Talk:Bahá'í teachings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Compare

I think that someone should create a section for the similarities and differences between this religion and others. For example, I would be happy to help and add the similarities and differences of Bahai and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints along with other christian philosophy if I knew how. Does anyone think there is a need for this? I would find this interesting and it would also make for a better streamline of the religion topics. [unsigned by 67.131.7.194]

If you feel inspired to put in a bunch of work doing it, go right ahead. Cuñado - Talk 21:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that this is certainly a valid thing to do from an academic or "encyclopedia format" point-of-view. Please know that I encourage you to undertake such a task if you are up to the challenge. Just be aware while you are doing it that Baha'u'llah says: "O contending peoples and kindreds of the earth! Set your faces towards unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the source of contention amongst you...Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you" (Gleanings, p. 217). Best of luck. Nmentha 12:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page layout

I have a proposal for changing the layout. I started an example on my sandbox. It still needs some expansion and cutting. This would also involve redirecting Three onenesses and Progressive revelation to Bahá'í teachings. I imagine an overall layout where articles branch off from the main article according to theme. Currently the pages on teachings aren't well organized and seem sporadic and sometimes repetitive. I imagine a flow like this:

Bahá'í Faith

Please comment here on this proposal: User:Cunado19/sandbox as a replacement for the current page layout. Cuñado - Talk 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the new page is a definite improvement, but I would not remove the other pages. The page would get way too long. We should use the summary style. Keep the other pages as is (we should improve them as well), and include a summary of one or two paragraphs in summary of that teaching on this page. -- Jeff3000 14:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I really think that Three onenesses should redirect here. Considering that two of the 'onenesses' have their own pages, it would fit better to create a new page for the third, and leave the summaries to the teachings page. Maybe create a new page on the Bahá'í concept of God, following the example of Islamic concept of God, Conceptions of God, Abrahamic conceptions of God, God in Sikhism, God in Buddhism, and Conceptions of God in Hinduism.
Another reason is that 'three onenesses' is not a very good term. I think it was coined by teachers, and not part of the writings. A search in Ocean came up with zero hits for "three onenesses". Cuñado - Talk 05:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favour of creating a page about the Bahá'í concept of God, but I don't think that Three onenesses should be redirected to this page. While the term is not found in Ocean, it is found in many books about the Baha'i Faith, even Peter Smith's book. -- Jeff3000 18:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have never liked the expression "three onenesses". I hate it actually. It makes no appearance in the foundational texts. It appears to be, possibly, North American Bahá'í jargon. Asserting that it's a "core" Bahá'í belief is actually made by somebody who isn't a Bahá'í. (See footnote 1 in that article.)

There are all sorts of "core" beliefs". Two, that seem to me, far more fundamental are these:

3. O SON OF MAN!
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
(Bahá'u'lláh, The Arabic Hidden Words)
Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him -- a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation....
(Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 65)

Those go directly to the fundamental purpose of Creation and Religion. The "three onenesses" make statements about the nature of the Creator, Creation and Religion. As my vision of God is that He's an active participant with these, statements about His purpose seem more fundamental than about His nature. All philosophical nonsense really, because if you don't have a grasp of both His nature and His purpose, neither has real meaning. That's why I've never like elevating these particular beliefs.

I know people, Jeff3000 in particular, have spent a great deal of time on that article. Its components are all good and would make contributions is folded into this article. On the other hand, I've never been comfortable with holding up the "three onenesses" as some over-arching, or short-hand, set of beliefs when the Central Figures didn't do this. MARussellPESE 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The page being too long. Not a consideration. Some subjects are of interests to a few. Headings at the top of the page are important pointers. What changes are made the need to have diversity is important and the longer the page the better is what I encourage. RoddyYoung 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Having a changing in format suggested above will be more inclusive (ref this link above) so that greater scope for the reader can be developed and let adaption to many fast changes in monitoring, indicating and reporting of take place. Of note are considerations that must widen the perspective. Take for example how Baha'i law, say on marriage, will impact on environmental factors, say global warming factors, in future (next 500,000 years). A broader format is needed. Good work in the sandbox. RoddyYoung 21:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely with Russell on the 'Three Onenesses' bit. I've never been a fan of that mental framework. That is, not since I ever heard of it, which was long after I absorbed the teachings they mean to structure. I would much prefer adding mnemonics such as this and 'Progressive Revelation' as more like footnotes to acquaint the reader with Baha'i nomenclature than as organizational tools. (Many Baha'is refer to this as...) -LambaJan 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I've already updated the page, so the sandbox is irrelevant now. I held back on redirecting the two pages. Currently, the content of three onenesses is entirely on this teachings page, and given that three people support redirecting, one opposes, and one added a completely irrelevant link to YouTube, I'm going to redirect and fix the inter-wiki links on other pages. None of the content is lost in the change, since it's only an organization of links. I also started a page on the Bahá'í concept of God, which was just copied and needs work. Cuñado - Talk 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystical Teachings

I have worked a bit on the Mystical Teachings section, tried to clarify some points on the nature of heaven, hell, and reincarnation in the baha'i faith as well as providing an explanation for the nature of angels in the faith. I would be much obliged if anyone would be willing to read over the section and catch any mistakes I made, whether factual or use-of-wikipedia wise. I am new to the faith and to wikipedia editing. Allah'u'abha. Aeroplane 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions.
An item of critical import to editing here is to meticulously cite one's sources. Unfortunately, your edits don't quite do that. The statement on bodhisattvas has no source, and is incorrect in my opinion. The passage from the Iqan doesn't say what you've stated it does. The Abrahamic religions' vision of "angels", and the Buddhist as well, is that these are entities that stand apart in the creation — neither human, nor manifestations of the divine, but some intermediary. This is not what the few references to angels says in the Baha'i Writings. If one reads on in the Iqan one finds this which reiterates the full statement in the passage you quote:
"And now, inasmuch as these holy beings have sanctified themselves from every human limitation, have become endowed with the attributes of the spiritual, and have been adorned with the noble traits of the blessed, they therefore have been designated as "angels." Such is the meaning of these verses, every word of which hath been expounded by the aid of the most lucid texts, the most convincing arguments, and the best established evidences."
{Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 79-80)
One also finds these elsewhere:
"As to His saying: "And will send His angels, etc.": These "angels" are souls who through spiritual power have burned human qualities by the fire of divine love and become characterized with the attributes of the exalted ones and cherubim."
(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 25)
"Ye are the angels, if your feet be firm, your spirits rejoiced, your secret thoughts pure, your eyes consoled, your ears opened, your breasts dilated with joy, and your souls gladdened, and if you arise to assist the Covenant, to resist dissension and to be attracted to the Effulgence!"
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - `Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 360)
"Angels are also those holy souls who have severed attachment to the earthly world, who are free from the fetters of self and passion and who have attached their hearts to the divine realm and the merciful kingdom. They are of the kingdom, heavenly; they are of the merciful One, divine. They are the manifestations of the divine grace and the dawns of spiritual bounty."
(`Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - `Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 409)
So, "angel" is a fair description of very advanced human souls.
Also, reincarnation is rejected in every sense, not just "traditional" ones. `Abdul-Baha treats this at length in Some Answered Questions.
MARussellPESE 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank, you, and I apologize for the bodhisattvas comment, I realize it was not a great one, and I was looking for some parallel, a bodhisattva is a very advanced human soul. However the differences outweigh the similarities, though the idea of bodhisattvas may have found it's origin in the Buddha's original teachings on angels now that I think about it. You have better explained the concept.
However, I do not agree on the issue of reincarnation. I have read 'Adbul-Baha's explanation of this concept, and understand it I believe, however I do not think it is wrong to draw a parallel between the Baha'i belief in advancement through worlds and reincarnation, in fact the Buddhist idea of reincarnation, though different encompasses the idea of advancement through spiritual worlds, Deva's reside on a different spiritual plane, the difference in the concepts however is that Baha'u'llah teaches that it is our very person, not just some abstract spirit that is removed from our persona that advances. I think. We Baha'i believe in continuous life through progressive stages, but continual rather than ending and beginning again in another form; as the article states, but from the point of an outsider, the difference is minimal, and the similarity serves to make the concept more understandable. Perhaps an explanation of the Baha'i concept of the soul/spirit is in order, though I do not believe I am up to that.
I may be misunderstanding the purpose however, in trying to draw parallels. And i suppose relying on parallels gives the impression of a syncreic religion, and that is hard to explain the fallacy of; independent explanation may serve better in avoiding this point. I wonder though, if you could help me understand how I cited incorrectly, I thought I had not. Aeroplane 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Using primary materials to advance an argument, in this case that two notions are similar is original work and is not allowed in Wikipedia. You must instead find reliable secondary sources that advance that argument; and also the positions must also abide by undue weight that points of view that are held by a small minority do not have place in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I was going about this incorrectly. Sorry and thanks, I will try to hold to those in future editing. Thanks. 71.209.28.112 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The current writeup is very misleading, IMHO.
From God Passes By: (the Day whereon “thy Lord shall come and the angels rank on rank,” and “The Spirit shall arise and the angels shall be ranged in order.”) and (the Dove and the Angel Gabriel respectively, descended upon, and revealed itself, personated by a “Maiden,” to the agonized soul of Bahá’u’lláh).
Are we to believe in the terms of the first quote that all 'angels' took bodily form with Baha'u'llah and in terms of the second quote that whoever 'appeared 'was one of those. Of course, 'human' may very well (and does) mean that part of Creation which can advance and has done so for ages without end? Yet, we're talking time-frames that go beyond any modern view of 'human' (which then puts limits on what we can think about angels - granted, what we say is not of consequence to their reality anyway).
Right above the Iqan quote used, you will find this: (By “angels” is meant those who, reinforced by the power of the spirit, have 79 consumed, with the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings and of the Cherubim.)
Is not Cherubim used in the lineage of Abraham?
From the Gleanings: (the Day in which men and angels have been gathered together)
From the Tables of Abdul-Baha:(As to what thou hast seen in the dream, concerning the letter which reached thee from me, and angels were enclosed in it and they surrounded thee: Know thou verily, that letter is this glorious writing whereby I address thee; and, verily, this is full of angels of confirmation from the Kingdom of God and they will assist thee to serve the Cause of God in the vineyard of God.)
There are many, many more. I did not know that we could categorically say how the Baha'i belief is different than Islamic (in so far as we use the Koran and not traditions; we were told to become very familiar with Islamic teachings) at this point.
So, there is a lot that we need to learn in this regard. For short, angels are, have power, and help us. jmswtlk (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The write up could point to this page, Who are the Prophets? (Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá taught that there are no levels of being other than the three discussed above: human beings, the Manifestations, and God. There is no hierarchy of demons, angels, and archangels. Insofar as these terms have any significant meaning, they are seen as symbolic of varying stages of human development, imperfection being demonic and spirituality being angelic.). Of course, 'human beings' has a much broader connotation than that found on the Bahá'í_Faith_and_Science section about Evolution, and, we have really not much idea about what might be involved (is this an issue that 'science' ought to concern itself with?). 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMSwtlk (talk • contribs)