Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by arthra

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.

I've spoken of the ideas presented in that paper as a reference to a Baha'i view of reincarnation - and I also have read Foxdar's book which I found very interesting indeed! There is also a cycle of religious life - that the seasons can mirror the condition of spiritual life in a religion - also seem to me to apply.

:-)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

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.

clearly, which is why i provide the sources from the Tipitaka to explain the Buddhas teaching on this topic.

I suggest that our pov about Buddhism similarly doesn't impress you as much as the Buddhist Teachings themselves.

that is absolutely correct.

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.

true enough, not many have.

however... it still makes no rational sense to me that your religion will uphold some of our teachings, provided they affirm your religion, yet deny other teachings of ours which would invalidate your religions view.

i suppose that i don't have to "get 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.

i don't understand. how does understanding some of my religion help you understand yours?

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 agree with this, despite what may appear to be the contrary in this thread. from my view, the differences, as well as the commonalities should be celebrated, not just the areas where we agree on things.

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.

i'm not sure that i follow you here... could you rephase this bit?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

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.

i've not returned for well over a year to that forum. i was Vajradhara there as well... however, it is quite possible that all my posts were removed. things like that have been known to happen before.

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

clearly, you are a Baha'i, after all

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.

what is a "buddhist bible"? we have no such thing. our canon is called the Tipitaka, which i know that you are aware of.

well received by whom?

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."

do you view God as the source of being or the "ground of reality"?

if so, this is not something that Buddhism would agree to. there is nothing, in the Buddhist paradigm, which can rightly be regarded as the root source. thus, our objection to creator Gods is not a philosophical objection, rather, it is a religious objection as the idea of a Creator Deity is grounded in a radically different ontological view than the one presented by the Buddha Shakyamuni.

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

what value is there in identifying your religious leader with the prophecy of another relgion which denies the very premis that your religion is founded upon? does it give more confidence to the Baha'i that they are practicing a valid moral and ethical path?

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

thanks for the link.

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.

why would you recommend this book instead of the actual Suttas and Sutras?

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.

you are probably right...

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.

i don't know, Art. clearly, there is much about your tradition that i don't know... however, some of the beings which have left your faith have been subject to all manner of strange disciplinary actions, such as Shunning and so forth. this method of behavior tends to reinforce my view of the Baha'i world government being monolithic.

clearly, my view is one sided and from a certain perspective, thus, it may not be all that accurate.

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.

can you give me some of the examples of the "extreme" of liberty?


metta,

~v

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i've not returned for well over a year to that forum. i was Vajradhara there as well... however, it is quite possible that all my posts were removed. things like that have been known to happen before.

~v

Namaste Vajradhara,

I just wanted to assure you that your posts have not been removed at Planet Baha'i. They still stand as written, just may have to search to find them, since it was so long ago.

Have a wonderful day!

Loving Greetings, Amy

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.


...true enough, not many have.

however... it still makes no rational sense to me that your religion will uphold some of our teachings, provided they affirm your religion, yet deny other teachings of ours which would invalidate your religions view.

i suppose that i don't have to "get it".

At the very least, as you allow that many Baha'is do not simply state you've got it wrong, can you give at least some of us the civil level of respect of not simply telling us not only that we've got it wrong but that our position is unreasonable? I would note that respecting levels of civility are not matters of cause and effect - they should be obeyed for their own value. But a secondary application of the rules is to note when others obey them and honor them to some extent along the same lines.

Building bridges of communication between people who take their positions seriously generally requires not characterizationing the other pov is simply insane, in one way or another.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't understand. how does understanding some of my religion help you understand yours?

To understand that you will have to accept what the Baha'i Faith scriptures claim, whether you agree with them or not.

[arthra]

Vajradhara wrote:

what is a "buddhist bible"? we have no such thing. our canon is called the Tipitaka, which i know that you are aware of.

Reply:

Dwight Goddard was a well known compliler of Buddhist texts translated into English, this was about 1932... It's called "A Buddhist Bible" but i understand how you feel and i wasn't trying to be insensitive. A description of the book follows:

"This is the book that introduced Jack Kerouac to Buddhism. Originally published in 1932 and then republished in its present, enlarged form in 1938, this edition contains a fine new introduction by Robert Aitken and covers a wide selection of readings from Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, and modern sources intended to provide the reader with a foundation in classical Buddhist thought."

well received by whom?

The post dated 6/1/05 as i mentioned was a quote from the Lankavatara Sutra and by being well received, I was meaning others at "Planet Baha'i". You can check it out.

Vajra:

do you view God as the source of being or the "ground of reality"?
if so, this is not something that Buddhism would agree to. there is nothing, in the Buddhist paradigm, which can rightly be regarded as the root source. thus, our objection to creator Gods is not a philosophical objection, rather, it is a religious objection as the idea of a Creator Deity is grounded in a radically different ontological view than the one presented by the Buddha Shakyamuni.

Reply:

Baha'i theology isn't crystalized but it isn't anthropomorphic either even though there are terms used like that in the Writings...

Abdul-Baha taught in "Some Answered Questions" pp. 209-210:

"It is certain that this world of existence this endless universe has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing.... existence is eternal and perpectual."

Vajra:

what value is there in identifying your religious leader with the prophecy of another relgion which denies the very premis that your religion is founded upon? does it give more confidence to the Baha'i that they are practicing a valid moral and ethical path?

Reply:

My own feeling is that as Baha'is we see all religions including Buddhism as spiritual in origin so it doesn't in our view "denies the very premis that" our religion is founded on. Baha'is believe morality and ethics have a divine origin are given by revelations over time and that humanity is ever advancing and in this age are challenged to build world peace and fellowship.

Vajra:

why would you recommend this book (Jamshid Fozdar's "Amitable Maitreya has appeared") instead of the actual Suttas and Sutras?

Reply:

I thought it would be a good reference to the views of prophecy and recommended it to you and it contains references to the applicable Sutras and Suttas.

Vajra:

i don't know, Art. clearly, there is much about your tradition that i don't know... however, some of the beings which have left your faith have been subject to all manner of strange disciplinary actions, such as Shunning and so forth. this method of behavior tends to reinforce my view of the Baha'i world government being monolithic.

Reply:

We believe there will be a world government that can provide humanity with peace and allow for an unparalleled develope of our resources as well as ecology, but it will not be a "Baha'i world government" as i mentioned earlier it will have a life of it's own and develope by itself... I think you can already sense this by the increased world communications we have today and intercultural diversity.

People who choose to leave the Baha'i Faith are subject to no disciplinary measures whatsoever. Anyone can leave the Baha'i Faith at any time.

There are some individuals who attack our Faith and we leave them to themselves.

In friendship,

- Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the pos.t

Originally Posted by smkolins

To understand that you will have to accept what the Baha'i Faith scriptures claim, whether you agree with them or not.

let me see if i understand your meaning here....

in order to understand how a partial understanding of my religion benefits you, i will need to agree with your religious teachings first, even if i don't agree with them?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Amy,

thank you for the post and the informational update

with metta,

~v

Originally Posted by 9Harmony

Namaste Vajradhara,

I just wanted to assure you that your posts have not been removed at Planet Baha'i. They still stand as written, just may have to search to find them, since it was so long ago.

Have a wonderful day!

Loving Greetings, Amy

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

At the very least, as you allow that many Baha'is do not simply state you've got it wrong, can you give at least some of us the civil level of respect of not simply telling us not only that we've got it wrong but that our position is unreasonable?

i didn't say that it was unreasonable, i said that i, as a personal view, found it irrational. just like an inductive argument is inherently irrational, that does not mean that the inductive argument is invalid or unreasonable.

nevertheless, what i had hope to communicate was that "i" found the view that is put forth as the Baha'i view (realizing that nobody that i've spoken to is authorized to present the "Baha'i" view, per se) with regards to the other religious traditions to be irrational.

that is a reflection upon me, not you.

I would note that respecting levels of civility are not matters of cause and effect - they should be obeyed for their own value. But a secondary application of the rules is to note when others obey them and honor them to some extent along the same lines.

Building bridges of communication between people who take their positions seriously generally requires not characterizationing the other pov is simply insane, in one way or another.

nor have i done so. my words were precisely chosen to convey what i had tried to say, without being so verbose as to compose a novel.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Arthra,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

Vajradhara wrote:

what is a "buddhist bible"? we have no such thing. our canon is called the Tipitaka, which i know that you are aware of.

Reply:

Dwight Goddard was a well known compliler of Buddhist texts translated into English, this was about 1932

"well known complier"? Arthra... i really don't know what to say. our Sutras and Suttas are *already* compiled and arranged. perhaps, you've even heard of some of those beings... perhaps Buddhagosha being one of the more famous.

ah.. and here, re-reading what you've wrote, i note that you cavet this as an "English" compliation. which, frankly, sounds like it couldn't be anything but confusing... i mean... take a look at what it says in the description which you've provided:


"This is the book that introduced Jack Kerouac to Buddhism. Originally published in 1932 and then republished in its present, enlarged form in 1938, this edition contains a fine new introduction by Robert Aitken and covers a wide selection of readings from Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, and modern sources intended to provide the reader with a foundation in classical Buddhist thought."

the Pali Canon, the Sanskrit/Tibetan Canon and the Chinese Canon are not "pick and choose" religious teachings! goodness!

however, many beings believe that you can simply pick up a Buddhist teaching and go from there. it is a bit strange, i confess, for clearly the Buddha Shakyamuni never taught such a thing... but... there it is.

The post dated 6/1/05 as i mentioned was a quote from the Lankavatara Sutra and by being well received, I was meaning others at "Planet Baha'i". You can check it out.

ah, i see.

Baha'i theology isn't crystalized but it isn't anthropomorphic either even though there are terms used like that in the Writings...

in most religious writings it is this way.. so it really isn't surprising to see that those things have appeared in your religous path as well.

Abdul-Baha taught in "Some Answered Questions" pp. 209-210:

"It is certain that this world of existence this endless universe has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing.... existence is eternal and perpectual."

excellent! this is good... but... we need to be a bit careful here... for Buddhism, at least, does not support the notional of eternalism. in our paradigm, there is no-thing which lasts forever, not even the universe... it too, will have its cycle.

My own feeling is that as Baha'is we see all religions including Buddhism as spiritual in origin so it doesn't in our view "denies the very premis that" our religion is founded on.

not to be offensive, Art, however, this demonstrates to me that you folks don't know what you are talking about with regards to my religion.

to wit:

Baha'is believe:

morality and ethics have a divine origin

are given by revelations over time

humanity is ever advancing

build world peace and fellowship.

the last statement there is the only thing that Buddhism could uphold.

in our teachings, morality and ethics are not divine in origin. to posit this as so, puts you well outside of the Buddhist paradigm and squarely in with the Sanatana Dharma, Sikh and Jains and other, non-Buddhist schools of thought.

we, Buddhist types, also do not hold a linear view of human progression.. it is a cyclic and, as such, there will be times when these things increase and periods when they decrease. it is a particularly Western and hence, Greek, view that posits a linear time experience.

Vajra:

why would you recommend this book (Jamshid Fozdar's "Amitable Maitreya has appeared") instead of the actual Suttas and Sutras?

Reply:

I thought it would be a good reference to the views of prophecy and recommended it to you and it contains references to the applicable Sutras and Suttas.

so...

let me see if i understand.

rather, than reading the actual Sutta/Sutras for ourselves, you would posit that we read Mr. Fozdars book? why have the chaff when the wheat is available? besides, as my post on Baha'i planet explained, i have some serious reservations about Mr. Fozdars and, hence, Momans, academic approach to my religion. perhaps, Amy can find that one for you..?

We believe there will be a world government that can provide humanity with peace and allow for an unparalleled develope of our resources as well as ecology, but it will not be a "Baha'i world government" as i mentioned earlier it will have a life of it's own and develope by itself... I think you can already sense this by the increased world communications we have today and intercultural diversity.

i really hope that is not the case. i would, of course, support peace and harmony amongst all beings. i would not, however, support a single worldwide government.

beings which have no connection to the local issues facing various populations are not in an informed position to make policy decisions, in my view.

People who choose to leave the Baha'i Faith are subject to no disciplinary measures whatsoever. Anyone can leave the Baha'i Faith at any time.

despite your assertion to the contrary, there are beings that have experiences which do not match yours.

to wit:

http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensor...onMarshall.htm

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcol...ssr/bhjssr.htm

as examples of other beings which have not had your experience.

There are some individuals who attack our Faith and we leave them to themselves.

on the contrary, Art, some of these beings are not left to themselves, to wit:

The Talisman email forum was created in 1994 by Professor John Walbridge of the University of Indiana as an academic project. Many participants were delighted at the kind of freewheeling, even contentious, intellectual discussions that took place there and that had hitherto been so rare in Baha’i community life.[53] However, as in the earlier cases mentioned above, more conservative Baha’is were disturbed by the opinions expressed there and turned in e-mails to Baha’i authorities. In late 1995, the NSA contacted David Langness, demanding that he make a retraction for a post he had made in October comparing Baha’i judicial proceedings to “kangaroo courts” and complaining about the secretive way these cases are handled.[54] The primary focus of their concern was his statement that the NSA had initially acted against dialogue without approval from the House. Langness had been one of those sanctioned for his association with dialogue and had been the primary author of A Modest Proposal. The NSA threatened to take away Langness’s voting rights if he did not comply.[55] However, when Langness eventually posted a retraction, it was deemed insufficient, and he was sanctioned anyway.[56]

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html

clearly, there is a great deal of difference in some beings experience with the Baha'i faith. this is, from my point of view, what you would expect to find in a tradition which has a variety of different beings putting its teachings into practice.

as i say, this view, represented by the preceeding paragraphs, is one of the primary cautions i have with regards to a New World Order as envisoned by the Baha'i Community.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

despite your assertion to the contrary, there are beings that have experiences which do not match yours.

to wit:

http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensor...onMarshall.htm

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcol...ssr/bhjssr.htm

as examples of other beings which have not had your experience.


on the contrary, Art, some of these beings are not left to themselves, to wit:

The Talisman email forum was created in 1994 by Professor John Walbridge of the University of Indiana as an academic project. Many participants were delighted at the kind of freewheeling, even contentious, intellectual discussions that took place there and that had hitherto been so rare in Baha’i community life.[53] However, as in the earlier cases mentioned above, more conservative Baha’is were disturbed by the opinions expressed there and turned in e-mails to Baha’i authorities. In late 1995, the NSA contacted David Langness, demanding that he make a retraction for a post he had made in October comparing Baha’i judicial proceedings to “kangaroo courts” and complaining about the secretive way these cases are handled.[54] The primary focus of their concern was his statement that the NSA had initially acted against dialogue without approval from the House. Langness had been one of those sanctioned for his association with dialogue and had been the primary author of A Modest Proposal. The NSA threatened to take away Langness’s voting rights if he did not comply.[55] However, when Langness eventually posted a retraction, it was deemed insufficient, and he was sanctioned anyway.[56]

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html

clearly, there is a great deal of difference in some beings experience with the Baha'i faith. this is, from my point of view, what you would expect to find in a tradition which has a variety of different beings putting its teachings into practice.

as i say, this view, represented by the preceeding paragraphs, is one of the primary cautions i have with regards to a New World Order as envisoned by the Baha'i Community.

I was a member of Talisman and saw some of the things that transpired.

Basically the two positions stated above are not in inherent conflict. One is very free to leave the Faith but there are those who do not wish to leave it but change it or otherwise apply their own pov about the Faith. Of course few state it is simply their own pov. They call for support from the Scriptures and such and turn personal statements into absolutes they demand others to accept. So then it comes down to, not a question of being a member or not, but of what the scripture means. These are two inherently different situations, and in the case of the Baha'i Faith calls forth specifics - matters of the rules of self-governance and history. In large part our religion has democratic forms - most of our institutions are elected for example.

All other faiths in this day have approximately no central agency to decide for all believers of that faith what is or is not true, or if it cannot be said one way or the other (a position our Faith has taken in some cases!) about the scripture - thus all other Faiths have denominations or equivolent terms. This is not true of the Baha'i Faith. We have a central authority and rules to live by to be a Baha'i, and most of these institutions have direct reference in our scriptures. The Baha'i Faith has thus kept it's unity with over 99% of the people who use the word Baha'i having one authority to which to appeal to, and all but the latest splinterings have disappeared - and none have lasted two generations so far while the Baha'i Faith itself has lasted many more generations, and grown numerically greatly as well while these other groups have usually disappeared.

Within these rules and conditions, some find their opinion unable to be given up even though the majority feel otherwise. Discussion is allowed - and views exchanged. But if one side doesn't win the day, it does not have the right to instigate disrespect and revolution. Just as Baha'is cannot add to the scripture by proclaiming a historical figure to be a prophet whom all should acknowledge, so do Baha'is necessarily accept the rulings of the institutions with known limits of rules of appeals. Someone may be a talented translator or insightful historian or persuasive public speaker or have even popularity, but none of these make one right. The internet just makes some opinions more public than they might have been in the past - as surely all of us know, just because it's on the internet doesn't make it right.

[arthra]

Vajra my friend,

I have nothing against quoting directly and citing specific sutras and suttas but also like to recognize or applaud people like Goddard. Back in the early thirties he pioneered in making Buddhist scriptures available to English speakers.

And some people who liked the work of Dwight Goddard expressed the following sentiment:

"As regards the present English translation, it is the product of the joint efforts of a number of Japanese Buddhist scholars of the highest order, while special mention should be made of the unsparing efforts of Mr. Dwight Goddard, an American, who devoted a stay of several months in this country to the bringing of the work to perfection and completion. It is our pleasant duty to pay a tribute of gratitude and respect from the bottom of our hearts to the pure and lofty devotion, as well as to the unst inted efforts, of this last-named gentleman. In conclusion we must not forget to acknowledge our indebtedness to the many unrevealed, yet nonetheless precious, sacrifices and the economic assistance received from a large circle of co-religionists, to which this book owes its appearance."

The Federation of All Young Buddhist Associations of Japan

July, the 2500th year of Our Lord Buddha (1934 CE)

Source:

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredsc...ha_preface.htm

[arthra]

Hello Vajra...

Quoting me earlier:

We believe there will be a world government that can provide humanity with peace and allow for an unparalleled develope of our resources as well as ecology, but it will not be a "Baha'i world government" as i mentioned earlier it will have a life of it's own and develope by itself... I think you can already sense this by the increased world communications we have today and intercultural diversity.

You wrote:

i really hope that is not the case. i would, of course, support peace and harmony amongst all beings. i would not, however, support a single worldwide government.

beings which have no connection to the local issues facing various populations are not in an informed position to make policy decisions, in my view.

My reply:

Today Vajra there are importnat world governing bodies that convene and discuss their issues... Way back in 1871 Baha'u'llah urged that the rulers and governments convene a world parliament. He didn't specify that this had to be a "Baha'i world government", He simply recommended it as a part of a solution to achieving world peace... I think men of good will such as yourself who "support peace and harmony amongst all beings" would support something like that.

I've always admired the work of Thich Nat Hanh since the Vietnam War and his Buddhist Peace Fellowship... The only difference though in the Baha'i approach is that we don't overtly "protest" against governments...

Our approach though would be to support international arbitration or law. Take the case of the oppression of Baha'is in Iran where it is illegal to be a Baha'i...that is there is no recognition of our Faith there. Our international office of Baha'i affairs supported the UN and it's resolutions against violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Iran. The UN sent an official observer to Iran to report back to the international body on progress toward implementing the resolution of the Genereal Assembly. So something along this is how we Baha'is try to deal with these issues.

In friendship,

- Art

[arthra]

Vajra my friend, quoting me earlier:

People who choose to leave the Baha'i Faith are subject to no disciplinary measures whatsoever. Anyone can leave the Baha'i Faith at any time.

Wrote:

despite your assertion to the contrary, there are beings that have experiences which do not match yours. ...


as examples of other beings which have not had your experience.


My reply:

I'll maintain what i wrote earlier my friend, that anyone can at anytime leave the Baha'i Faith without any reprissal or disciplinary action.

I don't think we're here to rehash issues brought by some who may disagree or oppose Baha'i administration and I would question what this really has to do with Baha'i-Buddhist relations ...

Buddhists also have discipline and orders and quite frankly I'm aware of this and don't really raise it as an issue. Baha'is have no monastic organizations, but if a brother in a monastic organization opposes the order and discipline openly they are probably either asked to leave the order or expelled depending... I would expect that.

So i really don't think this applies to how Baha'is or Buddhists address over all issues in society. Internal order and discipline is necessary.

Quoting me earlier,

There are some individuals who attack our Faith and we leave them to themselves.

Vajra wrote:

on the contrary, Art, some of these beings are not left to themselves, to wit:

"The Talisman email forum was created in 1994 by Professor John Walbridge of the University of Indiana as an academic project. Many participants were delighted at the kind of freewheeling, even contentious, intellectual discussions that took place there and that had hitherto been so rare in Baha’i community life.[53] However, as in the earlier cases mentioned above, more conservative Baha’is were disturbed by the opinions expressed there and turned in e-mails to Baha’i authorities. In late 1995, the NSA contacted David Langness, demanding that he make a retraction for a post he had made in October comparing Baha’i judicial proceedings to “kangaroo courts” and complaining about the secretive way these cases are handled.[54] The primary focus of their concern was his statement that the NSA had initially acted against dialogue without approval from the House. Langness had been one of those sanctioned for his association with dialogue and had been the primary author of A Modest Proposal. The NSA threatened to take away Langness’s voting rights if he did not comply.[55] However, when Langness eventually posted a retraction, it was deemed insufficient, and he was sanctioned anyway."

My reply:

The article above by Karen Bacquet appeared in a "Cultic Studies Journal" and is selective in it's sources and makes several claims that i think are unwarranted. I've corresponded some with Karen and we disagree.

Her article mentioned John Walbridge. You might like to read about what John himself has contributed:

http://bahai-library.com/?file=armst...ge_sacred_acts

http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.arti...idge.panj.html

There was also reference to David Langness... Here is something he wrote:

http://bahai-library.com/?file=langn...t_four-valleys

These authors including Juan Cole have made some important contributions to the literature and study of the Baha'i Faith.

Professor Cole withdrew from the Baha'i Faith several years ago and has suffered no reprisals ... He can request reinstatement any time he wishes.

Vajra wrote:

clearly, there is a great deal of difference in some beings experience with the Baha'i faith. this is, from my point of view, what you would expect to find in a tradition which has a variety of different beings putting its teachings into practice.

as i say, this view, represented by the preceeding paragraphs, is one of the primary cautions i have with regards to a New World Order as envisoned by the Baha'i Community.

My reply:

It may be you feel you have "researched" the area of the Baha'i community in this regard sufficiently and satisfactorily for yourself, but to me there is much more you should study to form your opinions and draw your conclusions.

In friendship,

- Art



__________________