Divine Revelation in Hindu Religions versus Abrahamic Religions

[CG Didymus]

We've discussed at length the Christian concept of resurrection and its origins with the New Testament, particularly the gospels and Paul's first epistle to Corinthians. With reincarnation the origins of this belief is obscure. Within Hinduism we find references in the Vedic texts, long before the emergence of Buddhism.

Reincarnation - Wikipedia

But then what are the origins of the Vedas?

Vedas - Wikipedia

The problem with any belief around Krishna is the lack historical certainly about any of the ancient writings that mention Him.



It would seem reasonable that most ancient peoples have had their wise peoples and seers. Generally many such cultures have no written records, so the uncertainty about the origins of their actual beliefs is obscure.

War and fighting were a necessary part of life for most tribes, nations and empires up until relatively recently in human history. The name of God may well have been invoked by many a warring nation or tribe but generally its been much more about power, land and money.

From the link on Reincarnation:

"According to various Buddhist scriptures, Gautama Buddha believed in the existence of an afterlife in another world and in reincarnation...

The Buddha also asserted that karma influences rebirth, and that the cycles of repeated births and deaths are endless."
​

This can't be right that a "manifestation" taught reincarnation. So how do Baha'is explain this?

And, do the Baha'is recognize the Vedas as God given Scripture?

 

[Dawnofhope]

From the link on Reincarnation:

"According to various Buddhist scriptures, Gautama Buddha believed in the existence of an afterlife in another world and in reincarnation...

The Buddha also asserted that karma influences rebirth, and that the cycles of repeated births and deaths are endless."
​

This can't be right that a "manifestation" taught reincarnation. So how do Baha'is explain this?

And, do the Baha'is recognize the Vedas as God given Scripture?

While some Buddhists (for example Tibetan Buddhists) believe in reincarnation as the transmigration of souls like the Hindus, many don't.

The Saṃsāra doctrine of Buddhism asserts that while beings undergo endless cycles of rebirth, there is no changeless soul that transmigrates from one lifetime to another - a view that distinguishes its Saṃsāra doctrine from that in Hinduism and Jainism.[23][24] This no-soul (no-self) doctrine is called the Anatta or Anatman in Buddhist texts.

Saṃsāra (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

Baha'is believe we can not be sure of the authenticty of either the Vedas or even the Teachings attributed to Buddha.

"We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin birth mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 25 November 1950; quoted in compilation on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects, no. 23, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1696)
Writings Buddhist authenticity - Bahai9

 

[CG Didymus]

In my own studies of and experiences with various religions, I've come to recognize that the differences between religions are beautiful. Whether it was through the chanting of Sanskrit mantras, visions of the image of the Amida Buddha, the reading and recitation of the Holy Qur’an, the singing of Hebrew praises to the Almighty, or meditating upon the Words of the Blessed Beauty, my soul bears witness to the Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Wisdom of each religion. And in this, their Essence, their Spirit, the Light they carry within, they are One. Like light and the various colors. Each color is different from the others, but they all exist as reflections of one and the same thing: light


The Messages, Teachings, Forms, and Methods will differ, but the fundamental goal of all religions is the same. Each religion brings forth deeper understandings, deeper insights into our relationships with the Divine, with ourselves, with the Greater Universe, and with each other. They, each and all, show us the importance of applying the knowledge we receive to our lives everyday.

So, with this understanding, I ask: why is there the word “versus” in the title of the thread? Why not, rather, the word “and”? Why is there a competitve or otherwise antagonistic mindset between the religions?

A lifetime ago I had your exceptionally positive view of religion. Now I don't. Now I'm very pessimistic. Some religions were false. Some religious leaders and prophets taught false beliefs and practices. In ancient times, it was religions that cut the hearts out of people for their gods or threw people into volcanos. Now even the major religions are all over the place with their beliefs about what is the truth. Are they all wonderful and beautiful? Or, are some filled with man made distortions of the truth? Even some Baha'is have said things like that. That man has taken the original messages and have changed them and misinterpreted them. Where is the beauty in that? Those beliefs aren't from God, they are from man.

But the other ugly thing that happens between religions is when some of the beliefs of one religion are said to be wrong by another religion. Which religion is right? The newer one? Because that is what Baha'is are saying about all the older religions. Yes, at one level, Baha'is see the beauty in all religions, except the evil false ones, but at another level, Baha'is disagree with some of the major beliefs of the other religions. And, since the Baha'is say they have the latest and most accurate message from God, that they are right and the other religions are wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

While some Buddhists (for example Tibetan Buddhists) believe in reincarnation as the transmigration of souls like the Hindus, many don't.

The Saṃsāra doctrine of Buddhism asserts that while beings undergo endless cycles of rebirth, there is no changeless soul that transmigrates from one lifetime to another - a view that distinguishes its Saṃsāra doctrine from that in Hinduism and Jainism.[23][24] This no-soul (no-self) doctrine is called the Anatta or Anatman in Buddhist texts.

Saṃsāra (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

Baha'is believe we can not be sure of the authenticty of either the Vedas or even the Teachings attributed to Buddha.

"We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin birth mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 25 November 1950; quoted in compilation on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects, no. 23, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1696)
Writings Buddhist authenticity - Bahai9

As far as Scriptures go, I guess there is only one that is reliable? Unless Baha'is really think the Quran is totally 100% authentic too. So what is the question? Is Hinduism based on divinely inspired revelation? No, it is based on unauthenticated Scriptures from who knows where. But no, that don't sound too good. How would the Baha'i Faith say it? We love your religion, but we can't trust your Scriptures? No, that still sounds sucky. I don't know. How do you say it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

As far as Scriptures go, I guess there is only one that is reliable? Unless Baha'is really think the Quran is totally 100% authentic too. So what is the question? Is Hinduism based on divinely inspired revelation? No, it is based on unauthenticated Scriptures from who knows where. But no, that don't sound too good. How would the Baha'i Faith say it? We love your religion, but we can't trust your Scriptures? No, that still sounds sucky. I don't know. How do you say it?

The Quran and the Baha’i writings are authentic. The Gospels and Torah are authentic in substance though we can not be sure they contain the exact words of Christ and Moses. However these books were protected by God and convey all the Teachings God wanted through their respective Educators. The Buddhist and Hindu sacred scriptures we rely to a greater extent on historians and scholars for our understanding. As you may appreciate their opinions are varied and contradictory. Baha’is who feel they wish to study these writings and the opinions of scholars are encouraged to do so. I don’t believe there is any disrespect in humility and acknowledging what we don’t know. Do you?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I agree that there are many similarities, like in some ethical behaviour, the existence of God or gods. I think I use 'night and day' for effect when I hear the idea that they're totally the same. Really, the biggest difference in this very long debate is that some folks, (not me) see differences as a deterrent, while people like me see differences as an asset. From that premise, each side goes looking for one or the other, and cherry picks.

Okay when you put it like that I see your point and get it

 

[Native]

In Abrahamic Religions, it is believed that there are Messengers of God who have come with new covenant each time and each brought a set of teachings or commandments from divinity. Example of these Messengers are Noah, Abraham and Moses.
There are also other prophets such as the Jewish Prophets (Daniel, Ezekiel), who did not bring commandments, but according Bible, the saw visions and dreams, and prophesied about future events.

Now, regardless of the usage of the Terms 'prophet', and 'Messenger', how different is the idea of inspiration in Hinduism.
Essentially both Religions claim that a God or gods communicated to humanity.

Thanks for this interesting post

We tend to think that revelations belongs only to the prime known religions and to some divine prophets, but this is very simplistic.

In fact, the "divine communication" between Cosmos and Humans take place all over the Earth where sensitive individuals become able to have these communications, intially in order to educate the individ to have these communications and secondary in order to guide his/hers tribe to live accordingly to the "Nature of Creation".

This is the basics in all "revelations" and it happend even in the smallest of cultural tribes all over the World - and it STILL does today and in the future as long as natural and sensitive humans quietly listen to the "Cosmic Voice" in everything.

 

[Sundance]

A lifetime ago I had your exceptionally positive view of religion. Now I don't. Now I'm very pessimistic. Some religions were false. Some religious leaders and prophets taught false beliefs and practices. In ancient times, it was religions that cut the hearts out of people for their gods or threw people into volcanos. Now even the major religions are all over the place with their beliefs about what is the truth. Are they all wonderful and beautiful? Or, are some filled with man made distortions of the truth? Even some Baha'is have said things like that. That man has taken the original messages and have changed them and misinterpreted them. Where is the beauty in that? Those beliefs aren't from God, they are from man.

But the other ugly thing that happens between religions is when some of the beliefs of one religion are said to be wrong by another religion. Which religion is right? The newer one? Because that is what Baha'is are saying about all the older religions. Yes, at one level, Baha'is see the beauty in all religions, except the evil false ones, but at another level, Baha'is disagree with some of the major beliefs of the other religions. And, since the Baha'is say they have the latest and most accurate message from God, that they are right and the other religions are wrong.

Truth...........truth.


That's the million-dollar word here, my friend.

I will say this as a Bahá’í myself: concerning religion, I am quite skeptical in the existence of any objective truth among the various religions. All that we have, all that we will ever know are those things born of the sprinklings of Divine Inspiration and Revelation, diverse cultural understandings, human exploration, the influences of time, and individual interpretation. Unless a mutually applicable or independent standard is raised by which any statement or assertion can be tested, it cannot be said to right nor wrong. What exist are only divergences of viewpoint. Not truth nor falsehood. Am I lying?


With this in mind, let me answer your second question. Concerning the understanding of Bahá’ís on the older religions (which can differ), here's my understanding: that I may have disagreements with the followers of older religions on different subjects. That's true. I also acknowledge the inherent limitations of my understandings of these subjects, so I'm dedicating to learning what's actually what regarding what the religions teach, so I can approach them in a more informed manner.

As aforementioned, I do not at all view the teachings of other religions as being wrong; they differ from my own, that is all. Again, how can such be said in the first place when the facts of various matters are not and can not be known?


Also, the your use of the word “accurate” towards the end is quite incorrect. The word “timely” is more exact here. The Bahá’í Faith speaks more directly to the Spirit of this Age than religions that have come previously. This forms part of what we refer to when it comes to the idea of Progressive Revelation. That the social teachings of each religion that comes forth will speak to the human understandings of things regarding the world in that particular day and age, not that the spiritual teachings of the previous religions are wrong or rendered invalid.

 

[Native]

I will say this as a Bahá’í myself: concerning religion, I don't believe in truth. All that we have, all that we will ever know are those things born of the sprinklings of Divine Inspiration and Revelation, diverse cultural understandings, human exploration, the influences of time, and individual interpretation. Unless a mutually applicable or independent standard is raised by which any statement or assertion can be tested, it cannot be said to right nor wrong. What exist are only divergences of viewpoint. Not truth nor falsehood. Am I lying?

IMO, we have divine truth as in the numerous divine inspired Stories of Creation and human made "truth" as in the situations where a human statement doesn´t mirrors and reflect the principles, meanings and morals of the divine truth.

This is "a mutually applicable and independent standard by which any statement or assertion can be tested,

 

[Marcion]

The Bahá’í Faith speaks more directly to the Spirit of this Age than religions that have come previously. This forms part of what we refer to when it comes to the idea of Progressive Revelation. That the social teachings of each religion that comes forth will speak to the human understandings of things regarding the world in that particular day and age, not that the spiritual teachings of the previous religions are wrong or rendered invalid.

This however only works within the paradigma of separate religions. For those of us who don't believe in this idea of separate religions (or so-called "divine revelations"), the "Spirit of this Age" cannot be found in yet another religion but should rather be sought in the ideology that shatters or transcends this limited idea of religion and its superstitious belief systems.

 

[Vinayaka]

The word “timely” is more exact here. The Bahá’í Faith speaks more directly to the Spirit of this Age than religions that have come previously.

Big problem with this. Baha'is believe their faith speaks more directly to the spirit of this age. Nobody else does. Each previous religion also speaks directly to this time on the planet, or at least the respective adherents think they do. If people believe Baha'i was better for this age, there would be far more Baha'i than there are. People are happy within their own faith.

There is only one new thing, as far as I can figure, and that's the prophet. It's a different guy. The ideas of unity and non-violence were especially important in all the ancient dharmic faiths. So Bahai' has little new to offer. Besides, some of the stuff, like governance, has failed.

Of course you're free to believe Baha'i is the religion of this 'new' age.

 

[Sundance]

Big problem with this. Baha'is believe their faith speaks more directly to the spirit of this age. Nobody else does. Each previous religion also speaks directly to this time on the planet, or at least the respective adherents think they do. If people believe Baha'i was better for this age, there would be far more Baha'i than there are. People are happy within their own faith.

There is only one new thing, as far as I can figure, and that's the prophet. It's a different guy. The ideas of unity and non-violence were especially important in all the ancient dharmic faiths. So Bahai' has little new to offer. Besides, some of the stuff, like governance, has failed.

Of course you're free to believe Baha'i is the religion of this 'new' age.

I'm sure you're right, dearest Vinayaka: that is only what we believe. Different people feel differently. I don't feel hurt by it. Because these things are concerns for humanity whether or not the Bahá’í Faith exists. And again, you're right: ideas of unity and non-violence were very much present in Dharmic Religions beforehand. I sincerely believe that we would all do well in studying these, as they can give us insight into the ideas.

But then, what do Dharmic faiths teach about amity between races? What does it say about the extremes of wealth and poverty? Nuclear disarmament? The general abolition of war?

 

[Sundance]

This however only works within the paradigma of separate religions. For those of us who don't believe in this idea of separate religions (or so-called "divine revelations"), the "Spirit of this Age" cannot be found in yet another religion but should rather be sought in the ideology that shatters or transcends this limited idea of religion and its superstitious belief systems.

Marcion, I think you sort of slipped in your understanding of the phrase “Spirit of the Age”. This phrase doesn't refer to any particular religion, but rather what human beings understand about the world and where we're headed at any particular point in time.

 

[Vinayaka]

But then, what do Dharmic faiths teach about amity between races? What does it say about the extremes of wealth and poverty? Nuclear disarmament? The general abolition of war?

There are lots of teachings on equity regardless of race. Of course, when the scripture was written, there wouldn't have been much of a variance in race. These days, because dharmic faiths have a teacher succession thing going on in many teaching lineages, we can ask today's religious leaders. I have only heard of one who said a few racially derogatory things, but then so did some of the early Baha'i guys do that. People with much wisdom at all aren't racist. It doesn't take teaching, it just takes some positive experience, and a bit of observation.

Dharmic faiths are very charitable, it's a keystone to life. Yes there are individuals who seem to have missed that teaching. I don't know of any modern teacher who would be against nuclear disarmament or the ending of war. India has a functioning army for defense purposes. Both Pakistan and China are seen as very real dangers. You hear about China's encroachment on India, and Pakistan's negative notions about dharmic faiths, and expansion of islam, but you never or hear about some Indian invasion of Pakistan, because it's never happened.

In some ways the Baha'i faith parallels ancient dharmic ideals, but that's never acknowledged.

 

[Marcion]

Marcion, I think you sort of slipped in your understanding of the phrase “Spirit of the Age”. This phrase doesn't refer to any particular religion, but rather what human beings understand about the world and where we're headed at any particular point in time.

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say.

 

[Sundance]

There are lots of teachings on equity regardless of race. Of course, when the scripture was written, there wouldn't have been much of a variance in race. These days, because dharmic faiths have a teacher succession thing going on in many teaching lineages, we can ask today's religious leaders. I have only heard of one who said a few racially derogatory things, but then so did some of the early Baha'i guys do that. People with much wisdom at all aren't racist. It doesn't take teaching, it just takes some positive experience, and a bit of observation.

Dharmic faiths are very charitable, it's a keystone to life. Yes there are individuals who seem to have missed that teaching. I don't know of any modern teacher who would be against nuclear disarmament or the ending of war. India has a functioning army for defense purposes. Both Pakistan and China are seen as very real dangers. You hear about China's encroachment on India, and Pakistan's negative notions about dharmic faiths, and expansion of islam, but you never or hear about some Indian invasion of Pakistan, because it's never happened.

In some ways the Baha'i faith parallels ancient dharmic ideals, but that's never acknowledged.

Hmmmmm....I see your point, Vinayaka.

 

[Sundance]

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say.

I see.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Quran and the Baha’i writings are authentic. The Gospels and Torah are authentic in substance though we can not be sure they contain the exact words of Christ and Moses. However these books were protected by God and convey all the Teachings God wanted through their respective Educators. The Buddhist and Hindu sacred scriptures we rely to a greater extent on historians and scholars for our understanding. As you may appreciate their opinions are varied and contradictory. Baha’is who feel they wish to study these writings and the opinions of scholars are encouraged to do so. I don’t believe there is any disrespect in humility and acknowledging what we don’t know. Do you?

Well what don't we know... Did Moses write the first five books of the Bible? Did Jesus really say the things that the gospel writer say he did? Jesus and Moses are the ones that received the divine revelation. If they aren't the ones that wrote it down, then that how can we and why would we assume the information is correct? We both have talked about the gospels being second or third hand information. Christians say that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Luke and Mark were with the apostles and heard the stories from them.

But there are even more hands involved in the transmission of the message, angels. How do we know that a spirit being appeared and told anybody anything? How do we know that such a being was authorized by God to pass on some information to a human, who then passed it on to the rest of us? Talking to angels can easily be faked and could be used to give some "supernatural" source for some spiritual ideas the person has. So what is "divine" revelation anyway? Can we trust the people that wrote that some other person, like a Jesus or a Moses, spoke with God or spoke with an angel?

People do put their trust in those things written. But then comes the problem of interpreting what it all means and how to put it into practice. So we have words that people trust as being the truth that tells them that they have accumulated bad karma and must do certain things to get rid of it to get out of the birth and rebirth cycle. We have other people that trust their words that tells them that the first humans sinned, and because of that sin, all humans are born with a sin nature, or even worse, they are tainted with "original" sin. Their religion tells them what to do to get right with God. Part of that is to accept that God sent his son to die for them to pay the penalty for that sin. That he was sinless and was a perfect sacrifice. And you know how that story ends up. That person was killed but was said to have come back to life and floated up into the sky to be with God.

All these "divine" teachings can be believed or questioned and not believed. For those that believe, no matter how strange or unlikely that those beliefs are true, the things in that religion work. They feel it in their heart. And, they can come up with arguments why their beliefs are true. But, all those beliefs contradict the beliefs of the other religions and even other sects within their own religion. So what is truth? It seems very, very relative. For Baha'is, I don't see how telling people in other religions that their Scriptures are not "wholly" authentic and that some of their doctrines are misconceptions... is going to bring religions together. To me, that is still, pretty much, telling them that what they believe is wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

Truth...........truth.


That's the million-dollar word here, my friend.

I will say this as a Bahá’í myself: concerning religion, I am quite skeptical in the existence of any objective truth among the various religions. All that we have, all that we will ever know are those things born of the sprinklings of Divine Inspiration and Revelation, diverse cultural understandings, human exploration, the influences of time, and individual interpretation. Unless a mutually applicable or independent standard is raised by which any statement or assertion can be tested, it cannot be said to right nor wrong. What exist are only divergences of viewpoint. Not truth nor falsehood. Am I lying?


With this in mind, let me answer your second question. Concerning the understanding of Bahá’ís on the older religions (which can differ), here's my understanding: that I may have disagreements with the followers of older religions on different subjects. That's true. I also acknowledge the inherent limitations of my understandings of these subjects, so I'm dedicating to learning what's actually what regarding what the religions teach, so I can approach them in a more informed manner.

As aforementioned, I do not at all view the teachings of other religions as being wrong; they differ from my own, that is all. Again, how can such be said in the first place when the facts of various matters are not and can not be known?


Also, the your use of the word “accurate” towards the end is quite incorrect. The word “timely” is more exact here. The Bahá’í Faith speaks more directly to the Spirit of this Age than religions that have come previously. This forms part of what we refer to when it comes to the idea of Progressive Revelation. That the social teachings of each religion that comes forth will speak to the human understandings of things regarding the world in that particular day and age, not that the spiritual teachings of the previous religions are wrong or rendered invalid.

You went from a "Baha'i mystic" to a "None (Pantheist and Henotheist)" Could you explain what you mean? Also, I don't see a problem with using "accurate". If the Baha'i teaching are "accurate", then the teachings of other religions are "inaccurate". Baha'is have explained why they feel that teachings in other religions aren't accurate. And that is because they say that things have been misinterpreted, things have been added, and people have followed traditions rather than the original message. But, what the Baha'i Faith brings is an accurate and sure "timely" message from God.

But, I will always have a problem with "progressive" revelation. I don't care about some mythical "original" message. It's not there. But what we do know about the different religions, in how they are practiced and how they are believed, they all have beliefs that contradict each of the other religions. Even the "progression" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam isn't all that smooth. They don't build on each other. They point out what's wrong with the previous one and make changes that eliminates the need for the other one. But I still like your spiritually positive and optimistic attitude. So don't ever lose that.

 

[Sundance]

You went from a "Baha'i mystic" to a "None (Pantheist and Henotheist)" Could you explain what you mean? Also, I don't see a problem with using "accurate". If the Baha'i teaching are "accurate", then the teachings of other religions are "inaccurate". Baha'is have explained why they feel that teachings in other religions aren't accurate. And that is because they say that things have been misinterpreted, things have been added, and people have followed traditions rather than the original message. But, what the Baha'i Faith brings is an accurate and sure "timely" message from God.

But, I will always have a problem with "progressive" revelation. I don't care about some mythical "original" message. It's not there. But what we do know about the different religions, in how they are practiced and how they are believed, they all have beliefs that contradict each of the other religions. Even the "progression" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam isn't all that smooth. They don't build on each other. They point out what's wrong with the previous one and make changes that eliminates the need for the other one. But I still like your spiritually positive and optimistic attitude. So don't ever lose that.

I understand what you mean here, @CG Didymus, and I respect your opinion. Be well, my friend.


Oh, and I'll explain my sudden change of understanding in a seperate thread.