Website Suggestion

[arthra]

As for dialogue, in my experience, Baha'i insist that the fundamentals of my doctrine are wrong — they dispute the Incarnation, they dispute the Trinity, they dispute the Sacraments — so the dialogue usually runs to being told everything I believe in is wrong, and presumably the same applies to other traditions.

Indeed, how do the Baha'i talk to non-theist traditions?

God bless,

Thomas

My comment:

I don't know that there many problems in Buddhist-Baha'i dialogue..

We do have some similar areas of agreement and there are pretty good relations in Mongolia and South East Asia between Baha'is and Buddhists.

The discussion though could probably be better presented in the Comp. Religion forum or maybe the feedback forum here.

 

[Ruth White]

"we are interfaith, but as we are the culmination and the religion that naturally follows and has superceded whatever religion you believe in we are more interfaith than the restuvya?"

"So you agree the only one true religion is as stated by the Bahai? That all other beliefs are now superceded?

I also agree there is only one religion, one all encompassing belief, but each religion is there for its adherants towards a common end."

Wil,

Abdul-Baha, the son and appointed interpreter of Baha'u'llah's teachings, taught a universal conception of the nature of interfaith understanding and identity when he said, speaking in England, "You can be a Bahai-Christian, a Bahai-Freemason, a Bahai-Jew, a Bahai-Muhammadan."

Similarly, he emphasized that it was not "organized" religion but an "attitude" or frame of mind and is important and that followers of all faiths can have it:

"The sun of truth rises in each season from a different point of the horizon—today it is here, yesterday it was there, and tomorrow it will appear from another direction. Why do you keep your eyes eternally fixed on the same point? Why do you call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Bahais? You must learn to distinguish the sun of truth from whichever point of the horizon it is shining! People think religion is confined in an edifice, to be worshiped at an altar. In reality it is an attitude toward divinity which is reflected through life."

There are several Bahai denominations. (Google "9 Bahai Denominations") The other Baha'is here are members of the Baha'i denomination located in Haifa, Israel, which follows a very exclusive interpretation of the Bahai teachings that was imposed in 1921, attempting to create essentially a Catholic-like or Shiite imamate. They've basically reversed the open, universal teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha into a political power symbol, as so many religion have done throughout history.

Abdul-Baha brought his father's faith into the modern world in an open, universal form, emphasizing that one does not even have to be a "member" to be a Bahai! reformbahai dot org for further details.

 

[radarmark]

I always wondered about the relationship between the "Fundamentalist Bahais" and those individuals I have come across ans the writings of the Baha'u'llah. Seemed a little strict. When some Orthodox Jews and I went to Williamette we were told to take off our covering. I talked to some Sikhs whoi had same problem.

Thanks, Ruth White for opening my eyes. Since I believe anyone (from atheist to pagan) can be a Quaker, I find it easy to accpet the idea of "one religion" (and I believe that is what Schuon and Fox are getting at).

Pax et amore vincunt omnia, radarmark

 

[arthra]

Baha'is are still very strong in working with many groups and other religions..I know in my community we have supported the local Interfaith Council and have had World Religion Day. Baha'is also have participated in the World Parliament of Religions.

Since it's formation after 1863 there were groups that formed to oppose Baha'u'llah..in the form of the Azalis and later there was a group that opposed Abdul-Baha which was under His younger half brother Muhammad Ali...and after Shoghi Effendi the Guardian designated by Abdul-Baha there was Ruth White and others who opposed him.. Today there are people who oppose the Universal House of Justice. But for Baha'is the Faith has continued united..

 

[arthra]

Radar wrote:

When some Orthodox Jews and I went to Williamette we were told to take off our covering. I talked to some Sikhs whoi had same problem.


Hello Radar! Could you explain your remark?

My understanding is that a Baha'i House of Worship is open to all.. I've been to the House of Worship in Wilmette twice and you don't have to be a Baha'i to worship there nor are there any clothing requirements.

 

[radarmark]

Nope, we could not enter the Wilmette Temple while our heads were covered. We were informed (it might have been someone who did not know, but hey, they were escorting and helping people in to worship) that one could not cover their head in the temple. That was a long time ago (70s or 80s). But some Sikh friends went there right after 9/11 and they told me they were asked to uncover and relinquih their kirpan (both of which are forbidden).

 

[arthra]

Nope, we could not enter the Wilmette Temple while our heads were covered. We were informed (it might have been someone who did not know, but hey, they were escorting and helping people in to worship) that one could not cover their head in the temple. That was a long time ago (70s or 80s). But some Sikh friends went there right after 9/11 and they told me they were asked to uncover and relinquih their kirpan (both of which are forbidden).

Well you wrote above:

When some Orthodox Jews and I went to Williamette we were told to take off our covering.

So were you wearing Yamaka? There is no such restriction..As far as being asked to relinquish any head gear there's no restriction.

It hath been... permitted you to attire yourselves in silk. The Lord hath relieved you, as a bounty on His part, of the restrictions that formerly applied to clothing and to the trim of the beard. He, verily, is the Ordainer, the Omniscient. Let there be naught in your demeanour of which sound and upright minds would disapprove, and make not yourselves the playthings of the ignorant. Well is it with him who hath adorned himself with the vesture of seemly conduct and a praiseworthy character. He is assuredly reckoned with those who aid their Lord through distinctive and outstanding deeds
(Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, ¶ 159 p. 76)
​

 

[radarmark]

The yarmulkas we were told had to be removed going into the Temple (we had been covered at local meetings).

Again, I agree with your reading of Bahá'u'lláh. But I believe our reading varies with what the group escorting into Temple used.

I believe this is the difference between you and Ruth White (I like her explanation). I just know what my experience has been. Some Bahais are really open minded ("stay a Christian and join us") and some have been a little less open.

 

[arthra]

The yarmulkas we were told had to be removed going into the Temple (we had been covered at local meetings).

Again, I agree with your reading of Bahá'u'lláh. But I believe our reading varies with what the group escorting into Temple used.

I believe this is the difference between you and Ruth White (I like her explanation). I just know what my experience has been. Some Bahais are really open minded ("stay a Christian and join us") and some have been a little less open.

Frankly I'm very surprised to hear your story about "..yarmulkas we were told had to be removed" ... there's no formal restriction like that in Baha'i Houses of Worship.

Baha'is do tend to be "open minded" and we have devotional meetings around the country where Christians, Jews and Hindus or anyone can participate.

See:

The Bah's: Devotional Gatherings for Inspiration and Renewal

These are informal gatherings where people can share prayers.

Also Baha'i Holy Days are open to anyone to attend..

 

[Ruth White]

"anyone (from atheist to pagan) can be a Quaker"

I agree. Exactly. That's basically the interpretation of Abdul-Baha too. Reform Bahais don't accept any creed because they're always used to coerce people, for example, the bogus "covenant" or "will and testament" of Haifan Baha'is.
Abdul-Baha publicly delivered his authentic covenant in 1912 in New York. It's
been suppressed ever since his death.

""one religion" (and I believe that is what Schuon and Fox are getting at)."

Fritjof Schuon and other Perennialists are right on target in my personal opinion. A metaphyscian with a universal perspective, Schuon was actually also a Sufi, as Seyyed Hossain Nasr, another Perennialist, explains in his recent book on Islam. I've read several of their books and find them very compatible to what I find in Abdul-Baha's own open, universal vision of the unity of the religions. Nasr describes some of the Perennialists, though, as Muslims, essentially, and that one must become Muslim, in an exclusive sense, to follow the correct spiritual path. Bahai really isn't a secret platform for Islam, except for some Shiite Iranian Baha'is, but is on the journey beyond all the historical pasts toward a universal Form, one we are all seeking together, in my view.

Most presentday Baha'is have little to no knowledge about the early years of Abdul-Baha's actual teachings and interpretation of what he called the Bahai Movement or Cause. That's reflected in some of the comments here. He died in 1921 and it was only then that a fraudulent will and testament was used by his family to take control of the religion, reverting significantly back to their Iranian Shiite heritage, as I've already suggested. Although both Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha had repudiated such negative practices in Islam as takfir, denouncing others as infidels, and taqiyya, dissimulation and lying, for the "good of the Faith," Shoghi Effendi brought all that kind of thing back, moving away from universalism to exclusivism, in his pursuit of a Bahai theocracy, which Abdul-Baha had clearly rejected, emphasizing a "spiritual democracy."

If interested, my "A Response to Takfir" was published in a London journal, Religion 38 No 4 2008. Just google the title.

Ruth White was an early Bahai who rejected the unprobated, unauthenticated
will and testament, wrote several books about it, and hired the foremost
forensic researcher of the time at the British Museum to examine the purported will. He declared it a forgery in 1930. google "Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell" She's been loathed by Haifan Baha'is ever since...

 

[arthra]

So you're not Ruth White after all..but Frederick Glaysher?

 

[Ruth White]

So you're not Ruth White after all..but Frederick Glaysher?

uuuu, gotcha! "Arthra" is a birth name, not an avatar?

 

[arthra]

Well Frederick my name is Art Gregory and well "arthra" was the closest I could come to it being my real name..

But don't you think you've taken some liberties here with the topic of the thread? I'm not a scholar myself and have not studied the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha that closely but you've posted some negative things here about Baha'is.. Don't you think we should represent the other side of the story...?

 

[arthra]

I note above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
"anyone (from atheist to pagan) can be a Quaker"

Ruth replied..

I agree. Exactly. That's basically the interpretation of Abdul-Baha too.

..............................................

You know Radar.. I was Quaker before I became a Baha'i .. A Silent Meeting Quaker.. and I read George Fox and later Rufus Jones..and read Quaker history and never got the impression that

"anyone (from atheist to pagan) can be a Quaker"

I mean maybe things have changed but wasn't the significance of Quakerism the "still small voice" .. A lot of groups maybe nowadays don't have much of a substance as far as beliefs.

I also doubt or agree with "that's basically the interpretation of Abdul-Baha" Frederick.

I'll let Abdul-Baha speak for Himself:

By heavenly sciences I mean divine philosophy and spiritual teachings; by the songs and fragrances of the rose garden I mean the mysteries of the kingdom of kingdoms, the secrets of the degrees of existence and the knowledge of the results of human life.

This universe is not created through the fortuitous concurrences of atoms; it is created by a great law which decrees that the tree bring forth certain definite fruit. Verily, this universe contains many worlds of which we know nothing.

Is the materialistic philosophy of this Europe, so much praised by contemporary agnostics and atheists, a philosophy to be admired? Are these people wooers of the spirit? Nay, they have drowned that capacity and are out of touch with the kingdom of reality. Is this an enviable goal to which humanity may aspire? Is this a system of philosophy through which people may become glorified? No, by God, the philosophy of glory needs no scholastic curriculum.

Strive so that these people may be released from their nature worship and become like sons of wisdom from the city of light. We speak one word and by it we intend one and seventy meanings. - (BAHA'O'LLAH IN THE IGHAN)

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 139

 

[iBrian]

Any website that promotes inter-faith dialogue is a commendable endeavour. For this reason, I would humbly suggest that the authors include The Baha'i Faith among the front-page list of "World Religions". Infact, I just stumbled across this website and was a little surprised not to see the Baha'i Faith officially listed (except on various threads and in published news articles - which importantly bring the persecution of Baha'is in Iran to your readers' attention).

It's difficult to have a structure that will please everybody, so a simple system is used.

Basically, the "World Religions" are generally long established religions which have usually had a significant effect on other religions and cultures. "Modern Religions" are usually those formed from the 19th century onwards, tend to be small, and not really impacted widely on existing cultures (I appreciate the Baha'is are geographically well spread, but they don't yet define the culture of a country as many of the other ones do).

I appreciate it can look kind of arbitrary, but that's simply necessity.

Wil,
Abdul-Baha, the son and appointed interpreter of Baha'u'llah's teachings, taught a universal conception of the nature of interfaith understanding and identity when he said, speaking in England, "You can be a Bahai-Christian, a Bahai-Freemason, a Bahai-Jew, a Bahai-Muhammadan."

Similarly, he emphasized that it was not "organized" religion but an "attitude" or frame of mind and is important and that followers of all faiths can have it

That's an interesting comment - my impression is that the Baha'is are effectively a religion, where the tenets of Baha'u'llah are effectively infallible and take precendent over all over religious texts. So anyone seeking to join the Baha'is but lay claim otherwise would be effectively ostracised and certainly not treated as a fully functioning member of the Baha'i community.

 

[arthra]

Another interesting aspect I find interesting is a post above by Ruth White/Frederick Glasher citing an "Amica Curiae" in the "Reform Baha'i"

Reform Bahai Faith, Amici Curiae

Supporting an Orthodox Baha'i case.. and yet in a succeeding post we read about the

"....bogus "covenant" or "will and testament" of Haifan Baha'is"

Anyone with a little knowledge of these groups knows how much the Orthodox Baha'is claim to accept the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha. Seems there's just a tad of an internal inconsistency there..

Haifa has been the seat of Baha'i "administration" since the time Baha'u'llah pitched His tent on Mount Carmel overlooking the Bay of Haifa.. When Abdul-Baha lived in Haifa and built the foundation of the Shrine of the Bab He also was presumably a "Haifan Baha'i".

 

[arthra]

Thanks Brian for your post above.. It's been awhile since we discussed this...maybe a few years. I do recall off the tip of my whatever that someone said they were working on revising the format..but you've responded with:

"Modern Religions" are usually those formed from the 19th century onwards, tend to be small, and not really impacted widely on existing cultures (I appreciate the Baha'is are geographically well spread, but they don't yet define the culture of a country as many of the other ones do).

I appreciate it can look kind of arbitrary, but that's simply necessity.

You're correct it can "look" arbitrary. As to defining "culture" Baha'is generally stress interfaith activities in the communities where they reside and also support uplifting educational and social agendas:

http://info.bahai.org/


Above Brian wrote:

"...my impression is that the Baha'is are effectively a religion, where the tenets of Baha'u'llah are effectively infallible and take precendent over all over religious texts. So anyone seeking to join the Baha'is but lay claim otherwise would be effectively ostracised and certainly not treated as a fully functioning member of the Baha'i community."

My comment:

I hadn't been aware that you Brian were such an astute observer of Baha'i community life! What would let's see take precedence in a Christian community..uhh..maybe the Bible? Or in a Muslim community..perhaps the Quran? Yes when one becomes a Baha'i they recognize that Baha'u'llah is the Promised One of the age and so on.. but with respect to other religions:

Bahá'u'lláh states:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God."[4]

With this perspective, the superiority of one religious tradition over another is denied.

Shoghi Effendi summarises the Bahá'í position:

"One cannot call one World Faith superior to another, as they all come from God."

Brian writes:

So anyone seeking to join the Baha'is but lay claim otherwise would be effectively ostracised and certainly not treated as a fully functioning member of the Baha'i community.

My comment:

I've only been a Baha'i since around 1965 and have yet to see anyone "ostrasized or certainly not treated as a fully functioning member" for accepting other religious texts as authoritative..especially in their own sphere! But maybe you could supply an example or two?

 

[radarmark]

Arthra and Ruth White--this dialogue has certainly given me some insight. As I said, I have always values the Bahá'u'lláh's writings (in much the same way I value Matthew Fox's) and respected the Bahais I have met (go to the meetings of Bahais and Sikhs and Jews in my community often). My point is simply that there are many paths, none better and none worse. It is the Light Within that is important, not what language or exoteric form it has.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Whilst there may be only one God (and a Buddhist would not be inclined to agree with that), that does not necessarily mean there is only one religion.

First off, you're overgeneralizing.

While it's true that some Buddhists are atheistic, what you overlook is that Buddhism split into several different groups: some are atheistic, and some are not.

IOV Buddhism was originally theistic, as indicated by the Buddhist scriptures.

In short, a Revealed Tradition is complete and entire in itself, it requires no exterior augmentation or completion, it is not contingent, relative nor provisional, there is nothing it does not have, no missing key or last link, that the seeker needs to attain its promise, so in that sense revelations are not 'progressive'.

(Indeed, if they were, then most Messengers — Moses, Christ, Buddha, and so on — lied to their audiences.)

We definitely reject that accusation, and I would point out to you that most--if not all--religions promise either a Return of their original Founder OR the appearance of yet another Divine Messenger in the future! This can range anywhere from promises of an eventual Jewish Messiah to the Return of Christ or the Christ Spirit, nor does either of these in any way imply a religion is "incomplete."

So religion is indeed ever-evolving and progressive, little as some may care to admit this!

Again, that would require the Message of the Baha's to encompass and surpass everything that has gone before — that the Baha'i faith is a kind of meta-, über- or super-religion.

Not so: it's simply the next (but not the last) step in this long, never-ending sequence.

And while our views of various specifics may differ (for various reasons), this in no way implies we're false or "against" any other religion, Christianity included!

We do stipulate, however, that true religion is indeed theistic, which--please note--includes Buddhism.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Ruth White]

That's an interesting comment - my impression is that the Baha'is are effectively a religion, where the tenets of Baha'u'llah are effectively infallible and take precendent over all over religious texts. So anyone seeking to join the Baha'is but lay claim otherwise would be effectively ostracised and certainly not treated as a fully functioning member of the Baha'i community.

I, Brian,

I think your system for categorizing religions makes perfect sense. Prove it, over time... The Haifan Baha'is are always trying to get in the big league, while not informing people of the realities documented at The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Google, "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience"

Well, yes, Bahais of all denominations consider Baha'u'llah the Promised One of all religions and traditions, though some minds tend to emphasize infallibility more than others in whatever religion. His son Abdul-Baha was appointed the Interpreter and Center of his Covenant, and it was he who brought the Bahai teachings into the modern world, to Europe, England, and the USA. Baha'u'llah had emphasized the progressive nature of religion in his writings, that religion evolves and changes, and Abdul-Baha understood the lesson, moderating and moving even further away from the Islamic milieu, which Baha'u'llah had already done in terms of Islam and Babism, the latter the early forerunner of sorts of Bahai, but very fanatical and violent in some regards.

Anyway, by the time Abdul-Baha spoke at the Friends Meeting House in London in 1913, he had found and developed a highly universal vision of religious oneness and unity. When he died in 1921, his family and lesser minds, not up to that of the Master, reverted basically to their Shiite past, creating a type of imamate they called the "guardian" under a spurious will, driving out thousands of early Bahais who had embraced the more universal, less organized and oppressive vision of Abdul-Baha. Ruth White was foremost in opposing the institutionalization that led away from Abdul-Baha's highly universal and moderate interpretation. She wrote several books that preserve the record of events, etc. The Reform Bahai Faith web site has all her books available on it, if interested, under Early Reform Bahais.

Like all of the institutionalized Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, the usurpers of the Bahai Movement or Cause, created a creed, calling it a Covenant, judged a forged document by the previously mentioned document expert at the British Museum, C. Ainsworth Mitchell. It has always been recognized by careful readers as not characteristic of Abdul-Baha's own words and deeds, a clear departure for many reasons. Part of the Haifan Baha'i reversion to the Shiite tradition was to drag back in "takfir," the stigmatizing and repudiation of "infidels," all of that kind of thing so reminiscent of the worst in all religious traditions, in order to take control, weed out the people capable of actually thinking, and so forth. The very long history of the rotten fruit of this supposedly "Baha'i" doctrine is also documented on the Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience site.

In my view, all these things are present here in the discussion in this thread.