Baha'i

[Mick]

Vajradhara,

Just passing through, but thought I should answer this one quickly.

by the by... which of the Baha'i schools do you follow?

The Bab declared His mission in 1844 which was "...to prepare the world for someone Greater than Himself...The Unifier...The Comforter." In 1863 Baha'u'llah stated "I am the Promised One of all religions and if there is a religion that has been forgotten man and it had a Promised One, I am Him too. When He passed in 1892, He told us to turn to 'Abdu'l-Baha to learn to live the life. When 'Abdu'l-Baha passed away in 1921, his will and testament told us to turn to his Grandson, Shoghi Effendi. He is known as the Guardian. When Shoghi Effendi passed away in 1957, The Hands of the Cause of God ( a group of followers appointed by 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, because of their spiritual strength, as guides, but with no administrative powers, on not finding a will and testament chose to form the Universal House of Justice as designed in all the writings of the Central Figures and Shoghi Effendi.

Now here is where the wicket becomes sticky. At each passing, there was a group of followers that banded around one that declard that he should be the new leader. For the most part, the years have caused most of them to die off. The most recent split in 1957, is still around and with the power of the net, seems to have a presence rather than just the few that exist.

I am a member of the Baha'i Faith with no adjectives and no secrets. If a party doesn't recognize one of the above mentioned central figures or institutions, then they are not a member of the Baha'i Faith, they are members of some group that has not recognized the continuation of the Faiths growth.

Allah'u'Abha, dear friend and sorry for the lengthy post when it would seem to most to be a simple answer

warmly,

Mick

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick,

thanks for the response.

We do have a Baha'i Administrative Order. It starts with the Local Spiritual Assembly. The Assembly is formed every April 21 wherever 9 or more adult Baha'is reside. They look over the spiritual well being of the community and will use the consultative will of the assembly to resolve disputes between the followers. I sat on an assembly for many years, and surprisingly we used this consultation practice to resolve disputes between non-Baha'is more than between Baha'is. The Assembly is formed through a secret ballot election. There are no nominations or people offering themselves for service. We simply write down the names of the 9 most luminous individuals in the community and whomever receives the most votes, become Local Spiritual Assembley members.

are these decisions binding upon the adherent? if so, are there any penalties perscribed for trangression of the collective decision?

You, my friend, are a wordsmith, which I appreciate, but struggle with myself. I had to look up ontological and yes, I would say perhaps a combination of the two. In the Progressive Revelation of God, what once was an absolute truth, could become a relative truth. In the Christian religion, Paul gave directions to slaves as well as slave owners. This could be construed as an absolute truth of the acceptance of slavery. It today is a relative truth, for the time and the absolute truth is the oneness of mankind. This Revelation of God is absolute today, but in the future as new Manifestations reveal themselves, they could become relative. Regardless, the absolutes of God are recognizable in their simplicity and their rightness.

thank you for the compliment, though i am just a bug. hmm... if the absolute truth can become a relative truth, given time, one would have to conclude that it was not an absolute truth to begin with. perhaps, it was a provisional truth that was appropriate to the capacities of the individuals to hear it?

If a religion told you it would be ok to steal so you would have more to donate to their cause, this would be easily recognizable as a falsehood and not of God. If a religion told you that by praying in a certain manner and reciting certain words, you will be rewarded in some other life, this too would be easy to question and say, why? If they told you that through prayer and meditation, you develop your soul and this will affect how you live your life, you may say, yes this is a direction of God. It makes sense and in its simplicity gives ourselves as well as mankind a better existance.

agreed.. if a religion espoused stealing, i would not consider it a valid refuge. refuge is a technical Buddhist term to denote a valid spiritual tradition. we consider a spiritual tradition to be valid if it espouses a positive moral and ethical code. in any event... there are religions that say you must pray in this certain fashion and say these certain words. there is value and use in such a technique for some individuals. prayer and meditation are, as you can imagine, high in the Buddhist praxis heirarchy.

But a thoughtful moment? Yes. In fact, by definition, Progressive Revelation suggests that it is not complete, but in the future, more will be revealed as mankind can assimilate it. Jesus of Nazereth said, "I have many things to share with you, you cannot bear...", because mankind was not ready for it at that time.

this is very similar to our concept of the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma. briefly... there are three Buddhist traditions... Hinyana (lesser vehicle), Mahayana (greater vehicle) and Vajrayana (Diamond vehicle) which represent three more progressively esoteric understandings of the teachings. in Buddhism we have a concept called "skillful means" which means that the realized teacher employs teachings that are specifically geared for the needs and understanding capacity of the audience. thus, teachings can, from the same teacher, appear quite contradictory if not viewed with the correct understanding.

Baha'u'llah told the people of Persia and Iraq that there would come a day when mankind would speak to each other within a matter of seconds and visit each other in a matter of hours, so it is necessary to have an auxiallary language so that we can communicate. You can imagine in 1863, this had little meaning to them. Yet, we can see the need as we write on this forum and the travel industry has managed to put almost anyplace within our reach within a matter of hours.

Esparonto, anyone? for those that don't know... Esparonto was created to be a "world wide language" in the late 1890's, iirc. it didn't really catch on

it seems like, despite all it's limitations, English is becoming the "world language".

Would you be so kind as to explain the law of Karma? Does this have to do with fate or predestination?

briefly, Karma is the Moral Law of Cause and Effect. Karma is created by the intentions of ones actions, not by the act itself. in a sense, it can be compared to fate or predestination due to the fact that "what you sow, so shall you reap." however, one thing that is quite different and important to bear in mind is that Karma is not fixed and unchangeable. you can change your Karma for positive or negative, right now... so it doesn't follow that, one must reap what they sow, though that is usually how it happens.

'Abdu'l-Baha is the son of Baha'u'llah. When Baha'u'llah passed away in 1892, he told the followers to turn to 'Abdu'l-Baha to learn to live the life. He is called the Exemplar. His writings are considered translations and explanations of the writings of Baha'u'llah and The Bab. They are short treatises that were transcribed from talks he did around the supper table. We don't see them as complete, but we do see them as accurate.

Thankyou for your kind assessments,

warmly,

Mick

if i understand properly... the Bab predicted the arrival of Baha'u'llah, is that correct? moreover, the Baha'u'llah was already existent at the time of the Bab's death, is that correct?

an unrelated question... how does your faith tradition view homosexuality?

 

[IMSassafras]

indeed... i took them to be representative samples, however, he specifically talks about the historical Buddha and Confucious in the link that i referenced above. to sum up, his assessment of them is, in my opinon, incorrrect. not least of which is because Confucious or Kung Fu-tze as he was known before the missionaries arrived, didn't create a religion. he created a social paradigm to revitalized the social contract of the nation. remember, he and Lao-tzu (not to mention Lu Bei, Li Er, Chang-tzu et al) were running around during a period of Chinese history called the Warring States Period. eh... we can talk ancient Chinese history some other time though

Actually we are in agreement. We see the Buddha as a Manifestation of God and His message from God. We give credit to the Buddha for our knowledge of the soul or the spirit within. What you wrote about Confucious and Lao-tzu are within the teachings of Baha'u'llah.


I understand your explanation concerning the show of respect to the Buddha's teachings with physical displays of gifts and abasement. On the other hand, we are warned in the Baha'i Faith as the world was warned by Moses not to give adulation to idols. It is only wrong because it directs our worship towards a physical practice and not a spiritual practice. The results of such practices is to give the worshipper a false feeling of doing something worthy, when the reality of the Manifestation is that we are to follow His directions to better ourselves and our world. I am not being overly critical of the practice. Most religions and maybe all of them have some sort of ritual practice that could be construed as abasing to the individual. It is the way it was. Baha'u'llah has simply told us not to do it anymore. That is for us and those that see the harm in the old ways.

Thank you for the site you gave me. I will go there when I have a chance.

warmly,

Mick

 

[Mick]

Vajradhara

I apologize. I rebooted and it seems my wifes cookie is the default cookie on this site. Sooooo, the last post came out in her name. Confusing enough yet?

Mick

 

[Mick]

Vajradhara,

are these decisions binding upon the adherent? if so, are there any penalties perscribed for trangression of the collective decision?

Not really. The Assembly is to act in a loving and guiding manner. We are told to accept the decisions of the Local Spiritual Assembly and if they are wrong it will be righted. If we do not follow the suggestions of the Assembly, then we are on our own, I guess. We would initially go to them to have what is right prevail, and not necessarily to just get a judgement that would make us happy. The only thing I can think of that is mandated by the Assembly is if we are breaking one of the laws and our actions would cause harm to the community as a whole. Then we would be told to stop whatever we are doing that is harmful and the Assembly would offer itself as a loving guide to aid the member while he is changing his/hers actions.

thank you for the compliment, though i am just a bug. hmm... if the absolute truth can become a relative truth, given time, one would have to conclude that it was not an absolute truth to begin with. perhaps, it was a provisional truth that was appropriate to the capacities of the individuals to hear it?

Perhaps that is what an absolute truth is. One that an individual has the capacity to understand and hear.

there are religions that say you must pray in this certain fashion and say these certain words. there is value and use in such a technique for some individuals. prayer and meditation are, as you can imagine, high in the Buddhist praxis heirarchy.

And prayer and meditation is the cornerstone of the Baha'i Faith.

in Buddhism we have a concept called "skillful means" which means that the realized teacher employs teachings that are specifically geared for the needs and understanding capacity of the audience. thus, teachings can, from the same teacher, appear quite contradictory if not viewed with the correct understanding.

Exactly, but instead of just within one religion now project that concept to the realm of God. You see, there are many practices in the Buddhist tradition that reflect God. The Progressive Revelation of God is not an invention of Baha'u'llah, but, instead, an explanation of what has already come to pass. Within religions we can see this same Progressive Revelation. One example is the Abraham/Moses/Jesus Progression. Interestingly we see it as two religions, when in reality the Jewish religion is made up of two or more progressions itself.

Esparonto, anyone? for those that don't know... Esparonto was created to be a "world wide language" in the late 1890's, iirc. it didn't really catch on

it seems like, despite all it's limitations, English is becoming the "world language".

Baha'u'llah was asked what the language would be and He never answered. When Esperanto was invented Baha'is took this to 'Abdu'l-Baha and asked if this was the auxilliary language that Baha'u'llah talked of and he said we will see. I was riding on a train between Prague, Czeckos and Bratislava, Slovakia and explaining the auxilliary language concept to a Czeck citizen when he suggested that the English language had already become the auxilliary language Baha'u'llah spoke of. I asked why he would say that and he said the computer has made it so. So, yes, maybe English is the language that we will all use to communicate with each other.

briefly, Karma is the Moral Law of Cause and Effect. Karma is created by the intentions of ones actions, not by the act itself. in a sense, it can be compared to fate or predestination due to the fact that "what you sow, so shall you reap." however, one thing that is quite different and important to bear in mind is that Karma is not fixed and unchangeable. you can change your Karma for positive or negative, right now... so it doesn't follow that, one must reap what they sow, though that is usually how it happens.

This is one of those round robin type of responses that always confuses me. You said Kharma could be compared to predestination but you also said that Kharma is not fixed or unchangeable. My suggestion is that this is as confusing as the explanation for the Trinity. We do not accept predestination in anyway. We are told we have free will, which would include the ability to recognize God or reject Him, to accept the words of one Manifestation over another and to chose to live a spiritual life or a material life. When I say we, I mean all of mankind, not just Baha'is.

if i understand properly... the Bab predicted the arrival of Baha'u'llah, is that correct?

Yes, He called Him, "He whom God would make manifest,"

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. vi)

moreover, the Baha'u'llah was already existent at the time of the Bab's death, is that correct?

Yes. Baha'u'llah knew of His station 10 years before He revealed Himself to the followers in the Garden of Ridvan outside of Bagdad in 1863. The Bab, in the minutes before His martyrdom, sent His personal belongings, including his seal, to Baha'u'llah with explicit instructions concerning the followers. That was in 1850. Baha'u'llah became overwhelmed with His Imbuement in 1853 in the prison of Chihriq. He wrote, "I was but a man lying on a couch, when a breeze wafted over me..." He went on to say that all that was known and all that was to know was given to him. I am not quoting at this moment. We are in the midst of moving and some of my books are not here with me. If you are interested in the exact quote, I can probably find it on the internet. It is a pretty remarkable quote when you stop to think it is the first time a Manifestation was able to describe the process of imbuement by God.

an unrelated question... how does your faith tradition view homosexuality?

Very unpopular subject right now in this permissive world of "If it feels good, do it." We have specific laws regarding chastity outside of marriage. We are told if someone that is openly gay approaches the Baha'i Faith for information, we should welcome them with open arms and teach them the laws concerning chastity and harm of a promiscuous lifestyle. I know this is an avoidance kind of answer. We condemn no one, but are warned that homosexual practices can be harmful and not productive. This information is being given to you by a man that has a daughter that is openly gay with a life partner. I love them both, but pray for some understanding. Maybe this is why it is such a tough subject for me.

warmly,

Mick

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick,

thank you for the response

Actually we are in agreement. We see the Buddha as a Manifestation of God and His message from God. We give credit to the Buddha for our knowledge of the soul or the spirit within. What you wrote about Confucious and Lao-tzu are within the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

hmm... well... i've not really written much about Lao Tzu, here at least. though i've not found a reference to him in the writings of Baha'u'llah as of yet. if you have a link or a specific reference that talks about him, i'd appreciate it

I understand your explanation concerning the show of respect to the Buddha's teachings with physical displays of gifts and abasement. On the other hand, we are warned in the Baha'i Faith as the world was warned by Moses not to give adulation to idols. It is only wrong because it directs our worship towards a physical practice and not a spiritual practice. The results of such practices is to give the worshipper a false feeling of doing something worthy, when the reality of the Manifestation is that we are to follow His directions to better ourselves and our world. I am not being overly critical of the practice. Most religions and maybe all of them have some sort of ritual practice that could be construed as abasing to the individual. It is the way it was. Baha'u'llah has simply told us not to do it anymore. That is for us and those that see the harm in the old ways.

well... Moses only warned the Jews of this.. though we can leave aside our discussion of Judaism for now

in our tradition, our praxis is non-dual. we make no distinction between a physical practice or ritual and a non-physical practice. in point of fact, we use them both equally as it has been demonstrated that used in combination is the most effective method of rapid spiritual development, at least from our traditions point of view. again, though... it's not really "worship" as is commonly defined. such concepts are western or, more specifically, theistic in nature and have no place within Buddhist praxis. remember... in Buddhism... you are no different than the Buddha.. you ARE the Buddha and the Buddha is you. to say "worship" in this sense is incorrect with regards to Buddhist praxis.

from the Buddhist point of view, the result of such a practice is to generate merit, or positive karmic seeds. if one feels worthy in some fashion, this is simply the ego ursurping the spiritual experience for its own use and is not the defining experience of the practice.

~compassionately~

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick,

thank you for the response.

Vajradhara,

Not really. The Assembly is to act in a loving and guiding manner. We are told to accept the decisions of the Local Spiritual Assembly and if they are wrong it will be righted. If we do not follow the suggestions of the Assembly, then we are on our own, I guess. We would initially go to them to have what is right prevail, and not necessarily to just get a judgement that would make us happy. The only thing I can think of that is mandated by the Assembly is if we are breaking one of the laws and our actions would cause harm to the community as a whole. Then we would be told to stop whatever we are doing that is harmful and the Assembly would offer itself as a loving guide to aid the member while he is changing his/hers actions.

i suppose i was wondering if there was something like excommunication that would be meted out to a transgressing memeber of the congregation.

Perhaps that is what an absolute truth is. One that an individual has the capacity to understand and hear.

hmm... not from the Buddhist point of view at least... those are relative truths. the absolute truth is inexpressible in our language as our language is rooted in the relative... in the subject/object dichotomy.

Exactly, but instead of just within one religion now project that concept to the realm of God. You see, there are many practices in the Buddhist tradition that reflect God. The Progressive Revelation of God is not an invention of Baha'u'llah, but, instead, an explanation of what has already come to pass. Within religions we can see this same Progressive Revelation. One example is the Abraham/Moses/Jesus Progression. Interestingly we see it as two religions, when in reality the Jewish religion is made up of two or more progressions itself.

i'm unaware of a single practice in Buddhism that reflects any god, let alone a specific Creator Deity. rightly enough, there are some practices in the Vajrayana that can be misconstrued to be a form of deity worship, but this would simply refelect the misunderstanding of the one that held that idea.

moreover... the Buddha specifically refutes the idea of a Creator Deity.. at that time and place, the Creator Deity was Ishvara.

interestingly enough... the Hindus or rather, the Brahamins have attemped a similar maneouver with regards to Buddha... they consider him to be an incarnation of Vishnu.... he just didn't know it. they are incorrect.. Buddha (we are speaking of the historical Buddha.. for clarities sake) specifically refuted the idea that he was a god.. moreover, he also refuted the idea that he was a human. when asked what he was, the Buddha replied: "awake".

This is one of those round robin type of responses that always confuses me. You said Kharma could be compared to predestination but you also said that Kharma is not fixed or unchangeable. My suggestion is that this is as confusing as the explanation for the Trinity. We do not accept predestination in anyway. We are told we have free will, which would include the ability to recognize God or reject Him, to accept the words of one Manifestation over another and to chose to live a spiritual life or a material life. When I say we, I mean all of mankind, not just Baha'is.

it can be comparared to it, but it is not it. you can compare an apple to an orange, but that does not make the apple an orange. often, i try to explain things through a paradigm that the listener already has.. it makes more sense then.

for a fully detailed answer on this, please read this thread. mind it you.. it's very long and has detailed answers. if you have questions after reading it, i'd be happy to try to resolve them for you:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259

Very unpopular subject right now in this permissive world of "If it feels good, do it." We have specific laws regarding chastity outside of marriage. We are told if someone that is openly gay approaches the Baha'i Faith for information, we should welcome them with open arms and teach them the laws concerning chastity and harm of a promiscuous lifestyle. I know this is an avoidance kind of answer. We condemn no one, but are warned that homosexual practices can be harmful and not productive. This information is being given to you by a man that has a daughter that is openly gay with a life partner. I love them both, but pray for some understanding. Maybe this is why it is such a tough subject for me.

warmly,

Mick

thank you for sharing that with us, Mick. the reason i was asking about this particular thing is due to the otherwise very well stated concepts of Baha'i equality and non-discrimination. from what i can read, nothing specifically addresses homosexuality in any shape, form or fashion. eh... the limitations of the internet perhaps.... one never knows.

not to point a finger, mind you... Buddhism also doesn't address homosexuality in particular. Buddhism addresses sexuality in general and applies that to all sexual perferences...

 

[Mick]

Allah'u'Abha Vajradhara

hmm... well... i've not really written much about Lao Tzu, here at least. though i've not found a reference to him in the writings of Baha'u'llah as of yet. if you have a link or a specific reference that talks about him, i'd appreciate it

I apologize. I mistook Lao-tzu for Tao. I did a simple search on a couple of sites and found no mention of Lao-tzu.

well... Moses only warned the Jews of this.. though we can leave aside our discussion of Judaism for now

Well, Baha'u'llah has explained to us that the message of God affects the whole world when it is delivered. For instance, the Ten Commandants has managed to find its way into the jurisprudence codes of all nations. The sytem of order and bureaucracy that Mohammed gave us has again found its way into all political systems. So, even though Moses delivered the Ten Commandants to a particular Jewish people, it has affected all of us.

in our tradition, our praxis is non-dual. we make no distinction between a physical practice or ritual and a non-physical practice. in point of fact, we use them both equally as it has been demonstrated that used in combination is the most effective method of rapid spiritual development, at least from our traditions point of view. again, though... it's not really "worship" as is commonly defined. such concepts are western or, more specifically, theistic in nature and have no place within Buddhist praxis. remember... in Buddhism... you are no different than the Buddha.. you ARE the Buddha and the Buddha is you. to say "worship" in this sense is incorrect with regards to Buddhist praxis.

Maybe. I seem to feel that you are protesting the use of such words as worship and deity too much. The Buddhists I have known have been spiritual as well as thoughtful. No different than the Baha'is or the Christians that have left the dogmatic boundries their church have formed. Same for a couple of Islamic individuals I went to school with. We shared both meditation and prayer. Everything that is written in the Baha'i Faith about the historical Buddha states without reservation, that He was/is a Manifestation of God and 'Abdu'l-Baha has stated numerous times it is the followers that have strayed from this knowledge and have reinvented His message. I can tell you there are 7 million plus Baha'is that give the Buddha geat respect and love for his station.

warmly,

Mick

 

[Mick]

Allah''u'Abha Vajradhara

i suppose i was wondering if there was something like excommunication that would be meted out to a transgressing memeber of the congregation.

Well there is something called losing one's administrative rights. This could happen because one has continued to live outside of the laws of the Faith. For instance, they continued to use drugs and was bold about it. The individual could lose their administrative rights after a lengthy period of consultation and nurturing by the Assembly. BTW, losing ones administrative rights would mean a person couldn't donate to a Baha'i fund, vote in a Baha'i election or attend a Baha'i convention. One would still be a Baha'i and one would receive his/hers administrative rights back by changing whatever it is they are doing. You know, this is kind of administrative/boring stuff and I am only discussing it because you have brought it up. This seldom happens and if it does, my experience has been it is best for everyone.

The people of Baha are generally kind and generous individuals, but we too have our personal problems. Hopefully with support and love from the community, we can overcome them.

hmm... not from the Buddhist point of view at least... those are relative truths. the absolute truth is inexpressible in our language as our language is rooted in the relative... in the subject/object dichotomy.

I am sure that there are many Baha'is that would love to get involved with a discussion of absolute/relative truths. I find it non-productive. Of course, it could have more pertinent meaning to you in your tradition, than I am able to assimilate. Let's just say that the truths revealed to mankind by the Manifestations are absolute truths. We see them as axiomatic. In the progression of the revelation, though, the next Manifestation may add to this meaning. We feel the most recent message from God is the most complete and so would be the absolute truth. All other messages from previous Manifestations may be either absolute or relative if altered or added to by ensuing Manifestations; relative to the time and culture they were shared with mankind.

i'm unaware of a single practice in Buddhism that reflects any god, let alone a specific Creator Deity. rightly enough, there are some practices in the Vajrayana that can be misconstrued to be a form of deity worship, but this would simply refelect the misunderstanding of the one that held that idea.

And I am surely not the one to tell you what you're practices are. But we are told in the Faith that the Buddha's teachings have been changed by the followers to dilute or even erase His teachings of God and our soul. I mentioned in an earlier post that we give credit to the Buddha for our awareness of our soul within us.

moreover... the Buddha specifically refutes the idea of a Creator Deity.. at that time and place, the Creator Deity was Ishvara.

Really, I am not aware of this. These are pretty strong words. In the west we would answer with 'Chapter and Verse', please. Where would I be able to find this refutation documented?

interestingly enough... the Hindus or rather, the Brahamins have attemped a similar maneouver with regards to Buddha... they consider him to be an incarnation of Vishnu.... he just didn't know it. they are incorrect.. Buddha (we are speaking of the historical Buddha.. for clarities sake) specifically refuted the idea that he was a god.. moreover, he also refuted the idea that he was a human. when asked what he was, the Buddha replied: "awake".

I love it. That is a beautiful response. We do not see the Manifestations as God, either. We use the description of a perfectly polished mirror to describe the Manifestation. This mirror would reflect all the attributes of God, but He would still be a living human and the most "awake" individual on the planet. We also recognize that though these individuals may have been born to become Manifested, until the moment of imbuement, 40 days under the Lote tree if I am correct, they are no more than a human being and these reflective qualities are not present.

for a fully detailed answer on this, please read this thread. mind it you.. it's very long and has detailed answers.

thank you. I have copy/pasted and printed so I may spend time off the computer perusing. Will get back with you when I have a comment or question.

thank you for sharing that with us, Mick. the reason i was asking about this particular thing is due to the otherwise very well stated concepts of Baha'i equality and non-discrimination.

Yes, but don't get it wrong. We are not the sheep that lie with the lion. For instance, individuals that have tried to form their own religion under the guise of the Baha'i Faith, we are directed to shun. Brrrr, what a horrible word. We have very definitive directions concerning criminals. Anybody that is doing something that is disunifying to the whole, can be dealt with firmly. In fact, Baha'u'llah has told us the greatest sin we can do is to back-bite or gossip, because it is so disunifying. He also has told us the greatest prayer we can achieve is treat one of God's creatures in a kind fashion.

We are probably not what in the west one would call liberals, but on the other hand we are a warm and loving community that is concerned about all of humanity.

warmly,

Mick

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick,

thanks for the response.

Allah'u'Abha Vajradhara

I apologize. I mistook Lao-tzu for Tao. I did a simple search on a couple of sites and found no mention of Lao-tzu.

no worries. Lao-tzu is generally credited with the first flowering of Taoism.. though, in truth, it was the Yellow Emperor... but most folks aren't that interested in the subtleties

Well, Baha'u'llah has explained to us that the message of God affects the whole world when it is delivered. For instance, the Ten Commandants has managed to find its way into the jurisprudence codes of all nations. The sytem of order and bureaucracy that Mohammed gave us has again found its way into all political systems. So, even though Moses delivered the Ten Commandants to a particular Jewish people, it has affected all of us.

hmm... this is not correct, in my opinon. you will not find the Ten Commandments as part of the legal code of Tibet, Laos, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Bhutan, Sikkhim or really any of the Buddhist nations. they use a different value system for the basis of their jurisprudence system. now... it should be clearly said that where missionaries have made strong inroads in these countries, their laws are reflective of such. moral values of the Ten Commandments exist in some form or another in nearly every culture so one would expect to find things like justice, compassion, mercy, non-violence and so forth as part and parcel of any culture that may still exist.

as for political systems. i shall have to disagree with you once more. i am unaware of a democratic style of government postulated within the folds of Islam, no matter the sect. moreover, i am also unaware of a Divine King concept within Islam, as we see with the World Ruling Kings of India, as an earthly political system. from what i've been able to fathom, the Islamic political system is patriarichial in nature with a very strong theocratic model also postulated. in practice, it seems to be a combination of the two.

Maybe. I seem to feel that you are protesting the use of such words as worship and deity too much. The Buddhists I have known have been spiritual as well as thoughtful. No different than the Baha'is or the Christians that have left the dogmatic boundries their church have formed. Same for a couple of Islamic individuals I went to school with. We shared both meditation and prayer. Everything that is written in the Baha'i Faith about the historical Buddha states without reservation, that He was/is a Manifestation of God and 'Abdu'l-Baha has stated numerous times it is the followers that have strayed from this knowledge and have reinvented His message. I can tell you there are 7 million plus Baha'is that give the Buddha geat respect and love for his station.

warmly,

Mick

hmm... well, i'm not sure to what you are saying "maybe." i can tell you for certain that this is how we view it.

i do protest those words.. but its not the words themselves that i protest. it is the implied meaning of those words. what does the word "worship" mean? what does the word "deity" mean? i protest because this is a mischaracterization of the Buddhist praxis and in the interest of inter-religious dialog, it is important for people to have a proper and accurate understanding of each others traditions.

it is all well and fine for your tradition to say that Buddha was a manifestation of God, however, that is certainly not how any Buddhist would view it.. and as this is a forum wherein we exchange information with each other, you should clearly know that no Buddhist would support the position outlined in the referenced texts.... now, i must confess, that i am operating under the presumption that you are interested in our perspective on this. if that is not the case, please let me know and i shall modify my postings in this regard.

imagine, if you will, how the Buddhist would characterize Baha'u'llah. we would say that this individual was a Bodhisattva. undoubtedly, you would not agree with this characterization, however from our point of view, this would be a very good thing. in point of fact, this is exactly the view we have with regards to Jesus and Mohammad, Moses and so forth.

it would appear that you've put the Buddha into a different station than what he claimed for himself. If the Buddha is a manifestation of God, that completely, utterly and entirely destroys his teachings. it is beyond the scope of this disucssion to get into this here, however, rest assured that this is the case. there is no escape and no liberation and the wheel of samsara will continue to roll. this is not a position that i can support.

i also cannot conceive of how you can say "We give credit to the Buddha for our knowledge of the soul or the spirit within" when the Buddha clearly refuted such notions of "soul" or "spirit", perhaps you can explain this to me in a manner in which i can understand?

as for the followers losing the message and straying from the teachings... well... i'm not really sure what to tell you, except that, as you might expect, we do not agree.

let me ask you something... do you think its possible that we may have a greater insight into our tradition and knowledge of our tradition than your tradition has of us? this is specifically why i ask adherents of other faith traditions to explain what and why and all of that... for, though i am a fairly knowledgeable individual vis a vie religion, you cannot get the "feel" of the tradition from a book, it must be communicated in a dynamic fashion for me to approximate an understanding.... well, for me at least

 

[Vajradhara]

Allah''u'Abha Vajradhara


Really, I am not aware of this. These are pretty strong words. In the west we would answer with 'Chapter and Verse', please. Where would I be able to find this refutation documented?

indeed, it is so. i would be happy to provide sutra references, and i shall in this instance, however.... i would typically perfer to be less pendantic than this.

1. Dhammapada ch 12 - 14

2. Brahmajâla sutta (talks about God)

3. Bhûridatta Jataka

4. Lankavatara Sutra (in this sutra, the Buddha refutes the notions of a "soul" or "atman" as it is known in sanskrit)

5. Bodhicittavivarana (herein the "self" is refuted as well as a creator deity)

6. Kevaddha Sutta

7. Maha-Govinda Suttanta



a link that may prove to be of some value:

http://www.buddhanet.net/10-gqga.htm

Good Answers to Good Qeustions.

other links that may prove to be of interest:

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm


now.. i should point out that some of the sutra references may not make a whole lot of sense when you read them without a proper understanding of Buddhist basics... 4 Noble Truths, Noble 8 Fold path, et al.

 

[arthra]

I think Mick has been doing an excellent job in his posts here and I just discovered this topic or thread, but I had the impression that Vajra believess there are "schools" among Baha'is or various schools of thought perhaps:

Vajra wrote:

"... which of the Baha'i schools do you follow?"

I don't know what this refers to and would be ask if Vajra could elaborate perhaps?

Baha'is are remarkably united in our views and there are no divisive camps among us.

One of our principles is being non-partisan as well as avoiding contention, so we lok for areas we have in common first and gather information on an area ratehr than divide into polarized camps.

We have no electioneering in the Baha'i Faith when we elect our administrative bodies.

One final note:

I would think also it would be natural or a considerration for those who set up Comparative Religion.com to consider Baha'i Faith as an independent religion among our older "sibling" religions as we have our own revealed scriptures and Holy Days, etc.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste arthra,

thank you for the post.

by "schools" i mean sects

specifically i mean:

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Bahá'í World Faith is followed by the vast majority of believers. In the United States, it is headed by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. Authority once exercised by Shoghi Effendi is now transferred to the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant who recognized Mason Remey as theguardian who succeeded Shoghi Effendi. They have organized a series of International Baha'i Councils (IBC).They claim a membership approaching 144,000. Their Baha'i Center is located in Missoula, MT. [/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Faith of God, (a.k.a. the House of Mankind and the Universal Palace of Order), who followed Jamshid Ma'ani. They "are no longer active (listed as 'defunct' in Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Religions)."[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Orthodox Bahá'í Faith," (a.k.a. Mother Bahá'í Council), who follow Joel Marangella.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Orthodox Baha'i Faith Under the Regency, who follow Rex King.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The Charles Mason Remey Society, who follow Donald Harvey and Francis Spataro.[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]A dissident group organized around The Friends Newsletter.[/font]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bahai.htm

 

[arthra]

Namaste arthra,

thank you for the post.

by "schools" i mean sects

Yes Vajra, these are not "schools of thought" but rather some splinter groups that broke off from the vast majority of Baha'is.

Historically there have been many attempts to divide the Baha'is from the very beginning of our Faith, but none have ever succeeded in accomplishing this.

Only the internet seems to grant some of these groups a semblance of "reality".

The Baha'i Faith is centered in Haifa, Israel and is administered by the Universal House of Justice there. Both Mick and I are Baha'is recognizing the Universal House of Justice.

None of these groups you mentioned have succeeded in dividing the Baha'is or forming anything like say the denominations in Christianity or the many sects in Buddhism or Islam.

I'm supplying you with a site where you can explore the history of some of these groups at your leisure:

http://bahai-library.org/encyclopedia/covenant.html

You'll need to scroll down to the bottom of the article for the pertinent sections.

Please feel free to ask anything else along these lines and I'd be very pleased to respond!

- Art

 

[arthra]

Vajra wrote:

if you will, how the Buddhist would characterize Baha'u'llah. we would say that this individual was a Bodhisattva. undoubtedly, you would not agree with this characterization, however from our point of view, this would be a very good thing. in point of fact, this is exactly the view we have with regards to Jesus and Mohammad, Moses and so forth.

it would appear that you've put the Buddha into a different station than what he claimed for himself. If the Buddha is a manifestation of God, that completely, utterly and entirely destroys his teachings. it is beyond the scope of this disucssion to get into this here, however, rest assured that this is the case. there is no escape and no liberation and the wheel of samsara will continue to roll. this is not a position that i can support.

My reply:

Since you brought up this area or rather it was being discussed earlier with Mick, I thought Vajra I would submit a few perspectives that may be helpful in explaining the Baha'i views.

But first let me say that Baha'is have very friendly and cordial relations with Buddhists in Asia. In South Vietnam before the collapse of the government there, many Buddhists became Baha'is at least there were some ten thousand or so during that regime...many of these Vietnamese Baha'is came to the United States and continued in the Baha'i community while a good many remained in Communist Vietnam. Since Baha'is obey their government the Baha'is in Vietnam are no longer able to meet or elect their own Baha'i governing bodies.

In Mongolia also a number of Buddhists have become Baha'is and formed a (Baha'i) National Spiritual Assembly. I don't have exact figures.

I hope you do not regard it though as some kind of "slight" or attack on your religion that Baha'is recognize Gautama Buddha as "Manifestation of God" and I don't think Baha'is would be offended at all if Buddhists regarded Baha'u'llah as a "Bodhisattwa" as we accept that Baha'u'llah was the promised Maitreyya-Amitabha Buddha.

I'm sure you're aware that many Vaishnava Hindus also regard the Buddha as an Avatara.

We could explain further what a "Manifestation of God" is in more detail, but for this discussion let me say that from my own research on Buddhism and I studied Theravadin schools and took refuge years ago in the Three Jewels, that the Buddha's teaching regarding the soul and God is closer to an agnostic position than it is an atheist position.

In the Baha'i Faith, God is defined as a an "Unknowable Essence" and the soul of man is regarded as a mystery that cannot be well defined in this existence.

So from my perspective there was not a great difference between the Buddha's teaching in this respect and the Baha'i Writings when I became a Baha'i.

There's also a good article on the subject in our on-line Baha'i Encyclopaedia at

http://bahai-library.org/encyclopedia/buddhism.html

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

namaste arthra,

thank you for the post... i'll snip my stuff that you replied to out, so as not to exceed the post limits

My reply:

But first let me say that Baha'is have very friendly and cordial relations with Buddhists in Asia. In South Vietnam before the collapse of the government there, many Buddhists became Baha'is at least there were some ten thousand or so during that regime...many of these Vietnamese Baha'is came to the United States and continued in the Baha'i community while a good many remained in Communist Vietnam. Since Baha'is obey their government the Baha'is in Vietnam are no longer able to meet or elect their own Baha'i governing bodies.

interestingly enough, the govt of Vietnam has an "official Buddhist Church" which actually isn't very Buddhist at all... eh.. that's what happens when politics gets into religion.

I hope you do not regard it though as some kind of "slight" or attack on your religion that Baha'is recognize Gautama Buddha as "Manifestation of God" and I don't think Baha'is would be offended at all if Buddhists regarded Baha'u'llah as a "Bodhisattwa" as we accept that Baha'u'llah was the promised Maitreyya-Amitabha Buddha.

Matireya and Amitabha are different Buddhas altogether! Amitabha has already come and Maitreya is currently a Bodhisattva and will be the next Buddha... however, that has not come yet. we can know that it hasn't come yet because Maitreya will reappear in the age after the Dharma has ended... IOW, if we know about Maitreya, the Dharma hasn't ended... ergo, no Maitreya yet.

moreover, the Muslims claim the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was Maitreya... i think that i shall have to conclude that as far as Buddhist prophesies are concerned, the Buddhist position on this has to take precedence.

furthermore... last time i checked.. the human life span had not shrunk to 10 years (one of the preconditions for Maitreya) when Maitreya does appear as the Buddha, a few other things will be ongoing... firstly, there will be a World Ruling King (Chakrasamvara) in India...and the lifespan of a human will be 80,000 years. last time i checked on this... there isn't a World Ruling King in India... (we could, i suppose, make an argument for Asoka... though "world" at that time, wasn't the entire thing) and nobody is living past 120 or so....

what i really don't understand is why these two traditions (Islam and Baha'i) are selective in their choosing of Buddhist texts from which to draw their conclusions.... espeically with regards to prophecy. it's really quite baffleing to me.

well... i know that it's not an intentional attack... however... it's most certainly a slight. heck... were i a fundamentalist type of person, this would be down right insulting.... but i'm not... and, perhaps more importantly, i understand that this is your understanding of the situation, such that it is.

do you see how claiming that Buddha is a manifestation of God completely, totally and utterly undermines his teachings? if he's a manifestation of God, then he is not like us.. ergo... we cannot be like him. this is plainly not the case... as i'm sure you are aware as you indicate that you went for refuge to the Triple Jewel.

I'm sure you're aware that many Vaishnava Hindus also regard the Buddha as an Avatara.

indeed... he's regarded as the 9th incarnation of Vishnu. This is a move by the Bramins to undermine the teachings of the Buddha... in essence, this is a polemical position to take on the issue.... and moreover, is completely refuted by the Buddha himseslf.

We could explain further what a "Manifestation of God" is in more detail, but for this discussion let me say that from my own research on Buddhism and I studied Theravadin schools and took refuge years ago in the Three Jewels, that the Buddha's teaching regarding the soul and God is closer to an agnostic position than it is an atheist position.

the official position of Buddhism vis a vie the soul is called "anatman" which means, literally "no-self" which is directly opposed to the "atman" doctrine that is espoused in the Hindu tradition.

you are correct... Buddhism is not an atheist tradition... it is clearly depicted in the Sutras that Buddha taught both gods and men. what is, however, refuted quite thoroughly, is the concept of a Creator Deity. deities such as Brahma and Vishnu and Ishvara et al. are still subject to karma, they are not eternal and will be reborn when their karmic is expended in thier current existence.

In the Baha'i Faith, God is defined as a an "Unknowable Essence" and the soul of man is regarded as a mystery that cannot be well defined in this existence.

So from my perspective there was not a great difference between the Buddha's teaching in this respect and the Baha'i Writings when I became a Baha'i.

There's also a good article on the subject in our on-line Baha'i Encyclopaedia at

http://bahai-library.org/encyclopedia/buddhism.html

- Art

thank you for the link, i shall endeavor to read for myself the information therein.

as a general aside... i do hope that i don't appear to be angry or upset, i'm not really i am a bit of a stickler when it comes to my tradition, mostly since it is so often misrepresented and misconstrued that i have a hard time recognizing what it is that is being discussed.

often, it seems, these exchanges on the internet become mired in details that are only important to the adherents... ... there is something. it seems, that makes us want to ensure that others have an accurate understanding of what we believe.

 

[Mick]

Allah'u'Abha Vajradhara and Art,

I haven't dissappeared, but even guys like me have to work once in awhile. Sassafras and I will be working through Sunday this weekend and then I will be back on line for more than a passing moment.

Art,

Please jump in. I know you have knowledge and experience in the Eastern Traditions. Was hoping you would find this thread.

warmly,

Mick

 

[arthra]

Thanks Vajra for your notes and I'll review them carefully...before responding to all of them though, I'll also give you some time to read the article I posted for reference. Let me know when you have done so as I want you to be aware of our Baha'i perspective on the subject, and then I'll respond more fully.



I'm unsure about whose reference it was you referred to about the Vietnamese Buddhist Church ...was it your reference?

I agree it's best not to get mired into details and I do appreciate very your sensitivity on the points you raised!

The important thing is that no Baha'i is accepting the Buddha as a polemical tactic or tool to discredit Buddhism.



Here are some more references that I've found related to my last post:

Vietnamese Bahaism. A Survey of the Religions of Vietnam (Navy Personal Response Handout Series, C-1), Saigon: Comnavsuppac [US navy], n.d. [between 1964 and 1974]. Collins 7.2655 At the time of publication, the Baha'is had experienced considerable success in their missionary work in Vietnam, with many conversions.

The Annual Report to Congress of International Religious Freedom (IRF) for the year 2000 has this comment about Baha'is in Vietnam:

"In recent years, the conditions faced by Baha'is have improved in some localities where Baha'is have been able to practice their faith quietly with local permission. However, a Baha'i community in Danang was unable to obtain approval of its recent application for registration of official religious activities."

(And)

"During the war in Vietnam the Baha'i Faith in Southeast Asia particularly attracted ethnic Chinese and Hmong hill people; they have been especially numerous among the groups fleeing Vietnam. Baha'i teaching efforts in refugee camps attracted thousands of Cambodians and Laotians to the Baha'i Faith as well, and many of them came to the United States. As a result the American Baha'i community has several thousand Baha'is of Southeast Asian background";

Source:

http://bahai-library.org/articles/american.community.html

Here is also a reference I've found regarding Maitreyya and Amitabha (Avaloheteshvara) Buddha:

"He (Maitreyya) often forms a triad with Sakyamuni and Avalokitesvara; in fact, in Sri Lanka, sculptures thought to depict Avalokitesvara have been reinterpreted as showing Maitreya.

In Korea and Japan, where his cult enjoyed great favour from the sixth century, he is often confused (as in China) with Amitabha and Sakyamuni."

Source:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/maitreya2.htm

So I think there is evidence depending on the tradition of Buddhism that there is a view connecting Maitreyya with Amitabha.


- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste arthra,

thank you for the response.

do you perfer to be called art?

I'm unsure about whose reference it was you referred to about the Vietnamese Buddhist Church ...was it your reference?

oh.. that bit was mine.. you had mentioned Vietnam and this topic was tangentially related.

The important thing is that no Baha'i is accepting the Buddha as a polemical tactic or tool to discredit Buddhism.

this is my impression thus far. though in truth, i have only had an opportunity to discuss this with the three of you here i shall accept it, a priori.

Here is also a reference I've found regarding Maitreyya and Amitabha (Avaloheteshvara) Buddha:

"He (Maitreyya) often forms a triad with Sakyamuni and Avalokitesvara; in fact, in Sri Lanka, sculptures thought to depict Avalokitesvara have been reinterpreted as showing Maitreya.

In Korea and Japan, where his cult enjoyed great favour from the sixth century, he is often confused (as in China) with Amitabha and Sakyamuni."

Source:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/maitreya2.htm

So I think there is evidence depending on the tradition of Buddhism that there is a view connecting Maitreyya with Amitabha.


- Art

yes, but not in the way that you imagine that it is.

they are not the same being, represented in three different ways... which is what you are implying when you say that Amitabha and Maitreya are the same. they are distinct beings.

this really gets into some esoteric aspects of Buddhist thinking touching on foundational things which need to be firmly grasped and penetrated to get the full flavor of.. not saying that you do not, by any means, rather, i'm not qualifed to expound the fullness of my schools philosophical principles.

coincidently....

i shall be starting a thread in the Eastern Thought forum rather soon that deals with the different schools of Buddhist philosophy... hopefully, it will be of some interest and i will do an adequate job of representing the various views correctly.

(actually... i am quite worried that i don't represent my Theravedan brothers and sisters very accurately... )

by the by... in my tradition the triad of beings is Avolakiteshavara, Manjurshi and Vajrapani. heh... goes to show you how many blooms open under the Dharma rain

 

[arthra]

Relax Vajra my friend...

When you've read the reference I posted earlier on the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism let me know what you think....

I'll also give you a Baha'i perspective on Maitreyya and Amitabha.

I'm not here to convert you, but only to explain the Baha'i perspective!

- Art