One God

[Unveiled Artist]

This may sound a bit harsh but this is a pet peeve of mine. I do hope you take this to mind.

We are all endowed with the capacity to know God or spiritual truth. But Often we allow our spiritual qualities to diminish due to lack of use or attachment to this world.

No we are not. We are not all spiritually handicapped (my words not yours). Some of us are actually spiritually blind and that is okay. It is not lack of attachment of the world.

I'll compare it to the Deaf community. Most people who identity as Deaf and those who are deaf feel isolated from the world because hearing people throughout history have told them they can't understand, they are dumb, and they are stupid. They have been left out of conversations between hearing people and devalued just because of their ability to hear rather than who they are as people.

Saying that anyone can lack spiritual qualities because they are "spiritual blind" and are unattached to the world is like telling a Deaf person because he cannot hear, he cannot participate in a conversation that he may be interested in. He is "unattached from the world" so how can he possibly know what hearing people know? (Rhetorical question)

It's the same analogy you're using with people who don't believe in god and people who do. We are not aliens to each other. We have the same advantage and disadvantage (objectively view not from religious views) to learn and succeed in life whether we believe in god or not.

We are not born with belief in god. We all enter the world the same way. So, although that is your belief the fact is not everyone can't "enjoy the conversation" just because they cannot see spiritually.

Plus, let's take out "cannot" and "diminish" and put some people have the capability of seeing and succeeding in life in a way that is different than someone who does the same with religion as a support. We differ but no one is less advantage then the other.

But at any time we can reactivate our spiritual senses by exposing them to the Words of God or spiritual words.

If someone is not spiritually blind there is no reason to reactivate his spiritual senses to make him see again. We do not need god to be spiritually visioned people.

Many people who are exposed to the Word of God become affected and awakened no matter which religion. The Words of Buddha have a special potency which is why so many people feel changed after reading them.

This is actually a conflict in terms. I agree, many people who are exposed to the word of god have became affected and awakened. That's their belief.

That is completely separate then The Buddha and his teachings.

People have been changed by The Buddha's teachings not The Buddha himself. (As people are changed from god himself rather than his teachings used as an idol) If I compared, in religions of Abraham, you all follow the teachings of god. In Buddhism, we don't follow the teachings of The Buddha. We (theravada) strive to be Buddhas or (Mahayana) be Bodhisattvas to lead others to understand for themselves their nature as Buddhas.

In other words, as an analogy only, god of abraham is teaching followers to follow his teachings. In analogy, The Buddha is teaching followers to become him (quote on qoute) not his teachings. The Dharma leads us to be Buddhas. The teachings of the Quran, Bible, etc does not lead you all to become god but servants and followers of him. They have completely different goals. The teachings are completely different literally and in analogy.

People who do not expose themselves to any Sacred Words usually end up denying that spiritual things or God even exist. But if we expose ourselves to spiritual words we will awaken our spirituality within us which is in all of us as we are spiritual beings ultimately. Our bodies are just temporary.

This is another way to devalue another person's spiritual walk because they don't have god in it. I am spiritually awakened, spiritually visioned, and spiritually healthy without god. God cannot do for me what my family, ancestors, and spirits have and has always done for me physically, spiritually, and mentally. They have kept me alive where I would have taken my life years ago. God has nothing to do with it.

People cannot deny what they do not know exist.

I think the language of how you separate people who are spiritually visioned and spiritually blind is really creating a separation from those who you wish to have peace with. If peace only comes from learning about the god and prophet you know, that isn't leading towards peace. It's very political; and, a way to understand and bring more than tolerance to people's beliefs in the world, we need to go beyond understanding and really take interest in another person's belief. If it does not have god in it, so be. That makes them no less of a person than any one else.

We aren't aliens to each other.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I notice you are not going by the suttas. You are using Bahaullah as a foundation for understanding the suttas not The Buddha's foundation.

It is like my using the Bible to interpret the Quran only because they both mention gods. Yet, in the former mainstream Christianity, god is a human. In the latter, god is not.

The Buddha believed many god's existed. He was a "pagan" in the technical definition of the term before he became enlightened. He used to believe in the gods (not god) of India mostly that of Hindu. Then, as I was just reading his First Discourse a couple of hours ago, he said now he has full knowledge and understanding that he did not gain from god but from himself. In story, he divorced himself from Hindu and other Indian pagan practices of his time and followed that of knowledge. He didn't deny gods (not god) exist.

He did not believe in nor believed there was just one god. Even if he did, it was not the god of abraham. The Buddha lived way before Bahai and way before Christ and Muhammad. Hindu even further back then Buddhism.

In another post you said Bahallauh can't speak of something that hasn't yet been recorded. If that is true, in his day, he knew nothing about The Buddha. Therefore, where in Bahallauh's teachings in that time period no comentaries that he heard of The Buddha?

Bahai is from India, right? If so, wouldn't it be more logical that he would have heard the gods of Hindu if he did write about other people being manifestations of god?

Plus, if you read the suttas, The Buddha talked about the same things you can read in a modern text book of sociology and psychology. What in his teachings says that he is a manifestation of a creator of any sort?

No, I referred to Buddhist texts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I referred to Buddhist texts.

But you are using Bahalluah as a foundation for understanding those text not The Buddha and definitely not as a Buddhist. That is a huge difference in interpretation and what The Buddha actually taught.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This may sound a bit harsh but this is a pet peeve of mine. I do hope you take this to mind.

No we are not. We are not all spiritually handicapped (my words not yours). Some of us are actually spiritually blind and that is okay. It is not lack of attachment of the world.

I'll compare it to the Deaf community. Most people who identity as Deaf and those who are deaf feel isolated from the world because hearing people throughout history have told them they can't understand, they are dumb, and they are stupid. They have been left out of conversations between hearing people and devalued just because of their ability to hear rather than who they are as people.

Saying that anyone can lack spiritual qualities because they are "spiritual blind" and are unattached to the world is like telling a Deaf person because he cannot hear, he cannot participate in a conversation that he may be interested in. He is "unattached from the world" so how can he possibly know what hearing people know? (Rhetorical question)

It's the same analogy you're using with people who don't believe in god and people who do. We are not aliens to each other. We have the same advantage and disadvantage (objectively view not from religious views) to learn and succeed in life whether we believe in god or not.

We are not born with belief in god. We all enter the world the same way. So, although that is your belief the fact is not everyone can't "enjoy the conversation" just because they cannot see spiritually.

Plus, let's take out "cannot" and "diminish" and put some people have the capability of seeing and succeeding in life in a way that is different than someone who does the same with religion as a support. We differ but no one is less advantage then the other.



If someone is not spiritually blind there is no reason to reactivate his spiritual senses to make him see again. We do not need god to be spiritually visioned people.



This is actually a conflict in terms. I agree, many people who are exposed to the word of god have became affected and awakened. That's their belief.

That is completely separate then The Buddha and his teachings.

People have been changed by The Buddha's teachings not The Buddha himself. (As people are changed from god himself rather than his teachings used as an idol) If I compared, in religions of Abraham, you all follow the teachings of god. In Buddhism, we don't follow the teachings of The Buddha. We (theravada) strive to be Buddhas or (Mahayana) be Bodhisattvas to lead others to understand for themselves their nature as Buddhas.

In other words, as an analogy only, god of abraham is teaching followers to follow his teachings. In analogy, The Buddha is teaching followers to become him (quote on qoute) not his teachings. The Dharma leads us to be Buddhas. The teachings of the Quran, Bible, etc does not lead you all to become god but servants and followers of him. They have completely different goals. The teachings are completely different literally and in analogy.



This is another way to devalue another person's spiritual walk because they don't have god in it. I am spiritually awakened, spiritually visioned, and spiritually healthy without god. God cannot do for me what my family, ancestors, and spirits have and has always done for me physically, spiritually, and mentally. They have kept me alive where I would have taken my life years ago. God has nothing to do with it.

People cannot deny what they do not know exist.

I think the language of how you separate people who are spiritually visioned and spiritually blind is really creating a separation from those who you wish to have peace with. If peace only comes from learning about the god and prophet you know, that isn't leading towards peace. It's very political; and, a way to understand and bring more than tolerance to people's beliefs in the world, we need to go beyond understanding and really take interest in another person's belief. If it does not have god in it, so be. That makes them no less of a person than any one else.

We aren't aliens to each other.

I didn't mean it the way you understood. I meant we all have spiritual talents and attributes and if they are not used they atrophy. So everyone has the capacity for peaceful coexistence if they allow that side of their nature to dominate their lives. But if we allow our passions and self to dominate then we end up with the world we have today.

People must transform inwardly for us to have things like world peace. Pacts and treaties will never bring lasting peace.

There is truth to be gained from all people and Faiths not just our own for truth is Universal not confined to one Faith or people.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But you are using Bahalluah as a foundation for understanding those text not The Buddha and definitely not as a Buddhist. That is a huge difference in interpretation and what The Buddha actually taught.

I used the Buddhist texts to identify Bahaullah.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I used the Buddhist texts to identify Bahaullah.

That doesn't make sense, honestly. If your religion and worldview is that of a Bahai, then your view or foundation of the world would not be of The Buddha. You can't use Buddhist text to be a foundation for what the Bab' taught you unless you are a Buddhist. If not, then whatever your faith is, through that faith everything else is an interpretation through it.

If Buddhist teachings is your foundation for Bahallauh, then that would mean there is no such thing as one god but many. You'd also need to believe multiple gods exist. In addition to the fact there are demi gods and devas. To see it from as a Buddhist you'd have to take up Buddhist morals such as everything we experience such as compassion comes from ourselves not god. You'd also have to leave Bahallauh teachings because in some Buddhist text, specifically Mahayana, The Buddha says only his teachings are the way out of suffering. You'd also have to understand Ballahaulah, Jesus, etc were not born yet to even compare any of these teachings together. Jesus you may get by since he believes in a creator but India and Jerusalem are two different areas of the world.

Wouldn't learning about god identify Bahallauh? Especially since The Buddha isn't god and believes in no creator to even be used to identify what someone else foreign to him has taught.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That doesn't make sense, honestly. If your religion and worldview is that of a Bahai, then your view or foundation of the world would not be of The Buddha. You can't use Buddhist text to be a foundation for what the Bab' taught you unless you are a Buddhist. If not, then whatever your faith is, through that faith everything else is an interpretation through it.

If Buddhist teachings is your foundation for Bahallauh, then that would mean there is no such thing as one god but many. You'd also need to believe multiple gods exist. In addition to the fact there are demi gods and devas. To see it from as a Buddhist you'd have to take up Buddhist morals such as everything we experience such as compassion comes from ourselves not god. You'd also have to leave Bahallauh teachings because in some Buddhist text, specifically Mahayana, The Buddha says only his teachings are the way out of suffering. You'd also have to understand Ballahaulah, Jesus, etc were not born yet to even compare any of these teachings together. Jesus you may get by since he believes in a creator but India and Jerusalem are two different areas of the world.

Wouldn't learning about god identify Bahallauh? Especially since The Buddha isn't god and believes in no creator to even be used to identify what someone else foreign to him has taught.

What we are saying is Baha'u'llah is the return of Buddha, the Fifth Buddha, Maitreya.

And He has appeared as foretold by Gautama and of course He teaches His own Dhamma as Gautama said He would which is the oneness of humankind.

"“There are prophecies concerning this Manifestation (Baha'u'llah) in the Buddhistic books, but they are in symbols and metaphors, and some spiritual conditions are mentioned therein, but the leaders of religion do not understand. They think these prophecies are material things; yet those signs are foreshadowing spiritual occurances.”

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.”

Buddhist scriptures refer to AmitAbha which is a direct reference to Baha'u'llah as Abha is a derivative of Baha. Amitabha is Pali and Baha'u'llah is Arabic which means Glory of God.

 

[Godobeyer]

You know that Christian trinity beliefs are wrong. Jesus isn't a god. There is only one god, right?

Without doubt.
Jesus (pbuh) never claim he is God or taught about trinity.

@ronandcarol don't know that. They are glad that they learned how wrong Islam is.
Tom

They take anti-Islam website to learn Islam ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What we are saying is Baha'u'llah is the return of Buddha, the Fifth Buddha, Maitreya.

Thats Mahayana Buddhism. Maitreya is one of The Buddhas disciples not a fifth Buddha. If you read the sutras I guarrentee you the manefestations of Buddhas have names I cant even pronounce. However, Maitreya, Sariputra, Ananda, etc are not The Buddha. They are boddhisattvas and learning to be Bodhisattvas to which The Buddha told them to go forth and spread his teachings when he passes. Thats ten tai Buddhism based on The Lotus Sutra.

Bahaullah cannot be the return of return of The Buddha. For one, The Buddha did not believe in a supreme being and two all of The Buddhas manestations focus is to relieve suffering not to be in union with the creator.

"“There are prophecies concerning this Manifestation (Baha'u'llah) in the Buddhistic books, but they are in symbols and metaphors, and some spiritual conditions are mentioned therein, but the leaders of religion do not understand. They think these prophecies are material things; yet those signs are foreshadowing spiritual occurances.”

That is historically and factually inaccurate. Spiritually, anyone can believe whatever they want into a given text. The Buddha is pretty clear in his metaphors and discources. Bahaullah believed in a creator. The sutras do not mention nor hint at any manifestation of the Buddhat that will go against The Buddhas teachings by believing in god(s) he totally rejected during his teaching days. Buddhist books like Nich Thah (cant figure the name) tries to put christianity with buddhism. The yearning to try to make religions without god as if they in some way are in god religions is a form of control direct or not. Each religion is unique in its own way.

However, it would be wrong morally and technically to refer to The Buddhas teachings in any teaching and manfestation of a person who teaches about a god The Buddha have not even heard about to even talk about him.

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.”

Buddhist scriptures refer to AmitAbha which is a direct reference to Baha'u'llah as Abha is a derivative of Baha. Amitabha is Pali and Baha'u'llah is Arabic which means Glory of God.

The first point is you will have to give me a sutta or sutra that tells me amita is a direct reference to Bahaullah. That is if youre talking about Amita Buddha. That and amita Buddha is not even part of the Pali text. Thats considered Mahayana. It is an attempt,. in my opinion, to relate The Buddha Guatama to a creator and it is false. The Buddhism youre talking about is Pure Land. Most Theravada Buddhist dont accept Pure Land Buddhism.

I think youre picking different Buddhist teachings from different schools without referring to the Pali and suttras (Mahayana texts) not commentary and Buddhist books to support your point. The only thing I can think of that Bahaullah has in common with The Buddha is that they strive for unity. However, The Buddha in Mahayana teachings teach that the only way to achieve unity is through HIS teachings not god and not Bahaullah. The Pali says the only way to become a Buddha "in the future" therefore no manefestations since Bahallah is not The Buddhas disciple is to follow the Dharma which means focus on self enlightenment through meditation and other practices based on the sect. Enlightenment is complete understanding of rebirth and causality. Enlightenment has no god in it.

Buddhism does not support Bahai teachings even though Bahai says it does. Its not from the Bahai perspective. You ccan ask @buddhist and any Hindu personf familiar with Indian religions that Buddhism is not a god/creator religion. I practiced Buddhism and studied the suttras and sutta and still do from time to time. Bahai is the only religion I know that tries to relate a non god religion with a god religion. Even UU doesnt do that. They accept the differences of each religion and see the core of each is the goal for unity.

I wish I can look up suttras and suttas to prove my point but as long as youre seeing it from the Bahai perspective as you showed me in in the expert, I dont think that would help much.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Sutta Central site states AmitAbha is Pali.

https://suttacentral.net/define/amitābha

amitābha
adjective
of boundless lustre.
PTS Pali English Dictionary
amitābha
adjective
of boundless or immeasurable splendour Sdhp.255.

Digha Nikaya iii.76, Chakkavatti Sihanada Suttanta In those days, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteya. He will be an Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now... The Law, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation, will he proclaim, both in the spirit and in the letter; the higher life will he make known, in all its fullness and in all its purity, even as I do now. He will be accompanied by a congregation of some thousands of brethren, even as I am now accompanied by a congregation of some hundreds of brethren.

 

[LuisDantas]

One would expect Amithaba - assuming he ever was meant to be an actual person, that is - to know something of basic Buddhist teachings.

 

[loverofhumanity]

One would expect Amithaba - assuming he ever was meant to be an actual person, that is - to know something of basic Buddhist teachings.

He knows.

 

[buddhist]

Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's words, asked him a further question: "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?"

"No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." (DN21)

Outside of this path, the path of the many who teach other things doesn't go to Unbinding as does this: Thus the Blessed One instructs the Community, truly showing the palms of his hands. (Thag 1.86)

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Ananda, every precept & practice, every life, every holy life that is followed as of essential worth: is every one of them fruitful?"

"When — by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities increase while one's skillful mental qualities decline: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitless. But when — by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth — one's unskillful mental qualities decline while one's skillful mental qualities increase: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitful." That is what Ven. Ananda said, and the Teacher approved. (AN 3.78)

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Scientifically life emanates from a single cell, molecule, atom or point not two. Oneness is reflected in both the religious and scientific world not duplicity. All life revolves around a single point not two.

There is literally nothing that we know of or can think of that isn't a multiplicity - not even you yourself. These cells, molecules, and atoms you mention aren't special, there's many and they're made up of many components. From multiple universes to infinite parallel universes, everything is a plurality.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Sutta Central site states AmitAbha is Pali.

https://suttacentral.net/define/amitābha

amitābha
adjective
of boundless lustre.
PTS Pali English Dictionary
amitābha
adjective
of boundless or immeasurable splendour Sdhp.255.

Digha Nikaya iii.76, Chakkavatti Sihanada Suttanta In those days, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteya. He will be an Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now... The Law, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation, will he proclaim, both in the spirit and in the letter; the higher life will he make known, in all its fullness and in all its purity, even as I do now. He will be accompanied by a congregation of some thousands of brethren, even as I am now accompanied by a congregation of some hundreds of brethren.

There are two problems with this. One it doesnt mention Bahaullah. The other Matreya Will be (predicted to become) a buddha in the future. He was not a buddha when he was The Buddha's disciple.

Bahaullah believee in god. The Buddha does not.

How can The Buddha manefest into someone who teaches something contrary to his own teachings?

God is not part of The Buddha's enlightenment.

Also, Gaia seen as a pagan goddess to many Wiccans is a immeasurable splender. Some Pagan god characteristics have splendorous attributes.

They are not buddhas and they are not manefesations of The Buddha. Jesus, Mahammad, Bahaullah included.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is literally nothing that we know of or can think of that isn't a multiplicity - not even you yourself. These cells, molecules, and atoms you mention aren't special, there's many and they're made up of many components. From multiple universes to infinite parallel universes, everything is a plurality.

The tiniest particle or point is single not multiple. You can break down all multiple entities to a single entity or origin. The basis of life is a single point or origin not multiple.

“There is no doubt that initially there was a single origin: There cannot have been two origins. For the origin of all numbers is one and not two; the number two is itself in need of an origin. It is therefore evident that originally matter was one, and that one matter appeared in a different form in each element. Thus various forms appeared, and as they appeared, they each assumed an independent form and became a specific element. But this distinction attained its full completion and realization only after a very long time. Then these elements were composed, arranged, and combined in infinite forms; in other words, from the composition and combination of these elements countless beings appeared"

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are two problems with this. One it doesnt mention Bahaullah. The other Matreya Will be (predicted to become) a buddha in the future. He was not a buddha when he was The Buddha's disciple.

Bahaullah believee in god. The Buddha does not.

How can The Buddha manefest into someone who teaches something contrary to his own teachings?

God is not part of The Buddha's enlightenment.

Also, Gaia seen as a pagan goddess to many Wiccans is a immeasurable splender. Some Pagan god characteristics have splendorous attributes.

They are not buddhas and they are not manefesations of The Buddha. Jesus, Mahammad, Bahaullah included.

Clues are given throughout the sects of Buddhism as to the identity of Maitreya or Mettyya. First is the name AmitAbha which is a direct derivative of the Name Baha. And it is not just the name but He must possess spiritual qualities like the Buddha which Bahaullah did.

Baha'u'llah is not a disciple or follower of the Buddha but a future Buddha prophesied by the Buddha Who would appear and teach religion or dhamma and be followed all over the world.

There is no proof that Buddha did not teach about God as there are statements that indicate otherwise and we cannot say we have all Buddha's Teachings as He did indicate that the true law would deteriorate over time to be replaced with a counterfeit dhamma.

Udāna 8.3
Tatiyanibbānasuttaṃ 73


“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

The name Buddha is simply a title meaning 'enlightened one' and that can also mean Buddha received a 'Revelation' of truth as Buddha was not initially enlightened. Like Muhammad in the cave received a Revelation and Baha'u'llah with the Maiden in prison, Gautama too had an experience which made Him unique and a Buddha not just an ordinary person with ordinary knowledge.

All these Educators experienced an 'enlightenment' or Revelation which made them all unique and eventually They all taught a law or dhamma and established a religion.

There is just too much in common to ignore. Things such as lack of a God can be put down to the 2,500 since He appeared and the decay of His Teachings as mentioned below and the rising of a counterfeit Dhamma as mentioned below.

Is what we have today what Buddha actually taught? And it's very possible that the counterfeit Dhamma is the one that is saying Buddha did not teach about God.

Saṃyutta Nikāya 16
Connected Discourses with Kassapa

The Counterfeit of the True Dharma

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn16.13

..the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears.

The true Dhamma does not disappear all at once in the way a ship sinks. There are, Kassapa, five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

We talk about progressive revelation. That from time to time another Educator or Buddha or Christ appears to guide us. He always comes with more advanced teachings as well as renews last truths and clears up misconceptions held by followers of previous Faiths.

This age is the age of Universal fellowship and Baha'u'llah is it's Buddha. If you study all the Buddhist traditions regarding Maitreya and AmitAbha and compare them with the life if Baha'u'llah you will find many similarities. Also the Great King of Glory is referring to Baha'u'llah.

 

[buddhist]

...Things such as lack of a God can be put down to the 2,500 since He appeared and the decay of His Teachings as mentioned below and the rising of a counterfeit Dhamma as mentioned below.

Is what we have today what Buddha actually taught? And it's very possible that the counterfeit Dhamma is the one that is saying Buddha did not teach about God....

If you decide to disregard the Buddhist teachings because they are likely counterfeit, then why quote any of them at all?

Metteya will be born in an age when the average lifespan of man is 80,000 years. And, according to Buddhism, all Buddhas are to be born on the Indian subcontinent - not in the middle east. This excludes Bahaullah.

The reason I uphold the Buddhist teachings is because I can verify them for myself, in the here and now, and I personally know that they are valid. I cannot verify any of the Abrahamic faith-based teachings for myself, and that largely includes Bahaism.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Of course He has that knowledge but He won't say something that cannot be verified.

Well, that's convenient!

What's the point of speaking about names of people who we have no record of?

But I'm not speaking about names of people we have no record of. Why is it that he only speaks of those parts of the world with which he is familiar? There are plenty great teachers in other parts of the world, of which he appears to have no knowledge..

How would that prove He was any more knowledgeable as people could just say He made it all up?

Maybe not in the time in which he lived, but in the future.. A time like now, for example, or 400 years in the future, when we might know even more about people who have come and gone.

I think what you can't challenge is His solution for today's problems.

I bet you can't find a better solution or imagine something higher or better than world unity or the oneness of mankind. There is no higher form of teaching for this age than what Baha'u'llah taught.

Oh, but I can challenge his solution for today's problems. You talk as if world unity is the be all and end all. But that all hinges on how one defines today's problems..

From multiculturalism to interfaith to women's rights to human rights and religious tolerance these have had all their origins in specific verses and passages of Baha'u'llah.

Again, you talk about all of these things as if they are fundamentally good things.. Not everyone agrees (I'm not a huge fan of the modern notion of human rights, for example, and am pretty sceptical of the current models of multiculturalism).

From the moment Baha'u'llah declared men and women equal look at women's rights arising all over the world. Coincidence? Hardly.

Look at even the marriage law of one year separation by various governments. Almost word for word the same in His Book of Laws revealed around 1873.

What about Baha'u'llah's pronouncements on same sex marriage (or the possibility of it)? Or the equal status of married and non-married couples?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Clues are given throughout the sects of Buddhism as to the identity of Maitreya or Mettyya. First is the name AmitAbha which is a direct derivative of the Name Baha. And it is not just the name but He must possess spiritual qualities like the Buddha which Bahaullah did.

Baha'u'llah is not a disciple or follower of the Buddha but a future Buddha prophesied by the Buddha Who would appear and teach religion or dhamma and be followed all over the world.

There is no proof that Buddha did not teach about God as there are statements that indicate otherwise and we cannot say we have all Buddha's Teachings as He did indicate that the true law would deteriorate over time to be replaced with a counterfeit dhamma.

Udāna 8.3
Tatiyanibbānasuttaṃ 73


“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

The name Buddha is simply a title meaning 'enlightened one' and that can also mean Buddha received a 'Revelation' of truth as Buddha was not initially enlightened. Like Muhammad in the cave received a Revelation and Baha'u'llah with the Maiden in prison, Gautama too had an experience which made Him unique and a Buddha not just an ordinary person with ordinary knowledge.

All these Educators experienced an 'enlightenment' or Revelation which made them all unique and eventually They all taught a law or dhamma and established a religion.

There is just too much in common to ignore. Things such as lack of a God can be put down to the 2,500 since He appeared and the decay of His Teachings as mentioned below and the rising of a counterfeit Dhamma as mentioned below.

Is what we have today what Buddha actually taught? And it's very possible that the counterfeit Dhamma is the one that is saying Buddha did not teach about God.

Saṃyutta Nikāya 16
Connected Discourses with Kassapa

The Counterfeit of the True Dharma

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn16.13

..the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears.

The true Dhamma does not disappear all at once in the way a ship sinks. There are, Kassapa, five detrimental things that lead to the decay and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

We talk about progressive revelation. That from time to time another Educator or Buddha or Christ appears to guide us. He always comes with more advanced teachings as well as renews last truths and clears up misconceptions held by followers of previous Faiths.

This age is the age of Universal fellowship and Baha'u'llah is it's Buddha. If you study all the Buddhist traditions regarding Maitreya and AmitAbha and compare them with the life if Baha'u'llah you will find many similarities. Also the Great King of Glory is referring to Baha'u'llah.

Im statching my head. Id have a full reply when I get home. Manifestations of The Buddha is not manifestations of different people who are enlightened. Nichiren Daishin said he was enlightened as a votary of The Buddha. He found his understanding of life through Daimoku. Jesus found enlightenment after he was baptised. I dont know other stories but each person had their enlightenment.

The Enlightenment (not any enlightenment) of The Buddha was complete understanding of life and death and, thus understanding of suffering and rebirth. There is no god. The Buddha's teachings is about training the mind not finding an spirit or inner spiritual feeling in the heart some call god.

He was literally rejecting god and saying everything you, Bahaullah, Muhammad, and I etc experience are from our minds. When we have untrained minds and drawn to things like gods and acetic practices such as the Hindu traditions he opposed you fall into illusions and attachment.

According to The Buddha's teachings, right now you, Bahaullah, Aunt Mary, and Uncle Bob are attached to your religions rather than addressing suffering from the root: the mind.

Religions of abraham talk about The Heart. Old school Buddhism talks about the mind. Two totally different sources. You can use enlightenment if you like but there is a huge difference betwee Bahallauh enlightenment and The Buddha's Enlightenment. The former Bahallauh, jesus, muhammad, etc had revelations via god as the source.

The Buddha transend an dependence on an outside source to understand the nature of suffering. He said address the self.

The Buddha has over thousands of discources. Each one I read so far talks about the mind. It does not mention anything about a creator (to make it more specific). In buddhism, there are more than one god. There are devas and so forth.

Every single person, god, deva, etc are all on the same level. They all hear the words of The Buddha to be enlightened (understanding of life NOT union with a creator)

When I get home, I will address the quotes you gave. But cirst you have to understand the foundation of Buddhist teachings from a Buddhist perspective

Not Bahallauh and not your own.

Peace happens when we stop associating other peoples beliefs in our own when they factually do not belong. Seeing it spiritually is one thing but why and how woule The Buddha manefest into Bahallauh when Baha..believed in god and The Buddha did not?

That means he just turned into someone else. That isnt what The Buddha taught.


Later...