Reading a paper: "Bahá’u’lláh and the Luminous Mind: Bahá’í Gloss on a Buddhist Puzzle"

[Cino]

It is hard to read through these various articles on the subject. Too many Buddhist schools to keep up with. I have to keep asking myself as a person studying it for the first time, "Wait, what did they believe again?" Then . . . the writer throws another Buddhist school of thought at you.

Yes, they were going at it hard, back then, those monks

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, a little too hard, and it made the general public loose interest in Buddhism. Similarly Jains were going too hard on asceticism. However, both the religions had their time in India. They are still around with Buddhist at around 10 million and Jains around 5 million. The last Buddhist fort (institution) in India fell in 1399 to Muslims.

"Nalanda was established during the Gupta Empire era, and was supported by numerous Indian and Javanese patrons – both Buddhists and non-Buddhists." - Wikipedia

Nalanda has been revived and is a university now with special emphasis on Buddhist studies.
https://nalandauniv.edu.in/photogalleries/campusgallery/

 

[Snoopy]

IMHO, a little too hard, and it made the general public loose interest in Buddhism. Similarly Jains were going too hard on asceticism. However, both the religions had their time in India. The last Buddhist fort (institution) in India fell in 1399 to Muslims.

"Nalanda was established during the Gupta Empire era, and was supported by numerous Indian and Javanese patrons – both Buddhists and non-Buddhists." - Wikipedia

Nalanda ha been revived and is a university now with special emphasis on Buddhist studies.
https://nalandauniv.edu.in/photogalleries/campusgallery/

That's good to know! Thanks.

 

[Longfellow]

Are the efforts of Baha'is to graft their God beliefs onto the teachings of Buddha all based on one quote from Abdu'l-Baha saying that Buddha established (not "taught") the oneness of God, and their interpretation of misquoting Abdu'l-Baha as saying that all religions are one? Is there any other reason from Baha'i scriptures for them to be trying to project their God beliefs into the teachings of Buddha?

(later) Maybe also because they think that all true religions must be monotheistic, like their religion and other Abrahamic religions are (not).

 

[Longfellow]

"Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about (SN 56.41 develops this speculation as the ten indeterminate)." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acinteyya

Thank you.

 

[Cino]

Are the efforts of Baha'is to graft their God beliefs onto the teachings of Buddha all based on one quote from Abdu'l-Baha about Buddha establishing (not "teaching") the oneness of God, and their interpretation of misquoting Abdu'l-Baha as saying that all religions are one? Is there any other reason from Baha'i scriptures for them to be trying to project their God beliefs into the teachings of Buddha?

(later) Maybe also because they think that all true religions must be monotheistic, like their religion and other Abrahamic religions are (not).

Yes, that is how I understand their beliefs as well. It's a nice premise, actually, that all the various believers need not be at each other's throats all the time for differences in doctrine, since they are, by Baha'i standards, all true believers, and should get along!

In practice, this premise can be very challenging, as we can see in this thread here.

Anyway, welcome to the Interfaith Dialogue forums, @Longfellow!

Good to have you here. It would be really nice if you posted a short introduction in the Introductions sub-forum. Also, make sure to give our Code of Conduct a read (again, easy to find in the list of sub-forums).

 

[Cino]

Thoughts on Section 3, "The Luminous Mind" (part two)

(picking up on p.66 as printed in the PDF)

In the last paragraph of p.66, continuing on p.67, is another sweeping tour of a long list of Buddhist concepts.

• Dzogchen - a teaching or method from Vajrayana Buddhism (an esoteric school, found in Tibetan schools and in the Japanese Shingon school). It is a form of Deity Yoga, or, in western terms, Theurgy: evoking the presence of a deity.
  
• Rigpa - a Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit vidya - "(liberating) knowledge", as opposed to avidya "ignorance", a Buddhist teaching common to all schools: ignorance or avidya is the root cause of Suffering, the core Buddhist concept par excellence.
  
• the Perfection of Wisdom - in a previous post, I expounded on the Buddhist perfections - and how this concept could also be understood in Western terms as "virtue of Wisdom".
  
• Avalokitesvara - one of the Bodhisattvas, the speaker in the "Heart Sutra", one of the most famous texts of Buddhism, and also the text where the Mantra "Gate gate parasamgate Bodhi svaha" originates.
  
• Bodhisattvas - these are beings who have sworn a holy vow to attain to perfect Enlightenment - but only after ushering all other beings into perfect Enlightenment. They are emphatically not Buddhas, because a Buddha has already attained to Enlightenment.
  
• Non-Dualism - not to be confused with Monism.
  
• Emptiness - lack of essence.
  
• Samsara and Nirvana - Samsara: the existence we find ourselves in, marked by suffering, impermanence, and emptiness. Nirvana: the release from suffering. Early Buddhist schools saw these two as separate. Later developments in Buddhist thought had the equivalence of Samsara and Nirvana as one central point of doctrine. We Westerners might call this integration of spiritual insight into everyday life. And of course, contemplating paradox statements is a staple of spiritual practice in a great many traditions.
  
• the citta - in a previous post, I expounded on the citta. I like to point to the western concept of the spiritual Heart as a good parallel concept.
  
• Buddha-Nature - a Mahayana concept, in its most basic form, the capacity for Enlightenment.
  
• Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka - an important figure of 1st Millennium Buddhism, Nagarjuna was a philosopher and teacher at the university of Nalanda in northern India. He lived roughly 1000 years after the historical Buddha. Madhyamaka is the "middle path" teaching attributed to him. To us, it reads almost like deconstructivism or postmodernism, but of couse it predates both by over a thousand years, and is careful not to slip into nihilism or existentialism. The historical Buddha also taught a middle path, but this teaching was more down-to-earth and concerned with not starving oneself to death through austere practices, nor indulging in crass sensual pleasure-seeking, but to maintain a balance conducive to the spiritual path.

The author of the paper mentions how Dzogchen is a non-dual teaching. I just pointed out how it is a form of deity yoga, or Theurgy: evoking a deity. How is evoking a deity vis-a-vis oneself an expression of Non-Dualism? Well, the practice, to my understanding, involves building up the concentration to be able to perceive the deity in question, and then to interact with the image which has arisen in one's perception, then to deconstruct it into its component perceptions (hello, Madhyamaka), and so on, all to gain insight into the non-dual nature of emptiness (the lack of any essence). This series of spiritual exercises is outlined by a detailed ritual manual, preceded by certain initiations into esoteric knowledge, and guided by a teacher who themselves received the initiations and completed the exercises.

So while yes, Dzogchen is a means to further the realization of Emptiness (or Non-Dual insight), it is a bit of a stretch to present Dzogchen as a teaching or a philosophy, something which can be learned in a classroom setting, or by reading the pages of a book. Here is a passage from the text which illustrates what I feel is a misrepresentation of Dzogchen:

Dzogchen is, in its own understanding, the Great Perfection of this Wisdom that arises in (but always is already) the pristine, luminous, empty, all-relational, spontaneous consciousness (or chitta) beyond any duality, be it of subject or object, perceiver or perceived, phenomenal or ultimate, relative or absolute, samsara or nirvana, the temporal or the eternal.​

It is a method, not an understanding. The understanding, it is claimed, will arise upon application of the method. To draw a Western parallel, this would be like implying that Ignatius of Loyola's spiritual exercises in themselves represented an understanding of God, rather than being a set of instruction to enable the practitioner to reach such an understanding.

I am dwelling on this point so much because I was surprised to find that the author of the article, after explicitly pointing out that Buddhism offeres methods to apply rather than descriptions to ponder ("they do not contemplate revelation, but offer methods of enlightenment"), just a few paragraphs earlier, seems to walk into this very trap of confusing the two.

This got longer than I expected. I'll continue on p.68 next time: parallels between Buddha Nature and the Sufi concept of Al-Haqq.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Are the efforts of Baha'is to graft their God beliefs onto the teachings of Buddha all based on one quote from Abdu'l-Baha saying that Buddha established (not "taught") the oneness of God, and their interpretation of misquoting Abdu'l-Baha as saying that all religions are one? Is there any other reason from Baha'i scriptures for them to be trying to project their God beliefs into the teachings of Buddha?

(later) Maybe also because they think that all true religions must be monotheistic, like their religion and other Abrahamic religions are (not).

May be good to ask a Baha'i

The entire Message of Baha’u’llah is focused on our ability of embracing the Oneness of God and the Oneness of Humanity.

So no, Baha’u’llah has over one hundred volumes of writings that contain many thoughts on this topic.

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

Are the efforts of Baha'is to graft their God beliefs onto the teachings of Buddha all based on one quote from Abdu'l-Baha saying that Buddha established (not "taught") the oneness of God, and their interpretation of misquoting Abdu'l-Baha as saying that all religions are one?

Abdu'l-Baha considers Buddha to be a Manifestation of God. With that being said, there are a lot of quotes from Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah about Manifestations of God.

Saying all religions are one does not mean all religions are the same. Different religions emphasize different aspects. I think the Buddha's arrow parable illustrates the uselessness of metaphysical speculation. Denying to speak about ultimate reality is not a denial of ultimate reality. Also, assuming the arrow parable is something the Buddha actually said, I doubt he used the same parable for everyone with metaphysical beliefs, because the metaphysical beliefs people hold are not always poisonous arrows or harmful in nature. These beliefs can sometimes be beneficial.

Talk about ultimate reality makes its way through Buddhist tradition with the tathāgatagarbha doctrine - the Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. With this belief I can only go as far back as the Mahasamghika - which apparently held contradictory beliefs. At this point things get hazy, and the house of early Buddhism is filled with smoke/disputes.

 

[Ahanu]

Are the efforts of Baha'is to graft their God beliefs onto the teachings of Buddha all based on one quote from Abdu'l-Baha saying that Buddha established (not "taught") the oneness of God, and their interpretation of misquoting Abdu'l-Baha as saying that all religions are one? Is there any other reason from Baha'i scriptures for them to be trying to project their God beliefs into the teachings of Buddha?

(later) Maybe also because they think that all true religions must be monotheistic, like their religion and other Abrahamic religions are (not).

Baha'is aren't the only ones to take up the Buddha.

Some Muslims believe the Buddha is al-Khadir - "the Green One" - in the Qur'an (see Hamza Yusuf's Buddha in the Qur'an?).

 

[Aupmanyav]

(later) Maybe also because they think that all true religions must be monotheistic, like their religion and other Abrahamic religions are (not).

Yeah, that is blasphemy for Hindus.

 

[Longfellow]

"... Instead, we must match the sophistication of the Buddhist conceptuality in a fair Bahá’í conversation with historical and contemporary Buddhism(s); even more so since the sophistication of these Buddhist literatures (for Buddhists) not only reflect historical documents, but scriptures that, in concurrence with Bahá’u’lláh, exhort the power of the Word or Spirit present through them if we do not denigrate them — and we never should"

Translates: We have to work at trying not to look down on them


"Serious attempts of Bahá’í investigations into Buddhism are not lacking"

… to make some sort of show of trying to actually understand it, but from a pre-position of superiority, of course, in order to convince themselves their messenger was indeed infallible.

That’s how it looks to me too. Trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, but to me it looks worse than trying to defend their concept of Abdu’l-Baha’s infallibility. It’s trying to defend the infallibility of their interpretation of one single statement allegedly from him, without any thought for the possibility that they’re misunderstanding it or that he never actually said that.

 

[Ahanu]

That’s how it looks to me too. Trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, but to me it looks worse than trying to defend their concept of Abdu’l-Baha’s infallibility. It’s trying to defend the infallibility of their interpretation of one single statement allegedly from him, without any thought for the possibility that they’re misunderstanding it or that he never actually said that.

Hi @Longfellow,

If you follow the two recent threads in this forum here, you'll note I have not quoted Abdu'l-Baha's statement in SAQ. I assume you're referring to the author's quote in his paper where he quotes the statement that Buddha "established the oneness of God."

My thoughts are as follows: Abdu'l-Baha believes Buddha is a Manifestation of God. Manifestations of God can speak from various perspectives. For me, the question of whether or not Buddha taught others about ultimate reality doesn't matter, but it is interesting. Maybe he just spoke from one perspective that didn't mention it, and, as some scholars have noted, was simply silent on the issue. Again, either way . . . it doesn't matter to me.

There are mostly Theravada-oriented Buddhists on this forum. They have what they believe to be the most authentic form of Buddhism. I will investigate for myself Mahayana Buddhism and its perspective on the issue. No Mahayanists are here to defend their side.

By the way, would you mind sharing why you think there's a possibility Abdu'l-Baha "never actually said that?"

"Many of the conversations took place at the lunch table. Arrangements were made for one of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá’s sons-in-law, or for one of His three secretaries of that time, to take down in Persian the text of His replies. From the resulting collection of notes a selection was made; ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá then corrected these notes twice in His own hand, sometimes substantially revising them in the process as well as carefully reviewing the final wording."
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/064778631
​

Also, let's consider the possibility he never said it. Why does it matter?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That’s how it looks to me too. Trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, but to me it looks worse than trying to defend their concept of Abdu’l-Baha’s infallibility. It’s trying to defend the infallibility of their interpretation of one single statement allegedly from him, without any thought for the possibility that they’re misunderstanding it or that he never actually said that.

What did Bahaollah say about Buddhism? That is my question. Did he know that a religion called Buddhism even existed? What did he know about Buddhism? Why we are discussing Abdul Baha?

 

[Longfellow]

Bolding mine:

Thoughts on Section 2, "Why Buddhism".

The author summarizes most of the problems I see in the first paragraph.

Given the overwhelming diversity of conceptualizations within and between the existing manifold of religions, a responsible Bahá’íunderstanding of this multiplicity by, at the same time, positing a fundamental agreement of all religions, becomes challenging.​

He identifies the following points of contact between the Baha'i message and Buddhism, as a basis for the unity of the two belief systems:

• Ultimate Reality (identified as the Dharmakaya) = God
• Similar ethics
• The "mystical core of all religions"

The author goes into greater detail regarding the challenges of reconciling Buddhist and Baha'i teachings:

Rather than signaling an underlying unity, Buddhist language and spiritual intentions appear to be fundamentally different from that of Westernand Abrahamic categories and inclinations: they do not entertain the concept of God, but rather deny its very meaningfulness; they do not contemplate revelation, but offer methods of enlightenment; they do not aim at a divine world, but suggest the exhaustion of all worlds; they do not express themselves through messages of a Prophet, but encourage the imitation of the experience of the Awakened One; they do not claim immortality for the soul, but the selflessness of pure existence.​

Again, I notice a very fast-and-loose treatment of the many historical layers of Buddhist schools, quoting Abdul Baha as saying that the Buddha taught Tawheed (the oneness of God) only to have this teaching later obscured, right next to a sentence implying that the Dharmakaya (translated in the paper as "ultimate reality") was just this teaching about the oneness of God (p.61 in the PDF) The crux is, the teachings about the Dharmakaya are a very late development in esoteric Buddhism, and by no means an original teaching which got lost early on.

Again, I have doubts whether the author has a firm grasp of the chonology of the development of Buddhist thought.

Further on in the section, the author enumerates four strategies he identified where Baha'i writers have attempted to align Buddhism with the Baha'i faith:

• Equating Baha'u'llah with Maitreya (the name of the Bodhisattva who will be the next Buddha)
• Comparing texts to find parallel passages
• finding resonances with broad spiritual themes common to both the Baha'i faith and Buddhism
• some rare commentaries by Baha'i believers using Buddhist terminology on Baha'i texts.

"positing a fundamental agreement of all religions"
"points of contact"
"reconciling Buddhist and Baha'i teachings"
"Baha'i writers have attempted to align Buddhism with the Baha'i faith"

One problem I see with that is what looks to me like a misunderstanding of what Abdu'l-Baha said about the oneness of religions. Another is that any value that there can be in looking for points of agreement is undermined by the central purpose of it being to validate a Baha'i belief about the relationship between religions, in opposition to what most Buddhists think about that.

 

[Ahanu]

• Consciousness: Vijñana or Viññana (Pali) - the recognition, distinction, or discernment which completes a perception by one of the sense organs. Again, this is not the same as "waking consciousness" or "conscious thought". Briefly glancing at a flower makes the onlooker "conscious" of the flower; perceptions in a dream also involve this type of consciousness. Thinking a thought makes the person conscious of the thought, but vijñana does not produce the thought. It is worth the effort to really get into how very different this analysis is from the western "conscious homunculus in the skull" model of consciousness. It can be said that phenomena gain consciousness upon perception.

So the flower receives something of your consciousness?

Any thoughts on the Flower Sermon in relation to this in Zen Buddhism?

 

[Ahanu]

What did Bahaollah say about Buddhism? That is my question. Did he know that a religion called Buddhism even existed? What did he know about Buddhism? Why we are discussing Abdul Baha?

I am unaware of any work from Baha'u'llah that directly mentioned Buddhism.

Abdu'l-Baha directly mentioned Buddhism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is what I mean. He must not have heard of Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism as well. There must have been Sikhs in Iran in Bahaollah's time. I do not know if he mentioned Sikhism (but then, in his time Hinduism and Sikhism were not separate religions). Basically, he had no information beyond his region and religion (which was Islam). Hindus will term such a person as 'koopa manduka' (the frog of the well, knowing nothing of the world outside the well).

 

[RJM]

That’s how it looks to me too. Trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, but to me it looks worse than trying to defend their concept of Abdu’l-Baha’s infallibility. It’s trying to defend the infallibility of their interpretation of one single statement allegedly from him, without any thought for the possibility that they’re misunderstanding it or that he never actually said that.

My comments were harsh and I would retract them if I could -- at least the tone of them. I was reacting to what I perceived as a Baha'i attack on Catholic beliefs, and questioning their grasp of other faiths too

 

[Aupmanyav]

The entire Message of Baha’u’llah is focused on our ability of embracing the Oneness of God and the Oneness of Humanity.
So no, Baha’u’llah has over one hundred volumes of writings that contain many thoughts on this topic.

So he left out all people who have more than one God. He also left out people who have no God. This is not the way to bring about oneness of Humanity.
So no, Bahaollah's message is not just that. It says all other religions except his own are not suitable for the present times and all must accept that he is a 'manifestation of Allah. I am sure that Bahaollah also has over one hundred volumes of writings that contain claims about him being the 'manifestation' of Allah.

Baha'is aren't the only ones to take up the Buddha.
Some Muslims believe the Buddha is al-Khadir - "the Green One" - in the Qur'an (see Hamza Yusuf's Buddha in the Qur'an?).

Seen that. I find no connection between Buddha and al-Khidr.