Baha'i

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

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

i've read and re-read the link 4 times now... i think i have a grasp of the material, to some degree.

my overall impression is thus.. it would seem that the Baha'i exposition of Buddhism is Hinyanan in nature. this would account for some of the interpetations that are presented.

do not worry, mon ami, i have no fears of being converted

hopefully, i'm not coming on too strongly, as i'm really not like that at all i'm a very happy and joyful person... as a rule.... though, like anyone.. i can lose my patience. if you have perceived that on my behalf, i apologize.

 

[arthra]

Vajra...

Good! And what a beautiful rendition of devotional art you've chosen!

I hear you've read that reference earlier and if you'd like to ask further questions on it you're most welcome.

To an certain extend I think you'll find that each successive revelation or religion redefines to an extent the earlier one... So the Buddha in His teaching did not accept the authority of the Vedas and reinterpreted the gods in a new context...

Also there are many legends that abound that have been passed down through the ages and attach themselves to our thinking.

One expalnation of Amitabha by a Baha'i, a Jamshid Fozdar is that it is to be interpreted as a title such as "Eternal Splendour" the transcendental counterpart of the physical or human aspect or "Manushya" of the Buddha Maitreya.

However this is not an official explanation.

Amitabha broken down is "Amit-Abha" and coincidentally or not the "Abha" is identical in meaning to "Abha"(Splendour) a form that Baha'is refer to as the Greatest Name "Ya Baha'ul' Abha" Oh Glory of the All Glorious"

Baha'is do believe that Baha'u'llah was the One promised as Maitreya.

More later,

- Art

 

[Susma Rio Sep]

I am a postgraduate Catholic. I think I can qualify to be a Baha'i member. The way I see it, Baha'i is essentially my idea of a religion, namely:

A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.

I can fit perfectly in the Baha'i lifestyle and worship, and I can teach in their schools without any difficulty, and teach their religious doctrines and observances with all sincerity. No trouble at all.

Will they receive me to be a member? Do they require some kind of pledge and some kind of registration in some kind of roster?

As regards Buddhism, I consider it also as a religion in my above understanding of religion. Of course Buddhist elites like Vaj would take exceptions. But count me in also as a Buddhist, even in the version of Vaj and company. There is nothing in Vaj's Buddhism that I can't accept or I have to deny. Maybe they don't believe in God; but I understand that they don't disbelieve it either, not in the atheists' psyche and manner. So I don't think they would object to my meditating with them, even with my lapsing now and then into my old habit of communing with the Christian God and Jesus Christ, in the Christian school of mysticism.


It might be good for all Buddhist elites to get together and draw up a definitive list of beliefs they adhere to and disbeliefs they insist on, beliefs like existence is suffering, suffering comes from desire... and such disbeliefs as there is no God and any kind of unknown powers called gods or deities or devils or Satanas...

The tendency of observers when they spend time reading about Buddhism and observing their practices and lifestyle as Buddhists, the conclusion dawns upon them that they are no different from religion as understood in the above definition.

And that should be a task for Vaj and company to disabuse observers. My own suspicion is that for the giant masses of Buddhists who use the label of Buddhist on themselves, theirs is a religion no different in definition as regards essentials from that of Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Baha'i.

Susma Rio Sep

 

[arthra]

Thank you my dear friend Susma for your note:

Susma wrote:

The way I see it, Baha'i is essentially my idea of a religion, namely:

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A human behavior founded upon a belief in an unknown power resulting in affections and actions intended by the believer to influence the power to react favorably to the believer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can fit perfectly in the Baha'i lifestyle and worship, and I can teach in their schools without any difficulty, and teach their religious doctrines and observances with all sincerity. No trouble at all.

Will they receive me to be a member? Do they require some kind of pledge and some kind of registration in some kind of roster?

My reply:

I appreciated very much your words "I can fit perfectly in the Baha'i lifestyle and worship and can teach in their schools without difficulty and teach their religious doctrines and observances with all sincerity. No trouble at all."

I take it then you've been around Baha'is and are accepting Baha'u'llah as the Manifestation of God for this age! Allah'u'Abha my dear friend!

You then ask:

"Will they receive as a member?"

Well Baha'is have a very simply declaration of faith that says:

"I declare my belief in Baha'u'llah, the Promised One of God. I recognize the Bab, HIs Forerunner and Abdul-Baha, the Center of HIs Covenant. I request enrollment in the Baha'i Community with the understanding that Baha'u'llah has established sacred principles, laws, and institutions which I must obey."

When you have submitted this declaration to a Baha'i Institution you can be enrolled, but it is important I think to be certain this is what you most deeply and sincerely wish to do as sometimes one can be uninformed or may not be sure in one's heart of hearts.... So it is not a step to be taken lightly as there can be costs involved in becoming a Baha'i and I'm not referring to monetary costs but social and even personal costs depending on your situation. In some parts of the world today, being a Baha'i can place you at risk my dear friend. So be sure this a step you wish to take!

Further, you ask:

"Do they require some kind of pledge and some kind of registration in some kind of roster?"

My reply:

Well if you've been around Baha'is you know that we do have Institutions...and among them on the local level is the Local Spiritual Assembly, so all you have to do is submit the above declaration to them or you could also send it into your National Spiritual Assembly depending on your country of residence or to Regional Baha'i Council or to a Counselor or Auxiliary Board Member. So you have lots of choices... Most submit their applications to a Local Spiritual Assembly.

They will be most pleased to meet with you and answer any questions you might have about the responsibilities of being a Baha'i!

- Art

 

[Mick]

Vajradhara, Allah'u'Abha

My friends, I am back. Sorry for the three day absence, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. If I owe you a post, please let me know. It seems Art was able to answer most of your questions concerning the Baha'i perspective much more eloquently than I could have, but if there was something you were waiting for from me, that I have overlooked, please reiterate for me and I will do the best that I can.

do not worry, mon ami, i have no fears of being converted

Actually, that is not our job as Baha'i teachers. This thread started with you asking questions about the Baha'i Faith and I had tried to respond to them. Many times, when I do this, I am accused of trying to convert somebody. Well, I wouldn't know how to do this if I wanted to. A person becomes a Baha'i when he/she recognizes the station of Baha'u'llah and, by doing so, the truths of His words. He becomes a member of the Baha'i Faith when he signs a declaration card.

In the PalTalk website, a Baha'i room is opened nightly, around 8-9pm EST. It is not an official site, but Baha'is from around the world, come to the room and answering questions from the curious and from serious seekers. It has voice as well as typing and because of the diversity of ethnicities involved, the sounds ring with the beauty of accents from around the world. You are most welcome to join in if you would care to. If I am on line, I am called BahaiMick1 and am always found in the Baha'i room found in the religion group.

I actually brought this up because many people come into the room and say they would just like to listen. The problem with that is if there is nobody asking questions, then there really isn't much to listen to except for Baha'is enjoying each others company. There are no lectures, or sermons given. We have directions from Baha'u'llah concerning proseltyzing and because of this we normally do best when responding to questions.

If I may suggest, if at anytime you feel pressure to convert while discussing the Faith with a Baha'i, it would not be from the Baha'i him/herself but the pressure would come from the 'truths' of the words of Baha'u'llah. I have had a minister of a Christian church tell me he wasn't ready to convert, while we were in a protracted discussion and I had to point out to him that I wasn't trying to convert him, but was just answering his questions.

Again, I ask you to reiterate any questions you may have asked that I either hadn't responded to or you were unsatisfied with my answer. BTW, you had asked if I was interested in your traditions and I answer, "Yes."

warmly,

Mick

 

[arthra]

Vajra posted these questions earlier and Mick responded to them but I also wanted to post my own responses:


a few general questions about the information you've posted, if you don't mind.

1. you say that your journey is an eternal one. does your tradition posit rebirth or reincarnation?

Reply:

Baha'is do not accept reincarnation..We believe the attributes return but soul does not return to this earth. Baha'is believe the soul eternally progresses through the worlds of God by His mercy.

2. is "consultation" a type of mediumship or method of penence? this sounds like it is a dialog between an adherent and a "priest". is this what you call the religious hierarchy?

Reply:

Consultation is resolving issues in a way that discovers the truth without using polarized or antoagonistic argumentation. So basically you start wth what you agree with and work from there...rather than what you disagree with. It's a problem solving method than resolves disputes...

3. if religion disagrees with science and reason, what is one supposed to do with the teaching?

Reply:

Our belief is that religious people should be more scientific in their approach while scientists should be guided by ethical parameters and that spiritaul truths are not in conflict with science. When religion rejects science it is in danger of becoming fanatical and Baha'is respect the findings of science, that is we consider the research and findings. We wouldn't necessarily change our principles because some research findings would not support them, but we would definitely consider them. For instance our principles are usually based on such things as racial unity and it so happens that scientific research supports this, but we would still be for racial unity even if research showed we are not biologically similar.

4. when you say that the foundation of all religion is one, do you mean to indicate all monotheistic traditions, all theistic traditions, all non-theisitic traditions or all traditions in general.

Reply:

Baha'is believe all the revealed religions of the world have a divine or spiritual origin, that they are in essence the same religion just manifsted at different epochs and periods.

If you look for them there are very similar aspects of all religions...say in ethical behaviour and selflessness is extolled as well as nonviolence.

If a person truly searches for the essence of their religion we feel they will find oneness with other searchers and will be willing to discard some of the apparent discrepancies and traditions that are not really a part of the original teachings.

- Art

 

[arthra]

Vajra also posted these questions and I wanted to also repsond tothem:


1. you said that there is no ministry or preisthood within your tradition, is there a person or group of individuals that represent a guiding council or a "governing body" for resolving disputes amongst adherents?

Reply:

In communities where at least nine believers reside they elect a Local Spiritual Assembly and this body is responsible for the Baha'i Faith in their area.. So the Assembly will marry a couple according to Baha'i laws or deal with issues in the community and take responsibility. Our administrative bodies are elected from the general body of believers from the local level to the national level and international levels. The Universal House of Justice is elected every five years and is the final arbiter for Baha'is. Tehre are some appointive offices as well that are supervised by elected bodies.


2. is the "one truth" that you believe in an absolute truth or a relative truth? in other words, is this a spiritual truth or an ontological truth.. or perhaps, a combination of the two?

Reply:

Baha'is believe that religious truth is relative to the conditions and situations it was revealed for. See the article at

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


3. Progressive Revelation, when taken to its logical conclusion, would lead one to the idea that the information that they have to work with, vis a vie God, is not complete or accurate. as you can imagine, for many monothesitic traditions, this is heresy. hmm... i guess that wasn't much of a question after all.

Reply:

Baha'is do believe in Progressive Revelation, that God reveals what is needed by mankind in a given epoch and that this may change in a succeeding epoch, so the current revelation is then most crucial as it deals with current issues...In a thousand or so, the issue we face today may not be important or relevant and a new revelation will be needed.

4. well... needless to say, i'd have to dispute the assertion of the historical Buddha being included as a messenger of any god, let alone God, but we can leave that aside for now. however... seeing as we are on the topic, albeit obtusely, does your tradition have anything resembling the Law of Karma?

Reply:

The historical Buddha in my view had several issues to contend with...Had He explicitly taught the existence of God it would have simply been received as any other philosophy then extant and there would have been nothing unusual or challenging...So He usually avoided the question or declined to take sides as to do so would have meant He would be considered anotehr theist or an atheist...so He taught using what we would call today "via negativa".

The Buddha also forbade animal sacrifice or opposed it as the Brahmin priests of the time had a system of sacrifices where they benefited from offerings and had a powerful hold on people spiritually. They basically were the only group as priests who could recite the mantrams .

The Buddha taught against the caste structure, which again was a primary support to the Brahmin orders and challened their prerogatives...

The Buddha did not recognize the authority of the Vedas and again this upset the Brahmin order as they were the ones who were allowed to recite the Vedas...and the theology of the Aryan gods was alos changed by the Buddha.

So basically the Buddha was smilar in my view to Jesus Christ in that Jesus also opposed the prerogatives of the Pharisees and Temple priesthood that had an interest in the sacrificial system of His day. Jesus overturned the money exchange tables and released the animals who were to be purchased for sacrifices.

Prophet Muhammad also destroyed the Pagan system that had made the Pagan Arabs in Mecca wealthy and powerful and cleansed the Kaaba of the 365 gods and goddesses.

So we can see I think some similarities in the Buddhist, Christian and Moslem revelations...

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick,

i'm glad that you're well

i was responding to a post from Art in post #40 where he says:

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

Vajradhara, Allah'u'Abha

My friends, I am back. Sorry for the three day absence, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. If I owe you a post, please let me know. It seems Art was able to answer most of your questions concerning the Baha'i perspective much more eloquently than I could have, but if there was something you were waiting for from me, that I have overlooked, please reiterate for me and I will do the best that I can.

oh.. nothing in particular... i was wondering if you'd had a chance to reivew the post/print out yet... and if so, what your thoughts on it were... but, by and large, Art and i have been just going on

BTW, you had asked if I was interested in your traditions and I answer, "Yes."

warmly,

Mick

wonderful that is always a delight... many times, it seems, people are only interested in aothers tradition in the most superficial manner or in a self serveing manner

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

4. well... needless to say, i'd have to dispute the assertion of the historical Buddha being included as a messenger of any god, let alone God, but we can leave that aside for now. however... seeing as we are on the topic, albeit obtusely, does your tradition have anything resembling the Law of Karma?

Reply:

The historical Buddha in my view had several issues to contend with...Had He explicitly taught the existence of God it would have simply been received as any other philosophy then extant and there would have been nothing unusual or challenging...So He usually avoided the question or declined to take sides as to do so would have meant He would be considered anotehr theist or an atheist...so He taught using what we would call today "via negativa".

The Buddha also forbade animal sacrifice or opposed it as the Brahmin priests of the time had a system of sacrifices where they benefited from offerings and had a powerful hold on people spiritually. They basically were the only group as priests who could recite the mantrams .

The Buddha taught against the caste structure, which again was a primary support to the Brahmin orders and challened their prerogatives...

The Buddha did not recognize the authority of the Vedas and again this upset the Brahmin order as they were the ones who were allowed to recite the Vedas...and the theology of the Aryan gods was alos changed by the Buddha.

So basically the Buddha was smilar in my view to Jesus Christ in that Jesus also opposed the prerogatives of the Pharisees and Temple priesthood that had an interest in the sacrificial system of His day. Jesus overturned the money exchange tables and released the animals who were to be purchased for sacrifices.

Prophet Muhammad also destroyed the Pagan system that had made the Pagan Arabs in Mecca wealthy and powerful and cleansed the Kaaba of the 365 gods and goddesses.

So we can see I think some similarities in the Buddhist, Christian and Moslem revelations...

- Art

it seems from this that your supposition is that Buddha chose not to teach "god" because he didn't want to be mistaken for another theist, would that be correct? this position finds no support in the Buddhist tradition, as far as i'm aware.

there are a great many moral and ethical parallels in the various world religions traditions, this is true. however... as i'm sure my Christian friends would as well... i would not say that Buddha was like Jesus... unless you mean to say that they both reformed the moral and ethical teachings of their day. in that sense, they are very much alike.

 

[arthra]

Vajra wrote:

it seems from this that your supposition is that Buddha chose not to teach "god" because he didn't want to be mistaken for another theist, would that be correct? this position finds no support in the Buddhist tradition, as far as i'm aware.

Reply:

Here is an example of the Buddha's teaching that I think answers that in that He was careful in not siding with various camps...

"Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]."

Samyutta Nikaya XLIV.10

Ananda Sutta

Here we see the reluctance of the Buddha to side with either of the camps supporting annihilationism or eternalism...

Fozdar points out that: "All Siddarta's discourses on this subject of the man concerived supreme, or the anthropomorphic concepts of the Absolute or Brahma prevalent among the Brahmins an the masses of Is time, are clearly directed toward smashing those idols of vain imaginings ..."

The Brahmin priests again had a vested interest in the theology of the time.

Baha'u'llah also warns:

Bahá’u’lláh praises those who have "utterly abolished the idol of self and of vain imagination."

- Gleanings p. 291

Vajra:

there are a great many moral and ethical parallels in the various world religions traditions, this is true. however... as i'm sure my Christian friends would as well... i would not say that Buddha was like Jesus... unless you mean to say that they both reformed the moral and ethical teachings of their day. in that sense, they are very much alike.

Reply:

Yes, we would agree that "they both reformed the moral and ethical teachings of their day. in that sense, they are very much alike." In that They differed is due I think to the unique character of Their missions.

As Tolstoy pointed out:

I have known about the Bábís* for a long time, and have always been interested in their teachings. It seems to me that these teachings,
as well as all the rationalistic social religious teachings that have arisen lately out of the original teachings of Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam distorted by the priests, have a great future for this very reason that these teachings, discarding all these distorting incrustations that cause division, aspire to unite into one common religion of all mankind.

* The term Tolstoy used in referring to the Baha'is of his time.


- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

Vajra wrote:

it seems from this that your supposition is that Buddha chose not to teach "god" because he didn't want to be mistaken for another theist, would that be correct? this position finds no support in the Buddhist tradition, as far as i'm aware.

Reply:

Here is an example of the Buddha's teaching that I think answers that in that He was careful in not siding with various camps...

"Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]."

Samyutta Nikaya XLIV.10

hmm.... well... this is speaking of the self or soul, not God, which is a sperate thing.

he didn't side with either extreme, that of an eternalism and that of nihilism... he chose the Middle Way, between them both.

however, this does not support the supposition that Buddha wanted to teach about God but chose not to so as not to be confused with other theists of his day.

Yes, we would agree that "they both reformed the moral and ethical teachings of their day. in that sense, they are very much alike." In that They differed is due I think to the unique character of Their missions.

As Tolstoy pointed out:

I have known about the Bábís* for a long time, and have always been interested in their teachings. It seems to me that these teachings,
as well as all the rationalistic social religious teachings that have arisen lately out of the original teachings of Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam distorted by the priests, have a great future for this very reason that these teachings, discarding all these distorting incrustations that cause division, aspire to unite into one common religion of all mankind.

* The term Tolstoy used in referring to the Baha'is of his time.


- Art

nothing like a few quotes to lend some substance, eh

as Einstein says:

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

-Albert Einstein


and...

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

- Albert Einstein

 

[arthra]

Vajra wrote:

"...this does not support the supposition that Buddha wanted to teach about God but chose not to so as not to be confused with other theists of his day."

Reply:

I didn't mean to imply that He "wanted to teach about God but chose not to", I meant that He chose to teach "via negativa" about the Supreme and the soul, etc. because of the conditions around Him at the time.

Had He "wanted to", He would have...

There's also an interesting essay you can read about finding a common ground between Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith which in part says:

"Although the Buddha employs such wording as the `Unborn, Unoriginated,'in His Writings, Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, uses the word `God.' Both agree, however, that these are only words used as a name for something that we humans c an never fathom. Consequently all endeavors to interpret this Verity are only relative; it is conceivable that even contradictory statements can also be valid. When we consider various approaches to the "Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed," each culture has a distinct manner of perceiving this Reality that may seem to be dissimilar. These dissimilarities are caused by the limitations of human minds. This Reality is One and is transcendent to our frail understandings to represent It. According to Ba ha'u'llah, the Buddhas are the Manifestations of the Absolute or Ultimate Reality in this world. Each Manifestation is the "Light of lights" and not in Himself just "another" light. Relative to humanity, however, He is in all respects the Absolute.

Baha'u'llah states that the Word of God is not the Essence of God. We can thus unravel whether or not the Void of Buddha refers to the Word of God or to the Absolute, the Unknown, the Ancient One."

Source:

http://bahai-library.org/essays/common.ground.html

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste art,

thank you for the reply.

well... as this is the comparative forum... i suppose we can continue in this vein.. i.e. of compare and contrast Buddhism and Baha'i praxis... though... in truth... this thread was started simply for me to ask you questions of your tradition

anyway... on with the post...

Vajra wrote:

"...this does not support the supposition that Buddha wanted to teach about God but chose not to so as not to be confused with other theists of his day."

Reply:

I didn't mean to imply that He "wanted to teach about God but chose not to", I meant that He chose to teach "via negativa" about the Supreme and the soul, etc. because of the conditions around Him at the time.

Had He "wanted to", He would have...

fundamentally, however, this supposition is predicated on a teaching of a supreme being... which we don't accept as being valid. though you are saying that he taught via negativa, which is true in some instances and not so in others, it is implicit in the premis that there were constraints on the way that Buddha would teach. in point of fact, the Buddha employed the same technique that all Buddhas, past, present and future will use... skillful means.

this is a technical term in Buddhism that is meant to indicate that the speaker understands the relative learning of his audience and understands what they need to hear in order to enter the stream.

There's also an interesting essay you can read about finding a common ground between Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith which in part says:

"Although the Buddha employs such wording as the `Unborn, Unoriginated,'in His Writings, Baha'u'llah, the Prophet-Founder of the Baha'i Faith, uses the word `God.' Both agree, however, that these are only words used as a name for something that we humans c an never fathom. Consequently all endeavors to interpret this Verity are only relative; it is conceivable that even contradictory statements can also be valid. When we consider various approaches to the "Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed," each culture has a distinct manner of perceiving this Reality that may seem to be dissimilar. These dissimilarities are caused by the limitations of human minds. This Reality is One and is transcendent to our frail understandings to represent It. According to Ba ha'u'llah, the Buddhas are the Manifestations of the Absolute or Ultimate Reality in this world. Each Manifestation is the "Light of lights" and not in Himself just "another" light. Relative to humanity, however, He is in all respects the Absolute.

if this is the case, why would you set up a term "God" to express the inexpressible? this seems like it would specifically create stumbling blocks for the adherent in leaving behind the limitations of conception. now... as it stands, it depends on which Buddha we are talking about, at least from the Buddhist perspective, on whether or not they are manifestations of Ultimate Reality.... some of them are, and some of them are not.

Baha'u'llah states that the Word of God is not the Essence of God. We can thus unravel whether or not the Void of Buddha refers to the Word of God or to the Absolute, the Unknown, the Ancient One."

Source:

http://bahai-library.org/essays/common.ground.html

- Art

hmm... "void of Buddha" could you explain what you mean by this term? at first blush, i would have to disagree with the expression of the Dharma as "void"... though... perhaps you are using this term to mean "emptiness"?

 

[arthra]

Vajra:

well... as this is the comparative forum... i suppose we can continue in this vein.. i.e. of compare and contrast Buddhism and Baha'i praxis... though... in truth... this thread was started simply for me to ask you questions of your tradition

anyway... on with the post...

Reply:

And I hope you still do have questions you'd like to ask about the Baha'i Faith!

Vajra:

fundamentally, however, this supposition is predicated on a teaching of a supreme being... which we don't accept as being valid. though you are saying that he taught via negativa, which is true in some instances and not so in others, it is implicit in the premis that there were constraints on the way that Buddha would teach. in point of fact, the Buddha employed the same technique that all Buddhas, past, present and future will use... skillful means.

this is a technical term in Buddhism that is meant to indicate that the speaker understands the relative learning of his audience and understands what they need to hear in order to enter the stream.

Reply:

We are of course speculating on what was the motivation behind the style adopted by the Buddha.

But yes, "the speaker understands the relative learning of his audience and understands what they need to hear in order to enter the stream."

Baha'is would contend each Messenger or Prophet or Manifestation has done this!

Swami Vivekananda a well known Indian thinker wrote this:

"At this time Buddha was born, and his religion is therefore the culmination of an attempt at a religious and a social reformation. "The air was full of the din of discussion; 20,000 blind priests were trying to lead 20,000,000 [?] blind men, fighting amongst themselves. What was more needed at that time than for a Buddha to preach? 'Stop quarreling, throw your books aside, be perfect!'

We cannot really discuss the early teachings of the Buddha without due cognizance of the background of the society His teachings were directed at.

Baha'is also accept though that there is a spiritaul core of the original teachings of the Manifestations of God that is the same and would agree with "all Buddhas, past, present and future will use... skillful means."

Vajra:

if this is the case, why would you set up a term "God" to express the inexpressible? this seems like it would specifically create stumbling blocks for the adherent in leaving behind the limitations of conception. now... as it stands, it depends on which Buddha we are talking about, at least from the Buddhist perspective, on whether or not they are manifestations of Ultimate Reality.... some of them are, and some of them are not.

Reply:

I think the term "God" is just that and in our Writings it is termed an "Unknowable Essence" so if instead of using a short word like "God" you would also be correct to use "Unknowable Essence."

Vajra:

hmm... "void of Buddha" could you explain what you mean by this term? at first blush, i would have to disagree with the expression of the Dharma as "void"... though... perhaps you are using this term to mean "emptiness"?

Reply:

Right, I was citing the article as an attempt by a Baha'i to find some common ground between Baha'i Faith and Buddhism. "Sunyata" would probably be the word as in "emptiness" See

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/sunyata.htm

The article I cited earlier though makes the following point in re. the Baha'i persepective:

"Baha'u'llah states that the Word of God is not the Essence of God. We can thus unravel whether or not the Void of Buddha refers to the Word of God or to the Absolute, the Unknown, the Ancient One. The Word of God must be distinguished from the Absolute ( or Ultimate Reality). If God equates to the Absolute, then the Word of God cannot equate to the Void of the Buddha. The Buddha equates the "Void" with the Absolute rather than to the Word of God. Instead, the Word of God is a Manifestation of the "Void" whenever the "Void" is referred to as the Absolute."

So I think there are areas where Baha'is and Buddhists can share common ground.

- Art

 

[arthra]

I noticed a few points that Vajra asked about that I might add some explanation...

Vajra asked what was the (1) Baha'i stance on homosexuality and if there was (2) a concept of "karma" in the Baha'i Faith.

(1) Homosexuality is condemned in the Baha'i Faith. Sexual relations are confined to marriage.

As to how Baha'is relate to the issue, as Mick explained, when someone applies for membership we go over the laws of Faith such as no intoxicants..no sexual relations outside marriage, etc... If after they've become Baha'is it becomes apparent they are not following Baha'i laws and this is usually something that's fairly blatant and obvious in the community, the Assembly will meet with them in confidence to see if they understand what the Baha'i laws are.... If they didn't understand something it can be corrected or explained. If it turns out they know the laws and are having trouble following them, the Assembly can recommend counseling or therapy and set a future time to review the matter later. If after this, the person is still unchanging in their behaviour and the conduct is "open and scandalous" bringing obrobrium on the Faith, the Assembly could then recommend to our National office that the person's administrative rights be suspended until such time as the behaviour is corrected. So this applies to all behaviours that are viewed as violating Baha'is laws.

A compilation on the subject can be found at:

http://bahai-library.org/uhj/homosexuality.discussion.html

But like Buddhists, I think Baha'is will not be cultivating worldly desires:

"He is not to be numbered with the people of Baha who followeth his mundane desires, or fixeth his heart on things of the earth. He is My true follower who, if he come to a valley of pure gold, will pass straight through it aloof as a cloud, and will neither turn back, nor pause. Such a man is, assuredly, of Me. From his garment the Concourse on high can inhale the fragrance of sanctity... And if he met the fairest and most comely of women, he would not feel his heart seduced by the least shadow of desire for her beauty. Such an one, indeed, is the creation of spotless chastity."

Baha'u'llah, Gleanings, LX, p. 118

"Pass beyond the narrow retreats of your evil and corrupt desires, and advance into the vast immensity of the realm of God, and abide ye in the meads of sanctity and of detachment, that the fragrance of your deeds may lead the whole of mankind to the ocean of God's unfading glory."

Baha'u'llah quoted in Shoghi Effendi, Advent of Divine Justice, p. 26.


(2) Regarding the doctrine of Karma....

There have been some Baha'is that have addressed this as follows:

Juan Cole wrote about this issue in 1995 saying:

This is an affirmation of the link between works and grace (al-`inayah). In Buddhism, there is no conception of grace--one's spiritual evolution is solely dependent upon one's own deeds. In Pauline Christianity, works are irrelevant and grace is a free gift, and salvation is by recognizing the free gift through faith. Baha'u'llah appears to chart a middle course between these two extremes. Obedience to the Law is a cause of grace (as good karma follows one in Buddhism); but obedience to the law does not exhaust the operations of God's grace. Indeed, the very revelation of the Law is a form of grace (a most un-Pauline statement).


"For indeed if thou dost open the heart of a person for His sake, better will it be for thee than every virtuous deed; since deeds are secondary to faith in Him and certitude in His Reality."

Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 133

Some deeds are regarded as superior (those motivated by faith) and deeds are secondary to faith.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste art,

thank you for the reply

Reply:

We are of course speculating on what was the motivation behind the style adopted by the Buddha.

well... we are, yes, however, the Buddha was clear about his motivation in this regard. in fact, this is talked about in the very first sermon at Deer Park.

But yes, "the speaker understands the relative learning of his audience and understands what they need to hear in order to enter the stream."

Baha'is would contend each Messenger or Prophet or Manifestation has done this!

i would disagree but that's just me er... that wasn't supposed to rhyme

Swami Vivekananda a well known Indian thinker wrote this:

"At this time Buddha was born, and his religion is therefore the culmination of an attempt at a religious and a social reformation. "The air was full of the din of discussion; 20,000 blind priests were trying to lead 20,000,000 [?] blind men, fighting amongst themselves. What was more needed at that time than for a Buddha to preach? 'Stop quarreling, throw your books aside, be perfect!'

We cannot really discuss the early teachings of the Buddha without due cognizance of the background of the society His teachings were directed at.

without doubt, a proper and contextual understanding of the milieu in which the Buddha existed is a requirement to understand the teachings properly. however.. that is not stricly the case as the majority of the doctrine is universal in scope... whereas the rules for the monastics are the ones in which we must have a proper undestanding of the time and place.

Baha'is also accept though that there is a spiritaul core of the original teachings of the Manifestations of God that is the same and would agree with "all Buddhas, past, present and future will use... skillful means."

hmmmmm.... i'd have to disagree that "skillful means" equates to "spiritual core".. more specifically, it is the descrption of the techniques used rather than the spiritual core that is being transmitted.

Right, I was citing the article as an attempt by a Baha'i to find some common ground between Baha'i Faith and Buddhism. "Sunyata" would probably be the word as in "emptiness" See

http://home.btclick.com/scimah/sunyata.htm

i like that site alot.

The article I cited earlier though makes the following point in re. the Baha'i persepective:

"Baha'u'llah states that the Word of God is not the Essence of God. We can thus unravel whether or not the Void of Buddha refers to the Word of God or to the Absolute, the Unknown, the Ancient One. The Word of God must be distinguished from the Absolute ( or Ultimate Reality). If God equates to the Absolute, then the Word of God cannot equate to the Void of the Buddha. The Buddha equates the "Void" with the Absolute rather than to the Word of God. Instead, the Word of God is a Manifestation of the "Void" whenever the "Void" is referred to as the Absolute."

So I think there are areas where Baha'is and Buddhists can share common ground.

- Art

there are areas where Buddhist and Baha'i can share common ground, this is not in question, as we have already touched on the moral and ethical principles that both espouse.

what we are talking about here, is not that we are discussion doctrinal positions of the various traditions.. as such, i would not be surprised to find some areas in common and other areas in sharp disagreement.

the Buddha does not equate Shunyata with the Absolute. this is a misunderstanding of the concept of shunyata... unless you are positing that the Absolute is inherently non-existent... which i don't think that you are. moreover... shunyata would say that the Absolute would only exist in dependence on three things...

their causes,
their parts, and
their imputation by the mind of a sentient being.

this doesn't seem like the idea of Absolute that you are espousing here, which is more of a non-conceptualized power or force.. as i'm pretty certain that the Absolute, in your tradition, is not dependent on causes, parts or the consciousness of a sentient being.

a more compelling analogy could be made to the Tao, in my opinion, than to shunyata.. but even there... it would be difficult, though not impossible in the least.

 

[arthra]

Vajra,

I just posted a few items I think you asked earlier about and elaborated on them.

Vajra:

hmmmmm.... i'd have to disagree that "skillful means" equates to "spiritual core".. more specifically, it is the descrption of the techniques used rather than the spiritual core that is being transmitted.

Reply:

Baha'is believe each Manifestation has unique circumstances to deal with and is most skillfully using the means available to raise humanity above the conditions they are in... ignorance and the hells of wars, inequality, etc.

Vajra:

"there are areas where Buddhist and Baha'i can share common ground, this is not in question, as we have already touched on the moral and ethical principles that both espouse.

what we are talking about here, is not that we are discussion doctrinal positions of the various traditions.. as such, i would not be surprised to find some areas in common and other areas in sharp disagreement.

the Buddha does not equate Shunyata with the Absolute. this is a misunderstanding of the concept of shunyata... unless you are positing that the Absolute is inherently non-existent... which i don't think that you are. moreover... shunyata would say that the Absolute would only exist in dependence on three things...(etc.)

Reply:

Vajra I'm really not that interested in discussing various "doctrinal positions of various traditions" as there are too many of them. I'm aware they exist, but I think it would probably not be that productive to address them here.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Mick and Art,

thank you for your thoughtful and patient responses and explanations.

overall... my impression is that Baha'is have a distinctly Theravedan understanding of Buddhism, which i do not share. this would explain the article from Juan Cole and some of the other ideas that you've elaborated to me.

in point of fact, Buddhists do have a concept of "grace"... though that's a bit of an odd term... technically the term in Buddhism is "tariki" which means "other power". there are two methods that a Buddhist can employ, depending on their tradition... self power or other power.... but even this, other power, is not really like grace as understood in the Christian sense.

shunyata is a foundational philosophical concept and needs to be properly understood to have a grasp of the Buddhist teachings. this is the case in all three vehicles.

perhaps, you are right... maybe this isn't the place to discuss doctrinal differences between our traditions... though... since it is the comparative forum... i wouldn't know of a better place to do so.

 

[arthra]

Vajra,

You are most welcome to ask and compare all you please... What I meant was and my impression was that we were getting into various "traditions" of Buddhism say between Theravadin and Mahayana and there are so many schools and traditions that it would probably not be that productive to go over them here...

Baha'is are trying to encourage a unification of humanity and really wouldn't side with one form of Buddhism against another...

Over all the canons of Buddhist scripture are vast and varied so there's a lot to compare and contrast.

I do recommend the writings of my friend Jamshid Fozdar who wrote "The God of Buddha" to some a controversial title, but Mr. Fozdar brought together many different threads of Buddhism and compared them in this work and I think made a good deal of sense out of it.

To summarize though i think Baha'is do share with Buddhists several points of view...

That the spiritual values are more important than worldly values...that we must transcend worldly values...

That we cannot comprehend with our limited senses and perceptions the Reality of the universe... the Unknowable Essence, God;

That the soul of man is also a mystery and not something that can be easily grasped;

That kindness should be showed the creatures;

That nonviolence is a cherished value and conflict and war should cease.

And there are I'm sure others...

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste art,

is this a book or is it online essay material? if either... i'd be happy to take a look at it.

actually.. now that i understand the perspective that Baha'is have towards Buddhism.. or, more specifically, now that i understand that Baha'is have a Theradevan perspective on Buddhism, it facilitates my understanding.

though.. in truth... some aspects of the epistimology don't jibe with the Buddhist epistimology... but then again.. why should they? if they did... you may as well be a Buddhist


in terms of questions... my remaining ones are, i think, going to focus more on the issue of homosexuality.

in a previous post, you say that Baha'is forbid homosexuality, and only allow sexual relations within the confines of a marriage.

there are two aspects of this that i'd like to explore...

celibate homosexuals and married homosexuals.

in the case of a celibate... could they still be homosexual, yet not act on said prediliction, and still be a member of the Baha'i faith?

in the case of married homosexuals... hmm.. that would seem to fulfill the requirement of a proper sexual laison, would it not? is there some other area that this applies to?