How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

We choose to see Buddhism through Buddha's eyes.

You can't without practice. That's like my saying I see god through Bahaullauh's eyes. It's not enough to believe in your theology.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Truth never dies. It is eternal. I fully agree on that point. But organized religion does decay. So the Buddha's eternal laws like compassion and good live forever I fully agree but Gautama was not the last Buddha and He spoke of Maietrya to come Who would teach His Own religion.

Buddhism isn't an organized religion. The Dhamma doesn't decay because it is the laws of life, rebirth, and enlightenment. Buddhism won't decay.

As long as there is suffering, the Dhamma will always exist.

How do you compare Buddhism to your definition of organized religion?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am always happy to hear you're views. I never consider anything you say as an insult because you're just expressing what you believe to be true and this is a debating forum so I don't take any offense whatsoever with anything you say.

Please always feel most welcome to speak your mind as I'm not one to say 'don't say this or don't say that or 'I'm insulted and such as it stifles the truth from coming out. I try my best to just understand we are all different and so I don't take it personally.

Anytime you've had enough of me just tell me to go and you'll never see or hear from me ever again,

What you said in your other post insulted me. I know you want to hear my views, but you are totally missing my point by not actively reading my views.

I mean, when you posted Bahaullah quotes, I realized you don't address my points, so referred to the scriptures themselves instead. I'd assume those comments would be addressed since they are addressing Bahaullah's words, but even then it just goes in a cycle.

It insults me (well-intention or not) to say you believe in The Buddha Dhamma but then what you say about it does not reflect the Dhamma but Bahai views of peace and god.

I hear so many people misinterpret Catholicism. The Buddha was pretty clear cut. I can give a lot of suttas and sutras that are cut and dry but I honestly don't think you're addressing them.

I addressed the verse you quoted but got no comment from that either.

I mean, ask a Burmese Buddhist if the Dhamma (the practice) will disappear?

The Dhamma describes the nature of life. The Buddha's teachings does not say the nature of life decays. We would not exist if he taught otherwise.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Buddhism isn't an organized religion. The Dhamma doesn't decay because it is the laws of life, rebirth, and enlightenment. Buddhism won't decay.

As long as there is suffering, the Dhamma will always exist.

How do you compare Buddhism to your definition of organized religion?

I don't really. Each religion defines its own organisaion the way it was best at the time it was born.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What you said in your other post insulted me. I know you want to hear my views, but you are totally missing my point by not actively reading my views.

I mean, when you posted Bahaullah quotes, I realized you don't address my points, so referred to the scriptures themselves instead. I'd assume those comments would be addressed since they are addressing Bahaullah's words, but even then it just goes in a cycle.

It insults me (well-intention or not) to say you believe in The Buddha Dhamma but then what you say about it does not reflect the Dhamma but Bahai views of peace and god.

I hear so many people misinterpret Catholicism. The Buddha was pretty clear cut. I can give a lot of suttas and sutras that are cut and dry but I honestly don't think you're addressing them.

I addressed the verse you quoted but got no comment from that either.

I mean, ask a Burmese Buddhist if the Dhamma (the practice) will disappear?

The Dhamma describes the nature of life. The Buddha's teachings does not say the nature of life decays. We would not exist if he taught otherwise.

I always read your posts.

I want to reply but am worried you will take it the wrong way so maybe it's better I don't comment.

I really look forward to our discussions but as I offend both of you then I'm not sure what to do. I do want to continue but how to get through this?

 

[Vinayaka]

I do want to continue but how to get through this?

I'm not offended, I just find it annoying, all this going in circles. You insult our faiths, insult our intelligence, then apologize saying you didn't really mean it, then you insult them again, then you apologise, etc. Insults are on the receiver to interpret whether or not it was an insult.

My suggestion is that you stick to Baha'i' and leave your very different interpretation of our faiths right out of it. Of course that is very hard because insulting and reinterpreting other faiths, it seems, was one of the things Baha'u'llah and his son did best. So you're stuck ... listen to your prophets and insult us, or not. lol. You can't have it both ways. You can't listen to your prophet, and NOT insult us at the same time.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I'm not offended, I just find it annoying, all this going in circles. You insult our faiths, insult our intelligence, then apologize saying you didn't really mean it, then you insult them again, then you apologise, etc. Insults are on the receiver to interpret whether or not was an insult.

My suggestion is that you stick to Baha'i' and leave your very different interpretation of our faiths right out of it. Of course that is very hard because insulting and reinterpreting other faiths, it seems, was one of the things Baha'u'llah and his son did best. So you're stuck ... listen to your prophets and insult us, or not. lol. You can't have it both ways. You can't listen to your prophet, and NOT insult us at the same time.

Read into our words what you will. We do our best to put forward our views respectfully.

 

[Vinayaka]

Read into our words what you will. We do our best to put forward our views respectfully.

If someone says. "Hindu ideas about reincarnation are false. This is the true version of reincarnation."
And they state it like a fact, not an opinion, how exactly are we supposed to interpret it? Are we supposed to think he was being nice?

If a Christian comes up to me and says, "You are going to hell, and that is the truth." Just how am I supposed to interpret it? That he was being polite, presenting me with a nice gift of knowledge?

Almost anyone can see a rude presentation when it's a rude presentation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I always read your posts.

I want to reply but am worried you will take it the wrong way so maybe it's better I don't comment.

I really look forward to our discussions but as I offend both of you then I'm not sure what to do. I do want to continue but how to get through this?

I write long posts. I try to break it up so you can refer to what you read. Your last post was insulting. There were only a couple you posted that were direct insults. In general, because everything you believe has a bahai point of view, without practice of other faiths, it would be hard to understand others.

The suttas I quoted were for discussion. They are black and white. What you posted, the sutta, I commented on. I didnt refute it just saw you are interpreting an analogy through bahai eyes. If you know the core of the Dhamma, you would never say it would decay. You would understand TLC has a lot to do with buddhist (and hindu) teachings.

We can discuss the Dharmma but because you are a book-believer, you think because the written Dhamma will decay there needs to be a new teaching. He Buddha dis not teach there would be a new teaching.

There is no Teaching. No Word. No Sacred Text.

Only practice, culture, language, and tradition. Like Hinduism, the suttas are supliments to practice. They (buddhism) are not needed in order to practice.

You cant change the dhamma. It exists because its life. You can change your life and live the Dhamma

But in doing so has nothing to do with the historical Buddha and written teachings.

It starts with you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If someone says. "Hindu ideas about reincarnation are false. This is the true version of reincarnation."
And they state it like a fact, not an opinion, how exactly are we supposed to interpret it? Are we supposed to think he was being nice?

If a Christian comes up to me and says, "You are going to hell, and that is the truth." Just how am I supposed to interpret it? That he was being polite, presenting me with a nice gift of knowledge?

Almost anyone can see a rude presentation when it's a rude presentation.

Vinayaka - Pride dear friend in Faith. Pride is our downfall.

If we think we know more than God, or indeed prideful that we know God better than any other person, God shows us we are wrong.

Now we can go back to the original Word of God and debate the Meaning of that Word. When we start debating Dogma made of man from that Word, it gets very Messy.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Vinayaka - Pride dear friend in Faith. Pride is our downfall.

If we think we know more than God, or indeed prideful that we know God better than any other person, God shows us we are wrong.

Now we can go back to the original Word of God and debate the Meaning of that Word. When we start debating Dogma made of man from that Word, it gets very Messy.

Regards Tony

Problem is Tony, that that 'Original Word of God' varies from faith to faith, and then there are faiths like mine that don't put nearly as much faith on it. So when discussion happens, we're often talking about two different things. For a Christian, his 'Word' is the Christian Bible and nothing else.

So we're not even on the same train, making conversation different.

Again, very different paradigms.

Again, I'm not really sure who you mean by 'we' in this context. But yes I agree spiritual pride is a killer for all of us. Interfaith harmony can do without that one.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Problem is Tony, that that 'Original Word of God' varies from faith to faith, and then there are faiths like mine that don't put nearly as much faith on it. So when discussion happens, we're often talking about two different things. For a Christian, his 'Word' is the Christian Bible and nothing else.

So we're not even on the same train, making conversation different.

Again, very different paradigms.

Again, I'm not really sure who you mean by 'we' in this context. But yes I agree spiritual pride is a killer for all of us. Interfaith harmony can do without that one.

This is where we look for the Light that is of God. Our Oneness our Unity.

I read the Bible, I read all that is from Hindu and I am looking for te light that binds us, that is of God.

All that makes us exclusive is of our own self.

God bless all and much happiness and Love for you.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

This is where we look for the Light that is of God. Our Oneness our Unity.

Like I said, this varies. We're all different. Many people on this planet don't believe in God. They are my brothers ans sisters. My blood father, my blood brother, a good friend in the Hindu DIR on these forums... atheist. I exclude noone from love. I am truly fine with their atheism, your Baha'i', my Mormon missionary neighbours. This is why I prefer to just say we're different, and leave it at that. Then these ideas of true and false in regards to faith simply don't come up. It's an acceptance, a tolerance, a welcoming, a pleasant joyful experience to be shared. It doesn't have to have God in it, nor a prophet, not a book, nor ritual.

As soon as we start discussion, and putting all this stuff into the intellectual realm of debate, ideas like FALSE, and 'My faith is better than yours, you guys got it all wrong', all this dross, this garbage, this infighting, this insulting, that's when it all comes up. Then we hit the rudeness, the hurt feelings, the withdrawals from pleasant conversation, and most of all the disharmony.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like I said, this varies. We're all different. Many people on this planet don't believe in God. They are my brothers ans sisters. My blood father, my blood brother, a good friend in the Hindu DIR on these forums... atheist. I exclude noone from love. I am truly fine with their atheism, your Baha'i', my Mormon missionary neighbours. This is why I prefer to just say we're different, and leave it at that. Then these ideas of true and false in regards to faith simply don't come up. It's an acceptance, a tolerance, a welcoming, a pleasant joyful experience to be shared. It doesn't have to have God in it, nor a prophet, not a book, nor ritual.

As soon as we start discussion, and putting all this stuff into the intellectual realm of debate, ideas like FALSE, and 'My faith is better than yours, you guys got it all wrong', all this dross, this garbage, this infighting, this insulting, that's when it all comes up. Then we hit the rudeness, the hurt feelings, the withdrawals from pleasant conversation, and most of all the disharmony.

You have just said what we are also sharing Mostly in the first paragraph

In the 2nd section a belief is not conducive to the peace and security of all peoples then it needs to be examined.

Man has to learn that any belief that becomes a guidance for life is open to scruitiny as a security to the whole.

If you surpress and mutilate women, that needs modification.

If you are Predudiced against Class or race, that needs modification.

That is to mention only a couple.

We are one Human Race, we are all in the eyes of God, Equal.

There is no escaping these modifications of previous mindsets.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

There is no escaping these modifications of previous mindsets.

Regards Tony

Indeed, but we also need to user a great deal of wisdom not to overgeneralise into 'all bad' as much of the past has great wisdom. The examples you pointed out are obvious, and most of the stuff that is obvious came from one or two, previous faiths.

The dharmic paradigm and the Abrahamic paradigm are miles apart, from my understanding.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Indeed, but we also need to user a great deal of wisdom not to overgeneralise into 'all bad' as much of the past has great wisdom. The examples you pointed out are obvious, and most of the stuff that is obvious came from one or two, previous faiths.

The dharmic paradigm and the Abrahamic paradigm are miles apart, from my understanding.

Gosh, Vinakaya. Abrahamic traditions are totally on another planet compared to Dharmic traditions. I was reading about hinduism and I kept getting sites frkm abrahamics trying to define the Hindu god and even more so try to find a common connection as if they cant believe there are other definitions of god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Read into our words what you will. We do our best to put forward our views respectfully.

You really cant see the insults? Honestly?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Buddhism isn't an organized religion. The Dhamma doesn't decay because it is the laws of life, rebirth, and enlightenment. Buddhism won't decay.

As long as there is suffering, the Dhamma will always exist.

How do you compare Buddhism to your definition of organized religion?

Then what is your take about the quote from Buddha, that @loverofhumanity had posted? Do you believe it is not a quote from Buddha?

 

[Vinayaka]

Indeed, but we also need to user a great deal of wisdom not to overgeneralise into 'all bad' as much of the past has great wisdom. The examples you pointed out are obvious, and most of the stuff that is obvious came from one or two, previous faiths.

The dharmic paradigm and the Abrahamic paradigm are miles apart, from my understanding.

Monism, dualism, all those isms, and nothing at all about worship, lol. Too busy arguing to think about God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Here is a quote from Baha'u'llah's son from his long essay on reincarnation.

"Such were the limited minds of the former philosophers, like Ptolemy and the others who believed and imagined that the world, life and existence were restricted to this terrestrial globe, and that this boundless space was confined within the nine spheres of heaven, and that all were empty and void. Consider how greatly their thoughts were limited and how weak their minds. Those who believe in reincarnation think that the spiritual worlds are restricted to the worlds of human imagination. Moreover, some of them, like the Druzes and the 288 Nusayris, think that existence is restricted to this physical world. What an ignorant supposition!"

Please notice the wording. "how weak their minds' and then that last wonderful sentence.

Can a Baha'i' here please explain how language like this is going to help with building harmony and bridges? One cannot expect to build bridges by hurling insults. Telling other people that they are ignorant is the height of arrogance, not humility, or love. Sorry guys but there it is, and there's lots more where that came from.