Baha'i/Ananda Marga

[Pathless]

I've read a bit about Baha'i here in these forums and it strikes me as remarkably similar to another "new religious movement" that I have had some experience with called Ananda Marga. Like Baha'i, or rather what I know of Baha'i, Ananda Marga considers itself a universalist form of spirituality, yet reveres one man as a divine messenger, elevating him to god-like status.
One of the differences between Ananda Marga and Baha'i, though, is the time of origin. If I remember correctly, Bahull'whatsisname (I will call him B from here on out, because I can't recall his proper name) lived and expounded his teachings in the late 18th century, which put him at least a good 150 years before the advent of P.R. Sarkar or Baba, or Shrii Shrii Anandamurti, as he is variously known. Anandamurti claimed to be the Guru of the entire human race (but don't tell any Margiis that I told you that here!). I'm wondering what Baha'i people would think of such a claim, given the idea of progressive revelation. If I remember correctly from my readings of Baha'i teachings here in these forums, Baha'is believe that B will not be succeeded by a new "prophet" or avatar for at least 1000 years.
Before you dig into the writings of B for the answer, please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the publicly presented social and spiritual philosophies of Ananda Marga and see if you feel that there are similarities between the two traditions.
What do you think? Is it possible that Anandamurtri was another of God's vessels for divine revelation, or should we just write him off?
And yes, I am agitatin'. You'll have to pardon me, but as disciples of a new religious movement you should be prepared (and I realize you probably are--very much so!) to answer questions and/or challenges like this.
And I will be glad to answer questions about Ananda Marga as best I can. Before I close this post, I should clarify that I was involved with A.M. for around three years. I learned many, many helpful things, but in the end became disillusioned with the dogma that the organization subtly propagates in the name of universalism.
The main reason for this post is that I see many similarities between Baha'i and A.M., not in the least is the subtle contradiction that the faith is universal, while at the same time the faithful subscribe to a form of monotheism that leaves little or no scope for other faiths. This is not done by slandering or attacking other faiths as much as it is by quoting and idolizing the founder to the point of disregarding other traditions--kind of like saying, "Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity."
I've said enough. Now I would like for some Baha'is to respond.

 

[iBrian]

This is not done by slandering or attacking other faiths as much as it is by quoting and idolizing the founder to the point of disregarding other traditions--kind of like saying, "Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity."

Isn't this the mainstay of all organised religion??

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

I fear you're mistaken.

Baha'u'llah (pronounced ba-Ha-oo-LA) lived in the Nneteenth Century.

And for the record, Divine Messengers usually appear 500-1,000 years apart, and the Baha'i scriptures explicitly state that the next will not appear for many centuries to come!

Regards,

Bruce

 

[barefootgal9]

Pathless,

Thank you for the links. I was not familiar with Anandamurti and his movement, and it is most interesting. I've read thru the philosophy, teachings & bio pages. It seems to do many admirable services, and assistance to the human race, either in it's spiritual needs, or material neccessities, is good thing. Obviously, I have no idea if the organization might also, in it's practices or teachings, sometimes do harm -- many, if not most, human institutions and religious organizations prove sadly capable of that, too! As you have "been there, done that," you are, I'm sure, well able to judge for yourself what is healthful or not in this organization.

The information on the site is pretty brief, so I can only give you my immediate thoughts on how it might compare/contrast based on what is, of course, only a very cursory overview.

Baha'u'llah taught that the One Creator, in a very real sense, participates in the advancement of human understanding and social development. He/It does so by raising up a very pure soul and endowing that soul with the capacity to perfectly "manifest" all the divine attributes (knowledge, power, justice, etc) and making this "Manifestation of God" the bearer of a revelation which releases a kind of pulse, as it were, of Divine Creative Power which grows and spreads throughout human thought until it succeeds in boosting the generality of human civilization to the next stage of it's spiritual and social development. This "Manifestation" ends an age and inaugerates a "new age." (Shiva/Vishnu?) It takes many generations for a new Divine "dispensation" to pass through its infancy and achieve maturity and fruition ... and ultimately decline as mankind reaches the point where it ready to enter an unforseeable next stage of development. This is why Baha'u'llah has taught that these Great Ones (I know there is a correct term for it in Vedic/Hindu thought -- but, I can't recall it right off -- but it is that station of an incarnation of Krisna) will appear only about every 500-1000 years or more. (And in this age, He has specifically stated it will be in no less than 1000 after His own revelation.)

Within each cycle, there can be any number of "lesser prophets," great spiritual teachers, saints, etc. who derive their insight and knowledge directly or indirectly from the Manifestation of the present or past dispensations. Baha'u'llah distinguishes them from the major Avatars by indicating that their knowledge/power is derivative, whereas, the power of a "Manifestation" is recieved directly from the Godhead, and the "Manifestation" is the vehicle of That Knowledge and Will. The lesser spiritual teachers found sects, schools and philosophies, while the "Manifestations of God" found independent world religions (or, more correctly, advance the one "Ancient Faith" to it's next level).

So my take on Anandamurti is that he was one of these great spiritual teachers, who, from what I can tell from the website, taught and advanced many of the concepts, eternal spiritual truths, and goals which are quite in harmony with the spirit and goals of Baha'u'llah's teachings.

You will find, I expect, if you investigate Baha'u'llah's teachings further, that Baha'i teachings will confirm many of Anandamurti's teachings -- for example, the unity of the human race -- and run along parallel to a degree -- but then diverge from them. You will have to judge for yourself whether these points of divergence are valid.

For example, Anandamurti's "prescriptions" for solving the verious "sentiments" -- which Baha'u'llah would term "attachments" -- appear to focus on the spiritual development of the individual's spirit via spiritual practices. Baha'u'llah's "prescription" would start with "Forget all save Me and Commune with My Spirit" and "The essence of self-realization in self-forgetfulness."

Rather than treating individual spiritual development and the welfare of humanity as separate things. Baha'u'llah, urges His followers to grow "through" service to humanity, which He equates with worship. This shifts the believer away from focusing on his own condition and makes service an integral and neccessary part of the learning experience. It is clear that in His teachings, the human ego/pride and wordly attachments are the impediments which prevent the human soul from growing near to God. Service to humanity and participation in the community aid us to shed these impediments -- in other words, without deeds, a person falls inevitably into a state of self-absorption and progress is impeded or halted. Thus the Baha'i does not seek his own "salvation," but rather, the "salvation of the whole human race."

In practices, Baha'u'llah has given us an amazingly rich and diverse literature of prayers and meditations, including some daily obligatory prayers and a verse to be chanted 95 times daily. Meditation is also prescribed, but it's forms are not dictated, and the believer may choose whatever techniques he finds useful. Baha'is are also urged to enrich their lives and learning by "deepening" -- studying and contemplating the vast range of poetic, expository, mystical and other writings penned by Baha'u'llah, and by his son, interpreter and "Master," 'Abdu'l-Baha; and the texts of all the older world's Faiths. In all, a believer may spend as little as a few minutes, up to an hour or two a day in these "practices" -- but not to "excess" -- and carry one's faith into action in our daily lives of earning our livelihood and involving ourselves in activities which will aid mankind. "Let deeds, not words, be thine adorning."

There doesn't seem to be anything on that site to indicate how the Ananda Marga association is organized and run, but I would expect you would find considerable contrasts, here, as the Baha'i Faith is quite uniquely set up. To try to keep it very brief -- there is no priesthood or individual leaders in the faith -- rather decisions are made through group consultation. There are no "authorities" in the faith on an individual level (there are much admired teachers -- but they have no legislative or decision-making power) -- only the consultative institutions can speak authoritatively. This helps keep the faith free of the destructive effects of individual egos given too much power! Our 9-member consultative groups are all elected (without nominations or campaigning) by a "plurality" vote -- each of us voting for the 9 people we feel are most qualified in our community -- and the 9 receiving the largest number of votes constitute our "Assembly." There is more to it that that, but that is the root foundation of the faith's administrative system. I don't want to overtax you with more info than you need just to get an idea of how we function "clergy-less." The system works remarkably well at preserving the unity of the faith and preventing the corruptions that too often destroy institutions when human vanity, inevitably, gets into the mix!

I don't know if my comments make Baha'i seem more of the "same old" -- or perhaps something different enough to bear further investigation. I hope the latter -- I have been a Baha'i now about 28 years and continue to love it and find it a source of great inspiration, insight and assistance.

If you haven't already discovered it, www.baha'i.org is a great place to look further into the teachings, history, activities etc of the faith, and I would be delighted to try to answer any questions you may come up with!

Blessings & peace!

 

[arthra]

Baha'i Faith and Ananda Marga

Hello pathless...and welcome! I don't think I've encountered you before...I've shortened your post in order to better respond to it...so I hope you don't mnd that...

Pathless wrote:

I've read a bit about Baha'i here in these forums and it strikes me as remarkably similar to another "new religious movement" that I have had some experience with called Anandamurti claimed to be the Guru of the entire human race (but don't tell any Margiis that I told you that here!). I'm wondering what Baha'i people would think of such a claim, given the idea of progressive revelation.

Reply:

The Founder of Baha'i Faith was Mirza Husayn Ali Who lived from 1817 to 1892. His title Baha'u'llah means the "Glory of God" and was this conferred on Him by the Bab, a Forerunner somewhat like John the Baptist Who was the Forerunner to Jesus Christ.

I don't think there is any official Baha'i view expressed about Ananda Marga but I have been active in the field of Yoga and as a consequence am familiar with a number of movements in Hinduism. What i have found is that the Guru is often elevated to a divine like status and so what you have presented
does not surprise me personally that much....Consider for instance the Ramakrishna movement, Sai Baba and that of Ramana Maharshi...and last but not least Sri Aurobindo.

Pathless wrote:

If I remember correctly from my readings of Baha'i teachings here in these forums, Baha'is believe that B will not be succeeded by a new "prophet" or avatar for at least 1000 years.

What do you think? Is it possible that Anandamurtri was another of God's vessels for divine revelation, or should we just write him off?
And yes, I am agitatin'. You'll have to pardon me, but as disciples of a new religious movement you should be prepared (and I realize you probably are--very much so!) to answer questions and/or challenges like this.

Reply:

Well Baha'is regard the age we live in as a very special one in which mankind is entering and it is characterized by material as wellas spiritaul advances... there is a new spirit of the age and many seers and Gurus are aware of this...so this is how we would proabbly regard the Ananda Marga movement as a movement in the spirit of the age we kive in and which hopefully will benefit many... A Manifestation of God in our view though is not probably consistent with the Hindu concept of a Guru or an Avatar... To learn more about the concept I'd invite you to read the article at

http://bahai-library.com/?file=momen_encyclopedia_ages_cycles.html

Pathless wrote:

And I will be glad to answer questions about Ananda Marga as best I can. Before I close this post, I should clarify that I was involved with A.M. for around three years. I learned many, many helpful things, but in the end became disillusioned with the dogma that the organization subtly propagates in the name of universalism.

Reply:

I'm glad that you feel you learned many helpful things and it would appear your search is continuing!

Pathless wrote:

The main reason for this post is that I see many similarities between Baha'i and A.M., not in the least is the subtle contradiction that the faith is universal, while at the same time the faithful subscribe to a form of monotheism that leaves little or no scope for other faiths.

Reply:

Baha'is do believe in One God and we feel that all the major religions have a divine source so we would probably feel there is no contradiction with universalism.

Pathless wrote:

This is not done by slandering or attacking other faiths as much as it is by quoting and idolizing the founder to the point of disregarding other traditions--kind of like saying, "Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity." I've said enough. Now I would like for some Baha'is to respond.

Reply:

Baha'is are opposed to slandering other religions. You will not find a Baha'i pamphlet against any religion... As far as "idolizing" the Founder of our Faith... Perhaps it would be good for you to acquaint yourself with us more and see if we are indeed idolizing Him.

- Art

 

[Vapour]

Hi!

I fear you're mistaken.

Baha'u'llah (pronounced ba-Ha-oo-LA) lived in the Nneteenth Century.

And for the record, Divine Messengers usually appear 500-1,000 years apart, and the Baha'i scriptures explicitly state that the next will not appear for many centuries to come!

Regards,

Bruce

Surely, such explicit statement can be interpretated symbolically as Baha'i faith appear to do so in case of Maitreya Buddha.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=825

It's a bit of off topic but how do Baha'i get around the problem of the prophet Mohammed being the last messenger.

 

[Handmaiden07]

Surely, such explicit statement can be interpretated symbolically as Baha'i faith appear to do so in case of Maitreya Buddha.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=825

It's a bit of off topic but how do Baha'i get around the problem of the prophet Mohammed being the last messenger.

I will have to go looking for Authoritative text.. (unless someone beats me to it). But, from my own understanding - Muhammad was the seal of the Adamic Cycle, and Baha'u'llah ushers in the Days of Baha, of which we are at the very Dawn.

Others can do better with that than me...

HM07

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Vapour!

BL>For the record, Divine Messengers usually appear 500-1,000 years apart, and the Baha'i scriptures explicitly state that the next will not appear for many centuries to come!

V>Surely, such explicit statement can be interpretated symbolically.

Judge for yourself!:

[from the Baha'i scriptures]:
#37
"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise."

(_The Book of Laws_, page 32)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

(Don't worry Vapour, as soon as you say "English is not MY strong point," you'll be in good shape!)

V>It's a bit of off topic, ...

No problem whatever!

V>... but how do Baha'i get around the problem of the prophet Mohammed being the last messenger?

Very simple: there's nothing to "get around" because it's not a problem!

Muhammad does indeed assert in the Qur'an that He is the Seal of the Prophets!

But this is in fact a matter of translation.

You see, there are two different words in Arabic that translate to English as "prophet."

One is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Micah.

The other is "Ras'ul," which means a major Divine Messenger such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (Founder of the Baha'i Faith).

And the word used in the Qur'an is nabi, meaning that Muhammad is the Seal of the minor prophets!

So there is no Qur'anic statement that there will be no further major Messengers, and indeed, there are other passages in the Qur'an that appear to endorse the appearance of later Revelations (and the Messengers Who bring them).

In addition to this, there is a passage in the Baha'i scriptures where Baha'u'llah, in explaining the unity of station of all the Divine Messengers, says:

"[T]hey are all but Messengers of that ideal King [God], that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim: 'I am the Seal of the Prophets,' they verily utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the 'Beginning' and the 'End,' the 'First' and the 'Last,' the 'Seen' and 'Hidden' - all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences."

(The Book of Certitude, page 179)
[end quote]

(BTW, as to Buddha, no fancy "interpretation" is necessary because in the Buddhist scriptures, He definitely indicates the existence of a Supreme Being.)

Best!

Bruce

 

[Vapour]

I have invited a friemd of mine (muslim) to this forum. See how he respond (that is if he decide to respond).

 

[Vapour]

Greetings, Vapour!

[from the Baha'i scriptures]:
#37
"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise."

(_The Book of Laws_, page 32)

Peace,

Bruce

Oh, then someone can genuinely claims the relvelation from God *indirectly* through Archagnel like Gabriel. Don't you hate people who keep reinterpretating text to suit their own view.

 

[arthra]

Welcome Vapour!

Oh, then someone can genuinely claims the relvelation from God *indirectly* through Archagnel like Gabriel.

The archangel Gabriel would be taken by us Baha'is to be a more allegorical or spiritual symbol of the Holy Spirit... Baha'is don't have a defined view of the of angels and so on...as in say some Christian views of the various grades of angels.

What we would ask people to do is to investigate for themselves the Baha'i Writings and the life of Baha'u'llah so they can see for themselves how genuine an article it is.

- Art

 

[Pathless]

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. I must say that the Baha'i response was not surprising.

First off, we have BarefootGal9's respose, which included the following:

Within each cycle, there can be any number of "lesser prophets," great spiritual teachers, saints, etc. who derive their insight and knowledge directly or indirectly from the Manifestation of the present or past dispensations. Baha'u'llah distinguishes them from the major Avatars by indicating that their knowledge/power is derivative, whereas, the power of a "Manifestation" is recieved directly from the Godhead, and the "Manifestation" is the vehicle of That Knowledge and Will. The lesser spiritual teachers found sects, schools and philosophies, while the "Manifestations of God" found independent world religions (or, more correctly, advance the one "Ancient Faith" to it's next level).

So my take on Anandamurti is that he was one of these great spiritual teachers, who, from what I can tell from the website, taught and advanced many of the concepts, eternal spiritual truths, and goals which are quite in harmony with the spirit and goals of Baha'u'llah's teachings.

I want to be clear that my intention in this thread is not to champion Anandamurti or Ananda Marga; my intention instead is to challenge those of the Baha'i faith to step outside the walls of the dogmas that their faith has built around them, and I do this because, in my experience, those walls, although comfortable, are also stifling.

BarefootGal9's assessment of Anandamurti in relation to Baha'u'llah is clearly hierarchical. She respects Anandamurti as a "great spiritual teacher," but clearly places him underneath Baha'u'llah. Again, I don't point this out because I feel slighted that she tucked my former Guru under the foot of her spiritual master, but instead to illustrate that, while Baha'is claim universalism, there is a clear hierarchy, just like any good ol' fashioned religion. It's the same "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me," perversion that we see in dogmatic Christianity. This, in my view, is not the message of Christ or any other truly spiritual teacher. I think the statement, "The kingdom of heaven is within you," much more clearly points the way.

Anyhow, that's a bit of a digression, and I know that Bahais will be quick to nod and agree with the idea, "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

Moving on, Arthra wrote:

Baha'is do believe in One God and we feel that all the major religions have a divine source so we would probably feel there is no contradiction with universalism.

Here, I will restate what I said above in a different way. It's simple to say that "all the major religions have a divine source," but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are being universal. I suppose this is a bit of hazy territory that is defined by personal perspectives and values, but in the way I see it, to be truly universal, one would have to confer as much respect to a practicing Christian, a practicing Buddhist, a practicing Muslim, a practicing Jain, Hindu, Taoist, Ceremonial Magician, etc. as one does to one's own path. This takes a large amount of humility and also the willingness to avoid proselytizing, two qualities that Bahais seem to be lacking to a degree.

Why do I say Bahais lack humility? Not in the least because they take the words of Baha'u'llah as the be all and end all, although the Baha'i in this forum are slick about playing that down. It seems obvious, however; Bahai are quick to quote Baha'u'llah's pearls of wisdom, complete with citations from his books--a practice, by the way, that I have seen paralleled only by Ananda Margiis. In this thread, we have BruceDLimber quoting Baha'u'llah's own amazingly egotistical estimation of himself:

"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise."

This is truly astounding. First, Baha'u'llah is implying that he has a revelation direct from God. That, in itself, is fine. Personally, I think all of us have the capacity to experience and radiate to others a revelation direct from God. What is so astounding, so amazingly arrogant, about this passage, is that anyone who lays claim to a revelation direct from God after Baha'u'llah, for a full thousand years, is a lying impostor! And then he goes on to make threats! And after the threats comes the command to "follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise," whom I suppose we are meant to understand is Baha'u'llah, or at least that Baha'u'llah is his one true spokesman for the next millineum.

Baha'u'llah's egotism is clear to me. I expect it will be clear to others who read this, but for the Baha'is Baha'u'llah can have no ego because he is not so much a man as God. Or, if he does have an ego, he is certainly entitled to it; being God, his ego exists solely to instruct us lesser mortals. Did I get this right, or is that just me looking back at Anandamurti through the lens that I used to see him through and remembering how I put him on the same pedestal that these Baha'is seem to place Baha'u'llah?

But, the question remains, why do I claim that Bahais lack humility just because Baha'u'llah does? Well, as I said earlier, I did learn quite a few useful things from my time in Ananda Marga. Some of these things I already knew in my gut, but Ananda Marga uses a lot of slogans, and sometimes those slogans are clear expressions of common sense, like the following, "A person becomes like their object of ideation." This is a paraphrase, by the way. But, the point I am trying to make is that Baha'is, revering an egomaniac who felt that he was the True Divine Revelation, will invariably become just as narrow-minded. They will lack the humility to let Christians be Christians, Buddhists be Buddhists, Muslims be Muslims, and so forth. They will always, ever-so-subtly, be trying to make converts, proselytizng. For example, BarefootGal9 said:

If you haven't already discovered it, www.baha'i.org is a great place to look further into the teachings, history, activities etc of the faith, and I would be delighted to try to answer any questions you may come up with!

BruceDLimber wrote something that baffled me, and I've emphasised the part that confused me here:

Muhammad does indeed assert in the Qur'an that He is the Seal of the Prophets!

But this is in fact a matter of translation.

You see, there are two different words in Arabic that translate to English as "prophet."

One is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Micah.

The other is "Ras'ul," which means a major Divine Messenger such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (Founder of the Baha'i Faith).

And the word used in the Qur'an is nabi, meaning that Muhammad is the Seal of the minor prophets!

On the one hand, Bruce, you are asserting that Muhammad is indeed "Ras'ul," a major Divine Messenger like Jesus and Baha'u'llah, but in the next line you contradict that by saying that the correct translation is "nabi," and that Muhammad is the seal of only the minor prophets. Besides from being confusing,this also is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say that Baha'i lack humility in respect to other faiths. It sounds as if we are to believe that Baha'u'llah outshines Muhammad in his importance.

I realize that someone could make the argument that I am not being humble towards that Baha'i faith and so I must be a hypocrite. I will just point out that I am not making any claims that any one person is more divine than another, and my strong feelings about that are what drive me to make these arguments against what I see as just another dogmatic religion--one that is especially irksome because it makes such subtle maneuvers to conceal its agenda of conversion.

 

[arthra]

Response to Pathless:

Well hello again my good friend Pathless!

Allow me to humbly respond to some of your points...

Pathless wrote:

Thanks, everyone, for the replies. I must say that the Baha'i response was not surprising.

My response:

Yes Pathless three Baha'is responded to your request.... and I do note you are now spelling the name of Baha'u'llah correctly, Good for you!

Pathless wrote:

"But, the point I am trying to make is that Baha'is, revering an egomaniac who felt that he was the True Divine Revelation, will invariably become just as narrow-minded. They will lack the humility to let Christians be Christians, Buddhists be Buddhists, Muslims be Muslims, and so forth. They will always, ever-so-subtly, be trying to make converts, proselytizng.

My reply:

Well Pathless... I appreciate your honesty in sharing your feelings about Baha'u'llah perhaps along with learning more about Him and now spelling His name correctly you'll come to appreciate Him more and see that he was not simply an "egomaniac" and that we Baha'is are not so "narrow-minded" as you suggest.

There's actually a Baha'i law against proselytizing and we are quite content to let Buddhists be Buddhists, Moslems be Moslems and Christians be Christians... unfortunately, in some parts of the world they are not content to allow Baha'is to be Baha'is. Humility is a virtue in our religion and we are advised not to be contentious with others...

Pathless wrote:

BruceDLimber wrote something that baffled me, and I've emphasised the part that confused me here:

Quote:
Muhammad does indeed assert in the Qur'an that He is the Seal of the Prophets! But this is in fact a matter of translation.

You see, there are two different words in Arabic that translate to English as "prophet." One is "nabi," which refers to a minor prophet such as Jeremiah or Micah. The other is "Ras'ul," which means a major Divine Messenger such as Jesus, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah (Founder of the Baha'i Faith).
And the word used in the Qur'an is nabi, meaning that Muhammad is the Seal of the minor prophets!

On the one hand, Bruce, you are asserting that Muhammad is indeed "Ras'ul," a major Divine Messenger like Jesus and Baha'u'llah, but in the next line you contradict that by saying that the correct translation is "nabi," and that Muhammad is the seal of only the minor prophets. Besides from being confusing,this also is the kind of thing I am talking about when I say that Baha'i lack humility in respect to other faiths. It sounds as if we are to believe that Baha'u'llah outshines Muhammad in his importance.

My response:

What Bruce has stated to you is our view... It does not lower the station of Prophet Muhamamd to a lesser role of "Nabi"... Muhammad in our view was the Seal of the Prophets the "Last Manifestation" of the Prophetic Cycle before the Advent of the Day of God. The verse in question is found in Holy Qur'an Surih 33:40 and the term Seal of the prophets is from the Arabic "Khaataman Nabiyyin" in that verse.... Now our Baha'i belief is that this refers to lesser prophets who are defined in Arabic as "Nabiyyin" ...those who are inspired but do not bring a Book or a new Revelation froim God as do the "Rasuul".

Pathless wrote:

I realize that someone could make the argument that I am not being humble towards that Baha'i faith and so I must be a hypocrite. I will just point out that I am not making any claims that any one person is more divine than another, and my strong feelings about that are what drive me to make these arguments against what I see as just another dogmatic religion--one that is especially irksome because it makes such subtle maneuvers to conceal its agenda of conversion.

My reply:

Well my dear Pathless... You are entitled to your view. No one is calling you a "hypocrite" here. Yes we Baha'is do believe a Manifestation of God reflects divinity better than we do... so yes, in our religion there are some "people" you might say are "more divine than another". We identify them as the Founders of the world's great religions.

As earlier you are entitled to believe that we are "just another dogmatic religion--one that is especially irksome because it makes such subtle maneuvers to conceal its agenda of conversion."

I trust though that we will try ever so hard to be less "irksome".

But in all of this, should you have further questions about our Faith do feel free to ask.

In friendship to you my dear "Pathless"

- Art

 

[iBrian]

while Baha'is claim universalism, there is a clear hierarchy, just like any good ol' fashioned religion.

Certainly Baha'i follows a lot of the patterns of other religions - though some of the Baha'i members perhaps cannot see that as yet.

However, if this is a general principle in organised religion, then is there really a specific criticism against the Baha'i continuation of this principle - when it has it's different levels of expression in other branches of religious thought?

 

[arthra]

Hello Brian!

Certainly Baha'i follows a lot of the patterns of other religions - though some of the Baha'i members perhaps cannot see that as yet.

However, if this is a general principle in organised religion, then is there really a specific criticism against the Baha'i continuation of this principle - when it has it's different levels of expression in other branches of religious thought?

There's a Baha'i view of religions that they are compared to trees... So a young tree spreadng it's branches begins to have influence in the world and on human civilizations.... In time the vitality begins to fade and the tree can ossify or become brittle ...Later strong winds can blow and the tree may split or parts will actually die...

So religions pass thorugh stages of youth... and later become aged and so on...

I think there could be some prejudice today against "organized religion" of any kind but our view is that dogmatism and prejudice along with parochial thinking have set people against each other... The Baha'is offer a way to resolve differences and build foundations for a united planet. There are few groups I am aware of that have such diversity in their make up and who are as accepting as the Baha'is...

That Baha'u'llah proclaimed there would be no Manifestation until the cycle of His Dispensation is completed "in no less than a thousand years" may seem incredibly "egotistic" to someone who is unfamilar with our Faith and probably isn't aware of how we view the Divine sense in which the statement is made. It is to me though simply a divine perspective that Baha'u'llah has revealed in His Most Great Book the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

When Prophet Muhammad revealed in Holy Qur'an that He was the "Seal of the Prophets" don't you suppose He was misunderstood or maligned for this?

There is also the historical context in which Baha'u'llah revealed this "thousand year" statement. Prior to His Proclamation in 1863 the followers of the Bab were divided into various camps of claimants to being a successor of the Bab or claiming divine revelation for themselves. When Baha'u'llah revealed the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the early 1870's He is basically saying "enough" of this. The leadership of Baha'u'llah did eventually unite the remnants of the Bab's followers and prevailed among the vast majority as fulfilling the Bab's prophecy of "Him Whom God would Make Manifest".

So I think there are ways to better understand this where it is not simply an issue of an "egomaniac" leading some intolerant people around as it's been suggested.

- Art

 

[Vapour]

Pathless seems to be unimpressed with Baha'i's teaching because it appear to be an another dogmatic faith (thought it teach tolorence in a dogmatic way. )

So

Baha'i good because it teach tolorence (and all other goodies).
Baha'i bad because it doesn't encourage free thought.

But if you follow your own free though without faith in devine, at best, you might just ended up as an (agnostic) humanist. Baha'i is a religious faith. Hey Pathless, arem't you complaining apple for not tasting like peach?

 

[BruceDLimber]

V>Don't you hate people who keep reinterpretating text to suit their own view?

No, Vapour: Baha'is hate NO ONE!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[barefootgal9]

"BarefootGal9's assessment of Anandamurti in relation to Baha'u'llah is clearly hierarchical. "

Shrug. What can I say? Here in upstate NY, I can very ocassionally see the Northern Lights -- a faint, foggy shimmer on the horizon. If this was my total experience of the Aurora, I would spend my entire life thinking they were no big deal. However, I have also had the experience of seeing them from Northern Manitoba, when they filled the entire sky and the whole atmosphere was afire with vivid undulating curtains of color that seemed to make all my senses zing! i.e. There's a difference.

What the human being can ascertain of Truth whether by reason or by "revelation" or inspiration is always self-limited. It depends on the knowledge thus far acquired, the influences of the fad idea of the day, the walls we've put up when we were hurt.... Our understanding is "conditional" -- the understanding of any human being is conditional. It is often truth -- but the view is always and necessarily limited. By comparison with Reality, it is a glimmer of fog.

Your path thus far has convinced that there is no qualitative difference between the knowledge of God any person can reach, and the innate knowledge possessed by an Individual so rare that virtually all religions apply some superlative term, like "the appearance of God Himself," the "Return," an "Incarnation."

I once believed the same. I can tell you otherwise, but nothing I can say can prove there really is a Difference. Only your own direct experience can do this. I can only wish you would "travel" a bit, so that you would know of your own knowledge that Old Faithful's spouting is heirarchically different from the entirely Different Order of an eruption of Mt St Helens.

And the "Revelation" of Baha'u'llah is likewise qualitatively different to the "revelations" attainable by we ordinary mortals. It's spanse, it's depths, it's perfection of logic and understanding convinced me, a scoffing atheist, that there is, in fact, such a thing as God -- because no human knowledge could possibly reach this level.

--

When someone asks "What does Baha'i teach ..." we Baha'is quote Baha'u'llah in preference to making something up from our own limited perspective. Because anything we might say would be just a glimmering fog on the horizon, but we're really trying to give you a chance to glimpse the Aurora Borealis.

Um. No. I don't think this is being "dogmatic." Just trying to be accurate.

As to your other complaints, yes. If this faith is, as Baha'u'llah puts it, part of the One, ever-unfolding "Ancient Faith of God," then yes, of course, it reiterates the same spiritual truths. That's part of it's job. Truth is One. What can be more universal than the One?

The other part of this Revelation's job is to enable us to reach further than we've been able to go in the past, to help the whole of mankind free itself of the fettering dogmas that ineveitably clutter the picture over time, and attain a qualitatively greater level of spiritual and social development -- a new "Age" -- in this stage, a global civilization, across-the-board human rights, world peace. (That's rather universal, too.) Moses did this, Aaron could not -- Jesus did this, Peter could not -- Krisna did this, Arjuna could not -- Muhammad did this, Ali could not. Is the Baha'i Faith capable of doing this? (Has civilization been heading this way over the past 160 years?) If so, it is qualitatively, heirarchically, a Different Order of "organization." God has something to do with it.

You remind me of my father, a life-long, adamant, card-carrying atheist and "Free Thought" proponent, who said to me: "The problem with you religionists is that you believe in a God!"

I can't prove there is a God (that's bigger than my own navel), I can't prove there is such a thing as a Manifestation of God (who is greater than the guru on the street corner), I can't prove there is "Truth" (that is larger than my mind can contain.) I also can't prove there is such a thing as "love" -- like things superlative and divine, it's only real proof is the experience of it. I can only urge "keep traveling."

--

Yes, dogma is confining. (Baha'u'llah exhorts us to shun it -- likewise superstition.) Spiritual truth, however, is a sound bedrock of principles, which, like an artist's armature, enables you to build forever. Such an armature is rather difficult to "step outside of." Might as well try to understand the workings of the universe without principles of math and physics.

(Actually, this is a useful "truth test" -- does a belief system confine and limit? Or does it enlighten and empower? A good little test to pack in your travel bag! "Ye shall know them by their fruits" -- one of those ancient principles it would be very limiting to "step outside of.")

Sorry, I can't seem to give you just a brief response! And there are a lot of thoughts in your post I haven't touched on ... Baha'u'llah could probably have answered everything in one paragraph -- but I've no doubt exceeded anyone's attention span.

Follow the "Pathless Path" and we'll all meet at the Summit!

Best,

barefootgal

 

[Vapour]

V>Don't you hate people who keep reinterpretating text to suit their own view?

No, Vapour: Baha'is hate NO ONE!

Peace,

Bruce

Wow, talking about hardcore.