The Bab

[Postmaster]

As for me saying Buddhism is an atheist religion only some Buddhist sects does this apply to so I guess I was mistaken. But they don't even believe in basic things as the soul or heaven. I guess that's why God would create another monothiest religion to draw his creations to him, so would be wrong to accpet the soul or heaven doesn't exsist.. So monothiest religions will always offend eastern religons know matter what they say.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

As for me saying Buddhism is an atheist religion only some Buddhist sects does this apply to so I guess I was mistaken. But they don't even believe in basic things as the soul or heaven. I guess that's why God would create another monothiest religion to draw his creations to him, so would be wrong to accpet the soul or heaven doesn't exsist.. So monothiest religions will always offend eastern religons know matter what they say.

Nibhana always seemed pretty heavenly to me. How much actual description of heaven is there in Christianity? Not a whole lot, nor in Islam, Baha`i Faith, or anywhere else. I don't believe the next life is understandable to me, so the Prophets don't waste a lot of time on it.

Nibhana is just another attempt to explain the inexplicable.

Regards,
Scott

[imranshaykh]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The Mahd'i is NOT the physical return of the 12th Imam. That's what I was saying.
Regards,
Scott

Indeed, this is a new theory - once again with 1,000's of traditions on the subject of the Mahdi, you seem to have brought up something which is new for me. We read that the Mahdi is the title of the Hidden Imam - the same Imam which the Shiites believe will reappear and at some stage of their lives was the belief of both Bab and Bahaullah as they were Shiites itself. Most people tend to forget that.

In any case, Inshallah, I am going for the Hajj this year. I hope to be back on the forum when I return.

Regards
Imran

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by imranshaykh

Indeed, this is a new theory - once again with 1,000's of traditions on the subject of the Mahdi, you seem to have brought up something which is new for me. We read that the Mahdi is the title of the Hidden Imam - the same Imam which the Shiites believe will reappear and at some stage of their lives was the belief of both Bab and Bahaullah as they were Shiites itself. Most people tend to forget that.

In any case, Inshallah, I am going for the Hajj this year. I hope to be back on the forum when I return.

Regards
Imran

Have a safe and rewarding Pilgrimage, Imran.

Regards,
Scott

[arthra]

Pilgrimage is a good thing and I would offer prayers for Imran to have a safe and meaningful experience...

Unfortunately the Baha'i sites of pilrimage in Shiraz and Bagdad have been pillaged and it is dangerous for us to go there ...but spiritually they are thanks be to God still available.

From the Aqdas:

The Lord hath ordained that those of you who are able shall make pilgrimage to the sacred House # 32

Two sacred Houses are covered by this ordinance, the House of the Báb in Shíráz and the House of Bahá’u’lláh in Baghdád. Bahá’u’lláh has specified that pilgrimage to either of these two Houses fulfils the requirement of this passage (Q and A 25, 29).

In two separate Tablets, known as Súriy-i-Hájj (Q and A 10), Bahá’u’lláh has prescribed specific rites for each of these pilgrimages. In this sense, the performance of a pilgrimage is more than simply visiting these two Houses.

After the passing of Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá designated the Shrine of Bahá’u’lláh at Bahjí as a place of pilgrimage. In a Tablet, He indicates that the “Most Holy Shrine, the Blessed House in Baghdád and the venerated House of the Báb in Shíráz” are “consecrated to pilgrimage”, and that it is “obligatory” to visit these places “if one can afford it and is able to do so, and if no obstacle stands in one’s way”. No rites have been prescribed for pilgrimage to the Most Holy Shrine.

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by imranshaykh

Take Hinduism for example, it is a religion of extreme dualism (forget dualism, then have over a 36 million "gods" or avatars!

None of the teachings of Hinduism and Islam match.

Sorry, but once again you're quite mistaken!

Hinduism is in fact at its base monotheistic, and the apparent polytheism is a later, human development that mistakes aspects of the One God for separate gods.

And the name of the One God in Hinduism, which matches quite nicely with Islam, please note, is Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma).

(I see Scott has also given you a fine, detailed response on this topic.)

buddhism is likewise monotheistic in its original scriptures, which state "There is an Uncreated, Unformed...." Later on Buddhism split into several subgroups, as did Islam immediately (so there's another paralell with Islam): one part of this division is now atheistic while the other remains theistic.

Best, :-)

Bruce

[Postmaster]

And that’s why I pointed out the very significant difference in eastern religions to Abrahamic religions is the afterlife. Which I think no compromise can come to especially after my investigation, they would find it offensive to suggest they have a soul and go to heaven after death just as we would if we were told there is no heaven and we have no soul. Makes you want to believe in divine conflict more then divine unity.

[arthra]

Postmaster:

Sounds like a good topic for the Comparative Studies board...

- Art

[Popeyesays]

Postmaster,

No Ego does not equal no soul. Heck, no Ego doesn't even equal no sense of "I".

The object of escaping the wheel of kharma isn't really to not exist at all, it is simply to become so detached from the earthly that it has no further call upon oneself.

"The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men. The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 156)

"This, truly, is the Peace, this is the Highest, namely the end of all formations, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving: detachment, extinction-Nirvana.
Enraptured with lust, enraged with anger, blinded by delusion, overwhelmed, with mind ensnared, man aims at his own ruin, at others' ruin, at the ruin of both parties, and he experiences mental pain and grief. But, if lust, anger, and delusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor at others' ruin, nor at the ruin of both parties, and he experiences no mental pain and grief. Thus is Nirvana immediate, visible in this life, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to the wise.
The extinction of greed, the extinction of anger, the extinction of delusion: this, indeed, is called Nirvana."
((The Eightfold Path), Buddha, the Word (The Eightfold Path))

Compare these two writings and ask yourself where is this difference you proclaim?

Regards,
Scott

[Postmaster]

showing 2 paragraphs out of 2 different relgious books doesn't show the complete picture of unity, of what would really be 2 conflicting views of after death. All humans are alike in nature, yet when it comes to what we believe its so vast and diverse.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

showing 2 paragraphs out of 2 different relgious books doesn't show the complete picture of unity, of what would really be 2 conflicting views of after death. All humans are alike in nature, yet when it comes to what we believe its so vast and diverse.

"Giving up sensual pleasures,
With no attachment,
The wise man should cleanse himself
Of the impurities of the mind.
Whose minds are well perfected
In the Factors of Enlightenment,
Who without clinging, delight in detachment-
They, the corruption-free, radiant ones,
Have attained Nibbana in the Here-and-Now."
(Dhamapada, 6 "The Wise")

"Now is the moment in which to cleanse thyself with the waters of detachment that have flowed out from the Supreme Pen, and to ponder, wholly for the sake of God, those things which, time and again, have been sent down or manifested, and then to strive, as much as lieth in thee, to quench, through the power of wisdom and the force of thy utterance, the fire of enmity and hatred which smouldereth in the hearts of the peoples of the world."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 12)

If you want more paragraphs, just let me know.

The point is that when you say "They're so different!" you are making an assertion, which doesn't seem to hold.

Regards,
Scott

[Postmaster]

Do the 2 above paragraphs really represent what its like after death for both religions?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Do the 2 above paragraphs really represent what its like after death for both religions?

Neither religion specifies what life is after death, none do. Traditions invented by followers try to tell us what those tradtionalists THOUGHT itmight be, but they have no authority.

The Prophets are mostly mute about the next life. All being mostly mute means they are mostly in concord about the details.

Regards,
Scott

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Neither religion specifies what life is after death, none do. Traditions invented by followers try to tell us what those tradtionalists THOUGHT itmight be, but they have no authority.

The Prophets are mostly mute about the next life. All being mostly mute means they are mostly in concord about the details.

Regards,
Scott

Most religious books were made after a prophets/Messiahs life anyway did they have authority to write sacred writings? The fact that billions of people within one religion accepts paradise and billions within another accepts reincarnation is enough for me. Especially when they do have texts within there religious works to hint and suggest so.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Most religious books were made after a prophets/Messiahs life anyway did they have authority to write sacred writings? The fact that billions of people within one religion accepts paradise and billions within another accepts reincarnation is enough for me. Especially when they do have texts within there religious works to hint and suggest so.

Neither I nor the Prophets are responsible for what the followers wrote after the passing of the Prophet. These are called commentary and tradition. I don't necessarily accept tradition, this is the problem with Buddhist writings, we do not really have the voice of the Prophet at all, we only have tradition.

I believe God protects His word though, so I am willing to accept most of the basic texts of Buddhism, but where traditionalists have created what they would LIKE to have been the words of the Prophet over recording the actual words of the Prophet, there start problems.

That's one of the reasons I am a Baha`i, I know that there is a thread of granted authority running from the Bab to Baha`u'llah, to Abdu'l Baha, to Shoghi Effendi. They do not write 'tradition'.

Regards, Scott