The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.

Moderator: JoeWallack

shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

Post by shunyadragon »

The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

I consider the traditional arguments for God based on ancient scripture and culture bad to the point of being illogical and irrational.

The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.

Foundations of Belief

Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.

The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha

The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the highly variable claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia, and starkly apparent today.

The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.

The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.

The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.

The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.



go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by Robert Baird »

Dear S

Well said. It is good to use our potential to be a participant in creating Harmony and Divine Providence. Bucky Fuller says we can "creatively realize" most anything, and he did. Teilhard de Chardin says one thought perfectly formed can create a 'temple' to manifest reality. I like those thoughts and that of the Hopi Book of Knowledge. The Hopi and Baha'i share a lot and there are some who say they communed in the pre-Columbian era, maybe at Inyo near Bishop, California. Could I have your permission to copy this to a thread at World-Mysteries in the forum?
shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by shunyadragon »

Robert Baird wrote:Dear S

Well said. It is good to use our potential to be a participant in creating Harmony and Divine Providence. Bucky Fuller says we can "creatively realize" most anything, and he did. Teilhard de Chardin says one thought perfectly formed can create a 'temple' to manifest reality. I like those thoughts and that of the Hopi Book of Knowledge. The Hopi and Baha'i share a lot and there are some who say they communed in the pre-Columbian era, maybe at Inyo near Bishop, California. Could I have your permission to copy this to a thread at World-Mysteries in the forum?
Yes, I will put it in myself. I am not familiar with the World-Mysteries and their forum. I just checked it out. It will be a thread in the Philosophy section.
Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by Robert Baird »

Dear S

That would be most appreciated. If you have any difficulty joining (It takes a couple of days to get approval to post usually) just drop me a line here and I will tell the owner (Alex is the contact and you can drop him a line saying I want you to be able to post - there are many spamming porn types).

If you would like an article on the blog - he would probably put it up too.
shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by shunyadragon »

Robert Baird wrote:Dear S

That would be most appreciated. If you have any difficulty joining (It takes a couple of days to get approval to post usually) just drop me a line here and I will tell the owner (Alex is the contact and you can drop him a line saying I want you to be able to post - there are many spamming porn types).

If you would like an article on the blog - he would probably put it up too.
I submitted the details for membership. If you can speed things up, please do so.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by Robert Baird »

I did exchange e-mails with Alex last night - I guess he will have his administrator do the approvals today. However, the administrator is friends with a cult type guy who used to be the primary force or posting person along with other extremists and alien interventionists. So I will continue to deal with it.

In the meantime, I wonder of you think Yoga is a religion? By that, I am not asking if some people follow a guru and some gurus have issues and egos, and I am not just thinking in terms of a building or ecclesiasty. The following piece addresses the self versus the SELF and something I think makes a lifelong purpose which I think is a true calling and yet not as anthropomorphic as most religions. I have such difficulty with the word religion due to the horror shows of ego and perversion alongside the misogyny and war-mongering that social engineers like Fukayama admit they use religion for, in his book The End of History and the Last Man.

The Catholic Encyclopedia will tell you different but you can see in just this little bit of just one discipline of Yoga (There are numerous) that it is important to get past being programmed and memorizing and otherwise catering to ego.

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali -- Chapter Two -- Sadhana Pada (The Chapter on Effective Practices)

Synopsis: Sadhana means spiritual practice. Yoga sadhana is something a yogi "does" in order to move from a pre-existing disconnected, fragmented, and dispirited way of life, while shifting into making the connections with the integral whole where one's innate living spirit is given wings. Here we learn experientially through practice, versus by following dictums, memorizing politically correct beliefs, through proven theories (pramana), inference, conceptualization (vikalpa), or any of the other vrtti. Practice, practice. practice, is the mantra here. Authentic yoga is not for the academic observer, but for the yoga practitioner. Mountain yogis have little need of books because they have in their presence a living oral and transverbal tradition. However modern man lives in a very ego driven materialistic setting (Kali Yuga) and hence the yogic practices have to relate to that situation in order to be relevant and useful. It is key not to attempt to place yoga within the Western or modern context (as it will never fit because the whole is much larger than its fragmented parts), but rather to place the modern context within the context of yoga.

Although Patanjali gave many practices (sadhana) as remedies (pratishedha) for that situation of spiritual estrangement in Pada I (such as vairagya, nirodha, virama-pratyaya, isvara pranidhana, dhyana, eka-tattvabhyasa, japa, shradda, virya, prajna, maitri, karuna, upeksanam, mudita, bhava, and especially rtam prajna (the self arising truth bearing seed which is the practice of no practice), it is here in Pada II, that Patanjali focuses upon practices in a more concrete and focused way. Practice is thus the way we learn through self discovery in functional yoga which is different from the methodology of philosophy, logic, religion, or any "ism".

Since the need for practice assumes a pre-existing disconnection (from samadhi), hence remedies (pratishedha) are presented as sadhana (practices), eventually going beyond remedies to acknowledging and directly merging with our innate evolutionary power. Where Pada I (Samadhi Pada) outlined the contextual framework of the disconnection or spiritual malaise and its general resolution in deep samadhi; here, Pada II, acts as a continuation of the outline sketched in Pada I, where now Patanjali focuses upon the basic and auxiliary practices as remedies and what the remedies actually remediate (kleshas and karma).

If we keep our focus in our yoga practice keeps the integrity of a living spirit -- the innate primordial consciousness which is linked via the innate evolutionary power which underlies all of life, then the practice thus becomes both devotional and revelatory -- self liberating and self motivating. Then sadhana becomes a practice of bringing more clarity, truth, integrity, heart consciousness, light, joy, and love into all facets of our lives. As such it has its own innate and profound momentum and enthusiasm as it aligns itself with the universe and universal power (shakti). As such authentic yoga sadhana has nothing to do with externally imposed discipline, hard work, force, comparative power over others, or an individual/selfish willfulness. That way it is not willful nor mechanical in the ordinary sense, because the authentic goal of yoga is to align the individual will with the universal will and power, to enter into a profound harmony, balance, and integral alignment of the power of consciousness because the yoga practitioner gradually ceases identifying with only the body or as a separate egoic/limited "self". Rather the sadhak (practitioner) no longer lives in an estranged "world" of being apart from nature, but rather as a vital part of nature and its beginningless source (creation) being consciously united. Thus yoga (as this integrative process), is a process of surrendering to a very large all encompassing intelligent sacred dynamic. Simultaneously, one surrenders the tendency to disintegrate, to isolate, and become apart from it. Just to say a mechanical and willful approach is a common trap that has seduced many. It can be avoided through balancing it with bhakti (its devotional elements). Human beings have a natural innate impetus toward communion/union and integrity, but it has become beaten out of many and perverted by negative conditioning. It is that negative conditioning that authentic yogic practice destroys.

Integrity is the kind of ultimate completion felt as santosha (sense of fulfillment, completion, and peace) that authentic yoga affords in the beginning, the middle and the end. That instruction as the innate presence of eternal Now awareness which we can focus upon now and always. That is the gift we give to ourselves via yoga. In the end -- when re-union consciously is achieved in samadhi we surrender the practice itself, because there is no need for it. May your sadhana be graced with love, peace, wisdom, light, and joy and all encompassing unbounded completion..

Brief Synopsis of Sadhana Pada

Sadhana Pada Patanjali then progresses from the overall context of yoga delineated in Pada I, to presenting the various techniques and practices of yoga (sadhana), starting off with Kriya Yoga (pre-requisite purification) activities (tapas, swadhyaya, and isvara pranidhana). These three are often greatly misinterpreted by intellectuals, academicians, and religionists who look at them from the outside. We will point out the common mistakes of such coarse misinterpretations.

Sutras II.1-2 tell us that kriya yoga attenuates the kleshas (obstructions/hindrances to free spiritual flow) and hence samadhi is brought forward in that way.

Sutras II.3-9 proceeds with more detailed descriptions of the kleshas, karma, vrtti, and thus how suffering/distress (duhkha) arises. This outlines the vast depth of yoga psycho-pathology.

Sutras II.10-11 describes how to eliminate the kleshas and karma in general via pratiprasava and meditation (dhyana),.

Sutras II 12-16 describes the cause and origins of the kleshas and how the relationships between the kleshas, karma, and vrtti.

Sutras II.17-26 describes how the kleshas and suffering are maintained via samyoga (false identification), confusion (avidya), and eventually how they are destroyed through an informed conscious yoga practice that both heightens and utilizes viveka (powers of differentiation). This ends the psychopathology sections of how karma, klesha, citta-vrtti, delusion, fear, craving, hatred, ego, and delusion interact to create suffering.

Viveka is presented as a gradual process of emptying the contents of the mind from frozen fixations of stagnant citta-vrtti associations with gross and vague ordinary consciousness to an awareness of a profound integral mutuality which underlies the entire universe in its true holographic arrangement. This is accomplished through seven levels of practices which wake us up -- opening up the inner organ of clear vision leading to samadhi (the eighth limb of ashtanga yoga). With that process in mind, the practice of viveka is introduced, which potentiates and extends prajna (intrinsic wisdom) by both removing the two extremes of false identification where the conflation that is called samyoga, which produces false identification and bondage."


In Autobiography of a Yogi and The Science of Religion you can learn all you need to know about positive-thinking. If you can find the little blue books put out by the Masonic Society of Chicago in the very early 1900s that are written by Yogi Ramacharaka make sure you read them.

http://www.the-benefits-of-positive-...-religion.html
shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by shunyadragon »

Robert Baird wrote:I did exchange e-mails with Alex last night - I guess he will have his administrator do the approvals today. However, the administrator is friends with a cult type guy who used to be the primary force or posting person along with other extremists and alien interventionists. So I will continue to deal with it.
OK
In the meantime, I wonder of you think Yoga is a religion? By that, I am not asking if some people follow a guru and some gurus have issues and egos, and I am not just thinking in terms of a building or ecclesiasty. The following piece addresses the self versus the SELF and something I think makes a lifelong purpose which I think is a true calling and yet not as anthropomorphic as most religions. I have such difficulty with the word religion due to the horror shows of ego and perversion alongside the misogyny and war-mongering that social engineers like Fukayama admit they use religion for, in his book The End of History and the Last Man.
As alluded to in my initial post I would not consider any one discipline, church, or belief system as a or the religion. I consider the different disciplines (such as Yoga and other meditation arts), and belief systems stand alone. They are all part of the evolving spiritual nature of humanity. To cling to one as a or the religion, ie Yoga, would be give up one's free will and neglect the universal spiritual nature of humanity. I am familiar with your sources on Yoga, and took classes when I was younger. Yoga is an excellent spiritual, physical and mental discipline good for the body and soul, but cannot by itself stand alone as the religion.

Nothing is included nor excluded, because it is nor is not. I am a Baha'i, not because I particularly believe, but because it acknowledges the unity of the constantly evolving spiritual and physical nature of our existence, and inclusiveness, evolving change, and diversity of the nature of our journey through this world, and all the infinite past future worlds of existence.

Baha'i translates as 'the follower of light or glory.' I follow and seek out the light regardless of the source or preference.

I personally have practiced Chinese Gung Fu and related meditation practices for many years, but incorporate many other disciplines both east and west including herbal and medical practices ancient and modern.
The Catholic Encyclopedia will tell you different but you can see in just this little bit of just one discipline of Yoga (There are numerous) that it is important to get past being programmed and memorizing and otherwise catering to ego.
The Roman Church (Catholic) Encyclopedia is not a good comprehensive source for anything, and is severely limited by it's limited scope of belief. It is only a suitable reference concerning what the Roman Church believes.

I have reviewed this site, and the other one you referenced. I find some of the topics interesting and will comment further on them' particularly the other website you referenced.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by Robert Baird »

Hmmmm.

Any organization seeking members and money from them qualifies as a religion in my book. If you said that is an ecclesiasty I would agree, but in the vernacular we probably would agree any pursuit of power (siddhis too) for personal gain falls in between a religion and discipline. It is a case of semantics, I suppose.

I like what you say and have liked some element of all religions. Ecumenicism is what should some day occur and all religions should start saying what they all agree about. However, the true religion (a word) is what you DO not what you say you BELIEVE.
Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by Robert Baird »

Here is a library of good books from the likes of William Atkinson. I have frequently recommended the set of small blue books he wrote under the name Yogi Ramacharaka which was published by the Masonic Society of Chicago. The Upanishads was a title of one of those books.

http://newthoughtlibrary.com/atkinso...o_atkinson.htm
shunyadragon
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in

Post by shunyadragon »

Robert Baird wrote:Hmmmm.

Any organization seeking members and money from them qualifies as a religion in my book. If you said that is an ecclesiasty I would agree, but in the vernacular we probably would agree any pursuit of power (siddhis too) for personal gain falls in between a religion and discipline. It is a case of semantics, I suppose.

I like what you say and have liked some element of all religions. Ecumenicism is what should some day occur and all religions should start saying what they all agree about. However, the true religion (a word) is what you DO not what you say you BELIEVE.
Yes, religions seek members and yes religions do function on funds provided by believers. It would be the naïve anti-establishment view against all 'organized religion,' neglecting that true nature of human relationships. Religion is simply a word to describe the human relationship to each other and a source some call God(s). For any conscious effort for unity, there would be an organization that would exist for this to exist. If religions did not exist, humans would create at least a dozen or more. The natural spiritual evolution, teaching religious and moral values naturally exist in the progressive Revelation of the spiritual nature of humanity.

The concept of doing what you say you believe would be a given in all religions. I do have a problem with the vague nebulous concept of the 'What is a true religion?' in the human context. It is a problem when a church or religion claims to be the 'True Religion,' or for someone to define 'What a True Religion' is.

ecclesiasty? Not sure of your meaning here in your statement: 'If you said that is an ecclesiasty I would agree,'

I believe that Ecumenicism is a naïve delusion that does not take into consideration that the individual churches have presupposition agenda based on their own identity that excludes the possibility of anything more than polite circular conversation.

Note: I have not yet received a confirmation from the other website.
go with the flow the river knows . . .

Frank

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Post Reply