Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Yaqinud Din

Arthra can you not use the word Moslem is it a derogatory slur use Muslim

I'm not mad at you arthra because I'm thinking you did not know it was derogatory I hope that is the case.

I wasn't aware of that and am so sorry if it came off as a derogatory in any way...please clue me in on why it is derogatory by sending me a personal e-mail available on my profile!

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Yaqinud Din

Arthra can you not use the word Moslem is it a derogatory slur use Muslim

I'm not mad at you arthra because I'm thinking you did not know it was derogatory I hope that is the case.

I've not ever seen a reference saying one or another spelling was publicized as derogatory either and would like to know as well.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Thanks to Vajradhara for pointing this thread out to me.

Ive spent about two hours now reading through it all, good thread!

Everyone has spent a lot of words talking about the conditions and semantics of the prophecy, and there have been some good points made, but no one has really adressed what I believe to be the crucial issue. How can Baha'is claim that any Buddha is a manifestation of God when all Buddhist teachings clearly hold the view that there is no single, creator God?

Although I do not agree with it, I am willing to concede the point that Buddhist teachings may have become somewhat corrupted over the last 2500 years, but I do not see how this could have happened to such an extent that we have just forgotten the part about Buddha Shakyamuni actually being a manifestation of God.

(And I know I said I was going to keep out of the monotheism section, but come on! its a thread about Buddhism! )

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Also, is there anyone around here who is a part of the Maitreya mission? I would love to hear any views on the being in London who claims to be Maitreya.

[arthra]

Thanks "awaiting" for your post and i'll see if i can respond to you... How can i address you?

Awaiting_the_fifth wrote:

Thanks to Vajradhara for pointing this thread out to me.

Ive spent about two hours now reading through it all, good thread!

Everyone has spent a lot of words talking about the conditions and semantics of the prophecy, and there have been some good points made, but no one has really adressed what I believe to be the crucial issue. How can Baha'is claim that any Buddha is a manifestation of God when all Buddhist teachings clearly hold the view that there is no single, creator God?

Reply:

Baha'is do not necessarily hold to the traditional concept of God used by many in their thinking processes... We do believe in God but define God as an "Unknowable Essence"..also in terms of creation Abdul-Baha has explained that the universe has always existed and that God is always creating...so it is not the traditional concept of Christian theology.

Also our belief is that many of the original teachings of the historical Buddha have been lost in time...Consider that it was many years after the historical Buddha that the Buddhist canons were developed and that there are wide variations in concepts held by the various Buddhist schools.

We do accept though that Gautama Buddha who lived in Nepal-India about the seventh century or so was a Manifestation of God. It isn't our purpose though to attack in anyway Buddhist schools of thought or practise.

The prophecy of the Maitreya Buddha we believed was fulfilled by Baha'u'llah and was briefly mentioned by Shoghi Effendi the grandson of Abdul-Baha and Gaurdian of the Baha'i Faith until his passsing in 1957.


Awaiting:

Although I do not agree with it, I am willing to concede the point that Buddhist teachings may have become somewhat corrupted over the last 2500 years, but I do not see how this could have happened to such an extent that we have just forgotten the part about Buddha Shakyamuni actually being a manifestation of God.


Reply:

The following is my own opinion as an individual Baha'i and not an official view:

Over the period of twenty five centuries I would suggest that there could have been corruption, but let me suggest that the teachings that come down to us that are still extant suggest to me that the Buddha had a design and plan in His teachings in the India of the day He lived. One of His main goals at the time was the disestablishment of the power of the Brahmin caste over the people of India.

There were several ways this was accomplished in my opinion:

The first was to attack the veracity of the Vedas as a viable spiritual
source. He did this by allowing the use of Prakrit in His religion and redefining in the dhammapada what a Brahmin was;

He refrained from being involved in the theological discussions of His day neither agreeing with the materialists or those who theorized about Brahman...

He disallowed sacrifices of animals.

And He forbade the extreme ascetism of His day that was popular among the yogi types of the time

Awaiting:

(And I know I said I was going to keep out of the monotheism section, but come on! its a thread about Buddhism! )

Reply:

You're most welcome here!

- Art

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Hi Art. thanks for the reply.

So do I understand you correctly that you believe that Buddha Shakyamuni just lied when he said that there was no God when he was actually manifestation of God in order to weaken the Braminist influence on India?

Im just trying to understand.

Forever
Awaiting The Fifth

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Hi Art. thanks for the reply.

So do I understand you correctly that you believe that Buddha Shakyamuni just lied when he said that there was no God when he was actually manifestation of God in order to weaken the Braminist influence on India?

Im just trying to understand.

Forever
Awaiting The Fifth

Thanks Awaiting.. Hope i have your name correct!

No i don't think a Manifestation of God would "lie".

All I meant to imply was that He did not participate in the theological debates of the time and refrained from identifying Himself with materialists as well.

There is probably much we do not know for sure about the Buddha after this length of time, some twenty four centuries later, but "lying" wouldn't be one of them in my opinion.

Have nice week end and thanks again for posting!

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Hi Art. thanks for the reply.

So do I understand you correctly that you believe that Buddha Shakyamuni just lied when he said that there was no God when he was actually manifestation of God in order to weaken the Braminist influence on India?

I would compare the overall theme with Muhammad's cleansing of the Kaaba - as in the god's you worship are not gods, and I am not their Messenger. Muhammad was facing a much less diverse and complicated theological and cultural background than the Buddha was. It could have been the right thing to never create a bridge between truth and confusion by allowing there was some kind of God because no conception among the people he was talking to could have divorced the true concept of God from the fictitious ones everyone thought they knew so well.

In modern parlance I compare the idea to something beyond overwhelming. For example, how bright really is the sun. If you are foolish and look at it directly without filter, it damages the eye and you see... nothing. Get out the balance scale to measure how much something weights in the vicinity of a blackhole and your body is broken and torn to subatomic particles before you can finish the thought - so what does something weigh? It's meaningless. If scales and weight are all you can think about in terms of gravity then explaining black holes is completely beyond you and all you can use is mystical language which confuses the issue at least as often as not.

[diamondsouled]

Namaste !

Having been a Baha'i for 35 years as well as having studied Buddhism for almost as long I know a little, with an emphasis on the little, about Buddhism. Comprehensive study of even one school of Buddhism can be a life long enterprise.

The Baha'i claim that Buddhism has degraded from It's original monotheism is, to put it politely, bogus and clearly based on a lack of knowledge of Buddhism.

Although there are many Schools of Buddhism there are fundamental Buddhist teachings that They all agree on.

Besides the fourfold truth and the eightfold path there are three fundamentals that all Buddhists hold to.

1. Impermanenance- Basically self explanitory

2. Conditioned arising- all phenomenal things have conditions which lead to their arising

3. Anatman- No soul-jiva.

These fundamental Buddhist Teachings have not changed since Buddha's life time.

Buddha's Middle-Way, between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism, is as brilliant today as it was 2,500 years ago!

The reason Buddha took the Middle-Way is because of the monotheist and polytheist tendency to spend much of their time debating (and or fighting about) the existence of this god or that god or this attribute or that attribute of Brahman and to endlessly engage in philosophising and justifing belief in this god or that god, Brahman etc. What Buddha focused on was compassion and those behaviors which are condusive or not condusive to compassion; a far more practical approach to spirituality that has observable results in a short time.

It is remarkable how little theists have changed in 2,500 years! They are still willing to persecute and kill one another over differences in religions and religious interpretation!

We could use another Buddha today whether or not he was Maitrea.

The Baha'i claim that Baha'u'llah was Maitrea is baseless based on Buddhist predictions to do with Maitrea; such claims are really unimportant in the final analysis though.

Maitrea's apperance was to be several thousands of years from the time of Sakyamuni Buddha, in the 30,000 to 50,000 years range.

Unimportant, in the sense that both Buddha and Baha'u'llah recognised the need for different teachings to suit different temperaments of individuals.

Although Abdu'l-Baha' was quite brilliant, which is shown in his ability to quite clearly and eloquently explain His understanding of the niceities and differences between the Sufi and the Manifestation's understanding of pantheism, He actually knew very little about Buddhism and many other subjects.

There is a definite bias towards mono-theism in the Baha'i Faith. Systems of spirituality that do not have mono-theism as their basis are most often disregarded or actually derided.

This attitude towards non-monotheistic faiths can clearly be traced to the Baha'i Faiths origin in Iran and Iran's Faith communities of Shiah Islam and Zoroastrianism which are both strictly mono-theistic.

Both Buddha and Baha'u'llah had some good ideas, more importantly They were both human beings, neither were or are supernatural beings.

There is only us, we are them, ' as one soul '.

Yours Larry Rowe - Vajratathagata

[arthra]

Well Hello Larry Rowe - Vajratathagata...

Welcome to CR!

Your comment:

"The reason Buddha took the Middle-Way is because of the monotheist and polytheist tendency to spend much of their time debating (and or fighting about) the existence of this god or that god or this attribute or that attribute of Brahman and to endlessly engage in philosophising and justifing belief in this god or that god, Brahman etc. What Buddha focused on was compassion and those behaviors which are condusive or not condusive to compassion; a far more practical approach to spirituality that has observable results in a short time."

is also close to my view that the Buddha took a more "via negative" or what today might be closer to a agnostic approach at the time to avoid the controversies and philosophical polarities that occupied the thinkers when He lived.

Your comment:

"There is a definite bias towards mono-theism in the Baha'i Faith. Systems of spirituality that do not have mono-theism as their basis are most often disregarded or actually derided."

My reply:

I agree Baha'i Faith is Monotheist however as a Baha'i you'll recall that God is not knowable "the unknowable essence" so while we do share some of the same beliefs as other monotheists, there is at least a recognition in our Writings of the Unknowable.

Also I don't think we Baha'is spend a lot of time deriding other systems of spirituality. We place more emphasis I think on deepening in the Writings.

Your comment:

"The Baha'i claim that Baha'u'llah was Maitrea is baseless based on Buddhist predictions to do with Maitrea; such claims are really unimportant in the final analysis though.

Maitrea's apperance was to be several thousands of years from the time of Sakyamuni Buddha, in the 30,000 to 50,000 years range."

My reply:

I think the prophecy of Maitreyya or the future Buddha is not soimething you'll find that we belabor a great deal.. It is however our belief that the furture Buddha suggested in Buddhists scriptures would introduce an era of kindness and friendship among men and that this is very much like the prophecy of Saoshyant in Zoroastrian prophecy and that suggested in other traditions to bring humanity together and build a peaceful world.

There is what I would call a degree of hyperbole in some prophecies that should be weighed before we accept as literal the Maitreyya coming in "...the 30,000 to 50,000 years range."


Your comment:

"This attitude towards non-monotheistic faiths can clearly be traced to the Baha'i Faiths origin in Iran and Iran's Faith communities of Shiah Islam and Zoroastrianism which are both strictly mono-theistic."

My reply:

Historically you're correct that the Baha'i Faith emerged out of Shiah Islam and again that we also share monotheism is true with other religions. Zoroastrianism also while some would suggest more dualism is at heart a monotheist I would agree... but I also think it does not necessarily follow that we are ergo biased against other spiritual traditions.

Your comment:

"Both Buddha and Baha'u'llah had some good ideas, more importantly They were both human beings, neither were or are supernatural beings."

My reply:

As a Baha'i you'll recall we regard both the historical Buddha and Baha'u'llah as "Manifestations of God" and while the Buddha's teaching may not have been clearly monotheist as we've noted above, we nonetheless believe these Manifestations have very essential characteristics such as reflecting the Attributes of the Unknowable Essence and the central spiritual Sun of the universe so they are very special "human beings".

Blessings!

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Namaste !

Having been a Baha'i for 35 years as well as having studied Buddhism for almost as long I know a little, with an emphasis on the little, about Buddhism. Comprehensive study of even one school of Buddhism can be a life long enterprise.

The Baha'i claim that Buddhism has degraded from It's original monotheism is, to put it politely, bogus and clearly based on a lack of knowledge of Buddhism.

Interesting that on the one hand you underscore the complexity of the religion and then state matterafactly that Buddhism's degradation is bogus. Certainly Christianity has a more solid basis for a consistent scripture and less time to suffer the outrages of history, and yet it has divisions that place almost everything possible among and between incompatible opposites in teachings.

As for Buddhism, I would offer that a sketch of Pure Land Buddhism would tend to disagree with the whole tone of a common Buddhism, comparable to some Christian denominations which hold Jesus but a man only.

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

It is remarkable how little theists have changed in 2,500 years! They are still willing to persecute and kill one another over differences in religions and religious interpretation!

I don't think the fault is found in them being theists, but in failing to follow the teachings themselves.

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

The Baha'i claim that Baha'u'llah was Maitrea is baseless based on Buddhist predictions to do with Maitrea....

Now that is a most strange statement. How can you examine a Baha'i claim on Buddhist sources? You can compare, examine relationships, and perhaps decide which you beleive, but the Buddhist sources can say nothing definitive about the Baha'i Faith. They cannot refer to the Baha'i Faith without a serious step of interpritation. What you are claiming is baseless or not is that step of interpritation, and there is the measure of faith first, and truth second. But on this read more of the other post about faith and scripture where you asked if I was refering to religion or the Manifestations or etc.

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Although Abdu'l-Baha' was quite brilliant, which is shown in his ability to quite clearly and eloquently explain His understanding of the niceities and differences between the Sufi and the Manifestation's understanding of pantheism, He actually knew very little about Buddhism and many other subjects.

It is a strange thing to measure knowledge and understanding. One can only use knowledge and understanding to measure knowledge and understanding. In that sense, knowing a very great deal and but the tiniest amount at any particular moment may be very erroneous measurements. Rather one can achieve truely great knowledge and understanding from a more superior condition. For example, one could fill libraries about examinations of the Bible, and yet if Jesus were to stand and say thus-an-so, no argument whatsoever based on any - any - examination of the Bible could compare - inherently - with what Jesus then said. The limitation behind this, of course, is that one must hear the words and decide what they mean as best we can know. This is another way relative knowledge can be misleading. A way past this is to know things in themselves, knowing whatever one wishes or should know. It is my understanding that the Manifestations, and Key Figures of religion, had this knowledge, or perhaps the right word could be gift, or sense. However much they might not seem knowing, They knew. Perhaps a mild simulation of this is when Einstein developed the insight that was the basis of Special Relativity, it took some years to learn the math to explain in detail. But Eistein knew, he did not need the math, however much it was useful.

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

There is a definite bias towards mono-theism in the Baha'i Faith. Systems of spirituality that do not have mono-theism as their basis are most often disregarded or actually derided.

Taking classification systems and applying them to truth places the emphasis on the classification systems. I beleive the point of faith is to raise the bar on truth, and see it for oneself, unalloyed by systems such as these.

Of course, it is rather difficult to unbind ourselves from systems of thought, so much are they about everything we do.

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Both Buddha and Baha'u'llah had some good ideas, more importantly They were both human beings, neither were or are supernatural beings.

Words can be slippery. None of them mean only one thing. Every now and then I argue with folk about what is organic, natural, or not. Atomic bombs are natural - ie a product of the natural laws, and yet surely not natural. And seeing only human beings and supernatural being as the choice to choose between is a position of which 'Abdu'l-Baha spoke eloquently and which you come close to when you mention his examination of Sufi ideas of pantheism.

I have tried to compare God as I understand Him from the Baha'i pov with a super-extreme of nature - a black hole (and it's hypothetical opposite, a white hole.) All attempts at measurement are meaningless and comparable directly to nothing. And yet actually in the presence of nothing and a black hole are entirely incompatible experiences, however unmeasurable.

Quite a dense post...

[diamondsouled]

Howdy Art and Steve,

'Quite a dense post...'

Indeed! I don't mean that in any derogatory sense either.

What is more dense than that primordial particle from which this entire universe has evolved?

Perhaps concentrated would be a better word.

I have sometimes drawn the connect between the Bab's Name as the Primal Point with that primordial particle.

Hyperbole is common within all religions, the Baha'i Faith included. The predictions of the Baha'i Faith to do with It's life span can be viewed as are Buddhist time spans.

"As to the third Dispensation -- the Revelation proclaimed by Bahá'u'lláh -- inasmuch as the Sun of Truth when attaining that station shineth in the plenitude of its meridian splendor its duration hath been fixed for a period of one whole month, which is the maximum time taken by the sun to pass through a sign of the Zodiac. From this thou canst imagine the magnitude of the Bahá'í cycle -- a cycle that must extend over a period of at least five hundred thousand years. "

~ Abdu'l-Baha' ~

If fifty thousand years is a hyperbole what is five hundred thousand years?

Yours Larry

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

Howdy Art and Steve,

'Quite a dense post...'

Indeed! I don't mean that in any derogatory sense either.

Indeed!

Originally Posted by diamondsouled

"As to the third Dispensation -- the Revelation proclaimed by Bahá'u'lláh -- inasmuch as the Sun of Truth when attaining that station shineth in the plenitude of its meridian splendor its duration hath been fixed for a period of one whole month, which is the maximum time taken by the sun to pass through a sign of the Zodiac. From this thou canst imagine the magnitude of the Bahá'í cycle -- a cycle that must extend over a period of at least five hundred thousand years. "

~ Abdu'l-Baha' ~

If fifty thousand years is a hyperbole what is five hundred thousand years?

Yours Larry

I think in part it depends on the grasp of the cultural reflection or sense of time. Perhaps notable human history is some 12 thousand years. But the math and history people had a realistic grasp of was not so much. Now we speak of accurate climate records lasting many thousands of years, evolving planetary millions of years, and galactic populations of stars lasting billions of years and a comfort zone of feeling the universe as we know it being some 12.5 billions of years old.

This isn't to make the outer ends of knowledge, but to note that 500,000 years isn't so far from our sense of a time scale as it could seem. We are planning, for example, to try and mark a radiological dump lasting several hundred thousand years. It would be nice if we could leave something a good deal more positive for that long.

[diamondsouled]

"Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching. Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words. Rely not on theory, but on experience.Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and
elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

~ Buddha - Kalama Sutra ~

There are many parallels to be found between Buddha's Teaching above and Baha'u'llah's Teachings.

There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.

Yours Larry

[smkolins]

Finally had a chance to go back to read the related post on Buddhist prophecy of Maitreya.... http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=872

Hmmm...

Some reactions...

"At that time, the ocean 'will lose much of its water, and there will be much less of it than now. In consequence a world-ruler will have no difficulties in passing across it. "

reminds me extremely of Revelations - "And I saw ... and there was no more sea."

I beleive the interpritation is that previously natural barriers tended to isolate one people from another, one nation from another, one empire from another - and that such barriers would be overcome or reduced in effect.

Then there seems to be an extended section of impossible extremes, seemingly mythological, but extending the above style - that of the sea level literally dropping significantly. A continent flattening and growing grass everywhere and so on. Perhaps these are elaborations of the above interpritation - that the organization of peoples and problems from competing nations would be ended and induced problems would cease. Of course it frames all these as natural events, but such events have always been impossible - some other explanation/interpritation seems far more likely.

Curious that such a wonderful world would require a Buddha - I'm used to thinking that a Manifestation arises when things are problematic.

"And when his father sees that his son has the thirty-two marks of a superman, and considers their implications in the light of the holy mantras, he will be filled with joy, for he will know that, as the mantras show, two ways are open to his son: he will either be a universal monarch, or a supreme Buddha. But as Maitreya grows up, the Dharma will increasingly take possession of him, and he will reflect that all that lives is bound to suffer."

Now this also reminds me of Baha'u'llah - a nobleman's son, positioned to be ready to serve in the court of government, and yet clearly and progressively seperating from that path, and noted for being on another path.

"When Bahá'u'lláhwas twenty-two years old, His father died, and the Government wished Him to succeed to His father's position in the Ministry, as was customary in Persia, but Bahá'u'lláh did not accept the offer. Then the Prime Minister said: "Leave him to himself. Such a position is unworthy of him. He has some higher aim in view. I cannot understand him, but I am convinced that he is destined for some lofty career. His thought are not like ours. Let him alone.""

"He will have a retinue of 84,000 persons, whom he will instruct in the mantras. With this retinue he will one day go forth into the homeless life."

I think of his title Lord of Hosts, and homeless - while certainly a spiritual metaphor, there is also the reality of banishment.

Not sure what to make of the Dragon Tree exactly.

"They will be assembled in a park full of beautiful flowers, and his assembly will extend over a hundred leagues. Under Maitreya's guidance, hundreds of thousands of living beings shall enter upon a religious life."

Assembling in a park with flowers happened a few times, and Baha'u'llahs reach even in His own lifetime went over the horizon. Curiously low number for a huge reality. Reminds me of the 144,000 of Revelations. Hmmm...

From "'And thereupon Maitreya, the compassionate teacher, surveys those who have gathered around him, and speaks to them as follows..." we get a feel for what the Baha'i Faith calls progressive revelation - and even to noting specifics like "It is because you have worshipped Shakyamuni with parasols, banners, flags, perfumes, garlands, and unguents that you have arrived here to hear my teaching." reminds me much of various quotes including "Guidance hath ever been given by words, and now it is given by deeds. Every one must show forth deeds that are pure and holy, for words are the property of all alike, whereas such deeds as these belong only to Our loved ones. Strive then with heart and soul to distinguish yourselves by your deeds. In this wise We counsel you in this holy and resplendent tablet." and "ere long the assayers of mankind shall, in the holy presence of the Adored, accept naught but purest virtue and deeds of stainless holiness." from the Hidden Words