• 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!

Some free talk about the flow of religious wisdom

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas I’m reviewing what you said in this thread, and some of it seems relevant to my questions about your views. It also raises new questions, for example about your views about Dharma in relation to social progress and your role in it, which I might want to discuss later if you’re available for that. For now I would like to know about your views about the role of spiritual teachers in the flow of religious knowledge, and your attitude towards other people’s spiritual teachers and their followers. Also, do you see possibilities for you personally to help with the flow of religious knowledge? If so, are you motivated to do so, and if so, where do you think that motivation comes from?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
(from another thread)

That looks to me like it might be coming from a false, depreciating view of the world community of followers of Baha’u’llah. Thinking about that ended in me wanting to know more about your views. Specifically what I’m wondering about now are your views about spiritual teachers, and your attitude towards other people’s spiritual teachers and their followers.

The Bahai Faith has very consistently been presented to me as Abrahamic in nature. Which is fair enough; it has every right to be such. I just don't think that it furthers its universalist goals.

The Abrahamic Faiths are in a curious position, all the more so because it is a self-imposed situation. Except apparently for Judaism, they have some degree of ambition of being suitable for literally all people. Yet they have very specific expectations and views that are just not suitable for very many people, chief among them the belief in a very specific indeed form of deity.

To this day I wonder what is a sincere Abrahamist expected to do when he realizes that his son is no monotheist. I am simply not aware of a good enough answer. And that is actually rather odd.


@LuisDantas I’m reviewing what you said in this thread, and some of it seems relevant to my questions about your views. It also raises new questions, for example about your views about Dharma in relation to social progress and your role in it, which I might want to discuss later if you’re available for that. For now I would like to know about your views about the role of spiritual teachers in the flow of religious knowledge, and your attitude towards other people’s spiritual teachers and their followers.

In a nutshell, "the proof is in the pudding". Teachings can help, hinder, or trouble, and to a significant extent it will be a factor of how well the specific teachings mesh with the person as he or she exists at that point in time.

I am all too aware that many Abrahamists hope or expect to find the "true teaching" or at least one that is not too dangerously apart from what would presumably have been revealed by the God that they are expected to believe in.

That would be legitimate enough as a spontaneous belief that specific people develop on their own. It is hard to predict what call any given person may have, and there is not a lot of reason to expect others to understand such a call.

But as an actual pillar of a society or culture? I just don't see how that could truly work. The unavoidable result is permanent conflict between the powerful drives towards integration in the society and towards self-acceptance and honesty. One can't just expect everyone to declare monotheism while also being sincere.

Also, do you see possibilities for you personally to help with the flow of religious knowledge? If so, are you motivated to do so, and if so, where do you think that motivation comes from?

Everyone participates of that flow. It is an unavoidable part of living among people.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
well ...you still don't believe in God
is that right?
and what religious responsibility could you have?
if there is nothing greater than you
If you ask me - many things. Family, society, country, the world (that is people beyond my country). Belief or disbelief in existence of God does not make even an iota of difference in these things. Because it is 'dharma' - my duty.
Is there anything in Buddhist and Hindu scriptures about a source or origin of Dharma, or something supporting or sustaining it, making it what it is, or something behind or beyond it, inaccessible to us?
Source of 'dharma' is society.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
@LuisDantas I’m reviewing what you said in this thread, and some of it seems relevant to my questions about your views. It also raises new questions, for example about your views about Dharma in relation to social progress and your role in it, which I might want to discuss later if you’re available for that. For now I would like to know about your views about the role of spiritual teachers in the flow of religious knowledge, and your attitude towards other people’s spiritual teachers and their followers. Also, do you see possibilities for you personally to help with the flow of religious knowledge? If so, are you motivated to do so, and if so, where do you think that motivation comes from?
The question is not addressed to me. But I find it interesting. Since I am an atheist, monotheist religions with their prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/madhis are never going to impress me. The religion/view/philosophy which has impressed me apart from Hinduism is Buddhism. I respect Sikhism. Jainism is restrictive but nice though their cosmology is a bit complicated. I am not familiar with Daoism. Is that a religion? I suppose it has Gods and Goddesses. :)
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The question is not addressed to me. But I find it interesting. Since I am an atheist, monotheist religions with their prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/madhis are never going to impress me. The religion/view/philosophy which has impressed me apart from Hinduism is Buddhism. I respect Sikhism. Jainism is restrictive but nice though their cosmology is a bit complicated. I am not familiar with Daoism. Is that a religion? I suppose it has Gods and Goddesses. :)
Taoism is very interesting. It sort of does have deities.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
A bit more of familiarity shows that Bahais are very much Abrahamic in their doctrine, and brings questions about how much ability to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives it has or seeks.
This is an example of what raises questions for me about your views, ... It looks to me like it might plant a false, damaging picture in people’s minds, of the world community of followers of Bahá’u’lláh.
To be fair, I am curious about why exactly you feel bothered by my saying that.
Maybe this isn’t what you’re really thinking, but it looks to me like if you classify a person’s religion as “Abrahamic,” that’s enough for you, before the person even opens their mouth, to question their willingness and capacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives, more than you would otherwise. To understand how that makes me feel and how it looks to me, imagine a Buddhist saying that they question how much ability any Brazilian could have or seek, to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. Besides how it makes me feel, it looks to me like your preconceptions about the character and capacities of people whose religion you classify as “Abrahamic” are getting in the way of communication between you and me. Also, it seems indisputable to me that thousands of members of the Baha’i Faith were born and raised as Hindus, and it looks to me like you’re questioning either the authenticity of the Hinduism of all those thousands of people, or their honesty and integrity, or you’re depreciating them in some other way.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas I’m still trying to see more clearly, myself, what my problem is with what you said, and what my questions are. From what you said it looks to me like, if you classify a person’s religion as Abrahamic, that’s enough all by itself, without any questions asked, for you to presume that the person is less able and willing than you are, to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. It looks to me like you’re seeing a division between us in your mind, that I think is purely imaginary. Also it looks to me like you’re questioning the authenticity of the Hinduism, or depreciating the character or capacities, of any Hindu who chooses Baha’u’llah as their religious teacher. That’s why I want to know more about your views about religious teachers and their followers in general.

I did a Web search with “Buddhism” and “teacher,” and in the results there were many links to discussions about finding a teacher, in Buddhist websites. In general, do you think that a person’s choice of a teacher can tell you anything about their willingness and capacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives?
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas Are there any other circumstances where you would question the willingness or capacity of all the followers of some teacher to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives? Are there any other circumstances where you would question the authenticity of the Hinduism, or depreciate the character or capacities, of all the followers of some teacher?

I’m guessing that that in general you don’t question the authenticity of the Buddhism, or depreciate the character or capacities, of all the followers of any teachings which include some sort of deity. Aren’t there people that you recognize as authentically Buddhist, whose Buddhism includes deities? In any case I’m sure that there are people you recognize as authentically Hindu, whose Hinduism includes deities. Why is the inclusion of an Abrahamic deity in someone’s ways of thinking a reason for you to question their willingness and capacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas I’ve totally lost my focus here, and I’ve confused two issues. One was your equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh with an incapacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. Another is equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh without agreeing with everything He says, with some kind of character defect.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas I have a habit of going three times around the barn, to get to the house.

It looked to me like you were equating membership in the Baha’i Faith with an incapacity or unwillingness to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. Then in a later post it looked to me like you were equating membership in the Baha’i Faith without agreeing with all its teachings, with some kind of character defect.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
@LuisDantas I’ve totally lost my focus here, and I’ve confused two issues. One was your equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh with an incapacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. Another is equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh without agreeing with everything He says, with some kind of character defect.

As I read your many posts, I see you might like this Jim, brought over from another Forum Discussion (Sen McGlinn linked). It shows that these discussion in self and in mind are a wonderful part of an 'Inspired Soul'.


".....Abdul'baha Makatib 1:85-99...This is an early translation of this discourse on the stages of the soul, unpublished, possibly by Ali Kuli Khan? It begins "as to the stages of the soul, its conditions and degrees, the cause of its abasement and exaltation, and its origin..."

In part;

"When the soul rises from this lowly and bestial condition and ascends to a more dignified and nearer station and degree and is assisted by divine confirmation and receives signs of inspiration and is inspired by the meaning of the Book, as it is said, 'Read thy book; it is sufficient unto thee this day' (17:15); when the reality of day and night becomes apparent to it, and it is invited to the shores of the ocean of knowledge, nourished by divine food from the heavenly paradise, fed from the fruits of the tree of bounty, given to drink from the streams of generosity, sustained by eternal delicacies, tastes the sweetness of choice morsels, it befittingly realizes its elevation and degradation, its rise and fall, judges its affairs with insight, resolves its own difficulties, inclines itself away from the ephemeral to the eternal, withdraws its sight from all created things, sets itself towards the Presence of the Almighty, receives calls from the Concourse on High, attends to that which causes its advancement until it attains to the summit of assurance and the throne of gratitude, becoming a focal center of inspiration among men and gains from its efforts those fruits which will lead it to the goal of its desire - it thus is referred to as the inspired soul which distinguishes its evil doings from its noble deeds."

I found that passage very helpful and most wonderful.

Regards Tony
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Religion as a philosophical path, and evolving culture with customs and traditions without mandatory beliefs and practices. Saying yes to what is sacred about life without all the demands on the individual from the group.

Sounds like surgery on religion!
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Are there any other circumstances where you would question the authenticity of the Hinduism, or depreciate the character or capacities, of all the followers of some teacher?

I’m guessing that that in general you don’t question the authenticity of the Buddhism, or depreciate the character or capacities, of all the followers of any teachings which include some sort of deity.
What do you mean by authenticity of Hinduism or Buddhism? These are free-form religions and adherents can have many kinds of views. We are cool with that. 'Try and get your own fit'. You may have many deities or reject some or reject all of them as I have done. If they did something wrong, go ahead and censure them.
@LuisDantas I’ve totally lost my focus here, and I’ve confused two issues. One was your equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh with an incapacity to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives. Another is equating trust in Bahá’u’lláh without agreeing with everything He says, with some kind of character defect.
For an atheist, belief in God, and on top of that belief in One God, and on top of all that the claim that one is a prophet/son/messenger/manifestation/Mahdi is 'falsehood cubed'. What Bahaullah said is immaterial, because all others also have been saying just that even before Bahaullah.
It looked to me like you were equating membership in the Baha’i Faith with an incapacity or unwillingness to understand non-Abrahamic perspectives.
Myself, and I think Luis also, have gone through in detail about the perspective of Abrahamic faiths, and I find it deficient (let Luis speak for himself). I consider them to be the root of all problems in the world with their insistence on their own propounders and One God.
"When the soul rises from ..
Non-starter. There is no soul.
Sounds like surgery on religion!
Surgery is a necessity part of modern medicine.
 
Last edited:

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
What do you mean by authenticity of Hinduism or Buddhism? These are free-form religions and adherents can have many kinds of views.

Yet you seem to have a lot of problems with Vaishnavites and Hare Krishnas :rolleyes:

For an atheist, belief in God, and on top of that belief in One God

You believe in God (Monism) and two aspects of that God (Paramarthika and Vyavaharika), it's actually SILLY that you call yourself an atheist when you're anything but.
Not believing in anthropomorphic deities does not make one an atheist.

Non-starter. There is no soul.

You're too invested in Hindu-supremacy to even recognize the synonymity between the Soul and the Atman. No ifs or buts, they are exactly the same thing.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas Apart from my objections to your posts that I tried to explain above, I’d like to know more about your views about teachers in Buddhism. From a Web search it looks to me like teachers are an inseparable part of Buddhism, that Buddhism wouldn’t be Buddhism wIthout teachers. What thoughts do you have about the role of teachers in Buddhism, in relation to
what you’ve said,
in this thread,
about the flow of religious wisdom?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yet you seem to have a lot of problems with Vaishnavites and Hare Krishnas :rolleyes:

You believe in God (Monism) and two aspects of that God (Paramarthika and Vyavaharika), it's actually SILLY that you call yourself an atheist when you're anything but. Not believing in anthropomorphic deities does not make one an atheist.

You're too invested in Hindu-supremacy to even recognize the synonymity between the Soul and the Atman. No ifs or buts, they are exactly the same thing.
- Not at all. Krishna characterization is cute and beautiful. If you have time, see my posts in Hinduism DIR and elsewhere.
- Monism, in my view, does not accept God. Paramarthika and Vyavhaqrika are two ways of looking at the world, one seeing only what is truth and the other seeing only what is perceived by our senses. I do not believe in any deities at all (even Brahman is not a deity with me. It is just the stuff that exists).
- I do not believe in existence of Soul. It is Brahman all over. Why then we should require another name for it? Nothing goes out of the body/leaves at the time what is called a death. It is Brahman when it is (so-called) alive, it is Brahman even when it is (so-called) dead. There is nothing which is dead. Atoms even in a stone are whirring.
- Of course, I am a Hindu and for me, Hinduism is the best; but that is my view. If you differ, it is OK with me.
 

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
- Monism, in my view, does not accept God. Paramarthika and Vyavhaqrika are two ways of looking at the world, one seeing only what is truth and the other seeing only what is perceived by our senses. I do not believe in any deities at all (even Brahman is not a deity with me. It is just the stuff that exists).

Yet you go ahead and describe a pantheistic view of God. I don't believe in anthropomorphic "deities" either but I'm a Monotheist. I still have a hard time understanding why you call yourself an 'atheist'.

- I do not believe in existence of Soul. It is Brahman all over. Why then we should require another name for it? Nothing goes out of the body/leaves at the time what is called a death. It is Brahman when it is (so-called) alive, it is Brahman even when it is (so-called) dead. There is nothing which is dead. Atoms even in a stone are whirring.

You seem too stuck in your very secluded worldview to even get what I just said.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The bottom line is that we both have to respect tradition and to challenge it, and we both have to respect our own personal inclinations and to dare to transcend them. Some understandings must evolve as the passage of time and the environmental circunstances change. Some must be course corrected now and then. We can transcend what we are taught, and that is neither right nor wrong in and of itself.

Dharma is the true meaning of religion as I understand it. It is the art, the ability, the dire need for balancing respect with religious courage, and letting the chips fall where they may. It is the realization that, if there is a God, he ought to have seen fit to allow people to have their own ideas... and that if there is no such God, then those ideas are all that we have. It is learing to ask questions, then to answer those questions, then to know better than to use the answers as our own crutches and restraining walls.

Dharma as I understand it is the activity of receiving the teachings as they are - a vital, often wild flow of legacies from other people, which we ought to receive with love, respect and wisdom so that we can change them and pass them forward and eventually back to ourselves. It may be described as the art of facing the joys and horrors that are ours and yet not truly ours, only to realize that their existence is far more relevant than their origins. It is learning where we fit and where to find our loving joys and how to bond and heal.
I’ve reviewed all that carefully, and it all looks very good to me. I’d like to know how you see the role of teachers and students in all of that. I hope that you will answer that question on its own terms, along with whatever else you want to say. If you suspect that I’m leading up to something, you’re right, but at the same time I really am interested in how you see the role of teachers and students in that picture of the flow of religious wisdom.

What I’m leading up to is about Bahá’u’lláh as my teacher; and about the worldwide Baha’i community as a community built by his students for them to practice his teachings about community life; and about how it looks and feels to me for you to talk about that community the way you did in those posts, but I need to think some more about how to explain it. Meanwhile, I would like to know how you see the role of teachers and students in that picture of the flow of religious wisdom.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
@Jim , everyone is a teacher, even if unwillingly. And a student as well.

We do not really have a choice on the matter.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@LuisDantas do you identify with any particular school of Buddhism?

I see that there are some widespread Buddhist communities, for example like the Triratna community. Is there any widespread Buddhist community that you associate with or might want to support more than others?

If you do a Web search with “Buddhism” and “teacher,” you will see that for some Buddhists, there are special Buddhists called “teachers.” and that finding the right “teacher” is part of what “Buddhism” means to some Buddhists. Did you really not know that?
 
Top