No one has made reference to this, despite my mentioning it. I remember hearing about it via Wikipedia.

Buddha’s teaching that there is one dharma, not two or three is echoed by Abdu’l-Baha, of course, and goes with that idea that the Truth is one, men have multiplied it.

All Buddhas have hagiographies involving what caste they were, where they were born, who there parents were, what type of tree they achieved enlightenment under, and where the Bodhisattva who became Shakyamuni Buddha was.

Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist scriptures contain stories involving the same characters, but the stories differe wildly from each other. The Puranas which are the source of the Hindu versions of characters originally from Jain and Buddhist scriptures were written between 300 and 1600 CE. The Itihasa were written around 100 BCE.

I’m not being cheeky, really. I’m just suggesting that trying to categorize everything can become an end unto itself. One I have no time for.

Regarding the Maitreye not being a Buddha, there would seem to be differing opinions on that. You might read Maitreye Buddha Amit-Abha Has Appeared by Jamshed Fozdar to get one of them.

Also I note that a compilation of Buddhist sources entitled “The Gospel of Buddha” contains this conversation in which Ananda asks the Master who will guide them when He is gone.

And the Blessed One replied: “I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth, nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax, and glorious at the goal, in the spirit and in the letter. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.”13
Ānanda said: “How shall we know him?”14
The Blessed One said: “He will be known as Metteyya, which means ‘he whose name is kindness.’”15

I reference this source because I don’t have to go dig for it in the library.

Just a side note: Baha’u'llah’s given name “Husayn” means “kindness”, which is one reason that Baha’is of Buddhist background identify Him with the Maitreye Buddha.

And: “I was born into the world as the King of Truth for the salvation of the world. The subject upon which I meditate is Truth. … For lo, myself hath become the Truth. Whosoever comprehendeth the Truth will see the Blessed One, for the Truth has been preached by the Blessed One.” Digha-nikaya I:46 (Christ’s words, spoken to Pilate during His mock trial, are eerily similar: “Pilate therefore said unto him, ‘Art thou a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.’” John 18:37)

Also, as regards to Krishna being a Buddha, I can think of at least one passage where He is referred to in that way: “In this auspicious eon, three leaders there have been. Kakasandha (Manu, the Father of Mankind), Konagamana (Rama), and Kassapa (Krishna, of the Kassapa tribe) too. I am now the perfect Buddha. And there will be Metteye too, before this same auspicious eon runs to the end of its years.” Anagata-Vamsa, p.34

You ask: It’s appropriation of the concepts of Avatar and Buddha if you use the terms without knowing the criteria used for whether a person is or is not one. This has to do with what scripture actually says rather than what you think it says. Do all the dozen or so Manifestations pass the Shurangama criteria for being a Buddha or not?

Yes.

I agree with you that you can begin to piece together an idea of where a divine Messenger might have appeared in history through a reading of scripture (and the pages of history, as well). There is a rather long (too long for this space) passage in Promulgation of Universal Peace (p.364) in which Abdu’l-Baha “catalogues” the qualities of the Manifestation in a positive rather than negative way. Here’s a tiny portion of it:

“What, then, is the mission of the divine Prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real Teachers and Educators, the universal Instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great Souls or Messengers was in reality a Prophet of God, we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history, and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an Educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a Prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs. We do not need to mention miracles, saying that out of rock water gushed forth, for such miracles and statements may be denied and refused by those who hear them. The deeds of Moses are conclusive evidences of His Prophethood. If a man be fair, unbiased and willing to investigate reality, he will undoubtedly testify to the fact that Moses was, verily, a man of God and a great Personage.” (from a talk at Temple El-Emanuel in San Francisco, 1912)

In a talk given later that same year, he notes:

“The supreme and most important happening in the human world is the Manifestation of God and the descent of the law of God. The holy, divine Manifestations did not reveal themselves for the purpose of founding a nation, sect or faction. They did not appear in order that a certain number might acknowledge Their Prophethood. They did not declare Their heavenly mission and message in order to lay the foundation for a religious belief. Even Christ did not become manifest that we should merely believe in Him as the Christ, follow Him and adore His mention. All these are limited in scope and requirement, whereas the reality of Christ is an unlimited essence. The infinite and unlimited Reality cannot be bounded by any limitation. Nay, rather, Christ appeared in order to illumine the world of humanity, to render the earthly world celestial, to make the human kingdom a realm of angels, to unite the hearts, to enkindle the light of love in human souls, so that such souls might become independent, attaining complete unity and fellowship, turning to God, entering into the divine Kingdom, receiving the bounties and bestowals of God and partaking of the manna from heaven. Through Christ they were intended to be baptized by the Holy Spirit, attain a new spirit and realize the everlasting life. All the holy precepts and the announcements of prophetic laws were for these various and heavenly purposes.” — Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, p 442, 443 from a talk given November 18, 1912

So, these are the criteria I would apply were I to scour history for signs of the appearance of a Divine Emissary, I would also take the negative criteria you posed as being applicable.

But to be honest, this whole discussion reminds me of a story of the Buddha in which He relates that a man was shot with an arrow and, before he would consent to be treated by the Physician, demanded to know what tribe the man who shot it came from, what sort of bird the feathers had come from, of what was the tip made and what sort of poison it contained, and a host of other information. Buddha remarks: “That man would die. But he would die without knowing any of these things.” I think His point is that this sort of detail is irrelevant and not conducive to life.

I lack sufficient time to argue terminology with you or to read through list after list of Sanskrit terms and names. You enjoy the practice of cataloguing and listing things, and seem to believe that some Grand Unified List might be constructed if only one knew all of the items to put on it. Perhaps that is a form of yoga. If so, I respect it, and ask that you respect my form of bhakti-jnana-karma yoga and not repeatedly tell me what I think or believe or have forgotten to add to a list that I am not making. I don’t feel the need to categorize or list things, nor do I want to discuss lists, for I find them most unenlightening.

Similarly one of the nine commonly used recollections (Anussati) of Buddha—”Purisa damma sarathi” which means “charioteer of heroic men”. In the Gita for the first time, Krishna, who is a king himself, is shown as a mere charioteer and guide of the prince Arjuna.

In another Jataka, the Dasaratha Jataka, Sariputta is reborn as Lakshmana or Lakkhan to Buddha’s rebirth as Rāma. In the Buddhist tale however, Sita is never kidnapped and Rama merely returns after exile as a glorious king to rule for thousands of years.

This shows Rama in Buddhism as well as Krishna.

I explained in my other post.

The categorization is still easier in Western religions, but is more difficult with Eastern religions? If we view Lamaism as founded by Padmasambhava, Nichirenism by Nichiren, Qadianism by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, etc, does it make them Manifestations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_founders_of_religious_traditions

Scientology was founded by L. Ron Hubbard.
Adi Dam was founded by Adi Da.
Raëlism was founded by Raël.
UCGC or Neo Gnosticism was founded by Samael Aun Weor.

The best example would be Mission of Maitreya.

http://maitreya.org/

On what basis can you say anyone listed here is or is not a Manifestation?

You don’t invoke any Buddhist scriptures to defend the position that any of them are Buddhas, rather you invoke the fact that you call them Buddhas.

I can’t find a complete defintion of Buddhahood, but the Shurangama Sutra comes closest.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

The Shurangama gives ten negative criteria.

1. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of skillfully advancing or teach others to. He doesn’t perform misdeeds or teach others to. He doesn’t speak to frighten and ruin people.

2. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of gaining furter experience or teaching others to. He doesn’t indulge in luxury or teach others to. He doesn’t break rule or teach others to. He isn’t licentious or teaches other to. He doesn’t do wrong deeds or teach others to. He doesn’t destroy the seed of wisdom or teach others to.

3. A Buddha doesnt concentrate on the thought of merging or teach others to. He doesn’t have a disturbed mind or teach others to. He isn’t delude or teach other to.

4. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the root of all things or teach others to. He doesn’t say the Dharmakaya is flesh and blood or teach others to. He doesn’t indulge in sexual desire or teach others to. He doesn’t say that the body and the body parts are pure lands, the abodes of Bodhi and nirvana, or teach others to.

5. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of communion or teach others to. He doesn’t lose his clear mind or teach others to.

6. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of restfulness or teach others to. He doesn’t practice austerities or teach others to. He doesn’t vilify monasticism or teach others to.

7. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of learning or teach others to. He doesn’t taunt the Dharma or teach others to.

8. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on the thought of seeking or teach others to. He doesn’t vilify discipline or teach others to. He isn’t carnal or teach others to. He doesn’t teach that a Buddha is a layperson or teach others to.

9. A Buddha doesn’t dwell on the thought of extinction or teach others to. He doesn’t despise monasticism or teach others to. He doesn’t say that karma is false or teach others to. He doesn’t say that reincarnation is false or teach others to. He doesn’t indulge in desires or teach others to.

10. A Buddha doesn’t concentrate on immortality or teach others to. He doesn’t say no practice is neccessary or teach others to.

I tried to turn the paragraphs into what a Buddha isn’t. Some of the criteria for the ten types of false Buddhas were repetitive so I listed them only once. I’ve never really used this criteria to judge whether or not a person was or wasn’t a Buddha. You can read pages 291-304 for the extensive versions rather than my summaries. They’re in narrative forms where ten false Buddhas or rather ten false Buddha archetypes come and are described. These are ten good examples of what a Buddha isn’t. These are ten seperate categories of false Buddhas, so a person doesn’t have to fail all ten of the tests, but has to fail one even if they pass the other nine to be a false Buddha.

You also confuse folk Buddhism with Buddhist scripture. In Buddhist scripture, Maitreya is a Bodhisattva. In Folk Buddhism, Maitreya is a Buddha. The same issue happens with the other seven Mahasatttvas. There may come poems, visions, novels, etc. that identify Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri, Samatabhadra, Akashagarbha, Kshitigarbha, etc. as Buddhas rather than Bodhisattvas. Any Buddhist (actual rather than folk) knows the terms Maitreya Buddha is a contradiction in terms. Just because some folk Buddhists said otherwise doesn’t make it any less true.

But guessing, I’d say Lu Zhongyi, Master Benisa Duono, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, Samael Aun Weor, and Adi Da Samraj might pass all the ten criteria for being a true Buddha or atleast not have enough evidence for being false Buddhas.

It’s appropriation of the concepts of Avatar and Buddha if you use the terms without knowing the criteria used for whether a person is or is not one. This has to do with what scripture actually says rather than what you think it says. Do all the dozen or so Manifestations pass the Shurangama criteria for being a Buddha or not? It gives a straightforward list of what to look for and what not to look for in a Buddha.

Also, Krishna is mentioned in Buddhist scripture, but not as a Buddha.

The story of Krishna occurs in the Jataka tales in Buddhism,[124] in the Vaibhav Jataka as a prince and legendary conqueror and king of India.[125] In the Buddhist version, Krishna is called Vasudeva, Kanha and Keshava, and Balarama is his older brother, Baladeva. These details resemble that of the story given in the Bhagavata Purana. Vasudeva, along with his nine other brothers (each son a powerful wrestler) and one elder sister (Anjana) capture all of Jambudvipa (many consider this to be India) after beheading their evil uncle, King Kansa, and later all other kings of Jambudvipa with his Sudarshana Chakra. Much of the story involving the defeat of Kansa follows the story given in the Bhagavata Purana.[126]

As depicted in the Mahābhārata, all of the sons are eventually killed due to a curse of sage Kanhadipayana (Veda Vyasa, also known as Krishna Dwaipayana). Krishna himself is eventually speared by a hunter in the foot by mistake, leaving the sole survivor of their family being their sister, Anjanadevi of whom no further mention is made.[127]

Since Jataka tales are given from the perspective of Buddha’s previous lives (as well as the previous lives of many of Buddha’s followers), Krishna appears as one of the lives of Sariputra, one of Buddha’s foremost disciples and the “Dhammasenapati” or “Chief General of the Dharma” and is usually shown being Buddha’s “right hand man” in Buddhist art and iconography.[128] The Bodhisattva, is born in this tale as one of his youngest brothers named Ghatapandita, and saves Krishna from the grief of losing his son.[125] The ‘divine boy’ Krishna as an embodiment of wisdom and endearing prankster forms a part of worshipable pantheon in VAIBHAV RAI .[129]

Christ taught 2000 years ago. We have a very limited set of His teachings. From this small amount of material and the record of His earthly life have sprung 31,000 sects of Christianity. But I believe Baha’u'llah is right that we err when we identify the Message of Christ itself with those thousands of diverse and sometimes conflicting sects.

The Message that Christ gave (or that Buddha gave) is one thing—what men have done with it is another.

I would be willing to bet that if you asked Buddhists or Hindus from different schools of thought about the qualities of an Avatar you would get different answers. So to answer to your question above: If the concepts of Manifestation and Avatar and Buddha are equivalent, when someone fulfills the criteria in Hindu scripture for being an Avatar like all Avatars listed previously they’re the other two by default and when someone fulfills the criteria for being a Buddha in Buddhist scriptures they’re the other two by default?”

A Baha’i accepts Baha’u'llah and Abdu’l-Baha’s criteria for what a Manifestation of God is. Clear? This means that a Baha’i will use the word Avatar differently than some Hindus might use it. Or than some Buddhists might use it. If that confuses the issue, then it behooves the Baha’i to either agree with the other party on a definition of Avatar both can be comfortable with, or to simply not use it.

Since you use the word Avatar and Buddha differently than I do, I will not use them to apply generally to Manifestations of God.

The “Western” — Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition could certainly — as Stephen suggests Buddhism and Hinduism are — seen as a team effort.

For starters, ever major Prophet (what Baha’is call the Manifestations) seemed to have a right-hand man. Moses could not have made it without Aaron, Muhammed depended upon Ali, Christ put His trust in Peter.. and so on.

Furthermore, we have a cast of supporting characters.. all the Old Testament Prophets, the aforementioned John the Baptist, Christ’s disciples, and so forth. And, once the Manifestation has passed, many inspired souls (some might say, “saints”) carry on and carry forth the religion. Again, we have St. Paul as a huge central figure in Christianity, plus later on Martin Luther and many others.

This continues with the Baha’i Faith. Baha’u'llah is the central figure, yes, but there is also the Bab, Abdul’ Baha’, Shogi Effendi, the Hands of the Cause, and various other inspired souls that could be likened to “saints” — if one wishes to use that term.

But, one must also bear in mind, everything pivots around that central figure. Just as Christianity could not have existed without Christ, so too, Buddhism would not be known without The Buddha. This, from a Baha’i perspective, is what sets the Manifestations apart.

I feel as if I’m repeating myself. Yes, I know there are other scriptures. in fact, I mentioned some of them in my last comment but deleted it because I thought I’d made it clear as glass that just because I don’t mention something or include it in a list it doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge it. i also have copies of the Rig Veda, Upanishads, and a document that contains passages from various sutras and other sources. I also have a collection of the sayings of Black Elk a collection of Native American prophecies, Lost Books of the Bible, The Gospel of Buddha …

I could list the entire contents of both my physical and digital library—I could try to remember all the materials I’ve ever checked out of the library on these subjects but I suspect that would not be enough for you. You would still tell me that I “left something out.”

To be clear: when I use the term Avatar or Buddha or Christ or Prophet, I mean the same thing as when I say Manifestation of God. Clearly part of our communication problem is that you are using these words differently than I am Therefore, I shall stop using words that confuse the issue and refer to Manifestations of God as that or as Mirrors or as independent Prophets, perhaps, since you use the words Avatar and Buddha to mean something else.

So, let me say that the Avatar Krishna was a Manifestation of God by Baha’u'llah’s definition. So was Gautama Buddha, so was Christ, so were others. The ones I mention are the ones I am certain of. That there are others, I am aware, as I have said repeatedly. I simply choose not to list them or I am not certain of them.

But let me guide you to the writings of Baha’u'llah and Abdu’l-Baha to get a sense of what They mean when They use the term Manifestation. Here’s but one (and only one) of numerous passages in which Baha’u'llah speaks of the reality of the Manifestation:

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” And in like manner, the words: “Arise, O Muḥammad, for lo, the Lover and the Beloved are joined together and made one in Thee.” He similarly saith: “There is no distinction whatsoever between Thee and Them, except that They are Thy Servants.” The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” These Essences of Detachment, these resplendent Realities are the channels of God’s all-pervasive grace. Led by the light of unfailing guidance, and invested with supreme sovereignty, They are commissioned to use the inspiration of Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and the sanctifying breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing heart and receptive spirit from the dross and dust of earthly cares and limitations. Then, and only then, will the Trust of God, latent in the reality of man, emerge, as resplendent as the rising Orb of Divine Revelation, from behind the veil of concealment, and implant the ensign of its revealed glory upon the summits of men’s hearts.” — Gleanings, XXVII (pp 65-67)

If you really want to know more about this I recommend reading Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah which, translated by the Prophet’s great-grandson, Shoghi Effendi, deals with a variety of subjects including the nature of the Manifestation of God, the human soul, and the needs of the world. Also, `Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (106-107) has one such detailed discussion of what the Baha’i concept of Manifestation is. He also speaks of this in several talks he gave that are recorded in Foundations of World Unity and Paris Talks.

St. Peter and St. Paul both played huge roles, for example. And for many Martin Luther would also be a key figure. As would St. Thomas, St. John, and many others. And that’s not to mention the vast number of figures Christians see as setting the stage, and from whom they draw inspiration — John the Baptist, Daniel, and so on and so forth.

Stephen, it’s not that Baha’is see Hinduism and Buddhism — as the religious systems they evolved into — boiling down to just one dude. Think of the the description I just gave of Christianity.

Also, we don’t see a neatly-packaged linear evolution of religion, as the material on that apparently ill-informed website implies. We fully recognize, different societies have developed — and disintegrated — at different paces, and for different reasons. Even if, for example, things were happening in two, or three — or ten dozen — places at the same relative time — and indeed, with some overlap.

Lots of this also gets lost in the white noise of cultural bias. For example, many Westerns might fail to recognize the huge influence Muhammed had on Western civilization — even though it goes largely unacknowledged. Likewise, many in Buddhist and Hindu civilizations might do well to consider how Muhammed, Moses and Christ influenced their society… and vice versa.

Finally, I ultimately see no threat or problem in the “differences” between the various faiths… east and west. In the Hidden Words, for example, I see just as much emphasis on an inward journey, as I do in praising an outward God.

And heck, for that matter, Christ Jesus Himself said, “The Kingdom of God lies within you.” — sounds pretty Zen to me. While Buddha Himself spoke of one “unborn, unmade” and so forth.. and I’ll be snickered if that doesn’t sound an awfully lot like, well, what we in the West might call “God.”

In other words, religion isn’t a zero-sum team sport. And spiritual evolution — just like biological evolution or any other kind of evolution — is as much a mixing pot, as it is linear progression.

You forgot the above link an actual Manifestation claimant rather than it being indirect by claiming to be an Avatar or Buddha.

Also, I forgot to add name and email because I switched computers and it automatically does it on my iPad.

Other figures I could add as Avatars and/or Buddhas include Bahullah (19th century), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (19th/20th century), Lu Zhongyi (19th/20th century), Master Benisa Duono Peter Denuov (19th/20th century), L. Ron Hubbard (20th century), Samael Aun Weor (20th century), Adi Da Love Ananda Kalki Avadhoota Avabhasa Bubba Free John Samraj (20th century), Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (20th/21th century), Raël Claude Maurice Marcle Vorilhon (20th century and present), Wikipedia removed Missin of Maitreya (name Ahmad ibn Abdullah aka Joseph Emmanuel and various other makes) due to lack of notability, but he is 20th century and present.

All of the above fit the criteria by founding various religious traditions like Bahai Faith, Qadianism, I Kuan Tao, Esoteric Society, Scientology, Neo Gnosticism, Adi Dam, Love Institute, Raelism, Mission of Maitreya, etc.

You assume a static view of Hinduism and Buddhism. You assume Krishna lived, taught the Bhagavad Gita, and Hinduism is limited to just that. You also assume Buddha lived, taught the Dhammapada, and Buddhism is limited to just that.

If the concepts of Manifestation and Avatar and Buddha are equivalent, when someone fulfills the criteria in Hindu scripture for being an Avatar like all Avatars listed previously they’re the other two by default and when someone fulfills the criteria for being a Buddha in Buddhist scriptures they’re the other two by default?

Buddhists have scriptures other than the Dhammapada. Theravada Buddhists have a whole Pali Canon. Mahayana Buddhists read Mahayana Sutras instread.

Let’s take a list of avatars of Shesha which includes Balabhadra/Baladeva/Balarama/Halayudha, Lakshmana, Ramanuja (11th century), Manavala Mamunigal (14th/15th century), Nityananda Prabhu (15th/16th century), etc. I will also include the Golden avatar Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (15th/16th century). Others to include are Meher Baba (19th/20th century), A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (19th/20thcentury), Nirmala Srivastava (20th/21century), Mata Amritanandamayi (20th century and present), and Mother Meera (20th century and present). This is not a comprehensive list and I could add other more recent Avatars.

On the Buddhist side is less. There are Padmasambhava (8th century), Nichiren Daishonin (13th century), Daisaku Ikeda (20th century and present), and Lu Sheng-yen (20th century and present).

Other figures I could add as Avatars and/or Buddhas include Bahullah (19th century), Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (19th/20th century), Lu Zhongyi (19th/20th century), Master Benisa Duono Peter Denuov (19th/20th century), L. Ron Hubbard (20th century), Samael Aun Weor (20th century), Adi Da Love Ananda Kalki Avadhoota Avabhasa Bubba Free John Samraj (20th century), Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi (20th/21th century), Raël Claude Maurice Marcle Vorilhon (20th century and present), Wikipedia removed Missin of Maitreya (name Ahmad ibn Abdullah aka Joseph Emmanuel and various other makes) due to lack of notability, but he is 20th century and present.

If all Manifestations, Avatars, and Buddhas are different names for the same concept explain the above?

* What do we know about Zoroaster and the origins of Zoroastrianism?
* What are the Zoroastrian scriptures, how were they created, and what do they teach?
* How did Zoroastrianism influence Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism?
* What is the history of Zoroastrianism’s growth and decrease?
* What are the basic teachings of Zoroastrianism today?
* How does the Baha’i Faith relate to Zoroastrianism?

There is also the Association of Baha’i Studies which has a yearly conference at which a broad variety of subjects are presented and whose publications deal with—again—a broad variety of subjects having to do with faith and its application to life on the planet and beyond.

In addition, the several Baha’i schools here in the states feature workshop weekends where subjects of interest to the Baha’i community are studied in depth. To give an idea of the breadth of these, I’ve attended Music Industry Workshops at our local Baha’i school/retreat that are specifically for Baha’i musicians. workshops on mysticism, family life, the persecutions in Iran, specific books of Baha’u'llah, Bible studies, even a Star Trek weekend. My point is that we are not precluded from studying Vedanta or appreciating the contributions of various teachers and gurus. But our focus is on applying the teachings of Baha’u'llah to our lives and our world now.

Abdu’l-Baha writes: “Thus there have been many holy Manifestations of God. One thousand years ago, two hundred thousand years ago, one million years ago the bounty of God was flowing, the radiance of God was shining, the dominion of God was existing.”

In one passage, Baha’u'llah talks about Manifestations of God of which we have no record and comments that there is not a patch of earth on the planet upon which Their blood has not been shed. This may be a poetic utterance, but it does indicate just how often God speaks. The Manifestations are the Suns to which other prophets are moons. Moses, for example, was a Manifestation of God; Ezekiel was a prophet, who refined upon Mosaic law and called the Jews back to the pure teachings.

Krishna is not the only Avatar I recognize from the overall Vedic stream of faith. He is merely the Avatar from that tradition whose teachings are most readily available and that seem to have come down in relatively concise form.

And this raises an important issue: The age of the previous revelations poses problems of content, context, translation and interpretation. The older a revelation is, the less likely our record of it is to be complete.

This is why Baha’is in general focus on Baha’i scripture: accuracy and authority. Baha’u'llah wrote volumes either in His own hand or through a scribe whose work He edited and approved. The books of Baha’u'llah that Baha’is all over the world possess in our various native languages were translated from original manuscripts written in Farsi and Arabic that still exist and are kept in the Archives building on Mount Carmel where they are available for study by scholars and translators and where the Universal House of Justice can access them to deal with issues that arise.

I have, at my disposal, four different translations of the Qur’an and dozens of translations of the Bible. Three Dhammapadas, and four or five different Bhagavad Gitas. None of them is more authoritative than another. The version of the Seven Valleys I have (as well as the other books of Baha’i scripture) are the only authoritative versions of those treatises revealed by the Manifestation of God, Himself, signed and sealed by Him and still available to read by anyone who reads wither Arabic or Farsi.

Between the Bab, Baha’u'llah and Abdu’l-Baha, there is a lifetime worth of material to study, absorb, meditate upon, and put into practice. Given that this material was revealed with the express purpose of providing guidance for THIS TIME in history, I’m sure you understand that a Baha’i would be chiefly concerned with what Baha’u'llah or Abdu’l-Baha had to say about the problems the world and the individuals in it face every day.