The doctrines of the Baha'i prophets/manifestations

[Lili]

I have a question about the Baha'i tenet that the founders of many of the world religions were sent by God. These 9 manifestations taught some things that do not seem to be compatible. For example, the Buddha did not believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. This is contrary to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and (I believe) Hinduism, too. In addition, he taught that animal sacrifice is wrong but Moses commanded it for the atonement of sins. How do Bahai's reconcile these apparently contradictory teachings of the manifestations?

[shunyadragon]

I have a question about the Baha'i tenet that the founders of many of the world religions were sent by God. These 9 manifestations taught some things that do not seem to be compatible. For example, the Buddha did not believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God. This is contrary to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and (I believe) Hinduism, too. In addition, he taught that animal sacrifice is wrong but Moses commanded it for the atonement of sins. How do Baha'is reconcile these apparently contradictory teachings of the manifestations?

Good question! There are a number theological and philosophical assumptions involved in the different world views of religions and beliefs concerning the nature of the 'Source' some people call God, and what may be called the nature of the relationship of the 'Source' and our existence through 'Creation/Revelation.'

An important question concerning the basic assumption as to the nature of the 'Source.' Is the 'Source' a universal compassionate 'Source' that is reflected in the diversity of the dynamic history of ALL humanity? or 'Is the a Vedic, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, Christian, Zorastrian, Native American, Islamic or Shinto 'Source'?

The first basic assumption of the nature of a 'Source' some call God, is that absolute doctrine or dogmatic beliefs are avoided and the assumption concerning the nature of the 'Source' kept to the minimum. The 'Source' is one, unified and unknowable, and the fallible human view is limited to being made aware of the attributes of the 'Source' which are infinite through revelation, and not able to define the 'Source' absolutely as in the claims of the different religions.

The second Baha'i assumption is that the nature of existence outside the nature of human belief is without conflict, contradiction, and evil and good assumed by many human beliefs. The nature of existence is the best witness as to the nature of the 'Source,' and not the beliefs of the individual religious world views, based for the most part on ancient texts and ancient world views.

The third assumption is that Revelation/Creation is a dynamic cyclic evolving process that is universal in nature, and the spiritual nature of existence reflects the physical nature of existence. Revelation is knowledge and not truth that many different religious beliefs claim. The difference is that knowledge is relative in nature and truth has the connotation of an absolute belief. Revelation is universal with the nature of existence and all of humanity. What is often referred to as the nine manifestations of the 'Source' is a simplified version of what may be considered as the primal points of a dynamic process of revelation what is called the Adamic cycle of nine cycles of revelation.

Revelation as revealed knowledge comes to humanity in many ways. Through the primal points comes the release of initial impulse of knowledge that transforms the world at the beginning of the cycle. Revelation may come through the mind of humanity in the form of science, philosophy and literature such as poetry. Prophetic visions, foreknowledge and insight into the Spiritual nature of existence may come through these avenues of human expression. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, poets like Rumi, and scientists like Einstein may be vehicles for revelation into the spiritual and physical nature of existence.

Example, In the Seven Valleys and Four Valleys Baha'u'llah cited a poet revealing, 'If an atom is split a sun is revealed.' Einstein brought this knowledge to humanity through the revelation of science. In this example the revelation became manifest through the manifestation of God, the poet, and the scientist.

The tragic sinking of the Titanic was revealed as for knowledge by Abdul'baha (Son of Baha'u'llah) who refused to travel on the vessel, a novelette that described the same story of the sinking of the Titan, and other who foretold the tragedy through the revelation of knowledge.


The next assumption in a way responds to your question more directly concerning the nature of the knowledge of different religious world views and reflects the assumptions above. Do individual religious world views reflect the fallible human view of the nature of the 'Source' or do they reflect a legitimate doctrinal view of the nature of the 'Source' that would in some way 'absolutely true' in the exclusion of the other religious world views?
The Baha'i view and mine believes that no single religious world view can define the nature of the 'Source' and truth at the exclusion of others, because of the fallible nature of humanity, and the human ability to corrupt and burden religion with cultural images as claims of truth.
I think this is a good beginning for further discussion.

[Lili]

Thanks for responding, Shunyadragon. You say that the various religions represent fallible human views and this is why they contradict each other at some points. Humans cannot absolutely understand the nature of God. This makes sense. I remember a poster named Justin said the same thing. When he was asked which religion is true, he said that no religion is absolutely true because humans are fallible and "See through a glass, darkly." It makes sense that humans could not absolutely understand God, just like an ant or a dog cannot completely understand humans. One thing I want to know is: since the prophets are fallible, how do we know which teachings are accurate?

The second Baha'i assumption is that the nature of existence outside the nature of human belief is without conflict, contradiction, and evil and good assumed by many human beliefs.

Are you saying that the Baha'i belief is that good and evil do not exist outside of human belief? Or that good and evil exist, but the morals found in different religions do not perfectly reflect the true morality?

Example, In the Seven Valleys and Four Valleys Baha'u'llah cited a poet revealing, 'If an atom is split a sun is revealed.' Einstein brought this knowledge to humanity through the revelation of science. In this example the revelation became manifest through the manifestation of God, the poet, and the scientist.

The tragic sinking of the Titanic was revealed as for knowledge by Abdul'baha (Son of Baha'u'llah) who refused to travel on the vessel, a novelette that described the same story of the sinking of the Titan, and other who foretold the tragedy through the revelation of knowledge.

This is very interesting. Which poet was cited by Baha'u'llah? Where can I read more about Abdul'baha's prediction of the sinking of the Titanic?

Lili

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for responding, Shunyadragon. You say that the various religions represent fallible human views and this is why they contradict each other at some points.

The human perspective of religion is a fallible human view. this is one of the reasons that they appear conflicting. Humans over time also tend to corrupt religion and create doctrine and dogma where none existed. One of the purposes of the revelation is the rebirth of Divine knowledge to remove the husk of corruption from religion.

Another is that religions are intended to be the 'Divine education of humanity through the different ages of human history like the grades in school as humanity progressively matures and evolves.

Another is the 'Source' some call God has infinite attributes, and the different world views of the religions describe many different attributes of God.

Humans cannot absolutely understand the nature of God. This makes sense. I remember a poster named Justin said the same thing. When he was asked which religion is true, he said that no religion is absolutely true because humans are fallible and "See through a glass, darkly." It makes sense that humans could not absolutely understand God, just like an ant or a dog cannot completely understand humans.

True. The human lense of comprehension may at times be dark or a bit clouded by our limitations.

One thing I want to know is: since the prophets are fallible, how do we know which teachings are accurate?

The manifestations of God are indeed human, but they are the primal point of revelation, or the perfectly polished mirror, and as a 'hollow reed' they transmit the revelation of God into the writen word. All humans are in a way 'Sons of God' and can in a far more limited way be as a 'hollow reed.' The revelation itself is pure and infallible, but the transmission and comprehension to the minds of humanity will always be imperfect.

Are you saying that the Baha'i belief is that good and evil do not exist outside of human belief? Or that good and evil exist, but the morals found in different religions do not perfectly reflect the true morality?

The Baha'i does not teach the duality of good and evil.

Baha'u'llah and the New Era, Pages 195-196: gr1

According to Baha'i philosophy it follows from the doctrine of the unity of God that there can be no such thing as positive evil. There can only be one Infinite. If there were any other power in the universe outside of or opposed to the One, then the One would not be infinite. Just as darkness is but the absence or lesser degree of light, so evil is but the absence or lesser degree of good--the undeveloped state. A bad man is a man with the higher side of his nature still undeveloped. If he is selfish, the evil is not in his love of self--all love, even self-love, is good, is divine. The evil is that he has such a poor, inadequate, misguided love of self and such a lack of love for others and for God. He looks upon himself as only a superior sort of animal, and foolishly pampers his lower nature as he might pamper a pet dog--with worse results in his own case than in that of the dog. ...

© source where applicable

This is very interesting. Which poet was cited by Baha'u'llah? Where can I read more about Abdul'baha's prediction of the sinking of the Titanic?

Lili

The poet as far as I know is an anonymous mystic, likely a companion of the early group of mystic poets and others that searched for the promised one in the Holy Lands and Persia in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Balyuzi, H.M. (2001). `Abdu'l-Bahá: The Centre of the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh, Paperback, Oxford, UK

In the following year, he undertook a much more extensive journey to the United States and Canada to once again spread his father's teachings. He arrived in New York City on April 11, 1912, after declining an offer of passage on the RMS Titanic, telling the Bahá'í believers, instead, to "Donate this to charity." He instead travelled on a slower craft, the S.S. Cedric, and cited preference of a longer sea journey as the reason (Balyuzi p. 171). Upon arriving in New York, he arranged a private meeting with the survivors of the ill-fated Titanic, who asked him if he knew the Titanic's ultimate destruction would occur, to which, 'Abdu'l-Baha replied, "God gives man feelings of intuition". While he spent most of his time in New York, he visited Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C., Boston and Philadelphia. In August of the same year he started a more extensive journey to places including New Hampshire, the Green Acre school in Maine, and Montreal (his only visit to Canada). He then travelled west to Minneapolis, San Francisco, Stanford, and Los Angeles before starting to return east at the end of October. On December 5, 1912 he set sail back to Europe.

© source where applicable

[abu njoroge]

Perhaps budda didnt acknowledge God in his teaching,because for a lot of beliefs the source of all life is considered unknowable and unnamable.For me God is beyond good and evil from the point of view of the mind. Is the wolf evil when it eats a rabbit,Is a hurricane evil whenit takes life? I see God as beyond duality. Good is the opposite of evil ,God has no opposite. For lack of a better description I will call God Ultimate Reality., The part that can be known we apply attributes to help us understand. HE,IT is beyond attributes can not truly be described can only be experienced.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps budda didnt acknowledge God in his teaching,because for a lot of beliefs the source of all life is considered unknowable and unnamable.For me God is beyond good and evil from the point of view of the mind. Is the wolf evil when it eats a rabbit,Is a hurricane evil when it takes life? I see God as beyond duality. Good is the opposite of evil ,God has no opposite. For lack of a better description I will call God Ultimate Reality., The part that can be known we apply attributes to help us understand. HE,IT is beyond attributes can not truly be described can only be experienced.

I believe Buddha did acknowledge a 'Source' some call God, but taught that the 'Source' is unknowable except through the attributes of existence realized through enlightenment. Enlightenment is the process described as 'salvation' from the Buddhist perspective.

The traditional anthropomorphic entity called God, likely does not exist at all The very active hands-on deity of miracles today is silent except for only anecdotal evidence as a witness to 'His' existence.

[smaneck]

The poet as far as I know is an anonymous mystic, likely a companion of the early group of mystic poets and others that searched for the promised one in the Holy Lands and Persia in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

The poet who wrote "split the atom and you will find a sun" was a medieval Sufi poet not someone searching for the Promised One before Baha'u'llah's coming. Can't tell you his name, though.

[shunyadragon]

The poet who wrote "split the atom and you will find a sun" was a medieval Sufi poet not someone searching for the Promised One before Baha'u'llah's coming. Can't tell you his name, though.

I said likely, I was going by something that was relayed to me. It would be interesting to know his name and read more of his works.