Bahá'í Faith - "Jesus" - Shunyadragon?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=iwbiek;3408976]oh, i agree wholeheartedly, which is what i think madhyamika (or shunyavada) is all about. nagarjuna had his four-part dialectic (this and not that, this and that, neither this nor that, neither not this nor not that) and his reductio ad absurdum because of this. this is why of all buddhist traditions, besides theravada, zen (and rinzai zen in particular) has been the most helpful to me. they take madhyamika and give it a practical application: the satori is the only way out of the reductio ad absurdum. a vedic epithet for brahman comes to mind: "thou before whom all words recoil."

incidentally, in my christian days, i felt the closest affinity with meister eckhart and the author of the cloud of unknowing.

I read and liked the work in a previous life, liked it, but did not find affinity on way or another.

pleased ta meet ya. i'm a weak atheist with strong buddhist leanings, which i have mostly for psychological reasons (my admittedly syncretistic tendencies toward buddhism are all that keep me from being a total misanthrope).

i'm well aware of the buddhist interpretations of shunya, i was just wondering if the term hadn't been adopted by baha'i and given a slightly different meaning. on a related note, it's my understanding that baha'i recognizes avatars (i don't know if the baha'i understanding completely matches up with the hindu understanding, but i'll use it generically). is buddha recognized as such, along with jesus? i know in vaishnavism he is, ironically as one whose mission was to confuse demons by teaching false doctrines. what about guru nanak? just how syncretistic is baha'i anyway?

I do not care for the syncretistic concept, I do not consider the Baha'i Faith as syncretistic in nature. The nature of the 'Source' some call God(s) is apophatic in nature and ultimately unknown from the human perspective. So there is no doctrine nor dogma that describes specifically what the 'Source' is nor the nature of the relationship with humanity, as in the Christian Trinity, nor what the 'Source is not. Good/Evil dualism id rejected by the Baha'i Faith. I believe that this apophatic view of the 'Source' is shared by Judaism, Islam, the Vedic nature of the Brahman, and Buddhism. Buddhism went two ways, variations of polytheism, and the other extreme atheist/agnostic sects making every effort to absolutely undefine any 'Source.' I believe the Baha'i Faith takes the Middle Way.

Shunya itself is not essentially adapted by the Baha'i Faith. The matrix of existence described as the medium of 'nothing' that Creation came into being is undefined. In a way it parallels the contemporary 'Zero-State Field' or the Quantum Vacuum that science often describes as 'nothing' tongue in cheek has contextual parallels to the spiritual nothingness. This medium of existence may be described as the 'unformed, from which the 'formed' comes into being by the unborn, uncreated, unformed 'Source' to which all must return. In Vedic traditions this 'Source' is described as the Brahman.

The concept of reincarnation found vainly described in detail in many Eastern traditions, is not accepted by the Baha'i Faith. What is described in Baha'i scripture is the return of the attributes in a concept of cyclic undefined unknown journey through many worlds, and not egocentrically necessarily a return to this world.

By far much of the news laws and principles revealed in the scripture in the mid eighteen hundreds could not be described as taken from other religions. Basically the Baha'i teaches Revelation is universal, dynamic, cyclic, and progressive forms of knowledge throughout the history of humanity. what we call the 'religions' are the human perspective of the nature of Revelation in individual clips in time, essentially and eventually molding into the culture of the time the originated

[iwbiek]

fair enough, in regards to syncretism. as for the unfolding nature of revelation, i'm assuming baha'i does not consider itself either a final, perfect revelation, in the christian sense, nor an uncovering (or, perhaps better, redelivery) of an original and subsequently corrupted revelation in the islamic sense. nor, i'm assuming, do most baha'i consider baha'u'llah something like a "seal of the prophets." for that matter, is baha'u'llah considered a prophet, in the judeo-christian or islamic sense?

as for your interpretation of reincarnation, it sounds a lot like the buddhist concepts of anatta and dependent arising to me.

my starting point is thoroughly empirical, so i don't accept reincarnation as a given, and in fact i've often argued that reincarnation is not essential to those teachings of gautama commonly accepted as historically authentic. in the vedic sense, the doctrine of reincarnation is the solution to the problem of theodicy. for me, that problem does not exist. i am tempted to think that for the buddha it didn't exist either.

as for revelation, i don't believe in it in the divine sense. i suspect that any revelations we have gotten are from our own unconscious.

[shunyadragon]

fair enough, in regards to syncretism. as for the unfolding nature of revelation, i'm assuming baha'i does not consider itself either a final, perfect revelation, in the christian sense, nor an uncovering (or, perhaps better, redelivery) of an original and subsequently corrupted revelation in the islamic sense. nor, i'm assuming, do most baha'i consider baha'u'llah something like a "seal of the prophets." for that matter, is baha'u'llah considered a prophet, in the judeo-christian or islamic sense?

Baha'u'llah is a part of the continuing cyclic progressive process of revelation, and not the last prophet or Messiah. The Concept of the Messiah or Enlightened One, in Buddhism is better, though these figures may be considered prophets also. Baha'u'llah is an important beginning point in progressive revelation in the beginning of the Universal consideration for the nature of our existence, and the relative progressive nature of knowledge, both spiritual and physical.

as for your interpretation of reincarnation, it sounds a lot like the buddhist concepts of anatta and dependent arising to me.

ok

my starting point is thoroughly empirical, so i don't accept reincarnation as a given , , ,

ok, there is an empirical basis for support of the belief that knowledge including science is a part of revelation. The Baha'i principles and laws revealed were to large degree new, and have since been confirmed as the standards for the new age.

, and in fact i've often argued that reincarnation is not essential to those teachings of gautama commonly accepted as historically authentic. in the vedic sense, the doctrine of reincarnation is the solution to the problem of theodicy. for me, that problem does not exist. i am tempted to think that for the buddha it didn't exist either.

Agreed that the specific doctrine of reincarnation is likely not original nor essential to the teachings of Buddha. In the Vedic sense it such a layered religion and ancient, that it is difficult to define the original.

as for revelation, i don't believe in it in the divine sense. i suspect that any revelations we have gotten are from our own unconscious.

ok, but there is evidence for knowledge being interwoven in progressive revelation as possibly Divine. I will go into this in the next post.

[headheart]

as for revelation, i don't believe in it in the divine sense. i suspect that any revelations we have gotten are from our own unconscious.

ok, but there is evidence for knowledge being interwoven in progressive revelation as possibly Divine. I will go into this in the next post.

Peace,
headheart

[headheart]

While you're busy preparing your reply, here's something I think you might enjoy. I'm particularly interested in reading your thoughts from about 21 minutes in.


Tim Keller visits Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, "The Reason for God." This event took place on March 5, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.

Peace,
headheart

[shunyadragon]

Peace,
headheart

I was waiting for jwbiek to respond, but we can dialogue more after I give the video more thought. On initial listening I found the arguments in the video wanting and unconvincing, and he to certain extent is misrepresenting the arguments by agnostics and atheists in the contemporary context. At times he tends misrepresents things like 'universal truth' claims. Basically he challenges the arguments from ignorance on the extremes of 'proving' there is no God that agnostics and atheists do not make in reality and could not logically. I would like him to come more to the middle of the arguments on real turf instead of the extremes.

Bottomline - Most atheists and agnostics do not try to prove God(s) do not exist. He apparently does not realize this.

[iwbiek]

ok, there is an empirical basis for support of the belief that knowledge including science is a part of revelation.

i am unaware of it. i am willing temporarily to suspend disbelief, providing you qualify "revelation." if you mean divine revelation in the sense of a more or less direct transmission of information from an ominiscient personality, which reasonably fulfills most commonly held definitions of "god," to a human or humans, with whom it has a dualistic relationship, and who were previously wholly ignorant of said information, i am interested in hearing the empirical basis.

if, however, the relationship is monistic or qualifiedly monistic (as, for example, in the formulations of shankara and ramanuja, respectively), then the idea of revelation quickly becomes a matter of terminology. whether or not, in the revelatory experience, one communicates with a conscious divine substrate (ground, brahman, christ-consciousness, whatever you want to call it) or one's own unconscious in the agnostic, psychoanalytical sense, usually depends on one's perceptions and is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

The Baha'i principles and laws revealed were to large degree new, and have since been confirmed as the standards for the new age.

at this time, i lack sufficient knowledge to comment on that.

ok, but there is evidence for knowledge being interwoven in progressive revelation as possibly Divine. I will go into this in the next post.

i am all ears, but i'm beginning to wonder why this revelation is necessary at all. does baha'i have a soteriology?

[shunyadragon]

i am unaware of it. i am willing temporarily to suspend disbelief, providing you qualify "revelation." if you mean divine revelation in the sense of a more or less direct transmission of information from an ominiscient personality, which reasonably fulfills most commonly held definitions of "god," to a human or humans, with whom it has a dualistic relationship, and who were previously wholly ignorant of said information, i am interested in hearing the empirical basis.

if, however, the relationship is monistic or qualifiedly monistic (as, for example, in the formulations of shankara and ramanuja, respectively), then the idea of revelation quickly becomes a matter of terminology. whether or not, in the revelatory experience, one communicates with a conscious divine substrate (ground, brahman, christ-consciousness, whatever you want to call it) or one's own unconscious in the agnostic, psychoanalytical sense, usually depends on one's perceptions and is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

So far you indicate that you are coming from a strict physicalist view, and only evidence that justifies the physicalist view, such as being verifiable and falsifiable. I do not necessarily advocate approaching belief in a faith from solely a strict objective evidential basis, but I will present the some of the evidence.

The best evidence in this view is in terms of the knowledge revealed in the mid 18th century that that shows foreknowledge of the dynamic changing world since 1844. The Baha'i Faith claimed this knowledge and principles would be the standards for the future of humanity. Principles such as the following . . .

The Harmony of Science and religion - Considering the evolving body of scientific knowledge to be the standard of understanding of the nature of our physical existence. All references to the nature of our physical existence in scripture must be understood in terms of the knowledge of science. This applies also to the scripture of the Baha'i Faith.

Spiritual Laws prohibiting all forms of slavery and indentured certitude.

The social and legal equality of women.

The 'Independent Search for truth, and the relative nature of human knowledge in a very rapid changing world since 1844. Describing an existence of the future as both spiritual and physical that is dynamic changing and evolving. The past and today those still anchored in the the past cling to concepts of truth and unchanging knowledge, which presents a considerable problem in today's world.

There are also prophetic quotes concerning the future nature of knowledge concerning science as follows.

Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

i am all ears, but i'm beginning to wonder why this revelation is necessary at all.

I doubt that your just beginning to wonder.Your indications so far is you believe no revelation is necessary.

does baha'i have a soteriology?

Yes, an explanation of soteriology of the Baha'i Faith would be a bit long, and you may research some your self. Some has been alluded to above. The Baha'i view of God is apophatic and God is basically unknowable in any doctrinal or dogmatic sense from the human perspective. The spiritual journey of the individual is undefinable and through many worlds. specific doctrines that define heaven, hell or reincarnation. Salvation is more in terms of the human race as a whole and not the individual. The individual concept of salvation of the individual is more based on the sincerity of the individual in their journey and not specifically what the individual believes.

[iwbiek]

So far you indicate that you are coming from a strict physicalist view, and only evidence that justifies the physicalist view, such as being verifiable and falsifiable. I do not necessarily advocate approaching belief in a faith from solely a strict objective evidential basis, but I will present the some of the evidence.

The best evidence in this view is in terms of the knowledge revealed in the mid 18th century that that shows foreknowledge of the dynamic changing world since 1844. The Baha'i Faith claimed this knowledge and principles would be the standards for the future of humanity. Principles such as the following . . .

The Harmony of Science and religion - Considering the evolving body of scientific knowledge to be the standard of understanding of the nature of our physical existence. All references to the nature of our physical existence in scripture must be understood in terms of the knowledge of science. This applies also to the scripture of the Baha'i Faith.

Spiritual Laws prohibiting all forms of slavery and indentured certitude.

The social and legal equality of women.

The 'Independent Search for truth, and the relative nature of human knowledge in a very rapid changing world since 1844. Describing an existence of the future as both spiritual and physical that is dynamic changing and evolving. The past and today those still anchored in the the past cling to concepts of truth and unchanging knowledge, which presents a considerable problem in today's world.

There are also prophetic quotes concerning the future nature of knowledge concerning science as follows.

Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys by Baha'u'llah

i'm sure you won't be surprised to learn i don't find any of this compelling evidence for divine revelation or some charisma of foreknowledge. women's lib, the end of slavery, the growing importance of science, etc., could have been and were anticipated by various intelligent and perceptive people in the mid-nineteenth century, among them karl marx. i find baha'u'llah's statement about the atom interesting, because there are various parallels in both buddhist and hindu sources (the upanishads in particular). the sautrantika school of early buddhist philosophy had a rudimentary atomic theory that jibed quite a bit with heraclitus. i'm also sure you're aware that zeno and lucretius had atomic theories of varying degrees of sophistication. again, i don't find this compelling evidence of divine revelation, but rather that our species tends to perceive things in the same patterns.

I doubt that your just beginning to wonder.Your indications so far is you believe no revelation is necessary.

no, i believe a conscious, personal god is not necessary. we receive revelations all the time, it's just a fancy (or rather loaded) word for a very commonplace thing.

but what i meant was "necessary" in a (for me, hypothetical) revelation history.

[shunyadragon]

i'm sure you won't be surprised to learn i don't find any of this compelling evidence for divine revelation or some charisma of foreknowledge.

Not surprzed.

women's lib, the end of slavery, the growing importance of science, etc., could have been and were anticipated by various intelligent and perceptive people in the mid-nineteenth century, among them karl marx.

First, not talking of women's lib.

Could have, but did not prior to 1844 in a comprehensive and specific nature as the Baha'i writings. ,

i find baha'u'llah's statement about the atom interesting, because there are various parallels in both buddhist and hindu sources (the upanishads in particular). the sautrantika school of early buddhist philosophy had a rudimentary atomic theory that jibed quite a bit with heraclitus. i'm also sure you're aware that zeno and lucretius had atomic theories of varying degrees of sophistication. again, i don't find this compelling evidence of divine revelation, but rather that our species tends to perceive things in the same patterns.

The possible parallels are very vague, and I have been aware of them. No brass ring here. This quote was specific. The atom was not recognized by science at the time, nor the concept of the splitting of the atom, and the result. E=mc2/

Your playing the three stooges on this one, Duck Bob and Weave.

no, i believe a conscious, personal god is not necessary. we receive revelations all the time, it's just a fancy (or rather loaded) word for a very commonplace thing.

but what i meant was "necessary" in a (for me, hypothetical) revelation history.

These specific revelations and others were 'not a commonplace at the time.' Considering your prior statements,no I did not expect an open mined response. I was not trying to argue the 'necessity' of God nor Revelation, but the evidence of the witness of it. There is more, but without constructive responses, it would be difficult to go further.

[iwbiek]

Not surprzed.




First, not talking of women's lib.

Could have, but did not prior to 1844 in a comprehensive and specific nature as the Baha'i writings. ,

fair enough. since i haven't seen those baha'i writings, i cannot comment on their specificity. even if baha'u'llah was the first to anticipate a historical event that later happened, unless he named names of key figures decades before their births, i still think divine revelation is a logical leap that cannot be conclusively justified.

Your playing the three stooges on this one, Duck Bob and Weave.

i'm not ducking anything. i consider the line about the sun in the atom poetically beautiful, but just as "vague" as any of the parallels you or i might mention. it hardly proves to me that baha'u'llah was given any as-yet-undiscovered information about atoms or atomic energy or whatever it is for baha'i this line is supposed to be alluding to.

all i was doing was calling attention to those parallels, which, btw, i also consider poetically beautiful and perhaps vaguely insightful, but nothing more (at least as far as the physical sciences are concerned)

.


These specific revelations and others were 'not a commonplace at the time.' Considering your prior statements,no I did not expect an open mined response. I was not trying to argue the 'necessity' of God nor Revelation, but the evidence of the witness of it. There is more, but without constructive responses, it would be difficult to go further.

this is more than a bit knee-jerk. all i have done is offer my objections to the specific pieces of evidence you've offered thus-far--and very civilly, i might add. if you consider any objections or criticism closed-minded or obstructive, then i suppose our discussion is pointless. i can't imagine what would keep you from offering more evidence if indeed you do consider it compelling, but i certainly hope it's not the typical theistic, fear-based response of me not being "prepared" or "fertile ground," because it's my belief that any evidence that justifies the name should be able to be reviewed and understood by anyone.

[headheart]

I was waiting for jwbiek to respond, but we can dialogue more after I give the video more thought.

+ here

It's been 7 months.

Meeeow.gif