Baha'i/Ananda Marga

[arthra]

Hello Brian!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Certainly Baha'i follows a lot of the patterns of other religions - though some of the Baha'i members perhaps cannot see that as yet.

However, if this is a general principle in organised religion, then is there really a specific criticism against the Baha'i continuation of this principle - when it has it's different levels of expression in other branches of religious thought?

There's a Baha'i view of religions that they are compared to trees... So a young tree spreadng it's branches begins to have influence in the world and on human civilizations.... In time the vitality begins to fade and the tree can ossify or become brittle ...Later strong winds can blow and the tree may split or parts will actually die...

So religions pass thorugh stages of youth... and later become aged and so on...

I think there could be some prejudice today against "organized religion" of any kind but our view is that dogmatism and prejudice along with parochial thinking have set people against each other... The Baha'is offer a way to resolve differences and build foundations for a united planet. There are few groups I am aware of that have such diversity in their make up and who are as accepting as the Baha'is...

That Baha'u'llah proclaimed there would be no Manifestation until the cycle of His Dispensation is completed "in no less than a thousand years" may seem incredibly "egotistic" to someone who is unfamilar with our Faith and probably isn't aware of how we view the Divine sense in which the statement is made. It is to me though simply a divine perspective that Baha'u'llah has revealed in His Most Great Book the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

When Prophet Muhammad revealed in Holy Qur'an that He was the "Seal of the Prophets" don't you suppose He was misunderstood or maligned for this?

There is also the historical context in which Baha'u'llah revealed this "thousand year" statement. Prior to His Proclamation in 1863 the followers of the Bab were divided into various camps of claimants to being a successor of the Bab or claiming divine revelation for themselves. When Baha'u'llah revealed the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the early 1870's He is basically saying "enough" of this. The leadership of Baha'u'llah did eventually unite the remnants of the Bab's followers and prevailed among the vast majority as fulfilling the Bab's prophecy of "Him Whom God would Make Manifest".

So I think there are ways to better understand this where it is not simply an issue of an "egomaniac" leading some intolerant people around as it's been suggested.

- Art

[Vapour]

Pathless seems to be unimpressed with Baha'i's teaching because it appear to be an another dogmatic faith (thought it teach tolorence in a dogmatic way. )

So

Baha'i good because it teach tolorence (and all other goodies).
Baha'i bad because it doesn't encourage free thought.

But if you follow your own free though without faith in devine, at best, you might just ended up as an (agnostic) humanist. Baha'i is a religious faith. Hey Pathless, arem't you complaining apple for not tasting like peach?

[BruceDLimber]

V>Don't you hate people who keep reinterpretating text to suit their own view?

No, Vapour: Baha'is hate NO ONE!

Peace,

Bruce

[barefootgal9]

"BarefootGal9's assessment of Anandamurti in relation to Baha'u'llah is clearly hierarchical. "

Shrug. What can I say? Here in upstate NY, I can very ocassionally see the Northern Lights -- a faint, foggy shimmer on the horizon. If this was my total experience of the Aurora, I would spend my entire life thinking they were no big deal. However, I have also had the experience of seeing them from Northern Manitoba, when they filled the entire sky and the whole atmosphere was afire with vivid undulating curtains of color that seemed to make all my senses zing! i.e. There's a difference.

What the human being can ascertain of Truth whether by reason or by "revelation" or inspiration is always self-limited. It depends on the knowledge thus far acquired, the influences of the fad idea of the day, the walls we've put up when we were hurt.... Our understanding is "conditional" -- the understanding of any human being is conditional. It is often truth -- but the view is always and necessarily limited. By comparison with Reality, it is a glimmer of fog.

Your path thus far has convinced that there is no qualitative difference between the knowledge of God any person can reach, and the innate knowledge possessed by an Individual so rare that virtually all religions apply some superlative term, like "the appearance of God Himself," the "Return," an "Incarnation."

I once believed the same. I can tell you otherwise, but nothing I can say can prove there really is a Difference. Only your own direct experience can do this. I can only wish you would "travel" a bit, so that you would know of your own knowledge that Old Faithful's spouting is heirarchically different from the entirely Different Order of an eruption of Mt St Helens.

And the "Revelation" of Baha'u'llah is likewise qualitatively different to the "revelations" attainable by we ordinary mortals. It's spanse, it's depths, it's perfection of logic and understanding convinced me, a scoffing atheist, that there is, in fact, such a thing as God -- because no human knowledge could possibly reach this level.

--

When someone asks "What does Baha'i teach ..." we Baha'is quote Baha'u'llah in preference to making something up from our own limited perspective. Because anything we might say would be just a glimmering fog on the horizon, but we're really trying to give you a chance to glimpse the Aurora Borealis.

Um. No. I don't think this is being "dogmatic." Just trying to be accurate.

As to your other complaints, yes. If this faith is, as Baha'u'llah puts it, part of the One, ever-unfolding "Ancient Faith of God," then yes, of course, it reiterates the same spiritual truths. That's part of it's job. Truth is One. What can be more universal than the One?

The other part of this Revelation's job is to enable us to reach further than we've been able to go in the past, to help the whole of mankind free itself of the fettering dogmas that ineveitably clutter the picture over time, and attain a qualitatively greater level of spiritual and social development -- a new "Age" -- in this stage, a global civilization, across-the-board human rights, world peace. (That's rather universal, too.) Moses did this, Aaron could not -- Jesus did this, Peter could not -- Krisna did this, Arjuna could not -- Muhammad did this, Ali could not. Is the Baha'i Faith capable of doing this? (Has civilization been heading this way over the past 160 years?) If so, it is qualitatively, heirarchically, a Different Order of "organization." God has something to do with it.

You remind me of my father, a life-long, adamant, card-carrying atheist and "Free Thought" proponent, who said to me: "The problem with you religionists is that you believe in a God!"

I can't prove there is a God (that's bigger than my own navel), I can't prove there is such a thing as a Manifestation of God (who is greater than the guru on the street corner), I can't prove there is "Truth" (that is larger than my mind can contain.) I also can't prove there is such a thing as "love" -- like things superlative and divine, it's only real proof is the experience of it. I can only urge "keep traveling."

--

Yes, dogma is confining. (Baha'u'llah exhorts us to shun it -- likewise superstition.) Spiritual truth, however, is a sound bedrock of principles, which, like an artist's armature, enables you to build forever. Such an armature is rather difficult to "step outside of." Might as well try to understand the workings of the universe without principles of math and physics.

(Actually, this is a useful "truth test" -- does a belief system confine and limit? Or does it enlighten and empower? A good little test to pack in your travel bag! "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -- one of those ancient principles it would be very limiting to "step outside of.")

Sorry, I can't seem to give you just a brief response! And there are a lot of thoughts in your post I haven't touched on ... Baha'u'llah could probably have answered everything in one paragraph -- but I've no doubt exceeded anyone's attention span.

Follow the "Pathless Path" and we'll all meet at the Summit!

Best,

barefootgal

[Vapour]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

V>Don't you hate people who keep reinterpretating text to suit their own view?

No, Vapour: Baha'is hate NO ONE!

Peace,

Bruce

Wow, talking about hardcore.

[Pathless]

Hmm. There are two posts missing from this thread. I posted a reply last night and then arthra replied to my reply. Brian, is there any way we can recover those posts?

[I, Brian]

I'll repost my PM to you here:



Hi Pathless -

I've certainly not deleted anything - and the logs don't show any moderator action whatsoever on anything I'm not already aware of. So I can assure you that to the best of my knowledge this is not due to any form of action by staff here.

I would have suggested that the post was not sent correctly - but this is actually the second time over as many days that someone has reported something like this.

I'm now contacting my hosting company, to see if there has been any data loss on the server, especially where older backups are used.

[I, Brian]

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=920

[QueryGuy]

Originally Posted by Pathless

The main reason for this post is that I see many similarities between Baha'i and A.M., not in the least is the subtle contradiction that the faith is universal, while at the same point of disregarding other traditions--kind of like saying, "Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity."

I guess I see your point, but I don't see the problem. As a Baha'i, I've decided to devote my life to the teachings of Baha'u'llah. If I'm looking for guidance, I will go to Baha'i writings first. And yes, where there are conflicts between certain teachings of Baha'i and other religions, I assume the Baha'i view takes precedence...at least in my own life.

It seems to me you just have a problem with organized religion, and the Baha'i faith is just another organization to have a problem with. You seem to have had many preconceived notions before you made your post, which essentially dismissed the entire Baha'i faith. I do thank you, however, for at least taking the time to learn how the name of the founder and central figure of the Baha'i faith is spelled, even if it was after the fact.

QG

[Pathless]

Barefoot Gal said:

Shrug.

Shrug indeed. I don't really have the heart for this discussion anymore. Whatever fire started this thread has since gone out; I guess I made all the criticisms and asked all the questions that I felt compelled to, and now I'm done.
You Baha'is seem to have it all worked out. I suppose that's part of the reason why I'm done. There's really no debating with you, because you so firmly believe what you believe.

I would, however, like to point out that I am not an atheist. Barefoot Gal said:

You remind me of my father, a life-long, adamant, card-carrying atheist and "Free Thought" proponent, who said to me: "The problem with you religionists is that you believe in a God!"

Although I may be a free thinker, I am not an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, one does not have to subscribe to any particular religion or any religion at all to believe in God.

Query Guy said:

It seems to me you just have a problem with organized religion, and the Baha'i faith is just another organization to have a problem with. You seem to have had many preconceived notions before you made your post, which essentially dismissed the entire Baha'i faith.

I think he was mad becasue I originally typed Baha'u'llah's name as "Bahull'whatsisname." He's right, I do have a problem with organized religion, but that's a personal problem that I have to work out. I don't have a problem with other people who get something out of organized religion--more power to them. I'm sorry if I came across as having a vendetta against or outrightly dismissing the Baha'i faith, but there are things about it that trouble me and I felt I needed to express that, which I have now done. Now I will allow you to have your forum back.

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

>You Baha'is seem to have it all worked out.

I would just point out that it is not we Baha'is, but God, who has it "all worked out!" . . . :-)

We are simply recipients of His bounty in this respect.

Peace,

Bruce

[barefootgal9]

I'm sorry that you've lost interest -- perhaps we'll meet again in a thread where the discussion is more stimulating.

I never have been sure what you were looking for from us here ... you asked how Baha'i might be similar or differ from A.M. I answered that as best I could on what info was there. You never really asked anything further or offered info or ideas for us to explore, other than implying that our "universalism" was subtly not universal, and suggesting that you rejected Baha'u'llah's statement that another Manifestation would not appear for at least 1000 years after Him.

I think we answered that as best we could, in trying to show how we believe a Manifestation of God Who founds a major religion differs from a spiritual teacher who founds a movement or philosophy.

There was no response, question, challenge or discussion point from you on any of that. Maybe you had pithy points that were made in your lost posts!? I've got a strong feeling that you must put other things to us -- but we never saw them.

All I've been able to discern from what IS here is that you seem annoyed with us for believing in the Founder of our religion, and accepting His word as true. Thus the shrug. If we didn't believe His claim and His writings, we wouldn't be Baha'is, and we wouldn't be talking here.

I'm sorry the discussion fell flat -- I think now, that your annoyance is that we didn't give ear to your arguments -- but, methinks, they were arguments we never saw... ?

best wishes

bfg

ps my father was both an atheist and a card-carrying member of the Free Thought organization -- an organization that is frankly anti-God and anti-religion (and as adament in it's world view as any religion.) However, I wasn't assuming atheism on your part, just the parallel nature of the arguments -- to my father, the problem with religions was that they believe in God. Your argument seemed to be that the problem with religions is that they believe in the divinity of their Founders. In either case, it's an unanswerable objection.

[arthra]

Pathless:

I don't really have the heart for this discussion anymore. Whatever fire started this thread has since gone out; I guess I made all the criticisms and asked all the questions that I felt compelled to, and now I'm done.

Reply:

You know Pathless a discussion can be a positive experience for everyone... I think most Baha'is are used to criticism in some form or other as we're still relatively few in numbers and not as well known perhaps in the media... but in the past forty years or so this changing. With improved communicatrions information is more widely available adn we Baha'is welcome that.

Pathless:

You Baha'is seem to have it all worked out. I suppose that's part of the reason why I'm done. There's really no debating with you, because you so firmly believe what you believe.

Reply:

Well I don't know that we "have it all worked out"...but it's true that as a group Baha'is are united probably more than most... which is turning out to be a strength I think. Debating is also not our style, usually we prefer something called consultation with each other and finding areas of agreement and building from there and we dislike walking away from each other in a "huff" with negative feelings toward one another.

Pathless:

I would, however, like to point out that I am not an atheist. Barefoot Gal said: Although I may be a free thinker, I am not an atheist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Also, one does not have to subscribe to any particular religion or any religion at all to believe in God.

Reply:

I think that is a point well taken... we also value "independent investigation" of reality and bear you no ill will for whatever conclusions you come up with... conclusions of course can spawn more investigation and greater appreciation of a topic.

Pathless:

I do have a problem with organized religion, but that's a personal problem that I have to work out. I "don't" have a problem with other people who get something out of organized religion--more power to them.

Reply:

Many Baha'is joined the Faith because of their experiences in their former churches and I think they wanted or felt the need for religion and appreciate how Baha'i communities operate.

Pathless:

I'm sorry if I came across as having a vendetta against or outrightly dismissing the Baha'i faith, but there are things about it that trouble me and I felt I needed to express that, which I have now done. Now I will allow you to have your forum back.

Reply:

Well continue to give us your feedback and I think we'll do our best to respond to any other areas you find that trouble you... The forum here is still your forum anytime you choose to use it!

In friendship,

- Art

[Vapour]

Originally Posted by Vapour

I have invited a friemd of mine (muslim) to this forum. See how he respond (that is if he decide to respond).

An update. My friend sent me an email.

"ps i am not in the mood for a debate although there is a fundamental mistake in that argument of the bahais: EVERY rasool by definition is also a nabi therefore being the last nabi automatically means also being the last rasool. :-)

amateurs... "

Since he is not going to respond to it, just take it for what it is. It's your reading aganist his. And as one of you stated, in the end, you adopt your interpretation as valid as a matter of faith which kinda bring up to related topic.

I read it somewhere that baha'i offer a way to unit different religion. I mean, to get around the problem of future buddah, you interpreted signs symbolically. Then when I poitned out that one can get around the Baha'i restriction of next prophet, you got around by interpretating angel as symbolic entity. But it is quite obvious that if you are doing this kind of *symbolic* interpretation, anyone can come up with any conclusion so in the end, you have to pick up one version out of faith. Then even that you have to problem of interpretating such interpretation which now you take it as cannonical truth.

But if it is all about people accepting your version of faith/interpretation, what is so different from saying Islam will unite humanity if everyone convert to islam? Afterall, some muslim scholars do claim that prophets were sent to every nations, pretty much the same claim as Baha'i. Did i miss anything about Baha'i's claim about uniting humanity? Just that if your project is everyone converting to your idea, I just kinda think it's far fetched? And your world government thingy, I'm not saying it won't happen. EU is a good example but you know, it probably work if everyone can agree to disagree.

[barefootgal9]

Yes, EU is a good example.

I really don't think the establishment of the new era, as I understand it anyway, requires everyone converting to Baha'i. Rather, it is as if Baha'u'llah was given the sight to see the direction of a sort of divine push of humankind in the direction of world civilization. It's exact form is up to humanity to decide, but the Baha'i teachings indicate the basic <principles> that will be need to be generally accepted for humankind to build a unified global community which is based upon justice and the rights of all people, a requisite to real world peace.

I'll just list a few of those that pop immediately to mind:

-- the right of every individual to have his choice in religion, without coercion
-- the expansion of understanding and dialog between religions -- reduction and elimination of fanaticism, suspicion, through the growing recognition of the essential oneness of religious faith
-- universal education and literacy
-- the establishment of procedures and institutions of consultation for problem solving, peacemaking, economic development
-- an international language to be taught alongside the native tongue in every nation
-- an international currency
-- recognition of the rights of workers
-- recognition of the full equality of capacity and rights of women and men
-- that the whole of humankind is but one race, the human race
-- that governments must be responsible to the people (monarchies, democracies, etc are all alright, so long as they reflect the will of the people -- democratic systems are especially praised)
-- international boundaries between nations must be established and agreed upon
-- elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty (not implying communism, at all. But rather through recognition of the neccessity for and right to just wages, at least some degree of employee stock ownership, moderate taxation of profits, voluntary charity, and systems established to care for the poor and those unable to earn a viable living)
-- an international court and agreed upon laws, necessary means/authority for enforcement of these laws
-- an international consultative body which will have the means and authority to jointly act if a nation arises which threatens the peace and safety of others
-- elimination of slavery

None of these things are to be imposed by compulsion; the course of historical events will drive a sort of global consciousness raising of the fundamental neccessities and rights of the human race and the necessity for global institutions to help ensure these. And none of these things will be established <directly> by the Baha'is or the imposition of Baha'i laws -- Baha'u'llah's words are "The nations of the world must gather together and take counsel between them ..." to establish the laws and systems that are needed.

As you point out, we are already moving towards this, as Baha'u'llah predicted back in the second half of the 1800s. Two areas, especially, are easy to point to: the collapse of imperialism and its replacement by independent, sovereign nations; and, the establishment of much of the equal status of women under the law -- at least in the west, and spreading.

Currently the International Baha'i Community has consultative status as an NGO with many branches of the UN, and it and other Baha'i institutions and individuals are increasingly being called upon to facilitate consultation by various organizations, international businesses, etc. This is a role I expect will grow over the years as more and more Baha'is develop these skills, and more agencies discover their usefulness.

Is this the destined role of the Baha'i Faith for the next 900 or so years? Will most of the world ultimately convert to Baha'i? I don't think any of us know the answers to these questions; only that we are to develop the skills and institutions that will be capable of assisting these processes, and in our lives and deeds, model and promote the unifying principles as best we know how and assist their establishment -- and He has stressed that this is a BIG responsibility on the part of His followers.

Similarly, when Baha'u'llah talks of the unity of religion, it seems to me, anyway, that He is not implying or advocating the elimination of the varieties of religious thought -- tho I personally expect that 1000 years of communication between the followers of different faiths <could> ultimately produce a sort of consensus -- else His principle of "independent investigation of truth" and "unfettered choice of religion" would be rendered rather meaningless. Myself, I see this 1000 year period of establishing "The Most Great Peace" as a stage of transition to an age of maturity of the human race -- perhaps all will, by the end of that period be in fair agreement on basic spiritual truths -- but I don't know, I think that is God's call.

Some of this is going to be a rough haul. There was nothing pretty about WWI and WWII, for instance, or the collapse of the Turkish and British empires, or the wrong-headed and brutal experiments in communism -- but that suffering shook down a good number of old institutions, prejudices, and false ideas that stood as barriers between a still mostly feudal world and the global and cooperative "order" we must ultimately establish to live safely and justly in the future. Baha'ullah indicates that how rough a haul our future will be is in mankind's hands -- the longer we (the whole human race) take to establish these principles, the longer war, injustice and suffering will continue. it's a question of how badly do we have to hurt ourselves before we are really ready to seriously implement what must be done?

As usual, I have rattled on... hope somewhere in all this I have sort of answered your questions!

:-)