Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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

With further research found a bit more.

"In short, love for the foster parents and unity with their him should not exclude love for a child's natural parents, although it is likely a child will become very much more a part of the home in which he lives and grows up. "Of course, wherever the law of the land or the Agreement of Adoption prohibits future contact between an adopted child and its natural parents, the Bahá'í Law does not require the child to seek the consent of those parents to its marriage. However, children may very well wish to obtain the consent of their foster parents although not obliged to do so."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, December 11, 1973)

1252. Uniform Adoption Law

"We have your letter of 23 July informing us of the Uniform Adoption Law which makes it practice to withhold the names of natural parents from the adoptive parents and the child, and asking for advice as to what is required under the laws of Bahá'í Marriage regarding consent of the natural parents.

"In cases where the Uniform Adoption Law prevents the disclosure of the names of the natural parents, the child is under no obligation to seek their 375 consent to marriage, but in those where it is possible for the child to know his natural parents, consent must be obtained provided there is nothing in the law or in the adoption contract which prevents him from doing so."

(Letter from the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Australia, August 7, 1966: Bahá'í Bulletin of Australia; No. 145, September 1966, p. 2.)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 374)

[Vajradhara]

hey, thanks for that follow up lunamoth

[arthra]

lunamoth wrote:

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.


Reply:

Essentially Baha'i marriage requires the consent of living parents and of course the free voluntary consent of the prospective spouses. The Spiritual Asembly or Baha'i Institution needs to be satisfied that the parents give their free consent... regardless of the age of the prospective spouses... If a parent is incompetent their consent is not required but some evidence of this is needed. If the parent cannot be located and attempts were made to find them have failed their consent would be waived. In a case where one is adopted and doesn't know where their birth parents are, the consent is waived.

The Marriage ceremony is very simple, the bride and groom says in front of witnesses selected by the Assembly that they will abide by the will of God.

Non-Baha'is can also have a Baha'i marriage as long as they meet the requirements and the Assembly does not charge for a service.

Baha'is can marry non-Baha'is, Christians, Buddhists, Moslems and there can be two services...one say Christian or other and one Baha'i however they must be in separate locales...say the Christian one in a church and the Baha'i ceremony outside.

Most Baha'i marriages are simply inexpensive affairs and are not a therefore a burden to the families involved.

- Art

[arthra]

Vajradhara wrote to Bruce:

thank you for the post. 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

My reply:

This refers Vajra to determinations and guidance within Baha'i Institutions and laws, not so much the general faculty of searching or exploring truth.... For this we Baha'is also agree with the excerpts provided:


"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."

We call this principle the "independent of reality or truth":

Bahá'u'lláh emphasizes the fundamental obligation of human beings to acquire knowledge with their "own eyes and not through the eyes of others." One of the main sources of conflict in the world today is the fact that many people blindly and uncritically follow various traditions, movements, and opinions. God has given each human being a mind and the capacity to differentiate truth from falsehood. If individuals fail to use their reasoning capacities and choose instead to accept without question certain opinions and ideas, either out of admiration for or fear of those who hold them, then they are neglecting their basic moral responsibility as human beings. Moreover, when people act in this way, they often become attached to some particular opinion or tradition and thus intolerant of those who do not share it. Such attachments can, in turn, lead to conflict. History has witnessed conflict and even bloodshed over slight alterations in religious practice, or a minor change in the interpretation of doctrine. Personal search for truth enables the individual to know why he or she adheres to a given ideology or doctrine.

Bahá'ís believe that, as there is only one reality, all people will gradually discover its different facets and will ultimately come to common understanding and unity, provided they sincerely seek after truth.

Source:

http://www.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-17.html

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I do not know what actually happens in cases of adoption, but perhaps someone else here can answer that.

peace,
lunamoth

The pace of posts has certainly popped up!

Having recently adopted this has been of some research including a letter from the House of Justice. Basically it comes down to whether the birth parents gave up "all rights" or just the right to raise the child. If the former then they are not required to give permission - note that the right of permission is not transfered to the adoptive parents though as an expression of their relationship the child may well ask. If just the right of raising the child was given up then the birth parents retain the right of permission. The specific details of language and circumstance vary - for example seeking birth parents may be illegal, or very difficult - no open records and such. Or it can take explicit language which will vary from country to country. Due in part to lack of resources, general forms are mentioned while specific cases will be judged then.

You may be interested in reviewing a page about our adoption.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

With further research found a bit more.

If you are interested I can post the letter to me concerning a number of adoption related issues (not just birth parents and permission.)

[arthra]

Originally Posted by smkolins

The pace of posts has certainly popped up!

Having recently adopted this has been of some research including a letter from the House of Justice. Basically it comes down to whether the birth parents gave up "all rights" or just the right to raise the child. If the former then they are not required to give permission - note that the right of permission is not transfered to the adoptive parents though as an expression of their relationship the child may well ask. If just the right of raising the child was given up then the birth parents retain the right of permission. The specific details of language and circumstance vary - for example seeking birth parents may be illegal, or very difficult - no open records and such. Or it can take explicit language which will vary from country to country. Due in part to lack of resources, general forms are mentioned while specific cases will be judged then.

You may be interested in reviewing a page about our adoption.

Thanks for that update for adoptive parents! I know it seems more common these days for the birth parents and their adopted children to have more contact than previously...

-Art

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


thank you for the conversation, though perhaps a bit "spirited" at times.

i feel as if i've said all that is appropriate to be said at this time concerning the commonalities and the differences between the Baha'i faith and Buddha Dharma.

see you out there!

[BruceDLimber]

Hi, Luna!

To my knowledge, the latter situation you describe probably has little if any official standing in the Baha'i Faith. While such arbitrary disentollment may happen, I suspect it's used basically in cases where the individual in question didn't understand what she was doing (thought she was subscribing to a magazine or something), or is mentally incompetent and therefore unable to make such a decision.

I've certainly never heard of something like being done as a "punishment."

(Removal of administrative rights can happen for certain flagrant violations and is as you described.)

Regards,

Bruce

[smkolins]

I wonder, back to the topic, if the fact of denominations schisms in Buddhism counts as a "dharma has disappeared" argument - not as in gone but as in so mixed up with everything else it's hard to see it apart from the mess? More like "dharma has become camaflouged"....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,


thank you for the post.

not all that surprisingly, this is not the Buddhist view

our teachings indicate that there are 84,000 Dharma Doors which beings can use to enter the stream, each one expounded for the particular needs and capacites of that being. as such, from a doctrinal point of view, there is no particular issue within Buddhism regarding the number of schools and so forth which exist.


the Buddhist schism is a difficult thing to really get a grasp on without some grounding in the tradition. essentially, the first schism was due to a disagreement about which rules of the Vinya could be relaxed.

shortly before Shakyamunis ParaNirvana, he explained that when he was no longer manifest, the Sangha could relax and release some of the minor rules that they were using at the time. oddly enough, to me at least, nobody really asked what those specific rules were and thus, after the ParaNirvana of Shakyamuni Buddha, the first council met and the schism ensued.

a good overview of Buddhist history can be found here:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/index.htm

within the context of the Dharma disappearing from this world system, the first Sutra that will disappear is called the Vajracchehika Prajna Paramita Sutra, more commonly called the Diamond Sutra.

a quick Google search reveals over 370,000 hits for the Diamond Sutra. not saying that the internet is some sort of arbiter of truth or anything.. however, it does at least demonstrate that, thus far, the Diamond Sutra has not disappeared.

naturally, as this is a religious teaching of ours, you do not have to accept it to any certain degree. from the Buddhist point of view, however, it seems pretty cut an dried at this moment in time.

metta,

~v

[arthra]

Vajra:

Yes these timelines are great thanks for them!

For Theravadin Buddhism:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...a_timeline.htm

For Chinese Buddhism:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...n_timeline.htm

- Art

[smkolins]

Thanks very much for your comments. As I mentioned before, I like to learn about all the religions and appreciate the chance to talk about something in common, however much it seems we speak of different things.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Buddhist schism is a difficult thing to really get a grasp on without some grounding in the tradition.

I was wondering how "the tradition" could be understood in the face of schism? Wouldn't that mean that each schism has it's own formulation of tradition which may have some similarities with traditions from each schism?

Every religion faces tests of schism, and most have many such breaks. Every instance is a matter of particulars full of the details and matters they hold dear (how could schism arise over things people aren't passionate about?!) and yet all of them together have the very fact of schism in common. No schism was ever established by the religion's Author, however much They make the religion flexible and allude to the multiple paths to truth. If One were to do so would they not create estrangement among their followers? Followers may find reason for estrangement but that comes from what they don't give up.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

within the context of the Dharma disappearing from this world system, the first Sutra that will disappear is called the Vajracchehika Prajna Paramita Sutra, more commonly called the Diamond Sutra.

a quick Google search reveals over 370,000 hits for the Diamond Sutra. not saying that the internet is some sort of arbiter of truth or anything.. however, it does at least demonstrate that, thus far, the Diamond Sutra has not disappeared.

The argument can be put far more strongly with any modest understanding of physics - every particular thing has a gravitational effect on every other thing, however small. So the very first time the Dharma was mentioned, it's was a permenent characteristic of the patterns of existence and can only always be present. Everything upon which light falls returns some light back to the universe - so when the Dharma was first written down, the light it was illumined by was reflected back into the universe, and light being timeless, will carry the very instant of it's first sight upon parchment to the furthest ends of the universe.

This and similar extremes being the case how can the Dharma ever pass?

May I suggest an alternative to the seemingly literal reference? What if the essential understanding of the Dharma, whatever it might be, were to be "lost"? And less than essential understandings might well last a good bit longer - such as a belief that Dharma was perfect well understood and still alive. Is this not rather the way the Buddha first appeared? Was the Dharma lost from previous Buddhas? In the light of the above, how could it literally be lost? Indeed it could not - but the understanding could be absent from the minds and hearts of people - even while some group maintain the divine law is still present (usually those who view themselves as representatives of the religion, who identify themselves with it.)

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

Thanks very much for your comments. As I mentioned before, I like to learn about all the religions and appreciate the chance to talk about something in common, however much it seems we speak of different things.

i, too, enjoy finding the commonalities of religous views for, it is my view, that this understanding facilitates a method of conversation and discussion which is not normally possible in the day to day surrounds that i find myself in.

nevertheless, the differences in views is also of interest for the same reason, for me at any rate.

I was wondering how "the tradition" could be understood in the face of schism? Wouldn't that mean that each schism has it's own formulation of tradition which may have some similarities with traditions from each schism?

well.. not really. as i say, it is a bit hard to get a real handle on, if such a thing can be done to begin with.

to help bring it into more relief... you could view it like this: Buddhism, in all its forms, agree with each other in their religious content whereas they differ from each other in their philosophical and monastic content. i recall reading about the most recent Council where all three Vehicles affirmed their understanding and commitment of the religious teachings and affirmed that the other Vehicles were upholding the religious teachings as well.

the philosophical aspect of Buddhism, which is where many people approach our religion from and, many stay, finds some wide variance in its adoption and adherence and, as such, tends to display more sharp relief between the various philosophical views found in Buddha Dharma.

No schism was ever established by the religion's Author, however much They make the religion flexible and allude to the multiple paths to truth.

by the same token, Jesus wasn't a Christian, and Shakyamuni wasn't a Buddhist

If One were to do so would they not create estrangement among their followers?

from a doctrinal point of view, Buddhism establishes that there are 84,000 different entry ways to Truth, or Dharma Doors, as we call them. these teachings are given for the variety of sentient beings which exist. in the Buddhist view, each being has its own capacities and level of understanding and, thus, a method of entry was taught for that sort of being.

humans, being what they are, are often poor representations of the religious ideals that they profess to hold, as i'm sure you agree.

The argument can be put far more strongly with any modest understanding of physics - every particular thing has a gravitational effect on every other thing, however small.

unless, of course, it is a massless particle, but i digress.

So the very first time the Dharma was mentioned, it's was a permenent characteristic of the patterns of existence and can only always be present.

this view seems to make it an object, some sort of "feature" of existence. that is an incorrect view.

Everything upon which light falls returns some light back to the universe - so when the Dharma was first written down, the light it was illumined by was reflected back into the universe, and light being timeless, will carry the very instant of it's first sight upon parchment to the furthest ends of the universe.

light, as a property of space/time, can only be temporal. as is everything which shares the properties of the universe.

nevertheless, i'm not really following the analogy. if Awakening were something which could be quantified and measured in any sort of scientific manner, this analogy would be useful.. as it is.. i'm not really following it.

This and similar extremes being the case how can the Dharma ever pass?

were one to adopt the view that Dharma is a natural feature of the universe, or mulitverse, as the case may be, it can never disappear. in point of fact, what we mean to say, in a bit of shorthand for the non-Buddhists, is that when the talk turns to the Dharma disappearing, we are meaning it rather specifically. we mean to be saying that the Dharma disappears from this world system, not from reality.

many beings do not have an understanding of a multiverse and so, to accomodate those beings, we speak of only this world system with regards to the arising and disappearance of the Dharma.

May I suggest an alternative to the seemingly literal reference?

of course, why could you not?

What if the essential understanding of the Dharma, whatever it might be, were to be "lost"?

that's all fine and good to speculate on, however, without knowing what that might be, how could one ever hope to come to a decision in this matter?

Buddha Shakyamuni clearly taught that the Buddha Dharma would be lost to this world system roughly 15,000 years after his Turning of the Wheel. the Dharma is, naturally, still present (such that it is) though beings are no longer able to uncover it/understand it, so the teaching goes.

And less than essential understandings might well last a good bit longer

indeed, this is called the Semblance Dharma period and, according to our teachings, is due to occur in roughly 2,500 years.

- such as a belief that Dharma was perfect well understood and still alive.

this is part of it, yes.

Is this not rather the way the Buddha first appeared? Was the Dharma lost from previous Buddhas?

the "first" Buddha? do you mean Buddha Shakyamuni or one of his predecessors?

yes, Buddhas arise in a world system when the Dharma is no longer able to be uncovered by sentient beings in that world system.

In the light of the above, how could it literally be lost?

it, literally, is covered over and appears to be lost. to the sentient beings involved, it is functionally the same. however, as the Buddha Dharma is what it is, it is never really lost or, for that matter, found. it is Suchness.

Indeed it could not - but the understanding could be absent from the minds and hearts of people - even while some group maintain the divine law is still present (usually those who view themselves as representatives of the religion, who identify themselves with it.)

if they view it as a divine law they are not practicing Buddha Dharma for the Buddha was not a divine being, at least in that arising at any rate

metta,

~v

[Yaqinud Din]

Arthra can you not use the word Moslem is it a derogatory slur use Muslim

I'm not mad at you arthra because I'm thinking you did not know it was derogatory I hope that is the case.