That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop," would mean it goes against the belief that we can't be equal. Therefore the positive belief would be that we can be equal.
I think she made you overthink what you had originally stated correctly.
What I said is that you, or anyone when they are confronted with views that challenge one's beliefs, is to either reexamine how they are holding their beliefs, or double-down and refuse to accept anything presented that challenges their views.
This is as true for me as it is for you. Hence why I remarked that your choice with me, is either to reconsider your ideas about your beliefs, or double-down and be forced to say what I claim is wrong, or delusional. And the fact I have never shared what that experience was with you, but only referenced my impressions of it, and you are dismissing it out of hand without any actual knowledge of what it was, is to indicate to me the latter option.
Think of this principle in terms of Creationists who deny, or distort, or refuse to acknowledge the science supporting the Theory of Evolution. This is not because the data is false, or weak, or questionable. It's because it doesn't comport with their specific ways they interpret the book of Genesis. It is not because of the science, but because it forces them to reexamine the way they hold their beliefs.
That's all I am saying. You don't "have to" change your views. But the end result of that more often than not is a burying of one's head in the sands of faith in order to protect one's beliefs from a legitimate challenge. For me personally, I could only deny the evidence to protect my beliefs for so long, until I took the challenge and reconsidering my thinking. The result ultimately was to grow and deepen my faith. This applies to any aspect of our lives about anything and everything.
I can accept that that is the way some people approach their faith because that is what works for them. However, where there becomes an issue with it is when they start invalidating other people's beliefs or personal experiences because they don't align with the structures of their belief system. That's no longer spiritually beneficial for them. That's denying evidences that challenge beliefs. That's placing beliefs ahead of faith and Truth.
I speak this from a place of experience with this relationship between beliefs and faith and truth. Everything I am saying is from personal experience.
I actually don't see that gulf, as I understand pretty much where you are coming from because I have experience believing basically the same ways, except in a different religious system, Christianity to be specific. The gulf that exists is not between my experiences and yours, but between yours and mine. What I say is foreign to you. What you say is not foreign to me.
The length of time doesn't mean much. Have your views ever evolved or changed in any radical way during that time? That to me says much more about insights, than simply sticking with one thing forever.
How is it that you feel qualified to tell me what I experienced or didn't experience? I think you are making my point. You have to try to fit it within how you believe things to be, even when I can tell you something different from direct firsthand experience.
How is it you assume I don't understand my own experience? Are you speaking from a place of similar experience? I believe you tried to say this before, but I shown how that was not true. And now you are telling me it can't be what I claim, because it doesn't comport with your understandings.
But to address this distinction you are making between the attributes of God and the essence of God, to help illuminate your understanding on this, I have a bit I can speak to about this.
I'll begin by referring to the teachings of from Hinduism, from what I understand of Advaita Vedanta. Brahman is considered to be the unqualified substance of all reality. It is the Source. It is the Essence of all that is. Now Brahman can be viewed or understood as Nirguna Brahman, or "God without qualities or attributes", or Saguna Brahman, or "God with qualities or attributes". This is not two different "essences", or one being "essence" and the other being "attributes". These are purely different ways in which God or Brahman is experienced or perceived.
God with attributes, is "Sat-chit-ananda", or "Being-consciousness-bliss". In Christian parlance, this comports with "God is Spirit" (John 4:24), "God is Light" (1 John 1:5), and "God is Love" (1 John 4:8). (You will note on my profile I list my religion as "Love, Light, and Life"? This is in reference to these statements by John).
Now while these are attributes of God, they are not "reflections". They are the essence and being of God manifesting itself. This was my direct experience. It was Infinite Love. Infinite Light. Infinite Being. Infinite Power. Infinite Grace. Infinite Knowledge, and so forth. These are all attributes of the Infinite formless itself. The essence of the Formless is fully present and fully expressed in these attributes.
Then there is the Formless, Infinite without attributes, or "Nirguna Brahman". What you want to make different or greater than Saguna Brahman, or God with attributes. I experienced that as well. There was just pure Emptiness, as the Buddhists teach as the core of their religion, particularly in Mahayana and Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhist branches. In that, time did not exist. It was eternal, Infinite, and Formless. I use the terms in my faltered language, "an infinity of infinities, which were infinity within infinity" forever and ever. It is That which underlies and supports all that exists, and from which all that exists arises from and returns to.
So even if you wish to make a distinction between the two, I experienced both. And I can tell you from that experience, they were and are the same Essence. You could say it was perceived as both Stillness, and Motion. "Without attributes": the Formless, Stillness, Emptiness. 'With attributes": Infinite Love, Light, and Life.
This can also be related to Taoism: Wuji (the formeless Stillness as Source), Taiji (Tai Chi), the formless manifested in the perfect balance of opposites (God with attributes), and Ying Yang, or Tai Chi in motion, or the manifest world of creation.
These are all ways to talk about the selfsame mystical realization of saints and sages the world over. These are the core teachings of all of these religions. And you say they are wrong? Are you sure you feel justified with that view? I see a major shortcoming here on your part. Perhaps you just don't understand something about your religion, if it's really dismissing the core philosophies of all these major religions?
I would disagree with this. I certain can value that Enlightened sages can illuminate the path for others to follow, and manifest the Divine through there beings as Light to the world. No doubt.
However, the goal of any valid Divine teacher should be to help his disciples to realize Enlightenment themselves! Not just simply forever being a student, or a "professional student" who keeps studying the same thing for decades. The goal is to graduate! The goal is to become a Master in yourself. The goal is to transcend yourself, and becoming that light to others yourself!
This is simply the difference between students and Masters. There are degrees of depth that can be had. It's not a static linear thing. And it is NOT reserved for some and denied to others. With that, I utterly disagree.
As I said above, the essence of God is manifest in the attributes of God. But to repeat, I have experienced both the Formless, attribute-less nature of the Divine, which you call essence, and the manifest Divine attributes of Infinite Love, Light, and Life. So while there is a difference in how it is perceived, there not a difference in essence as it is not ultimately divisible. The light of the sun, is the core of the sun the manifested. It's not a reflection of the sun, but is the sun.
Correct. But we can apprehend them through experience. See the difference in meaning of these terms here: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms
The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
"That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop."Actually, the way you worded it originally was correct. I understood your meaning. Here's how you originally stated it. "That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.". In other words what goes against Baha'i belief is that we can be equal to Christ".
By adding "cannot" in the sentence, that makes it a double-negative, which makes it a positive. So inserting that into the sentence thusly, "That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop," would mean it goes against the belief that we can't be equal. Therefore the positive belief would be that we can be equal.
I think she made you overthink what you had originally stated correctly.
"That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop,"
That first sentence did not make sense to me or Duane which is why he corrected it.
"we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop." makes no sense.
"we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop," makes sense.
In other words what goes against Baha'i belief is that we can be equal to Christ"because we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.
The important thing is that you understood the meaning.
A big problem here. The Atman is not "part of the essence of God", nor is it another word for the "soul". Atman is best understood as "Undifferentiated Consciousness". That is the same as Nirguna Brahman. There is only One Consciousnesses, that manifests as all things, and "Thou art That", which is what Atman means. It's interpreted as Self, with a capital A, but it basically means the true Nature of what and who we are which is Brahman, or God.
This is very errant understanding of Buddhism. It is completely wrong. Buddhahood is understand as our true natures, and that anyone can become a Buddha, or their true Self, (or no-self, or Anatman as they say - which is really saying the same thing just from different starting points).
The other major mistake here, is that we don't "evolve into perfect beings". Our true nature is already Perfect. But it is buried underneath the false self, entombed within it, so to speak. The path is to essentially overcome the ego, and let that true Nature, that Buddhahood emerge. It's nothing you evolve. It's nothing you achieve. It's what you already are, but have simply not realized.
Think of it like saying I need to attain my lungs. No. You already have lungs. All you need to do is learn how to use them.
Some followers? I had said originally, and restated in my posts from today, these are the core philosophies and teachings of all these religions: Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, and even Christianity. These are not 'some followers', this is the mystical heart and core philosophies of these religions.
It's there in Christianity as well, albeight somewhat crusted over by the way the history of Christianity has veered into a much more extoric religion in the West (less so in the East).
Of course. A great many Christian miss that mystical heart of the religion. But the Dharmic religions don't by and large. But every individual sees what they can see, what they are ready to see. But I am correct about these being the core teachings of these other major religions.
But if you are rejecting the mystical heart of all the major religions of the world, then I would say this is step off the path entirely. Now this could just be your misunderstanding of your own religion. I can't say, as I'm not versed in the teachings or writings. But when you quote verses from it to make it deny mystical realizations which are the heart of any true religion, then you aren't helping your cause.
Grant it, you shared that link to a mystical text, but to be honest with you, I am turned off by the whole King James language presentation. It seems pretensions to me, because for one thing King James English is how they spoke in 1611. Bahaullah spoke Arabic (I believe), and live in the late 1800's, so it seems forced and unnatural. Not to mention, tedious to read. When I read the Bible, I choose modern English translations. Perhaps if you could find a translation which doesn't try to sound like the King James bible, I might give it a go? No offense meant, but I'm just being honest here.
To make God more removed from us, something impossible and inaccessible to everyone like that, is not a step forward in my view. It's the source of the problem itself. I think this expresses why I feel far less receptive to the teachings of the Baha'i, than any other religion in the world. They open the door, and it seems you close it.
As Alan Watts famously said about the church and Christianity, "They kicked Jesus upstairs". You make it impossible to touch the Face of God, when the heart of the mystic realization is to do just that. That to me is what Salvation means. That is the essence of true religion.
This is good lecture that's only 9 minutes long where Alan Watts makes that comment. If you are so inclined, listen to this. It is something I align myself with as it reflects my views and my experience:
From what you are saying, you are calling them wrong. This is not integrating them at all. It's claiming you are right and they are wrong, not brothers and sisters on the same path. The words of universalism are there, but that is not demonstrating it. You would need to transcend and include them, not exclude them.
Thank you for acknowledging your frustrations in this. I myself don't feel that way. I'm happy to discuss these things with you.
Last edited:
Not to nitpick here about sentence structure, but considering I see myself as a fairly good communicator with words, what you are saying is true, that ""we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop." makes no sense." You are correct - if you exclude the part of the sentence which came before it. If it stands alone by itself, then this makes more sense as you said. "we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop,". I 100% agree."That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop."
"That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop,"
That first sentence did not make sense to me or Duane which is why he corrected it.
"we can be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop." makes no sense.
"we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop," makes sense.
In other words what goes against Baha'i belief is that we can be equal to Christ"because we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop.
The important thing is that you understood the meaning.
But watch what happens when I add it back in to the sentence structure: "That goes against Baha'i belief also, in the sense that we cannot be equal to a Christ no matter how long we develop," So no you have a double-negative. You took something that was already structured wrong, and made it worse.
Here's how it now reads, "It goes against our beliefs that we cannot be equal to Christ". This is to therefore say, "to be equal to Christ agrees with our beliefs". Do you see that? When he said "can" originally, that works correctly when you isolate those first two phrases by themselves, "It goes against our beliefs that you can be equal to Christ". That is consistent and a proper structure.
Where he went off was by add that third phrase, "no matter how long we develop". Now it reads like this, "It goes against our beliefs that you can be equal to Christ, no matter how long we develop", then just hangs there unattached. The better way to restate it would have been:
"No matter how long we develop ourselves, it goes against Baha'i belief that we can be equal to a Christ".
See it now?
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, I see it now."No matter how long we develop ourselves, it goes against Baha'i belief that we can be equal to a Christ".
See it now?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
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.
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.
Treasure Hunter
Well-Known Member
What you call ego is actually the soul. The soul is divided, with the major part of it wanting to believe that it, using your framing, is already one with source or capital ‘S’ Self. In my wording, it wants to believe that it is already in the Kingdom.
So when you see someone’s “ego” flare up when they get criticized, it’s because the soul knows deep down that it is supposed to be perfect to reside in the Kingdom. This is also why someone’s ego inflates and a superiority complex develops.
The soul will go to any length to avoid the pain of identity crisis or even identity doubt that is part of the journey toward the Kingdom. Another tactic it uses is some variation of the following:
“Ok, ok. I admit that we (soul is speaking to human individual) are not at the final destination yet, but I know the way! There is no way! There is no journey that needs to be undertaken. All we have to do is surrender and sink into our full Self-hood. This dissolves the ego.”
This is simply another tactic the soul uses to avoid facing what it doesn’t want to face.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
I only started with this comment because what you said up to this is preliminary. It is foreign to you in one way, the Baha'i faith has much more evidence of it's point of view than Christianity does. Scholars doubt how many words that Jesus actually said. There are 100 volumes of Baha'u'llah's Writings. In addition there are volumes of infallible interpretation by Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. That's a lot of information for a Baha'i to draw from. Of course, only a fraction of all that has been translated so far. That is a limitation so far. The facts of Baha'u'llah's life have been muddied by Covenant-Breakers, so perhaps that's not that different than the uncertainty of the facts of Jesus' life.
Over my time as a Baha'i, I had my ups and downs. I insisted in verifying everything, to see if it accorded with reality. At times I doubted the Baha'i Faith. But this turned out to be beneficial because I learned so much doing that. I ponder the Writings, and come up with new insights. It would be hard to enumerate the insights I gained over time.
I admit that I didn't know that before. You are obviously more of a scholar of this than I am. However, this doesn't make this point of view reality.
Quite a litany there, but where's the proof of that?
I agree that the attributes are manifesting God in the world of creation. What does "The essence of the Formless is fully present and fully expressed in these attributes." mean? I think I know. It is the Manifestations of God such as Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah. If you have had such experiences this makes you Them. Is that what you are saying you are? Your actions would have to back that up. Your inner being would have to be reflected in your outer being like theirs did. You would have perfect conduct. You may not see their conduct as perfect, but I do, as far as I can see.
Then you are claiming to be God Himself at times also. I can't imagine what a being would be like if I met him. I'm sorry, I'm very sorry, but I don't don't think is reality. This is your experience, not mine. I can't know what you are experiencing. I only know what you are telling me. I would have to experience the same the same thing to verify that what you say is reality. I have not. This may be my limitation, you may be vastly superior to me, but for now, I must reject that this is reality. I can't experience what you say you have experienced. I have evidence that for Baha'u'llah "The essence of the Formless is fully present and fully expressed in these attributes.". I don't see that evidence for you yet other than some words.
These are not the core teachings of these religions, they are unverified mystical experiences. Where is there proofs in their actions that these happened. The outer being must reflect their inner being. They are one. Where are the accomplishments of these mystics that transformed the world? The Manifestations of God transform the world around for at least a time. The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah is yet young, but in its own way, it is transforming lives. There is a lot more to come.
At it's core the religions of the world create a mystical bond with God, but the outer being is transformed along with that.
Of course.
O SON OF BEING!
Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)
This is too abstract for me. I have trouble with some abstractions as I am autistic, which is common for people like me.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
This is nice theology here, something for me to learn about other religions, but I don't see it necessarily as reality but a concept that people came up with at one time. The value of someone being an infallible source is that you can sift through what people say as true or false. Good people say profound things that don't claim infallibility, but must be tested by verified words that we strive to understand through pondering and meditating on the teachings, and using all the teachings as much as possible to clarify other words revealed. Then the words people utter from people that are not infallible can illumine us if they are compatible. Compared to God, we don't exist, we are nothing, but we can manifest God's attributes to an increasing degree and experience within ourselves God's grace.
That seems close to what I said, and you might be more accurate, I don't know. However you explain it, we can't all become a Buddha. It doesn't change reality to understand what I consider this errant belief better.
I agree with that part. Our true selves is perfect, though though I have the caveat that the ego never completely disappears, and we never get completely rid of the false self, but over eons we evolve closer to our true selves.
All followers are different in each religion. The "religions" you are talking about is a loose consensus about what the founders of these teachers teach.
Oh, I see there is some agreement with what I just said. But it's off somewhat from what I said. The Dharmic religions are a loose collections of schools. Buddhism today is practiced by many people in the East in a superficial way. The same is true of Hinduism. Some Hindus worship a river and have other superstitious practices. There are some spiritual Hindus to be sure. These religions have deteriorated for many people. What about the separation into castes? What about the prejudice against Dalits or untouchables? What about the nationalistic political thrust of Hinduism persecuting Muslims? I'm not absolving Muslims there and in other places. Where do you live? Do you live away from the way many people of these Dharmic people live? You live among Christians I would bet so you see the deterioration there, and I'm sure you have awareness of the deterioration of Muslims.
I don't see the same reality of Dharmic religions still being spiritual and mystical for most people.
I am not rejecting the mystical heart of these religions, all religions have as their core a mystical union with God including Baha'i. There needs to be the outer being living the life also. They go hand in hand.
I have? If I have that is not what our religion is about. It is said that Abdu'l-Baha walked the "mystical path with practical feet", we are to follow that example. Your ignorance of our teachings prevents you from understanding what the Baha'i Faith is. You are versed in all sort of religions and philosophical traditions, but not Baha'i. You won't find out what the Baha'i Faith is by talking to me, but by investigating what the Baha'i Faith is. As the Baha'i Faith is young, and has relatively few adherents yet, it's understandable though that you among many others have not investigated yet. It is not considered significant enough to investigate, with a lot to investigate. A lot to read, and lot of history to investigate.
It does take some adjusting. That's how Shoghi Effendi chose to translate, and we're used to it. I love the King James version myself, it flows well, though not as accurate. I don't find the Seven Valleys to be tedious, though some of it is hard to understand. To each, their own.
God is not more removed, the difference is that God is more exalted above imaginations and mystical experiences.
All followers are wrong to some degree, that includes the Baha'is. You are wrong, I am wrong. That is the nature of all religions, the Teacher comes, and we don't comprehend. The Baha'is are involved in the interfaith group here in the greater Dayton area out of proportion to our numbers. We get along fine with people in other religions here in that interfaith group.
Discussing this with you is okay, but it is exhausting for me the last two nights to consider carefully what you say, and the careful consideration of what to say back. Good night.
Last edited:
That's not what I was referring to as not foreign to me. That had to do with how one approaches their faith through their religion, not differences between the religions, but the manner in which we approach them with what expectations. I can relate to a lot of how you are approaching it, as it something I myself did. But what I am saying is I'm sure foreign to your own ways of thinking at any point.
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.
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.
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.
Well the proof is in the experience. But the rest is just my way to put some language to it that I feel captures that experience, in some small way.
Meaning that the very Nature and Being of God is full present in everything that is a manifestation of the Divine. All of creation itself has the Presence of God within it. It cannot be any other way since God is not lumpy or a creature than can hide somewhere.
It's difficult to describe this, but think of the "wetness" of every wave of the ocean. No matter the shape or size of the wave, it is all equally wet. Or think of it like light. It is not more light from the sun here, and less light there. The only diminishment from sensing its presence, it the obstacles we place in front of it.
It doesn't make me them. They are each themselves, and I am myself. But what they touched, I touched. It's the same wetness, and the same Ocean. This is not to say that where I am at on my path is equal to theirs. Not at all. But God is God is God. It's not a different God.
I am where I am on my path, as they were on theirs. Where I am today, is not where I was 40 years ago. Where I am in 10 years, will be where I am then. I can say this however, I am walking more in the Light than before, as I stumbled in the struggles with myself, despite having had a direct encounter with the Absolute. That fact that I had that experience, does not mean I instantly become some mythological creature.
That's the thing, it's not an instantaneous transformation in all the particulars of one's life. We may wish for that to have happened, but that's not been my path, despite having had an experience as I did in my youth. That's just become the Light to aim for since then. But believe me, it's not been a straight line. I have come to realize that while we may like to believe that our religious 'heros' were born perfect, that's just an image we create of them to imagine perfection. The reality is, they struggled as all of us do.
I believe there is fruit to be sure. However, I don't think saying something like you need to start a major religion is a valid criteria. That's an egoic idea of things should look like, a type of hero-worship. Miracles take many forms, not just walking on water and parting oceans with a staff in one's hand.
I disagree.
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.
This is true.
I am not superior to you. You have the same Spirit in you I do. It's nothing that I accomplish or created. There's nothing to boast about.
Yes you certainly can. But if you tell yourself you can't, then you disallow it for yourself. This is one reason I do not like what I hear being taught, that only select special ones only every 1000 years have access to this. That is "kicking God" upstairs and out of reach. I guarantee you you can experience this too. Anyone can. It's not an exclusive club. It's universally inclusive, to those who walk through that door.
If you catch me on a good day, you may see more of that than on my days I'm just stuck in my worries and woes.
Seriously though, I do not lay claim to being a perfect being. I don't really believe any human is the equivalent of a god, the way our myths about them may choose to portray them. That doesn't mean that that Light did not radiate from them though. It just means they were also human, like me. Like you.Wrong. They are verified by all those who have those experiences themselves. That is one reason I find Truth in many of these writings. Because they affirm and verify my own experiences. And they are in fact the core teachings of these religions. They are all about unity, or "reconciliation" with God or the Divine. That is the core of all of them. How to move from suffering and separation from God, to unity with God.
Changed and transformed lives. Plus what they say of their own experiences agrees with others who have done the same.
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.
Don't think that God moves only in major continental shifts. God also transforms the world one person at a time. So a single sparrow falling to the ground is the whole world to God. Maybe not to you. Maybe you only think that a true saint will bring about world peace, rather than simply transforming only one single life. I don't. That's the glory of man to think that only the spectacular has meaning.
I'm grateful you shared this. This helps me in my own understanding in converstations like this, not just with you but others. I can see that the things I am talking about are in fact quite abrstract. But that is the very nature of Spirit. A lot of people need concrete ways of thinking about it to attempt to grasp it. But that leads to confusion if you start trying to think abstractly when you've locked its reality into something fixed and rigid.
I would love to explore more thoughts on this, but for tonight I'm out of time. I'll pick up some thoughts tomorrow on the rest of your post later. I think this is helpful for me going forward to understand why some of these ideas may be difficult for you to follow. They are definitely abstractions.
Last edited:
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.
These are descriptions of firsthand experience, not "concepts people came up with at one time". They are maps of the terrain and territories that the explorers discovered on their journey. And, they are relatively consistent with the maps of other explorers who explored the same terrain on their own expeditions. The fact that there are commonalities in these descriptions that all say, "a river runs through here", means these are not just wild speculations about something no one has ever encountered. This is indicative of an objective reality.
Yeah, in theory. But yes and no. It also can be a way to never sail off across the sea because the "infallible source" claims the earth is flat and you'll fall off the edge. It can offer you a sense of security never having to risk anything being told Answers with a capital A, but that comes with a hefty price tag. You never get to step outside the box and move about under your own agency and feel what it is like to truly live, the way you were created to be.
Spirituality is about freedom of movement. It's about dancing. Not being told which foot goes where in a set, or fixed patterned movement. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty". That's what this means to me.
Everything we hear anyone say, regardless of the source, should be tested and proven by ourselves. Simply memorizing words and calling them truth, but never testing them is not really dancing, or living. It's just rigidity and inflexibility.
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.
And yet the Buddha himself said everyone can become a Buddha. Everyone Can Become a Buddha.
"And Buddha said that everyone can achieve what he did; everyone can become a Buddha. This is because we all have “Buddha-nature” – the fundamental working materials that enable Buddhahood."
The way I state this is this. Everyone is already Enlightened. We just haven't been enlightened to that reality yet. Enlightenment, Awakening, Salvation, is simply the Realization of what we already fully are. So absolutely yes, everyone can become Enlightened, because that is our true Nature. We all came from God, not some other source.Now we are talking much closer to how I see things. Yes, you are agreeing that our true Nature is perfect, or to give that another term, Divine. Again, we all came from the same Source, which is the Divine. Not some other source outside of God.
Regarding the ego never completely disappears, I will conditionally agree with this, but not entirely so. This is a little complex and abstract, so I know this may be challenging. The human ego is simply how we perceive ourselves as distinct and separate from others. It is functionally necessary for me to be able to self-identify in this way. In this sense, I can never get rid of that "egoic self" anymore than I can get rid of my body and still be considered a human being.
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.
Now we are able to live "in the Spirit" instead as the center of gravity of who and what we are. And the more we do that, the more the lower levels in us, such as our egos and our bodies, become transformed by the energies of that higher Self, or our spiritual nature, which comes from God and is Divinity itself in us.
This is what Enlightenment does. This is what Salvation is. "I am in the world, but I am not of the world". "I have overcome the world", and such. All language to describe a real, tangible, practical, direct experiential reality. Not just fluffy lofty words.
Does this take eons? It can. This is the teaching of reincarnation, coming back again and again until we find that Truth and are eventually set free from the trap of our mistaken self-identities. However, it can happen more rapidly by following tried and true paths, taught by other Masters.
But the goal is to become a Buddha yourself, not to set them upon a pedestal and tell yourself "I can never become Enlightened". That is a lie we tell ourselves, or that others tell us in order to keep us underneath their power and control.
Of course everyone is in a different place in following these things, but the core of any authentic religion is the mystical realization of union or reconciliation with the Divine. That the cornerstone that set the foundation in place. But of course, that can become buried and replaced by the dogmas of religiosity, forgetting their own spiritual Source.
Of course, as I said everyone is in a different place. But I make a distinction between exoteric and esoteric religion. Most everyone starts with exoteric religion: external rules and practices that they are to follow. An authentic exoteric religion, should lead to an esoteric, or interior religion, or one of realizing the principles on a spiritual subjective way. Esoteric religion leads to Awakening. Exoteric religion is at best the supporting structures of that building, scaffolding to climb to help in the construction of that inner building.
But when all there is is the exoteric religion, then you have religiosity, devoid of a spiritual heart. Then that is some the ways of the world, or the flesh, ot the ego "doing God". That is where you have what you describe above
Sorry about that. I do tend to pack my posts with a lot of things to consider. I find it helpful to myself to try to explain these things to others. As they say, the best way to know something is to teach or explain it to someone else. I do appreciate your perspectives here, and hope you enjoy this discussion as well.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
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.