Talk:Baháʼí Faith and Buddhism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not comparing the two religions in a bilateral way[edit]

I saw the articles and archived through to compare it to all the other comparative religion articles. All articles comparing Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Theospohy, etc. has similarities, differences, each religions relationship to the other, each religion intereactions with the other, each religions influence on the other, etc. But this article only present a one sided Bahai dominated article unlike all the other religion comparison articles. It's not bad enough to be put up for deletion, but is heavily in need of reform. --149.162.123.183 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, unlike the other categories of religious comparison, this article seems to be more of a Buddhism in the Bahai Faith, Bahai Faith presents Buddhism, etc. rather than a true comparison.--149.162.123.183 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons listed above. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


To limit the relevant links, here's a better summary.

Gnosticism added to the list of comparison articles. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does Bahai Faith and Buddhism compare to the above articles? When Buddhism and Christianity, Jainism, Theosophy, and Hinduism are compared you have a bilateral comparison of the two religions. Unlike those articles, this article seems to be only what Baha'is believe about Buddhism rather than a comparison article like the others. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All one needs to do is compare the article introductions.

Following the initial contacts between Christian missionaries and Buddhism in the 13th century, discussions regarding the similarities and differences of, and a possible relationship between Buddhism and Christianity began and the 20th century witnessed a better understanding of the issues and the concepts.[1][2] Although surface level non-scholarly analogies have been drawn between the two traditions, Buddhism and Christianity have inherent and fundamental differences at the deepest levels, beginning with monotheism's place at the core of Christianity and Buddhism's orientation towards non-theism and its rejection of the notion of a creator deity which runs counter to teachings about God in Christianity; and extending to the importance of Grace in Christianity against the rejection of interference with Karma in Theravada Buddhism, etc.[3][4][5] Another irreconcilable difference between the two traditions is the Christian belief in the centrality of the crucifixion of Jesus as a single event that acts as the atonement of sins, and its direct contrast to Buddhist teachings.[1][2] The majority of modern scholarship has roundly rejected any historical basis for the travels of Jesus to India or Tibet or influences between the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism, and has seen the attempts at parallel symbolism as cases of parallelomania which exaggerate the importance of trifling resemblances.[6][7][8][9]

The practices and goals of Buddhism and Hinduism have similarities and differences. The Theravada Buddhism is relatively conservative, and generally closest to the early form of Buddhism. However, the more historical or beginning forms of Hinduism and the teachings of Buddha have pronounced differences, as evident in the recorded materials of the Pali Canon of the Theravada school of Buddhism. The historical Vedic religion, Buddhism, Jainism, and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which is considered among the very earliest Upanishads,[1] (the Upanishad text was compiled under King Janaka of Mithila) all share a common cultural theme influenced by the north eastern areas of India, modern day eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Nepal. Hinduism and Buddhism have shared parallel beliefs that have existed side by side.[2] The influence of Upanishads, earliest philosophical texts of Hindus, on Buddhism has been a subject of debate among scholars. While Radhakrishnan, Oldenberg and Neumann were convinced of Upanishadic influence on the Buddhist canon, Eliot and Thomas highlighted the points where Buddhism was opposed to Upanishads.[3] Buddhism may have been influenced by some Upanishadic ideas, it however discarded their orthodox tendencies.[4] In Buddhist texts he is presented as rejecting avenues of salvation as "pernicious views".[5] Later Indian religious thoughts were influenced by this interpretation and novel ideas of the Buddhist tradition of beliefs.[6] The period between 5th and 9th century CE was the most brilliant epoch in the development of Indian philosophy as Hindu and Buddhist philosophies flourished side by side.[7] Buddhism attained prominence in the Indian subcontinent, but was ultimately eclipsed in the 11th century CE at its point of origin by Hinduism and Islam. While Buddhism declined in India, Buddhism continued outside of India. Tibetan Buddhism is the predominant religion in the Himalayan region while Theravada Buddhism continues in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, and Mahayana Buddhism continues in India, East Asia and among the Chinese diaspora.

Buddhism and Jainism are two branches of the Shramana tradition that still exist today. Jainism has historically been largely confined to India, whereas Buddhism flourished beyond the borders of its country of origin where it declined during the Middle Ages. Mahavira and Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. Buddha, or Enlightened One) were contemporaries and according to the Pali scriptures Siddhartha Gautama was aware of Mahavira's existence as well as his community of monks. Jainism and Buddhism share many features including much of the same terminology. There is no doubt that there was a mutual influence and reception of both religions although Jainism does appear to be an older spiritual tradition out of which Buddhism may have grown.[citation needed]

Theosphical teachings have borrowed some concepts and terms from Buddhism. Theosophical writers have also interpreted some Buddhist teachings in unorthodox ways. Some theosophists like Blavatsky, Helena Roerich and Henry Steel Olcott also became Buddhists. Henry Steel Olcott helped shape the design of the Buddhist flag. Tibetan Buddhism was popularised in the West at first mainly by theosophists like: Evans-Wentz, Alexandra David-Neel. Blavatsky sometimes compared Theosophy to Mahayana Buddhism. In the Key to Theosophy she writes: "But the schools of the Northern Buddhist Church…teach all that is now called Theosophical doctrines, because they form part of the knowledge of the initiates..."

Buddhism is recognized in the Bahá'í Faith as one of nine known religions and its scriptures are regarded as predicting the coming of Bahá'u'lláh (Maitreya). Buddha is included in the succession of Manifestations of God. The authenticity of the current canon of Buddhist scriptures is seen as uncertain. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of Bahá'ís from Buddhist background.[1]

The last one shows a bias not present in the others. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One difficulty here may be in finding enough reliable sources to ensure an article on this is not original research. If you notice, the other articles have significant sources not just for facts about the two religions involved but also about their comparison. With Baha'i/Buddhism there doesn't seem to be a lot of material that is addressing this comparative question and not from a Baha'i-based perspective. This would seem to make it difficult. Though I might try to take a stab at it on my user page, and comments could be given about that version. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd provide a url to your sandbox I'm sure it would be an interesting development. --Smkolins (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started a new sandbox at User:Mike4ty4/Bahá'í Faith and Buddhism. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info that should be worked in somehow[edit]

It doesn't deal with this directly, but has implications for the article.

Nichiren Buddhism and Maitreya as metaphor[edit]

Statue of Maitreya Buddha at Wat Intharawihan, Bangkok According to the Lotus Sutra of Nichiren Buddhism, all persons possess the potential to reveal an innate Buddha nature during their own lifetimes, a concept which may appear to contradict the concept of Buddha as savior or messiah.

Although Maitreya is a significant figure in the Lotus Sutra, the explanation of Nichiren is that Maitreya is a metaphor of stewardship and aid for the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, as written in the Lotus Sutra:

Moreover...all the bodhisattvas, Bodhisattva Maitreya....will guard and protect the votaries of the Lotus Sutra, so one may indeed rest assured.[16]

In much of his writing, Nichiren mentions the traditional Buddhist views on Maitreya but explains that the propagation of the Eternal Dharma of the Lotus Sutra was entrusted by Shakyamuni to the Bodhisattvas of earth:

The Buddha did not entrust these five characters to Maitreya, Medicine King, or the others of their group. Instead he summoned forth the bodhisattvas....from the great earth of Tranquil Light and transferred the five characters to them.[17]

Thus, each individual can embody the character of the Maitreya because he is a metaphor for compassion:

The name Maitreya means ‘Compassionate One’ and designates the Votaries of the Lotus Sutra.[18]

Soka Humanism has better info:

Tibetan Buddhism and The myth of “new Buddha”

Among various Mahayana schools of Buddhism, Tibetan teachings in particular hold the belief that Buddhism is currently heading towards decline: a decline which will end in a complete disintegration of its teachings in the future.

This self-destructive doctrine of Traditional Buddhism is contained within the belief in “Maitreya” predicting both: the future decline of Buddhism and the coming of a “new Buddha Maitreya”, who is expected to arrive on Earth to start Buddhism anew” - according to the myth. This myth undermines the validity and capacity of Shakyamuni Buddha’s Buddhahood, diminishing his ability to teach a reliable and enduring Dharma.

The origin of Maitreya myth:

Buddhism developed - as it is traditionally accepted – over three distinguished periods of time, called: the Former, Middle and Latter Day of the Dharma. The Latter Day of the Dharma refers to a time when Shakyamuni’s early and provisional (or preparatory) teachings would lose their power to help people, while - at the same time - his final teaching (of the Lotus Sutra) would emerge and flourish all over the world. However, various Mahayana schools still follow the Buddha’s transient (preparatory) teachings, expounded before the Lotus Sutra. In these pre-Lotus teachings Shakyamuni had not yet revealed the Eternal Dharma.

For this reason most schools of Buddhism, which do not consider the Lotus Sutra as the final and complete teaching (in which Shakyamuni revealed the Eternal Dharma), had to develop a ‘solution’ to rescue Buddhism from complete disappearance after predicted decline. This ‘solution’ is the concept of a new Buddha who “fill the gap” by his apperance to reveal the Eternal Dharma and he would then start Buddhism anew.

Similarity of Traditional Buddhism with Abrahamic Religions regarding the coming of a Future Saviour

Abrahamic religions express a belief that after great destruction and sufferings, there will be a future saviour who would descend from heaven on Earth - or emerge somehow on the planet. This suggestion, however, implies that the original teachings of these religions are not complete or final (otherwise there would have been no need for a new appearance of a Saviour to teach new teachings. Traditional Buddhist schools, which incorporate the concept of a Future Buddha in their teachings depend in fact on this premise, that Shakyamuni’s Buddhism will face decline and disintegration - and therefore requires renewal through a saviour.


Why Maiterya is redundant

Buddhist teachings are expressions of eternal or abiding laws which do not vanish in time. Nichiren quotes the Lotus Sutra :“All the characteristics of the world are constantly abiding” WND 318. There is no “Expiry date” for the Buddhist truth. For example, the Law of Impermanence, the Principle of Non-duality, the nature of Void (non-substantiality), the truth of Dependant Origination, the inherent Buddhanature in all people…etc… these principle are consistent and non-changing in time or space. They are final, complete and eternal, because they describe life, which is eternal. The Principles of Buddhism do not “decline”. For this reason, the assumed “new Buddha” will not bring anything “new” to the teachings available now in the Lotus Sutra, and as such the concept of New Buddha is redundant: “If Nichiren’s compassion is truly great and encompassing, Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo will spread for ten thousand years and more, for all eternity”. WND1 p 736

Nichiren’s view on Maitreya

Nichiren viewed the meaning of Maitreya as “one of the protective forces” and a function of “guarding and helping” the Bodhisattvas of the Earth:

“Moreover… all the bodhisattvas, Bodhisattva Maitreya … will guard and protect the votaries of the Lotus Sutra, so one may indeed rest assured”. WND1 p1074 In many of his writing, Nichiren mentions the traditional Buddhist views on Maitreya - but clearly explains that the propagation of the Eternal Dharma of the Lotus Sutra was entrusted by Shakyamuni to the “Earth Bodhisattvas”: “ The Buddha did not entrust these five characters to Maitreya, Medicine King, or the others of their group. Instead he summoned forth the bodhisattvas….from the great earth of Tranquil Light and transferred the five characters to them”. WND1 p437 In view of Nichiren Buddhism, each person embodies the character of “the Maitreya” because Maitreya is a metaphor for the function of compassion : “The name Maitreya means ‘Compassionate One’ and designates the Votaries of the Lotus Sutra” Orally Transmitted Teachings p 143. Maitreya myth is based on disbelief in the potential of humanity

The mythology of Maitreya (as the second in line Buddha) implies also that no one in the history of humanity was able to become a Buddha equal to Shakyamuni, and no one will – until “new” Buddha Maitreya descends from Heaven. This myth makes of Shakyamuni Buddha a “failed teacher” who could not convey a teaching which would raise others to his level of Buddhahood. Additionally, such beliefs in Traditional Buddhism convey also a disbelief and doubt in the potentials of all human beings. The idea of a saviour “descending from Heaven” contains a sense of inferiority of ordinary people, as being themselves incapable of embodying - in the depth of their lives - the Universal Law.

Some fanatic Christian sects share the Traditional Buddhist perspective that the future of humanity should be expected to decline in great sufferings - an “aspiration” they have to prove their point of the reason why humanity needs a “saviour” descending from heaven. The pessimist and inferior thinking of mind (in disbelief in humanity’s ability and potential) is the common ground for generating the idea of the need for a “saviour coming from above”.

Turning “New Buddha” into a commercial enterprise

Maitreya myth is turned into a commercial project involving a proposed 150 m high statute to be built in Northern India. The cost of such a project will be paid by ordinary people world wide. Donations are encouraged by the project managers.

Many Buddhist practitioners - however, on the individual level - object to using Maitreya myth to collect donations and – worse – to evict local farmers (Kushinagari) in Northern India from the location where the huge statue is supposed to be erected.

Conclusion

The history of Buddhism abounds with legends and mythological beliefs, such as Amida Buddha living in a different galaxy in the “western universe”, and Maitreya bodhisattva learning Buddhahood in “Heaven”. These beliefs may have been used in the past to inspire people to enlightenment. The final teachings of the Lotus Sutra encompass all Buddhist metaphors and incorporate all Buddhist beliefs in a practice most suited to modern times, overcoming pessimistic views about future destruction of Buddhism, and offering people hope and empowerment.

Maitreya and Maitreya Project are refernced in the above info. It doesn't make an implicit Buddhist response to Bahai views and is an indirect Buddhist view on Bahai views. The Baha'i Faith aka Bahaism and Bahallah aren't referenced directly or by name, but are covered categorically in principle. Soka Humanism shows Soka Gakkai viewpoints and compares them to Nichiren Shoshu, Nichiren Shu, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism aka Shin Buddhism aka Amidism, Traditional Theravada Buddhism, and Christianity. It also deal with the issue of Maitreya which implicitly also deal with the issue of a people who claimed or whose followers claimed them to be Maitreya as well. Not just this bust lots of issues are brought up on the Rarely Asked Questions section like Rebirth versus Reincarnation as another issue that ties into this page for example. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling corrected! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More info to come as needed. Articles are on Gohonzon Gohonzon (Nichiren Buddhism) versus Buddharupa Murti, Reincarnation versus Rebirth Rebirth (Buddhism), Meditation Buddhist meditation versus Chanting Japa Mantra Buddhist chant Odaimoku Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, God in Buddhism, Human rights, Maitreya, Four Noble Truths Noble Eightfold Path, Mahayana, Buddhist cosmology Ten spiritual realms Ten suchnesses, Karma Karma in Buddhism, etc with Soka Gakkai and Nichiren Buddhism being compared and contrasted to non Lotus Sutra based forms of Buddhism. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling corrected to bring red links into article links. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link error resolved. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific info on Maitreya claims[edit]

I have seen several such examples online. A Buddhist article on Lafayette Ronald Hubbard and Scientology which touches on his Maitreya claim. a Buddhist Facebook page which does the same with regards to Raelism and Claude Vorilhon Raël which touches on his Maitreya claim as well. Any other places to get info relevant to this comparative religion article and this Maitreya claim in specific or other Maitreya claims would be useful.. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what connection is there of the above to the Baha'i Faith and Buddism. If there was an article on Scientology and Buddhism, you could put it in that one. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the No original research Wikipedia policy, which includes a clause on "synthesis". It notes
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research."
Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

I've removed the content because it's either 1) original research that is not sourced by any reliable source or 2) not related to the subject at hand. Just because their are sources that claim that Baha'is see Baha'u'llah as the Maitreye, does not mean that any other view of the Maitreye is germane in this article. For it to be notable, there has to be reliable sources connecting the view to the Baha'i view. Much of the above sources by the anonymous editor or tangential to the subject at hand. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential? It is substantial implications on the Buddhist response to the Maitreya claims made in the article. The article you keep reverting it to only keeps the parts that refer to Bahai views on Buddhism and keep getting rid of ones on Buddhist views on it and the Maitreya claim at its basis. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way out of line on the OR and lack of sources. There has been development with another editor in a sandbox page and show much more maturity of source use than this addition. --Smkolins (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of the below OR? It is mostly quotes with referenced sources. All I did was change the section header. Also, what lack of source, Did you even see the references in that section?

According to the Lotus Sutra of Nichiren Buddhism, all persons possess the potential to reveal an innate Buddha nature during their own lifetimes, a concept which may appear to contradict the concept of Buddha as savior or messiah.

Although Maitreya is a significant figure in the Lotus Sutra, the explanation of Nichiren is that Maitreya is a metaphor of stewardship and aid for the Bodhisattvas of the Earth, as written in the Lotus Sutra:

Moreover...all the bodhisattvas, Bodhisattva Maitreya....will guard and protect the votaries of the Lotus Sutra, so one may indeed rest assured. "SGI Library Online - The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin". Sgilibrary.org. Retrieved 2012-08-15.

In much of his writing, Nichiren mentions the traditional Buddhist views on Maitreya but explains that the propagation of the Eternal Dharma of the Lotus Sutra was entrusted by Shakyamuni to the Bodhisattvas of earth:

The Buddha did not entrust these five characters to Maitreya, Medicine King, or the others of their group. Instead he summoned forth the bodhisattvas....from the great earth of Tranquil Light and transferred the five characters to them."SGI Library Online - The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin". Sgilibrary.org. Retrieved 2012-08-15.

Thus, each individual can embody the character of the Maitreya because he is a metaphor for compassion:

The name Maitreya means ‘Compassionate One’ and designates the Votaries of the Lotus Sutra. (The Record of Orally Transmitted Teachings p 143.Translated by Burton Watson)

50.178.142.148 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, finally saved in the talk page from article wars. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm rather shocked at how badly cited the Maitreya article is on that section about Nichiren. However staying on this article there are several problems:
  • 1) you are introducing Nichiren as if he represents all buddhist thought. The article is in need of growth certainly but it needs a lot more work before Nichiren's own views are worthy, if ever, relevant.
  • 2) you are presenting Nichiren quotes as if they are scholarly when, if anything, they are basically primary, religious, and not scholarly sources. *You* are interpriting how they apply. *You* might mean the same thing as Nichiren but that's debatable. And then go back to 1.
  • 3) The citations are of quotes, not the points being made. Which takes us back to OR. --Smkolins (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I never claimed Nichiren represent all Buddhism, I just quoted him.
    • so I can pick any commentator on Buddhism and make any point I want? Don't you see you are coming out of left field on this pushing one POV? And it is arguable whether it is his or yours!
2) Directly quoting from religious text or indirecly through scholarly text makes no difference other than primary or secondary sources. Logic is dictating how the texts apply. Logic works out all the implications of a premise rather than just being stuck at a premise.
    • logic? Would not a follower of a "real" (vs "metaphorical") Maitreya *be* those future bodhisattvas in the path of compassion?? But that's OR too! The only reason I'm putting this in is to show you how the "fact" of a primary source is open to interpretation. That's why we need scholarly approaches to know what is considered a reasonable approach, not your or my approach perse.
3) Quotes are points that other people have made. Lots of articles use quotes as primary sources. Especially in regards to articles on religion. So, duh, no it's not OR. Buddhvacana texts like those of Shakyamuni Buddha or Nichiren Daishonin counts as Sutras. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you didn't cite other people. You cited Nichiren and it's arguable it's relevant as interpreted. --Smkolins (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main point here is that none of the points of view presented here say anything about Baha'i Faith or the Budhist view on the Baha'i view. Putting them in this article is at best tangential and is synthesis and does not abide by Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Until some sources can be brought that connect the Buddhist thought to the Baha'i thought, there place is in other articles in Wikipedia, but not this one. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they do. The implications of the points made have to do with the Buddhist view of the Bahai Faith. You also have to differentiate between Maitreya the Bodhisattva and Maitreya as future Buddha. I also gave a link relevant to this discussion in the talk RAQ section (see above). I can't use the sources from Three Ages of Buddhism because all the sources are in Chinese. To say that basically, the future Buddhahood of Maitreya isn't an actual individual Buddha is mutually exclusive logically with saying that Bahallah is that individual. To say that a source would have to explicitly make that step is pointless due or even needed to be stated in article due to the mutual exclusivity based on logic. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put a RAQ section in specific, so I made easier to find! 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to resolve a link error. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on the website does it mention the Baha'i Faith - [1]. All these might related to ideas of the Baha'i Faith but to match them directly and say there is a difference in understanding is OR. It's the very definition of OR! Have you ever actually really worked in wikipedia? --Smkolins (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to you if a reliable source say "All humans are mortal" and "Socrates is a human", but doesn't explicitly state any things that logically follow from said premises, then quoting such a source on Wikipedia to say "Socrates is mortal" is OR. Pointing out the obvious is not OR. It's not like I'm creating premises out of thin air, but just using logic as in the hypothetical example. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "The implications of the points made have to do with the Buddhist view of the Bahai Faith." Implications that are not exactly in the sources is original research, and not allowed, and since you yourself have said that they are implications, and the sources don't immediately point to the Baha'i Faith, then they don't have any place in this article, unless of course you can find a source that say that itself. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic the reincarnation section should be deleted too.

In the Bahá’í teachings the concept of reincarnation is rejected. The soul is believed to come be created at the moment of conception and to continue to exist in a spiritual world after death. It does not come back to earth.Smith, Peter (2000). "reincarnation". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. p. 289. ISBN 1-85168-184-1. removed reference from the bottom 50.178.142.148 (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no actual mention of Buddhism or comparing Buddhist belief in life after death to Bahai ones. It just states what the Bahai view of life after death. So staing Buddhilst beliefs on Maitreya is OR, but stating Bahai beliefs on life after death isn't? So not a double standard. Smolkins earlier wrote: All these might related to ideas of the Baha'i Faith but to match them directly and say there is a difference in understanding is OR. It's the very definition of OR! Have you ever actually really worked in wikipedia? Now I write: All these might related to ideas of the Buddhism but to match them directly and say there is a difference in understanding is OR. It's the very definition of OR! Have you ever actually really worked in wikipedia? I will wait to see if you remove the reincarnation section as well. 50.178.142.148 (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll remove that section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

And in regards to religious texts, they are considered primary sources, and have to be used with caution. The Wikipedia policy notes "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary source" and then says " reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Because most of what comes out of a religious text is intepretation, it needs a secondary source to state that interpretation. -- Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed on this line[edit]

Moojan Momen shows the many similarities between the ethical teachings in Theravada Buddhism and the Bahá'í Faith, and states that the metaphysical differences originate from culture-bound terminologies.

What does it mean to have similarities specifically with Theravada Buddhism (as opposed to Mahyana and Vajrayana Buddhism)? What does the issue of the not explored Mahayana and Vajrayana forms of Buddhism have to do with the rest of the quote as well? 50.178.142.148 (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the [3][4] references, but do have access to [1]. I can search through that book probably in the next week to understand what the source really says. Regard, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controlling Info on Wikipedia[edit]

[Controlling Info on Wikipedia] It exposes how Wikipedia has been controlled by followers of specific religions on articles dealing with their religion. 2601:243:C502:3650:6D0F:AA86:DC43:82D2 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baháʼí_Faith_and_Buddhism&oldid=1205622290"