1. 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!

Featured Bahaism, Buddhism and Islam, conflict or one?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by firedragon, Apr 19, 2021.

  1. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    The Bahai's claim that Bahaullah is the return of Christ, the advent of the Islamic Mahdi, the advent of the Buddhist Maithri, among others of course but this thread focuses on the topic above.

    Muhammed, the Buddha, Bahaullah were all manifestations of God. Not just prophets, messengers, philosophers or anything like that but manifestations of God. The Quran, nor the Thripitaka teaches anything of the sort. So where is this belief coming from? It comes from their own teachings of course but that is in question today.

    Since they base the coming of Metteya or Maithri as the eschatological figure was Bahaullah which they have taken loosely from the Buddhist scripture, vis a vis the Sutta Pitaka in which a tiny portion has been taken, they should either adopt the whole scripture or have a mechanism of criticism to pick which part is absolutely true and/or which part is false. I would like to know, other than saying "Bahaullah or our teachers said so", what is the methodology of deriving which is which? There is zero about the Buddha being a manifestation of God in it. None.

    Bahai's claim the Quran is Gods inerrant word, etc etc, but there is nothing in the Quran that says Muhammed was a manifestation of God. None. The Bahai website is a corpus of apologetics and it may have some explanation to this, but what is the Quranic explanation presented in these websites, other than saying "because Bahaullah or our teachers said so"? If you claim the Quran was Gods word, it should say so.

    Is not this a questionable theology which claims all the prophets including Moses, Muhammed, Buddha etc etc were all "manifestations of God" while the Quran nor the Tipitaka has nothing to support that theology?

    Peace.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Secret Chief

    Secret Chief Meghalayan Ape

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    9,925
    Ratings:
    +8,126
    (In respect of Buddhism) it certainly is questionable! Or to put it another way, incorrect.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Shrugs. I tried.

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    36,092
    Ratings:
    +12,704
    Religion:
    Inner child healing
    Conflict.

    Christian and Islam and The Buddha do not believe and connect Bahaullah and manifestations of god as defined by the Bahai faith

    Islam doesn't believe in christian incarnation of christ as god

    Buddhism (The Buddha) does not believe god (Hindus) has anything to do with enlightenment

    Likewise, The Buddha did not believe the creator god of the abrahamics but he "did" that of Hindus-per culture and former practices

    There are Buddhist lineages that have incarnations, and things of that nature. Statues are actually avatars and the idea of consciousness does exist in some of Mahayana Dharmas. None at all are similar to abrahamic creator. If anything Buddhism and Hinduism practice Idolism according to Islam and Christian beliefs. Bahai has their own thing going on.

    The god(s) are different
    The nature of them
    The practice
    The incarnations
    The purpose of the practices
    The consequence of not following (from sway from god to stuck in ego)
    The afterlife is different (The Buddha-rebirth-its circular. Islam and Christian are Linear, not sure Bahai)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    3,962
    Ratings:
    +748
    Religion:
    Christian
    Not all the prophets, only those who have had direct contact with God and began a religion. In the Bible I think it is Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus and probably Abraham.
     
  5. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    That creates a difference in theology. Prophet in the Tanakh are dime a dozen. The Quran calls them nabi and only those who contacted God or were contacted by God are called Nabi in it. Thus, that's a tad bit of conflict the Bahai's have to reconcile.

    1. The question is, are they manifestations of God as the Bahai's claim?
     
  6. Secret Chief

    Secret Chief Meghalayan Ape

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    9,925
    Ratings:
    +8,126
    Also, Buddhism is founded upon all of existence being impermanent (anicca) and having no selfhood (anatta - transliterated from Pali, meaning "without soul." )
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Marcion

    Marcion gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +961
    Religion:
    None! Panentheism; Neo-Humanism; Orthodox Tantra-Yoga; Manava (human) Dharma
    Christianity, Islam and Bahai are examples of universalist types of ideologies.
    They make claims that they are the crown or summary of earlier ideologies that prescribe people what God wants them to do.
    To support such a claim they need some type of frame in which they can push the earlier ideologies of which they claim that they are an improvement upon.

    Buddhism is quite radical in pushing out the Vedic side of Hindu traditions, but then they do adopt the more Tantric types of practice and in that way they are also a type of continuation of Hindu Yoga-Tantra ideologies.

    In the ideology which I prefer, the founder (P.R. Sarkar or Anandamurti) claims that Shiva and Krishna adjusted their own personalities and ideologies to suit the situation and problems of humanity in their particular age and that Sarkar was yet another modernisor of Tantra to better suit the present age.

    Sarkar's frame is that all three of these teachers/guru's were maha-kaula's and all three were manifestations of Taraka Brahma.
    Yet you will probably not find the idea of maha-kaula nor that of Taraka Brahma mentioned in the Mahabharata nor in the teachings of Lord Shiva that survived over time (in fact Lord Shiva lived so long ago that most Hindus no longer see him as a historical personality).

    The Bahai will probably claim that the scriptures of Islam and Christianity are not clear enough on who Muhammed or Jesus actually were. Is it perhaps so that later scriptures could have brought more clarity? Or are the newer frames just a type of religious fantasy without any real basis in reality?

    If you believe that founders of spiritual movements are just like special types of ordinary people that have no special spiritual status right from birth, then you will probably tend to believe that all of the frames are just theories they made up without any basis in reality.
     
    #7 Marcion, Apr 19, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    I think there should be a whole thread to discuss Buddhism.
     
  9. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Not exactly. Christianity proclaims a continuity as well as Islam and Bahaism. But only Bahaism has the Bab, Bahaullah, then the descendants who make theological teachings that claim every single eschatological figure is Bahaullah. It is already said in the OP. It is a very specific claim.

    The Bahai's have very divided claims about the older texts like the OT and NT and Quran. Some claim it is very clear but they do not base their theology on this so called "clear book" but predominantly on Shii theology and their eschatological figures and what they call Wilayath. Though Bahai theology has strong roots in the Shii background, Christians have converted and become Bahai's and they come from a highly Christian, evangelical backgrounds and will claim the New Testament is always reconcilable. The schools of thought differ like that. But if you read the older literature of Bahaullah it is very clear that he was from the Shii background, and he believed the Quran was Gods word and is clear. He does not make such strong claims about the Bible. You can download all of Bahaullahs attributed literature from their websites. You should know though to differentiate between what is Bab's, what is Bahaullahs, What is Abdul Baha's and Effendi's respectively.
     
  10. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    3,962
    Ratings:
    +748
    Religion:
    Christian
    In the Bible they were just men. In Baha'i they are said to be sinless. In the Bible they all (except Jesus) sinned in some form or other and with Adam and Moses the Bible is explicit about this.
     
  11. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Oh not only that brother. In the Bible, there are many prophets who are not even named.
     
  12. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    26,949
    Ratings:
    +11,927
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    Well, RF has a whole forum for it. Unfortunately, it is a bit dormant these days. :)
     
  13. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    I am not very well versed on RF forums brother.
     
  14. Marcion

    Marcion gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +961
    Religion:
    None! Panentheism; Neo-Humanism; Orthodox Tantra-Yoga; Manava (human) Dharma
    Well, probably the Bahai would claim that their teaching is more advanced than that of the Quran, with more advanced insights into who those manifestations were.

    Sarkar also introduces new categories for those very special incarnations. You could argue that if Shiva and Krishna were both (also) Taraka Brahma, then why did they not explicitly make that claim for themselves? Why then did Krishna not explain that Shiva was the Taraka Brahma who came 3500 years earlier?
    You could argue that times have changed and people need more exact (logical) underpinning of such frames than they did thousands of years ago.
     
  15. crossfire

    crossfire Antinomian feminist heretic freak ☿
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    12,377
    Ratings:
    +5,186
    Religion:
    ☿ Mercuræn Mahayana Buddhist & Pastafarian
    I'm thinking that Bahai is renaming Buddhism's bodhisattvas as manifestations of god.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    26,949
    Ratings:
    +11,927
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    No, Bahais accept only Buddha as a manifestation of Allah. Their scheme is simple accept one from al the major religions of the world and then say that their man inherits the mantle. The only exception is Zoroaster as Zoroastrian is not a major religion in the world today. Why that - because their man was from Iran and Zoroastrianism is important in history of Iran and it is a monotheistic religion. It does not matter if Buddha did not accept the existence of a Supreme God or a God of creation. They have to play their tune.
     
    #16 Aupmanyav, Apr 19, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. crossfire

    crossfire Antinomian feminist heretic freak ☿
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    12,377
    Ratings:
    +5,186
    Religion:
    ☿ Mercuræn Mahayana Buddhist & Pastafarian
    I'm going from the Buddhist perspective rather than the Bahai perspective. Some of the non-Buddhists named by the Bahai as manifestations of god might very well be recognized as bodhisattvas by buddhists. For instance, Jesus might be recognized as a bodhisattva by buddhists. (Also note that the Buddha was an unawakened bodhisattva while he was in government (a prince,) but had to get of of the government before he awakened and became a buddha.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Marcion

    Marcion gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +961
    Religion:
    None! Panentheism; Neo-Humanism; Orthodox Tantra-Yoga; Manava (human) Dharma
    I think the Jains have their own Tirthankara's. It's confusing that each path chooses new types of successive perfect messengers or teachers.
     
  19. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    Is that the claim? Could you please quote me their scripture and where it is said so? Interesting.
     
  20. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,428
    Ratings:
    +3,756
    Religion:
    Islam
    You are right. He was always a bodhisattva. Of course this is not my religion or philosophy, but I am just stating the Buddhist belief. Siddhartha was always a bodhisattva.

    Bodhisattva means "one who can make truthful, a height in Buddhi or intellect" in plain words. So obviously Siddhartha was the last lifeform of Gautama who was coming through Kalpa Laksha to attain Agga Buddhi.

    Anyway, I did pose a problem with the Bahai claim for Metteya=Bahaullah and they claim to have "Studied the Buddhist scripture on this" but not even read a single chapter to be honest because if they did read they would know how far in conflict Metteya, his journey, and everything is in comparison to Bahaullah. They are chalk and cheese unless one places the arrow on a board and then draws the dart around it. This is in the Dheega Nikaaya, of the Sutta Pitaka. If you want specifics its in Chakka Vatti Sutta. So please read if you have time. Then you and everyone will see if this can be reconciled or not with the Bahai theology about Bahaullah being Metteya.
     
Loading...