Bahaism, Buddhism and Islam, conflict or one?

[firedragon]

I'm thinking that Bahai is renaming Buddhism's bodhisattvas as manifestations of god.

They are renaming many as manifestations of God. Many.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...There is zero about the Buddha being a manifestation of God in it. None... ...there is nothing in the Quran that says Muhammed was a manifestation of God. None... ... while the Quran nor the Tipitaka has nothing to support that theology.

Whoa, that's pretty neat! You've read through every single word of all the sacred texts and u've verified that there's absolutely NOTHING there to contradict your beliefs! Er, how about you glanced, didn't see anything that would change your mind & now no matter what anyone posts you'll say "aw, that doesn't count."

You see what we got here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.)

How can there be a Bodhisattva in Buddhism, when it does not accept either soul or reincarnation? I can agree that Siddhartha was a Bodhisattva before he attained Buddhahood, enlightenment. Otherwise it is a (Mahayanist) corruption of Buddhist teaching.

Sure, a Bodhisattva who never attained Buddhahood, never completed the journey. Buddhist monks, Dalai Lama could say that to ingratiate with the Christians. In that case, it will be a political statement.

 

[firedragon]

Whoa, that's pretty neat! You've read through every single word of all the sacred texts and u've verified that there's absolutely NOTHING there to contradict your beliefs! Er, how about you glanced, didn't see anything that would change your mind & now no matter what anyone posts you'll say "aw, that doesn't count."

You see what we got here?

First of all, dont make a caricature to attack. I didnt say anything about "my beliefs". This thread has nothing to do with my beliefs.

You didnt ask me a question. You made a statement that I have "glanced". Fine. You have your opinion. Lets see how far opinions go.

Can you show, from any part, any verse, in all of the scripture I mentioned in the post you replied to, vis a vis, the Thripitaka, and the Quran that says the Buddha or Muhammed was a manifestation of God?

Please go ahead.

 

[Colt]

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.

Only Jesus returned from the death of his body on his own volition. The other teachers were more like spiritual geniuses' but not divine. In fact it tended to be after they died that their followers elevated them.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...I didnt say anything about "my beliefs". This thread has nothing to do with my beliefs...

Let's stop right here & think a sec. You said in your opening post:

...There is zero about the Buddha being a manifestation of God in it. None... ...there is nothing in the Quran that says Muhammed was a manifestation of God. None... ... while the Quran nor the Tipitaka has nothing to support that theology..

OK, so one possibility is that you're offering up these opinions as observable fact but that takes us to proving a negative which is impossible.

..You didnt ask me a question...

In your post you quoted my post which ended w/--

You see what we got here?

--so maybe we can agree that you're considering my sentence ending w/ a question mark as a rhetorical statement & not as a question. Please be aware that I intended it as a question, namely that what we're looking at is your set of unfounded unsupported beliefs presented in an antagonistic insulting patronizing format --I was asking if you saw it too (& apparently you didn't).

I'm perhaps overstepping the bounds that our friends the moderators will allow by posting questions to our village atheists & this may be a good time for me to make myself scarce.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

Those perevious scriptures did not explicitly use the term manifestation of God for Buddha, Muhammad or even Jesus. But there are verses that can be shown to be compatible with Bahai definition of Manifestation of God.

One of the main reasons a new revelation comes, is to teach humanity more about Truth. So, this is why, in Bahai Scriptures, we can find things which could not be seen or learned easily from pervious Holy Scriptures.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

I find this OP a tad ironic since the Baha'i claim that Buddhist teaching has been corrupted through oral transmission is little different than the Islamic claim that the Bible has been corrupted away from the true teachings of Jesus/Moses/Adam etc. (Unless you dont personally advance that claim).

As for your question about where does the Quran say "Muhammad is a manifestation of God", Baha'u'llah does not assert that it does, so this is a strawman question.

Personally I find the view that Buddha was a Manifestation of God to be doubtful from a historical perspective.

But then the Ahmadiyya teach that Buddha was a Prophet of God and you left them out of your OP even though it is equally as historically doubtful.

Or the Muslim claim that the Jesus spoke of a Messenger "whose name shall be Ahmed"

 

[Secret Chief]

Those perevious scriptures did not explicitly use the term manifestation of God for Buddha...But there are verses that can be shown to be compatible with Bahai definition of Manifestation of God.

Such as? Bearing in mind, as posted above, Buddhism is founded upon all of existence being impermanent (anicca) and having no selfhood (anatta - transliterated from Pali, meaning "without soul.") Any teaching not based on these marks of existence is not a Buddhist teaching.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The term Manifestation of God is not the only title Used by Baha’u’llah to describe the Great Teachers of the past. He also refers to them as the ‘Suns of Truth’, the ‘Educators of Mankind’, Immortal Beings, Day-Stars of Truth so we are not held to one description of these Great Beings Who are responsible for the spiritual education of billions throughout the world.

Buddha for instance may not be known to Buddhists as a Manifestation of God but as an Educator or Spiritual Teacher. He can be called a Sun of Truth as He taught truth. Many of these terms are interchangeable with any of the Great Teachers. It’s just a title which Baha’u’llah has given Them to describe Their exalted station.

Similarly Baha’u’llah is viewed by Baha’is as an Avatar, a Buddha and so on. These are all spiritual titles that are not exclusive to one religion or another because they also have general, universally applicable meanings which can be attributed to any One of These Teachers. The term Avatar means ‘Manifestation of a Deity’. Christ is known as the Son of God and Son of Man, Muhammad a Prophet.

But we believe They are One with regards to teaching a spiritual and Holy life of virtues and good character.

Not all the records we possess though can be proven to be authentic. Authors of many of the Revelations of the past are unknown to us. Records only really begin to be verifiable with the Quran then after that the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah in Their own handwriting sealed and signed.

Baha’u’llah claims all the major religions come from the same Source and so are connected to one another, not separate entities. That each confirms the previous religion and promises the continuity of revelation by foretelling the teacher to come.

Under differing names and guises you will find in all the worlds scriptures, the promise of a Great One to appear at the time of the end to usher in a new age.

So we Baha’is understand that any of the various titles can be applied to any of the Great Teachers as They are all interconnected. So Christ was as much a Buddha as Buddha was an Avatar. They all promote the spiritual well-being of humanity.

 

[Marcion]

Those perevious scriptures did not explicitly use the term manifestation of God for Buddha, Muhammad or even Jesus. But there are verses that can be shown to be compatible with Bahai definition of Manifestation of God.

One of the main reasons a new revelation comes, is to teach humanity more about Truth. So, this is why, in Bahai Scriptures, we can find things which could not be seen or learned easily from pervious Holy Scriptures.

That is quite similar to how I described it.
The definitions may not be exactly the same, they may be adjusted to an increased level of understanding and a new demand to get a better grip on the coherence between different paths.

However this does not explain sufficiently well why the vision of Sarkar is so very different from that of Bahaullah. Sarkar does not mention more than three advents of Taraka Brahma and none of them is from outside of the subcontinent India. However he does acknowledge the greatness of Buddha, Mahavira and Chaetanya as reformers.

 

[Secret Chief]

The term Manifestation of God is not the only title Used by Baha’u’llah to describe the Great Teachers of the past. He also refers to them as the ‘Suns of Truth’, the ‘Educators of Mankind’, Immortal Beings, Day-Stars of Truth so we are not held to one description of these Great Beings Who are responsible for the spiritual education of billions throughout the world.

Buddha for instance may not be known to Buddhists as a Manifestation of God but as an Educator or Spiritual Teacher. He can be called a Sun of Truth as He taught truth. Many of these terms are interchangeable with any of the Great Teachers. It’s just a title which Baha’u’llah has given Them to describe Their exalted station.

Similarly Baha’u’llah is viewed by Baha’is as an Avatar, a Buddha and so on. These are all spiritual titles that are not exclusive to one religion or another because they also have general, universally applicable meanings which can be attributed to any One of These Teachers. The term Avatar means ‘Manifestation of a Deity’. Christ is known as the Son of God and Son of Man, Muhammad a Prophet.

But we believe They are One with regards to teaching a spiritual and Holy life of virtues and good character.

Not all the records we possess though can be proven to be authentic. Authors of many of the Revelations of the past are unknown to us. Records only really begin to be verifiable with the Quran then after that the Writings of the Bab and Baha’u’llah in Their own handwriting sealed and signed.

Baha’u’llah claims all the major religions come from the same Source and so are connected to one another, not separate entities. That each confirms the previous religion and promises the continuity of revelation by foretelling the teacher to come.

Under differing names and guises you will find in all the worlds scriptures, the promise of a Great One to appear at the time of the end to usher in a new age.

So we Baha’is understand that any of the various titles can be applied to any of the Great Teachers as They are all interconnected. So Christ was as much a Buddha as Buddha was an Avatar. They all promote the spiritual well-being of humanity.

And my point about the marks of existence?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Such as? Bearing in mind, as posted above, Buddhism is founded upon all of existence being impermanent (anicca) and having no selfhood (anatta - transliterated from Pali, meaning "without soul.") Any teaching not based on these marks of existence is not a Buddhist teaching.

Here we come back to verification of authenticity. Did Buddha really teach that? There is so much of many religions which was added later by priests monks and clergy that was not originally taught by the Founder.

There is no evidence Buddha did not teach about God or the soul, only that the version of Buddhism in the hands of the monks today does not.

 

[Secret Chief]

"Baha'is believe that Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but that his followers do not possess His authentic writings."

Buddhism and the Baha’i Faith

Presumably this means the world's 500 million Buddhists are fundamentally misguided and require guidance from another religion? A little patronising and arrogant, and all effectively done in the name of appropriation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Such as? Bearing in mind, as posted above, Buddhism is founded upon all of existence being impermanent (anicca) and having no selfhood (anatta - transliterated from Pali, meaning "without soul.") Any teaching not based on these marks of existence is not a Buddhist teaching.

Average Muslim believes, that a Prophet such as Muhammad was almost a normal human being. He only received a revelation from God.
Bahai Faith teaches prophet founders such as Muhammad had innate knowledge. He was all-knowing.

When you come to Buddhism, there is evidence that Buddha at some point claimed to be all-knowing.

In Abrahamic Religions, "all-knowing", is one of the names of God. Thus, when Buddha said, He is All-knowing, in Bahai view, or even anyone from Abrahamic religions, it means, Buddha claimed to be God.

 

[Secret Chief]

There is no evidence Buddha did not teach about God or the soul, only that the version of Buddhism in the hands of the monks today does not.

An absence of not doing something?
The oral tradition of passing on information at the time of the Buddha's life of course means the written record has been created after his death.

 

[Secret Chief]

Buddha claimed to be God.

I'm out of here.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The one very important thing I want to touch on here is evidence and verification. How much of today’s religions truly represent what the original Founder taught. How many extra dogmas, rituals, traditions and interpretations have been introduced by clergy, priests and monks that what we really possess today is not true religion but a distortion of it by religious leaders to suit their agendas and ambitions?

In reality, we can only truly verify from the Quran onwards. That doesn’t mean religions before weren’t true, but that their validity needs to be verified by tye authenticated teachings we have in our possession.

Verified teachings of Prophet Muhammad say there is one God. Unverified, unauthenticated and invalidated teachings held by Buddhist monks do not directly mention God but there is no denial of a God and there are passages which could be understood as referring to God. Again, verified vs unverified I go for authenticated each time.

There is an entire list of contradictions and discrepancies between the religions but I insist that these are not from the Founders but additional dogmas added by clergy, priests, Mullas and monks which have nothing to do with the original message.

This is why an Avatar or Buddha or Christ must return from age to age in order to restate and clarify the truth from man made dogmas.

So for example who said that we can become Buddhas by enlightening ourselves? Did Buddha say that? Really? Where? Proof He said it? Monks may say it but proof Buddha said it doesn’t exist. The latest verified and authenticated religious teachings from 3 Prophets dispute that view. I know I’ll be going with verified scripture not unverified teachings.

We know whether a concept, idea or belief is correct and true from current verified authenticated religious scripture. We only have to consult recent Prophets or Educators to validate the truth of original sin or reincarnation or becoming Buddha. These are our tools for verifying the truths of all the religions for which we have no authentic records,

 

[loverofhumanity]

An absence of not doing something?
The oral tradition of passing on information at the time of the Buddha's life of course means the written record has been created after his death.

That's a huge problem. It asks the question - is what we are being taught today from Buddha Himself or from clergy. Big difference.

 

[Marcion]

The one very important thing I want to touch on here is evidence and verification. How much of today’s religions truly represent what the original Founder taught. How many extra dogmas, rituals, traditions and interpretations have been introduced by clergy, priests and monks that what we really possess today is not true religion but a distortion of it by religious leaders to suit their agendas and ambitions?

In reality, we can only truly verify from the Quran onwards. That doesn’t mean religions before weren’t true, but that their validity needs to be verified by tye authenticated teachings we have in our possession.

Verified teachings of Prophet Muhammad say there is one God. Unverified, unauthenticated and invalidated teachings held by Buddhist monks do not directly mention God but there is no denial of a God and there are passages which could be understood as referring to God. Again, verified vs unverified I go for authenticated each time.

There is an entire list of contradictions and discrepancies between the religions but I insist that these are not from the Founders but additional dogmas added by clergy, priests, Mullas and monks which have nothing to do with the original message.

This is why an Avatar or Buddha or Christ must return from age to age in order to restate and clarify the truth from man made dogmas.

So for example who said that we can become Buddhas by enlightening ourselves? Did Buddha say that? Really? Where? Proof He said it? Monks may say it but proof Buddha said it doesn’t exist. The latest verified and authenticated religious teachings from 3 Prophets dispute that view. I know I’ll be going with verified scripture not unverified teachings.

We know whether a concept, idea or belief is correct and true from current verified authenticated religious scripture. We only have to consult recent Prophets or Educators to validate the truth of original sin or reincarnation or becoming Buddha. These are our tools for verifying the truths of all the religions for which we have no authentic records,

You do however have a problem in the case of Sarkar as his many talks have been recorded quite well and of course are somewhat recent even more so than those of Bahaullah.

So in his case the idea that the teachings of so-called "other religions" were distorted does not apply.
I wonder what Bahai's would think about the teachings of Sarkar if they studied them.
The two preceptors don't take the same perspective although they are both quite universal in their approach.