Athanasius

Dear Friends,

the Bahá'í teachings state that Buddha Gautama is--amongst others--a Manifestation of God. To me this is comprehensible if you only take a look at formal aspects (bringer of a new religion / renewer of "Vedic Religions" pp.) and on the ethical consequences of his teachings respectively. But as far as I know, Buddha Gautama clearly stated that his teachings are not of divine origin but only a product of his own insight arising from meditation. God seems to be pretty irrelevant in Buddhism. So how can Buddha be a Manifestation of God?

Thanks!

Athanasius

arthra

First of all I think Guatama the Buddha as a Manifestation of God had some issues with the caste structure around Him at the time.. as well as with the Brahmin caste... and the power of the priests over the spiritual needs of the people so He forbade animal sacrifices which were part of the old Vedic system and He opposed the caste structure ... He also allowed the use of the popular language of the people called Pali while the Brahmins used Sanskrit as part of their rituals..and Buddhist Pali scriptures were later translated into Sanskrit.

I think you could compare HIs relations with the Brahmin prists in much the same way as relations between the Lord Jesus and the Pharisees.

In early Buddhist art you'll also note that the image of the Buddha was not used but symbols were used such as the wheel or a lotus or a footprint.. Images of the Buddha appeared much later after Greek inluence from Gandhara in what is today Afganistan.. the eastern frontier of Alexander's Empire

Now the next part is also interesting but a little more subtle.. There were atheists or materialistis philosophies at the time of the Buddha called as I recall Carvaka and there were theistic schools of thought.. Had the Buddha aligned Himself with any of these His system would simply have been viewed as yet another school so He refused to do so and presented His teaching more along the lines of what today would probably be considered agnostic.

Finally we as Baha'is believe His original teachings were lost over time.. that is what has been handed down to us over the centuries and the various collections of Buddhists texts were comppiled centuries later after the Enlightened One walked the earth..

Here are some excerpts from Baha'i sources about the Buddha:

Some referred to the teaching of Buddha. 'Abdu'l-Bahá said: The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character. Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 63)

You will realize that if the Divine light of truth shone in Jesus Christ it also shone in Moses and in Buddha. The earnest seeker will arrive at this truth. This is what is meant by the 'Search after Truth'.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 137)

The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 165)

Saladin

I agree with the original OP. One of the Buddha's titles was sasta deva-manusyanam (the teacher of the gods and humans). The concept of deity was very rarily if ever talked about and "the gods," are seen as being above humans but still trapped in the cycle of samsara. Not like the God of the Torah, NT, or Qu'ran which is seen as all powerful and well, Godly, in the way would traditionally conceive it. Not to mention the whole issue of the soul is also weird in terms of the Buddha being a "messenger of God." Not attacking, just saying.

arthra

Thanks for your post...

As to the Atman..

Firstly is that Hindus at the time of the Buddha of course for the most part accepted it and it was also signifcant that the Priests of the time offered ceremonials for it after passing this life.. by not accepting this perspective the Buddha was also making a back handed attack on the efficacy of the ceremonials offered by the Priests.

Secondly: Selflessness was a keynote of early Buddhism and the concept of Atman .. an eternal self .. would be contradictory to that

But I'm sure there are many opinions about the nature of the Buddha but my task here is to simply represent what I can of the Baha'i view on the matter..

There is an essay which you might be interested in reading at

Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith

:wink

lukasali

Well, for me there are a few very simple answers to this.

First of all - as we all know - there is no authoritative record of the Buddha's teachings, so there is always speculation as to what He did or did not say. I seem to remember Abdu'l-Baha having said something along the lines of "it was so long ago, the original words are lost, why worry or argue about it?"

Second, even if the Buddha did not use, or even negated, words associated with divinity and/or theism, that does not mean He didn't teach about the same Reality. To me, it is pretty clear, based on my admittedly inadequate knowledge, that the implications and impact of Buddha's Teachings are in perfect harmony with those of every other Manifestation. They use different words, terminologies, and conceptual frameworks, but all teach about the same Reality, and all draw us closer to God. By their fruits ye shall know them, indeed.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Baha'u'llah said the Buddha was a Manifestation. So, if Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation, and Baha'u'llah says that the Buddha was a Manifestation, then the Buddha was a Manifestation, and His (Baha'u'llah's) assertion certainly is valid despite contrary opinions on the part of various human beings.

A good parallel would be Muhammad's assertion than Abraham offered Ishmael as a sacrifice, and not Isaac. Muslims and Baha'is, having recognized Muhammad as a Manifestation of God (or Prophet or whatever term you choose), of course accept that His word is authoritative, and not the Bible, which for all its inspiration is subject to some degree of human error.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my personal thoughts on the subject, on the off-chance they're helpful! Thanks for listening, and for the stimulating conversation.

Athanasius

Thanks for your interesting answers....after a long day of hard work I do not feel to give a longer reply but I will in the next few days.....

puzzly

As a former Buddhist I have had to struggle a lot with some of the ways Bahai's see Buddhists and Buddhism and with how Buddhists see themselves.

Here is how the issue has resolved for me:
God... the word and idea God... is a concept.
Baha'u'llah clearly states that God is unknowable - completely beyond our ken, our perception. This would imply that whatever way we 'look at' God is simply a figment of our imagination: our image of God based upon our limited possibility.
Baha'u'llah also clearly states that it is possible to know God - to enter 'His Presence'.
To me this is even extant in what we have of today's Buddhism if we are to look through the trees and see the wood.
Buddha's India, as it is today, is filled with approx. 330,000,000 forms of God - all of which in Hindu philosophy are aspects of the one God. And yet they are simply images of something beyond our perception as made abundantly clear in Arjuna's vision of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.
I believe that the Buddha acted in reaction to this by avoiding the conceptualisation of 'God' - the Ultimate Reality (whatever that is - we cannot know) and tried to teach that we must know by experience. Hence the predominance of meditation.
Zen is maybe the most interesting in looking at this. In Zazen meditation which has little focus except developing awareness and allowing the 'my' thinking to die down, one of the first crossing-over experiences the student reaches is that of Oneness. Not oneness of this or that, which would be partial in viewpoint, but the experience of Oneness as Ultimate reality. Would this not equate?
In the Seven Valleys of Baha'u'llah the journey is one that transcends anything we have been told toward a point of certainty - AS EXPERIENCED... or to enter 'His Presence'....

The upshot of my point is that Buddha taught people to experience Ultimate Reality/Absolute/God/the Supreme Divine as an experience rather than as a divisive viewpoint. Baha'u'llah does the same.

This was how I resolved this issue.

Warm wishes

Dave

lukasali

Thanks Dave - that was cool.

I always find it refreshing to come back to the idea that any conception we have of God is fundamentally untrue - it may be helpful, or true in a relative sense, but it is never absolutely true. Helps avoid getting hung up on theology too much, for me anyway.

arthra

Puzzly:

I agree with yuor analysis.. Great job..!

puzzly

I feel there was something missing in my post in terms of helping to address what Athanasius specifically asked.

In my post I seem to be saying that Buddha nevertheless talked about 'God'.

I wrote:

The upshot of my point is that Buddha taught people to experience Ultimate Reality/Absolute/God/the Supreme Divine as an experience rather than as a divisive viewpoint. Baha'u'llah does the same.

What I mean is that Buddha taught about an experience which may be called any of the above terms or simply Truth (as an experience).

And all of these terms would be partial and therefore incapable of describing the experience.

Was this experience divine?
What is divine?

Buddha spent 49 days contemplating his experience at Bodh Gaya before he ever taught (parallels to Baha'u'llahs time in the mountains perhaps). At one point he stood for seven days gazing at a single point.... there are other such stories of this time... I think we can agree that whatever the Buddha experienced was way above our day to day experience. Does that qualify as divine. I am not in a position to answer. Indeed when Buddha talked about this experience he used an analogy of a finger pointing at the moon. We can follow the arm of the Buddha all the way to the fingertip (follow his teachings) but in the end it is something intuitive, unknown that makes the leap to look at the moon. Buddha acknowledged that this final 'leap' could not be taught. What it seems he would not have us do is see it in the way that dogmatic Hindu preachers of the period, who had held back the 'Truth' from those they led would have us see it. This holding back and the need to transcend it we find in all the great teachings. Baha'u'llah indicates this with the view on personal investigation and the negation of a priesthood. He discusses it extensively in the Iqan. Christ called the Pharisees 'Blind Guides' and in a rough paraphrase - you hold the keys to the kingdom - you do not enter - nor do you allow others to enter...

Baha'u'llah calls the manifestations mirrors - that they perfectly mirror Ultimate Reality in the same way that a mirror gives the light of the sun. This seems to be how the Manifestation is described. The Buddha is described as the Thus Gone - Gone Beyond - another way of saying transcend. He identified "the builders of the house of self" (craving aversion, I, me, mine) and in its demolition realised the truth - became a perfect vehicle of truth. Like a salt doll thrown into the ocean Siddhartha Gautama lost the identity he had grown up with and became one with the truth.

Compare this with these words from the Iqan:

Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply *180* immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of divine mysteries, they claimed their utterance to be the Voice of divinity, the Call of God Himself. Were the eye of discernment to be opened, it would recognize that in this very state, they have considered themselves utterly effaced and non-existent in the face of Him Who is the All-Pervading, the Incorruptible.

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 179)

And these words from Philippians 2:5-11

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and (P)being made in the likeness of men.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It seems to me that we are dealing with mere words and angles of perception.

What is divine? What is God? What is the Manifestation? What is truth? I don't know.

And isn't that the wonderful mystery of it all.

Forgive my ramblings.

Warm wishes

Dave

Athanasius

Thanks a lot, especially to puzzly and arthra!!! I'm kind of getting a handle on this ...although it's a bit difficult coming from a religion with a clear concept of what God is.....

arthra

I had responded to the question below on another forum and thought IO would tag this onto this thread as it's more or less along the same lines. The additionaal topic has been interesting to me because on the connections Zoroastr1anism has in the ancient world..


Since Bahai's believe the Buddha was a prophet of God, and that Buddhism is one of the religions of God, how do the two relate to Bahai's? How do Bahai's reconcile some of the major differences between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions, since Bahai's claim to be Abrahamic?

That's a great question.. I would suggest there are probably some useful concepts to consider approaching this issue..

One is our concept of God.. while we believe God is one and the Source of all major religions including Buddhism we have a view of God as being Unknowable using our own say reasoning or thinking as human beings..

Abdul-Baha explains this as follows:

THE UNKNOWABLE ESSENCE

All the people have formed a god in the world of thought, and that form of their own imagination they worship; when the fact is that the imagined form is finite and the human mind is infinite. Surely the infinite is greater than the finite, for imagination is accidental while the mind is essential; surely the essential is greater than the accidental.

Therefore consider:

All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.

That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is wholly above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown.
~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, p. 381

My own approach to this is that the Buddha generally avoided making any definitive statements about God as such largely because in His time there were many groups that had concepts of God and additionally the priestly orders based their sacrifices and rituals around these concepts as well as the caste system..this is why in the Dhammapada it addresses the idea of what a true Brahmin is..
also, the Buddha from what we know did not wish to be associated with materialists groups either. So I think He would probably agree with what I quoted above:

All the sects and peoples worship their own thought; they create a god in their own minds and acknowledge him to be the creator of all things, when that form is a superstition -- thus people adore and worship imagination.
...........................

There are a number of Buddhists in the past century that came to recognize Baha'u'llah as the future Buddha.. I won't go into much detail about this but the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith made the remark:

To Judaism He is "Lord of Hosts"; to Christianity, the Return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the "Great Announcement"; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of "Shah-Bahram."

(Baha'i International Community, 1992 May 29, Statement on Baha'u'llah, p. 26)

Abdul-Baha made a number of references to the Buddha in His presentations..

The Baha'i Faith also in our view fulfills Zoroastrian prophecies and has roots in that ancient religion which as you probably know has some affinity to ancient Vedic religion and there are linguistic similarities.. One of the teachings attributed to Zoroaster was the following:

I praise good thoughts, good words, and good deeds and those that are to be thought, spoken, and done. I do accept all good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.

Which you will also find mentioned in the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha's teaching..

So while we Baha'is acknowledge Abraham and the revelations associated as proceeding from the Bible and the Qur'an we aslo acknowledge the Buddha..

There also are today many Baha'is in Mongolia, India and South East Asia with Buddhist backgrounds..

puzzly

In agreement.
I would like to add some thoughts.

Baha'u'llah states that God's hands are not chained in contradiction to what Judaism has said. He is free to do what he will. Of course. The Abrahamic line is that - a line, a vein. Christ describes Himself as the true vine. A vine has many branches which entwine to make the tree. The Buddha belongs to a different line in my mind.

Further, each manifestation has a specific mission; the limitations of that mission known only to the manifestation. Buddha was once asked a series of metaphysical questions by one of his monks who threatened to abandoned his robes if Buddha refused to give an answer. In the only evidence of seeming 'irritation' I could ever ascribe to the Buddha, He answers: "You fool! I have never promised such answers. All I have ever said or taught is that there is Dukkha (badly translated as suffering), Dukkha has an origin, it is possible for Dukkha to cease, there is a path to this cessation" - the Four Noble Truths.

It seems to me then that the Buddha came to teach something very specific which was the necessary learning for that time and place. We have already given views above as to what may have been required in that society, religiously, and why. Maybe these veins of teaching are separate before due to be united in Baha'u'llah and in this age/dispensation. Indeed, is that not what we see now? A marriage of the wisdoms of the past united from the quarters of the world?

Buddha also taught one day at the edge of a forest by picking up a handful of leaves and asking "Which is greater - the leaves in my hand or the leaves in the forest?" The monks answered "The leaves in the forest, of course". Indicating the leaves in His hand the Buddha replied "This much I have taught you" - the implication of course was toward the extent of what had been left untaught. These other things were simply not a part of His mission.

Further to add to the statement given above:

I praise good thoughts, good words, and good deeds and those that are to be thought, spoken, and done. I do accept all good thoughts, good words, and good deeds.

One day someone (forgive me if I forget the details) came to the Buddha and said "Lord, I cannot understand what you teach, I find it all to difficult. Please teach me the simplest form of what you teach." The Buddha replied "Do good, refrain from evil, and purify the mind. This is the teaching of all the Buddhas." Indeed, I have often used this phrase to test the validity of many religious teachings. In terms of Baha'u'llah's teaching, well, do good is plain and easy to see, as is refrain from evil. In the Hidden Words I find a perfect example of 'purify the mind' (there are many elsewhere too)- "O Son of Man, The Temple of Being, is My Throne, Cleanse it of all things, That there I may be established, There I may abide." (forgive me here too if the punctuation is wrong but I think that's it word for word.)

So simple. And we struggle indeed.

Xue

The passage from Philippians quoted above seems to pose some problems to the Bahai conception of manifestation as mirror, the Biblical passage quoted fits better with the standard Christian concept of Christ containing God within himself and vice versa. Line 6 states that Christ existed in the "form of God". The next phrase follows the same line of thinking by implying that Christ is equal to God, but that this is not comprehensible ("did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped")

Philippians 2:5-11

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and (P)being made in the likeness of men.


Young's Literal Translation makes the second phrase of line 6 even more explicit, by stating that it is not robbery for Christ to be the "form of God." Implying that one might think for an apparent man to take the form of God, would be robbery from the divine, but in this case it is not.

"who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God"

puzzly

I don't see the problem.

Bearing in mind that we are dealing with things written many years ago and having undergone successive interpetations, it is to the spirit of the statement we should look. Indeed, much of the posts here are concerned with the semantics involved, or the socio-cultural perspectives of the readers/writers.

With the exception of the writings of Baha'u'llah - recent and unadulterated as they are, we cannot be sure of specifics. As you have pointed out - you remark on a 'standard' viewpoint. Are there other ways of looking at it.

Example: much thought has been given to the idea of Christ as the Way, Truth and Life - as the ONLY Son of God - the identity of Christ... Why do we now spend so much time on this. Consider, only a few hundred years ago NO ONE (or almost none) would have questioned the divinity of Christ - The question of identity would simply not have occured.

I am suggesting we are victims of anachronistic thinking and can try to look beyond the letter of the Word to the spirit of the Word.

worldcitizen

`Monks, there is the unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unconditioned. Were there not the unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unconditioned, there would be no escape for the born, originated, made and conditioned. Since there is the unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unconditioned, so there is escape for the born, originated, made and conditioned.

Buddhist Scripture Pali Canon Udana ch 7: 1-3

This is the Buddha's reference to a God. There is no Prophet, Messenger or Buddha that has not referred to a God but we have to search deeply to find some of them. This is an undeniable reference to an uncreated, unmade form of existence without which mortal man could not become immortal. It is also a reference to the immortality of the spirit beyond this physical existence and presupposes a creator an 'unconditioned' but most strikingly an UNBORN.

ewlabonte

I like that. The only thing I don't understand is that the concept of Brahman seems to work well as a concept of God as well, and it was one that was available at the time yet the Buddha doesn't seem to have used it.

How about the concept of rebirth? One thought I had was that it might be referring to rebirth into other realms of existence in an afterlife. I believe that's not completely inconsistent with the Baha'i pov.

worldcitizen

At the time the Buddha arrived on the scene the Hindus were steeped in superstitions erecting a God for just about everything - the trees, sun, moon, skies etc. The Buddha didn't want to add 'another' superstitious God to their already filled rank of Pseudo Gods - he wanted the people to use their INTELLECT AND REASON and if you look at the Dhammapada it is all about reasoning why we should be good and do good and not evil. The Buddha wanted to teach the Hindus to think for themselves and clear their minds of superstitions and not erect more statues to Gods which were of no benefit to them or anyone.

Although it is true that the Buddha Himself referred to the Five Disappearances when His true teachings would be lost and replaced with a 'false doctrine' it is clear He wanted to avoid creating another Hindu God. He wanted to elevate their intellects, minds & spirits so His Teachings centred around 'reflection' a quality of the mind and spirit which is necessary if man is to grow spiritually.

Buddha emphasizes VIRTUES. Being VIRTUOUS is what His teachings were all about. He wanted to create spiritual, virtuous people not blind worshippers which is the condition to which Hinduism had sunk.

The Baha'i quote here fits the description of the Buddha's mission quite meticulously

"One hour's reflection is preferable to seventy years of pious worship"

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 237)

Isn't it so wonderful how the Messengers compliment each other so much. There are a lot of 'false teachings' of the Buddha circulating now. He said that would happen and that a false doctrine would arise.

Now as for reincarnation.

Saddhammapatirupaka Sutta

There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world.

Reincarnation is part of the 'false doctrine going around'. All other Prophets and Messengers have denounced it and Buddha has also stated that what will be going around will be mostly in His Words 'Counterfeit.

So how do we distinguish truth from falsehood then?

How far from the grace of the All-Bountiful and from His loving providence and tender mercies it is to single out a soul from amongst all men for the guidance of His creatures, and, on one hand, to withhold from Him the full measure of His divine testimony, and, on the other, inflict severe retribution on His people for having turned away from His chosen One!

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 12)
The above passage simply states that God would not punish us if He hadn't left plenty of 'snippets' here and there enough for us to determine truth and distinguish it from falsehood. He has given Baha'u'llah a Revelation of Truth which answers all these questions. If Baha'u'llah is Maitreye Buddha Who was appear after the 5 disappearances which were to initially last 1,000 years each but then Buddha said that because women joined the monkhood then the time was halved meaning the new Buddha was to appear around 2,500 after Gautama, then He would clarify all these issues and establish the true teachings again. And He has done just that.

Some things we could never have understood way back thousands of years ago so we read things like this said by Christ

“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. John 16: 12-14

Every Faith is waiting for their Prophet or Messenger or Buddha to return or for the Day of God or for a 'trumpet to blow' but many have gotten stuck in wrong interpretations not understanding that their own Holy Books states that the correct interpretation is known only to God and that when the time arrives all will be revealed and it has been by Baha'u'llah.

To summarize: There was enough of the Buddha's prophecies around to find the new Buddha named AmitABHA (a derivative of Baha or Baha'u'llah) and after finding the new Buddha (Baha'u'llah) then we get clarity on what was true and untrue and what had been distorted so we know for a fact that reincarnation was not taught by the Buddha and that God was taught by Him. This is fascinating stuff and for anyone who wants to know if the name of Baha'u'llah was mentioned in the Bible just look at all the plaques outside Churches dedicated to the 'Glory of God' (Arabic for Baha'u'llah)!!!!

BruceDLimber

It should be clarified here that "abha" is the superlative form of "baha" (baha is sometimes spelled BHA' and in this form has the same numeric value of nine as "baha" in the Abjad letter-number equivalence system).

The way superlatives are constructed is to take the positive form, such as "Quddus" (a name meaning "holy") and prefix an "A" while adding another within the next syllable, and then eliminating extra letters. Thus "Quddus" (holy) becomes "Aqdas" (most holy).

So similarly, "baha" gets "A"s added and then the extra one deleted, yielding "abha," "most holy."

Not obvious to us westerners, but that how it works.

Regards,

Bruce

dattaswami

Buddha kept silent about God

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation. Prophet is carrying on the message of God.

The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him. Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time. The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.

Sanrio

There is a great misunderstanding of the Buddha as manifestation of God. It may even be that 'Abdu'l-Bahá was unclear on this issue.

It is not Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha Shakyamuni) as it is about. Instead, there was a much older Buddha - the Buddha Amitabha (infitive Glory) - which our well known Buddha Shakyamuni has taught about.

Amitabha became a boddhisattva and renounced Nirvana. Filled with love and compassion He instead swore 48 vows, which should help people into "The Western Paradise" or "The Pure Land", a place without negative karma. And which Higher Power accepted Amitabha's vows? God, of course, identified as "The First Cause" and "The One Without a Cause." There really is a Creator behind the well-ordered system of laws concerning cause and effect in Buddhism and Amitabha is His Manifestation. Something must be the First Cause Buddha Shakyamuni said.

I don't know why this almost monotheistic Buddhism is so unknown in West and among bahá'ís. Pure Land Buddhism has 100-120 millions of adherents.

SANRIO

cire perdue

(correction made to Bodily resurrection) I think the West is even confused about Christianity. There are thousands of Christian sects, so if there is confusion about Buddhism it is not surprising. I am not sure I know what Abdul'baha could say incorrectly about Buddhism, but Christians have serious diffferences with Baha'i explanations about Christian beliefs. Baha'is do believe in the miraculous virgin birth of Christ, but we do not believe in the BODILY resurrection. It would not be surprising to a Baha'i to find our beliefs about Buddhism differ from its own beliefs. It happened when Christ appeared to Judiasum, they adhered to their own interpretations and prejudices, and only some of the most humble saw Him for who He was.

I cannot speak to Buddhist subjects. What I do know about Baha'u'llah's and Abdul'baha's teachings on Christianity made more sense than anything I had ever believed as a Christian. Then I believed what I was told, but it did not make sense to my heart. I left Christianity and became a yogi with a guru. That resulted in me being taught about this Faith for about the 4th time, and I accepted it with alacrity. I learned probably a fews years after I became a Baha'i that we did not believe in the bodily, literal resurrection of Christ. There were no books on the subject, then in 1981 I heard and met Baha'is who could expalin those issues. It was amazing. There is not much to learn from this NEW Faith if you expect it to accept all that is now taught in religions which are all over 1000 years old.

Baha'u'llah is supposed to be the Maitreya. I believe He is. If He or His son or great grandson say something about any subject, then I am prepared to believe it, or at least not judge it until I can resolve it, so I accept it. I have challenged enough, I am beyond expecting things to suit my particular view, because so much is now clear.

arthra

Well the name Amitabha has of course Sanskrit elements that are close to the name of Abha and Baha:

Amitabha, Sanskrit word, literally means boundless light and boundless life.

"Abha" in Sanskrit means Splendour, Luminous, Beauty.

We call Baha'u'llah the Blessed Beauty, the Glory and Splendour of God.

So a word like Abha has similar meaning in both Arabic and Sanskrit.. unusual that one name/word is the same sound resonance in Indoeuropean and semitic languages.

It is Maitreya that is referred to as the Buddha to come...

Maitreya (Sanskrit), Metteyya (Pāli), or Jampa (Tibetan), is foretold as a future Buddha of this world.

Having surrendered unreservedly to God's summons, He was equally in no doubt about the role which He had been called upon to play in human history. As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the "Desire of all nations," the "King of Glory." To Judaism He is "Lord of Hosts"; to Christianity, the Return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the "Great Announcement"; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of "Shah-Bahram."101

(Baha'i International Community, 1992 May 29, Statement on Baha'u'llah, p. 25)

Bahá'ís consider that Bahá'u'lláh is the fulfillment of the prophecy of the Buddha that in due time another Buddha would come to the world, the Mettaya (Maitreya) Buddha: "In due time, O monks, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Mettaya, an arahat, fully awakened, full of wisdom and a perfect guide, himself having trodden the path to the very end, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as an educator, teacher of gods and men, an exalted Buddha, just as in the present period I am now . . . And he will proclaim the teaching that is lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, and lovely in its consummation . . . He will be the head of an order of many thousand of monks, just as in the present period I am the head of an order of many hundreds" (DN, Mahaparinibbana-Suttana 3:76). Shoghi Effendi specifically identifies Bahá'u'lláh with the Maitreya Buddha (GPB 95) and as the fifth Buddha (GPB 94).

Also of importance from the Bahá'í viewpoint is the name of the Mahayana savior figure Amitabha, who is considered to preside over a Pure Land (Sukhavati) to the west of India. Bahá'ís point out the similarity between this name (which may be translated as Light of the Infinite) and that of Bahá'u'lláh (which may be translated as Glory or Light of God), who came from a land to the west of India. There is also a parallel between the repetition of the name of Amitabha in many Buddhist Pure Land sects, and the repetition of the Greatest Name (q.v.) in Bahá'í prayer (see "Prayer.4.b").

- Moojan Momen

Buddhism and the Baha'i Faith

But behind this there is I think an ancient linquistic connection between the ancient Zoroastrian religion and the Vedic religion.

The connection of Shah Bahram and Maitreya is also to me significant:

For Shah Bahram:

"The reign of Shah Behram will bring forth a golden age of religion, peace, harmony and prosperity. Technology will advance to undreamed of levels as science with the help of religion overcomes the loss of all oil based products. Oil is the life blood of the planet and so in the reign of Shah Behram its consumption shall cease due to the loss of its present properties to act as a source of fuel etc. ...A league of nations shall be established with their headquarters in (ancient name for a particular country).d) There shall be one worldwide currency. .."

Source:

http://tenets.parsizoroastrianism.com/cmng33.html

For the Maitreyya Buddha:

In addition to his role as a spiritual leader, Maitreya was also styled after the chakravartin monarchs of Indian history and mythology (i.e., "Dharma kings" such as Asoka). As such, it was thought that he would emerge as a benevolent ruler over humanity, ushering in an era of peace and prosperity. Existing accounts suggest that the era of the "Future Buddha" would be characterized by the end of death, warfare, famine, and disease, "the fulfillment of Buddha's law," and "the establishment of universal peace and concord."[2]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Maitreya

Dud the Demon

If the original teachings of Buddha have been lost, how can Abdu'l-Baha know what they were? And if he doesn't know, how wise is he to voice an opinion?

Dud the Demon

My whole family are Buddhists. To claim that the Buddha was a messenger from, or a manifestation of a god, they not only don't believe in, but believe is an insane, irrational belief, responsible for uncounted misery, is not likely to make them any happier! If you want to experience the truth of this then just try telling a good Buddhist that you know Buddha was a manifestation of God, because another manifestation of God (Baha'u'llah) said so!
Then ask them what they think of the Baha'i faith!

Get real people!!!

Hope this helps,
Dud (the Demon).

arthra

Hi Dud..

Abdul-Baha is recorded to have made some references to the Buddha in some talks in Paris and London.. How He came by some of His information I'm unsure.. He also told stories about Jesus ..one may have been based on Hadith that is not recorded in the Gospels. We Baha'is accept though that Baha'u'llah in our view fulfilled the prophecy of the future Buddha Maitreyya.

One of the definitions of God in the Writings is that of the "Unknowable Essence":

That Essence of the Divine Entity and the Unseen of the unseen is holy above imagination and is beyond thought. Consciousness doth not reach It. Within the capacity of comprehension of a produced reality that Ancient Reality cannot be contained. It is a different world; from it there is no information; arrival thereat is impossible; attainment thereto is prohibited and inaccessible. This much is known: It exists and Its existence is certain and proven -- but the condition is unknown.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 381)

Some Buddhist writings refer to an "ultimate truth":

saṃvṛti-satya (in saṃvṛti-satya (Buddhist concept))

..of ordinary people. It refers to the empirical reality usually accepted in everyday life and can be admitted for practical purposes of communication. It is distinct from the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), which lies beneath empirical phenomena and is beyond verbal expression. This ultimate truth is that of universal emptiness (sunyata), regarded as the true nature of the...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ramartha-satya

I doubt we Baha'is do a lot of speculation on the canons of Buddhist scripture and which canon is supposed be more accurate or not .. there was probably what a few centuries before the earliest canon of Buddhist scripture was set up after the Buddha lived? Per wikipedia:

The Pāli Canon is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the only completely surviving early Buddhist canon, and one of the first to be written down.[2] It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Shākyamuni.[3][4][5] It was first printed in the nineteenth century.[6]

Just as in the case of the Gospels several years passed before the teachings of Jesus were more or less accepted..and more years passed before the canon of the Gospels and the epistles were accepted in a standard form.

We have no records that the Buddha wrote or dictated His teachings to be set down by scribes.. like Jesus He taught verbally..so the accuracy of what He taught after being passed down and memorized over time is in question.. We're not sure.

I've met several Buddhists who became Baha'is.. mostly from Singapore and there are today Baha'i communities in Mongolia, Japan, Vietnam to name a few so evidently some Buddhists have accepted the Baha'i Faith and "got real".

cire perdue

The Jewish people rejected Christ because He did not overthrown Rome and make the world Kosher. Yet Christianity totally absorbed Rome.

I think you short change your relatives by assuming how they will react. Perhaps you should consider your personal definition of Manifestation of God as inadequate. Plus trying to squeeze all that you are taking on into your conceptual framework is going to be pretty tough. The hardware store doesn't have bread. Sorry.

I assume you will make a quick diagnosis and bail out soon. Baha'is consider Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, Zoaroaster, and Moses as Manifestations of God. That they differ was the result of the ability of mankind to receive enlightenment which at each time was more advanced than men were, and would cause them to grow spiritually. The Golden Rule given to mankind in the time of Moses would have been impractical when there were barely functioning city-states with various rates of survival that would not necessarily impart a model for future success to others. The Manifestations of God have caused values/virtues to be institutionalized and provided stability to cultures. We are now facing either the dominence of the previously existing religions and/or the amalgamation of all. The problem with simple amalgamation is that these previous religions have succeeded by spiritual means, and it requires new spiritual means to blend mankind. I think you should hope that this Faith is from God, because then there is hope.

Dud the Demon

Cire perdue,

Can you tell me how you know what "my personal definition of Manifestation of God" is?

Can you tell me how you know what "my conceptual framework" is?

What are you sorry for? Have you done something wrong?

I haven't assumed, I've asked. It wasn't pretty!
Interesting that YOU have assumed "I'll bail out soon".
I believe it's better that you know, than you assume.
What think you?

You write:-
"Baha'is consider Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, Zoaroaster, and Moses as Manifestations of God. That they differ was the result of the ability of mankind to receive enlightenment which at each time was more advanced than men were, and would cause them to grow spiritually. The Golden Rule given to mankind in the time of Moses would have been impractical when there were barely functioning city-states with various rates of survival that would not necessarily impart a model for future success to others. The Manifestations of God have caused values/virtues to be institutionalized and provided stability to cultures. We are now facing either the dominence of the previously existing religions and/or the amalgamation of all. The problem with simple amalgamation is that these previous religions have succeeded by spiritual means, and it requires new spiritual means to blend mankind."

Is that blurb above what you believe, or know, or are you quoting or copying someone else?
If so who is he/she/it/them?

I note that you think I should hope that this Faith is from God, because then there is hope.
Do you believe that just my hope is sufficient?

Dud

cire perdue

speak for me, but hope is better than despair.

I can only tell you what I think, and respond as I can. You are talking about terms we use. It might help to see what they mean to us, before you use them and then confront us about them.

I am giving you what I know about the teachings of the Faith as any Baha'i does. If you want to see the Writings here is a link:

Baha'i Reference Library

I think, however, that we as individuals can assist anyone in their interest in the Faith, but it is really that person's responsibility to look into it. Baha'is ask each other for references all the time. I happen to like hearing other people's ideas so that I can get different view points and consider my own. I tend to disappear if someone seems to be too confrontational for me or I want to be confrontational. Someone else will always pick up the slack. However we expect no one to take only our personal words as authority.

worldcitizen

Yes but mankind is renowned for persecuting & rejecting the Prophets & Their Words because it is not in accordance with the accepted and popular interpretations. Even the Buddha said that there would be a counterfeit Dhamma going around so that doesn't make it true just because people believe in it. He also said the majority of His Dhamma would be lost - the 5 Disappearances. Now you have belief in God being replaced with reincarnation and statue worship.

Baha'u'llah did say this:

"I bring thee the message whether it give thee counsel or offense" so we are free to reject or look into it. Ultimately we are the winners or losers here.

Some of the worst human misery has occurred in Buddhist countries where neither a God nor an Allah are believed in. One example is Cambodia the other Burma.How in a country dominated by Buddhism can such things occur? It is not belief in a God or a Buddha which drives insanity and mass murder but the lack of true belief in them. Why are religions which have a practising majority in the millions unable to curb such violence?This is why we need Baha'u'llah and His Teachings especially His New World Order.

Pol Pot, leader of the radical Khmer Rouge in Cambodia stands as one of the most savage mass murderers in the history of the world. In an attempt to create a utopian agrarian society, Pol Pot eliminated all opponents to his totalitarian regime. Up to 2,000,000 Cambodians lost their lives to this cleansing, the equivalent of more than twenty-five percent of the entire population. The world looks on in horror at the aftermath of this destruction.

arthra

One of the examples of the influence of the Buddha on civilization was Asoka.. He was for awhile one of the most cut-throat, devil may care conquerers of history.. in the process he united much of India and then he became a Buddhist and established Buddhism in India.. built hospitals..roadways and established a peace..sent missionaries as far as Syria, etc.

The Western parallel is probably Constantine...

Over time of course the teachings can be distorted , lost, exploited and so the next Manifestation has Their "work" carved out for them.

Fadl

If you think about it, the God that Buddhists disbelieve is also disbelieved by Baha'is. Perhaps asking a Buddhist if they believe in God or not, is an insufficient question to see how they would really feel about Baha'is calling Buddha a Manifestation of God. It doesn't seem to me there is anything irreconcilable between Baha'is 'Unkowable Essence' and Buddhist 'Unformed'.

tonyfish58

I agree

Also as Baha'is we are told that Buddha was a messenger, then it is so. This statement is only good for us who have accepted Baha'u'llah, but just as we can say this in full knowledge that this is indeed so, then this Faith, all Faiths and the Faith of Buddha can be reconciled.

Regards Tony

Napkin

Assumptions: Bahaullah=manifestation
Buddha=manifestation

Questions: Then what is a manifestation?


Fact: Bahaullah spoke to God
Buddha spoke to his own inner self

Conclusion: God=your inner self

Lunitik

On the contrary, the God of the Torah, Gospels and Quran has many desires, seems to be utterly divided and against the Devil. Such an entity apparently talks and conveys their intentions, no-mind is said to be a state free from intention. God even says the Jews are his favorite people, how can a Buddha favor something over something else?

For me, Buddha certainly has much to teach these figures, as well as the God's of any other scripture. Existence itself has provided them their being, else where have they arisen from? The Baha'is say he never was not, that is fine. Other faiths say he has caused himself to be, how can this be? He was not, yet he has created himself? For me, it seems they are as delusional as any false messiah or so...

All scriptures are the work of men, trying to decipher what has happened to them when they have encountered truth, creating nonsenses to try to convince people to look themselves.

Lunitik

A manifestation is something which can be known...

Certainly, God is your very essence, and also the essence of all things in the world. Scriptures say this quite clearly, for instance "you have your being in God and he in you". Those that look outwardly but say "God is not this" will always miss, those that look in but say "this is unique to me" will also miss.

God is the only, there is nothing distinct from That.

Lunitik

What is an example of God's desire? For the Baha'is, how about in the very Short Obligatory Prayer?

"You have created me to know thee and to worship thee".

Why?

Be grateful that you are, this is true prayer. Be filled with love, this is true life.

Know you are not distinct from existence though, from the Life, that is the real religion, the real rebinding, allow yourself to melt into what is - stop holding onto whatsoever you think you are, whatsoever you think this place is, let go and find truth.

arthra

What is a Manifestation?

A wondwerful question..

I usually refer to an essay by Julio Savi .. I think it is the most succinct writing on the subject I have found:

The Eternal Quest for God: Chapter 6

Dud the Demon

I believe so.

Lunitik

Why merely believe it?

You can know it - it is the very purpose of religion, and indeed its meaning points directly at how to do so: to re-bind.

hate and love are one, what is the nature of it?
inner and outer are one, what is the nature of it?
war and peace are one, what is the nature of it?
death and life are one, what is the nature of it?
All of the opposites merely provide contrast, where is their nature?

Consider something from the Seven Valleys:
Beloved, lover, love.
Object, subject, bond

This aligns with the trinity of Christianity:
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
God is the beloved of Jesus, himself being the lover... who is the Holy Spirit?
Holy comes from hal which means Whole
Spirit comes from Pneuma which means Breath - that which gives life
Thus, we can say the Holy Spirit is the One Life - this is why Christianity doesn't really disagree with the oneness of God, they just don't understand their own device.

What is the nature of the One? Jesus has loved, and said God is love. Is it possible to have two loves?

I say it is not possible to have two loves, there is merely one total love - God is nothing but the objectification of other, you are nothing but subjectification... melt them, they are the final separation, then inner and outer is no more, only existence is.

Can you understand it? Go into what I say and see for yourself...

If this transforms you, understand something important: you have not lasted the merging, you are no more there. You can say only God is, I prefer only existence is because God is a concept for most - and certainly this is not something people are open to in todays world, the mere word has strange effects on people. If it happens, you will know what I mean, but mind can arise again and decide it is this - it is not, it has happened because mind has been transcended. Be careful... if you say "I am God" be aware of what is asserted as the "I". If the "I" is the body or mind, it is not a truth. Even still you are functioning relatively until the death of the body, so it is something which you should say only if you know why you are saying it if at all.