Buddhism and Baha'u'llah
Bruce Burrill
Kusanku states:
> "Also that there are several branches of Buddhism, some don't
believe in God." <
As proof for this he states:
> "Got to Alltheweb search engine, and type in Surangama Mantra, and
go to a site of on-line transations, including this and many other prayers
that are said and believed to be revealed by the Buddha. Prayers they
are.To Whom, I wonder?" <
To whom, indeed. At the end of the msg he refers us to:
> "on the on-line translations site of the dragon Flower Ch'an Temple's
Buddhist breviary, you will find t." <
Several things need to be said about this, what we see in Kusanku's
msgs illustrates very aptly my point that Baha'is are going to seriously
mislead themselves if they do not take the time carefully understand the
various contexts of what they are looking at. Let us start with the
Dragon Flower Ch'an Temple.
On their website home page we find
"What do Buddhists Believe?."
Click on it and we get
"What is a Buddhist? by Ven. Shih Shen Lung."
The good monk of the Dragon Flower temple gives us a brief discussion
of what it is to be a Buddhist. He then goes on to state:
"If you would like a more formal analysis of what is common to all
Buddhists, please read the following statement that was composed during
and for an International Buddhist Assembly some years ago."
Now, please note: "common to _all_ Buddhists." From there he quotes
the:
"Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana
by Ven. Walpola Rahula."
Again, please note that "Theravada and Mahayana" cover all Buddhist
schools, including those who chant the Surangama Mantra. The first
three of the Basic Unifying Points:
"1. The Buddha is our only Master.
2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.
3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God."
No belief in a creator, universe ruling god. So, the context we find this
mantra is that it being presented by Mahayana Buddhists who do not
believe in a god who created and rules the universe. As one reads
through the mantra, there is nothing in it that indicates that it is being
directed to a god that created and rules the universe. As translated, in
it there is a lot of devotional stuff directed to the Buddha[s] and virtues
of enlightenment. Being a mantra, it is a magickal practice of aligning
oneself with the "energy" as it is present in the "sphota" -- the magickal
vibrational power of the sounds of the words. In Buddhist mantric
practice the quality that the mantra is supposed to engender may be
personified as a bodhisattva or a Buddha, an individual who through his
or her own effort has become an exemplar of aspects wisdom and
compassion. Ultimately, however, what is sometimes presented as
external entities are in fact symbols for the internal qualities to be
developed. There is no prayer to a creator god here; rather, there is the
magickal practice to help cultivate the qualities exemplified and
contained within the mantra.
As for the Surangama Sutra which contains the mantra in question, Paul
Williams, in his masterful MAHAYANA BUDDHISM (pub by
Routledge) states: "The great Japanese Zen Master Dogen (thirteenth
century), in his younger days in China, suspected that the so-called
Surangama Sura (to be distinguished from the genuine Surangamasamdhi
Sutra), an important _sutra_ [discourse] in Zen Buddhism, was not an
authentic Indian sutra, a point now generally accepted by scholars [page
39]."
The point here is that this discourse was written at least a 1000 years
after the Buddha, and likely written in China. Mahayana Buddhists cast
their discourses as if they were spoken by the Buddha. Whatever one
might think of this as a literally fiction, they see it as indicative of the
truth that the discourses contain, and traditionally Mahayanists see these
discourses as being from the Buddha himself, though modern scholarship
shows that that is not so. This does not, however, negate the spiritual
insight that is contained within these discourses as the Mahayana
Buddhists were inspired by the insight of the Buddha. If we look beyond
the often florid style of many Mahayana discourses, we can see that the
Buddha's insight as it is found in the Pali texts is very much there.
The point is that Surangama Sutra does not carry the same historical
weight as the Pali texts and the Chinese equivalents to the Pali texts
do in trying to understand the Buddha and his teachings in historical
context. The Surangama Sutra, however, does point to how the Buddha's
insight was adapted and reframed at a much later time.
The bottom line here is that while Kusanku sees superficial similarities
between the Surangama mantra and Baha'i prayer, that does not mean
that they are in fact up to the same thing and that they both share a
common belief in a god, an omniscient, permanent, independent, unique
cause of the cosmos. As the Dragon Flower website makes very clear,
they do not.
Kusanku states:
> "But one that agrees with the Dalai Lama's , for instance the
Kalachakra Ceremony on the Tibetan Buddhist contains much prayer ,
and so do the books of the Dalai Lama, who also says Bufddhists
believe in God but that certain Western Buddhologists try to present a
picture of atheistic Buddhism. ... If the Dalai Lama, and the Laotian
Monk, say that Buddhists believe in God.... Shall I not believe all these
sources which agree,or shall I believe western sources and some eastern
ones, which state opposite views?" <
I participated in the first Kalachakra Initiation the Dalai Lama conducted
in North America. Nowhere in the text of the Kalachakra, nowhere in
the Dalai Lama's teachings concerning the Kalachakra, nowhere in the
Dalai Lama's tutor's instructions concerning the Kalachakra, and
nowhere in the readings I have subsequently done concerning Kalachakra
is there a god -- an omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause
of the cosmos -- as a part of it. Because Buddhists might do something
that might be called prayer and even refer to it themselves as prayer,
one needs to be very careful about assumptions that might be made on
the basis of the word prayer alone. Buddhism shows us that prayer does
not necessitate or imply a supreme being, a Creator of the universe.
Now, as for what the Dalai Lama has said about the idea of a Creator.
In THE GOOD HEART: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of
Jesus (pub by Wisdom), the Dalai Lama comments on a number of
Gospel passages and has dialogues with a number Christians about this.
It is a wonderful book, showing that dialogue is possible and showing
the kind of work that such dialogue entails, in this book the Dalai Lama
states:
"The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint
in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all
things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions
between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical world view, it
is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal,
absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of divine
Creation [page 82]" "The belief in creation and divinity is not universal
to all major religious traditions. ... Buddhism, which is a nontheistic
religion.... [page 74]."
In the World Tibet Network News
Thursday, May 20, 1999
the Dalai Lama states:
"I mentioned the Buddhist law of causality, cause and effect,
which means no beginning, therefore no Creator."
In an article the Dalai Lama states (source can be supplied upon request):
"Now, in Buddhadharma we do not accept the theory of a Creator;
everything depends on oneself."
In an article the Dalai Lama states (source can be supplied upon request):
"Basically, religions may be divided into two groups. One group,
including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some ancient Indian
traditions, I call God religions. Their fundamental faith is in a Creator.
The other group of religious tradition, including Jainism, Buddhism, I
usually call godless religions. They do not believe in a Creator."
A HUMAN APPROACH TO WORLD PEACE by His Holiness Tenzin
Gyatso, The Fourtheenth Dalai Lama:
"While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world
religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all
others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion.' All the different religions
of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world
civilization. Our human minds, being of different caliber and disposition,
need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food.
Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism
because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own
actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well.
Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit
the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions
of individual human beings."
In an article the Dalai Lama states (source can be supplied upon request):
"This principle [of Buddhism] means that all conditioned things and
events in the universe come into being only as a result of the interaction
of various causes and conditions. This is significant because it precludes
two possibilities. One is the possibility that things can arise from
nowhere, with no causes and conditions, and the second is that things
can arise on account of a transcendent designer or creator. Both these
possibilities are negated."
Hinduism Today Feb 1998 states of the Dalai Lama:
"He also gave a bold voice to the Buddhist belief that there is no creator
God. It was a defining moment of these sessions. In all such interfaith
meetings religious leaders speak in terms of God, intone prayers to God,
write their formal statements of purpose in acknowledgement of God. To
the Buddhists this Creator-centric presumption is presumptuous. It leaves
them out. The Dalai Lama was challenging them, in his sweet way, to
find words and concepts that could bridge the Abrahamic world and the
Buddhist/Jain world."
So we see that Kusanku's claim that the Dalai Lama somehow or other
supports an idea that some schools of Buddhism believe in god is not
based upon a careful independent investigation of truth. And we have
seen earlier that Tim Nolan's Laotian informant was not a reliable basis
to make a judgement Buddhism's supposed theism.
To jump into the texts of other religions, as some Baha'is seem to do,
without careful study and a willingness to try to understand what is
going on in these texts in their own right without reading Baha'i into
these texts, is to invite making serious mistakes, precluding
understanding and dialogue.
Bruce
Bruce Burrill
Creator!" <
Kusanku relies:
> "Hm, The Creation exists, with Gods, heavens and Hells, nine each,
and many Buddha Worlds, and many Buddhas, past, present and furture,
and many Boddhisattvas, and also prayers,, and even, Brahma, is
mentioned by Buddha, Who says in Tevigga Sutta of the Pali Canon,
that He knows the World of Brahma, the way to the world of Brahma,
even as one who was born there and lives there. All this exists with no
Creator? That doesn't even make any sense, imho. ... But Buddha in the
sutta mentioned ... is talking to three Brahmin's. He does not say that
Brahma is not the Creator there, He indeed speaks in terms with which
the Brahmin's are familiar, and the implication is that Brahma Is the
Creator." <
Kusanku is correct in stating that the Buddha is addressing three
Brahmins about their religion in this discourse, but the question
becomes: is it reasonable to assume that our only understanding of how
the Buddha understood, regarded Brahma/God is to be derived from this
discourse alone, especially when the Buddha very specifically addressed
the question of Brahma/God in other discourses? Good independent
investigation would demand that broader contexts be carefully
considered.
As for the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha gives a very sharp critique, to these
three Brahmins, of the Brahmanical religion, but rather than destroy the
basis of their faith -- a place the Buddha obviously understand the
Brahmins were not ready to go to --, the Buddha allows the union with
Brahma/God is possible, but redefines this goal in ethical terms. While
the Buddha did not address with these Brahmins how he understood
Brahma/God, he does address this issue elsewhere.
In the Digha Nikaya 1, 11, & 24 the Buddha addresses the notion of a
creator god and rejects its. Buddha in 24 states: "There are some
ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began
with the creation by Brahma/God." And this God is characterized so:
"That Worshipful Brahma/God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the
Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect
Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and
Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant,
Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."
which is a nice characterization of the brahmanical notion of the creator
god one finds in the early brahmanical literature, and it seems to fit for
most every other creator god notion that has come down the pike, such
as:
"There is none other God but Thee, the Almighty, the Most Exalted,
the All-Powerful, the All-Wise."
"The Baha'i belief in one God means that the universe and all creatures
and forces within it have been created by a single supernatural Being.
This Being, Whom we call God, has absolute control over His creation
(omnipotence) as well as perfect and complete knowledge of it
(omniscience). Although we may have different concepts of God's
nature, although we may pray to Him in different languages and call
Him by different names--Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma--
nevertheless, we are speaking about the same unique Being." -- Hatcher
from The Baha'i World website.
The Buddha goes on in this discourse to give a biting satirical re-telling
of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad and we can see in
this discourse by the Buddha and in others that the idea of a single cause
of the multiplicity of things, an infallible source of revealed knowledge
that was different in kind from ordinary human knowledge, an
unconditioned being that participates in any way in (even as a witness
to) the changes of human experience, and any kind of being that can
interfere with the natural consequences of karma is rejected by the
Buddha.
This not "a discreet silence about the First Cause," it is not indifference.
Though the Buddha's particular rejection is not a philosophical argument
against a creator God, it is rather a religious statement that is consistent
with the underlying philosophy of becoming that characterizes what the
Buddha taught. What is clear, in the broader context, is that this
rejection is not tied to a any particular God-notion, but addresses the
notion of a "single supernatural Being" from which "all things began,"
given that such a notion is invariably grounded in a radically different
ontological basis than what the Buddha presents.
Again let me emphasize that what has been rejected is "an omniscient,
permanent, independent, unique cause of the cosmos." In this sense we
can talk about Buddhist _a_theism, but we need to also understand that
from the beginning Buddhism did not reject the various gods of his
India, but denying that any one of them was immortal or having any
ultimate, absolute spiritual significance, he just put them in their place,
making them -- like us -- subject to karma and the round of birth, death
and rebirth.
Let me add on more statement by the Buddha concerning Brahma/God
(Anguttara-Nikaya X 29):
'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of
the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each
single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains,
four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all
stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far
as a thousandfold world system reaches, the Great God is the highest
being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-
be. When seeing this, monks, a well-taught disciple is repelled by it;
being repelled, he becomes disenchanted about the highest, not to speak
of what is low."
The point here, as we look at the texts (not just one text in isolation), is
that God, from the Buddha's perspective is not an eternal absolute, "the
Almighty, the Most Exalted, the All-Powerful, the All-Wise" creator (or
emanator) and there is no such thing that is.
Kusanku states:
> "In another place, another sutra, Buddha tells His Disciple Ananda
He is about to attain His final Nirvana( Entry to the Stream), and
Ananda asks about the Future Buddha of Universal Fellowship, Whom
Buddha says will be called Maitreya, 'He Whose Name Means
Kindness.' Baha'u'llah's given name was Husayn, which does in fact
mean Kindness in Arabic." <
There is no recorded dialogue between the Buddha and Ananda
concerning Maitreya, though I have seen Baha'is quote such a thing
more than once. Kusanku obviously got this from Joel Smith's
"Prophecies Fulfilled" website, which contains serious inaccuracies and
distortions of Buddhist texts (and is on line through the agency of Baha'i
Communications International (BCI)). The text as taken from the
BCI/prophecies-fulfilled website:
=====
He informed Ananda that in another three months He would pass away.
Ananda, suppressing his tears, said to the Blessed One:
'Who shall teach us when Thou art gone?'
And the Blessed One replied:
...'I am not the first Buddha Who came upon this earth, nor shall I be
the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy
One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct,
auspicious knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a
Master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal
truths which I have taught you. He will preach to you His religion,
glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal, in
spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect
and pure, such as I now proclaim.' His disciples will number many
thousands, while Mine number many hundreds.'
Ananda said,
'How shall we know Him?'
The Blessed One replied:
'He will be known as Maitreya, which means He Whose name is
"kindness.'"
Note: As you may already know, Baha'u'llah's given name, Husayn, is
Arabic for "kindness."
=====
This text is not a legitimate Buddhist text. It is not found in the Pali,
Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese. It was written and published in 1894 by
Paul Carus in his GOSPEL OF THE BUDDHA. Joel Smith was
carefully informed of the nature of this text some years ago, but he
opted ignored the information given him and this phony Buddhist text,
as we have just seen, continues to be passed on by Baha'is as if it were
a legitimate Buddhist text, which raises serious ethical issues for
Baha'is, which I would hope that they would have the spiritual maturity
to address and rectify as this problem is made known to them.
As I have said before, to understand another religion takes work and a
willingness to let the other religion speak in its own voice, and not try
to force the other into a framework in which it doesn't fit. Let me quote
once more from the Dalai Lama:
"In order to develop a genuine spirit of harmony from a sound
foundation of knowledge, I believe it is very important to know the
fundamental differences between religious traditions. And it is possible
to understand the fundamental differences, but at the same time
recognize the value and potential of each religious tradition."
-- THE GOOD HEART page 41.
Bruce
wewynal
Let me remind you that Hinduism practices pantheism!!!!!!!!!!
Buddhism don't!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <kus...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai...@bcca.org>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Baha'u'llah
>
> Doug says:'>I can see how a Buddhist can >believe in a god but that he
> is not The >Creator.'
>
> Well, I think , that you are right, in this way:Buddhists are, many of
> them, atheists, but the Buddha was not; if we are to believe that the
> existing Sutras even of the Pali Canon are authentic in transmitting the
> teachings of the Buddha,to any extent, it appears that Buddha accepted
> the existence not only of a god but of many gods, even the entire Hindu
> Pantheon.
>
> But it says in these sutras the gods were subordinate to the Buddha.
>
> Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are thousands of
> gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the Brihadaranyaka
> Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe in many gods,
> but that these are only attributes; that there s really only one God,
> and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara, many other
> names, one Reality.
>
> Now we go to the baha'i Writings, and we find that God is Unknowable,
> that there is no tie of direct intercourse between the creation and its
> Creator.That the Manifestations of God, are Thenselves not in direct
> contact with God, but only through the Most great Spitirt of God, and
> that The Innermost Esence of the Manifestation of god is Itself
> sanctified above all attributes and holy above all Names.
>
> Thus the atttributes of God revealed by the Manifestations of God are
> only those which we ourselves are able to reflect in our inmost beings,
> our souls, our realities, which ih their inmost essence are also beyond
> our comprehension( essence of our souls).
>
> Back to the Hindu Scriptures. God is That I am, Tat Tvam Asi,( side trip
> toJudaism: Voice f Gd to Moses from the Burning Bush: Say THat I Am hath
> sent you...'same terminology as Hinduism there), Who cannot really be
> named r described except by saying He is more than we are, and He is a
> Conscious Entity, THAT I AM.
dmcadam
Reply to wewynal message 12/1/2000 8:14 AM
Dear friend-
I would like to know your definition and understanding of "pantheism"
because I can see, if I stretch a point, how we Baha'is can also believe
in this doctrine. Here is a dictionary definition, which by no means
may be accurate in that sociologists or anthropologists might have a
different definition to suit their own needs for preciseness in
understandings. In fact I can see how we Baha'is can just about agree
with any of the commonly known beliefs like animism and pantheism. For
one thing who coined and inflicted these definitions of a culture? Were
they looking upon these cultures with an objectivity or from some
religious perspective of what is and what is not proper worship. Even
today we have many people who will not accept any other religion or
doctrine, belief and the like unless it conforms to their own beliefs.
pantheism
1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.
animism
1. The attribution of conscious life to natural objects or to nature
itself.
2. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or
separate from bodies.
3. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the universe.
I think if you read Guy Murchie's contribution in his book on the Seven
Mysteries of Life you may find the consciousness expanding to see how all
things are involved in all things and these categories, classifications
etc. are made in order for us to more effectively study these phenomena
but in doing so we also risk losing sight of the whole. People can get
lost in the kingdom of names and forget how all the constituent parts fit
together for form a whole beyond the sum of these parts.
Also I believe that we must look at former religions in context with
their times and the needs of the age in which they appeared, flourished
and declined or split into thousands of sects, denominations and separate
beliefs.
For me, in my own independent study, I based my views on what I had
learned from the Baha'i Revelation about progressive revelation and began
to see commonalities as well as uniqueness or diversity. Also it dawned
on me, and this is just a theory, that all religions are one, existing in
seed form at dawn of Creation and gradually has unfolded, much like a
tree of life that was mentioned in some Holy Books.
Once our perspective has broadened and become more all inclusive we can
almost teach the Baha'i Faith to anyone, using their own analogies or
scriptures. For example I can use the game of tennis or basketball to
teach the Faith to athletes in many ways. Tennis has love games and both
sports require "cooperation" with the phenomena or in a team "spirit".
Spirit is important. Without going into a lot of detail and examples let
me simply say that if we are more open minded, broadened in our
perspectives by virtue of study and application of the Baha'i Revelation,
using whatever scholarly methods available as well as common sense and a
passion for unity, we can reconcile any beliefs with exception of only
those that are diametrically opposed or plain superstitions and even then
we can teach these believers if we ourselves are developed to the extent
of being detached and showing unconditional love.
I believe this whole subject of debate regarding the authenticity of
Buddhism as a true religion of if the Buddha taught about God, etc. can
be better understood if both sides of the debate are truly interested in
consulting and collaborating to achieve unity from which the truth will
spring. Instead we are struggling to prove who or what is right or
wrong, what is proven by evidence etc. and this divides us and blocks us
from achieving reconciliation.
The purpose of consultation, indeed of any endeavor is to achieve unity.
The Oneness of God, of Religion and of Mankind can and will be achieved
and this also makes room for those who are not now believers but who are
in a process of unveiling the truth. Baha'u'llah, by revealing the
principle of the harmony of faith and reason, or collectively as science
and religion has given us a meeting place where religionists and
scientists, believers and disbelievers can unite in study of reality.
But I believe people must needs desire unity before they can find truth.
Just a different view or opinion,
warmly,
doug
Dean Betts
>Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are thousands of
>gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the Brihadaranyaka
>Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe in many gods,
>but that these are only attributes; that there s really only one God,
>and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara, many other
>names, one Reality.
The question for me is, did the Buddha believe in this God?
kus...@webtv.net
Bruce Burrill states:' >As I have said before,to >understand another
religion takes work and a willingness to let the other religion speak in
But states that the Baha'i view of Buddhism is inn error, though
'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi give the Baha'i view of the Buddha as a
Manifestation of God.This is a point which , to a Baha'i, is of utmost
importance.
He also states that in his belief, since Baha'u'llah said nothing about
the Buddha Himself,'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have made a mistake
here, knowing full well, having studied himself the Baha'i Faith or says
he did,that the Baha'i Covenant states that 'Abdu'l-Baha is the
Interpreter of the Book , and thus what He says is what Baha'u'lla
actually meant, in His Book, and in the Covenant of 'Abdu'l-Baha,
whatever Shoghi Effendi writes is also the meaning of Baha'u'llah,
insofar as what the Faith is concerned with. Shoghi Effendi says
Baha'u'llah is the Maitreye prophecied by the Buddha, and that the
Buddha is a Manifestation of God, and that a Baha'i must believe that.
This is the viewpoint of a Baha'i, from the Writings.Mr. Burrill knows
this full well.
Mr. Burrill continues:'>And not force the other >into a framework into
which it does not fit.'
I think, this goes both ways.We do see the Buddha as fitting into
Baha'u'llah's stated priciple of Progressive revelation, had
'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi not said this, we might not see it.
But also:Christians see the Jewish faith as fitting into their own in a
progressive succession, but the Jewish people do not for the most part,
as yet.'Abdu'l-Baha urged them to, and also urges Christians toaccept
the Prophet of Islam, as part of the Divine succession, and this for no
other purpose than to unite mankind.Had this been done, what a different
world this would be.
Yes, as Baha'is we believe this to be true, with the Muslims, who
themselves do not as yet accept the Bab and Baha'u'llah as the
fulfillment of their own prophecies,this lack of acknowledgement also
cauing much suffering.
We also accept Hinduism, a seemingly pantheistic religion which,
however, in its Scriptures, states that the gods are merely attributes
of the One God, Brahman, the beyond.(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.)
Therefore, the Baha'i concept is ultimately inclusive, not exclusive.
And since th e fundamental underlying principle of the Baha'i Faith is
that 'religious truth is not absolute but relative' and that it is a
Progressive process, that as man matures,is explained ever more fully
and appropriately to man's evolved condition, by a Succession of Diveine
Revelators.
That this concept will be whole heatedly resisted by those who feel that
their understadning of religion is perfect and complete, that their
Messenger is the final One until the One promised by Him appears in the
far future, and that the Baha'i Faith has come far too quikly and
explained things far too simply, such that anyone can understand it,is
to be expected, nay, it has been promised and propheciesd in our own
Writings.
Indeed, it has been stated that only when this occurs, will the Faith
spread widely.
In particular in the West, it has been stated by Baha'u'llah according
to 'Abdu'l-Baha, that He longed for the day when the ministrs of the
West would stand up in their pulpits and cry out that the Baha'is are
misguided, because they would be His heralds, and would spread the name
of His Faith far and wide.
Perhaps Mr. Burrill, who has been protesting the Baha'i Faith for many
years now on a variety of forums, maybe every since he investigated the
Faith many years ago and did not become one but almost did(SRB Archives
source) , fits into the category of one of these unwitting heralds of
the faith of Baha'u'llah.
The thing is, when somenone does not believe in God, the creator,and
then of course does not believe in the concept of Manifestation,which
is his right of course, and then consequently cannot accept the concept
of Infallibility, conferrred infallibility, or Covenant through which
this is transmitted, the point of view of the Baha'i fatih and of that
person's concept of Buddhism, as distinct from what Buddha actually
taught according to 'Abdu'l-Baha, is going to be irreconcilable.
Then the Baha'i or Baha'is who state the point of view of the Faith are
going to be blamed for distorting or misrepresenting the Teachings of
the Buddha, when we are accurately representing the Writings of the
Baha'i Faith.
To accept Mr. Burrill's statements regarding the Central Figures of our
Faith and the Guardian as being merely human,fallible beings, capable of
errors ,then we would ha to reject Baha'u'llah.This would make Mr,
Burrill guilty of the very thing he states we are guilt of,making the
Baha'i faith speak according to His point of view, and attempting to
force it into a narrow and humanistic framework.
I do accept that many Buddhists believe many things that Mr. Burrill
states.I also believe that some do not believe these things in this way,
since about a hundred thousand or more Buddhists have become Baha'is in
Southeast Asia alone.
Regardless of any errors of detail I may have made, such as that Ananda
was told by the Buddha of Matitreye, when the quotes I could find more
recently indicate other disciples being addressed,and I stand corrected
on this;the fact is that Buddha according to the Pali Canon Did speak of
Metteya or Maitreye,and in the Mahayana scriptures also did this, to
venerable Sariputra, another of His disciples.
Mr. Burrill agccuses me of not reading the Buddhist Scriptures but only
of going to Joel Smith's website.I didn't go to that website to get
those quotes, the search engine dropped me off at the World Scriptures
Website which,as it turns out , contains three quotes about Maitreye or
Metteya,one from the Anagata-Vamsa Desana, 'Chronicle of things to
Come,'and one from the Dhiga Nikaya(Pali Canon),and one from the Chinese
Canon.Mr. Burrill has stated that the Pali canon accurately expresses
the teachings of the Buddha, and so does the Chinese canon.
I possess several Buddhist Compilations of both Pali and Mahayana with
some Cinese texts, and more can be found in libraries and on the
internet.
I see Baha'u'llah in them.
As to differences in fundamental beliefs between Baha'is and
Buddhists,these are not insurmountable unless we wish to make them so.
The moral and ethical teachings even which survive of the Buddha are not
different from those of Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, or Baha'u'llah, and
the prophecies of the end times are the same, and the statement that
there were Buddhas in the past and will be Buddhas in the future,Who
will teach the Truth, and that there would be in the future a Buddha
named Maitreye or Metteya(Sanskrit or Pali_)
Who would have thousand of discples even as the Buddha had hundreds, is
fulfilled in the appearance of Baha'u'llah, Whose name Husayn mean
kindness even as Metta does in Pali, and Who, at the time of His
ascension according to 'Abdu'l-Baha, had fifty thousand followers.
The rest is words, understandings and differeing interpretations of
mortal men,and not insuperable barriers to understanding and eventual
unity.
Mr. Burrill is undoubtedly a serous scholar of Buddhist tradition,but to
continually state that others including that Laotian monk, were or are
ignorant or dishonest, is not an apprach, I think, calculated to bring
about love and understanding.:-)
Wewynal said that Hindus are pantheists and Buddhists are atheists.
Actually, the truth is , some Hindus are pantheists, some monists, some
polytheists, but in the deepest Hindu teaching , known to all members of
the priestly or Brahmin caste,with whom I have confirmed this, Hinduism
is monotheistic.
In the Rgveda, the Upanishads and the hagavad-Gita, tis is shown, as
whenoyuget beyongd the millions of gods, you find out they are only
aspects or attributes of the One God, Whom, though differently named, is
still the same Being.
Mr. Burrill says that cause and effect are taught throughout
Buddhism.Then the creation , he says, is without beginning.
This is also what the Baha'i Faith teaches.Creation is infinite, has no
beginning and no end.
Here we agree.
He says Budhism teaches cause and effect, that every effect has a
cause.Here too, we agree.
The Buddha teaches about an 'unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, ' without
which the effect would not exist.
Here too, we agree. We call It God.
In the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha describes the process of Progressive
coming into ecxistecne of Budhas,past, present and future.
Here too we agree.
In the Pali Canon, Buddha speaks in one sutta about Metteya, who will be
a Buddha, and have thousands of follwers in His life even as the Buddha
had hundreds.
Here too we agree.
This is not distortion, this is a diffferent point of view, enabled by
the knowledge of and faith in Baha'u'llah, His Covenant , and His truth
for today and tomorrow.
regards,
Kusanku
dmcadam
Reply to John Versteeg message 11/30/2000 9:27 PM
Hi John-
Not being an academic type scholar who has delved in detail on this
subject I must contain myself to concepts and not familiar terminology or
names like you may be used to, although I did peruse many of the Holy
Books for myself when I was searching.
In our own Writings are quotes related to our three natures and three
levels of awareness. The physical, human and divine all have different
powers of perception. Animal sense are the "eyes of the body" and they
enable us to see only partial reality. Intellectual powers, reason,
imagination, memory, etc. are like the "eyes of the mind" and may offer
us some additional enlightenment, depending on what the senses report but
we still are limited in this level of awareness and not able to see the
"whole" of reality. But on the higher than human level, with our faith
and intuition (eyes of the heart) or what we can refer to as our
"teachability" we are able to "believe" in something, say like what a
purportedly superhuman being reveals to us, even though we may not have
the rational understanding of it. This is proven by virtue of a small
child who believes in the parent teacher and what the parent teaches.
What has been taught may or may not be confirmed in later years as the
child develops intellectually.
Now I see that all of these natures, levels of awareness or powers of the
soul and body are the result of Revelations from God. Each Revelation
has progressed mankind from a being more like the brute animal although
being distinct, to the appearance and development of the intellectual
powers and now we are approaching spiritual development.
Each religion formed was the result of our perceptions, understanding and
application of what knowledge was revealed by these Revelators. We
formed these religions which are like outer garments of the spirit and as
we grew and developed so did the religion. However we also brought into
these religions the results of our ego-prompted imaginations which we
felt were true guidance, and in some cases forced these interpretations
on others, from generation unto generation and in time they were taken as
gospel truth, even written down as such. So the religion was born, had a
distinct purpose to fulfill in mankind, flourished and then became
corrupted and declined in influence while a new Revelation appeared and
both shed light on the old while giving us new enlightenment and goals
for the existing cultures.
We have today been able to witness how a new religion is misperceived by
the old as well as how new believers misperceive ancient religions that
have declined. Even though each religion had some form of prophecy
concerning a Return in the more immediate future and a glorious Golden
age in the longer termed future, showing very similar spiritual teachings
and differing social mores, the former adherents have always resisted the
change. And this resistance clouds the intellectual powers and dampens
the heart whose powers of faith and intuition (our teachability) are very
much needed.
I cannot get any deeper into all this at this time but to me there is
absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain if the former
religionists move into the current Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
This passage from the Dawn Breakers to me is important to consider-
page 586 THE DAWN-BREAKERS
"Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognize His Cause.
Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have
performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its
character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to
find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of
such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognizing the
truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained
to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of
superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds
proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of
eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May
it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger
for ever on the lips of men."
>From my perspective we give the seekers of truth the Baha'i Message in
its simplicity as stated in the Writings, inform them, lead them to the
Cause etc. but if they accept or not is up to their own initiative and
what God has ordained for them. I try my best to avoid any deep
intellectual discussions for I feel the heart is where we need to make
our appeals. However there is also a quote regarding making our appeals
to the heart via the intellect and for those of you who have this kind of
knowledge I say, peace be upon you.
There are other quotes though that tell me the soul is capable of
perceiving the truth with our without the aid of the physical senses and
rational powers. This seems to be valid for I recall vividly telling
souls the truth and find it being rejected by the outer person and later
that same soul will come and tell me what they discovered, as if I never
informed them in the first place. So we give the truth and pay no
attention to the opposition or rejection and sooner or later it will
exert its influence.
Although I seldom take part in these Buddhist/Baha'i discussions I truly
learn a lot and am grateful to all you friends who have been far more
detailed in your studies than I have.
God and Buddha bless us all,
doug
>
>Doug says:'>I can see how a Buddhist can >believe in a god but that he
>is not The >Creator.'
>
>Well, I think , that you are right, in this way:Buddhists are, many of
>them, atheists, but the Buddha was not; if we are to believe that the
>existing Sutras even of the Pali Canon are authentic in transmitting the
>teachings of the Buddha,to any extent, it appears that Buddha accepted
>the existence not only of a god but of many gods, even the entire Hindu
>Pantheon.
>
>But it says in these sutras the gods were subordinate to the Buddha.
>
>Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are thousands of
>gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the Brihadaranyaka
>Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe in many gods,
>but that these are only attributes; that there s really only one God,
>and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara, many other
>names, one Reality.
>
wewynal
No, as clearly stated in the Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Betts <fdb...@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai...@bcca.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Baha'u'llah
>
> >Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are thousands of
> >gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the Brihadaranyaka
> >Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe in many gods,
> >but that these are only attributes; that there s really only one God,
> >and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara, many other
> >names, one Reality.
>
wewynal
kus...@webtv.net wrote
> Hm, The Creation exists, with Gods, heavens and Hells, nine each, and
> many Buddha Worlds, and many Buddhas, past, present and furture, and
> many Boddhisattvas, and also prayers,, and even, Brahma, is mentioned by
> Buddha, Who says in Tevigga Sutta of the Pali Canon, that He knows the
> World of Brahma, the way to the world of Brahma, even as one who was
> even make any sense, imho.
>
>
The pat answer is that He always existed. So, if that is true, then ANYTHING
could have always existed, like matter and energy. If God can be
self-originating, why can't matter and life be? What is so special about
God??!!
2. In Buddhism, there are two types of meditation, samatha (Samadhi) and
vipassana. Samatha meditation have been practise by yogis before the Buddha.
In fact, Gotama have attained the 7th and the 8th Jhana (levels of
meditation / different levels of samadhi) before he become a Buddha under
two of his teachers.
Samatha meditation have been practice by yogis to attain "God-realization"
etc. before the Buddha.
All the jhanas (espesially 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th) does give rise to the
experience of God- Consciousness / Realization etc.) .
Ayya Khema, in her book "Who is Myself? - A Guide to Buddhist Meditation"
says that "...... Infinity of Consciousness (6th Jhana)can be misunderstood.
This was particularly so in the Hindu tradition, where it was often thought
to be the epitome of spiritual attainment. The experience does give rise to
an absolutely authentic realization, which is: "I am that," in Sanskrit tat
tvam asi, describing unity consciousness. Meister Eckhart, the medieval
Christian mystic, worded it slightly differently when he said: "God and I
are the same." He narrowly escaped being burned at the stake for this.
Teresa of Avila, giving instructions to her nuns in her book "Interior
Castle", described seven of the meditative absorptions. "
So, the Buddha was right in saying that he knows the
World of Brahma, the way to the world of Brahma, even as one who was born
there and lives there.
In facts all Gods from the seventh heaven are called "Brahmas"
I know that levels of jhana would be too strange for you but just try to
understand. You can e-mail me privately if you are really interested,
because the moderator does not allow links to be posted.
wewynal
Kusanku wrote :
We also accept Hinduism, a seemingly pantheistic religion which, however, in
its Scriptures, states that the gods are merely attributes of the One God,
Brahman, the beyond.(Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.)
dmcadam wrote:
I would like to know your definition and understanding of "pantheism"
Below are my definition of polytheism and pantheism.
Polytheism means belief in or worship of many gods or more than one God.
Pantheism means the doctrine that God is not a personality, but that all
laws, forces, manifestations, etc. of the self-existing universe are God.
And for your information, Hinduism is a new word. Actually there is no
Hinduism in the past. There are many religions in the past. There are
actually more than 50 religions in India in the past. If you have studied
Hinduism, you would have know all these. If you are interested, you can
always do a searh in a search engine or you can e-mail me privately but my
reply would be very slow, sometimes it take months!!!
For your information, available evidence suggest that Pali might be older
than Sankrit!!! and Buddhist writtings existed much earlier than any Hindu
scripture in Sanskrit. The Vedas (written) is actually later than Buddhist
writtings!!!
Similarly, if you are interested, you can always do a searh in a search
engine or you can e-mail me privately but my reply would be very slow,
sometimes it take months!!!
Bruce Burrill
Kusanku states:
> "Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are
thousands of gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the
Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe
in many gods, but that these are only attributes; that there s really only
one God, and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara,
many other names, one Reality." <
And Dean reasonably asks, and I think he reasonably asks this as a
Baha'i:
> "The question for me is, did the Buddha believe in this God?" <
And if the Buddha did not, then what?
It is quite reasonable for Dean to ask this question, and as Doug
suggests this can be approached in a consultative manner. Doug stated:
> "I believe this whole subject of debate regarding the authenticity of
Buddhism as a true religion of if the Buddha taught about God, etc. can
be better understood if both sides of the debate are truly interested in
consulting and collaborating to achieve unity from which the truth will
spring. Instead we are struggling to prove who or what is right or
wrong, what is proven by evidence etc. and this divides us and blocks
us from achieving reconciliation." <
Okay. I am open to this. I do, however, wonder about what Doug might
mean about achieving "unity." Unity in what way? In that both sides
agree to listen and to consider what the other side has to say? If the
issue is what the Buddha taught, do we give serious consideration to
what a knowledgeable Buddhist has to say, or do we dismiss it because
the Baha'i founding fathers seem to be saying something else against
which nothing can count? For example I recently learned to my
amazement that Abdu'l-Baha had knowledge of all things, at will, or at
least some Baha'is seem to believe that, which is to say that if then
Abdu'l-Baha states that the Buddha was a manifestation of god, it is true
without question. I realize, however, that not all Baha'is believe that is
so, that Abdu'l-Baha's "infallibility" was limited to certain matters that
did not extend beyond what his father taught. I wonder if there is unity
within Baha'i about these matters, but then that is an internal issue for
Baha'is to hash out. It does, however, seem to have consequences as to
how Baha'i will relate to other religions, which I think are seeing being
played out here.
I would like Doug to expand on his statement. I think it would be
helpful to me, and I hope it would be helpful to other Baha'is if Doug
would do this. I do not want my msgs here to be seen as trying to beat
up on the Baha'i point of view.
As for Dean's question, I'll answer it in my next msg.
Bruce
kus...@webtv.net
Hi Doug-
What a great post. truly spirit- filled and enlightening.
>Quote from the Dawn-Breakers about one's >deeds being the cause of
acceptance or >rejection
Yes, indeed. That does say it all. I completely agree with you on all
points.
May God and Buddha bless us,Namo Amitabha.
Bruce Burrill
What constitute agreement between religions? Kusanku gives us a nice
catalogue issues for dialogue where he sees agreement, but I would say
that there is much more room for exploration:
> "Mr. Burrill says that cause and effect are taught throughout
Buddhism.Then the creation , he says, is without beginning. This is also
what the Baha'i Faith teaches.Creation is infinite, has no beginning and
no end. Here we agree." <
While "Creation" may be infinite, it would not be at all without a
creator, as Baha'u'llah clearly states:
All-praise to the unity of God, and all-honor to Him, the sovereign
Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe,
Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things,
Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and
subtle elements of His creation....
The Dalai Lama on the other hand appropriately states:
"We don't agree. At least not yet. This principle means that all
conditioned things and events in the universe come into being only as a
result of the interaction of various causes and conditions. This is
significant because it precludes two possibilities. One is the possibility
that things can arise from nowhere, with no causes and conditions, and
the second is that things can arise on account of a transcendent designer
or creator. Both these possibilities are negated."
I would with the Dalai Lama that there is not yet an agreement here. It
would seem a bit more work needs to be done.
> "He says Budhism teaches cause and effect, that every effect has a
cause.Here too, we agree." <
But is Baha'i willing to take this as far as does the Buddha that even
God is subject to cause and effect, is contingent? Again, it seems more
work needs to be done here.
> "The Buddha teaches about an 'unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, '
without which the effect would not exist. Here too, we agree. We call
It God." <
Indeed, the Buddha teaches about an "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated,"
but "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated" is nirvana, an experiential state
of being free of greed, hatred, and delusion. It doesn't seem we are
talking about an omniscient, permanent, independent, unique cause of
the cosmos. More work needs to be done.
> "In the Tevijja Sutta, the Buddha describes the process of Progressive
coming into ecxistecne of Budhas,past, present and future. Here too we
agree." <
While the Buddha in this discourse talks about attaining his awakening
through his own efforts (no revelation from a God), there is no
discussion of past or future Buddhas in this discourse, though the very
next discourse in the Digha Nikaya, the Mahapadana Sutta, talks about
previous Buddhas. It is a text that would be worth looking at in these
terms to see if there is indeed agreement. More work to do.
> "In the Pali Canon, Buddha speaks in one sutta about Metteya, who
will be a Buddha, and have thousands of follwers in His life even as the
Buddha had hundreds. Here too we agree." <
The follower part is of the discourse in the Pali texts is so, but
Metteyya, who is mentioned only in this discourse by the Buddha,
appears at a time when life spans were 80,000 years, when there is no
war, next to no sickness, no poverty, no major immorality. In other
words Metteyya/Maitreya comes at a time of an already established
golden age, which clearly does not describe the mid 19th century. Work,
work, work to do.
> "the prophecies of the end times are the same" <
Actually these prophecies in Buddhism post date the Buddha, but that
does not mean that they should not be take seriously. Here is an end
time prophecy penned in the 14tn century:
=====
"How will it occur [the disappearance of the present day Buddha's
dispensation]? After my decease there will first be five
disappearances., What five? The disappearance of attainment
(in the Dispensation), the disappearance of proper con-
duct, the disappearance of learning, the disappearance of the
outward form, the disappearance of the relics. There will be
these five disappearances. .... [Here we will look at the full text for one
of the disappearances]
"The disappearance of learning means that as long as there
stand firm the texts with the commentaries pertaining to the
word of the Buddha in the three Pitakas, for so long there will
be no disappearance of learning. As time goes on and on there
will be base-born kings, not Dhamma-men; their ministers and
so on will not be Dhamma-men, and consequently the inhabitants
of the kingdom and so on will not be Dhamma-men.
Because they are not Dhamma-men it will not rain properly.
Therefore the crops will not flourish well, and in consequence
the donors of requisites to the community of monks will not be
able to give them the requisites. Not receiving the requisites
the monks will not receive pupils. As time goes on and on
learning will decay. In this decay the Great Patthana itself will
decay first. In this decay also (there will be) Yamaka, Katha-
vatthu, Puggalapannatti, Dhatukatha, Vibhanga and Dham-
masangani. When the Abhidhamma Pitaka decays the Suttanta
Pitaka will decay. When the Suttantas decay the Anguttara
will decay first. When it decays the Samyutta Nikaya, the
Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya and the Khuddaka-
Nikaya will decay. They will simply remember the jataka
together with the Vinaya-Pitaka. But only the conscientious
(monks) will remember the Vinaya-Pitaka. As time goes on
and on, being unable to remember even the jataka, the
Vessantara-jataka will decay first. When that decays the
Apannaka-jataka will decay. When the jatakas decay they
will remember only the Vinaya-Pitaka. As time goes on and on
the Vinaya-Pitaka will decay. While a four-line stanza still
continues to exist among men, there will not be a disappearance of
learning. When a king who has faith has had a purse
containing a thousand (coins) placed in a golden casket on an
elephant's back, and has had the drum (of proclamation)
sounded in the city up to the second or third time, to the effect
that: 'Whoever knows a stanza uttered by the Buddhas, let
him take these thousand coins together with the royal
elephant'-but yet finding no one knowing a four-line stanza,
the purse containing the thousand (coins) must be taken back
into the palace again-then will be the disappearance of
learning.
=====
Heavens. All five of these things need to happen before the present
Buddha's dispensation is lost and before the next Buddha will arrive. It
would seem that has not taken place quite yet.
> "Whose name Husayn mean kindness even as Metta does in Pali" <
That is not quite so. "Kindness" is not part of the definition given in the
Pali Text Society's Dictionary: love, amity, sympathy, active interest in
others. Not quite the same as kindness, though maybe "Husayn" carries
a broader meaning than simply "kindness."
Bruce
kus...@webtv.net
Wewynal states many things,' including that the >Vedas( written) are
much newer than Buddhist >ritings.'
One of the earliest Buddhist Scriptures is Tevijja Sutta, which means
the knowledge of the three vedas.
This refers to RigVeda, Sama Veda and Yajur Vada, which must mean that
these at least existed prior to the time of the Buddha, as well as
Brahmins, and their relgion of the Vedas.
Now the fourth or Atharva Veda, was composed after this, but the
evidence of the Buddhist Suttas, shows that the Vedas, in whatever form,
did exist.
It is true that the earliest extant coies of Hindu text is of one of the
Upanishads, that copy dating from the 1400's. many thousand of years
after the time of its suppposed composition.
It is also true that the earliest extant copies of Buddhist Sutras, are
from the first century A.D., the sarvastahedin(sp) birch bark fragments,
which actually are written in an Aramaic alphabet and in a nother
laguage, Karoshi I believe, than Pali, and these predate and are
somewhat different that, the Pali Canon.
This means that the Buddhist Scritures we have are several centurries
after the assing of the Buddha, and that the Pali canon is not in fact,
the first written collection of Buddhist sutras.
It also means that the earliest set there is, fragmentary though it be
dates from severl centuries after the Mahaparinibbana or Passing of the
Buddha.
And that , strictly speaking, it can not be the actual sermons of the
Buddha spoken by Ananda to the First Council of rajagriha, thus the
probability that the original teachng of the Buddha have been either
partially or whooly lost, as have many of the Hindu teachings, cannot be
ruled out.
However, there do exist in the Buddhist scriptures of both Pali and
Chinese, Tibetan and Mahayna canons, teachings that contradict the
asserions being made here by some Budhists, along side those to which
you refer.
The Baha'i Writings, state a view of Buddhism that some modern Budhist
scholas, such as Pannikar and so on, also state, tha early Budhism was a
Theistic Religion with Buddha definitely in place as Divine
Guru.Pannikar and others state that they believe that Buddhism 's
agnostic and atheist sides, which he says are not the only types that do
exist, were a 'later abberation' of the Buddhist philosophers.
This abberation taking place about five hundred years after the passing
of the Buddha, which is maybe not coincidentally the date of the first
written Scriptures yet found.
'Abdu'l-Baha's statement that the Buddhists do not possss the Buddhas
authntic Writing is thus, a historical fact.
The way in which He is adressed by HIs Disciples throughout all canons
is evidence that He was not thought f as only a self awakened man or
mortal.
I intend to post Buddhist prophecies of Maitreye as found in Pali Canon
as evidence of some fragmentary remnats of this earlier Buddhism, that
some now feel is the original.
.
Regards,
John
Robin E. Baylor &/or Fred Capp
Bruce Burrill saith:
>Several things need to be said about this, what we see in Kusanku's
>msgs illustrates very aptly my point that Baha'is are going to seriously
>mislead themselves if they do not take the time carefully understand the
>various contexts of what they are looking at. Let us start with the
>Dragon Flower Ch'an Temple.
>
>"1. The Buddha is our only Master.
>2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.
>3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God."
>
>No belief in a creator, universe ruling god. So, the context we find this
>mantra is that it being presented by Mahayana Buddhists who do not
>believe in a god who created and rules the universe. As one reads
>through the mantra, there is nothing in it that indicates that it is being
>directed to a god that created and rules the universe. As translated, in
>it there is a lot of devotional stuff directed to the Buddha[s] and virtues
>of enlightenment. Being a mantra, it is a magickal practice of aligning
>oneself with the "energy" as it is present in the "sphota" -- the magickal
>vibrational power of the sounds of the words. In Buddhist mantric
>practice the quality that the mantra is supposed to engender may be
>personified as a bodhisattva or a Buddha, an individual who through his
>or her own effort has become an exemplar of aspects wisdom and
>compassion. Ultimately, however, what is sometimes presented as
>external entities are in fact symbols for the internal qualities to be
>developed. There is no prayer to a creator god here; rather, there is the
>magickal practice to help cultivate the qualities exemplified and
>contained within the mantra.
>
<And so on>
Okay Bruce, I concede that you've made your point. So, if we, as Baha'is,
wish to teach our Faith to our Buddhist brethrin I guess that we are just
stuck with 'Abdu'l-Baha's admonition to listen to the heart of the seeker &
go from there (major paraphrase). I've taught athiests before, I've never
seriously tried to teach a Buddhist, but that could easily be just a matter
of time or circumstance. I will endeavor to keep your instructions in mind
when I do. Thank you.
BTW: Are you a Baha'i? If so, I'd like to hear what it was that brought
you into the Faith. If not, I'm curious as to why you've put so much energy
into this newsgroup.
----
Fred Capp
"It's a philosophical engine,
beating it won't help."
-Terry Prachet, Small Gods, p.205
kus...@webtv.net
Mr. Burrill posts:'>Okay, I am open to >this.(Exchange of ideas.'
And gives many examples of places there is work to do to reconcile
Baha'i viewpoint with Buddhist viewpoint, including a very interesting
statement from the Dalai Lama that'we don't agree. Yet.'
I like that yet. Dalai Lama is truly a great man, I believe, very humble
and honest about things.
What then is said, examples of differing understandings ,etc. is also
something I agre with, much work to be done.
Let us look then, first of all, at some things the Buddha is believed to
have said in Pali Canon, firstly about Metteya.
Let us accept the possibillity that He spoke in parables as indeed He
did, using simles and metaphrs and hyperbole, and was not literaaly
speaking about eighty thousand year lifespans, etc, but perhaps used
these to emphasize the greatness of the age of Maitreye.
Let us also accept the possibillity that He spoke everyting literally.If
the latter is true, then the following things are also true:
1> Baha'u'llah could not possibly be Maitreye.
2."Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi were wrong about this, and thus,
'Abdu-l-Baha was not infallible or possessed of superhuman knowledge,
and neither was ShoghiEffeindi able to relate our Faith to prophecies.
A Baha'i who has accepted the Covenant of Baha'u'llah cannot accept
these things. but can acept that the Buddha ws speaking allegorically
about events, using symbols to convey realities, as all other
Manifestations including baha'u'llah and the Bab, did.
That the Buddha did this is alluded to as a possibillity by the Dalai
Lama commenting on the spitirual worlds described in the Abhidhamma, in
his book 'the Path to Bliss.
'I do not know if the hell realms really do exist as described in the
Abhidharma literature...'
Here is arguably the foremost authrotiy on Buddhism today stating that
he really does not know if somehing attributed to the Buddha was meant
literally or not.A great, honest and umble man, the Dalai Lama. Also the
first world religious leader to visit and pay homage at the Baha'i
Shrines, particuarly the Shrine of the Bab, at which he meditated for a
while, then left on the Holy Threshold, a yellow silk scarf, as token of
his respect.'
So, there exists, according to the dlai Lama, reson to speculate that
the Buddha might not have spoken literally in all cases, even if the
words we have are anything like what the Buddha actually taught.
Assuming that at least some may be, I shall try to demonstrate more
similarities between the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism, from the words
attributed to the Buddha, from the Pali Cano, in order to avoid
speclation as to authenticit y on Buddhist's part.
As a Baha'i, I can comment on the infallibilllity of 'Abdu'l-Baha and
Shoghi Effendi.
'
That of 'Abdu'l-Baha concerned everyhing, through His access to Divine
Guidance from Baha'u'llah, as stated by 'Abdu'l-Baha.
That of hoghi Effendi concerned anything to do with the Faith, imcludng
whatever the Guardian might say had to do with the Faith, but did not
extend to matters not relating in any way to the Faith.
Quotes exist demonstrating these statements.
Baha'u'llah's fulfillment of Prophecies of the Relgions of the past, did
have to do with the aith, obviously, and the Universal House of Justice
has stated that this infallible guidnce did come into play for Shoghi
Effendi when, in God Passes By, he stated the fulfillment of Buddhst
prophecy in two places, the Baha'u'llah was the Fifth Buddha, and that
Baha'u'llah alone was meant by the Buddha's Prophecy of Maitreye.
It is also stated that in addtion to thestatements of 'Abdu'l-Baha, and
those made in God Pases By, the Guardian did not possess anoy other
information on Buddhism.
Thus , that which he did possess had to do with the Baha'i Faith and its
relationship to Buddhism.
'Abdu'l-Baha, Who could summon information in the form of a Tablet which
appeared before His eyes, which at least superficially sounds like how
Baha'u'llah stated He accessed information, though 'Abdu'l-Baha's would
have come trough Baha'u'llah's,actually stated the Buddha;'s oroginal
teachings in outline,and at one point gave a story of Buddha's disciples
and the Buddha nowehere else to be found.
If He was Who Baha'u'llah said He( 'Abdu'l-Baha,) was, then He could do
this, at will.If not, five million people and more have made a terrible
mistake:-).
Bruce Burrill
Kusanku states:
> "Now, we go to the Hindu Scriptures, and see that there are
thousands of gods, but that for instance, among other places, in the
Brihadaranyaka Upanisad, it explains that popular Hinduism may believe
in many gods, but that these are only attributes; that there s really only
one God, and that is Brahman, the Beyond.the Creator God, Isvara,
many other names, one Reality." <
And Dean reasonably asks, and I think he reasonably asks this as a
Baha'i:
> "The question for me is, did the Buddha believe in this God?" <
And I ask Dean, if the Buddha did not, then what? Let me, in what I
hope is a consultative manner, give some information.
From Klaus Klostermaier's A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, pgs: 130,
137-8, 149-50.
"Yes," said he, "but just how many gods are
there Yajnavalkya?" "Thirty-three." , . . "Yes,"
said he, "but just how many gods are there,
Yajnavalkya?" "One. . . "
-Brhadaranyaka Upanisad III, IX, I
...
In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which
Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: _Kati devah_, how many
are the devas [gods]? His first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text:
'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed
on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to
three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One. 'Which is the
one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life). The
Brahman. He is called _tyat_ (that).' Though the devas still figure in
sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is
here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.
Brahman, untranslatable, identified with the revealed word uttered by the
Brahmins, with the soul of everything, with the creator and maintainer
of the world, with the inner principle of the universe-Brahman becomes
the term around which the loftiest religious speculation has revolved for
thousands of years and it is still the term used to designate the supreme
being. Brahman has always retained an aura of the not quite concrete,
the spiritual, that escaped the grasp of the ordinary worshipper. The
terms used to express the supreme in its concreteness are equally old:
isa or isvara, the lord, or bhagavan, the Exalted One, are titles given to
the Supreme Being by Hindus even now. The name associated with this
title now becomes rather crucial. Whereas the Vedic _rsi_ [sage] was
casual in associating names with the title deva, because a plurality of
devas seemed quite natural and even necessary to grasp different facets
of the nameless one, to the new theologians a plurality of Lords seems
intrinsically impossible and they insist that the One, with whom they
associate the title isvara or bhagavan, is the only One -- as Brahman is
by necessity one only, ultimately identical with the Lord. ...
Many Hindu homes are lavishly decorated with color prints of a great
many Hindu gods and goddesses, often joined by the gods and goddesses
of other religions and the pictures of contemporary heroes. Thus side
by side with Siva and Visnu and Devi one can see Jesus and Zoroaster,
Gautama Buddha and Jina Mahavira, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal
Nehru, and many others. But if questioned about the many gods even
the illiterate villager will answer: _bhagvan ek hai_ -- the Lord is One.
He may not be able to figure out in theological terms how the many
gods and the one god hang together and he may not be sure about the
hierarchy obtaining among the many manifestations, but he does know
that ultimately there is only One and that the many somehow merge into
the One. Hindu theology has many ways of explaining the unity of
Brahman in the diversity of _ista-devatas_: different psychological needs
of people must be satisfied differently, local traditions and specific
revelations must be accommodated, the ineffable can only be predicated
in-quite literally-thousands of forms. Among the sahasranamas -- the
litanies of thousand names, which are recited in honour of each of the
great gods -- the overlap is considerable: each one would be named
creator, preserver, destroyer of the universe, each one would be called
Truth and Grace and Deliverance. Each one, in the end, is the same:
One.
--------------------------------------
When the Buddha states: "There are some ascetics and brahmins who
declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by
Ishvara/Brahma/God," it is not only against the background of the
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad does the Buddha respond, but he utilizes (a
la Thomas Nast) the very mythic core of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
to make his point that there is no creator God beyond the realm of
karma. In the Discourse on the Snake Simile (Middle Length Discourses
22) the Upanishadic notion of a transcendent self (= to Brahman, the
God Beyond) ( _so loko so attaa_) is flatly rejected as a false view, as
it is elsewhere in the Pali texts.
I think it is hard to answer Dean's question with a yes.
Further, I would suggest that the fundamental basis of the Buddha's
teaching is radically different from that of Baha'i.
Let me quote again from the Dalai Lama:
"In order to develop a genuine spirit of harmony from a sound
foundation of knowledge, I believe it is very important to know the
fundamental differences between religious traditions. And it is possible
to understand the fundamental differences, but at the same time
recognize the value and potential of each religious tradition."
-- THE GOOD HEART page 41.
What I am trying to do is present the Buddha and his teachings as
careful study of them reveals them to be and as they have been
understood by Buddhists. Now, this seems to put me at odds with some
Baha'is, but I wonder if adopting the Dalai Lama's stance would be
better than this stance: "I would argue that Baha'i's know more about
the true station of Buddha than Buddhists," that was expressed here on
SRB some time ago?
Bruce
wewynal
posted before replying.
And don't try to be expert in Buddhism when you are not.
You wrote:
I believe, than Pali, and these predate and are
> somewhat different that, the Pali Canon.
No, they are not different.
Futhermore,those script was not Theravada's text, but other sects! And in
additionn, during that time Theravada already went to Sri Lanka and hardly
exist in India anymore.
You wrote:
> Wewynal states many things,' including that the >Vedas( written) are
> much newer than Buddhist >ritings.'
>
> One of the earliest Buddhist Scriptures is Tevijja Sutta, which means
> the knowledge of the three vedas.
>
> This refers to RigVeda, Sama Veda and Yajur Vada, which must mean that
> these at least existed prior to the time of the Buddha, as well as
> Brahmins, and their relgion of the Vedas.
As I have said you can do a search in a search engine. The is information
out there or you can e-mail me. I also used the word "written" in
parenthesis. I also remebered using the phrase "available evidence".Pali is
also believed by some scholars to be older than Sanskrit.
I never said the Vedas never existed during the Buddha's time. I said it was
put into writing (available evidence) later than Buddhist writings!
Do a seach or e-mail (I am very slow) me for evidence.
Hindu scholar have try to make Buddhism as one of their sects. The fact is
that Buddha said there is no creator (Brahmajala Sutta, etc...)
----- Original Message -----
From: <kus...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai...@bcca.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Baha'u'llah
>
wewynal
day he convert to Christianity?
There are many Buddhist who disagree with him. There are many Vajrayanist in
my country but disagree with him on many things. He is more like a
representative or spokeman of the Gelug sect.
----- Original Message -----
From: <kus...@webtv.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai...@bcca.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Buddhism and Baha'u'llah
>
Bruce Burrill
>
>
>'Abdu'l-Baha's statement that the Buddhists do not possss the Buddhas
>authntic Writing is thus, a historical fact.
It was Shoghi Effendi.
Bruce Burrill
Bruce Burrill
posting a 3 part detailed exposition of Buddist canon. Please ensure that replies
relate to the discussion of the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
Detailed discussions of the Buddist canon and various Buddist divisions belong in
soc.religion.buddist and not soc.religion.bahai.
Thank you - Mods. ]
1 of 3
Kusanku opines:
> "And that , strictly speaking, it can not be the actual sermons of the
Buddha spoken by Ananda to the First Council of rajagriha, thus the
probability that the original teachng of the Buddha have been either
partially or whooly lost, as have many of the Hindu teachings, cannot be
ruled out." <
The Buddha was a Manifestation of God, like Christ, but His
followers do not possess His authentic writings. (Sgoghi Effendi 26
December 1941 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
===========
THE BUDDHIST FORUM Vol I, 1987-1988: "Recovering the Buddha's
Message" and "How the Mahayana Began," by Richard Gombrich, and
Gombrich's excellent book _HOW BUDDHISM BEGAN, the
Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings_, contain information that
addresses important aspects of this question. There is also an article by
Lance Cousins, "Pali Oral Literature," in P.T. Denwood and A.
Piatigorsky's BUDDHIST STUDIES ANCIENT AND MODERN,
London, 1983, that is worth looking at. As is: THE BUDDHIST
FORUM, Vol V, K.R. Norman's "Buddhism and Its Origins," and
Norman's "Buddhism and Oral Tradition."
It is not an issue of what the Buddha actually said, as if we were
expecting the Buddha's words to be taped recorded. The texts, and here
we are talking about the Pali discourses, are oral compositions,
composed in a highly sophisticated and rigorous oral culture, though there
is some evidence to suggest that they were originally composed by writing.
The issue is one of what the Buddha taught and how well it was preserved.
Cultural historical scholarship has shown that the Pali texts do a
fine job of reflecting the history and culture of northern India at the time
of the Buddha, and I do not think it unreasonable to assume the Pali
texts also do a fine job of reflecting the teaching of the Buddha. For
a couple hundred years it was an oral tradition. India of the
Buddha's time was very much a culture of highly refined oral traditions,
and it would be more than somewhat foolish to think that the Buddha in
his 45 years of teaching was not concerned with the preservation of his
message. In light of this the first thing we can look at is the founding of
the monastic order: "The first function of the Sangha was to preserve the
Doctrine and thus preserve Buddhism as such [Gombrich: THE WORLD
OF BUDDHISM]." Also, as the monastic order and the influence of
Buddha grew beyond where the Buddha could not be readily consulted,
it would become necessary to have an organized form of the Buddha's
teaching, thus the need for developing an oral tradition. It also needs to
be understood that these texts were learned by groups of reciters, who
would recite the texts together thereby providing a methodology for
checking and insuring the accuracy of what was learned and being
recited.
We find the Buddha and Sariputta in the Digha 33 (and see Digha 29)
commenting on the turmoil in ranks of the Jains after Mahavira died
because their teaching were "not well proclaimed" by him, but the
Buddha states that in contrast he had "well proclaimed" his doctrine,
then Sariputta goes through a long summary of the doctrines taught by
the Buddha, a summary that is obviously structured for oral
transmission.
There are any number of other things within the texts that point to the
fact that the Buddha's teaching was a well organized, "well proclaimed,"
affair, deliberately structured and composed for oral transmission, even
during the Buddha's time. As Gombrich states: "I have the greatest
difficulty in accepting that the main edifice [of the Pali Texts] is not the
work of one genius."
Now, taking the Pali Texts we see a body of literature that has been
preserved in what was obviously a spoken _prakrit_, a Sanskrit relative.
Pali was obviously a _sadhubhashya_, a lingua franca, used by
wandering ascetics in a particular territory. There is good evidence that
supports that this was a dialect used in the Magadha area. If Pali was
not what the Buddha spoke (and likely was not), he certainly would have
had no trouble in understanding it. Of the extant prakrits Pali is the
closest to Sanskrit, having many feature in common with Vedic Sanskrit.
An equivalent body of texts exists in Chinese translation. The Chinese
texts belonged to a different school that was located in a different part
of India using a different _prakrit_ than Pali. This particular body of
texts then was Sanskritized before it was translated into Chinese.
The Pali Canon, as it was recited, redacted, and finally approved by the
Third Council in Patiliputta in the 3rd century, was sent with King
Ashoka's son, Mahinda, to Sri Lanka around 250 BCE. Now both the
traditions of the Pali Texts and the Chinese equivalent were separated by
much distance, and importantly not interacting for over 2000 years, and
it is obvious that both these bodies of texts separately under went a lot
of handling before they found their final forms. The Pali Canon was
committed to writing in the first century BCE, though it is likely that the
writing down of portions of the canon started long before that, and the
Chinese was written in Chinese 5 cent CE. But when they are compared
the correspondences are nothing short of remarkable, being often
identical in the phrasing and wording in the doctrinal issues, and there
are no doctrinal discrepancies. (See Kalupahana's BUDDHIST
PHILOSOPHY: An Historical Analysis, which neatly illustrates this
point.) Doctrinal discrepancies are found in the secondary and later
literature. The point is that the monastics who preserved the word of
the Buddha took quite seriously the charge given them by the Buddha.
Bruce Burrill
Bruce Burrill
Lance Cousins, a buddhologist professor at the University of Manchester
and a specialist in early Buddhism, states in his essay in the Pelican A
HANDBOOK OF LIVING RELIGIONS:
Although there are differences as to details and many variations of
arrangement, the four _nikayas_ [collections of discourses, sutras]
contain more or less the same fundamental ideas in all recensions.
Such variation as exists is probably due to chance rather than
sectarian differences. Indeed this is wholly to be expected in an
oral literature. The texts contain much repetition of stock passages
and formulaic patterns. This is a technique to ensure accurate
preservation of oral traditions, but it is one that allows considerable
variation of exact form. Such oral works, we know from studies
elsewhere, are recited identically. Their content, however, is very
traditional and conservative." pages 288-9, 1984.
Richard Gombrich, another buddhologist specializing in early Buddhism
and the formation of the Canon, argues in his essay, "Recovering the
Buddha's Message," in THE BUDDHIST FORUM, volume 1 from the
School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, that
such stock phrases and constructed discourses were very likely
developed after the growth of the Buddha's monastic organization such
that its size no longer allowed frequent meetings with the Buddha. As
I have pointed out we see the example of the Jains, who after the death
of their leader, being thrown into turmoil because their teaching were
not well organized, were not well preserved, and the Buddha
commenting on how in contrast his teaching was well organized. A
fabrication by latter Buddhists? It seems more likely not. If anything it
is quite logical that the Buddha was very concerned with the
preservation of his teachings, and this story reflects that.
This is from the great buddhologist Msgr. Etienne Lamotte, SJ in his
exhaustive HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDHISM (Peeters Press, 1988,
page 156):
However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in
the _Ekottara_ [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's
_Anguttara], which are easily discernable, the variations in
question affect hardly anything save the method of expression or
arrangement of the subjects. The doctrinal basis common to the
agamas [preserved in Chinese and partially Sanskrit and Tibetan]
is remarkably uniform. Preserved and transmitted by the schools,
the sutras [discourses] do not however constitute scholastic
documents, but are the common heritage of all the sects.
David Kalupahana, the one time chair of the philosophy dept at the U
of Hawaii states in his book, BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY: A Historical
Analysis (U of H Press),
Doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the Pali
Nikaya, especially because they were preserved
by the Theravada sect of Buddhism and hence were taken to
represent the ideas of that school. But a comparative study of the
Pali Nikayas and the Chinese Agamas shows that the Pali Nikayas
do not represent the Theravada standpoint. In fact, there is
nothing in the Nikayas that can be called Theravada. The Nikayas
and the Agamas agree so well with regard to the doctrines they
embody...one can be very optimistic about the attempt to determine
the nature of pre-Abhidharmic Buddhism. ... Therefore, one is
fully justified in depending on the Pali Nikayas and the Chinese
Agamas for the study of early or primitive Buddhism. pages xi-xiii.
In BUDDHIST STUDIES: Ancient and Modern Lance Cousins states in
his essay, _Pali Oral Literature_:
"These divergences are typically in matters of little importance --
such items as locations off suttas [discourses], the names of
individual speakers or the precise order of occurrences of events.
Only rarely are they founded on doctrinal or sectarian differences."
The Ven. Minh Chau is in his THE CHINESE MADHYAMA AGAMA
AND THE PALI MAJJHIMA NIKAYA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
(Saigon: The Siagon Institute of Higher Buddhist Studies,
1964) takes a very detailed look at these two bodies of texts. There are
differences in the numbers of discourses that each has, but what he finds
is essentially what Cousins points out. In some cases the one is clearer
than the other in particular passages, but far more often there is a very
marked correspondence to the point of identity between the two groups
of texts -- a remarkable thing to consider given that the Chinese texts
have been translated from the Magadhi into a prakrit then into Sanskrit
and then into Chinese.
So, the point is that what we find in the discourse collection of the Pali
Canon is common property of all the Buddhist schools and was material
that was settled quite early. No reason to believe that we are not seeing
the Buddha's teachings in these texts. Sectarian differences within that
grouping of texts are minimal. As has been said, the significant
differences are found in the commentarial and exegetical literature.
As we can see there is very good reason to believe that the content of
sutras was settled quite early, long before they were committed to
writing, which is say that contrary to the usual Baha'i attempt at
pushing the sutras and their content away from the Buddha, there is
extremely strong reason to push the sutras and their content toward the
Buddha. These texts were carefully preserved and there is good reason
to believe that the preservation started with the Buddha himself.
A nice, easily accessible example of how well the Buddha's teachings
have been preserved can be found in Thich Nhat Hanh's book,
THUNDERING SILENCE. It is a dialogue of the Buddha that is
found both in the Pali Canon of the Theravadin school and in the
Chinese Buddhist canon. Hanh gives the variations between to two texts
in his translation. Considering the Chinese text had been translated
through at least four languages and the Pali, two, and that the Pali
tradition and the tradition that gave rise to the Chinese translation were
separated very early, not interacting for over 2000 years, the fact that
the differences are minimal and not significant to the meaning of the text
points to a very careful concern with preserving the Buddha's teachings.
Peter Terry
Perhaps those who are interested in this topic
might consider focusing their energy and their
scholarship on those aspects of the Buddhist
teaching and practice which have similarities
with the Baha'i teachings and practice? It has
been noted, in Buddhist-Christian dialogue and
Buddhist-Jewish dialogue, that there are many
similarities in the realm of what we might call
mystical experience, and in the field of ethics.
'Abdu'l-Baha has affirmed that ethics forms
part of the eternal core of the religion of God,
common to all of the Manifestations. From
a Buddhist perspective, we may find that this
concentration on experience and ethics would
be much more fruitful than our present preoc-
cupation with metaphysical teachings and with
other seemingly contrasting doctrines.
With warm regards, Peter
kus...@webtv.net
of the Oneness of God, which also was told by'Abdu'l-Baha to two
believers before He sent them to India to present the Teachings of the
Baha'i Faith.
'God is One.'
So, we agree on our understanding of Hinduism. Brahmin priests I have
spoken with also express no dfferences on this with us.
The area we are experiencing difficulties with is what Buddha actually
believed, and what he actually said, and what he actually taught.
I don't believe we are going anywhere further with this disussion as it
is,so I will now end my participation in it, at least for the time
being.
I will close with this summation:
What each Religion has in terms of its Scriptures, the remnants of the
Words in some case actually uttered by, in some cases the gist of them,
and in some case written by persons unknown,differs.
I will not here attempt to exhaustively categorize in terms of
authenticity the Writings f the various Religions, except to state that
only three of them, Islam, the Babi and Baha'i Faith, have any
significant amount of the actual authentic Words of their Founders.
If Jesus or the Buddha ever wrote anything , it is long gone and lost.No
one regrest this more than Baha'is.We love all the Founders of the
World's great religions and try to draw nigh unto Them through the Words
atributed to Them.
When we inhale the fragrances of the Beloved, the 'Transcendent Truth,
through those words, 'even at a distance of a thousand leagues,' we
rejoice.
When we look at the history of Religious scriptural transmission, we
find, of twenty one nasks or volumes revealed by Zroaster, only a few
gathas, hymns, survive, and the memoryof the outline of the other twenty
volumes.And the rest is priestly and scholarly addition and commentary.
Of fifty Gospels, only four make it into the New Testament.None were
written by Christ and one, John possibly dictated by an actual
Disciple.Some lettrers of some of the Disciples, after that.
Of Moses, a few words, possibly a prayer and blessing, we don't know,
and the gist of His Teachings probably not in His Words, survive.And
that only because Ezra found a copy of the Torah in the ruins of the
Temple .
The oldest actual words in the Old Testament besides that, are the
Proverbs and Psalms.The latter confirmed in the Qur'an, and some of the
Books of the Prophets of Israel.
The earliest copies of any of these date from the first and second
centuries ad, and the earliest Buddhist Scriptues date from then as
well, and the resent Pali Canon from later than that.Indications are
that rescensions f originals were made at earlier dates.
The Qur'an, alone of all the Holy Books before the Bab and Baha'u'llah's
Revelations,contains the one hundred percent authentic Word of God
revealed through His Manifestation.
With the beginning of the Baha'i Era in 1844, ending with Baha'u'llah's
Acscension in 1892,we have about forty-eight years of Divine
Revelation.
A great amount of which , in the original Tablets, we have preserved,
and are translating it.
Nobody else has ever seen or had such access to Divine Guidance as does
mankind in this Age, does it but wish it.
Do Baha'is know more than Buddhists about the Buddha's station?
In those writings we learn that the Buddha s a Manifestation of God, and
this seems to contradict what Buddhists say today.
But, in light of the undisputable historcal fact that the earliest
Buddhist Writings so far discovered are from a time centuries after the
Buddha's passing, perhaps it does not, in fact, as 'Abdu'l-Baha
infallibly stated,contradict the Buddha's actual original Teachings, a
great many of which may well have been lost or forgotten, as ave been
some of the others.
Think it hasn;'t happened? While there is enough in the Writings and
Prophecies for those who open their spiritual eyes and ears, to find
Baha'u'llah in any of the world's religious traditions, and while some
may have even partially preserved their Scriptures,and while the moral
and ethical foundations of each Faith is there for all to see, yet it
cannot be denied that all of the world's Faiths have lost a part of
their Guidance.Some, more than others.
The Jewish Scriptures were not compiled into the Tanakh until the
Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D.Many books, some stil surviving, wrere left
out, by political consensus.
The Christian Gospel was not compiled until 325 AD, at the Council of
Nicaea, in present day Turkey.Many Books, some still surviving, were
also left out, by political consensus,and doctrines such as the Trinity
were formulated, same way, and the Old Testament was simply after the
compilation of the Rabbis at Jamnia, followed to the letter.Later otheer
councils excluded more from each testament, unti, we have the present
day compilation.
To verify this, go to any Bible Books Store and ask for the Old and New
Testament Apocrypha, it will usually be in the Clergy Corner, the
priests and Preachers know all about these books , but you didn't.'You'
being the nsuspectig parishioner that blindly folowed the priests and
scholars into limited understanding.
Read any copy of the surviving fragments of the Zand Avesta, Zoroastrian
Holy Book, and see that they even say only the gathas are Zoroaster's.
Go to any good Buddhist Book or Webiste, look up Pali canon, and find
out when it actually dates from , in print.
See in the Dead sea scrolls when they were actually written down, and
also go to the Old testament and see, quoted, the Book of Jashar,see
mentioned the Book of the Covenant of Moses,and the Book of the Wars of
YHWH, also quoted, and none of which any longer exist.
And understand why God at periodical times sends new Messenger's , to
restate the essentials of His Message,which even in the case of the
Qur'an is misunderstood, bcecause of differing interpretations of the
divines ad scholars and leaders of the Faith.
And then, make your own decisions.
regards,
John
kus...@webtv.net
kus...@webtv.net
some Baha'is have done, is absurd...'
'Abdu'l-Baha is not 'some Baha'is.'
>From Some Answered Questions,165:'The Founder of Buddhism was a
wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the
original principles of Hid doctrines gradually disappeared.' and so
forth, as you well know.
This and other statements in the Writings and approved Talks of
'Abdu'l-Baha', those writings of Shoghi Effendi and letters written on
his behalf, are the sole reason why 'some Baha'is ' think these
things.All Baha'is should.
To think that Buddhism of all the world's religions in the past, did not
become corrupted and some of its main teachings lost, including a 'god
notion', in face of the above from 'Abdu'l-Baha, is what is absurd, in
the eyes of the Baha'is and those who study religious history.
In the Qur'an, God reveals through Muhammad, that 'We have accepted the
Covenant of (the Christians), but they have forgotten mch of what they
had been taught."
Muhammad said the Muslim doctors at the end times would be the most evil
the world had ever seen. Obviously they would also change the spirit if
not the letter, of Islam.
The Hindus don't even know who their original founder was, nor do the
sabeans, nor do either have authentic Scriptures, and the Zoroastrians
preserved their books but most were destroyed , first by Alexander's
tropops( Thanks Al!:-) ad then by Muslim commanders.Only dsome prayers
and fragmentary outlines of twenty Books by the Prophet remain.Among the
fragments, prophecies of Baha'u'llah and the Bab, 'Abdu'l-Baha and so
on.
Prophecies interpreted by 'Abdu'l-Baha and stated by Baha'u'llah to be
about Him and this Day.
Of all these Faiths, the Buddhist alone, has preserved the teachings of
theoir Founder, we are told, inviolate.
How likely is that?
Werwe, te Baha'is, to lose the Writings, the translations and the
Interpretations thereof, how long would we, with the way a lot of folks
like to play fast and loose with the Covenant and do so on the internet
and wherever they can,be able to preserve intact the Faith?
'Abdu'l-Baha said that were it not for the protecting power of the
Covenant , to preserve the unity of the Faith, in one day, a thousand
sects would arise.
Think about that, then ask if, it were possible , that the original
principles survive, of a Faith revealed two thousand , five hundred
years ago and transmitted orally for the first five hundred, and that
would indeed, be a miracle of God.
When then, 'Abdu'l-Baha, states the original principles to be in accord
with those revealed by all the Prophets,and the Buddha to be a
Manifestation of God,and we know 'Abdu'l-Baha had access to infinite
Divine knowledge,and that scholars no matter how deicated or thorough,
do not, nor do they or anyone else have any contemporary references to
the Buddha or His teachings, for a period of sevral centuries
afterwards,a lot longer than the Christians went for instance,it is no
contradiction between history and the Baha'i Faith, more a confirmation.
And despite my trying not to become involved in a controversy here, I
write this in defense of the Faith and the Covenant, when statements
made by the Center of the latter are categorized as being made by 'some
Baha'is', rather that the Center of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, and as
'absurd', when clearly, they are not.
Regards to all,
John
Bruce Burrill
Bruce Burrill
> "Perhaps those who are interested in this topic
might consider focusing their energy and their
scholarship on those aspects of the Buddhist
teaching and practice which have similarities
with the Baha'i teachings and practice?" <
Let me remind us what the Dalai Lama said:
"In order to develop a genuine spirit of harmony from a sound
foundation of knowledge, I believe it is very important to know the
fundamental differences between religious traditions. And it is possible
to understand the fundamental differences, but at the same time
recognize the value and potential of each religious tradition." -- THE
GOOD HEART page 41.
If we are -- in my opinion --to truly understand where Buddhist and Baha'i
teachings touch, to truly understand where they may be similar in some
points, we need
also to understand where and how they truly differ. If we cannot
understand how they truly differ, then we cannot meaningfully
understand how they may touch or may be similar. The exercise of
finding similarities, then, becomes a procrustean effort of forcing one
into the other's idea of what it should be.
Buddhists (or Christians or whomever) should be able to sit down at the
table of dialogue as equals, without being told at the start that their
founder did not write anything so therefore they do not have the true
teachings, what they do have is corrupt and incomplete, that their
founder is other than what they think he might be, that certain core
teachings are only allegoric or symbolic or some such thing, etc, etc,
etc.
Now, Baha'is can believe whatever they want to believe about Buddhism
for whatever reason, but they need to simply acknowledge that that is
their belief. They may present it to the Buddhist, but in turn the
Buddhists should then have the right to respond: "That may be what you
believe, but that really does not reflect how we see the Buddha and his
teachings, and here is why...." Baha'is don't have to change their
understanding as a result what the Buddhist may say about their
understanding of the Buddha and his teachings, but I would hope that
Baha'is would be open to deepening their understanding of not only
Buddhism, but how Baha'i itself relates to other religions. Such
dialogue, if successful, expands understanding not only of the other but
(in some ways most importantly) of the self.
Baha'is, as I have said, can believe whatever they want about the
Buddha and his teachings, but if they really want a dialogue of equals,
they need to open to the fact that Buddhists with very good reasons hold
very different ideas about the Buddha and his teachings, that they see in
the Buddha and his teachings something radically different from what
Baha'i sees.
If we can accept that there are these profound differences, if we can try
to understand them without trying to explain them away or let them get
in the way because we might have an agenda of trying to establish a
"unity," then we can get to a place where we can really see similarities
and maybe even places of connexion. And this is not just a matter of
Buddhism and Baha'i, but it is a matter of dialogue between any two
religions. Buddhism and Christianity have pretty good history of this sort
of dialogue, and as I have earlier, I can strongly recommend THE
GOOD HEART by the Dalai Lama as an example of this sort of
dialogue.
Bruce
Peter Terry
You asked:
"Can Baha'is allow the Buddhists to sit at the table with them as equals
as did the Christians did with the Dalai Lama as we see in the wonderful
book, THE GOOD HEART?"
Baha'is DO "allow the Buddhists to sit at the table with them as equals"
as is evident in this list. This list is dedicated to learning about the
Ba-
ha'i Faith, not Buddhism, not Christianity, not Islam, nor any other reli-
gion. And yet you post almost exclusively on Buddhism, and often in a
manner which contradicts explicit statements made by persons whom
Baha'is hold in the highest esteem and whom they regard as entirely
trustworthy witnesses to the Truth. In reaction to those postings, do we
Baha'is cut you off, tell you to go away, block you from participating?
Now, what would happen if a Baha'i were to post messages to a Buddhist
list, and if that Baha'i were to insist that his points of view were correct
and that those of the Buddhists were incorrect? Would they be so toler-
ant, so forgiving, so detached? Perhaps they would, but I do not know a
single Baha'i who would think of posting messages to a Buddhist list that
would resemble your postings in the very least!
In fact, I often have the impression that you are trying to evangelize us,
and on a Baha'i list! There may well have been some Baha'is who have
adopted Buddhist ideas. Many years ago I knew a prominent Baha'i
who told me that he was a Taoist. Nothing surprizes me anymore. But
most of us are not Buddhists, we are Baha'is, and we intend to remain
Baha'is.
Out of respect for us as human beings, if not out of respect for our reli-
gion, I hope you will give close consideration to my proposal that we
turn from these metaphysical and historical debates and focus on such
ethical issues as may indeed comprise a common ground between the
Buddhist and Baha'i communities.
With best wishes, Peter
Bruce Burrill
>
>
>And despite my trying not to become involved in a controversy here, I
>write this in defense of the Faith and the Covenant, when statements
>made by the Center of the latter are categorized as being made by 'some
>Baha'is', rather that the Center of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah, and as
>'absurd', when clearly, they are not.
I find John's aka Kusanku response very curious. If presenting a Buddhist
response to how Baha'i/Baha'is see the Buddha and his teachings is seen as
an attack on the Covenant, what is that telling non-Baha'is about Baha'i
and its relationship to other religions? I realize that probably not all
Baha'is would share John position on the bell-curve of possible Baha'i
understanding of these sorts of issues, but it raises rather
important internal issues for Baha'is in how they understand the issues of
the supposed infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and how they
relate to other religions. If we follow John's line, I wonder if dialogue
is going ever be possible between Baha'is and other religions, in that the
other religion will be expected to submit to the Baha'i understanding of
them and if they do not it is going to be understood as an attack upon the
very core of Baha'i, the Covenant -- hardly a realistic or satisfying
approach. I would hope for something very different.
Never mind that John's responses here could easily be seen as an attack on
the very core of how Buddhists understand and know the Buddha and his
teachings. As I have said repeatedly, Baha'is can believe what they want,
but if they are genuinely interested in talking with, in understanding
other religions, Baha'is need to be open to hearing how other religions see
how Baha'i understands them. In other words, if Adbul-Baha states that the
Buddha taught the oneness of God, why should not the Baha'i be open to
hearing the Buddhist response to that? It is not an attack on the Covenant
that Buddhist don't believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible and wrong in
what he said. Buddhists don't have anything to do with the Covenant, and
if Baha'is want Buddhists to understand Baha'i, then Baha'is need also to
be willing to understand how Buddhists understand the Buddha and his
teachings. My question is, why for Baha'is should this be a problem?
>Regards to all,
>John
John Ludgate
Probably I do not really understand the rules of this list, but I feel
that is is important for me to state that as a recent, happy and thankful
convert to the wisdom and teachings of Baha'ullah, I do not find the words
of Bruce or others that post to this list about the topic of Buddhism to be
offensive or disturbing. I quite enjoy the discussions and do not feel the
least bit distracted from my devotion to the Lord (sparked by the effulgent
light of Baha'ullah, the Tongue of grandeur). I feel that Bruce is sincerely
reaching for the truth in his life and that he will find his way there.
Perhaps some of us can help or not but no one should feel superior to
another. If some do not like the posts on this topic, perhaps they can just
delete them or set up a filter on their mail client to block these posts. I
would hope that the people of Baha would not try to intimidate sincere
seekers, but would rather help them find the way to the "Sadratu'l-muntaha".
By nature, one person tries to convince another of what he believes. I do
believe that truth exists beyond words and names and symbols and logic and
that religion must be lived and felt. However, maybe we use words to help us
along while our heart is searching for the truth or to try to point us in
the right direction. The best words to explain Baha'ullah are certainly His
own revelations and Bruce knows how to find them and try out those
prescriptions if he wants. The fact that Bruce keeps on talking to people on
this list means that Baha'ullah is still pulling at him as He has stirred up
every created thing. I do hope that those running this list will not try to
discourage Bruce from saying what he needs to say as long as he does so
respectfully. I do believe that Bahai's are told by Baha'ullah to not feel
better than any man, which means that Bahai's should be able to sit as
equals at a table with a sincere human of any religion. I do hope that my
words will not offend anyone and that we can each grow to reflect the
loving, merciful attributes of the ineffable One and treat each other as
branches of one tree. Each day we say "At this moment I testify to my
powerlessness and to Thy might". "I testify that Thou hast been sanctified
above all attributes and holy above all names".
Peace and love to all in this Day of the Concealer and Ancient of Days,
john
Robin E. Baylor &/or Fred Capp
>Never mind that John's responses here could easily be seen as an attack on
>the very core of how Buddhists understand and know the Buddha and his
>teachings. As I have said repeatedly, Baha'is can believe what they want,
>but if they are genuinely interested in talking with, in understanding
>other religions, Baha'is need to be open to hearing how other religions see
>how Baha'i understands them. In other words, if Adbul-Baha states that the
>Buddha taught the oneness of God, why should not the Baha'i be open to
>hearing the Buddhist response to that? It is not an attack on the Covenant
>that Buddhist don't believe that Abdu'l-Baha was infallible and wrong in
>what he said. Buddhists don't have anything to do with the Covenant, and
>if Baha'is want Buddhists to understand Baha'i, then Baha'is need also to
>be willing to understand how Buddhists understand the Buddha and his
>teachings. My question is, why for Baha'is should this be a problem?
>
We can plug in whatever name of whatever group/philosophy & there will
always be those who can't accept some other group/philosophy's (or
individuals therein) perspective on that which is held most dear.
Then there are those of us who are saying, "okay, you've shown us our
differences, now let's look at our similarities." or, "So you believe thus
& so, that is good. have you ever looked at it from this angle?" Or simply,
"thank you. this is a valuable gift that you've given me." & then, of
course, there are those who say nothing & just continue on their way.
Understandably, in a forum like this, you will find all of these & more. I
suspect that most of us now wish to have the bickering end & start looking
for the good in both parties. Baha'u'llah came to unite the world, this
will not happen by drawing battle lines & mustering arguments to disprove
the adversary's opinion. I think we all know this, but sometimes we get a
little too close to the issue to see what's beyond it.
I have stated before that I'm willing to accept that some, many or even
most branches of Buddhism are non-theistic. I'm willing to acceed that as
you are not a Baha'i that you do not feel bound by our Covenant. I'm
willing to agree to "sit at the table" with you, or any of your
co-religionists (Though I find that may actually be an erronious term, by
virtue of your arguement) and meet as equals in the world arena.
I do not wish to read the parrying back & forth that gets everybody
exactly nowhere & takes up valuable disk space.
In His service.
----
Fred Capp
jeremi...@my-deja.com
>I feel that Bruce is
sincerely
> reaching for the truth in his life and that he will find his way
there.
> Perhaps some of us can help or not but no one should feel superior to
> another.
(snip)
I
> would hope that the people of Baha would not try to intimidate sincere
> seekers, but would rather help them find the way to the
"Sadratu'l-muntaha".
I think there is good intention here, but why must Baha'is assume
that every non-Baha'i is a "seeker" looking for Baha'u'llah? I think
Bruce has made it clear that he does not fit that description
The best words to explain Baha'ullah are
certainly His
> own revelations and Bruce knows how to find them and try out those
> prescriptions if he wants. The fact that Bruce keeps on talking to
people on
> this list means that Baha'ullah is still pulling at him as He has
stirred up
> every created thing.
This is a nice sentiment, but as Bruce has said, he investigated the
Baha'i Faith many years ago around the time he started getting
interested in Buddhism, and didn't find the Baha'i teachings as
compelling. He has explained his continued presence as a way to give
back to a community that gave so much to him during one period of his
life.
I do hope that those running this list will not
try to
> discourage Bruce from saying what he needs to say as long as he does
so
> respectfully. I do believe that Bahai's are told by Baha'ullah to not
feel
> better than any man, which means that Bahai's should be able to sit as
> equals at a table with a sincere human of any religion.
One hopes that this is in fact the case.
-Jeremiah
jeremi...@my-deja.com
> Baha'is DO "allow the Buddhists to sit at the table with them as equals"
> as is evident in this list.
Do they really? Most of the responses I have seen to Bruce's posts over
the years have been variations on one of the following: (1) "Bruce, since
'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have said what they said, no amount of
reference to authentic Buddhist texts and teachings will make us change our
minds about what Buddhism originally was." (2) "Because the Pali texts don't
record the _precise_ words of the Buddha, and weren't written in his own
hand, then it naturally follows that whatever the Buddhists lost along the
way included belief in the existence of God, an immortal soul, and a
prophetology that was rather similar to what Baha'u'llah taught." (3)
"Bruce, you are just one of those many Western Buddhists who has
misunderstood the true theistic nature of the religion." (4) "Bruce, would
the Buddha approve of your brusque style?" For those that believe statement
1, there is no possibility of real dialogue between Buddhists and Baha'is,
because, Buddhists have little to bring to the table. Baha'is already know
about all the good things modern Buddhists have to offer, and can even
correct their mistaken beliefs. Basically, this does not set the stage for
dialogue, but rather, "teaching" Buddhists. Statement 2 is not only a very
poor argument, it seems to make the Buddha a very poor Manifestation of God.
My goodness, Jesus and Muhammad's followers are supposed to have split into
many factions and added some unnecessary rituals and dogmas, but the Buddha's
followers couldn't even remember that he believed in a Creator God or a
soul?! Statement 3 and 4 are just the ad hominem attacks of frustrated
persons who seem to know they are unable to support their preconceptions. I
understand that both statement and statement 2 are statements based on faith,
but if these are the only positions a faithful Baha'i can have, then I am
afraid there is not much hope for Baha'i universalism.
> Now, what would happen if a Baha'i were to post messages to a Buddhist
> list, and if that Baha'i were to insist that his points of view were correct
> and that those of the Buddhists were incorrect?
If Buddhists were discussing their conceptions of the Baha'i Faith on a
Buddhist list, I would hope that the moderators would be kind enough to allow
Baha'is to correct any misconceptions the the Buddhists might have about the
way Baha'is understand their own religion.
> Out of respect for us as human beings, if not out of respect for our reli-
> gion, I hope you will give close consideration to my proposal that we
> turn from these metaphysical and historical debates and focus on such
> ethical issues as may indeed comprise a common ground between the
> Buddhist and Baha'i communities.
In Buddhism, questions about the existence of a Creator Deity, a soul or
spirit, and whether the Buddha received his knowledge as the result of divine
revelation are more than metaphysical issues. They are fundamental to
Buddhist ethics and the Buddhist understanding of compassion, as well as to
being freed from suffering, and the cycle of rebirth. There are certainly
some similarities between the Baha'i Faith and Buddhism, but a clear
understanding of the differences which separate them must precede a mature
discussion of those similarities. Bruce is certainly correct to suggest that
Christians have been more open to this kind of real dialogue.
-Jeremiah
John Ludgate
Thanks for your words. I guess that I would assume that whoever is
tuning into this list is somewhat interested in seeking out the truth of the
spiritual part of their life or trying to see what nonsense these Bahai's
and others on this list are talking about. My understanding of the term
"Sadratu'l-muntaha" is that it is a tree planted at the end of the main road
leading to a village out in the desert. When a person finds this tree they
know that they are on the road to some city. In a spiritual sense I know
that each of the "manifestations of God" or prophets or whatever you might
call those souls who speak to us of profound spiritual matters are referred
to by this term. It also has been applied to Baha'ullah, which is why I
capitalized it. However, I just liked the term from the first time I read it
in the "Book of Certitude" and tried to use it in a sense of a person
finding the way to his own truth in his life. I do not believe that you need
to embrace Baha'ullah to be a good human. I guess that any Bahai would feel
that if you continue your search for truth, then you will be lead to the one
that all Bahai's take as their Sadratu'l mutaha. This is to be expected or
else they would be in some other religion. I think that the point that I was
trying to make is that this bahai am happy to sit down at the table with
anyone who is honestly seeking for their spiritual sadratu-l-muntaha or
believes that they have found it and wants to talk. So let's sit under some
sadratu-l-muntaha if we can find one and explore the mysteries of the
universe. I am partial to real trees, but perhaps this listserve is a cyber
sadratu-l-muntaha. I do also believe that we do not fully understand what
makes us do the things we do.
all the best,
john
on 12/11/2000 2:52 PM, jeremi...@my-deja.com at
jeremi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I feel that Bruce is
> sincerely
>> reaching for the truth in his life and that he will find his way
> there.
>> Perhaps some of us can help or not but no one should feel superior to
>> another.
>
> (snip)
>
> I
jeremi...@my-deja.com
>My understanding of the term
> "Sadratu'l-muntaha" is that it is a tree planted at the end of the
>main road leading to a village out in the desert. When a person finds
>this tree they know that they are on the road to some city.
Sadratu'l-muntaha refers, in Islamic tradition, to the tree which is
planted in the seventh (highest) heaven. In the Baha'i context I have
often seen it translated as "the Lote-Tree beyond which there is no
passing." (Muntaha comes from the Arabic root nahA, which can mean "to
hold back or restrain".) Less poetically, we could translate
sadratu'l-muntaha as "the terminal tree."
>In a spiritual sense I know
> that each of the "manifestations of God" or prophets or whatever you
>might call those souls who speak to us of profound spiritual matters
>are referred to by this term. It also has been applied to Baha'ullah,
>which is why I capitalized it.
Yes, in the Baha'i writings the Sadratu'l-Muntaha is very often a
symbol for the Manifestation of God. In the footnote at the bottom of
page 137 of _Tablets of Baha'u'llah Revealed After the Kitab-i Aqdas_
you will find the following quote from one of Baha'u'llah's tablets:
"The Holy Tree [Sadrat] is, in a sense, the Manifestation of the One
True God, exalted be He."
Sometimes the relation of the Manifestation with the sadrat is not
necessarily as close as indentification (as in the passage in the
Kitab-i Iqan you refer to) but the link is still very strong.
>However, I just liked the term from the first time I read it
> in the "Book of Certitude" and tried to use it in a sense of a person
> finding the way to his own truth in his life.
In Arabic, "reaching the sadrat al-muntaha" can have the idiomatic
meaning of "reaching the highest goal."
>I guess that any Bahai would feel that if you continue your search for
>truth, then you will be lead to the one that all Bahai's take as their
>Sadratu'l mutaha.
I want to be sure that I am understanding you correctly. In your
opinion, the ultimate goal of anyone who sincerely continues their
search for truth is recognition of Baha'u'llah.
>This is to be expected or else they would be in some other religion.
Not necessarily. Is it not possible for a Baha'i to be a pluralist
who believes that others may have distinct paths to truth, equally
effective as the Baha'i path? That isn't a rhetorical question; I'm
interested in hearing your thoughts.
> I think that the point that I was trying to make is that this bahai am
>happy to sit down at the table with anyone who is honestly seeking for
>their spiritual sadratu-l-muntaha or believes that they have found it
>and wants to talk.
The point I was trying to make is that real dialogue is not
possible when you assume that if members of other religions truly
understood their own tradition they would become Baha'is. You can't sit
down at the table with someone as an equal, each sharing the insights of
your respective traditions, if you are trying to convince them to
recognize Baha'u'llah. This is certainly the implication of the comment
you made in your first message, considered in the light of a second
comment you have made:
"I would hope that the people of Baha would not try to intimidate
sincere seekers, but would rather help them find the way to the
"Sadratu'l-muntaha".
(and)
"I guess that any Bahai would feel that if you continue your search
for truth, then you will be lead to the one that all Bahai's take as
their Sadratu'l mutaha."
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Baha'is should be
prevented from "teaching" or missionizing, or that anyone should
chastise them for doing so. But, there is a time and a place for
everything, as Baha'u'llah makes clear in a text from the Hidden Words
often seen as a command against proselytizing:
"The wise are they that speak not unless they obtain a hearing,
even as the cup-bearer, who proffereth not his cup till he findeth a
seeker, and the lover who crieth not out from the depths of his heart
until he gazeth upon the beauty of his beloved."
Dialogue is not the same thing as teaching. Bruce has come to
this list as a knowledgeable Buddhist wanting to discuss some Baha'i
perceptions of his own tradition that he finds highly problematic. I
very much doubt that he considers himself a "seeker" in the Baha'i
sense, and Baha'u'llah does not say (as far as I know): "profferest not
thy cup till thou findest someone thou canst label 'seeker' against
their will."
Both Buddhists and Baha'is could learn much from an honest
discussion of the differences and similarities between the two
traditions. But whenever Bruce tries to illustrate very real
differences, which admittedly pose very serious problems for Baha'i
conceptions of religious unity, he is generally not answered with a
cogent response from his interlocutors. Instead, they simply repeat
what 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have said, which in fact answers
nothing because what they have said is the root of the disagreement in
the first place. Or, they might quote Buddhist texts out of context,
which is rather strange given the fact that they might also argue in the
same post that Buddhist texts aren't really authentic anyway. Or, they
may resort to ad hominem attacks. Perhaps most infuriatingly for Bruce,
they sometimes look at him as a "seeker" and invite him to read
Baha'u'llah's writings for himself or go to a fireside, both of which he
has in fact done. But it is inconceivable to many Baha'is that a
sincere, intelligent person could read the Baha'i writings and not find
them as compelling as another tradition. This mindset will make real
dialogue well nigh impossible.
the best to you,
Jeremiah
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
kus...@webtv.net
impossible.'
Hi Jeremiah.
What you don't know about me, is that I was a Buddhist before becoming a
Baha'i. and it was my Buddhist experience that led me to find and
recognize Baha'u'llah.
The statements about Buddhism and Buddhist belief and practice made on
here , by one person are not the statements and ebeliefs of all
Buddhists.
As far as Baha'i and Buddhists n dialogue, Buddhists statements about
what they personally believe are fine, but Buddhists are certainly not
united in all their beliefs.
Baha'is, if they are not individually, are in theory at any rate, united
around our Covenant and 'stand for a uniform body of
opinion"('Abdu'l-Baha.)
Our Writings do state that the Buddhist Scriptures do not constitute the
authentic Writings of the Buddha.
This does not mean that no traces survive,but there are differences
between Buddhist sects on which are authenitic and which are not.
What I initially stated its that I found some statements in the Buddhist
Writings, by whatever authors, to remarkably echo Baha'i Prayers, and
other Writings.
As to whether Baha'is and Buddhists can dialogue effectively, of course
they can.
As to whether Baha'is can be religious luralists and believe others can
have an effective path to truth, our teaching of Progressive revelation
eans that all religions are different stages of the same Path to Truth,
'eternal in the past, eternal in the future.'
That this will bring objection not only from Buddhists but from
practitioners of every Faith, is inevitable and has been prophesied in
our Writings.
Thaat it will also bring members of every Faith and of no Faith into the
Baha'i Fold, has also been prophesied and has in fact happned, oe
hundred thousand Buddhists in Vientnam alone became Baha'is in the
Sixties and Seventies.
Including Monks and Priests.
Let me close with a Prophecy attriuted to( not attributed to, not
written by)the Lord Gautama Buddha,with no comment of mine,except to
pint ot the phrase 'a guide to mortals willing to be led'- for some are
most surely not- to demonstrate one reason why this mass conversion
happened, and why it and dialogue are alike possible:
'In those days, brethren, there will arise in the world and Exalted One
named Metteya (Sanskrit Maitreya).
'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.
'He, by Himself, will thoroughly know and see, as it were face to face,
this universe, with its worlds of the spirits,its Brahmas and its
Maras,and its worlds of recluses and brahmins,of princes and eoples,
even as I now, by myself, thoroughly know and see them.
'The Law, lovely in its origin,lovely in its progress,lovely in its
consummation, will he proclaim, both in the spirit and 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 congreagtion of some hundreds of
brethren."
-Pali Canon, Dhiga Nikaya iii.76,Chakkavatti Sihananda Suttanta.
'Whosoever desireth let him turn aside from this counsel, and whosoever
desireth let him choose the path to his Lord."
-Baha'u'llah,Tablet of Ahmad
regards,
John
kus...@webtv.net
Followup to my own post:>''I was a Buddhist >before becoming a Baha'i,
and it was my >Buddhist experiences that led me to find and >recognize
Baha'u'llah.'
Though raised in the Methodist Church, with which I had and have no
problems whatsoever, and coming from seven generations of Ministers, I
was not able to find in the Church the answers to my questions about
life, its meaning and purpose, and what lay beyond the physical Universe
and the veil of death.
I interviewed my minister when a youth, and askd him certain questions
the answer to which he could not satsfactorily, to me, give, and thus
when asked to join the Church , I did not do so, but instead embarked
upon my own spiritual search.
It took me through Hinduism, throuugh the Bible, through many fringes of
society, and finally into Buddhism,of which I became an adherent, of
the Mahayana School.
I practiced many Buddhist spiritual excercises, preferring to seek not
only intellectual but practical experiences.These included such things as
introspective breathing and seated and walking meditation, koan,
mondo(Zen riddles and conversation), martial arts, reading many sutras
many times , the use of repeated mantra or prayer, the living according
to the Noble Eightfold Way, and so forth, to the best of my ability.
I was not a Buddhist scholar as such. but a Buddhist practitioner,
seeking to attain what was promised in Buddhist Scriptures.
One thing that was promised was the appearance of the Buddha
Maitreya,the Fifth Buddha, the Buddha of Universal fellowship, the Lord
of Light Who would bring the Golfden Age of Humanity to earth.
My regular Buddhist prayers included the frequent use of the Amitabha
Mantra, Prayer to the Amitabha Buddha Who is Maitreya, and it is of
interest to note that there are entire Buddhist Sects, such as the Tien
Tai or Tendai( pure Land or Holy Land Sect) who pray almost exclusively
to Amitabha and Avalokitesvara Buddha, Who can be recognized by their
red crown and green turban respectively, to be 'reborn ' in the Holy or
Pure Land to the West.
With the Two is always linked a third, Boddhisattva, not a Buddha but a
'Prince of the Dharma', known as Mahasthama or great or Mighty
Branch, whose turban would be white.
In the Amitayur-Dhyana Sutra, or the Visualization of Amitayur or
Amitabha, Scripture, the description is given by the author, to meditate
on, Suhavati or the Happy Land, and the shape of the Shrine of the Bab is
shown and described, on a mountin with gardens overlooking the sea.
The Two Buddhas and one Boddhisattva Mahasthama are linked with this
visualization.
Source Buddhist MahayanaTexts, E.B. Cowell, ed., Dover Books,
1969.Originally published as part of the Sacred Books of of the East '
series, Volume XLIX, in 1894..
Anyway, these and many other books were my Scriptures, the Diamond
cutter Sutra, and the Heart Sutra and many oters, as well as the records
of the Transmission of the Lamp ,Zen or Ch'a sect scrtiptures,also some
of the Pali Canon.
This was my worship, and this was my Way. It was very serious and as far
as I was concerned I needed no other truth, and had never heard of the
Baha'i Faith.
I should mention that I believed there might be a God but didn't know,
sometimes I thought there was and somtetimes not, mostly didn't know or
really, care.
It didn''t seem particularly relevant to me, at the time.
What I did believe was that it was possible to directly and intuitively
grasp, in an instant, the Truth, to experience a transcendent moment of
all knowledge and wisdom, of aboveness, of satorui, of nirvana, while
yet on earth.A moment of Bodhi, or enlightenment, and the goal of
enlightnment was the goal of Buddhism, and my goal.
What that would be like I had no idea.
So I began practice, of reading of sutras,of reciting of mantras, of
meditation.It was during this meditation that I began to come to a
realization that somewhere on the inner horizon as it were, I was not
alone.
There was a Light, far away at first and enshrouded by mists, or clouds,
but shining through them with a serene brilliance perceivable even
through the intervening barriers.
And I was much surprised because I was not expecting this.It meant there
was a Higher power, not merely outside of me as I thought might be, not
an aspect of my own being as I expected it to be,but somehow within yet
apart from,me.
Other experiences followed, and the Light remained, and became clearer,
but did not intervene, it simply was.
One day I was with a friend also inclined to these practices, and we
were driving in a car while doing mondo(free wheeling Zen coversation to
find reality to transcend conscious thought and intuitively come to a
realization of truth.) We had done this before, and expected no
paticular thing this time, when suddenly time stopped it seemed, and the
Light appeared, during a moment of intense longing to know what was the
truth.
This experience was shared by the two of us at the same time, as
subsequent comparison showed.
The Light spoke to us in our hearts, and said, ' Thee is One Truth and I
am the Truth, one God and I am God,and Religion is One, and Mankinfd is
One, and all Races are One, and Men and Women are One,' and so on , a
great many Onenesses, illumined by this Light, we thought was God and
knew was enlightenment.
When it stopped, in no time but after an eternity, we almost wrecked the
car, looked at each other and said somewhat irreverently , 'What the
Hell was THAT? "
Well we didn;t know, but three weeks later a friend of ours who had run
away from school and come back, told us about the Baha'i Faith, and we
knew that was what the Light told us about.
After different periods of investigation we both became Baha'is.
Other experiences occured including a return visit fromthe Light, Whom I
that time knew to be Baha'u'llah, and Who literally saved my life, but
maybe later will share those.
Many years later I read this Quote in World Order of Baha'u'llah, by
Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi, that explained what had
happened:'
'Within the throat of this Youth...there lie prisoned accents which, if
revealed to mankind to an extent smaller than a needle's eye,would
suffice to cause every mountain to crumble,the leaves of the trees to be
discolored and their fruits to fall ; would compel every head to bow
down in worship and every face to turn in adoration towards this
omnipotent Ruler Who, at sundry times and diverse manners, appeareth as
a devouring flame, as a billowing ocean,as a radiant light,as the tree
which, rooted in the soil of holiness, lifteth its branches and
spreadeth its limbs as far as and beyond the throne of deathless glory.'
World Order of Baha'u'llah page 108-109.
When after becoming Baha'i through Buddhist practice, I became a
believer in God, and in Baha'u'llah, and in the Manifestations of God,
and when I found out that in our Writings Baha'u'llah is stated
categorically to be Maitreya, I could only smile, that for that time I
had steadily prayed to Lord Maitreya, the Buddha of Universal Fellowship
, to hasten His Coming.
I believe that, the Buddhist Path as given led me to Him.
That it s not the writings of the Buddha, nobody argues. That it is
perhaps not all or fully the authentic teachings who would question
knowing the histories of the Other religions.
Yet Baha'u'llah has said regarding the Gospel and other Holy Books that
there is enough to guide their followers lives, and to guide them to the
truth of the Promised Manifestations of the Truth.And there is.
That there is corruption in some circumsatances, is not a question.
That there is enough, is proven, to me, by my own experience as a
Buddhist.
Now, though no prophet , let me make a minor prophecy. My credibility
may be attempted to be undermined, my motives misconstrued, my
understanding of the essentials of Buddism or of even the Baha'i Faith
may be contemned on this newsgroup.But I have walked this path and it is
true.
To those who would do this, I ask you, what have you to offer to
contradict my experience?
I am alive on earth right now because of the Light that my Buddhist
practice led me to, that appeared to me again on a cliff, during the
Vietnam War, and saved me from suicide.
I am alive spiritually as a Baha'i because of that same Light and the
question He so gently asked in my heart: 'Do you want to do this your
way, or My way?'
Now folks, you can say what you will, this is a newsgroup for discussion
after all, but this happened to me.
I am a Baha'i because of it and so are a number of others.
This and no other reason is why I was prompted to join the discussion of
Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith.
Regards,
John
John Ludgate
Good to hear from you and thanks for your enriching ideas on the meaning
of "Sadratu-l-muntaha". It is evident that you are familiar with the
writings of Baha'ullah, perhaps more so that my self. I believe that a
search for the "sadratu-l-muntaha" is a worthy goal for a person to have if
you take it to mean something like "the highest goal" as you say it might
mean in Arabic. I would consider a person who is trying to find this
sadratu-l-muntaha to be a holy person and one that I always enjoy to talk
with and the one that I was referring to as a "seeker". I believe that the
worthy goal of each person is the truth. I feel that once a person has
accepted what Baha'ullah says, then they become a seeker after the Lord
which they realize they were always seeking anyway. This may be why people
on this list have a prejudice for their point of view about Baha'ullah. In
any case, this Bahai can appreciate the viewpoints of Bruce and Jeremiah. I
believe that an honest "seeker" can know another and that they can each help
the other to get from here to there. Perhaps through more such exchanges as
this underneath the spreading sadratu, we can get to better understand one
another's views. I most certainly do feel that each person must find his own
path to the sadratu-l-muntaha. We should each respect the other and see
where we can grow from each other. Since you have read much of what
Baha'ullah has to say, you know that respect for others and holding your
tongue is very important. I loved your quote from Baha'ullah about the cup
bearer. I did not mean to be offering you a cup which you are not seeking.
However, you might forgive a Bahai who was enjoying his drink and offered
you some which seems to happen much on this list as you point out. I too
believe that Buddhists and Baha'is have much to learn from each other and
that the ultimate meeting may be at some point beyond thought and dialogue
whatever their path may be. Still I do enjoy the friendly, stimulating and
enlightening dialogue of both Bahai's and non Bahai's. It seems that each
individual has a different standard when it comes to drinking from another's
cup and I do respect that.
Thanks again for your thoughts and feelings,
john
on 12/15/2000 9:26 AM, jeremi...@my-deja.com at
jeremi...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
jeremi...@my-deja.com
[I tried to send this a day or so ago but it doesn't seem to have gone
through.]
Hello John (not the same John as John Lundgate, correct?),
> What you don't know about me, is that I was a Buddhist before
> becoming a Baha'i. and it was my Buddhist experience that led me to
> find and recognize Baha'u'llah.
It is true that I did not know that. What form of Buddhism did you
practice and how long were you a Buddhist, out of curiosity?
[Thanks for sending a subsequent message explaining this further. It
was very interesting.]
> The statements about Buddhism and Buddhist belief and practice made
> on here , by one person are not the statements and ebeliefs of all
> Buddhists.
Obviously, and I have to wonder about your reasons for pointing this
out. I will assume you are referring to Bruce, and you are saying that
the very broad, general picture of Buddhism he has painted here is
somehow lacking in that it doesn't take other Buddhist perspectives into
account. Members of which sects of Buddhism, specifically, would take
exception to what he has said?
> As far as Baha'i and Buddhists n dialogue, Buddhists statements about
> what they personally believe are fine, but Buddhists are certainly
> not united in all their beliefs.
Certainly. But as a former Buddhist you are surely aware that they
are rather more united on certain points than many Baha'is (including
yourself) seem to indicate.
> Baha'is, if they are not individually, are in theory at any rate,
> united around our Covenant and 'stand for a uniform body of
> opinion"('Abdu'l-Baha.)
References for that quote, please.
> Our Writings do state that the Buddhist Scriptures do not constitute
> the authentic Writings of the Buddha.
The Buddha didn't leave any writings, so that is of course true.
> This does not mean that no traces survive,but there are differences
> between Buddhist sects on which are authenitic and which are not.
Yes, but all existing groups accept the Theravada scriptures, no?
> What I initially stated its that I found some statements in the
> Buddhist Writings, by whatever authors, to remarkably echo Baha'i
> Prayers, and other Writings.
Superficially, when taken out of context, or on a deeper level?
The point of questioning these similarities is not to deny that they
could possibly exist, but rather to rigorously examine whether they are
in fact similarities.
> As to whether Baha'is and Buddhists can dialogue effectively, of
> course they can.
Since you have not addressed any of the difficulties I have raised
regarding dialogue, I will have to ask again: what could Buddhists
possibly bring to the table that Baha'is do not already have?
Putting this in terms of the oft used "grade school" analogy of
progressive revelation: Buddhism is, say, third grade mathematics (basic
arithmetic with maybe a little geometry thrown in there), and the Baha'i
Faith is, say, second year university calculus. The knowledgeable
Baha'i and the knowledgeable Buddhist cannot possibly engage in any real
dialogue, because the Buddhist has little or nothing to offer the
Baha'i- calculus includes arithmetic and goes much, much further. Well,
I suppose that the Buddhist, if she were really sharp, might catch and
correct an error or two in the Baha'i's addition or subtraction, but she
would only be pointing out something the Baha'i overlooked, not
something of which the Baha'i was wholly unaware.
No, on second thought, even this can't be case when we consider the
other aspect of this theory of progressive revelation- religions degrade
over time because of the negligence of their followers. To correct the
analogy: our hypothetical knowledgeable Baha'i, firm in the Covenant, is
like a good second year calculus student who is still recieving frequent
and regular instruction in the university, while the Buddhist is someone
who has received her knowledge of basic arithmetic and geometry from a
teacher who didn't fully understand those mathematical concepts very
well in the first place. Her teacher's teacher didn't either, and so
on. The chain of teachers eventually reaches back to a perfectly
knowledgeable teacher of third grade mathematics, but the chain itself
has added lots of useless and false information. So, in actuality, the
Buddhist doesn't even have a very complete or entirely correct
understanding of Buddhism's "third grade" teachings. Thus the statement
I made in a previous post:
"Baha'is already know about all the good things modern Buddhists
have to offer, and can even correct their mistaken beliefs. Basically,
this does not set the stage for dialogue, but rather, 'teaching'
Buddhists."
> As to whether Baha'is can be religious luralists and believe others
> can have an effective path to truth, our teaching of Progressive
> revelation eans that all religions are different stages of the same
> Path to Truth, 'eternal in the past, eternal in the future.'
I understand popular Baha'i notions of progressive revelation, and
its similarity to a sort of inclusivism found in certain Vatican II
documents. According to such a view, other religions are in fact ways
to truth, but are pretty poor ways, largely ineffective in comparison to
"the True Faith."
Yet, Baha'u'llah also presents a kind of standpoint epistemology
that most Baha'is seem to ignore, which is rather more like pluralism
than inclusivism, IMO.
In any case, simply repeating the fact that an omnireligion is
supposed to be 'eternal in the past, eternal in the future' does not
make it so, especially when someone has presented information that at
least calls into question that eternality.
> That this will bring objection not only from Buddhists but from
> practitioners of every Faith, is inevitable and has been prophesied
> in our Writings.
Perhaps, but at least some other religions seem to fit the Baha'i
model at least marginally better, accepting the existence of some sort
of Creator God and basing their insights in revelation.
> Thaat it will also bring members of every Faith and of no Faith into
> the Baha'i Fold, has also been prophesied and has in fact happned, oe
> hundred thousand Buddhists in Vientnam alone became Baha'is in the
> Sixties and Seventies.
>
> Including Monks and Priests.
Ah, the ubiquitous numbers game. I suppose, though, you don't
consider the 500 million Buddhists who have not become Baha'is valid
counter-evidence.
> Let me close with a Prophecy attriuted to( not attributed to, not
> written by)the Lord Gautama Buddha,with no comment of mine,except to
> pint ot the phrase 'a guide to mortals willing to be led'- for some
> are most surely not- to demonstrate one reason why this mass
> conversion happened, and why it and dialogue are alike possible:
The conversions are possible _because_ of this prophecy?? What
does the prophecy have to say about interreligious dialogue? I'm sorry,
but I don't follow.