Buddhists, is this true?

It it's true the Buddha really said anything about "turning to someone else for guidance" then they sure didn't tell me about it at university when I took my course in Buddhism. Nor have I ever come across it in the following 40 years of on and off personal readings in Buddhism.

Sunstone said:

It it's true the Buddha really said anything about "turning to someone else for guidance" then they sure didn't tell me about it at university when I took my course in Buddhism. Nor have I ever come across it in the following 40 years of on and off personal readings in Buddhism.

Click to expand...

Your knowledge is rather selective, and many Buddhists disagree, and of course Baha'is would too.

Vanayaka said:

Buddha did say is that in the future there will come a new Buddha with the name Maitreya, but to my knowlede this has not yet happend.

amitabha to my knowledge is a buddha in Pure Land buddhism, But amitabha Is not buddha sakyamuni (historical buddha)

Click to expand...

shunyadragon said:

I notice all those gold (sometimes jade and often huge) statues of Buddha all over the Buddhist world



Actually Hinduism in saffron robes, and gold Buddhas. The Buddhist temples in China commonly or actually most temples have statues of Hindu Gods.

Click to expand...

The statues in Buddhist temples are not to be worshiped they are only a representation of buddha, but we do not worship him or see him as a God. He is our teacher.

Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, Sangha and the dhamma/Dharma meaning we see Buddha as our teacher, the monastary where we can go to to discuss the teaching with the monks who study the teaching all the time.

Amanaki said:

The statues in Buddhist temples are not to be worshiped they are only a representation of buddha, but we do not worship him or see him as a God. He is our teacher.

Click to expand...

It is a matter of fact that they do worship the Buddha by the evidence, whether Buddha wanted them to do it or not. The difference between on worshiped and a teacher is indistinguishable in this case. One who has reached the ultimate enlightenment is far beyond any earth bound teacher.

shunyadragon said:

That's a dodge big time, because if the claims of any one of the ancient is true the others are false, and of course the claims of the Baha'i Faith would be false.



This is obvious before you even posted the thread.



How nice of you.

Click to expand...

What was posted here originally omitted the Buddhist texts I quoted from.

Suppressing his tears, Ananda said to the Buddha, 'Who shall teach us when You are gone?' And the Buddha advised him to regard His Teaching as the Master.

The Buddha continued again:' I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.'

'How shall we know him?' asked Ananda. The Buddha replied, 'He will be known as Maitreya which means kindness or friendliness.'

What Buddhists Believe - The Future Buddha

AmitAbha I mentioned was the name of the future Buddha given by the Pure Land Sect.

shunyadragon said:

It is a matter of fact that they do worship the Buddha by the evidence, whether Buddha wanted them to do it or not. The difference between on worshiped and a teacher is indistinguishable in this case. One who has reached the ultimate enlightenment is far beyond any earth bound teacher.

Click to expand...

Yes there are people within buddhist community that do worship this buddha figures, but they should not do it. and that is not the teaching of the buddha`s fault. that is lack of understanding from the followers.
Buddha Sakyamuni is no longer in physical body, and he even stated that he would not be able to help us when he left, what do help us is the teaching left from is time. This does not make Buddhism a false path to follow.

One who has enlighten fully will see the ultimate truth on the level of enlightenment he or she reach. example an Arahant do not see as much of the truth as an Tathagata, Buddha Sakyamuni is an Tathagata so even he is not present physically we know his teachings can lead us to enlightenment too, But it is all down to our own cultivation of the teaching, how we follow the teaching and how much we can understand of what is important.

Buddhism is a lot more then Temple with monks and the lay followers who live normal lifes. Buddhism is a way of life and a cultivation path.

shunyadragon said:

I notice all those gold (sometimes jade and often huge) statues of Buddha all over the Buddhist world



Actually Hinduism in saffron robes, and gold Buddhas. The Buddhist temples in China commonly or actually most temples have statues of Hindu Gods.

Click to expand...

I think sand statues of the Buddha are the best, and hey let's admit, there's a lot of good tourism out there. ;O]

Vinayaka said:

From another thread ...


"And another teaching of Buddha’s is for His followers to turn to Baha’u’llah when He comes and I have remained faithful to that. He called Baha’u’llah ‘AmitAbha Buddha. Abha is a derivative of Bahá. Buddha said to turn to Him when He appears and I have done that."

I am curious as to what Buddhists think of this. Is it true?

Click to expand...

Um no, since Amitabha is about discriminating discernment and pure perception and deep appreciation of individualities and specifics (Jungian Logos.) The above statement does not seem to fit the description of Amitabha at all, especially the deep appreciation of specifics. Instead, it totally destroys the specific meaning of Amitabha.


Of course, your mileage may vary.

I don't see the concept of the Maitreya Buddhist as anything new or challenging.

Maitreya - Wikipedia

Baha'u'llah is one of a number of individuals who "have claimed to have attained enlightenment and become buddhas, claimed to be manifestations of bodhisattvas, identified themselves as Gautama Buddha or Maitreya Buddha, or been honored as buddhas or bodhisattvas."

List of Buddha claimants - Wikipedia

Vinayaka said:

I am curious as to what Buddhists think of this. Is it true?

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah & the Bab didn't teach enlightenment....Nirvana or Zeroness; they taught Oneness.

In my opinion.

adrian009 said:

I don't see the concept of the Maitreya Buddhist as anything new or challenging.

Maitreya - Wikipedia

Baha'u'llah is one of a number of individuals who "have claimed to have attained enlightenment and become buddhas, claimed to be manifestations of bodhisattvas, identified themselves as Gautama Buddha or Maitreya Buddha, or been honored as buddhas or bodhisattvas."

List of Buddha claimants - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Maitreya and Amitabha refer to two different things, and are not equivalent.

loverofhumanity said:

My post was taken out of context with the relevant Buddhist scriptures supporting my argument being omitted.

Here is what was omitted and it is from Buddhist scriptures.

Ananda said to the Buddha, 'Who shall teach us when You are gone?' And the Buddha advised him to regard His Teaching as the Master.

The Buddha continued again:' I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.'

'How shall we know him?' asked Ananda. The Buddha replied, 'He will be known as Maitreya which means kindness or friendliness.

What Buddhists Believe - The Future Buddha

When Ananda asks ‘Who shall teach us when You are gone?’ Buddha refers them to the future Buddha Who will one day appear.

So according to the explicit text if I was a Buddhist and the new Buddha appeared I would be expected to turn to Him to teach me as the Buddha told Ananda right?

Other sects know the future Buddha as ‘AmitAbha’ which is a dervitave of ‘Baha’ therefore it is my belief it refers to Baha’u’llah.But I also believe spiritually He fits Buddha’s description perfectly..

But the onus as far as I can see is on all Buddhists to accept the future Buddha according to the discussion between Ananda and Buddha in the Buddhist texts.

Christians too have such a duty to accept Christ. I believe these prophecies regarding a Promised One is referring to One and the same Person.

Click to expand...

What were Baha’u’llah's teachings regarding the benefits of meditating over decomposing corpses?

shunyadragon said:

Actually Hinduism in saffron robes, and gold Buddhas. The Buddhist temples in China commonly or actually most temples have statues of Hindu Gods.

Click to expand...

It could be that this is a form of Chinese tantric Buddhism.
In Tantra there are no rigid boundaries between religions and tantric practitioners have adopted gods from various sources, most often adjusting their names. Hindu tantrics have also adopted Buddhist and Jain gods. Similar adoptions of gods happened in Jain Tantra. Fighting and bickering over religious differences is more a vedic thing.

crossfire said:

What were Baha’u’llah's teachings regarding the benefits of meditating over decomposing corpses?

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah prescribed simple burial in a shroud simple wood box. Meditation and a prayer for the dead is fine, but there is no attachment to a dead nor rotting corpse.

wizanda said:

Baha'u'llah & the Bab didn't teach enlightenment....Nirvana or Zeroness; they taught Oneness.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

There are equivalent beliefs in the Baha'i writings to 'enlightenment' in the spiritual wakening in the belief in the growing awareness of Oneness. Zeroness(?), Nothingness would not be incompatable with the Baha'i view of detachment from materialism, or our individual cultural or racial orientation.

I am reminded of Christian attempts to make Jesus fit the paradigm of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, when in fact his warrants are not particularly suitable if one takes the texts as they stand.

At the very least, though, Jesus was Jewish.

Muslim efforts to read Muhammad, an Arabian prophet, into alleged predictions of Jesus have proven even more fruitless. In Judaism, there is at least the expectation of the advent of a Davidic annointed one who will usher in world peace and rebuild the Jewish Temple, even though Jesus did neither of these things.

Among Christians, there was absolutely no anticipation of a successor prophet and given the historical Jesus's profoundly Jewish worldview, and his understanding that universal history centered around the land of Israel, the idea that he would have prophesised the coming of an Arabian seal of the prophets is extremely improbable.

Likewise, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine that Gautama Buddha, in sixth century India, preaching a dharmic religion centered around mindfulness and liberation from the kharmic cycle of birth and rebirth, which had no conception of any "creator god" and indeed explicitly denies the idea, made coded predictions about a coming Buddha who would be an Abrahamic prophet of the One God from Iran.

The moral is that people look for things that typically aren't there to begin with and would frankly be considered rather barmy by scholars.

shunyadragon said:

Zeroness(?)

Click to expand...

Nirvana is emptiness, it is Oneness with an empty value...i.e Zeroness (Øneness).

Baha'i doesn't get that the ultimate goal is to ascend out of this realm (1), and return to universal consciousness (0).

In my opinion.

Vouthon said:

I am reminded of Christian attempts to make Jesus fit the paradigm of Jewish expectations of the Messiah, when in fact his warrants are not particularly suitable if one takes the texts as they stand.

Click to expand...

At the very least, though, Jesus was Jewish.

Click to expand...

This reflects the narrow cultural view that Revelation must reflect only a lineage inherited by blood for the Messiah of one narrow cultural or racial lineage perspective. Yes the Baha'is believe there is a lineage, but it is more universal involving ALL of humanity, and the relationship of Revelation, and the universal cyclic evolving spiritual nature of humanity.

Muslim efforts to read Muhammad, an Arabian prophet, into alleged predictions of Jesus have proven even more fruitless. In Judaism, there is at least the expectation of the advent of a Davidic annointed one who will usher in world peace and rebuild the Jewish Temple, even though Jesus did neither of these things.

Click to expand...

This problem is universal, that the human view of the fulfillment of prophesy and the relationship of progressive revelation very well be interpreted as 'only alleged predictions and fulfillment of predictions and prophecy. This where the claims of Christianity can also 'fal flat on their claims of predictions and fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Among Christians, there was absolutely no anticipation of a successor prophet and given the historical Jesus's profoundly Jewish worldview, and his understanding that universal history centered around the land of Israel, the idea that he would have prophesised the coming of an Arabian seal of the prophets is extremely improbable.

Click to expand...

Biblically there is the concept of more than one Messiah, and the return , and the succession going back to the OT.

The moral is that people look for things that typically aren't there to begin with and would frankly be considered barmy by scholars.

Click to expand...

The barmy(?) of scholars can go many ways, and in the end can be meaningless.
After many years (over fifty) of investigating different religions and belief systems the claims of all religions in terms of their individual claims is unbelievably flawed from many perspectives particularly their attachment to the ancient cultural paradigm of their origins. All this confusion and contradictions is contrary to the more universal reality of today

The undeniable evidence is humanity, our history and our physical existence are absolutely universally related, and not in the image of the individual and the moribund ancient cultural identity. IF a 'Source' some call God(s) exists. This problem actually makes the atheist/agnostic view of the nature of our existence vary attractive. Actually, the scriptural, beliefs and historical foundation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the weakest of any religions.

Again, IF the 'Source' exists, regardless of your objections, the Baha'i view is more relevant to the reality of a universal view of humanity and our physical existence.

shunyadragon said:

It is a belief of the Baha'i Faith. It is obvious that Buddhists would not believe this, no more than Jews believe in Jesus Christ, nor Christians believe in Mohammad.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I thought ... obvious, but since I was told otherwise by a Baha'i, I had to check it out for myself.

loverofhumanity said:

You’ve taken this out of context. There were Buddhist texts included which explain the context.

Click to expand...

Backtracking, I see. I quoted the whole thing. Feel free to withdraw your statement.