Amit Abha Fifth Buddha Bahaullah

A guest has requested a discussion about Amit-Abha. Baha’is understand that Amit Abha is Baha’u’llah, as he wore the red robe, and as He is the 5th Manifestation of God after Gautama (Sanskrit; Pali: Gotama), Siddhartha (Sanskrit; Pali: Siddhattha). “Amit” means “Infinite” and “Abha” means “Light” or “Glory.” Baha’u’llah’s Revelation comes directly from God (the Infinite Absolute One), as it did for Jesus and Moses and Mohammed and Zoroaster and Krishna and Buddha and Adam and the Bab. Baha’u’llah reveals that Abha is also part of God’s name. And to Baha’is, Abha represents Heaven. The words “Baha” and “Abha” are interchangeable from east to west in languages from around the world. Both are words created in Divine proportion. “Abha” is also part of the Baha’i greeting that every Baha’i uses. I have certitude that Baha’u’llah is in fact Amit-Abha, the Fifth Buddha.

I’ll let the Establisher of the Baha’i Faith, Dr. Leland Jensen, explain in his own infallible way:

In the Buddhist faith, Baha’u’llah comes as the fifth Buddha and His establisher as the Maitreya. Baha’u’llah is foretold as the fifth Buddha called Amitabha. He is the fifth because he is the fifth Manifestation after Buddha: 1) Buddha, 2) Jesus Christ, 3) Muhammad, 4) the Bab, and 5) Baha’u’llah. Arabic has its roots in Sanskrit, and “Baha” and “Abha” mean the same thing in these languages: “splendor, light and glory.” The word Amitabha means “infinite light” in Sanskrit.[15] Baha’u’llah is described this way:

Amitabha is particularly important, not as a savior figure, but as one of the five primordial, self-born Dhyani Buddhas [Manifestations]… his color is red,… [and] his sacred symbol [is] ba or ah… (M. Levering, ‘Amida’ from Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions (Abingdon: 1981) ed. Keith Crim, p. 27)

Amitabha/Baha’u’llah is “self-born,” meaning a completely independent Manifestation. Baha’u’llah wears the red robe, which is the name of His Revelation and the color of an actual robe made for Him by His wife and daughter in Baghdad. The fifth Buddha, Amitabha, is the Manifestation Who comes at the end time but it is the Maitreya who establishes the message of Amitabha after Him. -Dr. Leland Jensen – Entry By Troops.

Bookmark this post!

Similar posts

    None Found

54 Responses to “Amit Abha Fifth Buddha Bahaullah”

  1. 1 Rasmus
    2:30 pm on May 07, 2008

    Okay, I’ll humour you. Let’s assume that the Pure Land sutras are to be taken as prophecy. Then we need to be able to identify Baha’u’llah as Amitabha via his name, the time in which he appears, his address and his mission, right?

    Postulate one: “Baha’u’llah fulfils prophecy by his prophesied name”

    This we can agree on. The name Baha’u’llah is quite similar to Amitabha (though not identical).

    Postulate two: “Baha’u’llah fulfils his prophesied date, the time in which he was to appear”

    In the larger Sukhavatiyuha sutra the Buddha says to Ananda:

    “Not indeed, O Ananda, has that Tathagata passed away, nor has he not yet come, but the Tathagata, the holy, after having obtained the highest perfect knowledge, dwells now, remains, supports himself, and teaches the Dharma…”

    And in the Smaller Sukhavativyuha sutra he says to Shariputra:

    “Moreover, Shariputra, the lifespan of that Buddha and that of his people extends for measureless, limitless asamkhyeyas of kalpas. For this reason he is called Amitayus. And, Shariputra, since Amitabha became a Buddha, ten kalpas have passed.”

    So in this regard we cannot agree.

    Postulate three: “Baha’u’llah fulfils his prophesied address, or the place he was to come”

    The Smaller Sukhavativyuha sutra states:

    “At that time, the Buddha told the Elder Shariputra, From here, passing through hundreds of thousands of millions of Buddhalands to the West there is a world called Utmost Happiness.”

    Sukhavati is in the western quarter, that’s true, but quite distant from this world. So in this regard we cannot agree either.

    Postulate four: “Baha’u’llah fulfils his prophesied profession or mission”

    Amitabha was the monk Dharmakara before he became a Buddha. In the larger Sukhavatiyuha sutra he says the following to his teacher, Lokesvararaja:

    “May the Bhagavat thus listen to me, to what my own prayers are, and how, after I shall have obtained the highest perfect knowledge, my own Buddha country will then be endowed with all inconceivable excellences and good qualities.”

    His mission was to create a Buddha country not an earthly kingdom. So in this regard we cannot agree either.

    So all you have is the name, and that seems to be enough for you, but I very much doubt that it will be enough for any Buddhist.

  2. 2 Rasmus
    11:16 am on May 08, 2008

    By the way, the five Dhyani Buddhas do not include Shakyamuni. Neither are these earthly manifestations of the Dharmakaya (which you might be able to equate with your god, although the way your god is described in the Baha’i firesides makes this very doubtful) but different aspects of it.

  3. 3 Collin
    1:59 am on May 10, 2008

    Dear Rasmus,
    The part of your comment that I find enlightened is your desire to see if a criteria is met. Seeking the 4-part criteria of name, date, address and mission is a most excellent endeavor, and it is a lesson that we can learn from Jesus who fulfilled such a “golden criteria.” The prophesied establisher of the Baha’i faith, Leland Jensen also meets this “golden criteria” because he comes with the correct name, Leland; at the correct date, 1963; at the correct address, in Ezekiel’s temple (the stone with seven eyes) in the Dear Lodge Valley between mountains having copper mines; and with the correct mission, to establish the religion of God as given to Baha’u’llah.

    This has much to do with Buddhism because Baha’u’llah revealed that Buddha Himself was a Manifestation of God just like, the Bab, Muhammad, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses and Adam before him. In addition, the sacred message given to the world through these Manifestations all include the prophecy of the continuation of God’s message, and the prophecy of the end times when all would be revealed, when clarity of God’s plan is made known, and when peace shall reign on earth as it does in heaven. Baha’u’llah Himself fulfills the “golden criteria” of name, “Glory of God” that Jesus spoke; date, 1863; address, Persia; and mission, the Prince of Peace or second Messiah seated on the throne of King David.

    What keeps the human race from recognizing the promised ones is no simple matter as both ego and corruption of the Divine message are involved. Corrupt governments, a power-hungry clergy class, and blind faith in ones ancestors play a role, but we that use the intellect that God gave us, and the principle of “independent investigation of the truth” that Baha’u’llah proclaimed are at an advantage.

    The Jewish clergy failed to see Jesus as the first Messiah, descended from King David, born of a virgin in the city of David, to suffer and die because the Jewish clergy didn’t believe that John the Baptist was the return of Elijah. The Jewish clergy was wrong, and Jesus explained to his apostles how John’s message was the return of Elijah’s message so no flaming chariot was needed as the Jews expected.

    Likewise, Rasmus, perhaps you seek a “flaming chariot” that is a construction of a theology that misses the mark. Perhaps your interpretation of the “world of utmost happiness” or “Buddha country” is incorrect. Since Peace quotes Leland who fulfills the golden criteria and is infallible in his mission to establish the message of God given by Baha’u’llah, I must respectfully disagree with you, Rasmus, and agree with God. Truly, I mean no disrespect. I, myself, used to pray to the idol that was put in the place of God by the corrupt Christian clergy at the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Great blessings were bestowed on me when I was fortunate enough to meet Leland in 1986 at a talk in Minneapolis. Now, (after 20 years of study) it is as clear as crystal to me how the “son of perdition” the mythical god-man invention of Semiramis is not the same person as Jesus of Nazareth the suffering Messiah. Since Jesus, and Baha’u’llah and Leland all meet the “golden criteria” I do not need to exercise blind faith in what I was taught in Catholic grade school. I have studied their proofs, and my intellectual scrutiny has found no flaw, and they are credible sources from which to get the truth.

    Baha’u’llah must therefore be Amitabha, just as surely as we must both be brothers in the human race and children of the One True God. I encourage you to do more than “humor” us as you say. I was wrong when I used to quote Catholic dogma, so join me in admitting the possibility that you too are wrong about Baha’u’llah not being the promised Amitabha. Your being a Buddhist is OK with us Baha’i’s, as long as you follow a message uncorrupted by clergy, politics or tradition. In fact, Buddha’s uncorrupted message from God will lead you to the “update” from God just as surely as I was lead away from the Catholic teachings and found the Messiahs the priests were supposed to proclaim. Baha’u’llah is the second Messiah, and the Amitabha, and all praise and Glory go to God the Almighty.

    In service to the Cause of God,

  4. 4 Rasmus
    3:36 pm on May 11, 2008

    Whether my interpretation of the concept “Buddha Land” is incorrect or not is not that important to me. My main point is that the Pure Land sutras tell of a Buddha who lived in the distant past before Shakyamuni Buddha. They did not prophecy his coming in the future.
    Another thing I feel is important to emphasize is the fact that all of the various buddhist sects, notwithstanding the great differences in their teachings, deny the existence of an omnipotent creator god and an immortal soul. In fact, Buddhas main critique of the hindus was exactly that they belived in such things.
    That the catholic church corrupted the original teachings of Jesus is indisputable, but they did not change the basic cosmology of his faith, and they didn’t change a single word of the bible either. If Buddha preached the existence of an omnipotent creator god and the existence of an immortal soul, then the disciples of Buddha must have discarded his original teachings altogether and made up a completely new set of non-theist teachings.

  5. 5 Peace
    6:05 pm on May 12, 2008

    Rasmus, you are right, Buddha did not dwell on the existence of God. When Buddha appeared, the world already knew about God. Unfortunately, in the geography of Hinduism in which he appeared, One God was not enough, so they had many gods they worshiped instead. I am fairly certain that Buddha rebuked the practice of idolatry, which is why so many spiritual Hindus converted to Buddhism early on. But when idolatry likewise infected Buddhism, most of the Hindus renounced Buddhism and returned to their former worship, the idolatry of their ancestors, to keep the peace at home.

    Proving God was not Buddha’s chapter of the Book! Buddha’s chapter was about “Enlightenment.” And he taught The four-fold truth and the 8 noble paths (to enlightenment). Buddha taught us to meditate. If we meditate on the noble truths and paths, then this will lead us to enlightenment, that is, we will become filled with light!

    Just as at one time Buddha was the light of this world, today, Baha’u’llah is the light of this world. His name means “the Glory/Light of God.”

    In Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Aramaic, and even in the Hopi Land and to the Mayan’s, the letters ABH= “Light”.

    So in Sanskrit we have both “bhaa” as well as “abha” which both mean “Light.” in Maya and Hopi, both are awaiting the “Bahana” (the Teacher of Light) and the “Bahani” (the People of Light). Likewise, in Persian and Arabic, we have both “baha” and “abha” which both mean “light, glory and splendour.”

    My suggestion to you, having finally found us, is that you forget what anyone has ever taught you about Buddhist doctrines and just meditate on what Buddha himself taught (without the various explanations and commentaries of the monks) and see if you begin to enlighten. As you enlighten further I am certain you will begin to see our proofs in a new light, and then become fully enlightened. I am sure of it.


  6. 6 Rasmus
    2:38 am on May 13, 2008

    You’re right. Proving god wasn’t Shakyamunis chapter og the book. Disproving the soul was. He explained it to the hindus like so:

    “There is rebirth without the transmigration of a self.
    For this atman, this self, this ego in the ‘I say’ and in the ‘I will’ is an illusion. If this self were a reality, how could there be an escape from selfhood? The terror of hell would be infinite, and no release could be granted. The evils of existence would not be due to our ignorance and wrong-doing, but would constitute the very nature of our being.”

    And Shakyamuni didn’t focus on idolatry. He rebuked the hindus for worshipping gods altogether. He said the following about religion:

    “Rituals have no efficacy; prayers are vain repetitions; and incantations have no saving power. But to abandon covetousness and lust, to become free from evil passions,
    and to give up all hatred and ill-will, that is the right sacrifice and the true worship.”

    I think your religion and the Budhhist faith have very differing perceptions of what it means to be enlightened. Enlightenment, in Buddhism, is awakening to the truth of yourself, not the truth of any other person. It’s not finding some prophet or god. The great Zen masters of the past used to say that if you see a Buddha you should kill him. What they meant by this is that the Buddha is not something outside of our own minds. Buddhahood is inherent in each of us. So salvation is not attained by turning towards anything external.

    I want to leave you with this critique: You quote the bible extensively to prove your point to christians, but when you talk about buddhism you disregard scriptural evidence altogether, and demand that buddhists convert to your faith simply because of the similarity between the name of your prophet and the name of one of the many Buddhas that lived in the distant past. And I don’t think that’s entirely fair.

  7. 7 Rasmus
    10:18 am on May 13, 2008

    Talking about the Baha’i Faith’s relation to eastern religions, I’ve noticed that Confucius has no part in your religious scheme, in spite of the fact that Abdul Baha lists him among the divine manifestations. Can you explain this to me?

  8. 8 Henry
    11:08 am on May 16, 2008

    Rasmus, I have to say that I completely agree with your critique of these Baha’is. Their doctrine has too many inconsistencies to be taken seriously. They say that Buddha didn’t dwell on the existence of God because the Hindus were already theists. If so, then why did Jesus bother dwelling on the existence of God? Didn’t the Jews already believe in God?
    I’m not a Buddhist though, I’m a Neo-stoicist, so I definitely believe in God, though not in the same way these Baha’is believe in Him. I think accepting God in the Neo-stoic sense would be very easy for you. Neo-stoicism is pantheistic, so God is just another word for fate or nature or the universe. Quite comparable to the Buddhist concept of the Dharmakaya.
    In Neo-stoicism, like the Baha’is, we believe that every human being is imbued with something devine. That thing is reason. And because of reason, we humans are able to live according to the law of God, which is that we should not cling to anything impermanent. Most things in this world are impermanent, and if we cling to them we will suffer greatly. This doctrine is very similar to what Buddha taught, don’t you think?

  9. 9 Collin
    11:27 pm on May 16, 2008

    In answer to a question, what follows are three Baha’i quotes concerning Confucius:

    “Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light? How can we dispute the validity of His Holiness Christ? This is injustice. This is a denial of reality. Man must be just. We must set aside bias and prejudice. We must abandon the imitations of ancestors and forefathers. We ourselves must investigate reality and be fair in judgment.”
    (Shoghi Effendi, Japan Will Turn Ablaze, p. 45)

    “In short, all sections and parties have their aspirations realized in the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh. As these teachings are declared in churches, in mosques and in other places of worship, whether those of the followers of Buddha or of Confucius, in political circles or amongst materialists, all shall bear witness that these teachings bestow a fresh life upon mankind and constitute the immediate remedy for all the ills of social life. None can find fault with any of these teachings, nay rather, once declared they will all be acclaimed, and all will confess their vital necessity, exclaiming, ‘Verily this is the truth and naught is there beside the truth but manifest error.’”
    (Abdu’l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 26)

    “Question. — To which category do Buddha and Confucius belong?

    Answer. — Buddha also established a new religion, and Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues, but their institutions have been entirely destroyed. The beliefs and rites of the Buddhists and Confucianists have not continued in accordance with their fundamental teachings. The founder of Buddhism was a wonderful soul. He established the Oneness of God, but later the original principles of His doctrines gradually disappeared, and ignorant customs and ceremonials arose and increased until they finally ended in the worship of statues and images.”
    (Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 165)

  10. 10 Collin
    11:52 pm on May 16, 2008

    If I draw the correct interpretation from the above Baha’i writings, we cannot find fault with the teachings of Buddha or of Confucius, but we can find fault with the modern doctrine which bears the name, but not the substance. It would make sense, then, why a Buddhist would resist the Baha’i teachings: If he were truly a follower of Buddha or Confucius, then he would be embracing the message of the Prince of Peace Baha’u’llah who never criticized the message of Buddha.

    If there is not to be peace among followers of different religions, then it is not the fault of the Manifestations. God has sent new messengers, but God does not establish contradiction—just an update for the more modern times. I, personally, bear other religions no ill-will, and rhetoric between us has caused me to do the research and learn something of great value. Perhaps this is why Jesus told us to love our enemies.

    If any feel that the Baha’i religion is inaccurate or corrupt, they are correct. After the death of Shoghi Effendi, the Hands took control of the faith, and currently the pure message of Baha’u’llah is not upheld by the majority because the Covenant was broken. They (the Hands) said God changed his mind, and to say that is obviously wicked. Unfortunately, the great majority of Baha’i’s in the world at that time gave allegiance to the Hands, and not to the Guardian. Conversely, in fulfillment of God’s Covenant with David in Psalm 89, there exists in the world today a Guardian of the Cause of God who is a blood descendent of King David. This man is the president of the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) and his role is to protect the faith from corruption.
    See for more.

    “When the Covenant-breakers see that their wickedness is exposed they will come down in great wrath for they know that their time is short. They are the great losers in both this life and in the next, as God has prophesied complete victory for the legions of the Covenant, led by Jesus the Lamb.”

    “The Knights of the Lord are Dr. Leland Jensen (a Knight of Baha’u’llah, who was knighted by Shoghi Effendi) and those that now follow him—for they are the Legions of the Covenant that are his Knights. They, and the 144,000, shall become victorious over all the peoples of the world.”

    In service to the Cause of God,

  11. 11 Rasmus
    1:27 am on May 17, 2008

    I’ll agree with you that the worship of Buddha images is not original Buddhism, but rather stems from a mix between Buddhism and different pagan creeds. However the gradual perversion of Buddhist doctrine has to do with the Mahayana only, not Theravada Buddhism.
    The earliest Buddhist scriptures date to no more than 100 years after the death of Shakyamuni. These include most parts of the Pali Canon except the Khuddaka Nikaya. The earliest Mahayana sutras were composed in the 1st century CE, and can therefore not be ascribed to Shakymuni, only to the philosophical speculations of the Kushan Buddhists. They also include a trinitarian doctrine, similar to the Christian one that you oppose so fervently. This makes it extra strange that you cling to Amitabha, because, like the four other Dhyani Buddhas, he is only mentioned in the Mahayana sutras.
    I accept the similarities between the different religions of the world, but I cannot accept any of them as being equal to Buddhism. The Buddhist doctrine is far more scientific/realistic than any other religion in this world. I’m sorry, but it’s just not possible for me to view the Baha’i Faith as an “upgrade” of Buddhism.

  12. 12 Peace
    1:29 am on May 17, 2008

    I just want to be counted as one of the 144,000. I wonder if I have the mettle?


  13. 13 Henry
    4:11 am on May 18, 2008

    Let me try to summarize Rasmus’ critique for you, cause it doesn’t seem to be seeping in:

    1: Amitabha is not prophecied to come in the future in any of the Mahayana sutras, and even if he were, all Mahayana sutras were composed at least 500 years after the death of the historical Buddha, and must therefore be regarded as apocryphal.

    2: Even in the oldest known versions of the Buddhist scriptures, Buddha fervently attacks the theistic beliefs of the hindus and categorically denies the existence of an any kind of soul, so even if the historical Buddha originally did preach monotheism and belief in a soul, there’s no way of proving it.

    3: You count Adam as one of the nine divine manifestations but leave out Confucius, which is contradictory to the words of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

  14. 14 Henry
    7:45 am on May 18, 2008

    I also find it very curious indeed that the Baha’i Faith counts Buddha, who denied God and the soul, as a divine manifestation, but have no regard whatsoever for Mahavira, who, although he was an atheist just like Buddha, believed in the soul, and whose Five Great Vows are identical to the last five of the Ten Commandments.

  15. 15 Peace
    1:46 pm on May 21, 2008

    Henry, I am really not interested in what you say, or some monk says that Buddha said. These are worn out doctrines stemming from a geographical tendency towards Godlessness, sometimes known as paganism.

    Since you claim that Buddha “categorically denies the existence of a God or a soul,” please site Buddha’s exact words. Otherwise, the whole world can see that your claim of Buddhas “atheism” is just rhetorical and a personally absurd knock at God.

    To say that Buddha did not believe in God is tantamount to the absurd claim of Christians that “Jesus is God in the Flesh.”

    So Henry, lets see the exact Sutra where Buddha makes these claims. A Quote please. I want to see you site Buddha saying “There is no God” as much as I’d like to see a Christian site Jesus saying “I am God in the flesh.”

  16. 16 Rasmus
    5:00 am on May 22, 2008

    In the Sabhasava Sutta (found in the section of the Sutta Pitaka called the Majjhima Nikaya) the Buddha states the following:

    “”This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
    As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self… or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.”

    In the Maha-nidana Sutta (found in the section of the Sutta Pitaka called the Digha Nikaya) he says:

    “To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form and finite.’ Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form and infinite.’ Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless and finite.’ Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless and infinite.’
    “Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.
    “The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him.
    “The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite obsesses him.
    “The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite obsesses him.”

  17. 17 Rasmus
    6:11 am on May 22, 2008

    You should also try reading the Kokanuda Sutta which is found in the section of the Sutta Pitaka called the Anguttara Nikaya. It goes as follows:

    On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying near Rajagaha, at Tapoda monastery. Then, as night was ending, he got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. Having bathed his limbs and having gotten out of the springs, he stood wearing only his lower robe, drying his limbs. Kokanuda the wanderer, as night was ending, also got up & went to the Tapoda Hot Springs to bathe his limbs. He saw Ven. Ananda from afar, and on seeing him said to him, “Who are you, my friend?”

    “I am a monk, my friend.”

    “Which kind of monk?”

    “A son-of-the-Sakyan contemplative.”

    “I would like to ask you about a certain point, if you would give me leave to pose a question.”

    “Go ahead and ask. Having heard [your question], I’ll inform you.”

    “How is it, my friend: ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

    “No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

    “Very well, then: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

    “No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

    “Very well, then: ‘The cosmos is finite… The cosmos is infinite… The soul & the body are the same… The soul is one thing and the body another… After death a Tathagata exists… After death a Tathagata does not exist… After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist… After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.’ Is this the sort of view you have?”

    “No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.”

    “Then in that case, do you not know or see?”

    “No, my friend. It’s not the case that I don’t know, I don’t see. I do know. I do see.”

    “But on being asked, ‘How is it, my friend: “The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.” Is this the sort of view you have?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.’ On being asked, ‘Very well then: “The cosmos is not eternal… The cosmos is finite… The cosmos is infinite… The soul & the body are the same… The soul is one thing and the body another… After death a Tathagata exists… After death a Tathagata does not exist… After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist… After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.” Is this the sort of view you have?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend, I don’t have that sort of view.’ But on being asked, ‘Then in that case, do you not know, I don’t see?’ you inform me, ‘No, my friend. It’s not the case that I don’t know or see. I do know. I do see.’ Now, how is the meaning of this statement to be understood?”

    “‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,’ is a viewpoint. ‘The cosmos is not eternal… The cosmos is finite… The cosmos is infinite… The soul & the body are the same… The soul is one thing and the body another… After death a Tathagata exists… After death a Tathagata does not exist… After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist… After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless,’ is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that’s what I know. That’s what I see. Knowing that, I say ‘I know.’ Seeing that, I say ‘I see.’ Why should I say ‘I don’t know, I don’t see’? I do know. I do see.”

    “What is your name, my friend? What do your fellows in the chaste life call you?”

    “My name is Ananda, my friend, and that’s what my fellows in the chaste life call me.”

    “What? Have I been talking with the great teacher without realizing that it was Ven. Ananda? Had I recognized that it was Ven. Ananda, I would not have cross-examined him so much. May Ven. Ananda please forgive me.”

  18. 18 Henry
    3:02 am on May 23, 2008

    Okay, so saying that Buddha was an atheist may not be entirely correct. From the above quoted sutras it would seem more appropriate to conclude that he was a philosophical skeptic like Pyrrho.

  19. 19 Rasmus
    7:39 am on May 25, 2008

    Yes Henry. But whether Shakyamuni was an atheist or skeptic is not very important. In any case, the great Shakyamuni would have fervently rejected the dotrine of these Baha’is. Why? Because their doctrine is divisive. Because their doctrine will create suffering, even if it will unite mankind and stop wars. So, due to the deep compassion I have for my parents, my wife and future children, I must fervently reject the doctrine of these people, these socalled Baha’is. And so should you.

  20. 20 Henry
    11:15 am on May 25, 2008

    I completely agree with you Rasmus. The Baha’i doctrine is both primitive and irrational, and it will only create more division rather than create unity. Why? Because it lays claim to ultimate truth. This is exactly why I am a Stoic. It is a humble, rational philosophy, just like your Buddhism and other Indian faiths such as Sikhism.

  21. 21 Collin
    8:46 am on May 31, 2008

    “the divine teachings are intended to create a bond of unity in the human world and establish the foundations of love and fellowship among mankind. Divine religion is not a cause for discord and disagreement. If religion becomes the source of antagonism and strife, the absence of religion is to be preferred. Religion is meant to be the quickening life of the body politic; if it be the cause of death to humanity, its nonexistence would be a blessing and benefit to man. Therefore in this day the divine teachings must be sought, for they are the remedies for the present conditions of the world of humanity.”
    (Abdu’l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 22)

    “This small planet is not worthy of division. Is it not one home, one native land? Is not all humanity one race? Creationally there is no difference whatsoever between the peoples.

    How short-sighted we would be should we try to divide a room into the eastern and western corners.”
    (Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 178)

  22. 22 Rasmus
    10:42 am on May 31, 2008

    Well, Collin, I can only agree with these very wise sayings of Abdul Baha. But these are just empty words as far as I can see. The Baha’i Faith is just one among many failed attempts at creating a common world religion. And it’s not one of the best attempts, I might add. The Sikhs, for example, did a much better job.
    The problem with the Baha’i Faith is that it tries to impose an Abrahamic worldview on all the peoples of the world. Even on those for whom this worldview is quite alien.
    Instead of saying that it doesn’t matter what religion you have, because they are all paths leading to God, you have this ridiculous dogma that all religions have been corrupted and that is why none of them are able to create a harmonic world.
    Is the world inharmonious because some people believe in a triune god? No. Is it inharmonious because some people are atheists? Of course not. It’s inharmonious because of greed, anger and delusion. It’s inharmonious because of the poisons that torture the human mind.
    Instead of rambling on about prophecies that may or may not have foretold the coming of the founder of your faith, you should try giving the world something that will actually help.

  23. 23 Peace
    11:19 am on June 01, 2008

    Rasmus, helping the world, that is exactly what we are doing, that is, giving the world something that will actually help.

    We have prepared Shambhala for all the true seekers and believers. It is a heavenly place, here on Earth, and there is likely limited seating. And if you want a seat there I think you will find that trying to put us down or trying to argue with Baha’is over the existence of God is not going to get you any quick admissions. Shambhala is here now and filling quickly.

    Both Amit Abha (the 5th Buddha), and Maitreya have already appeared. It is said that Shambhala is located in the “Hidden Valleys.” Once you have read “The Hidden Words” and “The Seven Valleys,” two books by Baha’u’llah, the inner meanings of ancient Buddhist teachings, legends and prophecies become clear.

    Once someone says, “hey, I am willing to dump some water out of my cup, to make some room for fresh water,” then they are willing to truly and sincerely investigate these matters with a pure heart and an open mind and then, after the investigation and search is fulfilled, they can see that all the help the world needs is extant in Baha’u’llah’s Revelation.

    But some souls are too preoccupied with self, and demand that God show them their favorite movie rather than being selfless and accepting that God has a movie He’d prefer everyone watch.

  24. 24 Collin
    7:20 pm on June 01, 2008

    I would love to give the world something that will actually help. I’ll start by explaining to the readers where your logic is flawed. If the reader sees that you are prejudice—that you have formed opinions without the facts—then they may turn away from darkness and turn toward the light.

    You said the Baha’i faith is a failed attempt. From 1863 until now is just 145 years. Since me and my fellows are still teaching our free message of peace on earth, we have not failed. God’s timetable is in play, and it doesn’t have to please the Rasmus’s of the world.

    You agreed with God’s messenger ‘Abdu’l-Baha when he said, “Therefore in this day the divine teachings must be sought, for they are the remedies for the present conditions of the world of humanity.”

    But if you then say the Baha’i faith has failed, then perhaps what has failed is your effort to understand these divine teachings. That brings us to dogma: You say that it is a dogma of mine that all religions have been corrupted. This is not dogma, just the truth. In fact, the corruption of the religions of the world is due to their dogma. It is precisely their dogma that differs from the founder’s message. For example, Jesus can’t be both the Messiah and the physical son of God. Another example of flawed dogma is teaching that Jesus is the “Prince of Peace” when Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
    (Matt 10:34)

    Let us examine the Baha’i dogma. Listed below are the twelve principles of the Baha’i faith. If you understand them, you will see that they cannot fail to bring the prophesied peace on earth.

    1. The Oneness of Humanity
    2. Independent, Unfettered Investigation of the Truth
    3. Religion is Progressive, All having a Common Foundation
    4. Religion must be the Source of Unity
    5. True Science and True Religion must Correspond
    6. The Equality of Men and Women
    7. Removal of all Prejudice
    8. Universal Peace upheld by a Spiritual World Government
    9. Universal Compulsary Education
    10. A Spiritual Solution to the Economic Problem
    11. A Universal Auxiliary Language
    12. Universal House of Justice with the Davidic King

    Each principle is explained further at

    What about you, Rasmus? Can you participate in giving the world something that will actually help? Certainly as a non-Baha’i you have a right to question our beliefs, but at what point will you hold off making comments that show your prejudice? In other words, you can continue to belittle our message, or you can try to understand that we are here precisely because we want to help.
    In service to the Cause of God,

  25. 25 Rasmus
    3:13 am on June 02, 2008

    I understand that you want to help. Of course I do. And I respect you for that. It’s very admirable. And I completely agree with, well, at least nine of the twelve principles you mention. But that’s as far as my sympathy goes. I do not believe in mixing religion with politics. Neither did Buddha or Jesus, I might add. I believe everybody should have the right not to be spiritual. I don’t believe they should have the right to brake basic human taboos like killing, stealing and committing adultery, but no one should have religion imposed upon them. And I fear that that is exactly what is going to happen if the Baha’i world order is established. We should admonish people to cultivate themselves, and try to show them that this is how we will all truely become happy and peaceful.
    Because of the many inconcistencies, I cannot believe in your faith, even if I sympathize with most of your goals. By the way, Shambhala is a comcept that Tibetan Buddhism has taken from the Bönpo religion. It was not mentioned in the original teachings of Shakyamuni.

  26. 26 Henry
    10:39 am on June 03, 2008

    Indeed, world peace and the unity of mankind are admirable goals for a religion to aspire towards. However, I would not want to live under the Baha’i world order. Even if it is, for the most part, a democratic system, it depends upon the majority of the people of the world having faith in its divine authority. So it will need to indictrinate it citizens and limit freethinking to some extent.

  27. 27 Peace
    1:10 am on June 04, 2008

    Henry, your comment screams lack of knowledge about the Baha’i Faith. Very presumptuous, Bordering on prejudiced and certainly mistaken.

  28. 28 Henry
    6:19 am on June 07, 2008

    Look Peace, I have read the Baha’i scriptures. And I’ve read all the b.s. you guys post on your websites too. My knowledge about the faith, and your interpretation of it, is in no way lacking. Anyway, try proving me wrong. Prove to me that the system can exist without supressing critics, without supressing those who do not regocnize the authority of the socalled “house of justice”.
    It can’t. You’ve said it yourself. The Baha’i world order will only become established after there has been a nuclear holocaust to wipe out all the wicked, nasty unbelievers.
    Even if that does occur, do you really expect every single human being that is born into this world 1000 years hence to accept the baha’i faith unquestioningly? Do you really expect people to be that mindless?
    I am not prejudiced. I am simply a skeptic. And I think it will be evident to everyone that reads Baha’u’llahs Kitab-i-Aqdas, that skeptics are simply not welcome neither in the Baha’i Faith nor under the Baha’i world order. I don’t believe they will be killed (directly), but surpressed none the less.

  29. 29 Jeff
    5:04 pm on June 08, 2008

    Henry, I think you’re taking some of the ideas you’ve read to an extreme; one that’s not inherent or explicit to them. I’m sure you’re aware that the idea of Armageddon didn’t originate with the Baha’is. In fact, the idea that a nuclear holocaust is involved with Armageddon comes from descriptions obtained in Revelations. These ideas are shared between several religions. Painting this concept the way you’ve chosen to is disingenuous, for you couldn’t possibly believe these things of Baha’is. It was Jesus’ Revelation who first proposed 2/3rds of mankind would die on Judgment Day. It hardly seems worth picking apart all the ways you’ve mis-characterized our beliefs; suffice to say you’re clearly exaggerating on every account. I wasn’t aware belittling sarcasm was a virtue of Stoicism?

  30. 30 Henry
    10:52 am on June 09, 2008

    I do believe that the idea that all the wicked infidels need to be killed off through a nuclear holocaust is shared with you only by certain fundamentalist groups, not by several world religions. And thank God for that.
    Your comment still doesn’t answer the issue of whether the Baha’i world order can be upheld without the use of force or indoctrination or without limiting certain freedoms that most would regard as essential to a democratic system.

  31. 31 Jeff
    2:04 pm on June 09, 2008

    Henry, your replies are becoming increasingly absurd. There is no “issue”, as you suggest, outside of the ones you’ve invented and super-imposed onto our beliefs. These “issues” you’re demanding answers to are inventions of your own vivid imagination, so answering to them would be as absurd as the question itself. You already know we don’t believe either of the two outcomes you predict are intentions the Baha’i intend to pursue.

    Likewise the notion of “infidels” needing to be killed off was never gleaned from any Baha’i writings or websites but are the product of your imagination as well. It was Jesus’ Revelation that explicitly states in Rev. 9:15 and then v.18 that the Four Winds of Destruction would kill 2/3rds of mankind. To this the whole Muslim world accepts and upholds about his Revelation along with the whole of Christianity which comprises a sum total of approximately 3 billion believers combined. This notion was not derived from vague a statement of scriptures but from: “15. And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind.”; and from “18. A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths.”. Few verses in all the Bible are as explicit regarding the fate of our future. Any Christians that claim to accept Jesus yet reject his Revelation are such in name only. You’re entirely misinformed if you don’t believe that all of Christianity and Islam are awaiting these same events that we also accept as inevitable. You’re equally as misinformed if you think this has anything to do with infidels, or who’s religion will win out over another. This is about humanity recognizing that we’re all leave of one tree, and children of the one true invisible God that created us all. It is hardly productive for you to continue to mis-characterize these simple widely held notions with your broad prejudiced strokes. They did not originate in Baha’i doctrines, nor are they held by any sort of minority. This site is here to share information, not to indulge the rhetoric and conjecture of anyone wishing to muddy the waters. Thanks for sharing; take care.

  32. 32 Henry
    9:07 am on June 10, 2008

    Your reluctance to give me a proper answer merely proves my point. Thanx. Bye.

  33. 33 Jeff
    8:41 pm on June 10, 2008

    Reluctance? I did answer you: “You already know we don’t believe either of the two outcomes you predict are intentions the Baha’i intend to pursue.”

    You never established it as a valid concern deserving of an explanation; it’s patently absurd conjecture. You can’t expect us to comment on your made-up exaggerations.

    Why can’t you be honest and acknowledge the extent to which the Apocalypse is widely accepted and adhered to? You clearly feel better about yourself by being dismissive and marginalizing us; that’s very Stoic of you. Bu-bye.

  34. 34 Henry
    5:32 am on June 13, 2008

    Whether you intend it or not does not answer whether the system can be opheld without using force, indoctrination or the limiting of democratic rights. I’m sorry if my raising the issue irritates you, but I think my concerns are very valid. Why shouldn’t they be?
    And whether half the worlds population believes in the Apocalypse is besides the point. But they don’t. I know for a fact that most christians or muslims don’t believe in it, even if you think they should. Not all people have the same fanatic tendencies as you. In any case, belief in the Apocalypse is not shared by “several religions” as you said earlier, only by a couple.

  35. 35 Henry
    7:01 am on June 13, 2008

    Anyway, this thread is not about the Baha’i world order. It’s about Buddhism and the prophets and their prophecies. And I think it might be good for your cause if you had some good answers to the following five questions:

    1) Where in the Buddhist scriptures does Buddha prophecy the coming of Amitabha in the future?
    2) Where in the Buddhist scriptures does Buddha refute idolatry?
    3)Why do you not accept Mahavira as a prophet rather than Buddha?
    4) Why do you not accept Guru Nanakh as a prophet?
    5) Abdul Baha named Confucius as a prophet, so why do the BUPC’s not accept him as a prophet?

  36. 36 Peace
    4:10 pm on June 13, 2008

    Like I said, you are not going to use our blog as your soapbox for disbelief. It is apparent to me now that you have no interest in the Baha’i Faith but only to spread your atheism, which ain’t going to fly here. I have removed the last four comments from this thread as they are inflammatory and derogatory.

    If you have sincere questions about the Baha’i Faith you can leave them here but not your frivolous arguments against. You have the wrong blog Rasmus and Henry.


  37. 37 Peace
    4:14 pm on June 13, 2008

    It is a shame that the so-called Buddhists will probably be the last ones to wake up top the reality of Buddha, Baha’u’llah and begin to understand the mystries of Amit Abha.

  38. 38 Collin
    8:48 pm on June 15, 2008

    Perhaps the discussion or “argument” on this thread parallels what is happening in society today. We see that Henry really believes that his opinions are worth more than the opinions of the almighty God. Although Henry seems to have substantial intelligence, he makes the classic mistake in trusting his own intelligence rather than the infallible word of God. I think the ancient Greeks called that “hubris”.

    When I took the fireside classes offered through this rogue group of Bahai’s that remain loyal to the Covenant of God, I was given logical proof that Baha’u’llah fulfills prophecy and is the return of Christ. I was given logical proof that Dr. Leland Jensen fulfills prophecy and is the return of Jesus. I am not a dummy, and anyone who starts to roll their eyes at those statements had better check their prejudice. To judge that I am wrong without getting the information is a serious intellectual blunder. Perhaps it is also cowardice.

    Anyway, the bottom line is that I don’t believe Henry speaks the truth because Henry doesn’t speak with the infallible word of God. I have no concerns about a world order where people have to be indoctrinated because Henry just made that up. I guess that I can trust in the plan of God even if Henry advises you not to. It’s your choice.

    “All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error.”
    (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 25)

    Even simple-minded people know the difference between war and peace. Undoubtedly, we will have peace on earth because the kingdom of God will be on earth as it is in heaven. I am not afraid of the change from the war and politics of the current regime. I gladly pray, “Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done.” I don’t care if Henry talks trash of the plan of God for peace as written by Baha’u’llah. Henry doesn’t understand the whole of the peace plan. Henry has issues. Perhaps these issues can be fixed with education.

    Time for an analogy: When we are little, we need a grown-up to teach us how to read. We can’t begin to read if no one teaches us the sounds the letters make. For example, “sh” is a sound to be quiet, “mm” is for tastes good, and “zz” is a sound bees make. These sounds can’t be reversed. If children were allowed to pick random letters to represent sounds, then they won’t be able to read. The analogy is like Henry who wants to invent what God means without going to the source. Dumb idea.

    So, my advice to the reader—get some more information from this site and from the links it provides. Learn the truth behind each utterance like you know the sound that each letter makes. It will serve you well.

    In service to the Cause of God,

  39. 39 Rasmus
    12:18 pm on June 16, 2008

    Although there is a great chance that Peace will just censure this comment away, and that I’m just waisting my time, I really feel somebody should retort, because there is something deeply disquieting, and also contradictory, about what Collin wrote.
    We shouldn’t trust our intelligence? Aren’t you guys always saying that we should use our God-given intellects to investigate the truth, and that this is what seperates us from the animals? Now you’re suddenly asking us to accept the so-called word of God unquestioningly? How can you be so certain that the Bible and the Baha’i scriptures are Gods revelation? What is it that makes you feel you need to take their words as infallible? I don’t think Henry’s problem is that he thinks that his own words or ideas are worth more than Gods, I just don’t think he believes in God the same way you do.
    And like I’ve already told you, you can’t expect people who adhere to eastern religious traditions to be converted via proofs taken from the Bible or the Qur’an or any other scriptures that they do not accept as the truth.

    In service to humanity,


  40. 40 Collin
    10:13 pm on June 18, 2008

    I agree with you that we should trust our intelligence. I agree with you that we should use our intellect to investigate the truth. In doing so, I am confident that an intelligent person will be able to discern who are the Promised ones. I agree with you that Henry doesn’t believe in God the same way I do. Henry accepts what he was taught unquestioningly from a source that cannot be confirmed through the intellect.

    It would be cool if Henry and/or you would actually study the proofs that are explained on our web pages. These free resources are made available to seekers of truth by people who are loyal to the Covenant of God. With some study, perhaps you will understand my point that the complicated Will of God has knowingly been shared with the Promised ones who then inform us. If we are misinformed by corrupt clergy or pseudoscience or superstitions, the messages of the Promised ones can be studied to set us straight. If you want to agree with Henry because “it feels good” to make up your own truth, that is your choice. If you want to mischaracterize my words, or read only part of my post, that is also your choice. However, I hope you commit to demonstrating some actual courage. In your next post, tell me what you have learned about the golden calling card of name, date, address and mission. Tell me how our web pages explain how the first and second Messiahs fulfill this golden criteria.

    As it says in the first PDF I want you to read, “God is a very scientific spirit.” I understand that it may be scary for you to face the possibility that your spiritual understanding may grow. Perhaps you will find fault with your eastern religion just as I found fault with Christian dogma. However, Jesus and Buddha are faultless. What I am suggesting is that the dogma invented around their teachings may contradict their teachings. Each time Jesus and Buddha are in agreement we are seeing a remnant of the pure religion of God.
    And just for the record, I didn’t just make up the underlying truths within my statements—I am just trying to spread truths that I have learned in a context that hopefully addresses your concerns.
    In service to the Cause of God,

  41. 41 Rasmus
    9:33 am on June 20, 2008

    Okay, I’ve looked at Dr. Lelands teachings regarding the Biblical proofs for Baha’u’llah (again). Some linguistic notes for you:

    He keeps saying Baha’u’llah is Aramaic. But it isn’t. It’s Arabic. The Aramaic for “glory of God” is teshbukhta d alaha or tishbooqtaa d alaahaa depending on the dialect. Perhaps if he’d bothered to actually read the Aramaic Bible he would have known this. This is beside the point though, because the original language of the Book of Ezekiel is not Aramaic, it’s Hebrew.

    He makes the same mistakes regarding Amitabha by the way. He says Arabic has its roots in Sanskrit but everybody with just a basic knowledge about the genetic affiliations of the world’s languages knows that this isn’t so. Sanskrit is Indo-European and Arabic is Semitic.

    The question at this point is: Do you really exspect the people of the world to believe that an infallible prophet of God would make such rooky mistakes? That he would be such a linguistic and literary amateur?

  42. 42 Peace
    11:19 am on June 20, 2008

    Rasmus, I have removed your last comment. Any posts that violate the spirit of this blog, that is, investigation of, and discussions pertaining to, the Baha’i Faith, are removed. Like I said, this is not a platform for you or any one else to attack the Baha’i Faith or any of its principles or key figures or members. The spirit of investigation is inquiry, not accusation.

    The next time you do this I will ban your from our blog.

    You have any sincere questions? When you are done attacking and accusing feel free to ask.


  43. 43 Rasmus
    3:34 pm on June 20, 2008

    Yes. I’m sorry. I actually do have a sincere question. It shall be my final one, I promise.
    I’d like to know how you interpret Matthew 24:29-31.

  44. 44 Peace
    4:25 pm on June 20, 2008

    Rasmus Q. I’d like to know how you interpret Matthew 24:29-31

    Peace A. That is a great question Rasmus. And trust me when I say that there are Tens of Millions of people who want to know the true meaning of words of Jesus and especially these particular verses. Although the question is based in the Bible, surprisingly, the answer is universal. So I am going to start a new thread about What Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24:29-31.

    That way we can keep our topics focused and categorized.


  45. 45 Peace
    12:35 pm on July 27, 2008

    Ok, I finally got it posted:

  46. 46 Jo
    10:23 pm on February 28, 2009

    I live in Tonga where the Bahai try and do a ‘good’ job at converting Christians to the ‘Faith’ with every hypocritical means they know how. I am Buddhist and cannot subscribe in anyway to the Bahai teachings.. dogma is the only way i could describe them but i wanted to search after been told that Bahalluha was the 5th incarnation of the Buddha. I find this discussion incredibly interesting and am very happy we have such people as Rasmus supporting the case for Buddhism v’s Bahai. I have no problem with any religion in the world but please this is one religion that will NOT take NO for an answer. It is full of people that are so brain washed into the Bahai way of teachings that they cannot see outside the square. It is very easy following a religion where every rule regulation is written and no thought is required from the individual. I wish though they would get their facts in order as to stop trying to make them the only one way to believe. There are some good things in the Baha’i faith i don’t doubt that but please before you teach your disciples get the facts right and stop in so much as ‘putting and altering’ other religions and spiritualities. Buddhism and Baha’i are miles apart.. every religion, faith has some similarities but thats where it ends.

  47. 47 Pelides
    11:35 am on April 17, 2009

    Hello. I noticed that you BUPC’s consider Krishna a prophet of God, and you consider the Gita to be God’s revelation. You also postulate that Baha’ullah is a reincarnation of Krishna, coming as the ninth avatar, and that Leland Jensen is is the tenth, the Kalki Avatar.

    This is all very confusing to me, because it seems very inconsistent both with your own but also with hindu doctrine. So I would be very thankful if anyone here could please answer the following questions:

    1. Do the BUPC’s believe in reincarnation? If so this seems to be contrary to the words of Baha’ullah himself. If not, then how can you consider the Gita to be God’s revelation?
    2. How can both Baha’ullah and Leland Jensen be avatars of God? Isn’t Dr. Jensen supposed to a minor prophet, a socalled “establisher”?
    3. In hinduism the Lord Buddha is actually considered the ninth avatar of God, Lord Krishna himself being the eighth. I guess you consider this erroneous?

  48. 48 Bob
    12:38 am on June 03, 2009

    May the Medicine Buddha deliver you all from your ignorance through the power of his heart dharani:


  49. 49 namaste girl
    5:48 pm on July 24, 2009

    Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.

  50. 50 ingrid
    5:00 am on August 11, 2009

    Hello, my name is Ingrid. I just declared as Baha’i since last January. I want to ask, what is Baha’i’s point of view about reincarnation? I myself do believe in reincarnation, since there are many evidences/ proofs that some people could still remember places or events in their pass life.
    I believe that our soul/ spirit evolve through journey in purpose to be closer with and reach The Light of God. I also believe that our life in this material world just like a teaching class that teach us to develop our soul, so after we pass away, our spirit/ soul will develop through journey that make our soul grows, including our journey in this material world as an advance teaching class through reincarnation..

  51. 51 Empty
    2:36 pm on December 06, 2009

    Those Who Speak Do Not Know
    Those Who Know Do Not Speak

    We are trapped in the circle of Maya here.

    There is no progress to be made

  52. 52 Maura Tohonnie
    5:37 am on February 17, 2010

    I bookmarked this page before and just found it again … well put and I will definately be sending this on once I get to my work PC …

  53. 53 Cal Feldman
    4:26 pm on July 15, 2010

    Dear Ingrid –

    Here are my personal thoughts on the subject of reincarnation.

    Reincarnation was the result of the ‘separation’ (denial of the divine Plan)that took place eons ago, also referred to as the ‘rebellion in heaven’. References to this can be found in the Urantia Book.

    Baha’u’llah teaches that the Universe is folded within the human reality, however, its realization is dependent upon an awakening within of one’s celestial nature.

    Freeing oneself for the limitations of separation occurs when the individual releases the ego (illusion based on fear, pride, hatred, judgment, etc.)in favor of Spirit. Without the limitations of separation, the individual is free to progress more swiftly towards love and Light, thereby advancing into higher consciousness and the Kingdom of Heaven.

    Furthermore, through Baha’u’llah’s revelation of the names and attributes of God, individuals can now awaken to the realization that all are one, created in image of God. Herein lies the Light of the Universe within – mirroring forth the divine qualities through the rays of the Sun of Reality.

    To conclude, reincarnation (based on separation) is replaced by the enlightened individual that acknowledges Reality is One, and that all are of the Light.


  54. 54 Relation Tarot
    6:46 am on June 01, 2011

    A lot of people look at Tarot as being a pure divination technique. Yet Tarot is way more. Tarot will show you more about yourself. It shows you what your needs and wishes are. Tarot reveals your deeper motives. This way Tarot helps you to get a better life.

Leave a Reply