How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

So how does your faith community deal with dissidents? Those who are aligned to your community yet openly disparage its core beliefs? How about those who exploit others sexually and financially? Do you let it slide because you are enlightened and above all this medieval behaviour of the Baha'is?

Hindu faith communities are a varied lot, and I'm not privy to how organisations deal with it when it comes up. Sadness, denial, I suppose. One swami in Texas was charged with sexual impropriety and he fled the country. So the legal authorities in the US have a warrant out to arrest him if he returns. Certainly close devotees might back their guy, and no doubt that could be poor judgement.

The temple groups are different. They run temples, and nothing else. If someone breaks the law (there was priest in a temple in British Columbia charged) it goes to the legal system, unless the guy runs. There is no 'core belief' as you put it in temple societies. Vedantins, monists, pluralists, traditionalists, liberals, they all worship together.

My personal monistic Saiva Siddhanta organisation is really hard to get into, so that in itself is a precaution.

So that stuff happens in all faiths.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And don't forget, I'm not Jewish.

How could I forget!

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course I wasn't celebrating the Christian crusades or the Muslim conquests. Presumably the Buddhists in India didn't take up arms and start hacking the Hindus to death to gain the upper hand. It was all rather peaceful was it not?

The homosexuality issue certainly has divided many of the Christian churches, but then they just go off and form another sect or branch. That is presumably what the Hindus have been doing for Millennia so I suppose you would see that as positive. And then when the next disagreement comes along, another sect, then another and another. It must be hard for someone who is genuinely in spiritual need to know where to turn and who to trust.

So no progression, its just endless alternative realities. It reminds of the story of the tower of Babel in the OT.

Genesis 11:1-9

One man's dream is another's nightmare I suppose.

It's not really endlessly expanding, because in the long run, as many die off as get started. A very common way is when the Guru doesn't appoint a successor. Since there is no leader, it takes a generation and then disappears, fades into the sunset. Rajneesh is a recent example of that. There are lots of defunct Hindu schools, just as there are defunct countries happening all the time, as well as new ones. Where are Prussia and East Germany these days?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Exactly.

Nothing wrong with the word Or.

Yes, diversity is a beautiful thing. But so too is unity.

So is it diversity or unity? I argue it is both.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Tony. We do not agree. I do not believe in god. If you want diversity, you have to go beyond acceptance. Its agreement.

Great you are supported by every Baha'i, stay where you are and be happy and be content. We will work with you for a better world.

Tony. I cannot work with you if you tell me you believe my religion is X and I know it is Y. It is stepping on my toes when you use my beliefs in the manner not taught by my faoth just yours.

Great do what you need to do to reach the goal you are after, we will work with you in this life for a better world.

What "YOU NEED" to do?

No. Its "what should WE do? What is your opinion? How should we go about this?"

"I believe in god and you dont....so where is the divide?"

Let us work it out together.

Great this is a good goal. But consider that the statement dictates that to work with other people we must have individual goals that are complimentary, or in other words a larger common goal.

Woah. You believe in unity not individuality.

Individuality means some people see no "larger goal" others do. No common goal.

Try a We approach not a Bahai nor Buddhist one.

If not, how do you work together in the goal of your path, say with the goals of the ISIS path?

Address the people not their scripture

Lets understand what it is and what it means to work towards a common goal.

First ask us if we see a common goal to begin with then work from there.

Great we agree again.

I dont believe in god. We believe differently.

The Spin, adding that there is not a belief in Unity in Diversity because of a statement made and that wars are caused by the statement. The statement offered was, that as individuals, we could consider that we do not know all the truth and it would not hurt us in any way to look further.

Unity causes wars.

Diversity does not.

Once you have diversity working in union, it is no longer diversity.

Once you take out unity to respect each other's goals we will appreciate each other more, less wars, and more working together without believing the same thing (i.e. god)

The statement does not cause wars. People cause wars.

People are part of this. The statement involves people.

Diversity means "a variety" multiple things that "differ from each other."

The statement causes wars. You disagree.

Now what? (Stop proving your point and let US come up with a solution)

With all this it appears you feel we are missing something, something you see more clearly!

Regards Tony

I did not say that.

You feel we are missing out on something.

That is not true; we disagree.

Now what?

 

[Vinayaka]

Great, well done. Sounds Like my JW conversations.

In the end my JW Mate goes away with the conclusion you have and I go away with mine, that I see we work towards the One God. We have a Unity in out Diversity, as such we will not war against each other, Love prevails and we have a foundation of Lesser peace.

Here you go with the 'we' again, Tony. Sorry, but you can't speak for me. I believe in more than one God, for starters. Yes, as far as I know we won't go to war over it. That part is a great thing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, diversity is a beautiful thing. But so too is unity.

So is it diversity or unity? I argue it is both.

Both are beautiful when both views are respected by the other party. Im not a universalist. Others are. "Unity in diversity" is a contradiction. Once you put god in there is not diversity. Its conformity. (De ja vu)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I mean from within Baha'i', by Baha'i's. You've heard about 'A Modest Proposal'?

Off course Bahais can ask questions. That is different from opposing actively. Even Bahais can actively oppose Bahaullah, or Universal House of Justice, saying they are completely wrong. No body tells them why they oppose. The only thing that can happen, is, their Bahai membership may not be considered valid, and if they are trying to make a group and cause division, they will be excommunicated by Universal House of Justice. After that, they can still continue opposing and opposing. Baha'is simply do not communicate with them, leaving them in where they are if you know what I mean. Lol

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's not really endlessly expanding, because in the long run, as many die off as get started. A very common way is when the Guru doesn't appoint a successor. Since there is no leader, it takes a generation and then disappears, fades into the sunset. Rajneesh is a recent example of that. There are lots of defunct Hindu schools, just as there are defunct countries happening all the time, as well as new ones. Where are Prussia and East Germany these days?

Exactly.

Times change as do our needs as individuals and communities. What worked well centuries ago may have no place now. There was probably good reason for the caste system in India. Chopping peoples hands off because they stole made sense in an ancient world without prisons and rehabilitation programmes. Executing people by the community stoning them to death was probably the most practical way of creating cohesion among the Hebrew people stuck in the dessert during the times of Moses. Calling the sun a god and worshipping it makes a lot of sense if your reality is totally the natural world and crop failure will lead your community starving to death.

The needs of humanity have changed. We share the same planet as we always have but our prosperity is inextricably linked to everyone else's as never before. We are truly one people on one common homeland, the earth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Both are beautiful when both views are respected by the other party. Im not a universalist. Others are. "Unity in diversity" is a contradiction. Once you put god in there is not diversity. Its conformity. (De ja vu)

Abdu'l-Baha used to say, you try your way and I'll try mine. Its good you have your way and that I have mine. It nice we can chat and enjoy the moment.

 

[Vinayaka]

Off course Bahais can ask questions. That is different from opposing actively. Even Bahais can actively oppose Bahaullah, or Universal House of Justice, saying they are completely wrong. No body tells them why they oppose. The only thing that can happen, is, their Bahai membership may not be considered valid, and if they are trying to make a group and cause division, they will be excommunicated by Universal House of Justice. After that, they can still continue opposing and opposing. Baha'is simply do not communicate with them, leaving them in where they are if you know what I mean. Lol

Yes, I see. What I meant was to question without fear of retribution. But yes, anyone can do whatever they want. You or I could go walking on the 401, or kill some guy perhaps. But we know the consequences too, so common sense would prevail. I think most people, rather stay and fight it, will just withdraw quietly. There has to be a whole lot of hurt, or just an antagonistic personality to stay and fight it.

Do you know how bad it got in the early days when there was far more in-fighting and far more Covenant Breaking, or has the shunning effect made it so you either don't want to know what was said, or are kept from hearing it. These days the dissidents just publish all their stuff on line.

 

[Vinayaka]

Exactly.

Times change as do our needs as individuals and communities. What worked well centuries ago may have no place now. There was probably good reason for the caste system in India. Chopping peoples hands off because they stole made sense in an ancient world without prisons and rehabilitation programmes. Executing people by the community stoning them to death was probably the most practical way of creating cohesion among the Hebrew people stuck in the dessert during the times of Moses. Calling the sun a god and worshipping it makes a lot of sense if your reality is totally the natural world and crop failure will lead your community starving to death.

The needs of humanity have changed. We share the same planet as we always have but our prosperity is inextricably linked to everyone else's as never before. We are truly one people on one common homeland, the earth.

It's still kind of trial and error, though. Thalydomide, (sp) cigarettes, sugar, some social experiments have failed miserably. Overall I see improvement, hasn't been world war in 70 years. Some other positive things have endured, like yogic breathing techniques for relaxation, insight, and health.

 

[siti]

There are interesting parallels. At the heart of it, it comes down to the words of Jesus when He spoke of a good tree bearing good fruit and a bad tree bearing bad fruit. David Koresh clearly fell on one side of the line, whereas for me Jesus fell on another.

I don't think you are going to get Baha'u'llah or Jesus over the line with a psychiatric diagnosis, not even Moon.

Perhaps not, but what I am arguing in principle is that their 'spiritual perceptions' and 'mystic experiences' are rooted in human psychological processes...Baha'u'llah concedes that in these excerpts from the tablet Tony referred to earlier:

"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty...It is indubitably clear and evident that each of these afore-mentioned instruments has depended, and will ever continue to depend, for its proper functioning on this rational faculty,...Through its manifestation, all these names and attributes have been revealed, and by the suspension of its action they are all destroyed and perish...

...This same relationship bindeth this faculty with whatsoever hath been the recipient of these names and attributes within the human temple..."

Of course I am quoting selectively and of course Baha'u'llah goes on to deny the adequateness of the human "rational faculty" to transcend the limitations of (ordinary) human experience without supernatural assistance - but if you turn the argument around, even if there is a God (of the ultra-personal and infinitely transcendent Abrahamic variety), how could "he" even begin to reveal his "effulgent Glory" without the aid of the "rational faculty" of humans? And if "it" can be revealed in one human mind in one way, why not in another human mind in a completely different way? That is in fact what Baha'u'llah argues but then turns it round to establish his own credentials as a Divine Manifestation by - effectively - ruling out the 'ordinary' natural person's ability to ascend to a full appreciation of the greater reality (my term) without God's direct, personal and supernatural guidance.

I disagree - I think a profound appreciation of the greater reality is certainly attainable entirely within the scope of the "rational faculty...within the human temple". And - to get back to answering the OP question - that is where the explanation of the greatness (or otherwise) of the Great Beings is to be found - within the human temple.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Both are beautiful when both views are respected by the other party. Im not a universalist. Others are. "Unity in diversity" is a contradiction. Once you put god in there is not diversity. Its conformity. (De ja vu)

You seem to interpret Bahai beliefs in a faulty way, so that you can then reject them. You know what I mean? Officially only the interpretation of Abdulbaha represents the Bahai interpretation, even though you have the right to interpret them as you wish.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Abdu'l-Baha used to say, you try your way and I'll try mine. Its good you have your way and that I have mine. It nice we can chat and enjoy the moment.

Pass along the message.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you know how bad it got in the early days when there was far more in-fighting and far more Covenant Breaking, or has the shunning effect made it so you either don't want to know what was said, or are kept from hearing it. These days the dissidents just publish all their stuff on line.

We had a dissident 'Baha'i' on this thread not too long ago. He's free to talk to Baha'is and Baha'is are free to talk to him. He has promoted his own version of the Baha'i Faith and published masses of stuff online. Baha'is can't stop that, anymore than we can stop the tide coming in and out. We just roll with it. However, although he is not considered a Baha'i (although Sen clearly considers himself a Baha'i) he is not considered a Covenant breaker.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You seem to interpret Bahai beliefs in a faulty way, so that you can then reject them. You know what I mean? Officially only the interpretation of Abdulbaha represents the Bahai interpretation, even though you have the right to interpret them as you wish.

No. That is not true. I am not a universalist.

I disagree that there needs to be unity among diversity, progressiveness of each revealed faith, god, prophets, manifestations, *cough* god,...

Am I supposed to accept Bahai beliefs?

Reject makes you sound like the victim. I disagree with bahai. That is humble and respects diverse opinions.

 

[siti]

...he is not considered a Covenant breaker.

At least not until you are told otherwise I presume? But I'm guessing you don't get to decide that for yourself do you? And if at some point he is officially considered a Covenant breaker then your personal approach will change accordingly?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps not, but what I am arguing in principle is that their 'spiritual perceptions' and 'mystic experiences' are rooted in human psychological processes...Baha'u'llah concedes that in these excerpts from the tablet Tony referred to earlier:

"Consider the rational faculty with which God hath endowed the essence of man. Examine thine own self, and behold how thy motion and stillness, thy will and purpose, thy sight and hearing, thy sense of smell and power of speech, and whatever else is related to, or transcendeth, thy physical senses or spiritual perceptions, all proceed from, and owe their existence to, this same faculty...It is indubitably clear and evident that each of these afore-mentioned instruments has depended, and will ever continue to depend, for its proper functioning on this rational faculty,...Through its manifestation, all these names and attributes have been revealed, and by the suspension of its action they are all destroyed and perish...

...This same relationship bindeth this faculty with whatsoever hath been the recipient of these names and attributes within the human temple..."

Of course I am quoting selectively and of course Baha'u'llah goes on to deny the adequateness of the human "rational faculty" to transcend the limitations of (ordinary) human experience without supernatural assistance - but if you turn the argument around, even if there is a God (of the ultra-personal and infinitely transcendent Abrahamic variety), how could "he" even begin to reveal his "effulgent Glory" without the aid of the "rational faculty" of humans? And if "it" can be revealed in one human mind in one way, why not in another human mind in a completely different way? That is in fact what Baha'u'llah argues but then turns it round to establish his own credentials as a Divine Manifestation by - effectively - ruling out the 'ordinary' natural person's ability to ascend to a full appreciation of the greater reality (my term) without God's direct, personal and supernatural guidance.

I disagree - I think a profound appreciation of the greater reality is certainly attainable entirely within the scope of the "rational faculty...within the human temple". And - to get back to answering the OP question - that is where the explanation of the greatness (or otherwise) of the Great Beings is to be found - within the human temple.

I agree with much of what you are saying.

Tell me, what are the chances in your lifetime of producing a series of great compositions that will eclipse the accomplishments of Beethoven?

 

[Dawnofhope]

At least not until you are told otherwise I presume? But I'm guessing you don't get to decide that for yourself do you? And if at some point he is officially considered a Covenant breaker then your personal approach will change accordingly?

The line is very clear in regards to Covenant breaking. Its rare. Sen and others like him simply are not considered in that category.