Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

Dear Vaj,

Would you be so kind as to post some of the Buddhist teachings on the non-existence of the soul?

I would like to see for myself if in fact we cannot discern some common ground based on the Baha'i understanding of this concept.

Loving Greetings, Harmony
 
9Harmony said:
Dear Vaj,

Would you be so kind as to post some of the Buddhist teachings on the non-existence of the soul?

I would like to see for myself if in fact we cannot discern some common ground based on the Baha'i understanding of this concept.

Loving Greetings, Harmony
Click to expand...
Namaste Harmony,

thank you for the post.

would you like for me to post things like actual Sutra and Sutta gathas (verses) and so forth?

if so, may i request that we continue this aspect of our discussion in the Eastern Thoughts (Buddhism) section? that seems to be a more logical place to explain Buddhist Tipitaka (Canonical) teachings.

actucally, Tipitaka means "three baskets" and it's a reference to how the Buddhist canon is organized... see... doesn't this sound fun :)

i find it quite fascinating and i'd be happy to explain what i feel is a right view for me on the subject. if we conduct our discussion on the Buddhist forum we can elicit the opinion of more Buddhists, which should represent a variety of views since we have, as far as i can tell, some readers of all three major schools on this forum.
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste Harmony,

thank you for the post.

would you like for me to post things like actual Sutra and Sutta gathas (verses) and so forth?

if so, may i request that we continue this aspect of our discussion in the Eastern Thoughts (Buddhism) section? that seems to be a more logical place to explain Buddhist Tipitaka (Canonical) teachings.

actucally, Tipitaka means "three baskets" and it's a reference to how the Buddhist canon is organized... see... doesn't this sound fun :)

i find it quite fascinating and i'd be happy to explain what i feel is a right view for me on the subject. if we conduct our discussion on the Buddhist forum we can elicit the opinion of more Buddhists, which should represent a variety of views since we have, as far as i can tell, some readers of all three major schools on this forum.
Click to expand...
Namaste Vajradhara,

That sounds wonderful! I'll look forward to it. But I must tell you I may be a little scarce for a couple weeks. I need to detach and get some things done that I've been procrastinating, I seem to work best under pressure, unfortunately.;)

So take your time and I'll catch up as time will allow.

Loving Greetings, Harmony
 
Vajradhara said:
Namasker bruce,


thank you for the post.

and this is but one reason why Baha'u'llah cannot be Maitreya :) there are other criteria that we can use as well, though it can become a bit pendantic.

as i've said before... the Baha'i can view this in any manner that they so choose, it is your scripture and so forth.

however, as a point of discussion, this is not a view that most Buddhists would share.

viva la differance, mes amis!
Click to expand...

This maybe true from your own perspective Vajra that because Baha'i teachings recognize the soul "this is but one reason why Baha'u'llah cannot be Maitreya".

The actual concept in Buddhism as I undersrand it is called "anatta" or non-self.... Here is an example:

"And what Ananda is contemplation of anatta? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest or to the foot of a tree or to a lonely place contemplates thus: 'The eye is not the self; visible objects are not the self; the ear is not the self; sounds are not the self; the nose is not the self; smells are not the self; the tongue is not the self; tastes are not the self; the body is not the self; bodily contacts (tangible objects) are not the self; the mind is not the self; mental objects are not the self.' Thus he dwells contemplating not self in these internal and external bases. This, Ananda, is called contemplation of anatta." -

Anguttara Nikaya X.60 Girimananda Sutta


Exploring this further I think it's clearer to me that the Buddha taught against "ego" than denying the existence of the spirit as such.

The Hindu belief was in Atman as immortal soul or "permanent ego" which incarnated itself over and over again...

So at the time Buddha taught selflessness and placed a premium on that rather than the Atman doctrine.

Abdul-Baha when discussing reincarnation you'll recall, taught that the attributes return but not the soul... this is very similar to the Buddhist teachings:

"In the Divine Scriptures and Holy Books "return" is spoken of, but the ignorant have not understood the meaning, and those who believed in reincarnation have made conjectures on the subject. For what the divine Prophets meant by "return" is not the return of the essence, but that of the qualities; it is not the return of the Manifestation, but that of the perfections. In the Gospel it says that John, the son of Zacharias, is Elias. These words do not mean the return of the rational soul and personality of Elias in the body of John, but rather that the perfections and qualities of Elias were manifested and appeared in John."

Source:

http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/abdulbaha/saq/81.html

Also consider the Baha'i view of Selflessness:

"After this stage there comes the City of Selflessness. In this city man dies in the will of God. That is, his selfish personality dies away. He forgets himself, forgets his body and soul and swims in the ocean of selflessness. He becomes unconscious of himself, of his personal existence. His Holiness Baha'Ullah states that the mysteries of this city of selflessness are myriad for this is the city of the evanescence of the lover in the Beloved. When we reach the city of selflessness then the beauty of the Beloved becomes manifest to us. Unless we are selfless we cannot see that reality. If self is forgotten then reality will take the place of self."

Source:

http://bahai-library.com/?file=mazandarani_seven_cities_journey.html

So to me if you are looking for simialrities they are there, but if you focus on differences then they will be more obvious to you.

- Art
 
Exploring this further I think it's clearer to me that the Buddha taught against "ego" than denying the existence of the spirit as such.
Click to expand...
The Buddha taught that all phenomena, this includes the self, the ego, a grain of sand, are all dependently originated. This means that they are not inherently real. Everything is, if you will, an illusion.
 
Sounds very Hindu - excuse my bad, but wasn't it Vishnu who is seen to dream the universe into being?
 
samabudhi said:
The Buddha taught that all phenomena, this includes the self, the ego, a grain of sand, are all dependently originated. This means that they are not inherently real. Everything is, if you will, an illusion.
Click to expand...

Here's a quote i found...

"And in which way is it, Siha, that one speaking truly could say of me: 'The Samana Gotama maintains annihilation;--he teaches the doctrine of annihilation'? I proclaim, Siha, the annihilation of lust, of ill-will, of delusion; I proclaim the annihilation of the manifold conditions (of heart) which are evil and not good."--Mahavagga, vi. 31. 7.

Baha'is would accept this whole heartedly... The Seven Valleys has a chapter called "The Valley of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness"
(Seventh Valley).

- Art
 
samabudhi said:
The Buddha taught that all phenomena, this includes the self, the ego, a grain of sand, are all dependently originated. This means that they are not inherently real. Everything is, if you will, an illusion.
Click to expand...
It's important to clarify that the Buddha didn't say that everything was
illusory in the sense of being nonexistent. What he taught was that, due
to dependent origination, impermanence, and non-self, things are real, but
aren't exactly as they appear--or as we usually imagine them to be.

This is in contradistinction to the Hindu concept of mŒya--the notion that
the phenomenal universe is really God, and that the appearances are illusions.

Sukhita hotha,

Metta Jon Maslow, Chaplain
Lien Hoa Buddhist Temple
 
By the way--responding to an earlier post in this thread--when the Buddha spoke
of the 'disappearance' of the Dhamma (Dharma), he wasn't referring to books--the
teachings were an oral tradition during his lifetime.

In the Saµyutta NikŒya, the Buddha is quoted as stating that so long as there is
"respect and regard for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the training, and
for meditative concentration, on the part of monks and nuns, and male and female
lay devotees...the Dhamma will remain free of obscuration and will not disappear"
(SN 16:13).

Sukhita hotha,
Metta Jon Maslow, Chaplain
Lien Hoa Buddhist Temple
 
Thanks for the comments, Mettajon, and welcome to CR. :)
 
Chaplain Metta Jon Maslow:

I also wanted to add my thanks for your post and a warm welcome to the Comparative Religion Forum!

- Art
 
arthra said:
This maybe true from your own perspective Vajra that because Baha'i teachings recognize the soul "this is but one reason why Baha'u'llah cannot be Maitreya".

The actual concept in Buddhism as I undersrand it is called "anatta" or non-self....

Exploring this further I think it's clearer to me that the Buddha taught against "ego" than denying the existence of the spirit as such.

The Hindu belief was in Atman as immortal soul or "permanent ego" which incarnated itself over and over again...

So at the time Buddha taught selflessness and placed a premium on that rather than the Atman doctrine.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Buddha didn't simply teach selflessness as an ethical state
to be developed. He also rejected the proto-Hindu doctrine of Atman.
If the Buddha were merely encouraging the development of selflessness,
one would be hard pressed to explain the following exchange between the
Buddha and his disciple, the Venerable Ananda:

"'The world [universe] is void', it is said. In what way is the world void?"

"Because it is void of self and of what belongs to self; therefore, it is
said, 'the world is void,' Ananda." (Saµyutta NikŒya 4:54)

Also relevant is this saying of the Buddha found in the Dhammapada:

"All phenomena are non-self [void of self]." (Dh 20:7)

The word translated as 'phenomena' includes all that is, whether living
or non-living, animate or inanimate. It's clear from the Buddha's use of
the term 'non-self' or 'void of self' that he wasn't speaking about an
ethical state of non-selfishness. Instead, he was speaking of what we
might call a metaphysical issue: the non-existence of atta (atman).

In a discourse recorded in the Majjhima NikŒya, the Buddha said:

"Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended
as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, 'This is
self, this the world [universe]; after death, I shall be permanent, ever-
lasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity'
--would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?"
(Alagaddèpama Sutta)

In the Sutta NipŒta, the Blessed One's intent is also quite evident:

"Be ever mindful, MogharŒja, and see the world as void. Give up
speculations about the 'self' (atta), and you shall pass beyond death.
See the world thus, and the King of Death shall not find you."
(Sn V, 15:4)

Just my little contribution to the discussion...thanks for providing
this forum.

Sukhita hotha,

Metta Jon Maslow, Chaplain
Lien Hoa Buddhist Temple
 
Again, thanks for your contributions Chaplain Mettajon!

Regarding the doctrine of anatta as "the absence of a permanent or substantial self":

The Brahmin priests of the Lord Buddha's time certainly had i think you'll agree a "strangle-hold" on the spiritual life of the people of that time and I can't help but believe the doctrine of the atman as a permanent "self" had a part to play in all this.

You must forgive me but I've tended to interpret the issue of selflessness in more "psychological" terms i suppose:

"And in which way is it, Siha, that one speaking truly could say of me: 'The Samana Gotama maintains annihilation;--he teaches the doctrine of annihilation'? I proclaim, Siha, the annihilation of lust, of ill-will, of delusion; I proclaim the annihilation of the manifold conditions (of heart) which are evil and not good."--Mahavagga, vi. 31. 7

In the Baha'i writings we have a concept of the Valley of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness where there is dying of self.

You are certainly most welcome to your view and i value your input!

- Art
 
arthra said:
In the Baha'i writings we have a concept of the Valley of True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness where there is dying of self.
Click to expand...

One of my favorite references.... "He who hath attained this station is sanctified from all that pertaineth to the world. Wherefore, if those who have come to the sea of His presence are found to possess none of the limited things of this perishable world, whether it be outer wealth or personal opinions, it mattereth not. For whatever the creatures have is limited by their own limits, and whatever the True One hath is sanctified therefrom..."

Personal opinions! Ah to have them matter not!
 
The Buddha of Boundless Light

Saponification said:
The only problem is, Maitreya is supposed to show up once Buddhism has died out. Not before.
Click to expand...

Hello Saponification!

Thanks for replying to this thread.

Please understand that I have nothing against Buddhism myself but some people even including His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself have said Buddhism is a "dying" religion. I think he said that during one of his last tours of the USA.

I think people still enjoy studying Buddhism however and learning about it.

Maitreya is the Buddha of friendship and peace and we believe Baha'u'llah has inspired an epoch of universal peace and friendship among the peoples of the age.

One manuscript called the Anagatavamsa Desana describes this age when the whole world will be "lit with His glory and power". The name "Baha" means light and glory and likewise you will find what is related to the term frequently used in the Baha'i Writings, the "Abha" Kingdom or the Kingdom of Abha related to the Sanskrit term "Abha"... Amit Abha or "boundless light".

In the Anadatavamsa Desana it is said that "during the age of Maitreya people will only know the difference between night and day by hearing the crowing of the cock" ..... Today we have light at night nad during the day and people use clocks more to tell time... Abdul-Baha, the eldest son of Baha'u'llah described the twentieth century as the "century of light" and indeed electricity has become commonplace in many parts of the globe so that peopel no longer go simply by the light of the sun to rise from slumber.

There is also described in the Anagatavamsa Desana that in this age there will be the "supranormal power of flying thorugh the air". Only in this age have we advanced in aerodynamics and shrunk the world... so advances in electricty and air flight have we seen in this age the greater recognition of the oneness of the planet and the need for world peace which is a cardinal teaching of Baha'u'llah.

John Clifford Holt wrote in the introduction to this text of the Anagatavamsa Desana:

"It is possible that the origins of his cult (Maitreya) were influenced by the diffusion throughout ancient northern India of Zoroastrian soterioological beliefs beliefs concerning Saoshyant the victorius cosmic figure expected to lead the forces of goodness and light to triumph over the forces of evil and darkness at the end of time"

- P. 2 Anagatavamsa Desana " Translated by Udaya Meddgama "The Sermon of the Chronicle to be" First edition Delhi 1993 by Motilal Barnarsidas

Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah fulfilled the Zoroastrian prophecies as well and many Zoroastrians in Iran have become Baha'is believing this.

- Art :cool:
 
A teacher at the Centre I go and I have spoken about the Dalai Lama. We've come to the conclusion he... says a lot of things. While we mean no disrespect towards him, he says a lot of stuff. Things that go against Buddhism, are contradictry and the like. Most Buddhists I know take what he says with a grain of salt.

Buddhism is growing in the West. Western Buddhism is a seperate school and it's growing rapidly. I strongly doubit it will ever be up there with Christianity, but it will be big. "Old Buddhism" is evolving into "New Buddhism."

Maitreya will show up when Buddhism is totally dead, not just dying. Even if it is dying as His Holiness says, it won't be dead for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top