• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How are these Great Beings explained?

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I was just wondering with regards to reincarnation. How does it work according to your belief - do you always return as a Hindu or might you return as a Muslim or Christian or even a Baha’i??
The Hindu view is that with souls, there is no religion. (no gender either) Those labels only apply to the ego/personality of any one lifetime. So it depends on karma, and the soul's evolution. (age) Reincarnation patterns used to be more 'within the family' but now with global thinking, less so. Older souls will be born into the religions that offer the opportunity for moksha.
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
OK. All the religions can't be right as they contradict each other. Are you saying the Jews and Christians are right and everyone else is wrong?
This is like saying people aren't allowed to have a favorite colour. In belief, there is no right or wrong. It's the Abrahamic false conditioning shining through again. (sigh) It's sad because it's such an important factor in intolerance and bigotry.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
:(
"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move" (Udana 8:3).

This talks about emptiness not god and Brahma. It talks about there is nothing to attached to. Changing and not changing. It's a common sense (well to me) statement that says everything is in constant flux. That fact isn't god related just the laws of life. Also, I learned something about dependent origination. Everything exists because they depend on each other. One doesn't need god to know this?

Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika school of Buddhism, argues from this passage that without the acceptance of an Ultimate Reality (Paramartha) there can be no deliverance (nirvana) (Madhyamika Karikas, cited in Murti 235).

Ultimate Reality is not god. It's a state of being of the mind. Without that, there is no rebirth. So, yes, I agree with him. Bahai and Buddhist definition of Ultimate Reality are different. I wouldn't use ultimate to describe it since deliverance (another abrahamic word) is neither ultimate or not ultimate. Free or not Free. It's a state of mind and being not a goal or destination. Soto Zen says you are enlightened when you sit

"Know, Vasettha, that (from time to time) a Tathagata is born into the world, a fully Enlightened One, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe--the world below with all its spirits, and the worlds above, of Mara and of Brahma--and all creatures, Samanas and Brahmins, gods and men, and he makes this knowledge known to others. The truth doth he proclaim both in its letter and in its spirit, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth he make known, in all its purity and in all its perfectness" (DN 13:1:44; tr. Davids, Suttas 186-7).

Doth??? Can you give me a sutta link to that because it sounds like its from Bahaullah.

What you're reading is how The disciples see him. It's third-person rather than first. I'd have to read it because that doth threw me off.

This was Buddha's response when asked about the way to attain a state of union with Brahma.

So the Manifestations of God could be like Tathagatas that are the intermediaries between the highest reality and this world. They are thoroughly familiar with the highest reality and can show us the path to that world.

That's the first mistake. Huge one. He doesn't find union with Brahma. If anything, he finds union in Brahman. He uses Hindu words because that was his native religion. When he found Brahma is not the way to Enlightenment and that understanding of life and death is, Brahma no longer fit the equation. Vinakaya would have to tell you more about Brahman. The Buddha talks about Brahman but like ultimate reality, I think ya'll getting the definitions off.

OOhh my gosh, no. No. No. No. Only

Tathāgata:
Literally, "one who has truly gone (tatha-gata)" or "one who has become authentic "(tatha-agata)," an epithet used in ancient India for a person who has attained the highest spiritual goal. In Buddhism, it usually denotes the Buddha, although occasionally it also denotes any of his arahant disciples.

Tathagata refers specifically to The Buddha and those in Buddhism who achieve enlightenment. It's an honorific title.

I wouldn't call Bahaullah the Tathagata because he did not end rebirth especially saying he is from god who is eternal and The Buddha taught we die.

What are your thoughts about Buddha's words? What are some of His words that would suggest contradictory meanings or support my belief?

Two things: Two different definitions of the same word and using ideas you learn from your wife to apply it to all of Buddhism.

It reminds me of what @Vinayaka was talking about. Some Hindu sects (forgot the name) are more universalist than others. Some are more open to belief in gods others, probably a few, gods aren't a high point in the belief.

Nichiren Buddhism doesn't give reverence to The buddha at all. All other temples I went to do.

I disagree heavily that The Buddha believes in god. Only because that's the reason he left hindu to begin with. He didn't agree with their teachings. Brahma and Brahman is two of many in the center of them.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why is it acceptable that the NT(Christianity) refers to the OT (Judaism) and not acceptable that the Baha'i writings refer to the another religion? How about Buddha's references to Hinduism? Are they OK?

LOL I never agreed with either. I participated in a thread that, for the millionth time, talked about why the Jews don't believe in Jesus. It was interesting.

Christians believe there are hints from OT to NT. Which kinda makes sense from Jesus' genealogy. Outside of that, I don't see the relationship. Glory to God is a title not a person. What stopped me in my tracks about Bahai teaching is Moses talking to Bahaullah behind the bush.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hi Carlita. Actually I’ve posted this before and it’s a proven fact not anything hidden that up until 1858 Bible translations commonly used the word Baha’u’llah in prophecies from Revelation to Isaiah. If you know someone who can read Arabic they can confirm that Baha’u’llah was actually mentioned in the Bible mainly in prophetic passages.

http://bahaistudies.net/kf/bibles.html

This web page contains facsimiles of the Bibles of 1833 and 1858 clearly showing BAHÁ'U'LLÁH IN REVELATION 21:23.

Come on now, really. Revelation speaks of Christ. There is only one Lamb in christian belief.

I'm only going by the bible because I read that in full. I can't translate Bahai teachings to validate biblical words. I use biblical words to validate Bahai teachings.

It's early morning so I'll read it more. Seems short but have to think of it more.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
You know what it says... 1000 years and Satan is released Rev. 20:2... and then thrown into the Lake of Fire. But is this 1000 years first turned into days and then back into "prophetic" years?

And "It has never worked that way"? So prophecy isn't accurate then? If it says the return will bring peace, it means eventually? After a bunch of catastrophes and wars? Even after the wars and rumors of wars that preceded the return of Christ?
I think if we are looking at the Prophecies of Bible, or Holy Scriptures in general, we should remember always one thing:

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.
For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter

To me this means that, interpretations of the Prophecies are not supposed to be done based of our own imagination. But God must reveal its interpretation to a Prophet, and then the Prophet tells us its interpretation. Remember the story of Joseph, and that He was the only one Who could interpret dreams?
What are your thoughts on this?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
This is like saying people aren't allowed to have a favorite colour. In belief, there is no right or wrong. It's the Abrahamic false conditioning shining through again. (sigh) It's sad because it's such an important factor in intolerance and bigotry.
I think there are two different things that you are talking here.
One is the human rights to believe. Each individual has the right to choose the belief or religion he/she wants.
However this does not mean that any belief is necessarily true, specially if the beliefs are contradictory.
For example, the Jews do not believe Jesus was their Messiah, but Jesus said He was the Messiah of the Jews. We cannot say both Jews or Jesus were right. Either Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, or not. Some people believe there is only one God, some believe there is no god, and some may believe there are many Gods. We cannot say all are true at the same time, how can we? The only thing we can say, is everyone has the right to believe what make sense to them. Right? Is this what you mean? I remember once you said you are a mathematics teacher. There is a concept of Logic in math which I am sure you are familiar with. If A = True and A≠B then B = False.
If A≠B, then if A=True →B= False
For example if 'Jesus is Messiah' is true then everyone who thinks 'Jesus is not the Messiah', is False. Or vice versa.

To me to say All are right, is just a politically correct statement, rather than, a frank and straight and true statement.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
To me this means that, interpretations of the Prophecies are not supposed to be done based of our own imagination. But God must reveal its interpretation to a Prophet, and then the Prophet tells us its interpretation. Remember the story of Joseph, and that He was the only one Who could interpret dreams?

Hmmm. Sorry, for intruding. That reads as any believer who has the holy spirit has permission to interpret the words of god. Those who do not believe in the holy spirit cannot interpret scripture. So, a JW cannot interpret scripture according to Peter because they don't believe in the holy spirit of the trinity. Man being the interpretation of the flesh or sin (someone without the holy spirit) whereas christians who believe they have the holy spirit can interpret it just as a prophet.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
To me to say All are right, is just a politically correct statement, rather than, a frank and straight and true statement.

Nobody here is saying all are right, as far as I know. I'm certainly not. What I am saying is that it is belief. Perhaps every single one of our beliefs is wrong. Perhaps not. To me, there is a huge difference between saying, "I know ..." versus "I believe'. With belief (and this is how the dharmic faiths in general see it) you've thought it through, and it's what makes the most sense to you. So you might be about 95% sure you know what you're talking about. With 'I know' (how Abrahamic faiths put it) there is this absolute for certain 100% dogmatic rigid totality cut and dry 'I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!" way of thinking. So, in Abrahamism, you get argument, attempts to prove, fights, intolerance, bigotry, and all that, which all boils down to the idea that there MUST be one absolute truth.

Now, on this thread, I really don't expect much,. because as the water runs, you are right and I am wrong.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I have a Tablet of Bahá'u'lláh in Persian in front of me wherein Bahá'u'lláh quotes the New Testament Passage in Arabic. [included as .jpg attachment] And indeed in the Arabic the Glory of God that lights the City is translated as Bahá'u'lláh azaa'a feeha, i.e., literally in the Arabic of the New Testament as quoted by the Supreme Manifestation the appellation of Doxa tou Theou is Bahá'u'lláh,​

It seems like the New Testament was translated from Greek to Arabic. Two issues

1. No language can translate 100% in language and culture

2. Edit "Glory to God" is a descriptive-name. Abram, Yeshua, and The Bab were given a descriptive name describing their character or what they did to earn the titles Abraham, The Christ, and Bahaullah. All three are the glory to god. Christ is the only Lamb of God in christianity. Revelations speak of jesus, the Lamb. Bahaullah was not given the name The Lamb so he is not in revelations.

The web page also reads from a Bahai point of view not a Christian and definitely not Jewish point of view.

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.​

I am the Lamb of god; I am the Light of the World; I am the Son of God. Philippians 2:11 "...and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Hi Carlita. Actually I’ve posted this before and it’s a proven fact not anything hidden that up until 1858 Bible translations commonly used the word Baha’u’llah in prophecies from Revelation to Isaiah. If you know someone who can read Arabic they can confirm that Baha’u’llah was actually mentioned in the Bible mainly in prophetic passages.

http://bahaistudies.net/kf/bibles.html

This web page contains facsimiles of the Bibles of 1833 and 1858 clearly showing BAHÁ'U'LLÁH IN REVELATION 21:23.

You're using Bahaullah's text to prove he is in the bible. It has to work both ways. Since we are talking about the Bible, we should start with Biblical text to talk about Bahaullah. If, from biblical text Bahaullah could not be found by context and/or content, then biblically, Bahaullah's text although tangible available, it is not accurate.
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
My Guru's Guru's Guru used to say 'Let go the rope,". Rope, raft, a tether is a tether.

Yeah. I read or heard somewhere that beginners sometimes need the raft. When they become more developed in their practice, they learn to discard it. It takes time but America has rafts and life jackets everywhere. I don't think we'll learn to swim anytime soon. :rolleyes:
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You're misunderstanding. I believe the only person who knew what Baha'u'llah meant is Baha'u'llah. This principle also applies to him.

This is true.

Baha'u'llah has shown that the bounty of this age is that He passed to Abdul'baha and then on to Shoghi Effendi the right to interpret the meaning of what he said. They in turn gave us a much greater insight into the sayings of the Great Beings which is unique for this age.

Regards Tony
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
This is true.

Baha'u'llah has shown that the bounty of this age is that He passed to Abdul'baha and then on to Shoghi Effendi the right to interpret the meaning of what he said. They in turn gave us a much greater insight into the sayings of the Great Beings which is unique for this age.

And then that interpretation is only known to his grandson, and his son. Just as with original thought (that's always open for debate) so too with interpretations. They exist accurately only in one mind.

Do you know how many kings passed their power to their heir, the eldest son, who then turned out to be a total goof? Far too many. This is one of the pitfalls of keeping it all in the family. Too big a risk.
 
Top