Buddism and the Baha'i Faith - Page 11

Vajradhara · 09-14-2005, 08:28 PM

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smkolins

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

Buddhas are not Manifestations... it pretty much is that simple

metta,

~v

arthra · 09-14-2005, 11:09 PM

I think it would be interesting to compare the various concepts say of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Tirthankaras, Avataras and Manifestations.

Also I think there's bound to be a variety of views I'm sure as to what these Beings are like. When we discuss Christ with Christians there is a similar issue where we can have different concepts.

The Buddha is accepted by us as a Manifestation.

`Abdu'l-Baha describes the Buddha as "the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity" (CoC1 43:15) and as the establisher of "a new religion" (CoC1 46:16).

I don't think many Buddhists would disagree with that.

From our view I think as Baha'is we see a Manifestation as appearing from time to time to promote the advancement of humanity and that at the point of greatest need the Manifestation appears..

The concept that Manifestations appear over fairly vast periods of time from an unknown measureless past to the future and can appear in various worlds is probably one of the more obvious areas of similarity with the appearance of Buddhas.

We would say also that a Manifestation has innate knowledge rather than acquired knowledge. When you consider the stories about the early life of the Buddha this seems to me to be implied.

If you look for the simialrities between the concepts they are there in my view.

- Art

Vajradhara · 09-15-2005, 10:58 PM

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

i realize that Baha'i think that Buddha Shakyamuni is a Manifestation of God. to view it in this manner, however, is certainly foreign to Buddha Dharma in which Buddha Shakyamuni specifically denied that he was a being of this sort. in fact, when pressed about what sort of being he was, his answer to the query was "Awake".

I suppose that it wouldn't really matter much if i explained that the arising of the Buddha Dharma in this world system, in our historical epoc was not, in fact, the first arising of a Buddha in this world system... thus, there was no "new religion" when Buddha Shakyamuni expounded the Dharma, would it?

we seem to go round and round on this particular one, eh?

metta,

~v

Awaiting_the_fifth · 09-15-2005, 11:23 PM

Arthra, you say

Quote:

The Buddha is accepted by us as a Manifestation.

But it seems to me that your claim is not an acceptance, but rather a denial. You deny that Buddha was what he claimed to be and you deny what he stood for.

I was under the impression that it was Shogi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha (cant remember which one) who originally claimed that Buddha Shakyamuni was a manifestation of God. These men were not manifestations themselves, so what evidence did they have for this claim? The only evidence available would have been Buddhist scriptures.

So basically, the baha'i faith is claiming, based on buddhist scriptures, that buddhist scriptures are wrong.

arthra · 09-16-2005, 02:59 AM

Hello Awaiting!

Good to read your post!

Awaiting wrote:

But it seems to me that your claim is not an acceptance, but rather a denial. You deny that Buddha was what he claimed to be and you deny what he stood for.

Comment:

Well I wouldn't really agree with your summation Awaiting... You understand that these concepts like the "Buddha" have developed over time. Many Vaishnava Hindus regard the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu and we know in Buddhism the gods of the Vedic pantheon take on a new meaning...one not necessarily based on the Vedas but on Buddhist scriptures...

Awaiting:

I was under the impression that it was Shogi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha (cant remember which one) who originally claimed that Buddha Shakyamuni was a manifestation of God. These men were not manifestations themselves, so what evidence did they have for this claim? The only evidence available would have been Buddhist scriptures.

Comment:

I can only respond here from the Baha'i point of view that Abdul-Baha the eldest son of Baha'u'llah and the authorized Interpreter of His Writings had a deep respect for the Buddha and recognized Him as a Manifestation.

I think that should be taken as a compliment and a recognition of the spiritual greatness of the Buddha, not as a rejection or an attack.

Awaiting:

So basically, the baha'i faith is claiming, based on buddhist scriptures, that buddhist scriptures are wrong.

My comment:

Well I don't think so really... We respect the Buddhist scriptures and wouldn't say they are simply "wrong".

Buddhist scriptures as you know took a good deal of time to develope and as you realize there are different canons of scripture.

If you haven't had the opportunity there's an article about Buddhism and the Baha'i faith at

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

I would encourage you to review.

There's also another article you might find interesting:

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

In friendship,

- Art

smkolins · 09-16-2005, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i realize that Baha'i think that Buddha Shakyamuni is a Manifestation of God. to view it in this manner, however, is certainly foreign to Buddha Dharma in which Buddha Shakyamuni specifically denied that he was a being of this sort. in fact, when pressed about what sort of being he was, his answer to the query was "Awake".

He may have denied what you think is God. We differ about what that God might be perhaps.

Interesting about being awake - "His Holiness Christ, addressing the believers, uttereth the following in the Gospel: "Be awake lest the Son of Man come and find ye asleep!" and "O friends of God! Be awake, be awake; be vigilant, be vigilant!" and "O ye concourses of men! Awake! Awake! Become mindful! Become mindful! Open ye the seeing eye! Unstop the hearing ear! Hark! Hark!" and "The people of this world are thinking of warfare; you must be peacemakers. The nations are self-centered; you must be thoughtful of others rather than yourselves. They are neglectful; you must be mindful. They are asleep; you should be awake and alert...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

I suppose that it wouldn't really matter much if i explained that the arising of the Buddha Dharma in this world system, in our historical epoc was not, in fact, the first arising of a Buddha in this world system... thus, there was no "new religion" when Buddha Shakyamuni expounded the Dharma, would it?

To my ears this identical to the Baha'i Teaching of "This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

But within that scheme was the Buddha Dharma called such before Buddha Shakyamuni? Indeed was there a word Buddha? Perhaps this is like calling the Buddha a Manifestation - a word not in use, could not have been used in the days of Buddha Shakyamuni....

Vajradhara · 09-16-2005, 06:13 AM

Namaste smkolins,

Quote:

Originally Posted by smkolins

He may have denied what you think is God. We differ about what that God might be perhaps.

if, by the term God, you mean the "Ultimate Ground of Being from Which All Things Derive" then Buddha Shakyamuni denied this. if you mean Gods of the Form realm, he denied that. if you mean Gods of the Desire realm, he denied that, if you mean Gods of the Formless Realms, he denied that. in essence, in any manner which you may conceive of deity, that is not what a Buddha is.

i wouldn't really expect this to be something that would be well known outside of adherents to the Buddha Dharma.

Quote:

To my ears this identical to the Baha'i Teaching of "This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future."

naturally, since you think that Buddha Shakyamuni was God or a Manifestation thereof. this is, of course, without foundation in the Buddha Dharma. however, that does not seem to matter all that much.

Quote:

But within that scheme was the Buddha Dharma called such before Buddha Shakyamuni?

yes and the Buddha Shakyamuni relates this to us.

Quote:

Indeed was there a word Buddha?

yes, it is a title, not a name of a specific being.

Quote:

Perhaps this is like calling the Buddha a Manifestation - a word not in use, could not have been used in the days of Buddha Shakyamuni....

how does that follow? a word which was in use during the previous Buddhas arisings was still in use when Buddha Shakyamuni arose in this world system. however, to think that this means that any of the Buddhas were or are gods is to seriously misconstrue what the Dharma is.

naturally, as you are not a Buddhist, i wouldn't really expect that this would be something which you'd spend much time with. no worries there.

metta,

~v

Vajradhara · 09-16-2005, 06:23 AM

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post. i hope you don't mind my interjection into your conversation with Awaiting the Fifth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

Hello Awaiting!

Good to read your post!

Awaiting wrote:

But it seems to me that your claim is not an acceptance, but rather a denial. You deny that Buddha was what he claimed to be and you deny what he stood for.

Comment:

Well I wouldn't really agree with your summation Awaiting... Many Vaishnava Hindus regard the Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu and we know in Buddhism the gods of the Vedic pantheon take on a new meaning...one not necessarily based on the Vedas but on Buddhist scriptures...

yes, and they are incorrect about that.... of course, that is only the case if you beleive the Buddha Shakyamuni. as he quite clearly explained, he was not divine or an Avatar of any of the Gods in any of the God realms.

Quote:

Awaiting:

I was under the impression that it was Shogi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha (cant remember which one) who originally claimed that Buddha Shakyamuni was a manifestation of God. These men were not manifestations themselves, so what evidence did they have for this claim? The only evidence available would have been Buddhist scriptures.

Comment:

I can only respond here from the Baha'i point of view that Abdul-Baha the eldest son of Baha'u'llah and the authorized Interpreter of His Writings had a deep respect for the Buddha and recognized Him as a Manifestation.

so... he came to this view on his own? well.. no wonder. i thought that they had read the Tipitaka and determined this. which would be quite unusual, but this makes much more sense to me.

Quote:

I think that should be taken as a compliment and a recognition of the spiritual greatness of the Buddha, not as a rejection or an attack.

not an intentional one, by any means, but it is a slander really. he said that he wasn't and you guys say that he is, so you are either calling him a liar or a lunatic (gotta love C. S. Lewis

) i'm going to have to go with Buddha Shakyamuni on his understanding of what he is, i'm sure you understand.

Quote:

Awaiting:

So basically, the baha'i faith is claiming, based on buddhist scriptures, that buddhist scriptures are wrong.

My comment:

Well I don't think so really... We respect the Buddhist scriptures and wouldn't say they are simply "wrong".

isn't the word you use "corrupt"?

sort of like how the Muslims think the Bible and Tanakh have been "corrupted". quite interesting really.

Quote:

Buddhist scriptures as you know took a good deal of time to develope and as you realize there are different canons of scripture.

there are three different canons, which mainly correspond to the Three Vehicles. more to the point, this displays a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the original Sangha and how the teachings were conveyed.

the words are not it... in the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, Buddha gave direct mind to mind transmission of the Mind Seal and it has continued, unbroken, to this very day.

Buddhism isn't a revealed religon and thus, we do not have any sort of clinging to the words of the teachers.. we are not to seek what they have, we are to seek what they sought, if that makes sense.

metta,

~v

arthra · 09-16-2005, 07:20 AM

Vajradhara

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post. i hope you don't mind my interjection into your conversation with Awaiting the Fifth.

My reply:

No my friend... but I would also hope that Awaiting will feel free to respond if he wishes...

Vajra:

yes, and they are incorrect about that.... of course, that is only the case if you beleive the Buddha Shakyamuni. as he quite clearly explained, he was not divine or an Avatar of any of the Gods in any of the God realms.

Comment:

I cited them to indicate there have been many views of Buddha over time and also that Buddhism itself redefined the vedic gods ...

Vajra:

so... he came to this view on his own? well.. no wonder. i thought that they had read the Tipitaka and determined this. which would be quite unusual, but this makes much more sense to me.

Comment:

I do know there were texts in Persia about Buddhism in India. Abdul-Baha lived close to His Father and interpreted His Writings. He recognized the Buddha as a Manifestation...

Vajra:

not an intentional one, by any means, but it is a slander really. he said that he wasn't and you guys say that he is, so you are either calling him a liar or a lunatic (gotta love C. S. Lewis

) i'm going to have to go with Buddha Shakyamuni on his understanding of what he is, i'm sure you understand.

My comment:

Maybe we could work here to have a more peaceful dialogue ...less "us" and "them" "you guys"... I do not call anyone a "liar" or "lunatic".

Vajra:

isn't the word you use "corrupt"?

sort of like how the Muslims think the Bible and Tanakh have been "corrupted". quite interesting really.

My reply:

I'm not making a case here for that and we Baha'is do not agree with some who call the Gospel or Torah "corrupted" ...so this isn't really our thing.

Vajra:

there are three different canons, which mainly correspond to the Three Vehicles. more to the point, this displays a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the original Sangha and how the teachings were conveyed.

the words are not it... in the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma, Buddha gave direct mind to mind transmission of the Mind Seal and it has continued, unbroken, to this very day.

Buddhism isn't a revealed religon and thus, we do not have any sort of clinging to the words of the teachers.. we are not to seek what they have, we are to seek what they sought, if that makes sense.

Reply:

Thank you for your views my friend.

metta,

Agreed!

Let's start building a universal kindness and friendship here.

- Art

Awaiting_the_fifth · 09-28-2005, 12:19 AM

I have been pondering my reply to these last messages for quite some time and I think I have eventually come to my conclusion.

Buddhists believe that Buddha was, well, a buddha, because that is what he claimed to be.

Many hindu faiths consider him to be an avatar of one of their Gods. While I obviously do not agree with this, I can accept it because there were Hindus around at the time to make up their own minds and incorporate him into their religion. Having said this I would be very interested to find out why Hindus believe this and I plan to start a thread on this very topic.

Baha'i's consider the Buddha to be a manifestation of God, but as far as I can see, give no evidence to support this. This conversation has taken up 11 pages of posts and takes hours to read from start to end, but there is not one reason given by the Baha'is here as to why they believe this except that Shoghi Effendi said that it was so.

But Shoghi Effendi was only a man. Had Baha'u'llah or The Bab said this then I still would not agree but I could understand why Baha'is would believe so blindly.

Shoghi Effendi was born in 1897, five years after Baha'u'llah's death in 1892, therefore the two certainly never met. Why was Effendi chosen as the Guardian? Because of his parentage and education? Fair enough, but then is he not fallable? Furthermore, if this fallable man made a claim which turned out to be highly contentious, would it not be wise to check his sources?

Even the greatest Scholars have to reference their works.

So Shoghi Effendi, the man, claims that the Buddha, the central figure in the religion of about 600 million people, was not actually who he claimed to be. Can you Baha'is not see that this will upset people? Yet you still insist on the truth of it without a shred of evidence beyond, "Shoghi Effendi said so" and "Buddhist knowledge is corrupt"

So the question I ask of the Baha'is here is this. Can any of you offer any original reason why Buddha Shakyamuni is actually an emination of God when he claims to be an enlightened Buddha? An original reason, rather than repeating the words of some other, fallable man/

smkolins · 09-28-2005, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

I have been pondering my reply to these last messages for quite some time and I think I have eventually come to my conclusion.

Buddhists believe that Buddha was, well, a buddha, because that is what he claimed to be.

Many hindu faiths consider him to be an avatar of one of their Gods. While I obviously do not agree with this, I can accept it because there were Hindus around at the time to make up their own minds and incorporate him into their religion. Having said this I would be very interested to find out why Hindus believe this and I plan to start a thread on this very topic.

Good luck. I see all the terms as intimately related. Baha'is use more words than just "Manifestation". Ah well. For my point of view it is affirming to see Hindus have a high affirmtation of the high station of the Buddha just as Baha'is do. The world might be alittle better off if Moslem, Christian and Judaic references would equally affirm Him, not for His sake, but for all of ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Baha'i's consider the Buddha to be a manifestation of God, but as far as I can see, give no evidence to support this. This conversation has taken up 11 pages of posts and takes hours to read from start to end, but there is not one reason given by the Baha'is here as to why they believe this except that Shoghi Effendi said that it was so.

But Shoghi Effendi was only a man. Had Baha'u'llah or The Bab said this then I still would not agree but I could understand why Baha'is would believe so blindly.

It's surprising how much you think you know about the position of the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. As with so many things in the Baha'i Faith, his position is unique. There are parallels and yet they are all only valid to a point.

His position is infinitely below that of Baha'u'llah and even of 'Abdu'l-Baha. Yet while categorically different than They, he was the most directly affirmed Head of Faith, delineated with particular station, responsability, and ability. About 2/3rds down this linked page we read:

"The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him! The mighty stronghold shall remain impregnable and safe through obedience to him who is the Guardian of the Cause of God. It is incumbent upon the members of the House of Justice, [various leaders of the community listed] to show their obedience, submissiveness and subordination unto the Guardian of the Cause of God, to turn unto him and be lowly before him. He that opposeth him hath opposed the True One, will make a breach in the Cause of God, will subvert His Word and will become a manifestation of the Center of Sedition. Beware, beware, lest the days after the ascension (of Bahá’u’lláh) be repeated when the Center of Sedition waxed haughty and rebellious and with Divine Unity for his excuse deprived himself and perturbed and poisoned others. No doubt every vainglorious one that purposeth dissension and discord will not openly declare his evil purposes, nay rather, even as impure gold, will he seize upon divers measures and various pretexts that he may separate the gathering of the people of Bahá. My object is to show that the Hands of the Cause of God must be ever watchful and so soon as they find anyone beginning to oppose and protest against the Guardian of the Cause of God, cast him out from the congregation of the people of Bahá and in no wise accept any excuse from him. How often hath grievous error been disguised in the garb of truth, that it might sow the seeds of doubt in the hearts of men!"

As you can, the Guardian, elswhere called the Pearl of Great Price, is not just some "fallible man".

Additionally, I am not aware that an exhaustive search has been made in the untranslated works among the Baha'i Scriptures about the Buddha. I've seen various comments translated into english which were clear enough to me but opinions differed...."The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character." Comparisons and likenesses are made between the Buddha and other Prophets (aka Manifestations, not necessarily the same thing as Prophets in a Christian context, etc.) and there was some question as there was no straight forward comment. The Guardian offered one. This isn't mere opinion. This is a declaration that a faithful understanding, according to the Scriptures of the Baha'i Faith, that the Buddha is of the same station as of Jesus, Moses, etc. and therefore fully a Manifestation of God, etc.

Popeyesays · 09-28-2005, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Baha'i's consider the Buddha to be a manifestation of God, but as far as I can see, give no evidence to support this. This conversation has taken up 11 pages of posts and takes hours to read from start to end, but there is not one reason given by the Baha'is here as to why they believe this except that Shoghi Effendi said that it was so.

But Shoghi Effendi was only a man. Had Baha'u'llah or The Bab said this then I still would not agree but I could understand why Baha'is would believe so blindly.
<SNIP>

Shoghi Effendi was born in 1897, five years after Baha'u'llah's death in 1892, therefore the two certainly never met. Why was Effendi chosen as the Guardian? Because of his parentage and education? Fair enough, but then is he not fallable?

<SNIP>So Shoghi Effendi, the man, claims that the Buddha, the central figure in the religion of about 600 million people, was not actually who he claimed to be. Can you Baha'is not see that this will upset people? Yet you still insist on the truth of it without a shred of evidence beyond, "Shoghi Effendi said so" and "Buddhist knowledge is corrupt"

So the question I ask of the Baha'is here is this. Can any of you offer any original reason why Buddha Shakyamuni is actually an emination of God when he claims to be an enlightened Buddha? An original reason, rather than repeating the words of some other, fallable man/

==============
Sorry for a little snippage, but I wanted to get to the meat of the question.

Again, I am not interested in promoting my particular faith, but a question has been raised and it requires the practice of "Apologia" to answer.

Shoghi Effendi is not the only one of the Central Figures to mention the station of Buddha. Abdu'l Baha went into detail about the Station of the Buddha, and the nature of Buddhist practice of today. I'll give a single quote from Abdu'l Baha's talks in London in 1911.

"Buddha had disciples and he wished to send them out into the world to teach, so he asked them questions to see if they were prepared as he would have them be. "When you go to the East and to the West," said the Buddha, "and the people shut their doors to you and refuse to speak to you, what will you do?" -- The disciples answered and said: "We shall be very thankful that they do us no harm." -- "Then if they do you harm and mock, what will you do?" -- "We shall be very thankful that they do not give us worse treatment." -- "If they throw you into prison?" -- "We shall still be grateful that they do 64 not kill us." -- "What if they were to kill you?" the Master asked for the last time. "Still," answered the disciples, "we will be thankful, for they cause us to be martyrs. What more glorious fate is there than this, to die for the glory of God?" And the Buddha said: "Well done!"
The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything. Why go so far back? Consider the laws of the Old Testament: the Jews do not follow Moses as their example nor keep his commands. So it is with many other religions.
How can we get the power to follow the right path?
By putting the teaching into practice power will be given. You know which path to follow: you cannot be mistaken, for there's a great distinction between God and evil, between Light and darkness, Truth and falsehood, Love and hatred, Generosity and meanness, Education and ignorance, Faith in God and superstition, good Laws and unjust laws.
Faith."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 64)

As to the nature of religions and how they develop over time, Buddhism was once firmly based in the sayings of the Buddha, but unfortunately time has obscured those words with practices that Baha`i's feel dims the Message.
The same thing has happened to Hinduism, Zoroastrianism. What was the sacred word of Abraham? We do not know other than what the author of the Torah tells us. Where are the sacred texts of Salih and Hud? They are gone. There were Messengers before of whom we no longer even know Their names. Does this mean that there word was not the Word of God when uttered? No. It just means it was not the will of God to preserve their texts, names and peoples.

Does this mean a Buddhist should abandon his practice of religion to satisfy Baha`i's? No. To admire, emulate, base your life upon the Buddha is to follow the religion of God. The path is the same. The light is the same. The truth is the same. Buddha is the truth. But the truth comes from other Manifestations equally. Their Voice is the same Voice.

If you do not like the way Baha`i's venerate the Buddha, it is your right to not like it and to question.

When questioned it is the right and the obligation of Baha`i's to answer with the best answer they can, and refer you to the writings for yourself.

Apologetics:
Main Entry: apol·o·get·ics

Pronunciation: -tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2 : a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity
--------------------------

I hope the moderator will not think I am trying to extoll my faith above others, but a question was asked, and I have tried to answer.

Regards,
Scott

Popeyesays · 09-28-2005, 04:50 AM

I just found this and think it perfect to the discussion, and perhaps a way to end it on a note of amicability:
Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute . They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him. If any man, therefore, should fail to comprehend this truth, and should consequently indulge in vain and unseemly language, no one whose sight is keen and whose understanding is enlightened would ever allow such idle talk to cause him to waver in his belief. (Gleanings, pages 78-79)

arthra · 09-28-2005, 09:52 AM

Thanks Awaiting for your post here...

I think although there has been a lot of attention to this area on this Board, you should know that for Baha'is generally except for those say of Southeast Asian and likely Buddhist background or say some Baha'is of Buddhist origin in Central Asia, there is generally given little attention to this area..

Only three books by Baha'i authors deal very much with this theme... So I would refer you to them as perhaps better sources. These authors include Jamshid Fozdar who did a fascianting study in comparative religion by comparing some of the Buddhist scriptures with Hindu scriptures. His books are entitled "The God of Buddha"

http://www.BahaiBookstore.com/produc...ls.cfm?PC=1552

and "Buddha Maitrya Amitabha Has Appeared".

Both of these books are still in print and available through Baha'i sources and I believe they are published in India. Sometims they may be unavailable due to press runs...

More recently, Moojan Momen has written a book on the "Baha'i Faith and Buddhism". I think some of his material is availaole online at

http://www.northill.demon.co.uk/relstud/buddhism.htm

So I would refer you to these authors.

I'll respond here though to some of your notes...

Awaiting_the_fifth wrote:

I have been pondering my reply to these last messages for quite some time and I think I have eventually come to my conclusion.

Buddhists believe that Buddha was, well, a buddha, because that is what he claimed to be.

Many hindu faiths consider him to be an avatar of one of their Gods. While I obviously do not agree with this, I can accept it because there were Hindus around at the time to make up their own minds and incorporate him into their religion. Having said this I would be very interested to find out why Hindus believe this and I plan to start a thread on this very topic.

My comment:

One of the advantages of the CF board is that you could inquire directly of Hindus about this. I know that many Vaishnava Hindus accept the Buddha as an Avatar.

Awaiting:

Baha'i's consider the Buddha to be a manifestation of God, but as far as I can see, give no evidence to support this. This conversation has taken up 11 pages of posts and takes hours to read from start to end, but there is not one reason given by the Baha'is here as to why they believe this except that Shoghi Effendi said that it was so.

Comment:

Actually it was Abdul-Baha Who referred to the Buddha as a Manifestation prior to the references by Shoghi Effendi. You an search this area in our Writings at

http://reference.bahai.org/search?ma...1&query=Buddha

Awaiting:

But Shoghi Effendi was only a man. Had Baha'u'llah or The Bab said this then I still would not agree but I could understand why Baha'is would believe so blindly.

Shoghi Effendi was born in 1897, five years after Baha'u'llah's death in 1892, therefore the two certainly never met. Why was Effendi chosen as the Guardian? Because of his parentage and education? Fair enough, but then is he not fallable? Furthermore, if this fallable man made a claim which turned out to be highly contentious, would it not be wise to check his sources?

My reply:

Shoghi Effendi was the great grandson of Baha'u'llah and grandson of Abdul-Baha the eldest son of Baha'u'llah. He was appointed Guardian of the Baha'i Faith by the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha and this became effective after His passing on November 28, 1921. His interpretations/translations of Baha'i Writings are accepted by Baha'is as the standard.

Shoghi Effendi was also an Afnan or descendent of the family of the Bab through his father.

So briefly that is who Shoghi Effendi was...

Baha'is accept that whatever Shoghi Effendi has written about the Baha'i Faith is authoritative but to me I also think when considering the Guardian's writings on their own merits, they are also reasonable and even without knowing who wrote them I would be accept them.

Awaiting:

Even the greatest Scholars have to reference their works.

So Shoghi Effendi, the man, claims that the Buddha, the central figure in the religion of about 600 million people, was not actually who he claimed to be. Can you Baha'is not see that this will upset people? Yet you still insist on the truth of it without a shred of evidence beyond, "Shoghi Effendi said so" and "Buddhist knowledge is corrupt"

My comment:

I know that this theme was originally posted here and it could be more or less under the prophecies identified in our Faith but it is not intended to upset you or other Buddhists. If you acquaint yourself with the material I posted above, you can decide for yourself whether these prophecies refer to Baha'u'llah or not or you are free to reject them outright without any investigation whatsoever!

But the intend here is not to upset you or other Buddhists and I don't recall writing "Buddhist knowledge is corrupt" so I am not waving this in front of you here or trying to antagonize you.

Awaiting:

So the question I ask of the Baha'is here is this. Can any of you offer any original reason why Buddha Shakyamuni is actually an emination of God when he claims to be an enlightened Buddha? An original reason, rather than repeating the words of some other, fallable man/

My comment:

We Baha'is do not use the terminology "emanation of God" but rather Manifestation. I think the term "emanation" may have some philosophical connotations we wouldn't necessarily accept.

We accept that the Buddha is regarded as the Enlightened One... full of Light, that same Light we believe has appeared at other times and countries for the benefit of humanity and for the enhancement and advancement of civilization.

We would say the life of the Buddha and the outcomes of His Teaching are comparable to that of the other Manifestations.

In friendship,

- Art

Popeyesays · 09-28-2005, 07:55 PM

I don't think I would recommend Fozdar's books to a Buddhist.He has been attacked by several Buddhist scholars for misrepresenting and mistranslating Pali text. Mooj Momen's book is much better.

Regards,
Scott