My question on Bahai theology.

[jonzo]

I've always found the Bahai emphasis on freedom and social justice rather refreshing but on the other hand I've always had problems with its theology. The Manifestations of God include Moses, Abraham, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, and The Buddha, but the teachings of these figures are rather contradictory are they not?

Do Bahais accept the Monotheism of Moses and Muhammad? The Soft Polytheism expressed around Krishna and Jesus? The Buddha's teaching of Anatta?

I don't intend this to be read as a jibe against Bahaiism, on the other hand I'm hoping to be illuminated as this is one of the only things that "puts me off" so to say.

 

[oscarhatch]

Your questions about the Baha'i Faith. 1. You seem perplexed about the apparent discrepancy between the expression of "freedom" and the "limitations" that are in Baha'i theology. Yes. The Baha'i Faith does not believe in complete freedom as this amounts to license. No religious expression believes in complete freedom and complete freedom is not possible nor allowable in a human society since people must exercise restraints to actions. We do not go through "stop" signs without stopping, for instance. Most of us refrain from killing those we disagree with. This issue at first bothered me when I first came upon it some 58 years ago, but then I found it very convincing even though it seemed to be in conflict with what I, as an American, had often professed. But I found it especially valuable when I realized that it was a true expression that did not cater to my personal "national interests." One of the problems we are having in this country right now is this "freedom" to own guns and the permissiveness of our "political correct" monitors. 2. You say that all religions are not monotheistic. Yes and no. For instance, we think that Hinduism is polytheistic, which it isn't. One of the scriptures of the Hindus states, "How many Gods are there? Three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three. How many Gods are there? Three hundred and thirty-three. How many Gods are there? Thirty-three. How many Gods are there? Three. How many Gods are there? One." But the main point is that religion (as a divine directing Force/advisory) is progressive and suited by design to be commensurate with the capacity of the human social development at the time. As time goes by and these things are accepted, we are given more "modern" guidance that is commensurate with our ability to understand and follow. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss. Don Hawley

 

[lunamoth]

That's a fair question Jonzo and I'm sure a Baha'i will be along soon to answer it for you. I think the short answer is that anything that conflicts with Baha'i theology is either corrupted over time, needed updating (mostly the 'social' laws) or the adherants just got it wrong from the start. One of the things I never felt quite right about as a Baha'i was that it says that Christians basically have been mistaken about the basis of their faith (the Resurrection) from the get-go, and similar with Islam, that the religion more or less went off course as soon as Muhammed died.

 

[MontanaDon]

I've always found the Bahai emphasis on freedom and social justice rather refreshing but on the other hand I've always had problems with its theology. The Manifestations of God include Moses, Abraham, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, and The Buddha, but the teachings of these figures are rather contradictory are they not?

Yes, and there are a number of reasons for this.
Each of these individuals appeared at a specific time and place. The needs of the people they appeared to were, therefore different. So the teachings were likewise different.
In addition, what we have of their teachings is based on what their immediate followers remembered or tho't were important. We really don't know how accurate they memories or interpretations were. As Baha'is, we assume they are essentially correct.

Do Bahais accept the Monotheism of Moses and Muhammad? The Soft Polytheism expressed around Krishna and Jesus?

You can find statements in the Primary Texts which seem to support both views. My understanding is this - the Faith is unabashedly monotheistic: God is infinitely above anything we can even imagine. He is, according to the explicit statements of Baha'u'llah, infinitely above Him. However . . . . . The Manifestations are also of a different order of existence than ordinary man and thus also infinitely above us. Since a multiple of infinity is illogical, the Manifestations are effectively, but not actually, God. They manifest His Will in human form.

The Buddha's teaching of Anatta?

That's a hard one to answer because there is quite a variety of interpretations among the various schools of Buddhism.
As I understand it, and I am not a Buddhist scholar, what the Buddha was referring to were the variety of physical attributes, including what we now refer to as psychological traits, of the individual human. These are accidents of physical existence, and not the true self, which Baha'is refer to as the human Soul.

Don C

 

[arthra]

I've always found the Bahai emphasis on freedom and social justice rather refreshing but on the other hand I've always had problems with its theology. The Manifestations of God include Moses, Abraham, Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, and The Buddha, but the teachings of these figures are rather contradictory are they not?

Do Bahais accept the Monotheism of Moses and Muhammad? The Soft Polytheism expressed around Krishna and Jesus? The Buddha's teaching of Anatta?

I don't intend this to be read as a jibe against Bahaiism, on the other hand I'm hoping to be illuminated as this is one of the only things that "puts me off" so to say.

Thanks for your post Jonzo..

To answer your question Baha'is believe there is only one religion of God that was revealed at various times through various Messengers and Prophets down through the ages.. Each of these Messengers also had a mission that was also unique for the time.

It's also true that we are not able to say for sure how accurate the records have been before the revelation of Prophet Muhammad, that is, the time lapsed between the event of revelation and when they were eventually written down for posterity.. in the former dispensations is we believe a crucial element in determining their accuarcy.

If you check on this further you'll find that while we believe the Gospel of Jesus was His original teachings ..they were not set down in writing until some thirty or more years after Jesus ascended..

We believe the original teachings of the Buddha and Krishna were lost over time.. We cannot say for certain what were the actual teachings of these Messengers..

While all the above is our belief I would personally say though that the absence of a belief in God that is attributed to the Buddha was primarily due to the conditions of the society when the Buddha gave His teachings. His critique was directed at the Brahmin cast of priests who conducted rituals and sacrifices at the time.. so His teachings were more along the line of what is called Via Negativa or Netti Netti a kind of negative theology.

There were also we believe Messengers in the remoteness of time that have been lost and their teachings are unknown.

- Art

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Jonzo; great to have you here!

As a general rule of thumb, the older a religion, the more of its original teachings tend to have been altered or lost. We see Hinduism and Buddhism as both having originally taught monotheism. But both have undergone human changes and tampering over the millenia, such that Hinduism often appears polytheistic these days, while Buddhism has split into several subgroups, some theistic and some not.

Here's what the Baha'i scriptures themselves say about why these differences between religions exist:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Any further questions you have are most welcome, please note!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[jonzo]

Yes but when i've researched the teaching of Anatta i've come to see it as non-being. To reference the parable Nagasima gave to King Malinda "The Human body is like a chariot, when you take it to pieces you end up with axels and wheels non of these parts can be called the chariot." So I take it that almost all Buddhists beleive that there is no soul, no permanant part of us, just; body, sensation, mind, perception and concioussness. I don't think anyone can argue that this teaching (however wrongly I may understand) it is still a fundemental part of Buddhism that has been there since the Buddha spoke. Does this not contradict Bahai beleifs?

and if the teachings of the time were those that were suitable for the times does that not mean that God is imperfect as it is being changed by something outside itself? If God Changes to suit people is he not imperfect also as to move or change would be a move either away from perfection or towards perfection?

( I know this section is not for debate I don't mean to turn it into one)

 

[arthra]

Jonzo:

You could peruse an article on the wiki about what's called negative theology or via negativa at

Negative theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not really here to say what your religion should be or define it..

There's an article though you might appreciate at

Encyclopedia Article: Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith

about the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism.

And you are absolutely correct..this is not a debate forum.

- Art

 

[jonzo]

Thanks for the links Artha.

Got a tiny bit carried away :sorry1:

 

[arthra]

Thanks for your posts Jonzo.. I do think there are some interesting parallels between Baha'i faith and Buddhism ..

- Art

 

[Cosmos]

I am currently reading a book written by a Baha'i scholar, Jamshed Fozdar, who has been acclaimed by the World Buddhist Fellowship, the Southern Church, and other Buddhist orders! He dissects the Suttas or Discourses of the Buddha and presents to the reader the inescapable facts contained in the Tathagata's own words acknowleding His Divinity, the concept of the Supreme (i.e. God), and the true nature of the soul. I think it is highly relevant for anyone who is trying to find a bridge between Buddhism and the Abrahamaic ('Western') religions.

Jonzo, please read Sutta of "The Two Brahmins" as one perfect example of the Buddha acknowledging Brahama, and in fact says He is the Way to Brahama (i.e. Brahamayana)! The problem is interpreting the correct context of the Buddha's language. Buddha Gautama expressed the "Unseen Brahama" to be Infinite and non-associated with anything conceptualized or perceivable.

Here we can read some of the proofs that the Buddha acknowledged the concept of the Absolute or the Supreme from the Discourses:

"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, and unformed,
therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. (Discourse on The Three Characteristics and the Uncreate, verses 12-13)

And another Discourse we read: '"Kutadanta said:
"I am told that thou teachest the law,
yet thou tearest down religion.
Thy disciples despise rites and abandon immolation,
but reverence for the gods can be shown only by sacrifices.
The very nature of religion consists in worship and sacrifice."

"Verily I say unto thee:
The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life,
and thou discernest not the nature of living and dying.

"This body will be dissolved
and no amount of sacrifice will save it.
Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind.
Where self is, truth cannot be;
yet when truth comes, self will disappear.
Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth;
propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread.
In the truth thou shalt live for ever.

"Self is death and truth is life.
The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying,
while moving in the truth
is partaking of Nirvana
which is life everlasting." (Discourse on Identity and Non-Identity, verses 5;12-14)

If we read these discourses in their entirety we discover that the Buddha was in fact not denying the soul but in fact He says there is "life everlasting" (i.e. eternality)! Also, to re-emphasize, if we diligently read through the suttas, such as in the 'medium discourses' of the Majjhima-nikaya, we find the Buddha affirming that His Dharma (Religion) is (quote) "an exaltation of the Absolute", meaning beyond mere mortal ken, and that He is at-onement with the "Uncreate" or the Absolute/Supreme. Continuously He describes the Absolute as absolutely unknowable, unattainable, and incomparable in essence! He also stated that all things proceed from (quote) "one Essence" and therefore all things exercise according to (quote) "one Law"!

Please consider some of the Writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha to see the Baha'i philosophical perspective on these metaphysical issues, which are in accord with the Dharma of the Buddha:

"Were the eye of discernment to be opened, it would recognize that in this very state, they have considered themselves utterly effaced and non-existent in the face of Him Who is the All-Pervading, the Incorruptible. Methinks, they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness, and deemed their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy. For the slightest whispering of self, within such a Court, is an evidence of self-assertion and independent existence. In the eyes of them that have attained unto that Court, such a suggestion is itself a grievous transgression."--Kitab-i-Iqan, pg. 180

" Regarding the statement in The Hidden Words, that man must renounce his own self, the meaning is that he must renounce his inordinate desires, his selfish purposes and the promptings of his human self, and seek out the holy breathings of the spirit, and follow the yearnings of his higher self, and immerse himself in the sea of sacrifice, with his heart fixed upon the beauty of the All-Glorious."

and...

"As to the reference in the Arabic Hidden Words that the human being must become detached from self, here too the meaning is that he should not seek out anything whatever for his own self in this swiftly-passing life, but that he should cut the self away, that is, he should yield up the self and all its concerns on the field of martyrdom, at the time of the coming of the Lord."--Selected Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, pg. 207

and...

"Until a being setteth his foot in the plane of sacrifice, he is bereft of every favour and grace; and this plane of sacrifice is the realm of dying to the self, that the radiance of the living God may then shine forth. The martyr’s field is the place of detachment from self, that the anthems of eternity may be upraised. Do all ye can to become wholly weary of self, and bind yourselves to that Countenance of Splendours; and once ye have reached such heights of servitude, ye will find, gathered within your shadow, all created things. This is boundless grace; this is the highest sovereignty; this is the life that dieth not. All else save this is at the last but manifest perdition and great loss." SWAB, pg. 76-77

On a mystical level, I refer to the Buddha's metaphysical explanation of the 32 Planes of Existence, which according to the Blessed One the Buddha the last stages of complete enlightenment there is an engulfment in "Infinite Light" and "Infinite Nothingness". Again, the doctrine of Anatta is to describe the TRUE nature of the soul and not to deny our true purpose and existence! He asked a doubting brahmin where does Truth lie, to which He was answered that it exists no-where in particular, and so the Tathagata asked if then there is no such thing is Truth merely because you cannot place it anywhere.

 

[LuisDantas]

(Scrubbed by myself. Sorry, I forgot this is a DIR).