Buddhism
Bruce Burrill
You state:
Here is a quote from the Dalai Lama. Since he is the spiritual
leader of a branch of Buddhism, I imagine he speaks for more
Buddhists than only himself. He says:
"Indeed, according to some Western scholars, Buddhists are also
atheists, since they do not accept a creator. "
What I understand from this statement, and I really do wish he
would have expanded upon it, is that he doesn't necessarily see the
non-acceptance of a creator as being precisely identical with being
an atheist, and that not all Buddhists consider themselves to be
atheists.
Would you be kind enough to cite the source for this quote.
The issue here is how one defines atheism. Buddhists are not atheists in
the sense of Western materialistic philosophy. Let me quote a few
paragraphs from a very long article. After you read through this I'll
explain why I am quoting this other than in itself it is on the topic of the
Buddha's "atheism" in contradistinction to the Baha'i claim that the
Buddha taught a oneness of god. Also, I am quoting this because it helps
give some sense of the Indian milieu of the Buddha.
====
Dharmakiirti's refutation of theism
By Roger Jackson
Philosophy East and West
36:4 Oct. 1986 p. 315-348
p. 315
I. INTRODUCTION
Indian civilization, no less than that of the West,
is haunted by the concept of God, and Indian
philosophical writing, no less than the works of
Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, or Hume, has as one of its
important concerns the existence or nonexistence of
an omniscient, eternal, independent, benevolent being
who creates and/or designs the cosmos. Despite Lin
Yutang's description of India as a nation
"intoxicated with God,"(1) Indian skepticism about
such a being goes back very far indeed,(2) and
explicit arguments against theism find an important
place in the writings of Buddhism, Jainism, and
Miimaa.msaa (as they must have in the lost writings
of Caarvaaka) , while God's importance or even
existence for early Saa.mkhya, Nyaaya, and Vai`se.sika
is at best moot.(3) Indeed, the only Indian philosophical
systems that are explicitly theistic are Vedanta,
Yoga, and later, Nyaaya-Vai`se.sika. It undoubtedly
is due to the overwhelming preference for Vedanta
among modern exponents of Indian philosophy that
Indian tradition so often is presented through
theistically-shaded lenses, and it is not incorrect
to assert that, in general, Indian civilization has
become more theistic during the same period in which
the West has become less so. Still, this should not
blind us to the fact that as recently as five hundred
years ago thinkers like the Jaina Gu.naratna were
adducing sharp and original arguments against
theistic assertions, and that even today the
unanimity of Indian belief in God may not be as
thoroughgoing as most swamis and scholars would have
us believe.(4)
...
...it is equally clear that theism in the sense in
which I am using it--as the assertion of an
omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause of
the cosmos--is rejected throughout the length and
breadth of the Indian Buddhist tradition.
Dharmakiirti's antitheistic arguments may have taken
the Buddhist critique to a new level of
sophistication, but he had behind him a millennium of
refutations, with many of which he undoubtedly was
familiar, and which ought to be borne in mind when we
consider his discussion.
The Pali Nikayas contain a number of explicit
rejections of theism, and some important implicit
ones, as well.
...
For the later Buddhist philosophical tradition,
however, the most important early arguments are perhaps
the implicit ones: those many passages in the Nikayas
where the concept of a permanent atta or atman is
rejected, principally on the grounds that no
permanent entity is or can be encountered in
experience or justified by reason. It really is
Buddhism's emphasis on universal impermanence that is
at the root of its aversion to the concept of God, as
became evident in the sorts of refutations offered in
the post-nikaya period (when the attributes of the
creator, identified by the Buddhists as i`svara [God],
perhaps had become more clearly defined).
Poussin remarks that Buddhist refutations of i`svara [God]
"ont le tort de se repeter."(39) It is true that
certain points are stressed again and again, but the
arguments do vary; indeed, their uniformity is more
in style than substance: virtually all are couched in
the form of logical dilemmas, in which the
predication of this or that attribute of i`svara [God] is
shown to lead to unacceptable conclusions, no matter
how it is qualified. Post-nikaya, pre-Dharmakiirti
arguments are thus broadly "logical," without being
specifically inferential.
1. Lin Yutang, ed., The Wisdom of China and India
(New York: Modern Library, 1942), p. 11.
2. Compare such "skeptical" Vedic passages as. Rg
(.Rgveda) II, 12, 5; IV, 18, 12; and VIII, 100, 3;
and their discussion in Depibrasad Chattopadhyaya,
Indian Atheism (Calcutta: Manisha, 1969), pp.
32-43. Chattopadhyaya's book, while occasionally
straining for evidence that one or another
ambiguous passage is atheistic, presents overall a
compelling picture of the pervasiveness of atheism
in Indian philosophical (if not religious)
3. Compare Chattopadhyaya, Indian Atheism, chaps. 9
and 16.
4. Compare, for example, ibid., chap. 14; and
Narendranath Bhattacharyya, Jain Philosophy:
Historical Outline (New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1976), pp. 93-108.
...
39.Louis de la Vallee Poussin,
Vij~naptimaatrataasiddhi: La Siddhi de Hiuan-Tsang
(Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1928), I, p. 30
======
Again, as we look at the Pali texts, the teachings of the Buddha, we do
not see an implied, even obliquely, acceptance of an omniscient,
permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos; rather, we see a
rejection. The Dalai Lama is very much a part of the scholastic tradition
that is in line with Dharmakirti that is very much in line with these early
texts.
The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, works very hard to understand
other religions. I can recommend his book THE GOOD HEART: A
Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus, pub by Wisdom. (Sorry,
I am not allowed to give you a URL for this.) While the Dalai Lama is
sympathetic and empathetic to other religions, as an earlier quote from
him has shown here, encouraging the positive aspects of other religions,
I have been told by personal students of his that when he talks in strictly
Buddhist terms and contexts he very much rejects the idea of god.
In that way he is an atheist, but again, not an atheist in terms of Western
materialistic philosophy. Buddhist have traditionally -- and the Dalai
Lama is in line with this -- accept any number of gods, but
understanding that these beings are limited and liable to death and
rebirth and karma. Rebirth and karma puts Buddhist atheism in a
different category than Western materialistic atheism, and that is the
point that Baha'is need to understand when looking at this subject.
I have heard more than one Baha'i speak along this line:
> "Again, contrary to the claim Indeed, as I understand it, the key to
this discussion is this: There are several major divisions in Buddhism.
At least one of these is essentially atheistic; while others are
theistic."<,
but I have yet to have a Baha'i who has made such a claim point me
toward a theistic school of Buddhism that would support a contention
that the Buddha taught a "Oneness of God." What we are stuck with is
the contrast between the Baha'i claims and what we see when we look
at Buddhism:
The old, developed religions of India acknowledge a multitude of
impermanent gods, all of then subject to karma. Buddhism and
Jainism, and the classic systems of Mimamsa and Sankhya,
consider all the gods without exception as karmically conditioned
beings. Many orthodox Hindu and Brahmin sects, however, teach
one uncreated, permanent world ruler (Ishvara [God]) who is above
all the impermanent gods. He exists eternally, and rules the
cosmos and all individual beings. His adherents attempted to
prove his existence by philosophical arguments, or by appeal to
Vedic revelation, or to other scriptures considered to be
authoritative. And Buddhist apologetics at all times tried to justify
their different, atheist point of view. I present below the relevant
arguments of Buddhist masters and texts, arranged not in
chronological order but according to their logical development.
Buddhism is a philosophy of becoming; consequently it cannot
acknowledge the existence of an eternal, permanent and personal
god. If there is nothing that is permanent in the world, if
unconditioned substances do not exist, and if each personality is
but a continuously flowing stream of changing dharmas, then no
Ishvara can exist, no matter whether he is conceived as Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva, or whatever. Therefore it is said
(Abhidharmakosha): 'The assumption that an lshvara [God] is the
cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in an eternal
self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance or personality). This
belief is untenable as soon as it is recognized that everything is
(impermanent and therefore) subject to suffering." ...
In the earliest literature Buddha is said to have stressed the
incompatibility of the theory of a good and almighty god with the
vileness of the world, and with the doctrine of the freedom of the
will. A summary from the Anguttara-Nikaya states: 'Some ascetics
and Brahmins hold: "Whatever comes to man, happiness or
suffering, or neither, all is caused by the will of the creator
(issaranimmana)." But I say: "So then because of the will of their
creator and god, human beings become murderers, thieves,
unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and heretical." And
those who rely on the creation of a supreme god lack the freewill
to do what is to be done, and to refrain from doing what is not to
be done."'
The Bhuridatta-jataka poses the question why God does not make
all men happy, and why he does not bring order into the world
(ujj-karoti). 'The lord of creation is unjust because though justice
exists, he created injustice as well'.
-- BUDDHISM: A Non-Theistic Religion. Helmuth Von
Glasenapp. Pub by George Braziller pages 35-6.
So we are stuck with the contrast between the claims of made by Baha'is
about the Buddha and Buddhism: How do we resolve this problem without
claiming a one sided divine inspiration. Is it open to independent
investigation? Is Baha'i truly scientific in that would make adjustments to
itself in light of evidence that contradicts its claims?
Smaneck
>Buddhism and monotheism is National Spiritual Assembly member Dr.
>David Young, who, of all people, surely had his material thoroughly
>checked by the National Review Committee." <
Dear Nancy,
There seems to be a common misunderstanding that if someones work has gone
through review it therefore has some kind of official "seal of approval" and
can therefore be relied upon. While Baha'i review generally attempts to
screen
materials for gross inaccuracies and undignified presentation it generally
not
in a position to determine whether everything in there is correct,
especially
not when it involves a topic like Buddhism where most Baha'is know very
little.
Susan Stiles Maneck
History, Stetson University
Bruce Burrill
Smaneck
>have expanded upon it, is that he doesn't necessarily see the
>non-acceptance of a creator as being precisely identical with being an
>atheist, and that not all Buddhists consider themselves to be atheists.
Dear Suzanne,
Not all Buddhists (and certainly not Tibetan Buddhists) deny the existence
of
gods, but they are regarded as irrelevant to the most ultimate questions,
namely how to end suffering and get off the wheel of life. The Buddhist
understanding is that the dieties themselves are also stuck on this wheel
and
they are no help once one decides to get off.
Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But since Baha'is
believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too. At the same time,
we
believe in an "uncaused Cause" and Thervadin Buddhists like Bruce would deny
that as well.
Dean Betts
>believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too.
Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence of creator?
Suzanne Gerstner
>Suzanne,
>
>You state:
>
> Here is a quote from the Dalai Lama. Since he is the spiritual
> leader of a branch of Buddhism, I imagine he speaks for more
> Buddhists than only himself. He says:
>
> "Indeed, according to some Western scholars, Buddhists are also
> atheists, since they do not accept a creator. "
>Would you be kind enough to cite the source for this quote.
Dear Bruce,
Sure. It's from a talk which was given at the National Tennis Centre,
Melbourne, Australia on May 4, 1992.
>The issue here is how one defines atheism. Buddhists are not atheists
in
>the sense of Western materialistic philosophy.
Yes, this is what I was sensing.
>Again, as we look at the Pali texts, the teachings of the Buddha, we do
>not see an implied, even obliquely, acceptance of an omniscient,
>permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos; rather, we see a
>rejection.
Could you cite these texts please. I am more interested in what the
Buddha, as the Founder of Buddhism, had to say than what his followers
have said over the centuries. Actually this is the point which
'Abdu'l-Baha was making. That we need to look to the original Source to
gain illumination from the world's religions, and that the doctrines and
dogmas which arose afterwards were not always in keeping with the pure
teachings of the Founder. He didn't say that Buddhism was dead. On
the contrary, he said:
"The light of Christ is evident. The candle of Buddha is shining. The
star of Moses is sparkling. The flame ignited by Zoroaster is still
burning. How can we deny them? It is injustice. It is a denial of
complete evidence. If we forsake imitations all will become united and
no differences will remain to separate us.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Japan Will Turn Ablaze*, Page: 45)
In other words, He was saying that you could still obtain illumination
from the teachings of Buddha as many people surely do today.
>In that way he is an atheist, but again, not an atheist in terms of
Western
>materialistic philosophy. Buddhist have traditionally -- and the Dalai
>Lama is in line with this -- accept any number of gods, but
>understanding that these beings are limited and liable to death and
>rebirth and karma. Rebirth and karma puts Buddhist atheism in a
>different category than Western materialistic atheism, and that is the
>point that Baha'is need to understand when looking at this subject.
Could you also cite the specific quotes of the Buddha about this please?
>but I have yet to have a Baha'i who has made such a claim point me
>toward a theistic school of Buddhism that would support a contention
>that the Buddha taught a "Oneness of God." What we are stuck with is
>the contrast between the Baha'i claims and what we see when we look
>at Buddhism:
Yes. On this point we do seem to have a different belief system, but I
think that is all right. Each person has a right, and even a
responsibilty (imv), to have their own beliefs. It would be wrong for a
Baha'i to insist that you believe what they do about the Buddha; but on
the other hand, it would be equally wrong for a Buddhist, to insist that
a Baha'i deny the Writings of their own scriptures. When we each follow
our own path and are true to the spirit of our teachings, I believe we
tend to meet on higher ground (like the Dalai Lama). What I've read of
the Buddhist ethical and moral teachings sounds very similar to certain
Baha'i teachings. On that level, they are not so different it seems to
me.
> In the earliest literature Buddha is said to have stressed the
> incompatibility of the theory of a good and almighty god with the
> vileness of the world, and with the doctrine of the freedom of
the
> will. A summary from the Anguttara-Nikaya states: 'Some ascetics
> and Brahmins hold: "Whatever comes to man, happiness or
> suffering, or neither, all is caused by the will of the creator
> (issaranimmana)." But I say: "So then because of the will of
their
> creator and god, human beings become murderers, thieves,
> unchaste, liars, slanderers, covetous, malicious and heretical."
And
> those who rely on the creation of a supreme god lack the freewill
> to do what is to be done, and to refrain from doing what is not
to
> be done."'
I wish I had the original of what the Buddha said and what the situation
was He was responding to. This is hard for me to understand since I
believe in a creator God (although Baha'ullah describes Him as an
"unknowable essence" and says that we can only know Him through His
creation and His Manifestations) and out of my deep love for Him, and
out of my own free will, I strive to do good.
>So we are stuck with the contrast between the claims of made by Baha'is
>about the Buddha and Buddhism: How do we resolve this problem without
>claiming a one sided divine inspiration. Is it open to independent
>investigation? Is Baha'i truly scientific in that would make
adjustments to
>itself in light of evidence that contradicts its claims?
As I said earlier, I don't think we are stuck. I believe that you are
free to have your own beliefs as we are free to have ours. Deeply held
beliefs cannot be argued away and we do have a right to believe that the
central figures of our Faith were divinely inspired and you have the
right to believe that that's nonsense, if you wish. ;-)
Kind regards,
Suzanne Gerstner
The Netherlands
Suzanne Gerstner
>I understand he was trying to show similarities between Baha'i and the
>teachings of the Buddha, but has he been successful? Rather than me
>picking an issue, why don't you pick a "similarity" Momen has
>illustrated with the Pali texts, such as something that relates to the
>nature
>of the Buddha. We can then carefully look at it. Heavens, it might turn
>out that I am wrong, but whatever, it should illustrate the point that
>Mark and I have been making about the need for carefully understanding
>of the Buddha's teaching before the Baha'i similarities are "found."
Dear Bruce,
There are so many quotes which sound extremely similar. Would you mind
if I start with the things which really strike me as being the same?
Here are a few examples: (By the way, I am not going to cite
references. They are all in the back of the book, so if you want to
know what a specific one is you can ask. Otherwise, you can look them
up for yourself because this is too much work)
--On Avoiding companionship of evil men--
Buddhist:
"Have not for friends those whose soul is ugly; go not with men who have
an evil soul. Have for friends those whose soul is beautiful; go with
men whose soul is good." -- Dhammapada
Baha'i:
"O My Son! The company of the ungodly increaseth sorrow, whilst
fellowship with the righteous cleanseth the rust from off the heart."
The Hidden Words
--Joy--
Buddhist:
"O let us live in joy, in love amongst those who hate! Among men who
hate, let us live in love. O let us live in joy, although having
nothing! In joy let us live like spirits of light." Dhammapada
Baha'i:
"Joy gives us wings! In times of joy our strength ismore vital, our
intellect keener, and our undertsanding less clouded."
-- Forbearance --
Buddhist:
"Forbearing Patience is the highest devotion." Dhammapada
Baha'i:
"Show forbearance and benevolence and love to one another." Gleanings
-- Conquering anger --
Buddhist:
"Conquer anger by love; conquire evil by good." -- Dhammapada
Baha'i:
"A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of
love." Paris Talks
And so forth.
But you asked about the Buddha nature. This is a subsection of one
chapter of the book. If I just cite a couple of quotes, they would be
taken out of context from what Moojan is trying to say, so I guess it
would help our investigation of truth to quote this sub-chapter in full:
The Nature of Buddhahood. Moojan says:
In summarizing the above sections, we may say that Baha'u'llah's
teachings agree with the Lord Buddha's in stating that it is impossible
for humanity to obtain a complete knowledge of Absolute Reality. It is
also not spiritually profitable to spend a great deal of time in
thinking about these matters. Instead we should look to the Buddhas,
who are the only source of our knowledge of the Absolute, and try to
follow their teachings. We should put aside questions of the kind "What
is the nature of the Absolute Reality that stands behind the Buddhas?'
and instead look to the guidance of the Buddhas. The Buddha himself
suggests this:
'Since a Tathagata, even when present, is unknowable, it is inept to say
of him -- the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the
Supernal; that after dying the Tathagata is, or is not, or both is and
is not, or neither is nor is not." (45)
And so, although the Buddha speaks of the Absolute Reality and of
himself as the discloser of the Path, the Dhamma, and Baha'ullah speaks
of God and of himself as the Manifestation of God, they are in effect
saying the same thing and referring to the same spiritual truth: that
there is a Higher Truth, an Absolute Reality, to which human beings have
no direct access. No words of description adequately apply to that
reality. We can, however, know the Buddhas that come to the world.
They are the intermediaries between us and the Truth. They are fully
familiar with the Truth. We can follow their guidance. They lead us to
liberation and salvation.
There is a widespread belief that the Lord Buddha was a man like any
other who attained enlightenment through his own efforts. However, if
the Buddhist scriptures are examined with a fresh and unbiased eye, it
is hard to come to such an understanding. For example, when asked
whether he could guide people to that higher reality, Gautama Buddha
replied:
'If a man had been born and brought up in (the town of) Manasakat, every
road that leads to Manasakata would be perfectly familiar to him... To
the Tathagata, when asked touching the path which leads to the world of
Brahma, there can be no doubt of difficulty. For Brahma, I know, and
the world of Brahma, and the path which leadeth unto it. Yea, I know it
even as one who has entered the Brahma world, and has been born within
it!" (47)
Thus the Buddhist scriptures appear to suggest that the Buddhas are in
reality people of a higher plane who are temporarily in this world to
guide us. Furthermore, Lord Buddha condemns any of his followers who
claim that his teaching is something that the Buddha devised himself, as
a result of his own efforts:
"Whoever, Sariputta, knowing that it is so of me, seeing that it is so,
should speak thus: "There are no suprahuman states, no excellent
cognition and insight...in the recluse Gautama; the recluse Gautama
teaches Dhamma on a system of his own devising beaten out by reasoning
and based on investigation' -- if he does not retract that speech,
Sariputta, if he does not cast out that view, he is verily consigned to
Niraya Hell for this sin." (48)
When asked about the way to attain a state of union with Brahma, Gautama
Buddha replied:
"Know, Vasettha, that (from time to time) a Tathagata is born into the
world, a fully Enlightened One, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom
and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide
to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed Buddha. He by
himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this
universe -- the world below with all its spirits, and the worlds above,
of Mara and of Braham - and all creatures, Samanas and Brahmins, gods
and men, and he makes this knowledge known to others. The truth doth he
proclaim both in its letter and in its spirit. lovely in its origin,
lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth
he make known, in all its purity and in all its perfectness." (49)
Thus it is clear that it was not just the attainment to enlightenment (a
condition that many mortals can reach) which marked out the Buddha as
extraordinary He had been extraordinary from birth; he was from birth
onwards a special order of being, which comes but rarely to the world.
Indeed, contrary to the common view that anyone can achieve
enlightenment through his own efforts, the Lord Buddha asserts that it
is only through the coming of a Buddha that the path is made clear and
the Four Noble Truths are made known:
"So long as a Tathagata arises not, an Arahat, a Buddha Supreme, there
is no shining forth of great light, of great radiance, but gross
darkness, the darkness of bewilderment, prevails, and there is no
proclamation of the Four Noble Truths, no teaching, no showing forth, no
setting up, no opening up, no analysis, no making plain.
But, brethren, as soon as a Tathagata arises in the world, then is there
a shining forth of great light, of great radiance. Then is there no
more gloom and darkness of bewilderment; then is there a proclamation of
the Four Noble Truths; then is there teaching, a shining forth, a
setting up, an opening up, an analysis, a making plain." (50)
Baha'u'llah expresses these same truths in his writings. He says that
the Tathagatas or Manifestations of God are the intermediaries between
the highest reality and this world. They are thoroughly familiar with
the highest reality and can show us human beings the path to that world.
"To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the
unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every
human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress
and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should
adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His
fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient
eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly
hidden from the sight of men. "No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh
in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving."...
The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days being thus closed
in the face of all beings, the Source of infinite grace, according to
His saying, "His grace hath transcended all things; My grace hath
encompassed them all," hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness to
appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human
temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the
world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being, and tell of the
subtleties of His imperishable Essence. " (51)
Although the Buddha is one who has reached Nibbanna, it is not true that
anyone who reaches Nibbana is automatically a Buddha. For the
statements of the Buddha indicate that while there are many who will
reach Nibbana -- thus for example, on his deathbed, the Buddha assures
all five hundred of his companions that they were stream-winners (that
is, would reach Nibbana) (52) -- fully-enlightened Buddhas who are
Tathagatas and who renew the Dhamma and bring new teachings for the
Vinaya come but rarely. In the Buddhist scriptures it is stated that
'Rarely do Tathagatas arise in the world, they who are Arahats, fully
enlightened ones'. (53) Indeed, the Buddha specificaly states that his
station is one to "which no worldling can attain." (54 and, as we have
seen, is unknowable: 'Since a Tathagata or Buddha 'knows the straight
path that leads to union with Brahma.' (56 his function is to 'show the
way'. (57)
The Buddha is to be distinguished from others who are freed by insight.
The Buddha is one who brings into being a new Dhamma:
"The Tathagata, brethren, who, being Arahant, is fully enlightened, he
it is who doth cause a way to arise which had not arisen before; who
doth proclaim a way not proclaimed before; who is the knower of a way,
who understandeth a way, who is skilled in a way. And now, brethren,
his disciples are wayfarers who follow after him. That, brethren, is
the distinction, the specific feature which distinguishes the Tathagata
who, being Arahat, is fully enlightened, from the brother who is freed
by insight." (58)
The station of a Buddha is thus very exalted and a phenomenon that
occurs but rarely in the world. Gautama Buddha named only three
previous Buddhas in this aeon as well as Metteyya (Maitreya) Buddha who
was to come after him.
Broadly speaking, Baha'u'llah describes the station and function of the
fully-enlightened ones very similarly. He also states that such figures
arise but rarely, so five hundred to one thousand yars separating each
from the next. their tation is very exalted, far above that of any
human being, and their function is to guide humanity into the true path,
to re-establish the Path of Dhamma, and to give new rules for humanity's
social relations.
Baha'u'llah states that all of these great Teachers who have arisen in
the past and will come in the future take on the role of intermediaries
between an unknowable Absolute Reality and human beings. In one aspect
they are perfect manifestations of the Absolute Reality; they are the
personalized aspect of the Absolute. The Buddhas are the only contact
that we in this world of Samsara can have with Eternity and the
Absolute. As Gautama Buddha says, 'All things indeed pass away, but the
Buddhas are forever in eternity." (59) Similarly, Baha'u'llah writes:
'All on the earth shall pass away, but the face of thy Lord...' (60)
The Buddhas are the embodiments of the Truth, the Absolute, in this
world. Indeed, the Buddhas have discouraged us from seeking the
Absolute Truth which is beyond our ability to reach; they have instead
encouraged us to look to the Buddhas themselves as the Truth. Since the
Buddhas are the embodiments of the Absolute Truth, they are all that
human beings are capable of understanding of the Truth. The Lord Buddha
states: 'Whoever sees Dhamma sees me, whoever sees me sees Dhamma.' (61)
Similarly, Baha'u'llah says:
'Know verily that whenever this Youth turneth His eyes towards His own
self, he findeth it the most insignficiant of all creation. When He
contempletes, however, the bright effulgence He hath ben empowered to
manifest, lo, that self is transfigured before Him into a sovereign
Potency permeating the essence of all things visible and invisible.'
(62)
These Divine Teachers who appear in the world from age to age are
likened by Baha'u'llah to mirrors which reflect to this world the light
of the Absolute. Without them, 'there is', in the words of the Buddha,
'no shining forth of great light, of great radiance, but gross darkness,
the darkness of bewilderment, prevails. (63)"
------------
Unfortunately, I am going to be away for a few days, so I won't be able
to respond to any letters until sometime next week.
john haukness
that assumption posted to be in error. If you changed the frequently to
rare, then it would be ok, but as far as Abdul Baha using hyperoble in His
comments on Buddhism, I have not seen this hyperbole. And as far as Abdul
Baha, The Guardian, or Baha'is not being able to know much about Buddhism
because only a Buddhist can do that, we have the matter that Bahaullah is
the return of Buddha. Thus Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, or a Baha'i may know
the most cutting edge about Buddhism. Shi'i's and Sunni Muslims have had
such disagreements that the very top of the pyramid, such as Ali have been
sacrificed on the table of contradiction and disagreement. As much sincere
blood was spilled between followers of Martin Luther and followers of the
Pontiff. The same is true of all the current schisms present currently in
Buddhism. Thus a Baha'i and certainly a perfect human being and Master such
as Abdul Baha does not have to go into all the condradictions of human
Buddhists to grasp Buddhism. The Baha'i Faith has a portal to scholarship,
even though most Baha'is see the religion and a Unitarian bahai faith, a few
grasp the power and expanse Bahaullah has placed in the hands of the devote.
One doesn't have to go anywhere to understand Buddhism outside of the Baha'i
Faith, because NOW, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are inside the Baha'i
Faith. I know this is audacious, but we are swimming in rhetoric of late, au
revoir j
-----Original Message-----
From: ANTHONY S HIGGINS <ASH...@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: bahai...@bcca.org <bahai...@bcca.org>
Date: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Buddhism
>
>>
>>Obviously, there is a difference of opinion regarding just what Buddhist
>>beliefs are. I submit that in view of Christian misconceptions of the
>>tenets of their Faith, a consensus of believers is no true test.
>
>This is indeed the crux of the issue. Human understanding is wonderfully
>ingenious and corruptible. Imagination has played a large role in the
>transformation of religion through time, usually away from the original
>intention of the Messenger. The Buddha Himself said that within 500 years
of
>His death, that His religion would be essentially defunct. In some sense it
>doesn't matter what the Buddha's teachings were, since the Buddha Maitreya
>has already come. If that offends any Buddhists reading this (or Baha'is
for
>that matter), there are plenty of people out there who won't be offended to
>learn that the Buddha has returned.
> In His service
>(hopefully),
>
>Shawn
>
>
>
John Haukness
Buddhist, and who profess to think they know Buddhist scholarship say that
Buddhist scriptures deny the existence of the creator, BUT, they rely on
their personal choice as to what is and what is not characteristic of
Buddhist scripture.
So, this is not unlike, I john haukness am the Buddhist scholar on this
list. I will pick and choose from the volumes of writings in some library or
other in some country on earth or other that ascribes this writing to be
Buddhist, and then I will tell you this is the truth. And now, you have just
read what is called, from a pundit. au revoir j
Nancy Scott Myers
I can see how that would be. I have never had anything go through review,
so I couldn't say. I had assumed that the process was more rigorous than
it apparently is. I will still, however, stand by my guns in saying that
Dr. Young DID have his material reviewed (as opposed to DID NOT).
Much love,
Nancy Myers
who will be submitting a cross-stitch design for the Greatest Name shortly
with - still! - a certain amount of trepidation!
>Susan Stiles Maneck
>History, Stetson University
>
>
>
>
Nancy Myers
lady...@humboldt1.com
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
O MY FRIEND IN WORD!
Ponder awhile. Hast thou ever heard that friend and foe should abide in
one heart? Cast out then the stranger, that the Friend may enter His home.
Bruce Burrill
>list. I will pick and choose from the volumes of writings in some library or
>other in some country on earth or other that ascribes this writing to be
>Buddhist, and then I will tell you this is the truth. And now, you have just
>read what is called, from a pundit. au revoir j
Rather than simply assert this point, demonstrate it. Show us with a
careful analysis of Buddhist texts that Abdu'l-Baha is right and that the
Buddhist scholars ancient and modern are wrong.
Scott Mckee
authoritative writings of the Buddha - which apparently do not
exist, it would be an impossibility.
Scott McKEE
Smaneck
>it apparently is. I will still, however, stand by my guns in saying that
>Dr. Young DID have his material reviewed (as opposed to DID NOT).
Oh, I'm sure he did. And inasmuch as it didn't say anything blantantly
contrary
to the Teachings, it passed.
Smaneck
>>believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too.
>
>Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence of creator?
Because there is no active act of creation per se.
Dean Betts
>>>Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But since Baha'is
>>>believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too.
>>
>>Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence of creator?
>
>Because there is no active act of creation per se.
Baha'u'llah refers the Creator in a great many of His Writings. To whom do
you think He is referring? Also, what do you mean by "believing in
emanation"?
MSP MENGE
Scott McKee writes:
>This seems a reasonable request on the surface, however without the
>authoritative writings of the Buddha - which apparently do not
>exist, it would be an impossibility.
Um, I think the point is that we don't know which of the writings of the
Buddha
are authentic and which are not.
Even so, the very concept that the Buddha was a Messenger of God implies
that
the Buddhist scripture is divinely protected.
For instance Baha'u'llah said of the Gospel:
"How could God, when once the Day-Star of the beauty of Jesus had
disappeared
from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His
holy book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear
also?"
(Writings of Baha'u'llah, p.107)
Regards,
Matt
John Haukness
thousands of years old, with the world's libraries overfilling with choices
to pick from as to what is and what is not about those respective religions,
I could as you say, carefully lay out my path pointing out that Buddha did
not deny God.
But I will offer this, let a handful of people here, just for the sake of
arguement, go to Alta Vista, and another handful go to Yahoo, and type in
Buddhism, and then just randomly surf, and see how many times you come up
with God, (because I promise you one thing, Yahoo's search engine is going
to turn up "God" in any search of Buddha or Buddhism) and then see how many
times you come up with "no God,"
then in further exploration one could determine the soundness of the the
places that place God in Buddhism and the soundness of the places that place
no God in Buddhism. But my point is, should anyone here really want to
explore and not just sit on their convictions, Excite and Lycoos and the
University of Minnesota and Stanford University libraries will turn up God
in Buddhism.
Phil Jackson, the coach of of the Los Angeles Lakers, calls himself a Zen
Buddhist, and he believes in God, just to take an example that we can relate
to, and Phil Jackson has a degree in divinity from the University of North
Dakota, where I new him as his suite-mate briefly.
Buddhism is a popular religion, Christianity is the most popular religion,
there has been an outpouring of meshing between Christianity, agnosticism,
secular humanism and Buddhism with people like the Beattles exploring it
all. I came into Buddhism during the 60's when Alan Watts had best sellers
on Zen Buddhism and Watts was on the west coast and east coast college
lecture circuit.
But, there are many, many secular humanist Jews, see the Renee Zewlliger
vidio out, or the John Turturro Andie Mcdowel Jewish movies made that are
agnostic.
Humans are now turning all of the major relgions into secular humanism and
not believing in God. Leo Tolstoy said there was not a God, that Chrsit was
a philosopher. Why does Bruce keep insisting this is a Buddhist only thing,
that there is no God.
Phil Jackson has just as legitimate claim to know what Buddhism is as a Zen
Buddhist, and he believes in God and has his Laker, and formerly had his
Bulls championship teams meditate on God. As I said, Bahaullah said God is
unknowable, and this is what Buddha taught.
But, I place far less creadence than you and Mark do in authentic Buddhist
Scripture, and have spent my life studying Lao Tsu and Confusious in trying
to understand Asian religion. Now you can say, if you want to that Lao Tsu
and Confucious teach that there is no God, but I don't find that, and Lao
Tsu and Confucious are the most written about authors of an extention of
Buddhism and the advantage of those two, is that more people acknowlege that
because they are much later in time, the writings ascribed to them are
valid, and but when you go prior to Lao Tsu and Confucious time periods, you
get into the question, of what is and what is not legitimate teachings of
Buddha. au revoir j
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Burrill <brb...@mailbag.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: bahai...@bcca.org <bahai...@bcca.org>
Mark A. Foster
>>As far as Abdul Baha frequently writing with hyperbole, I find that
assumption posted to be in error.<<
I have recently started studying Arabic. It is nice to know that you have
decided to do the same.
>... >even though most Baha'is see the religion and a Unitarian bahai faith
....<<
Yes, and others want to turn the Baha'i Faith into a more evangelical
denomination.
>>One doesn't have to go anywhere to understand Buddhism outside of the
Baha'i
Faith ....<<
I don't think that means that the language used by Baha'u'llah is the same
as
the one used by the Buddha. Each of the Prophets uses a particular sort of
language, which relates to the culture, social structures, history, and
language of the people to which He appears.
Mark A. Foster
ow...@bahai.nu (general)
RBCF Mark (on AOL only)
Bruce Burrill
At 04:21 AM 11/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But since Baha'is
>>>believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too.
>>
>>Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence of creator?
>
>Because there is no active act of creation per se.
>History, Stetson University
While this approach tries to side step the serious problematics of a
creator, the bottom line is: No god either as an creator or an emanator, no
creation/no emanation.
Bruce Burrill
At 01:37 PM 10/31/99 -0500, Scott wrote:
>This seems a reasonable request on the surface, however without the
>authoritative writings of the Buddha - which apparently do not
>exist, it would be an impossibility.
>
The issue is not writings, but teachings. The question to you is -- or to
Baha'is in general: How do you know we do not have the authorative
teachings of the Buddha as Shoghi Effendi implies when he says we do not
have authentic writings of the Buddha? Clearly we do have authorative
teachings, but Baha'is in order to discount any argument concerning
Buddhism that runs counter to the Baha'i assumptions about the Buddha and
his teaching resort to this no "authentic" writings, which miss what a
careful historical look at the subject shows.
So the question is to John Haukness is as stated below:
JH: > "So, this is not unlike, I john haukness am the Buddhist scholar on
this
list. I will pick and choose from the volumes of writings in some library
or other in some country on earth or other that ascribes this writing to be
Buddhist, and then I will tell you this is the truth. And now, you have
just read what is called, from a pundit. au revoir j
BB: "Rather than simply assert this point, demonstrate it. Show us with a
Bruce Burrill
Maneck: > "Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But
since Baha'is
believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too." <
Betts: > "Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence
of creator?"
Maneck: > "Because there is no active act of creation per se."
While this approach is offered by Baha'i scholar Dr Maneck as a way of
trying to side step the serious problematics of a creator and is typical of
a general Baha'i response to disassociate the Baha'i conception of god from
any critique, the bottom line is: No god either as a creator or an
emanator, no creation/no emanation. The side step does not work.
Mark A. Foster
John Haukness wrote:
>>Phil Jackson, the coach of of the Los Angeles Lakers, calls himself a Zen
It is also true that some Roman Catholics (and Baha'is) believe in
reincarnation. Of course, that does not mean that reincarnation is an
official
Roman Catholic (or Baha'i) teaching.
Bruce D Limber
BB>So, when Abdu'l-Baha says that Buddhism has been reduced to
BB>statue worship, that is a true, across the board,
BB>characterization of Buddhism? Just because he says so...?
No, because Baha'u'llah says 'Abdu'l-Baha says so.
This is a critical distinction which you have apparently missed.
Bruce D Limber
MM>[T]he very concept that the Buddha was a Messenger of God
MM>implies that the Buddhist scripture is divinely protected.
MM>For instance, Baha'u'llah said of the Gospel:
MM>"How could God, when once the Day-Star of the beauty of Jesus
MM>had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended
MM>unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy book, His most great
MM>testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?"
MM> (_Writings of Baha'u'llah_, p.107)
There is a difference, however, between what God causes or wills,
and what man causes or wills.
Nobody said _God_ corrupted the Buddhist scriptures.
Bruce
Smaneck
>
>Baha'u'llah refers the Creator in a great many of His Writings. To whom do
>you think He is referring? Also, what do you mean by "believing in
>emanation"?
Yes, He does. Yet 'Abdu'l-Baha appears to deny the active act of creation in
favor of emanationism:
"The connection between God and the creatures is that of the creator to the
creation; it is like the connection between the sun and the dark bodies of
contingent beings, and is the connection between the maker and the things
that
he has made. The sun in its own essence is independent of the bodies which
it
lights, for its light is in itself and is free and independent of the
terrestrial globe; so the earth is under the influence of the sun and
receives
its light, whereas the sun and its rays are entirely independent of the
earth.
But if there were no sun, the earth and all earthly beings could not exist.
The
dependence of the creatures upon God is a dependence of emanation --that is
to
say, creatures emanate from God; they do not manifest Him.The relation is
that
of emanation and not that of manifestation. The light of the sun emanates
from
the sun; it does not manifest it. The appearance through emanation is like
the
appearance of the rays from the luminary of the horizons of the world--that
is
to say, the holy essence of the Sun of Truth is not divided and does not
descend to the condition of the creatures."
This very different from the concept of creation *ex nihilo* which the rest
of
the Abrahamic religions believe in, where in God directly creates by saying
"Let there be light" etc.
Bruce Burrill
Bruce Burrill
Maneck: > "Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But
since Baha'is
believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too." <
Betts: > "Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence
of creator?"
Maneck: > "Because there is no active act of creation per se."
While this approach is offered by Baha'i scholar Dr Maneck as a way of
trying to side step the serious problematics of a creator and is typical of
a general Baha'i response to disassociate the Baha'i conception of god from
any critique, the bottom line is: No god either as an creator or an
MSP MENGE
>While this approach is offered by Baha'i scholar Dr Maneck as a way of
>trying to side step the serious problematics of a creator and is typical of
>a general Baha'i response to disassociate the Baha'i conception of god from
>emanator, no creation/no emanation. The side step does not work.
>
Baha'is do believe in a creator. But we also believe that the physical
Universe has always existed, and will always exist in the future.
The most significant acts of creation probably devolve from the
Manifestations
themselves, who recreate the human world.
My thoughts,
Matt
John Haukness
Dear Friends: Mark wrote that it was highly offensive to have a discussion
on Buddhism that used the Baha'i Writings as a main background. You can read
his post that spelled this out. Bahaullah and The Bab did spend much of
their life as I accurately stated, being labeled as highly offensive.
It is Mark who keeps attacking me here, I am coherently writing things, it
is beyond my ability to keep Mark from distorting what I say into becoming a
martyr.
The Bab is the Primal Point, and because of that, the Bab is Most qualified
to explain Buddha. But of course the Bab instead explained Muhammad and not
Buddha, but The Bab could have just as easily ignored Muhammad and explained
Buddhism. But The Bab was martyred for explaining Muhammad, because as I
said, the populace said the Bab was "highly offensive" and had to be put to
death.
My point was Mark's point that it was highly offensive to remark or explain
Buddhism from the Baha'i Writings. That when a new revelation comes, people
want traditions kept in tact, and so Bahaullah spent most of His life in
prison, because He broke with traditions.
I did not, (READ MY POST) compare Mark to persecution of the prophets, I
compared his taking high offense because someone here relyed on the Baha'i
Writings to the study of Buddhism, to the fact that the world took "high
offense that the Bab started with His Own Pen as equal to the Quran, which
is equal to Buddha and the world put the Bab to death for that.
It is not conceivable that a person would write about Buddhism without
non-Baha'i commentary of any substance because there is so little in the
Baha'i Writings but what little there is is awsome, ie, Bahaullah being the
return of Buddha. But as far as the comment Mark made about what you have to
rely on to write about Buddhism, the starting point that Bahaullah made,
that He was Buddha's return speaks volumes. Confucious's writings are about
as far back as one can go where in the world academic community and
including Buddhist community where one finds a lot of agreement as to
authenticity. In fact most Asian's use Confucious to trace prior Buddhist
thought to find parallels because of the high trust level people have with
Confucious and to an extent with Lao Tsu. The newest and largest temple
recently built in Asia is in South Viet nam, which uses Buddha as a prophet
but also uses John Lennon the rock star, and vladamire Lenin the communist
dictator as equal prophets. This temple is not doing well, but it goes to
show, how watered down Buddhism has become. The Chinese language more than
others, has going through dramatic change in the past millenium, and
everyone here knows, there are several main Chinese languages, Manderine,
Hunan, ect, this is why Lao Tsu who wrote more colorful metaphores than
Confucious is not treated with the unity of agreement that Confucious is,
and the ancient writings here that are being touted as authorative Writings
of Buddha are while popular, are outside of this list widely disputed in
authenticity. And to that point Abdul Baha's statement actually fits in with
mainstream scholarship, that is, we humans no longer know, what Buddha's
Writings are. We have Confucious and Lao Tsu, who remain emminent
philorophers, and who we know preserved what they took from Buddhism into
what we now have in modern times.
The fact is that Islam has libraries all over the Orient, filled with
Islamic accounts of Buddhist and Islamic links, and as well, you have people
such as Alan Watts from Judeo/Christian background writing books easily
accessable to us on Buddhism. What you will find in the Islamic and
Christian examination of Buddhism is the same as what you will find in
Buddhism's reflections on itself, which is a non-existant consensus as to
what is authentically Buddha's Writings.
This does not in the least detract from say Lao Tsu or Confucious importance
in world culture. As it is easy to argue that Buddhist influenial Writers
such as Lao Tsu and Confucious and many others have done as much to shape
the world as anyone else, so by that fact alone, Buddha remains a vital
force. au revoir john
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A. Foster <rbcf...@aol.comNoEMail>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: bahai...@bcca.org <bahai...@bcca.org>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 1999 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Buddhism (Was: The inevitable emergence of Baha'i states)
>John,
>
>>>That Bahaullah spent most of His
>life in prison, that the Bab was killed because They were unscholarly and
>because They were labeled "highly offensive" I do not find to be
>uncircumstantial to Mark's line of reasoning.<<
>
>I am deeply offended, John, that you would compare me to someone who
>persecuted
>the Prophets, and I am, in all honesty, surprised that the moderators would
>have allowed your post.
>_________________
>(Moderator's note)
>John's opinion used acceptable language but it may have been
>an attack on Mark. I am posting Mark's response in the hope that John can
>clear the air.
>Bill Hyman
>co-moderator
>soc.religion.bahai
>_________________
>
>In any event, can you clarify what you mean here? I am not sure how my
>inductive approach has anything to do with why the Twin Manifestations were
>persecuted.
>
>>>The point that I believe is missed here, is that by forgoing the Baha'i
>Sacred Text and relavance and by taking the easy route, of the Bahai
>Religion
>is just another religion ... because scholars are demi gods is one thing.<<
>
>My argument has nothing to do with elevating my, or anyone's, personal
>understandings over those of anyone else - least of all the Prophets or the
>Master. I am also not aware of anyone on this forum pretending to be a
>"demi-god." The discussion has beens about how we can best understand the
>religious history of the Adamic Cycle.
>
>It was, in my view, not the primary task of the Prophets, the Master, or
the
>Guardian to write academic treatises on the history of religions. In fact,
>Shoghi Effendi frequently said that certain matters would need to be
>resolved
>by scholars.
Smaneck
>While this approach is offered by Baha'i scholar Dr Maneck as a way of
>trying to side step the serious problematics of a creator and is typical of
>a general Baha'i response to disassociate the Baha'i conception of god from
>any critique, the bottom line is
Dear Bruce,
My point is that anything we say about the Divine or the metaphysical
whatsoever is relative and only an approximation of reality. There is a
Tablet
wherein the Bab suggests that even to say God is One is blasphemy if by that
we
would limit Him to a number.
LSchu...@aol.com
I have been reading this converstion on Buddhism for almost a month. I'm
sure if you erudite scholars would refer to the history of Buddha. The queen
mother could not have children and in a vision a white elephant and the
queen
mysteriously consummated and before she could get the place where she was to
deliver, it happened among some beautiful flowers. Through prophecy and
tradition, if would be a King he would be just but if he did not he would
become a Buddha and save the world.
This a simple story modified to relfect the tradition and similarity to
the birth "that is the mistery of birth similary to the virgin Mary story.
The various translations from China, Asia, Eygpt, and finaly to Japan
and as reported in its history how it was given to the priest to translate
the writings as they understood them to print.
There could have been errors and misunderstandings and interpretations just
as it is in any situation where the prophet's writings or sayings have been
put memory and then to writ.
so why continue this for eternity. There are so many things Baha'is
could direct their attention.
the illiterate
dmcadam
Hi Susan
No, I am not asserting anything I am saying I "my feeling" is that the
House of Justice in some message, maybe the ones on scholarship are
advising that we should have a Baha'i bias. But since I do not have a
quote at hand I will retract this and say that I believe we should have a
Baha'i bias as scholars and I feel the House of Justice would support
this. Seems like I was up this road before and someone sent in a quote
that backed me up but like I say, since I do not have one at hand and
apparently you don't either then I will retract what I hinted at.
with respect,
doug
Smaneck, 11/1/99 7:57 PM writes:
>>Or are you merely saying the House may
>>not have said this, in which case I agree which is why I said "I feel".
>
>Dear Doug,
>
>I am saying I don't know any place were the House advises us to have a
>"Baha'i
>bias." This is what you wrote previously:
>
> >>I would feel we, as researchers, as the House of Justice advised, should
>>>>have a bias of Baha'i
>
>It seems to me that your "feeling" here is that we should follow the advise
>of
>the House of Justice. But you are asserting that they say we should have a
>"Baha'i bias." That is what I challenged.
Bruce Burrill
Dean Betts
>This very different from the concept of creation *ex nihilo* which the rest
>of
>the Abrahamic religions believe in, where in God directly creates by saying
>"Let there be light" etc.
The following would seem to refer to *ex nihilo* creation:
"...inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth
have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all
have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of
the visible."
-- Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 98
Scott Mckee
Good point. To the best of my knowledge Baha'is do not have a
scholarly basis for proving or disproving a particular view
or interpretation of Buddhism. We have teachings, which we
accept on the basis of having independently investigated their
Author or source of authority, which differ from a commonly
accepted view of Buddhism.
There may be individual Baha'is who are scholars who might
have an interest in discounting a given argument concerning
Buddhism which runs counter to the Baha'i teachings. For the
most part however, it is not a pursuit that Baha'is per se
would see as being in harmony with their purpose or teachings.
Baha'is are not encouraged to attempt to disprove anyone's
theology, and are in fact discouraged from attempting to assail
the foundations of anyone's faith. Rather, we are encouraged to
present the Baha'i teachings, and to respect the right of the
individual to either accept or to reject same.
Scott McKEE
Nancy Scott Myers
Best beloveds,
I'm not sure I understand what is going on here. There are a number of
instances in the Writings in which we are told in so many words that God
says, "Be", and it is. This is parallel to the Biblical command in
Genesis, "And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. Of
course, God has no need to wave a magic wand like a stage magician or
produce a finger that reaches out and zaps something into existence, but
that doesn't necessarily make creation a passive activity from His
viewpoint, much less ours. So there, as I see it, is the active act of
creation. I can't see that it matters whether existence emanates from Him
or is created some other way. His will renders even emanation a positive
act.
Much love,
Nancy Myers
At 10:43 AM 11/3/1999 -0500, Bruce Burrill wrote:
>
>
>Maneck: > "Buddhist scriptures also deny the existence of creator. But
>since Baha'is
>believe in emanation, I suppose one could say we do too." <
>
>Betts: > "Why would believing in emanation imply denial of the existence
>of creator?"
>
>Maneck: > "Because there is no active act of creation per se."
>
>While this approach is offered by Baha'i scholar Dr Maneck as a way of
>trying to side step the serious problematics of a creator and is typical of
>a general Baha'i response to disassociate the Baha'i conception of god from
>any critique, the bottom line is: No god either as a creator or an
>emanator, no creation/no emanation. The side step does not work.
>
>
>
>
Nancy Myers
lady...@humboldt1.com
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
O MY FRIEND IN WORD!
Ponder awhile. Hast thou ever heard that friend and foe should abide in
one heart? Cast out then the stranger, that the Friend may enter His home.
MSP MENGE
Mr. Burrill states,
>It is presumptuous to refer to the customs and ceremonials, which serve
>as a way of expressing Buddhists truths and understandings and which
>give meaning and focus to the lives of Buddhists, as "ignorant." While
>customs and ritual have their place, it is not the whole of Buddhism; not
>now, not during Abdu'l-Baha's life or during Baha'u'llah's life.
As stated earlier, Baha'is believe that a Manifestation of God, including
the
Buddha, should not be represented in any way, even by light.
In addition, it should not be thought that in 'Abdu'l-Baha's mind (as I
understand it) statues=dead religion. Muslims, for instance, would never
worship a statue of Muhammad, but it is clear from Some Answered Questions
that
Islam is considered to be a dead religion.
When 'Abdu'l-Baha states that Buddhism (like all other previous religions)
is
dead, he is simply using statue worship as the most obvious example. It is
almost certainly not the only reason that he believes this...
>
>Let us take a look at what has been attributed to Abdu'l-Baha:
>
> The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child,
> and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged
> man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything.
> (" Abdu'l-Baha in London: Addresses, and Notes of
> Conversations" (London: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1987), pp. 63-
> 64)
>
>While there seems to be some hermeneutical debate as to the authority
>of this text, it would be reasonable to assume that this would not have
>been published had there not been a reasonable confidence that this
>accurately reflects Abdu'l-Baha's thoughts.
>
>
I agree. It is probably very close. The Bab, for instance, called himself
the
'Remembrance of God', which implies that Muslims do not 'remember' God.
>I cannot agree with Matt. Someone who cannot remember anything,
>much hear or see anything, has nothing to offer. Why Abdu'l-Baha
>would say this is a good question, but what is obvious is that he is quite
>wrong in his assessment,
Well then we disagree. 'Abdu'l-Baha (in my view) is saying that Buddhism
has
lost track of its vital force, and that this force cannot be restored. He
is
using the term 'remember' in a very specific way. This certainly does not
mean
we have nothing to learn from Buddhists. We can learn things from atheists
or
even animals. How is it that we could not learn from such virtuous,
high-minded, and intelligent people as the Buddhists?
It should be remembered that 'Abdu'l-Baha deliberately made dramatic
statements
(and yes, he sometimes exaggerated). Among other things, it forced people
to
think and meditate.
>Well, Buddhism's numbers are far better than Baha'i's in the West.
>Baha'i numbers in the US have been at best stagnating.
As to the first statement, Baha'u'llah said that the growth and progress of
religions is, by nature, gradual (see Gleanings from the Writings of
Baha'u'llah p.501).
As to the lack of growth in the US. This is not entirely surprising.
'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian said that the Baha'is of the West would
encounter
'severe mental tests' (see for example Citadel of Faith pps.66-67) in the
West.
We are not being persecuted in the West, so where are these tests going to
come from? It should also be born in mind that 'Abdu'l-Baha's first trip to
the US accompanied a very dramatic decline in the number of American
Baha'is.
In 'Citadel of Faith' Shoghi Effendi said that the American Baha'i community
would encounter 'setbacks and reverses' (pps. 36-37)
>There are very strong and active Buddhist social movements dealing
>with the dying, with prisoners, and with social welfare issues. All in
>about 100 years time. Baha'i remains all the while remarkably obscure.
I am not sure where you are going with this obscurity argument. Baha'is
have
been quite active in charitable services.
Buddhism, like all other religions, imports ideas from other parts of the
world. There have been quite a number of secular and even atheist
instituations in the world that have done the world a great service. I
believe
the recent Nobel Prize Winner 'Doctors Without Borders' is an example.
Best Regards,
Matt
Mark A. Foster
Nancy Myers wrote:
>>I can't see that it matters whether existence emanates from Him or is
created
some other way. His will renders even emanation a positive act.<<
I think it has a number of implications. For instance, it changes the notion
of
"beginning" to either the Source of creation or to the Manifestation of God
(the Beginning and the End). Well, in a sense, these two meanings are really
the same. In other words, there was no time, according to Baha'i cosmology,
when there was no creation.
Mark A. Foster
Dean quoted from the Iqan:
>>"...inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on
earth
have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all
have
stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the
visible."<<
To my understanding, that passage is referring to re-creation - which takes
place each time a new Prophet appears.
Mark A. Foster
John Haukness wrote
>>Mark wrote that it was highly offensive to have a discussion on Buddhism
that
used the Baha'i Writings as a main background.<<
I think that the problem may be that you and I do not generally understand
each
other's posts. For instance, you seem to have read me as saying, "... it was
highly offensive to have a discussion on Buddhism that used the Baha'i
Writings
as a main background." I did not say that.
>>You can read his post that spelled this out.<<
Where did it spell this out? What I did say was that I felt it was important
to
consider both the Buddhist Sutras and the Baha'i teachings in context.
I also suggested that there may be some problems with the common deductive
approach, which simply takes what is in the Baha'i teachings and applies it
without necessarily understanding what it is being applied to.
Mark A. Foster
Matt wrote:
>>Muslims, for instance, would never
worship a statue of Muhammad, but it is clear from Some Answered Questions
that
Islam is considered to be a dead religion.<<
I think that there is a difference between a dispensation, or source of
authority, in a Baha'i sense, and a religion being "dead."
To my understanding the references you may be thinking of, as used by
'Abdu'l-Baha, have to do with the concept of Dispensation (or legal
authority),
not in whether a particular religion is alive or dead.