Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

The statement that any Baha'i is free to leave the Faith at any time is true.

And it's also true that we Baha'is avoid covenant-breakers who have been expelled from the Faith. But what is being ignored is the definition of what such a person is, specifically, someone WHO CHOOSES TO REMAIN A BAHA'I but at the same time actively attempts to overturn or "take over" the Baha'i administrative system in direct violation of the Baha'i Covenant and scriptures.

Please note that these are two extremely different situations.

Kindly note, too, that there are in fact very few covenant-breakers in existence, and that a person can only be termed one by the Universal House of Justice, the supreme administrative body of the Baha'i Faith. This is a very rare event, and any such individual is counselled extensively before any such step is taken, it being truly a "last resort" measure taken only if the individual insists on continuing to try to attack the Faith from within. And this is really no different from any other religious group, each of which similarly has some means for expelling individuals who attempt to subvert them.

Just the facts.

Bruce

[Vajradhara]

Salaam Arthra,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by 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.

why do you hold this view? in linear time, the Pali Translation Society, formed in England, in 1881, which, it seems to me, is the "pioneer" in this field.

» Pali Text Society (UK). Since its founding in 1881, this nonprofit organization has been the world's pre-eminent publisher of texts from the Pali Canon. The PTS offers offer a hardbound edition of the complete Tipitaka in romanized Pali, and most of the Tipitaka in English translation. Some of their translations of key texts are now very badly out of date, and have been superseded by more fluent translations from other publishers (for example, their translation of the Digha Nikaya dates back to 1899; Maurice Walshe's Long Discourses of The Buddha, published by Wisdom Publications in 1987, is a much more useful text). Nevertheless, many of their translations are still valuable. Their romanized Pali editions are indispensable tools for the serious Pali student. PTS books are distributed in North America by Pariyatti.

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

you left out the preceeding sentence. the preceeding sentence states:

"Moreover, since a group of the most eminent Buddhist scholars in Japan collaborated in its compilation, it is, beyond all doubt, a model version of the Scriptures which can be used with all confidence by the adherents of the various sects of Buddhism in Japan. "

the bold is my emphasis. it seems clear enough that their veiw is that this text is appropos for the Japanese Buddhist schools, they do not extend this same view towards any of the other Buddhist schools.

perhaps, more importantly, this text is from the Yogachara philosophical school. whlist this is one of the four Buddhist philosophical schools, the text does not mention the others, thus the reader is left thinking that all Buddhists believe that it is "mind only".

this is not correct. the interested reader can see the thread in the Eastern Thoughts/Buddhism forum called "Buddhist Philosophical Schools".

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Arthra,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by 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.

and there it is.

those beings have had other experiences, which you assert do not happen.

yet, they claim that it has.

who is telling the truth?

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 ...

just in the limited sense of world governments and so forth. which is where this was being narrowly applied.

otherwise... it has little, if any bearing on the matter.

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.

indeed. i would hope that the difference between being a monastic and being a lay person is quite clear.

as Baha'i have no monastic orders, everyone is a lay person. of course, your rules for laiety are much different than ours, but i suspect that this is due to the fact that your tradition lacks this feature more than anything else.

for instance, a lay Buddhist has only 5 Precepts to uphold, unlike the monastics which have upwards of 226, depending on their school and so forth.

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.

how have you determined that she was selective with her sources?

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

happy to, thank you for the links.

what about the specifics of the links that i've provided as reference? are those beings lying?

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.

for instance?

needless to say, i would encourage you to engage in the same study of the Buddhist tradition


with metta,

~v

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings.

The statement that any Baha'i is free to leave the Faith at any time is true.

And it's also true that we Baha'is avoid covenant-breakers who have been expelled from the Faith. But what is being ignored is the definition of what such a person is, specifically, someone WHO CHOOSES TO REMAIN A BAHA'I but at the same time actively attempts to overturn or "take over" the Baha'i administrative system in direct violation of the Baha'i Covenant and scriptures.

Please note that these are two extremely different situations.

Kindly note, too, that there are in fact very few covenant-breakers in existence, and that a person can only be termed one by the Universal House of Justice, the supreme administrative body of the Baha'i Faith. This is a very rare event, and any such individual is counselled extensively before any such step is taken, it being truly a "last resort" measure taken only if the individual insists on continuing to try to attack the Faith from within. And this is really no different from any other religious group, each of which similarly has some means for expelling individuals who attempt to subvert them.

Just the facts.

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

There are also two additional types of disciplinary measures of which I am aware in the Baha'i Faith. One is the removal of administrative rights, which means a Baha'i can no longer attend Feasts, vote in the elections, or contribute to the Baha'i funds (all of which are considred sacred rights and obligations of Baha'is). One can have their admin rights removed for publically and/or flagrantly breaking a Baha'i Law, such as co-habitation without marriage, or getting married without full parental consent.

The other is more nebulous, expulsion or "disenrollment." This is more or less excommunication without declaring a person a covenent breaker. In effect, the ruling bodies determine that in spite of professed belief in Baha'u'llah a person is not really a true believer.

peace,
lunamoth

[arthra]

Hello my friend Vajra!

You can address me simply as "Art".

Always willing to learn Vajra..

I have nothing against the Pali Text Society or Wisdom Publications and treasure my copies of Buddhist texts from them.

Karen's use of terms in describing our Faith as "cultic" is to me inaccurate especially in view of the following article:

http://bahai-library.com/essays/cult.html

Her orientation implies that Baha'i Faith is somehow deceptive in appealing to "liberal" thinking while actually being conservative, this is her belief, but actually the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are themsleves rather loose terms that change from time to time..

"Fundamentalism" as applied to the Baha'i faith is i think inaccurate and inappropriate and particularly unfortunate when it is associated in peoples' minds with Christain fundamentalists or Moslem fundamenatlists. Baha'is themselves have suffered greatly over our history from Moslem fanatics who have been described as fundamentalists. Particualrly when we consider the Islamic regime in Iran and their treatment of Baha'is.

I also think her assessment of our administrative order is somewhat paranoid and incomplete.

Her article acknowledges some truths though that we have an elected supreme body that is the Center of our Faith and is binding in areas not covered by our Writings and the Interpretations of the Guardian of our Faith.

If you'd like to learn more this is a great place to ask questions...

In friendship!

- Art

[lunamoth]

Hi Art, I hope you won't mind my questions in this thread. I don't want to further derail the conversation, but I think that Vaj has raised some serious issues which perhaps could be discussed.

Originally Posted by arthra

I also think her (Karen Bacquet's) assessment of our administrative order is somewhat paranoid and incomplete.

But what I find incongruous is that on the one hand the Baha'i Faith holds its Administrative Order up as the model government for the New World Order and on the other hand statments such as the following, issued by the Nationa Spiritual Assembly of NZ regarding the expulsion of Alison Marshall from the Baha'i Faith.

In its submission to the court, the National Spiritual Assembly outlined what it argues is acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member:

9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer, and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the Baha'i principles. ... 9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling out individuals for specific attention.

from: http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/expulsion.html

I am alarmed by the disenrollment of Baha'is for undisclosed reasons and greatly wish to understand this better.

peace,
lunamoth

[arthra]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Bruce,

There are also two additional types of disciplinary measures of which I am aware in the Baha'i Faith. One is the removal of administrative rights, which means a Baha'i can no longer attend Feasts, vote in the elections, or contribute to the Baha'i funds (all of which are considred sacred rights and obligations of Baha'is). One can have their admin rights removed for publically and/or flagrantly breaking a Baha'i Law, such as co-habitation without marriage, or getting married without full parental consent.

The other is more nebulous, expulsion or "disenrollment." This is more or less excommunication without declaring a person a covenent breaker. In effect, the ruling bodies determine that in spite of professed belief in Baha'u'llah a person is not really a true believer.

peace,
lunamoth

I'll supply a brief overview of Baha'i administartion and sanctions and a description of how that works...

The enforcement of this may vary somewhat depending.

Baha'is don't drink alcohol unless it is prescribedby a doctor..

Similarly, drug use outside medical supervision is forbidden..

Gambling is forbidden.

Sexual promiscuity forbidden..

There are marital laws which Baha'is observe also.

The Local Spiritual Assembly consults in private with Baha'is who may be in violation of the above... a period is allowed for consultation and working with a person to change...perhaps therapeutic remedies are recommended.

If over time this problem persists in spite of the Assembly's intervention the matter can be submitted t o the National Spiritual Assembly for a decision regarding sanctions, which usually mean voting rights are terminated.

No sanction is applied however without the proviso of a way the person can have them restored.

There is an appeal process available up to the Universal House of Justice.

Covenant Breaking mentioned by Bruce is as he metioned extrememly rare...I think in the past five years there was one couple who was designated.

We're not talking about someone who simply disagrees with an administrative decision or has their own beliefs, etc. but a person who openly deliberately attacks the central Persons of the Faith and only our supreme Institution the Universal House of Justrice can define who is a Covenant Breaker.

We have two administrative branches in the Baha'i Faith, an elective side and an appointive side... The appointive side is limited in duration and scope and serves a defined purpose, thes einclude Counselors, Auxiliary Boards and Assistants. The elective side is our Local Spiritual Assemblies, National Spiritaul Assemblies and the Universal House of Justice.

- Art

[arthra]

Lunamoth:

If you read the material it says she was informed by her National Spiritual Assembly... and believe me this issue was apparently over two or three years. She apparently went to civil court and her case was not considered vaible.


When our administrative institutions deal with some of these issues they do so in confidentaility.

I also think rehashing this issue on this forum is not related to the topic of the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism.

- Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

One can have their admin rights removed for publically and/or flagrantly breaking a Baha'i Law, such as co-habitation without marriage, or getting married without full parental consent.

what does this mean "full parental consent."

does this mean that one must have ones parents approval to become legally wed in the Baha'i faith?

if so, what if ones parents are no longer manifesting? how does this work in the case of adoptions where the DNA contributors cannot be found?

i confess that i was not aware of this except in a most cursory fashion.

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

Hello my friend Vajra!

You can address me simply as "Art".

Always willing to learn Vajra..

I have nothing against the Pali Text Society or Wisdom Publications and treasure my copies of Buddhist texts from them.

in point of fact, i believe that we have talked about this particular bit before... which is probably why i found it odd that you were listing a 1930's text as a pioneer in the field of English translations.

of course... it should be point out that, rather like the Baha'i scriptures, the Buddhist teachings have not all been translated into English. most importantly, hardly any of the Abidharma is translated into English.

Karen's use of terms in describing our Faith as "cultic" is to me inaccurate especially in view of the following article:

an aside... the listed online references for the article are no longer working weblinks. as such, listing them as sources isn't all that helpful

generall speaking, it has been my impression that "cults" are those religious groups which do not support the authors own spiritual convictions. as such, there are only a few organizations which i would consider to be cults... Baha'i is not one of them.

in any event.. i don't recall her saying that Baha'i faith is a "cult" rather, that there are some "cultic tendencies" that can be found in the faith. is that not the impression that you had from her essay?

Her orientation implies that Baha'i Faith is somehow deceptive in appealing to "liberal" thinking while actually being conservative, this is her belief, but actually the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are themsleves rather loose terms that change from time to time..

i tend to agree... lables are handy for labling things but not so good for understanding things.

i find myself in this situation politically, as it were. i have both convservative views, as it turns out, and liberal views all rolled into one amalgam of concerns. i rather resist the lable of convservative or liberal since it really depends on the particular issue for me.

"Fundamentalism" as applied to the Baha'i faith is i think inaccurate and inappropriate and particularly unfortunate when it is associated in peoples' minds with Christain fundamentalists or Moslem fundamenatlists. Baha'is themselves have suffered greatly over our history from Moslem fanatics who have been described as fundamentalists. Particualrly when we consider the Islamic regime in Iran and their treatment of Baha'is.

why do you think that it is inaccurate? leaving aside the connotations with Christians and Muslims, is fundamentalism inherently not valuable?

i would tend to disgingush between fundamentalists and fanatics.

I also think her assessment of our administrative order is somewhat paranoid and incomplete.

i would tend to agree. by the same token, there seems to be a lot of incomplete understanding amongst average Baha'is that i've dialoged with regarding the UHJ and so forth, so i don't know if this is particular to her or beings in general.


with metta,

~v

[Bandit]

this is like rubbing two dogs noses together then blaming the dogs.

lets see how much fault we can find with everyones religion.

2 cents

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


i've been giving this some thought, recently, so i'd like to share them with you..


there is, it would appear, a fundamental difference of view which does not seem to be reconcilable in the views of Baha'i and Buddhists.

the Baha'i faith, as it should, interpets the Buddhist teachings through their own paradigm and make their conclusions based on their understanding of their own teaching.

Buddhists, by contrast, view Buddhism in the Buddhist paradigm and thus, make their conclusions based on their understanding of what the Buddha taught.

fundamentally, what the Buddha taught is not compatible with any notion of a Creator Deity or anything which can be regarded as the "root cause", in the Buddhist understanding of the teachings.

the Baha'i view is that this is not correct, that the Buddha was agnostic with regards to a Creator Deity and thus for Buddhists that don't agree, we are viewed as practicing teachings which have been "lost" or become "corrupt."

to support this contention, some Baha'i will use the Buddhist Sutras wherein the Buddha speaks of the coming end of the True Dharma and the beginning of the Sembelance Dharma, which they feel confirms their view. however, failing to actually read the Sutras exposes the problem with their understanding. since the Buddhas teaching would enter the Semblance Dharma within 500 years after ordaining females, the Buddha gave 8 extra teachings to the Nuns and thus, ensured that the 5,000 year duration of the True Dharma was maintained. strangely, this Sutra is never mentioned by the beings that believe the Dharma is no longer present.

with regards to Maitreya arising in this world system, despite the claims of Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) was Maitreya, despite the claims of Scientology that LaFayette Ron Hubbard was Maitreya, despite the claims of that being in London whom proclaims himself Maitreya, and despite the Baha'i claims that Bahá'u'lláh is Maitreya, not a single one of the conditions attached to Maitreyas arising has been fulfilled according to the actual source for this prophecy.

there seems to be little chance that these divergent views and opions can be reconciled in a manner which supports both contentions. either one of the claimants to Maitreya is correct, or the prophecy is correct.. or, of course, nobody is correct

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Just the facts.

Bruce

fair enough... of course, i would ask the same consideration of you when you read my religous texts, yes?

this seems to be a fact:



"As you recognize, the authority of the Universal House of Justice is unchallengeable. This is stated in numerous places in the Writings. In the same passage of the Will and Testament quoted above, `Abdu'l-Bahá goes on to say of the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice: "Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself, and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God."

"Furthermore, at the very end of the Will and Testament, in warning against the danger of Covenant-breaking, `Abdu'l-Bahá wrote: "Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá'u'lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn, and open wide the door of false interpretation." In this context, He continues: "To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Centre of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."

http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_c..._authority_uhj


these sorts of teachings are completely at odds with the Buddhist paradigm, whereby the individual being is required to put the teachings into practice, for themselves, to determine if they should uphold them or not.

to wit, the Critera for Rejection:

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' -- then you should abandon them."

the Criteria for Acceptance:

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them."


so.. based on thiese two statements... it would appear, for a Buddhist at least, that we are not allowed to question, dispute, contend for our own understandings without the implict understanding that we are disupting God, all of which is quite out of place in the Buddhist paradigm.

with metta,

~v

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for the post.

what does this mean "full parental consent."

does this mean that one must have ones parents approval to become legally wed in the Baha'i faith?

if so, what if ones parents are no longer manifesting? how does this work in the case of adoptions where the DNA contributors cannot be found?

i confess that i was not aware of this except in a most cursory fashion.

~v

Greetings Vajradhara,

From the Kitab-i-Aqdas (the Baha'i Holy Book of Laws):

It hath been laid down in the Bayan that marriage
is dependent upon the consent of both parties. Desiring
to establish love, unity and harmony amidst Our
servants, We have conditioned it, once the couple's
wish is known, upon the permission of their parents,
lest enmity and rancour should arise amongst them.
And in this We have yet other purposes. Thus hath
Our commandment been ordained.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 42)

Also from that Source:

13. QUESTION: Is the consent of the parents on both sides  111 

prerequisite to marriage, or is that of the parents on one
side sufficient? Is this law applicable only to virgins or to
others as well?

ANSWER: Marriage is conditional upon the consent
of the parents of both parties to the marriage,
and in this respect it maketh no difference whether
the bride be a virgin or otherwise.

and

Bahá'u'lláh has clearly stated the consent of all living
parents is required for a Bahá'í marriage. This applies
whether the parents are Bahá'ís or non-Bahá'ís, divorced
for years or not. This great law He has laid down to
strengthen the social fabric, to knit closer the ties of the
home, to place a certain gratitude and respect in the
hearts of the children for those who have given them life
and sent their souls out on the eternal journey towards
their Creator.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 207)

So, consent is required of all living parents before marriage. I do not know what actually happens in cases of adoption, but perhaps someone else here can answer that.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

I also think rehashing this issue on this forum is not related to the topic of the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism.

- Art

As you wish, Art.

peace,
lunamoth