Timothy248

Buddha did draw complete and total attention to god and serving god, however he didn't use the concept of god, he removed it completely and the teachings lead to the same thing, but in a much more complex way, because instead of focusing on god which simplifies everything via personification, a Buddhist focus's on truth, comprehending the direct truth of every significant aspect of their life. I don't recommend the path of extreme Buddhism to anyone, it had it's glory but now the spirit has died and Buddhists rarely attain enlightenment.

Ironically religions that don't teach unity, such as most branches of Christianity, never attain the ultimate goal, although they do achieve lesser things.

arthra

That's an interesting point Timothy.. If we consider that the society in which the Buddha lived had various systems of belief and schools of thought and the Buddha was interested I believe in disestablishing the Brahmin priests who like the Pharisees and Temple priests of Jesus time laid a heavy hand on the spiritual life of the people.. so His teachings at least what we can gather or make of them sound today maybe agnostic. His teachings didn't depend on the Vedas or the Brahminic social order.. Consider the Dhammapada..

One is not a brahmin by virtue of matted hair, lineage or caste. When a man possesses both Truth and truthfulness, then
he is pure, then he is a brahmin.

(Buddhist, Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 1 (tr. J. Richards))

I do not call him a brahmin who is so by natural birth from his mother. He is just a supercilious person if he still has
possessions of his own. He who owns nothing of his own, and is without attachment - that is what I call a brahmin.

(Buddhist, Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 1 (tr. J. Richards))

Compare the above with what the Lord Jesus taught:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Baha'u'llah praises those He calls the divine philosophers...


A true philosopher would never deny God nor His evidences, rather would he acknowledge His glory and overpowering majesty which overshadow all created things. Verily We love those men of knowledge who have brought to light such things as promote the best interests of humanity, and We aided them through the potency of Our behest, for well are We able to achieve Our purpose.

(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 150)

Lunitik

What is the point of drawing to God when it does not bring happiness or contentment? God is a concept, unless you encounter the truth which is expressed in this word it is less than pointless, it is harmful.

Buddha starts with what is actually in front of him: people. He shows them why they seek something of the divine. His whole message is about understanding what we actually are, the statement "be still and know" is his whole emphasis. The Kingdom of God, or the Lotus Paradise is his whole message, but that this is something we find within, not without and certainly not through the mind - although the mind can help.

We only need to look at the evangelical movements to see the dangers of focusing utterly on an idea people don't really understand.

Lunitik

It is strange you say Buddhists rarely attain enlightenment anymore, in a way you are correct for with the vast amounts of information available to people no one really walks a single orthodox path anymore. I am unaware of any enlightened soul today, however, that is not intimately familiar with Buddha.

Most today that I am aware of mainly walk the Osho path, who spoke a great deal on Buddha and Zen especially, and although he is controversial he is probably the Master I love most. He has done away with so many pointless requirements the traditions make, much in the same vain as Buddha, except Buddhism itself is not exempt. His basic point is the same: Buddha is already our nature, we are all already Christs, we only need to drop all that stops us realizing it. I find him very powerful because so few have ever spoken as plainly and publicly as he did.

For me, he represents a maturity in man, a coming of age. No more do we need rules spelled out, humanity should be at the point where he can simply understand what should be done in any given situation. The key is again love, as it was with Jesus, but it need not be based on belief or the reward of heaven. He is beautiful.

Lunitik

This statement seems foolish of Buddha...

If you are not permitted to own things in this world, how exactly are you free?

Certainly, possessing something, eventually you are possessed by it, for you come to identify yourself with it. If you lose it and take it as a great loss, it is evidence you are also not free.

All things should be utilized in this world, all aspects of life should be available in moderation, and anything we refuse means we have not known the fullness of life. Things we avoid and repress become our obsessions, and we will become stressed and quite sick trying to keep them from being expressed.

Buddha says somewhere else that he who does not depend on others is truly free, but Buddha depended on everyone he encountered to feed his people due to his self-imposed material poverty. He has remained one-sided in this, he has favored the other world over this, they are not two.

LordOfGoblins

this isnt lord of the rings. You can own somehting without it possessing you like the one ring does.
You dont think its possible to have detachment described in the Bahai writings from earthly possessions?

Lunitik

Umm, this is the point I'm making, I guess I wasn't very clear...

Lunitik

How to know if you are possessed by something?

If someone asks you for it, how willing are you to give it?

LordOfGoblins

yep i agree...

Timothy248

Fair observation, I was referring to the spirit of Buddhism, when I focus on and pray to the spirit of Buddhism it resonates high spiritual intellect but a dead spiritual heart, the true scripture of the Buddha is still profound intellectually, but the spirit of blissful detachment that it's meant to lead to has died within the common planes of existence.

I've read on many different sites, though not directly from scripture, that the Buddha predicted the disappearance of attainments within the spirit of Buddhism to occur 500 years after his death. I wonder whether this great spirit of spiritual philosophy can be revived during the greater peace, whether it will remain the way it is now, or whether it will be forgotten.

Lunitik

It was not predicted as 500 years, but 5,000, which was divided in two for 2,500 years that his wheel would continue spinning. This is why the Theosophists attempted to cause Krishnamurti to take on the Buddha's higher bodies, to get the wheel rolling again. This also links with the tradition of Meitreya of course, but this word simply means "friend" and has actually happened in another who never claimed any special role as Manifestation or whatever else. He was recognized by many high Buddhists, and his movement is quite popular considering he only died 20 or so years ago... he has caused many people to become at least interested again in direct spirituality rather than belief in doctrine, and perhaps thousands have become enlightened beings through his path. For me, nothing less than a civilization of Buddhas will take man forward. Belief systems which are so strict as the Baha'i faith have shown to cause nothing but mass murder, they will not be the future of religion, because if they are man has no future. He will simply kill himself, because these religions simply do not cause genuine growth towards the divine... they create followers and nothing else.

Timothy248

I respectfully disagree. The 5000 -> 2500 year prophecy is divided into 5 sections of 500 years, at the end of each section another aspect of Buddhism would disappear, and the first section was the disappearance of attainments.

I used to be like you and believe that Buddhism was the way of the near future, and I agree that it's a greater religion in regards to potential, but humanity on a worldwide scale isn't ready for such a religion, only the mind of an already spiritually advanced society can handle Buddhism within the common plane. The purpose of Baha'i is to unite the world, Buddhism would only benefit those who are already spiritually advanced, and leaves the rest of the word in darkness.

Fadl

I doubt this, Timothy.

I am quite sure that at the time of the Buddha, the religion he brought was accessible and well-suited to those he brought it to. It would be injust and insensible for Buddha to bring a religion for those who are "advanced" or nearly enightened as they were and nothing for everybody else.



Cheers

arthra

So Lunatik.. haven't heard from you for a long time... What's a happening?

Timothy248

I agree Fadl, but the Buddha manifested in India, which is a country of high spiritual maturity.

Lunitik

I must disagree with you, for in my experience of Baha'is, their vision is very limited, in the name of unity they have created just another separation. It is clear when encountering people of other faiths just how antagonistic this can be, for me Baha'is represent the old ways continuing in a new garment.

This is why I touch on Osho, for he has brought all the religions to a state that common people can digest. He does not force anything on anyone, he teaches directly how to understand for yourself. He was accepted my many Lama's and the like, many hinting he was meitreya as I have here. All religions teach a way to liberation, and yet are the very cause of bondage for the masses. Osho systematically destroys every bondage man has created for himself, he teaches a pure liberation.

It has worked, thousands, maybe millions are enlightened because of his work to remove the boundaries. Belief does not create enlightenment, it only clouds your ignorance. You yourself admit the Abrahamic line has not been at all successful towards Enlightenment, yet you advocate for its furtherance through Baha'u'llah. He is a man that has returned Sufism back to Mosses and Mohammad, he has made of love a new set of laws.

Love is the way, all else is mental gymnastics.

The heart always knows, the mind can only create concepts.

Lunitik

This is happening.

Always and only this.

Yeshua

Given that I have many Buddhist acquaintances who have taught me more than a few things about this great world religion, I can tell you that it isn't meant for an 'elect', leaving everyone else in darkness. If we look for example at the Mahayana, we find in the Lotus Sutra the teaching that Buddhahood (the ability to become enlightened) is innate within all people. Buddhism, both Therevada and Mahayana, says that a human birth is inestimable, regardless of what kind of 'human' one is born is. The Buddha took his religion to the streets whereas the Brahmin priestly caste of his day had considered certain people to be "untouchables", including women. In rejecting all caste distinctions, not to mention the vain rituals of the Brahmins who lived in detachment from the common man, the Buddha sent his disciples out with an eminently simple yet profound message: the Four Noble Truths - the reality of suffering and impermenance, the origin of suffering in craving and attachment, the knowledge that the cessation of suffering is attainable (for all) and the path to the cessation of suffering which is the Noble Eightfold Path. People were taught to "take refuge" in the Buddha, the Sangha (Community of Lay and Monastics) and in the Dharma (The Teaching of the Buddha). The Eightfold Path again is comprised of simple moral precepts. Finally the Buddha taught of the "Four Marks of Existence" - that all things are impermanent, that this impermanence causes suffering, that this impermanence means that all things in creation are "Not Self" (ie have no lasting nature) and that 'Nirvana' is peace, freedom from this cycle of attachment to impermanence, a state of stillness to be found at the heart of the emptiness in all things, including within the human person which would enable them to become free from the transient world and reach a state beyond the reach of place and time - in other words, to a theist, the silent desert of the Godhead without being called 'God' as such. The Catholic mystic Angelus Silesius, without any knowledge of Buddhism, hit upon this very same negative definition of God when he wrote:


I believe that the Buddha would have agreed with this wholeheartedly.

Likewise the Catholic Church, in its official declaration on non-Christian religions from the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate) writes of Buddhism (and we believe to be inspired by God):



As you can see the Catholic Church does not describe Buddhism as being for an "elect".


The Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, The Three Jewels and the Four Marks of Existence - that is Buddhism in a nutshell, the most simple, pin-pointed message of all the world religions without so much as a trace of the complicated dogmas one finds in Christianity and Islam despite the fact that these two religions are the most recent and widespread of the huge world faiths; not for a spiritual 'elite' but to enable everyone to free him or herself from suffering which is caused by attachment to things.

To therefore claim that Buddhism is for a "spiritual elite" is to misunderstand Buddhism, just the same as it would be to think that Jesus meant a closed, advanced elite when he said according to the Gospel of Mark:



It is because of this 'esoteric' nature to the Christian religion - composed of alluring sacraments (which means 'mysteries'), which Saint Paul says has a 'mystery' right at the heart of it and at times truly strange ideas - that a Gnostic movement which taught that salvation came not through the death of Christ but through 'secret knowledge' soon arose in the latter half of the first century of Christianity and spread like wildfire throughout the mediterrenean world. The Church (thankfully) recognised that this was not true Christianity and did overtake it but Buddhism never had such a movement because its teachings are actually more simple than the complicated, mystical doctrines of the Christian creed. Actually read a text such as the Dhammapada and compare it to say the Book of Revelation and the distinction will become clear.

Now Christianity is of course one of the most simple and open of all religions, as ARE all religions, not restricting its teachings to any social class or sex which was part of its broad appeal but it could and was "misinterpreted" by some people as being for an "elect" because of the complexity of certain doctrines despite its simple core message in the Beatitudes.

The idea that Buddhism is for "the advanced" is a myth of the New Age who want to paint Ancient India as this kind of spiritual paradise when in fact Brahminism the religion of the purely ceremonial Vedas with all of its complex priestly hierarchy and animal sacrifices was the dominant force in society, and not the monist and non-dualistic teachings of the Upanishads which were considered to be 'heresy' - mystics living on the edge. Therefore many lived in utter poverty of intellect and the depth of darkness in understanding until a man called Siddartha Gautama, a rich prince who had renounced his wealth and kingdom to first live a life of ascetism and who had by now created his own "Middle Path" between extremes of luxury and ascetic practices, came on the seen and upturned this ancient society with his revoluionary ideas.

Truth be told, as the ages wore, Buddhist writings did begin to create a more complex cosmological and metaphysical system, however such doctrines are according to scholars most likely accretions upon and additions to the eminently simple teachings of Gotama Buddha.

Iconodule

Please demonstrate a pre Christian depiction of this hindu trinity.

Lunitik

The most related Hindu concept to the Trinity of Christianity is not at all what he has touched on - the Trimurti.

Trikaya is the Buddhist trinity... again not Hindu at all, but this references the physical or Son, the bliss body which is the Holy Spirit, and the truth body which is God. If you have experienced the Baptism of Fire and the Holy Spirit which Jesus speaks, if you have realized for yourself that we are One in Spirit with God, then you can understand why I relate the Holy Spirit to the bliss body, it is pure ecstasy. The truth body is the very concept of oneness, which is what God points at. It removes all one-sidedness, it knows no distinction or separation at all. Only the totality is God, although God is in everything no part can be the whole. Yet, in the experience of Dharmakaya, you cease to be a part, you have understood consciousness itself without filters is the nature of God. Again, this isn't the Hindu Trinity, it is an entirely different school...

The Hindu equivalent of the Christian Trinity would be "Bhagavan" as Son, "Paramatma" as Holy Spirit, and "Brahman" as God. Bhagavan is a realized being, just as Christ is realized, and yet remains in the form. Paramatma means the supreme self or soul, this can be understood as the Holy Spirit since it references the unity of Spirit, Paramatma is that which pervades all things. Brahman is the absolute, is never in the manifest and is the void all mystics eventually come across.

I find it interesting that prior to Jesus, there is no correlation in Jewish writing about anything like a trinity, and yet these two great Eastern religions have direct correlations.

Lunitik

It is important we understand the Deva's of Hinduism in the same light as Bodhisatva's in Buddhism, and angels in Christianity. From Deva comes the word "Divine", but neither are polytheist any more than Christianity or Judaism is. Both point at the same absolute reality, and yet create many ideas to represent different aspects of divinity. These are naught but devices, creating an aspect of God to worship above whatsoever the disciple desires in life - for instance Lakshmi for material wealth. It is an attempt to show that nothing in life is any less divine, because all emanates from the same source. You might say "well, Abrahamic faiths do not worship angels", but this is simply not true, there is much evidence of prayers and the like aimed at Michael at least. There is also wide spread worship of Mary throughout the world, she is not even necessarily enlightened - certainly there is no evidence to show it - and yet in the East enlightenment is a requirement for worshiping any living thing.

It is also important to note that Buddhism is interested mostly in the subjective experience, not in any theological nonsense. Dharmakaya is the realization that subjectivity itself is an illusion, but this is nirvana - the goal of the path. As I have said, Buddhism is about taking what is actually before Buddha and guiding them to truth, whereas other faiths first require belief, and then try to create in you the conditions to know it, yet as Jesus says "blessed are those who do not see and yet believe", it shows that in Christianity no personal growth is necessary at all. Buddhism is not interested in people like this, it is not intended as a belief system, it is intended as a science to encounter divinity in all beings.

Also of import is the Yogic nature of these teachings, especially when we recall Jesus called his own teachings a yoke, the direct English translation of yoga. In truth, yoga is the only religion of India, but many draw different conclusions based on their particular paths. Buddha, Krishna, Shiva, Mahavira, all are simply Yogi's teaching what they have found. Yoga is the Eastern word for Religion, and means the same - to re-bind, the whole goal is to overcome duality by any means necessary, and that is moksha. Liberation from duality is the purpose of life, God merely points at the liberated reality. It is not the point to believe, it is the point to know.

Baha'u'llah teaches the same in the Seven Valleys if you can see.

Timothy248

Interesting points Yeshua.

Though their is depth to the Judaism Christian Islam Baha'i line, generally they offer simple paths relative to Buddhism. For example the 10 commandments are very simple rules that require no thought to master, however the eightfold path require a lot of contemplation to master, and regarding the core method of liberation, worship of god vs's removing of the self, the former gives the mind something to fixate on, but the latter sends the mind into chaos.

I do love Buddhism, parts of the tripitaka were the most liberating scripture I've read, however realistically I remain confident that it doesn't have the potential to unite the world in its current state. Not only because it leads to to much contemplation for the average worldwide intellect, but because it isn't controlling enough. It would be like giving teenagers the freedom to go to school whenever they like, in theory it would be better, if they don't feel like going they can have a day off now and then, but realistically the current mindstate of the average teenager, they would be more likely to never go. However when teenagers mature and become adults, they are given the freedom. Likewise our world is still in its adolescence, but when it matures I expect that Buddhism, or a religion like Buddhism, will take the place of Baha'i.

Regarding the society of India before the manifestation of Buddha, I believe the manifestation of the Buddha itself proves the spiritual dedecation. If this corruption hadn't existed then the Buddha would've had no need to manifest, however this corruption must have, generally, been of confusion rather than disobedience. Allowing the Buddha to form a religion focused more on liberation than control and simplicity.

Worldwide unity will require a firm religion at first. Every other new manifestation formed a religion that has completely dominated the privious religions of the local area, Christianity replacing Judaism, and Islam replacing Zoroastrianism, but Buddhism is so soft and innaccesible for many that it only outshone Hinduism breifly.

Though the spirit of Buddhism probably had more of these qualities when it was first formed, it has significantly degraded. It would need to be truly revived to even have a chance of being the worldwide religion, and even then it wouldn't be firm enough to succeed.

Lunitik

In the conclusion of transcending duality, it is bound to be that nothing is left...

Consciousness requires something to be conscious of, awareness requires something to be aware of, senses require something to sense, everything is ultimately resting on a particular duality, and thus all must be dropped.

We come to see that only this presence pervades, and this presence is the "I am" which Yehweh points to - I am that I am, and only that I am, without any modification, not I am Christian or I am Baha'i, not I am male or I am female, simply that sense that we are which simply cannot be dropped.

All else only appears for this presence, showing us we are not any of it - whether subjective or objective, for this is another duality. We observe all which is within and without, yet a modification has caused consciousness to identify with what is within in contrast to what is without. This is a fundamental antagonism between religion and science, for religion is about going in and science about going out. Truth does not choose a direction, for both are valid and yet neither are truth itself.

I hope all find this, but it cannot come while you cling to a particular realized man. You create a duality in this very clinging, your worship means you are less than them. If you are pure in your search, you will find all that they say is true of you as well, they are not unique in their divinity, nothing is without divinity, else it couldn't be.

Lunitik

The Seventh Valley is nothing but the removal of self...

All else is mere commentary on how to accomplish this in the Baha'i texts, there is no other theme, only rationales and teachings related to this.

God is such a rationale, for creating a singularly focused love is very helpful. When God becomes your only thought, there is no room for anything else, yet eventually this will be called into question if you are mature. When your whole identity focuses around this idea of God, and even this is seen as necessary to drop, what remains? You are dead as you are, nothing more remains of you because it was your sole clinging.

God is not a truth, it is a word, an idea, a belief. Who is the believer? Is this one valid at all? It is just another thought, that you believe something, it is an idea which is constant in you, something you define your life by. Is there even any reality to this notion of "you/me", the collection of identities we each develop over time? We can see these are nothing but thoughts as well, for without them still we are. Coming out of the story we have developed about ourselves, nothing is different at all.

This is scary for most people, but it is the surrender which is necessary. When you really see you are nothing at all, you aren't even nothing in fact because this is another definition. When you arrive at this place, it is called the Dark Night of the Soul, for our very existence must also be contemplated, is it even valid of itself or is it also an idea? Finally nothing at all remains, and yet nothing is really lost at all.

This is the true mystery, seeing all that arises will pass, nothing at all is constant except that presence. Delving deeply into this presence, we come to realize its nature, it is love itself... and this is all we ever really sought.

Timothy248

The difference being that in Baha'i, like all other religions of the same line, what begins with fixation on god becomes complete detachment eventually when the individual is ready, however Buddhism skips this step entirely.

Lunitik

False.

The true difference between Buddhism and any God-oriented faith is that Buddha has not created any additional attachments for you to eventually drop. He makes it perfectly clear that you are the authority, not him, and that unless you can confirm his words you should not pay them any mind.

His greatest gift, though, is that he has directly instructed his people to even drop him when the other shore is found. He utterly leaves you in the mystery because you yourself have now found your Buddha-nature.

The beauty here is that nothing is necessary to believe in, for liberation is freedom from all beliefs, all accumulated rubbish that is thrown onto us from our birth. It is the rediscovery of our true nature, and a recognition that it was never actually lost, only our beliefs clouded it.

You as an identity, as a distinct and separate thing, dies utterly... only love moves through the form now.

Lunitik

Note that this love I speak of is what Buddhists often say is compassion, it is because the common understanding of love is not the thing at all.

It is what Christians call Divine Love, although when they point at this, they usually mean bliss, ecstasy. It is the love which Jesus talks about when he says "love your neighbor as yourself", that utterly intimate empathy. It is closer than intimate in reality, for they ARE you. Yet it does not venture into the past or future, it is all embracing of the present moment only, for this is the only reality. Giving totally of yourself to this present moment, it becomes impossible to consider some other moment. The very venturing shows you are no more aware of the only true reality. Even if you believe in an "after life", what is experienced there will still be your own present moment. If you still think of past and future there, certainly you will remain miserable even in heaven.

How to say this? It is known to all who encounter it as love, but whenever it is said so plainly those who do not know it jump to the lust and infatuation which is prevalent. Think more of the love you feel for family, it doesn't necessary even have happiness as its flavor, it is only that you are content, when you are with them nothing else matters at all. This is how you should approach everything though, because all that you imagine to matter outside this moment simply doesn't even exist... it is purely imagination, delusion, and only causes you to miss this moment of life.

Lunitik

Atisha has said this love is absent of three things:

Aversion
Attachment
Indifference

If you go on avoiding things, fearing things, you are not expressing love.

If you are attached, you are not loving either, because love accepts the others freedom utterly, attachment will cause you to become controlling.

If you are indifferent, again, you are not even acknowledging, this is perhaps the most hateful action we can make. It removes all dignity from the other...

Ultimately, these are each mental responses to reality, the whole point of religion is to begin to live from the heart, and all action or expression which comes from the heart is love.

Yeshua

Thank you for that insightful reply brother Tim

I quite agree with the simplicity of the Ten Commandments (similar to the simplicity of Jesus' Beatitudes and Muhammad's shahada), although it should also be pondered that Judaism developed later on - just prior to and contemporary with the birth of Buddhism in around 600-500 BC - a most complicated Wisdom literature, of which the Book of Ecclesiastes is most probably the prize cherry so to speak. In this work of Hebrew wisdom we find a worldview very similar to that of Buddhism. I assume that you are most likely famaliar with this biblical book. One of my Buddhist friends (a convert from Catholicism to Buddhism when she was in her 20s) told me that Ecclesiastes is her favourite book of the Bible and that many Buddhists have found much truth in it.
In Ecclesiastes Koheleth writes:



Compare this with this:



Then you have to consider mysticism in Christianity and Sufism in Islam. In each case, these religions developed a most complicated spiritual philosophy which I think on both accounts is comparable to Buddhism (and Hinduism).

Iconodule

See Lunatik when you give me your explanation of a “hindu” or “bhudist” trinity I have to say I don’t see trinity within it. Its like saying the bahai trinity is comparable to the actual trinity of Christiainity it simply is not the same idea. And thus the word only misleads in its meaning.

But you are wrong, there was an understanding amongst some jews it seems that there was multiple persons within God, as from certain old testament passages.

But I want you to produce the actual sources which indicate a definite understanding of a pre Christian trinity. Im tired of people making these claims of trinity being inspired by paganism when they don’t actually understand the trinity itself nor have they done any research into this idea to even attempt to prove it. Demonstrate it.

Lunitik

Just read the Puranas, or research a little into each of the concepts I have listed above, namely "trikaya" on the Buddhist side, and "bhagavan", "paramatma", and "brahman" on the Hindu side. I do not see why I must convince you of anything, I do not see why it is useful to debate the topic at all. It is your sensibilities which are harmed, I have no need to distinguish between Pagan and Christian because I am interested in truth and not belief. Belief is a simply mind game, it cannot transform us, truth by its very nature transforms all that touch it.

All true mystics are as a moth to the flame of truth, we do not care about from where this truth comes from, what aspect it is teaching about, nor do we cling to anything which has previously helped. It is simply weakness to need a book to make your life worthwhile. If you have to live your life by a book, you simply have no idea what love is. If you have no idea what love is, then you do not know the first thing about truth.

If there is one God, then can it even be possible that there are two truths? If Pagans have encountered truth, it must be the same truth. You make of God something utterly feeble if you say these Pagans can threaten Truth. Then what is the danger? If your beliefs are so defenseless, why hold to them? Jesus says we must become as children, we must become utterly naked and stomp on our clothes... he means innocence rather than knowing, clinging to nothing which protects from the world.

Lastly I would like to bring your attention to his statement about the Physician... you see, he essentially says here that to follow him means you declare yourself sick. He says he has not come for those who are whole, realized, enlightened. This is why your priests go on telling you that you're sinners, if you aren't there is no reason to attend and give them money each week.

1 Corinthians 6:17 is the whole Bible, the only verse needed to enter into the path of truth. It is the cure and the salvation, and yet according to Philippians 2:12 it is now our responsibility to find the truth because Jesus is no more alive.

Belief is not the point of religion, do not cling to either Pagan or Christian ideas, use their insights to find truth for yourself... then live that truth.

1 John 4:8 hints at the truth: God is love.

Participating in the Divine Nature means we must also be love.

Be only an expression of love.

This is the message of all paths.

Iconodule

Give the specific quote from these pre Christian sources which speaks about an entity God, possessing three persons in the one nature from all eternity. That would be something to demonstrate what you are actually saying Lunatik. See I see this claim all the time, the trinity is pagan, its annoying when no one, not one person provides any substantial backing for such an idea. It would be like me lying about the birth of the bahai prophet and saying his mother was a prostitute and then just saying to others to do the research. It doesn’t hold water.

As for you comment that I make God utterly feeble. See your presopssosping paganism had a trinity in the first place. You have to first establish that right? Or don’t you see how its not really proper to jump off from an unproven viewpoint and then insult my Christian world view. I do believe the mystery of the trinity was revealed to the world specifically with the apostles, though certaintly God’s multiplicity of persons is known from the Hebrew scriptures.

Now, the entire bible cannot be condensed into one verse. Or should I quote verses that very much go against bahai understanding? That Jesus created all things that began to exist, therefore making Jesus eternal and essentially God. Or that jesus will judge all men at the end times, something the bahais I think seem to reject, based on the fact they think there will be an endless cycle of these new manifestations coming. There will be no end times it seems, the end times Jesus and Muhammad spoke of.

So establish first of all your “Truth” claim, then we can talk about the implications. Till then your essentially like the maker of zeitgeist.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunitik You might say "well, Abrahamic faiths do not worship angels", but this is simply not true; there is much evidence of prayers and the like aimed at Michael at least.

That may be true of Christianity--or Roman Catholicism in particular--, but it's still not the whole story:

While being fully Abrahamic, the Baha'i Faith not only does not worship angels--we worship God only--, but its scriptures state that in fact angels are people! (quote upon request.)

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Orthodox

Still waiting for that proof of a pre Christian trinity.

Lunitik

No quote is necessary, it means "Messenger of God", it is for me simply one who is enlightened, and thus can speak Truth.

This does not affect my statement at all though, for Baha'u'llah was nothing but an angel by this definition - and same for Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, etc - and many Baha'is pray at least to Baha'u'llah. This means these Baha'is do indeed worship angels.

Lunitik

I have pointed you in the direction, I do not care enough to do more.

Union is the point of religion, all else is mental gymnastics.

Lunitik

God is not an entity in the Bible, it is the totality, comprising the manifest son, the unmanifest father, and the bridge which is the Holy Spirit.

Again, I do not care about separating Christianity from Paganism, the very fact the early Church - as well as Moses' reaction to the Bull statues - went after various expressions of religion disgusts me. It is nothing but mans ignorance, fanaticism directed at a particular path to the expense of another. It is no surprise that each of the Abrahamic lines has been utterly violent through history when they start out in a fundamental antagonism.

No, love is my religion, and it is my being.

Again, your obsession with ideas and concepts, rather than the real thing.

I understand your identification is very much entangled with your belief, but your very Bible speaks of union with God, partaking in the divine nature. The very one giving focus to your belief IS God in you!

Again, the whole do not have need for the physician, Jesus came only for the sick. Is it not time you receive the cure, the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit, what use is your concept of the trinity if it does not transform you from man to God as the forefathers state?

It is not for after death, for it says Yehweh is the God of life and not death. Heaven is here on earth, but only if you surrender to the One. This is the truth of all religions, this is not something any faith can monopolize.

The Bible is just a poorly written book, its only meaning is the meaning you give it. It never says Jesus created anything, for Jesus was born the son of Mary and died at 33. What created existence is that divine essence which Jesus encountered and taught.

In Baha'i understanding, Baha'u'llah came at the end of the Islamic age, and Muhammad came at the end of the Christian age. Since the three are each considered the Logos, only manifested in different forms, there is no contradiction at all. Of course Christianity doesn't accept this, they think the body of Jesus will return, despite him showing that John was Elijah - different forms but same being.

For me, all that exists is the manifest of the unmanifest, we are each incarnations of God, but some are unwilling to engage in finding this truth within themselves. I do not take any to be inherently special because only that One is true.

Your projections onto me do not change my reality in the slightest.

mytmouse57

I know only a little about Buddhism.

My own personal thought is that Buddha, while not atheist, didn't talk about a "God" in personal or quasi-anthrophomorphic terms, as those steeped in Western religious tradition are used to.

Lunitik

Buddha spoke instead of Dharmakaya, the "truth body".

This is the realization which ceases to make God an idea, no more is God considered separate or higher than man, he is the very nature of man. Usually, we are too much identified with the form, now we know our own self to be formless.

The basic misunderstanding is because the senses perceive separation, and we begin to believe in it. In reality, we are watching the outer and inner realities equally, yet are beyond both. We are only the awareness, which is called the Buddha-nature.

mytmouse57

I think that same teaching is in Western religion -- it just gets forgotten, or glossed over.

I think it is the true meaning of the concept "created in God's image." And Christ said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

I also like the passages in the Hidden Words that reflect that concept, such as -- "Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting."