Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[Saponification]

If you put it that way it almost sounds like a prediction of Buddhism's migration into the West, where the teachings have changed rather dramatically in some circumstances due to major cultural differences.

[smkolins]

I think all the traditional religions are facing times of change, not that they haven't faced challenging times in the past. If I understand, Buddhism used to be the dominant religion of all of SouthEast Asia whereas today it's a comparatively minor presence, and often mixed with other religious traditions.

As for the specifics of Buddhism coming to the west, it is interesting indeed - I've mentioned this before in other places but it never ceases to make me sit and wonder about human history. The story of the modern appreciation of Buddhism in the west is not far removed from the relatively obscure religion of Zoroaster, and if you are looking for coincidents, incidently related to the Baha'i Faith, and Christianity as well. In Christianity this was the time of prophesied return of Jesus - William Miller had worked out (from the 1820's or so) that Jesus might return in 1844.

Among the least know aspects of the date of 1844 is the fact that emediately in that period (say fall 1843 through April 1844) Eugene Burnhoff, a French linguist scholar, did two remarkable things - established that modern day Zoroastrianism is actually the same religion as the ancient religion of the Persians - and - the first modern translations of Buddhism into a western language (French) which then a student of Thoreau translated into English in May 1844.

I would suppose, irregardless of the details of this history, that should a Buddha arise in the present day he would have to address the body of religions of the world - something humanity has only recently come to be in a position to do. Across all ancient times only certain regions, admittedly diverse among themselves, would have been involved. Now we have a rather vast family to reconsile with the Truth.

[arthra]

Sorry i haven't replied for a few days...I have been on retreat.

herein lies the tricky bit:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Art

"....God Passes By Shoghi Effendi indicates that the prophecy concerning 'Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship' (as distinct from 'Maitreya (London)'), is a reference to Bahá'u'lláh."

Vajra replied:

given all the other conditions that are in the prophecy which have not come to pass, i am utterly confused as to how any being could view themselves as Maitreya. ....as i, hopefully, indicated before... as a matter of religious belief, if your tradition posits that Bahá'u'lláh is Maitreya, so be it.

Reply:

Baha'u'llah Himself only identified what a Manifestation of God (read "Unknowable Essence") was and this was elaborated by Abdul-Baha. Abdul-Baha identified the historical Buddha as a Manifestaion. Shoghi Effendi the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith identified Baha'u'llah as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Maitreya. I spent a good deal of time with a former Buddhist friend of mine over the past few days.. from our interaction, I think the identification of Baha'u'llah as a Buddha comes about by noting the characteristics of the life and teachings... Prophecies themselves as you well know can be very allegorical and steeped in language of imagery and code and are sometimes require very intuitive and spiritual insight.


Vajradhara wrote:

one of the other things that i think is happening is that most beings are not aware of what a Buddha does and how that is different from an Awakened Being and so forth.

My reply:

Baha'is i think can undertsand this from our perspective as for most people they would probably not really understand what a Manifestation of God (read "Unknowable essence" Vajra for the term "God") is and they wouldn't be able to distinguish very well between the Station of a Manifestation and say a Saint who is reflecting the light from a Primary Manifestation.

Vajra:

the main consideration in this regard is that a Buddha is a being that can teach the Dharma and, in point of fact, does teach the Dharma. thus, if the Dharma from the last Buddha is still in existence, the next Buddha will not arise in our world system.

Reply:

Baha'is would see it this way...the primary teachings or spiritual core of the teachings on the Manifestations is essential the same..however the social teachings will change from era to era as required. So it is in the ordinances that become moribund or not applicable that a new Manifestation appears.

Vajra:

of course, if we are referring to other world systems (Buddhism posits a Billion worlds of sentient beings) there could be a Buddha arising there

Reply:

Baha'is also view the universe as having billions of worlds with their own creatures and that Manifestations of been flowering as the natural spiritual growth of the universe everywhere... So there could be simultanous Manifestations on vqarious worlds throughout the universe...

- Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smKolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

At the time when Dharma has failed and disappeared, would there be a person who could call themselves a Buddhist, view what they think the Dharma is in action, and be totally wrong, even though as any person, for their own reasons, feel and think they are right?

well... those are some odd terms to use... we need to be a bit careful here... "failed" is not the appropriate term.. disappeared would be more accurate.

there are many beings that do that very thing at this moment. however, the Buddhist prophecies are very specific. according to the traditional view, the first teaching of Dharma that will disappear is the Vajrachchedika (The Diamond Cutter Sutra).

here is a nice translation of the Sutra for those interested:

http://lhundrubjinpa.tripod.com/diamond_cutter.html

So - is it necessary that some Buddhist somewhere, sometime, feel the prophecies of the disappearence of the Dharma have not taken place and perhaps even say so right to the next Buddha's face?

?

it isn't really a matter of emotive response, it really is, from the Buddhist point of view, a doctrinal point of view.

Put another way, if in fact a Buddha arises that means the old Dharma is dead whatever people think of it or not.

it would appear that, perhaps, you are not using the same understanding of Dharma as we Buddhists use. the Dharma doesn't "die" for it is not "alive". the Dharma disappears, which doesn't mean that goes away, it simply needs the right causes and conditions to re-appear. this goes back to how the ancient Indians understood phenomenal causation and the implicit understanding of potential based on casues and conditions.

however, to address your query... that would be correct, should the Dharma disappear from this world system, it would not matter what any particular individual may think about it one way or the other.

And if a new Buddha in fact arises, then whatever He teaches is in fact the Dharma, whatever other people think it to be or not to be. Yes?

No.

the Buddhas of the Three Times and Ten Directions have all taught and will teach the same Dharma as expouned by Shakyamuni Buddha. namely, Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta.

[arthra]

I think there are references to the decline of Buddhism in the following a few examples are seen here:

"The Buddha is credited with the prophecy that the lifespan of the dispensation be founded would be curtailed because of the creation of the Bhikkhuni order. Whatever value be added to such prophecies, it is a fact that after the period foreseen by the Buddha (500 years) Buddhism saw the great bifurcation between the Mahayana and the Theravada streams."

Source:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~tsomo/NewsLetters/3-2.htm

Conze translated:

the description of the gradual decline of the religion:

'How will it occur? After my decease there will first be five disappearances. What five? The disappearance of attainment (in the Dispensation), the disappearance of proper conduct, the disappearance of learning, the disappearance of the outward form, the disappearance of the relics. There will be these five disappearances.

'Here attainment means that for a thousand years only after the lord's complete Nirvana will monks be able to practice analytical insights. As time goes on and on these disciples of mine are nonreturners and once-returners and stream-winners. There will be no disappearance of attainment for these. But with the extinction of the last stream-winner's life, attainment will have disappeared.

'This, Sariputta, is the disappearance of attainment."

Source:

http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.ent...liade/189.html

[Vajradhara]

Thanks Art,


"disappearance of the relics"

do you know what this is reference to?

[arthra]

Well let's look at the text from the 'Anagatavamsa' as available:

'This, Sariputta, is called the disappearance of the outward form.

'Then when the Dispensation of the Perfect Buddha is 5,000 years old, the relics, not receiving reverence and honour, will go to places where they can receive them. As time goes on and on there will not be reverence and honour for them in every place. At the time when the Dispensation is falling into (oblivion), all the relics, coming from every place: from the abode of serpents and the deva-world and the Brahma-world, having gathered together in the space round the great Bo-tree, having made a Buddha-image, and having performed a "miracle" like the Twin-miracle, will teach Dhamma. No human being will be found at that place.

___________________

Alright... my guess would be the "relics" refer to what was left of the Buddha's remains over which Stupas were built. After the body of the Blessed One was cremated the ashes were distributed to various groups and shrines were then built over these...

There was a recent article in the National Geographic Magazine July 2005 ...a really fascinating article about "China's Great Armada" (c. 1405-1433) and Admiral Zheng He who was actualy a Central Asian Moslem who was castrated by the Chinese... Zheng according to the article wrote "to treat distant people with kindness". Zheng erected a stele at Dondra to the Buddha, Siva and Allah and equal offerings of gold, silver and silk were to be offered at Buddhist, Hindu and Moslem shrines in Sri Lanka.

Any way a relic of the Buddha a " sacred tooth" was reported to have been transported by Zheng from Kandy Sri Lanka to China. This is on p. 33 of the National Geo. Magazine for July 2005.

Notice the last sentence of the text above "No human being will be found at that place." Meaning the relics will be left untended by humans... Now a question could be made how was it that the prophecy refers to the relics of the Buddha as it presupposes these will be worshipped in they way they were hundreds of years after the ascension of the Buddha?

Baha'is and others i think would be impressed by the ecumenism of Admiral Zheng.

The remains of a Manifestation to us are also to be respected as they once were the physical vehicle of such a Great Soul of a Manifestation of God.

A whisker of Prophet Muhammad is installed in the Aqsa Mosque in Akka.

So like the early Buddhists we Baha'is have shrines built over the remains of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Hair of Baha'u'llah is reverently displayed in our archives building.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,


ok.. so the relics are the remains of the Buddha Shakyamunis' physcial form.

and, these relics are still present in this world system.

thus, this too, has not come to pass.

of course... "no human beings" is also a correct teaching from the Mahayana and Vajrayana points of view

not to belabour a point, however, there simply is no support within the Sutras and Suttas for Buddha Maitreya to have arisen yet.

heck... and when Buddha Maitreya does arise, he will be born in Deer Park at Ispatana and i am pretty sure that we could both agree that life on earth is not like life in the Deva realms at this point, yes?

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Art,


ok.. so the relics are the remains of the Buddha Shakyamunis' physcial form.

and, these relics are still present in this world system.

thus, this too, has not come to pass.

of course... "no human beings" is also a correct teaching from the Mahayana and Vajrayana points of view

not to belabour a point, however, there simply is no support within the Sutras and Suttas for Buddha Maitreya to have arisen yet.

heck... and when Buddha Maitreya does arise, he will be born in Deer Park at Ispatana and i am pretty sure that we could both agree that life on earth is not like life in the Deva realms at this point, yes?

As always my friend Vajra you're entitled to your views.

Can we say for sure though if such relics are really still extant?

It's also not unusual i think for those who wish to deny a fulfillment of a prophecy to look for reasons why it cannot be fulfilled and of course this has happened many times in other contexts as for instance in denying that Jesus fulfilled earlier prophecies or that prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled or not, so the area of prophecy is a questionable one for many people.

Here is a rather poetic form or translation:

"The Hero that shall follow you
As Buddha, of what sort is he?
Th' account in full I fain would learn.
Declare to me, thou Seeing One."
When he had heard the elder's speech,
The Blessed One vouchsafed reply:
"I'll tell it thee. Sâriputta,
Pray lend your ears, for I will speak.
p. 482 [JPTS'86,345

"Our cycle is a happy one,
Three Leaders have already lived,
Kakusandha, Konâgamana,
And eke the leader Kassapa.

"The Buddha now Supreme am I,
But after me Metteyya comes,
While still this happy cycle lasts,
Before its tale of years shall lapse.
"This Buddha, then, Metteyya called,
Supreme, and of all men the chief--"

Source:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits102.htm

The Buddha of universal friendship would seem to me to speak the same central spiritual truths:

May creatures all abound in weal and peace; may all be blessed with peace always; all creatures weak or strong, all creatures great and small, creatures unseen or seen, dwelling afar or near, born or awaiting birth, may all be blessed with peace!

- Sutta-Nipata -


O Thou kind Lord! Unite all. Let the religions agree and make the nations one, so that they may see each other as one family and the whole earth as one home. May they all live together in perfect harmony. O God! Raise aloft the banner of the oneness of mankind. O God! Establish the Most Great Peace.

- Bahá'í Writings -

There's a good example i think of the common goal of universal peace that Buddhists and Baha'is can both appreciate:

http://www.bic-un.bahai.org/90-0916.htm

In friendship,

- Art

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

It's also not unusual i think for those who wish to deny a fulfillment of a prophecy to look for reasons why it cannot be fulfilled and of course this has happened many times in other contexts as for instance in denying that Jesus fulfilled earlier prophecies or that prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled or not, so the area of prophecy is a questionable one for many people.

With all respect, Art, those who wish to believe prophecy fulfilled look for reasons why it is fulfilled. In my view, belief in prophecy fulfillment follows faith in the Claimant. This of course applies to all religions, including Christianity and Islam which have their own interpretations of the OT.

peace,
lunamoth

[Vajradhara]

Salaam Arthra,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

As always my friend Vajra you're entitled to your views.

indeed. naturally, you are entitled to yours as well.

the issue becomes, of course, since i am a Buddhist and you are not, yet you are using my teachings to affirm yours, wherein does the logical basis for this exist within the supporting tradition?

does there need to be a logical basis for this view? i would say that there should be, though, clearly, logic can only take one so far in the spiritual journey.

Islam claims that Muhammad(pbuh) is the fulfillment of the Maitreya prophecy. yet, Islam does not teach Anicca, Anatta or Dukkha... and yet, they insist that the prophecy is fulfilled.

i have always wondered why it is that other religious seek to derive their own truth status based on a certain rendering of other religious teachings? it seems to me that a religious teaching should stand or fall on its' own merits, but that could simply be because i'm a Buddhist

Can we say for sure though if such relics are really still extant?

you mean like the relic that was displayed in Hong Kong?

http://english.sina.com/special_repo...26buddha.shtml

It's also not unusual i think for those who wish to deny a fulfillment of a prophecy to look for reasons why it cannot be fulfilled

as is the postive claimant, as well. often they will find "evidence" in other religious scripture to support their view that a particular being fullfilled some prophecy or the other, even if that other scripture contains other aspects of the prophecy which are not fulfilled.

often, those parts are labeled as "false", "misunderstood", "corrupted" and so forth. clearly, this then presents a dilemma for the positive claimant whereby they must uphold some of the other religons teachings whilst denying the rest of it, to lesser or greater degrees.

and of course this has happened many times in other contexts as for instance in denying that Jesus fulfilled earlier prophecies

which is, of course, precisely the case from the Jewish point of view. in fact, there is really no way, unless we engage in special pleading, that Jesus could be the Messiah... for two salient reasons... 1. the Jewish Messiah is not divine, he is just a regular old human. 2. Jesus is not from the line of David.

but... i am not overly concerned in this regard, the Jewish tradition is very clear on these things and, based on their standards for the prophecy, Jesus was not it. heck, there was a guy about a century later that was much closer to the Jewish Messsiah than Jesus ever was.... ask Bananabrain about it some time.

or that prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled or not, so the area of prophecy is a questionable one for many people.

i suspect that it depends on what your position on the issue is. from the Jewish point of view, it is pretty clear. in the case of the Buddhist prophecy, it is also pretty clear.

Here is a rather poetic form or translation:

"The Hero that shall follow you
As Buddha, of what sort is he?
Th' account in full I fain would learn.
Declare to me, thou Seeing One."
When he had heard the elder's speech,
The Blessed One vouchsafed reply:
"I'll tell it thee. Sâriputta,
Pray lend your ears, for I will speak.
p. 482 [JPTS'86,345

"Our cycle is a happy one,
Three Leaders have already lived,
Kakusandha, Konâgamana,
And eke the leader Kassapa.

"The Buddha now Supreme am I,
But after me Metteyya comes,
While still this happy cycle lasts,
Before its tale of years shall lapse.
"This Buddha, then, Metteyya called,
Supreme, and of all men the chief--"

Source:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits102.htm

i find Victorian English to be strange to read.

from the same source that you quoted:

"...As long as there are a hundred or a thousand priests who keep the commandments forbidding the four deadly sins, the disappearance of the method will not have occurred."

The Buddha of universal friendship would seem to me to speak the same central spiritual truths:

May creatures all abound in weal and peace; may all be blessed with peace always; all creatures weak or strong, all creatures great and small, creatures unseen or seen, dwelling afar or near, born or awaiting birth, may all be blessed with peace!

- Sutta-Nipata -


O Thou kind Lord! Unite all. Let the religions agree and make the nations one, so that they may see each other as one family and the whole earth as one home. May they all live together in perfect harmony. O God! Raise aloft the banner of the oneness of mankind. O God! Establish the Most Great Peace.

- Bahá'í Writings -

There's a good example i think of the common goal of universal peace that Buddhists and Baha'is can both appreciate:

http://www.bic-un.bahai.org/90-0916.htm

In friendship,

- Art

there are, certainly, commonalities that happen betwixt the religions... this seems undeniable to my way of thinking. however, clearly, Baha's and Buddhists disagree on many things.

for instance, Buddhists feel that Liberty is quite a valueable thing which all beings deserve, in point of fact, you could probably say that "Liberty" in the sense of "Liberation" is what Buddhism is all about. this is not, however, the view of the Baha'i tradition. to wit:

122
Consider the pettiness of men's minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance.

123
Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief-maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness.

124
Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing.

125
Say: True liberty consisteth in man's submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven.

http://www.ishwar.com/bahai/holy_kit...s/texts07.html


in the end, however, i think that it really comes down to respect and tolerance.

if we have these for each other and the various views that sentient beings may hold, there is a very real possibility of achieving peace and harmony, in my view. without these, the dreams of peace and harmony amongst beings is simply a dream.

[arthra]

And thanks Vajra for your reply:

Vajradhara wrote:

"....in the end, however, i think that it really comes down to respect and tolerance.

if we have these for each other and the various views that sentient beings may hold, there is a very real possibility of achieving peace and harmony, in my view. without these, the dreams of peace and harmony amongst beings is simply a dream."

Comment:

Yes, that's true... and i would hope you see respect and tolerance here.

Vajra:

i have always wondered why it is that other religious seek to derive their own truth status based on a certain rendering of other religious teachings? it seems to me that a religious teaching should stand or fall on its' own merits, but that could simply be because i'm a Buddhist

Comment:

I think in every new revelation there is a certain reinterpretation. Buddhist teachings reinterpreted the earlier Vedic traditions and had their own view of the place of Indra and other gods in the Buddhist pantheon

and again you're entitled to your view of Buddhist prophecy. It's not so much that we Baha'is are using the Maitreya prophecy to proselytize or convert Buddhists. We accept that those investigating the Baha'i Faith are free to accept it or not.

Vajra:

there are, certainly, commonalities that happen betwixt the religions... this seems undeniable to my way of thinking. however, clearly, Baha's and Buddhists disagree on many things.

for instance, Buddhists feel that Liberty is quite a valueable thing which all beings deserve, in point of fact, you could probably say that "Liberty" in the sense of "Liberation" is what Buddhism is all about. this is not, however, the view of the Baha'i tradition. to wit:

Comment:

I'm glad you feel it is undeniable that there are "commonalities that happen betwixt religions" this is very important to build on and emphasize.

I'm unsure though about your comment:

"Baha's and Buddhists disagree on many things."

What would be the purpose of trying to emphasize divisions or ill feeling between people and adherents of different religions? We should be striving to build bridges of understanding.

Regarding the quotes from the Baha'i Writings these referred to extremes of "liberty" and not to democratic ideals themselves. In Baha'u'llah's day monarchies were more the norm but He praised democratic processes as well.

Buddhism has supported monarchies in it's history and in the context of the quotations from the Writings of Baha'u'llah we are looking at extremes of political institutions of the day, not the concept of democracy itself:

"In his Tablet to Queen Victoria (1868 or 1869) he praised the system of British parliamentary democracy, the franchise in which had been widened when she signed the Reform Act of 1867 only the year before. In 1873, in his Most Holy Book (al-Kitab al-Aqdas), Baha'u'llah predicted that a democracy of the people would rule one day in Iran itself. In later tablets he advocated that a world-wide consultative body be convoked."

Source:

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

The Baha'i administrative order is democratic from the local level to the international level.

Baha'is also stress independent investigation of reality or truth:

"O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes."

- Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, Page: 2

So i think both Buddhists and Baha'is value free of belief and independent investigation.

In friendship:

- Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

Yes, that's true... and i would hope you see respect and tolerance here.

i'm not all that interested in disscussing conversations on other forums, however, as you know, i joinied the Baha'i Planet forum for a bit. and, i must say, that i found the enviornment there to be oppressive and, honestly, not very open to the idea that they could be mistaken in their view and understanding of my tradition.

in point of fact, it was said that i don't understand my tradition and that, if i did, then i'd be a Baha'i!!!

so.. whilst there are certainly some compassionate and respectful Baha'i, it is not my overall impression of the tradition.

perhaps, that is to my own misfortune, but there it is.

I think in every new revelation there is a certain reinterpretation. Buddhist teachings reinterpreted the earlier Vedic traditions and had their own view of the place of Indra and other gods in the Buddhist pantheon

and it really doesn't matter what we say, does it? it is absolutely not possible for Buddhism not to be a "revelation" of God, in your paradigm, even though we expressly deny such a being and all of that.

that is one of the most frustrating things in our dialog. it really doesn't matter what i say, or any Buddhist for that matter, the Baha'i faith has already come to its conclusions regarding my tradition and, for lack of a better term, the "case is closed." and, i admit, i find it frustrating.

and again you're entitled to your view of Buddhist prophecy. It's not so much that we Baha'is are using the Maitreya prophecy to proselytize or convert Buddhists. We accept that those investigating the Baha'i Faith are free to accept it or not.

if you are not using your view of prophecy to convert Buddhists, for what reason do you use it?

i've not seen it used in any other circumstance other than when dialoging with Buddhists. of course, i've not seen many Baha'i conversations, so that doesn't mean anything in particular, expect that my experience is, seemingly, different than yours.

Comment:

I'm glad you feel it is undeniable that there are "commonalities that happen betwixt religions" this is very important to build on and emphasize.

to a certain extent, i agree. by the same token, the garden of spirituality is more appealing with many flowers.

I'm unsure though about your comment:

"Baha's and Buddhists disagree on many things."

What would be the purpose of trying to emphasize divisions or ill feeling between people and adherents of different religions? We should be striving to build bridges of understanding.

does understanding imply that all beings would believe the same things and have the same faith? to my way of thinking, it would not. we can build bridges of understanding whilst recognizing the unique features of each being and each religion, in my view.

i understand that Baha'is are interested in a single, monolithic faith tradition and government for the world, it is not, however, something that many Buddhists would be interested in. one of the reasons why we teach 84,000 Dharma Doors and not 1 Dharma Door, don't ya know

Regarding the quotes from the Baha'i Writings these referred to extremes of "liberty" and not to democratic ideals themselves. In Baha'u'llah's day monarchies were more the norm but He praised democratic processes as well.

that is not specified in the writings that i could tell. the quoted bits seem pretty straight forward to me. what is an "extreme" of liberty, by the way?

Buddhism has supported monarchies in it's history

ah... now i think i get it, though i may still be missing it a bit...

and in the context of the quotations from the Writings of Baha'u'llah we are looking at extremes of political institutions of the day, not the concept of democracy itself:

from the quoted material, can you find where it says this? i don't see how, based simply on the text quoted, that you have come to the conclusion that he is speaking of the "extreme" of liberty, whatever that term may actually mean. what does it mean, by the way?


with metta,

~v

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

and it really doesn't matter what we say, does it? it is absolutely not possible for Buddhism not to be a "revelation" of God, in your paradigm, even though we expressly deny such a being and all of that.

that is one of the most frustrating things in our dialog. it really doesn't matter what i say, or any Buddhist for that matter, the Baha'i faith has already come to its conclusions regarding my tradition and, for lack of a better term, the "case is closed." and, i admit, i find it frustrating.

With apologies, we are Baha'is and that means we take the word of our Scripture very highly. You simply stating otherwise doesn't really sit on the same level. I suggest that our pov about Buddhism similarly doesn't impress you as much as the Buddhist Teachings themselves. Thus building bridges is an excercise, requiring some effort and mutual respect. I don't think you've heard many Baha'is say your point of view is just wrong - perhaps a few times but mostly not.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

if you are not using your view of prophecy to convert Buddhists, for what reason do you use it?

For a better understanding of our own Religion, which has something to say about Buddhism, just as Christianity has something to say about Judaism and Buddhism has something to say about Hindism, and other examples. At some level it seems natural to talk about Buddha with those who also have something of an understanding of Buddha. I have found that while there are seemingly inevitable differences, there are often great rewards in speaking with members of another Faith when we have something in common. I usually find that others have almost no interest in speaking about a third party religion, so to speak, and also are not much interested in speaking about the Baha'i religion as such. That pretty much leaves speaking about their Founder.

[arthra]

Vajradhara wrote:

i'm not all that interested in disscussing conversations on other forums, however, as you know, i joinied the Baha'i Planet forum for a bit. and, i must say, that i found the enviornment there to be oppressive and, honestly, not very open to the idea that they could be mistaken in their view and understanding of my tradition.

in point of fact, it was said that i don't understand my tradition and that, if i did, then i'd be a Baha'i!!!

so.. whilst there are certainly some compassionate and respectful Baha'i, it is not my overall impression of the tradition.

perhaps, that is to my own misfortune, but there it is.

Comment:

I frequest that Planet Baha'i Forum fairly often and hadn't noticed you there, maybe you used a different identification, but all I can say is that if you had have a poor experience there it doesn't pretend to be an official Baha'i site and some there are not Baha'is.

From my own view I don't find the Planet Baha'i Forum "oppressive" or "closed" myself but that's my view.

I found a recent post quote from the "The Lankavatara Scripture, cited in "A Buddhist Bible" p. 343-344 edited by Dwight Goddard" dated June 1, 2005 and it was very well received. I then scanned the Inter-faith section at Planet Baha'i and there were no topics on Buddhism in the past year...I did an "advanced search" on the Planet Baha'i Forum and couldn't find anything on "Maitreya".

Vajra:

and it really doesn't matter what we say, does it? it is absolutely not possible for Buddhism not to be a "revelation" of God, in your paradigm, even though we expressly deny such a being and all of that. that is one of the most frustrating things in our dialog. it really doesn't matter what i say, or any Buddhist for that matter, the Baha'i faith has already come to its conclusions regarding my tradition and, for lack of a better term, the "case is closed." and, i admit, i find it frustrating.

Reply:

Well i think it does matter what you say otherwise i wouldn't be responding to you... Yes we do use the terms "God" and "revelation" in the Baha'i Faith and it is a "Faith", however "God" is not necessarily defined in the traditional sense:

"... no mind or heart, however pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence. The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man's finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations."

And

"Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery."

Vajra:

if you are not using your view of prophecy to convert Buddhists, for what reason do you use it?

Reply:

It was initially used by the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith identifying Baha'u'llah with Maitreya and was in the context of other prophecies such as the Kalkin Avatar in a book entitled "God Passes By":

He alone is meant by the prophecy attributed to Gautama Buddha Himself, that “a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship” should, in the fullness of time, arise and reveal “His boundless glory. - p. 95

The context of the reference was in my view to the interconnectedness of the world religions.

See the following:

http://bahai-library.com/articles/prophetology.html

There are some individual Baha'is who refer to this i think but it really by itself does not receive that much emphasis in our Baha'i literature.

A friend of mine Jamshid Fozdar wrote a book entitled "Buddha Maitreya-Amitabha has appeared" in 1976 and it is still available. I would recommend it for a more thorough discussion or inquiry. It deals fairly extensively with the time, place of these prophecies.

Vajra:

i've not seen it used in any other circumstance other than when dialoging with Buddhists. of course, i've not seen many Baha'i conversations, so that doesn't mean anything in particular, expect that my experience is, seemingly, different than yours. to a certain extent, i agree. by the same token, the garden of spirituality is more appealing with many flowers. does understanding imply that all beings would believe the same things and have the same faith? to my way of thinking, it would not. we can build bridges of understanding whilst recognizing the unique features of each being and each religion, in my view.


Comment:

Diversity is appreciated by Baha'is and the uniqueness of each dispensation. The imagery of a flower garden of varied hues was in fact used by Abdul-Baha in many of His talks.

Again our experiences may differ... but some Baha'is will probably refer to the Maitreya prophecy in discussions with Buddhists.

Vajra:

i understand that Baha'is are interested in a single, monolithic faith tradition and government for the world, it is not, however, something that many Buddhists would be interested in. one of the reasons why we teach 84,000 Dharma Doors and not 1 Dharma Door, don't ya know that is not specified in the writings that i could tell.

Comment:

The Baha'i Faith is united but our view of the future world government should not be seen as "monolithic". We believe that a world civlization will develope or is in process of developing...We don't control that and no one organization will control it... How it forms and developes will be for the future to consider...A world at peace having fellowship and interaction will take on it's own life and vitality.

Vajra:

the quoted bits seem pretty straight forward to me. what is an "extreme" of liberty, by the way? ah... now i think i get it, though i may still be missing it a bit...from the quoted material, can you find where it says this? i don't see how, based simply on the text quoted, that you have come to the conclusion that he is speaking of the "extreme" of liberty, whatever that term may actually mean. what does it mean, by the way?

Reply:

The extremes of "liberty" were well known by the early nineteenth century and i think the French revolution in Europe was an early model... but there are today i think more recent examples.

Baha'is have historically been supporters of the duly recognized authority even when it means losing some of our civil liberties, this is considered preferable to revolution or armed resistance. But in the long run the Faith has survived repression whether it was in Nazi Germany or in the Stalinist regime and I think we will survive the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

In friendship,

- Art