Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,

just for the sake of discussion..

you do realize that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was Maitreya, don't you?

you do also realize that L. Ron Hubbard was Maitreya as well?

there are many beings that have proclaimed themselves as Maitreya, however, this cannot be so. i realize that this is a difficult thing to hear and perhaps i have no business bringing this to the fore in our ongoing discussion, i have no intention of offering offense.

i am of the impression that, despite any argument that i may make, this issue has already been decided for the Baha'i posters in this thread. i'm not entirely certain of the reason that Baha'u'llah has to be Maitreya... i honestly don't know why.

it seems to me that the Baha'i have a strong enough faith as it is based upon their own scriptures and teachings no real need for anything else....

My friend Vajra wrote:

"i honestly don't know why"?

I think Vajra if you review the first post on this thread you'll read the following:

"Shoghi Effendi specifically identifies Bahá'u'lláh with the Maitreya Buddha (GPB 95) and as the fifth Buddha "(GPB 94).

"Buddhist prophecy that the Maitreya Buddha will inaugurate an era of universal peace and tranquillity is regarded by Bahá'ís as having been fulfilled by Bahá'u'lláh's advent and teachings on world peace."

So that in itself to Baha'is is significant enough to explore it.

No it doesn't offend us that you would suggest that as you wrote:

"you do also realize that L. Ron Hubbard was Maitreya as well? there are many beings that have proclaimed themselves as Maitreya, however, this cannot be so."

and if it would offend you I won't post the material I found because our first priority would be not to offend you in any way!

- Art

[Susma Rio Sep]

About Baha'i idea of the maitreya, we have also the difficulty of people taking Buddha for a god, even though Vaj is seemingly engaged in a hopeless task to get people to see that Buddhists don't take him for a god.

Consider this excerpt from the entry on Buddhism right here in this website of Brian:

The nature of Buddha himself is regarded in different ways by different people, and there are a great number of legends that surround his existence. To some he was simply a very wise man with great things to teach, whilst to others he is a god in his own right, either as part of the traditional Hindu pantheon (as an avatar of Vishnu), or else as single entity above all others. -- bolding furnished

So, it is really hard even impossible to convince others what we are or what we want others to take us for what we hold ourselves to be and what our beliefs really are.

In reality, it is others who decide what we are and what we say -- no matter our most profound and expatiated explanations otherwise.

Susma Rio Sep

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

About Baha'i idea of the maitreya, we have also the difficulty of people taking Buddha for a god, even though Vaj is seemingly engaged in a hopeless task to get people to see that Buddhists don't take him for a god.

Consider this excerpt from the entry on Buddhism right here in this website of Brian:



So, it is really hard even impossible to convince others what we are or what we want others to take us for what we hold ourselves to be and what our beliefs really are.

In reality, it is others who decide what we are and what we say -- no matter our most profound and expatiated explanations otherwise.

Susma Rio Sep

You know Susma,

I was thinking that since this as an issue that has already come up a few times, maybe it would be best here to let this issue be dormant awhile... as it is a sore point and move on to another issue ...

It's also important I think to go ahead and accept what people express as their belief or position and continue to dialogue with them and share things.

By the way, I think from reading Vajra's posts, he would perhaps align his thinking with that of Robert Thurman a well known spokesman of Tibetan Buddhism who was quoted as saying:

"Buddhism had imparted its metaphysics of non-dualism, its psychology of liberative contemplation, its educational epistemology
that privileges experience over dogmatic theory, and its ethical nonviolence related to the emphasis on vegetarianism. Today, Indians are ambivalent about Buddhism, respecting Buddha as an incarnation of God, and such foreign Buddhists as the Dalai Lama as holy persons, while feeling somewhat uncomfortable with the Buddhist critique of the caste system, insistence on nonviolence and antimilitarism, focus on asceticism, nonacceptance of a creator god, and so forth."

See:

http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ma...A_frameset.htm

Also there's a site with an interview with Thurman about Buddhism:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/media/99/robertThurman/

But I'm sure he can speak for himself.

The Baha'i approach would be to appreciate Vajra's view but not to enter into conflict about it... in time i think with that appreciation and allowance for different views we can move ahead.

- Art

[berinwitness]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

So, it is really hard even impossible to convince others what we are or what we want others to take us for what we hold ourselves to be and what our beliefs really are.

In reality, it is others who decide what we are and what we say -- no matter our most profound and expatiated explanations otherwise.

Susma Rio Sep

Not impossible at all. We just need to learn how Buddhists think. It will take time, but the Baha'is are willing. Remember that we believe that the Blessed Lord Siddartha Gautama was ALWAYS right in whatever He taught. It's just that He was speaking to an audience with a different philisophical background from what we grew up with.

And as for others deciding what you are and what you say - I'm sure many Baha'is have had experiences with people trying to twist our words and convince us that we actually believe something quite different from what we clearly SAY we believe. It's happened to me and I find it annoying, so I don't want to do it to you or anyone else.

[Ocean_Drop]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

you do realize that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was Maitreya, don't you?

As Muslims believe that Muhammed was the final prophet, they feel Muhammed must fulfill all the prophecies of future prophets, including Kalki Avatar and Maitreya. They forget though that Christ is still due, and the Bible and Quran associate this with a "new creation" and a completely new age, just like what Hindu's and Buddhists associate with the coming of Kalki/Maitreya. i.e. Return of Christ = Maitreya

As I said, both events are associated with the same transformation in the world: -

KALKI
He will then re-establish righteousness upon the
earth, and the minds of those who live at the end of
the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as
pellucid as crystal. The men who are thus changed by
virtue of that peculiar time shall be as the seeds of
human beings, and shall give birth to a race who shall
follow the laws of the Krita age, the Age of Purity
(Vishnu Purana 4:24)

MAITREYA
"[His] reappearance will knit and bind together all men and women of goodwill throughout the world, irrespective of religion or nationality..." (The Tibetan Mahatma).

CHRIST
Re 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;

Re 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Investigate the mission of Baha'u'llah and see if it is compatible with the above!

Warmest,
Ocean Drop

[I, Brian]

The trouble is indeed that we do not apparently seem to have left any age and entered any new one.

And it seems that many cultures have some form of future "Golden Age" to dream of. To some it's the return of Christ. To others it's the return of Brian Boru. To fit any single figure into all of these different interpretations it seems would require a substantial amount of bending of such traditions.

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble is indeed that we do not apparently seem to have left any age and entered any new one.

And it seems that many cultures have some form of future "Golden Age" to dream of. To some it's the return of Christ. To others it's the return of Brian Boru. To fit any single figure into all of these different interpretations it seems would require a substantial amount of bending of such traditions.

Dearest Brian,

That is precisely the point. It may not seem like one age ended and another began, but why should it, God has never worked that way. Scriptures allude to sudden changes, that was also the case when Jesus came, they expected the Messiah to come with power and great glory and when a humble carpenter declared that it was Him, they denied Him because it didn't fit in with their perception of how it was supposed to happen. This perceived knowledge becomes a veil between us and the Divine. In every age, people have shunned the manifestation of God because of this reason. So why should we think he will do things differently this time. Why would he say 'many are called but few are chosen' if it would really be obvious.

"Though the dynamic dual process within society is shrouded in chaos, it is, in fact, taking place. With each passing day the pace quickens and the world condition-strange as it seems-is growing worse and better at the same time." Shoghi Effendi, Advent of Divine Justice, p 61

The odds of one figure fulfilling all of the prophecies of all of the religions simultaneously is astronomical. But yet, Baha'u'llah claims just that. As far as bending traditions, that really is not the case, from the literalist viewpoint that may be the way it seems, but from a spiritual perspective everything falls into place easily, in fact it is surprisingly simple. None other but God could accomplish this task. It is beyond the scope of comprehension for any man to fathom.

In order for us to begin to comprehend the scope of His mission we must first detach ourselves from what we think we know, acquired knowledge can act as a veil between us and the truth.

Baha'u'llah tells us how we can arrive at the point of certitude.

"O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth...Only when the lamp of search, of earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker's heart, and the breeze of His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p 264-265

Every Baha'i I know has arrived at this conclusion by letting go of our preconceived ideas and allowing God's grace to infuse us with insights previously unthought of. It is a brand new world, undreamt of prior to our acceptance of Baha'u'llah. The future is glorious.

Loving Greetings, Harmony

[arthra]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble is indeed that we do not apparently seem to have left any age and entered any new one.

And it seems that many cultures have some form of future "Golden Age" to dream of. To some it's the return of Christ. To others it's the return of Brian Boru. To fit any single figure into all of these different interpretations it seems would require a substantial amount of bending of such traditions.

The expectation of Christ's return reached a peak early in the nineteenth century when several movements began pointing to it. One of them was known as the Millerite movemnt in the US and other movements were simultaneously occurring in Moslem countries expecting the Mahdi as well as the expected return of the Twelfth Imam... The Baha'i Faitrh sees itself as the fulfillment of these prophecies.

We Baha'is see things in terms of prophecy as well as being aware of the great social changes and challenges that are upon the human race.

Most of us are not used to thinking in such grand terms... and sometimes it requires a grasp of vast historical and social trends to see it... We Baha'is have a perspective that includes centuries of time that is revealed in our Writings.

I think one of the changes that should be obvious to most of us is the world perspective that has been increasingly apparent over the past hundred years or so...

More and more People nowadays are thinking globally than ever before... thanks to the internet, satellites, and international commerce ...This also is our view and is very evident in our Writings.

Our principles call for the establishment of world eace through a representative federal government, an international court of arbitration, elimination of racial prejudice, and reducing the extremes of wealth and poverty.

Only the conditons today seem to be most cogently suited to our perspective.

- Art

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Vaj! :-)

V>Can you explain the Baha'i teaching on the non-existence of a soul to me?

?!

There IS no such Baha'i teaching!

Humans most definitely have eternal souls, and our scriptures make this extremely clear.

On another topic, as to people like L. Ron Hubbard, the Baha'i scriptures explicitly state there will be no new Divine Messenger for some centuries to come, and that anyone who claims to be one in the meantime is lying. So for Baha'is, this really isn't an issue.

And on yet a third, I'll agree that one of the best Baha'i sources on Buddha and Buddhism is Fozdar's "Buddha Maitreya Has Appeared."

Regards, :-)

Bruce

[Vajradhara]

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!

[9Harmony]

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

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by 9Harmony

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

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.

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

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.

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

[BruceDLimber]

Harmony, I think it's important to note that there are multiple Buddhist groups, and only some of them are non-theistic.

Regards,

Bruce

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

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!

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/writing...ha/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=mazan...s_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