Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[Vinayaka]

Y’know, I haven’t read Easwaran’s yet all these years later. Though I have it. I’m partial to Swami Mukundananda. He’s pretty close to the Sanskrit, which he provides. His commentaries make more sense than Prabhupada’s, which I think go off the rails. Prabhupada’s has the nerve to show the Sanskrit but with a translation that often gets a “What the actual ****?” He uses “the Supreme Personality of Godhead said ”, which is like fingernails on a blackboard for me, for śrī bhagavān uvāca. Mukundananda uses “the Supreme Lord said”, Mitchell uses “the Blessed Lord said”, which make far more sense to me. Swami Tapasyananda is pretty good too. Western translations are so-so. Stephen Mitchell’s is good, using plain English.

I haven't read it at all, although Boss did, on Kindle just last week. I didn't quiz her much. I'm sure it has great things in it.

 

[Vinayaka]

We will see. I have become busy this week with a work project. So it will have to wait a bit.

Saying you'd like to discuss the Bhagavad Gita doesn't mean you actually want to discuss the Bhagavad Gita. Just like when we say, 'Let's meet up some time' doesn't necessarily mean we want to. It can be a cordial thing. I learned this in my youth when I hitchhiked, and both parties would say, 'Seeya later" a the end of the ride.

This thread has yet to discuss the Gita, but as long as some more information about the Baha'i faith can be tossed about, I'm sure it's all good with that side. I'll remain skeptical until I actually see it.

 

[sayak83]

Thread started for myself and @loverofhumanity to converse in detail about the verses of Gita.
Basic question to be discussed: What does the Gita actually say, and is it compatible with the Bahai theology?

The Gita begins with the question of whether the war over the rulership of a kingdom between kins can be just. Arjuna says at the beginning that it cannot be moral to engage in a such a war even if they have a rightful claim as the slaughter of close family cannot be justified. The Baha'i focus a lot on peace. So in Baha'i theology, are Arjuna's objections correct? If so we will have a disagreement with what Krishna says and what Baha'i beliefs hold.

Excerpts of Arjuna's arguments:-

I do not wish to kill them, 0 Madhusudana, even if they should slay [me ]; not even for the sake of rulership over the triple world, how much less for the sake of the earth? If we kill the sons-of-Dhritarashtra, what delight could be ours, 0 Janardana?
Only sin would cling to us should we slay those [offenders ]-whose-bows-are-strung. Therefore we are not allowed to kill the sons-of-Dhritarashtra [who are, after all,] our own kin.
For, how could we be happy, 0 Madhava, if we slay our own people?
Even if they, [with their ] minds corrupted by greed, cannot see that to destroy the family is flawed, and treachery toward a friend is a transgression, how should we not be wise [enough ] to turn away from this sin, [we who] behold the flaw in the destruction of the family, Janardana? Upon the destruction of the family, the everlasting family laws collapse. Once the law has perished, lawlessness (adharma) befalls the whole family.

@adrian009
@loverofhumanity
@Truthseeker9

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, because your kin are involved, would you deviate from 'dharma', suppose you are a police officer?
No, the Kuravas were given chances for rapprochement. They refused. Then nothing was left but to fight.
This is Vyavaharika, Sayak. Goody-goody peace and brotherhood does not work all the time.
I do not think Bahais are harking for peace and brotherhood for some divine purpose.
It is the normal form of proselytization, just like the Christians and even Muslims do. It is a fight for numbers.

 

[Marcion]

Then nothing was left but to fight.
This is Vyavaharika, Sayak. Goody-goody peace and brotherhood does not work all the time.

Indeed, but if you put that into practice you can expect fierce resistance, being ostracised, persecuted or demonized. Religious people are mostly goody-goody people, they are afraid of following dharma.
They are not the ones who will stand by you when evil forces try to crush you.

 

[Jainarayan]

I haven't read it at all, although Boss did, on Kindle just last week. I didn't quiz her much. I'm sure it has great things in it.

It does. It could easily be a Shaiva or Shakta scripture largely just by changing the names Vishnu and Krishna to Shiva or a name of Devī. It’s philosophical in nature, no stories at all, not even reminiscences. I think it fairly screams Advaita, or at the very least Vishistadvaita. The closest it comes to the idea of avatar is when Krishna says that when dharma declines and adharma rises He appears. But He doesn’t say how. That could be any God/dess intervening in earthly affairs. I think you might find it interesting, with much of it applicable to your sect.

 

[Vinayaka]

It does. It could easily be a Shaiva or Shakta scripture largely just by changing the names Vishnu and Krishna to Shiva or a name of Devī. It’s philosophical in nature, no stories at all, not even reminiscences. I think it fairly screams Advaita, or at the very least Vishistadvaita. The closest it comes to the idea of avatar is when Krishna says that when dharma declines and adharma rises He appears. But He doesn’t say how. That could be any God/dess intervening in earthly affairs. I think you might find it interesting, with much of it applicable to your sect.

Yeah, I'm sure it does. I'm not that into Advaita, and somehow i don't like how it could be misinterpreted as a justification for unnecessary violence. It is set in a war, or all things. But I'm also convinced it would have stuff like the following, which I'm reading now. (You look like a happy guy, BTW)

"You may turn your bones to fuel, your flesh to meat, letting them roast and sizzle in the gold-red blaze of severe austerities. But unless your heart melts in love's sweet ecstacy, you never can possess my Lord Siva, my treasure-trove." Tirumantiram Verse 272

 

[CG Didymus]

Taking the time to genuinely learn about individual religions rather than arrogantly misrepresenting then is what distinguishes the sincere from the insincere.

You know that I'm always bringing up reincarnation. So I think it's time that we learn what the Gita teaches about it. Here a link to a site about the Bhagavad Gita and Reincarnation. Here's the first few paragraphs...

In Bhagavad Gita the concept of reincarnation has been made explicitly clear. In the doctrine of Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna... reincarnation is not a myth. It is as valuable and clear as the water we drink and the air we breathe.

Reincarnation-rebirth of the soul in another body is a fundamental of life around which rotates the central concept of the cosmos itself. Bhagavad Gita states that every soul (atman) reincarnates again and again to facilitate the removal of dross within. This process of reincarnation stops when the human form gains enlightenment (Kaivalya Jnana) and finally salvation (moksha).


To understand the concept of reincarnation in Bhagavad Gita it is imperative to understand the logic behind such a concept. It is the rebirth concept of soul that makes it manifest a body again and again and vice versa does not hold good. Meaning thereby that no human body (no living being that has life in it) does ever inherit a soul (atman)!

In the concept of reincarnation in Bhagavad Gita... the reincarnation rebirth of the soul is necessary for every soul to progress and gain purity (remove the dross from within)... reach the end of its cosmic life. This end of the cosmic life for the soul as per Bhagavad Gita culminates in every human form gaining enlightenment (Kaivalya Jnana) and finally the stage of salvation (moksha).
​

Is it as "clear" as the water we drink and the "air" we breathe? Because the Baha'i writings say otherwise, Baha'is here on the forum have always said that reincarnation, as believed by at least some Hindus, or maybe most Hindus, is not true. So what does the Gita say about it?

 

[Jainarayan]

Yeah, I'm sure it does. I'm not that into Advaita, and somehow i don't like how it could be misinterpreted as a justification for unnecessary violence. It is set in a war, or all things. But I'm also convinced it would have stuff like the following, which I'm reading now. (You look like a happy guy, BTW)

"You may turn your bones to fuel, your flesh to meat, letting them roast and sizzle in the gold-red blaze of severe austerities. But unless your heart melts in love's sweet ecstacy, you never can possess my Lord Siva, my treasure-trove." Tirumantiram Verse 272

Yeah, I’m basically happy and goofy.

You made a good point about justifying violence... vigilantism, in a word. Someone decides it’s their duty... no, it isn’t. Even as a soldier in a battle zone it’s not his duty to go rogue. That’s where reading it, or anything, at face value becomes a problem. It’s one of the reasons I bristle and discourage it when newbies are encouraged right off the bat to read the Gita. There were several verses I found contradictory and downright problematic until I read several commentaries on a particular problematic verse and saw it was, for example, building on a previous verse.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You know that I'm always bringing up reincarnation. So I think it's time that we learn what the Gita teaches about it. Here a link to a site about the Bhagavad Gita and Reincarnation. Here's the first few paragraphs...

In Bhagavad Gita the concept of reincarnation has been made explicitly clear. In the doctrine of Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna... reincarnation is not a myth. It is as valuable and clear as the water we drink and the air we breathe.

Reincarnation-rebirth of the soul in another body is a fundamental of life around which rotates the central concept of the cosmos itself. Bhagavad Gita states that every soul (atman) reincarnates again and again to facilitate the removal of dross within. This process of reincarnation stops when the human form gains enlightenment (Kaivalya Jnana) and finally salvation (moksha).


To understand the concept of reincarnation in Bhagavad Gita it is imperative to understand the logic behind such a concept. It is the rebirth concept of soul that makes it manifest a body again and again and vice versa does not hold good. Meaning thereby that no human body (no living being that has life in it) does ever inherit a soul (atman)!

In the concept of reincarnation in Bhagavad Gita... the reincarnation rebirth of the soul is necessary for every soul to progress and gain purity (remove the dross from within)... reach the end of its cosmic life. This end of the cosmic life for the soul as per Bhagavad Gita culminates in every human form gaining enlightenment (Kaivalya Jnana) and finally the stage of salvation (moksha).
​

Is it as "clear" as the water we drink and the "air" we breathe? Because the Baha'i writings say otherwise, Baha'is here on the forum have always said that reincarnation, as believed by at least some Hindus, or maybe most Hindus, is not true. So what does the Gita say about it?

While the majority of Hindus believe in reincarnation, the view is not universally held among all Hindus.

The Bhagavad Gita certainly supports the belief in an imperishable soul. Here some of the key verses:

Chapter 2, verse 13

dehino'smin yatha deha kaumaram yauvanam jara tatha dehantara praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati

Translation: Just as in the physical body of the embodied being is the process of childhood, youth, old age; similarly in the transmigration from one body to another the wise are never deluded.

Chapter 2, verse 17

avinasi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam vinasam avyayasasya na kascit kartum arhati

Translation: But know that by whom the entire physical body is pervaded is indestructible. No one is able to cause the destruction of the imperishable soul.

Chapter 2, verse 20

na jayate mriyate va kadacin nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah ajo nityah sasvato yam purano na hanyate hanyamane

Translation: The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable and timeless and is never terminated when the body is terminated.

Chapter 2, verse 22

vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya navani grhnati naro'parani tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany anyani samyati navani dehi
Translation: As a person gives up old and worn out garments and accepts new apparel, similarly the embodied soul giving up old and worn out bodies verily accepts new bodies.

Chapter 2, verse 24

acchedyo'yam adahyo'yam akledya'sosya eva ca nityah sarva-gatah sthanur acalo'yam sanatanah
Translation: The soul is indestructible, the soul is incombustible, insoluble and unwitherable. The soul is eternal, all pervasive, unmodifiable, immovable and primordial.

Chapter 2, verse 27

jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad apariharye'rthe na tvam socitum arhasi
Translation: For one who has taken birth, death is certain and for one who has died, birth is certain. Therefore in an inevitable situation understanding should prevail.

I would view these verses as supporting the eternal nature of the soul. Many Hindus would also view these verses as supporting the literal transmigration of the soul from one physical body to another (ie reincarnation). Reincarnation or rebirth could also mean being reborn into a new life after physical death that is very different from the physical existence we once had.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Gita begins with the question of whether the war over the rulership of a kingdom between kins can be just. Arjuna says at the beginning that it cannot be moral to engage in a such a war even if they have a rightful claim as the slaughter of close family cannot be justified. The Baha'i focus a lot on peace. So in Baha'i theology, are Arjuna's objections correct? If so we will have a disagreement with what Krishna says and what Baha'i beliefs hold.

Excerpts of Arjuna's arguments:-

I do not wish to kill them, 0 Madhusudana, even if they should slay [me ]; not even for the sake of rulership over the triple world, how much less for the sake of the earth? If we kill the sons-of-Dhritarashtra, what delight could be ours, 0 Janardana?
Only sin would cling to us should we slay those [offenders ]-whose-bows-are-strung. Therefore we are not allowed to kill the sons-of-Dhritarashtra [who are, after all,] our own kin.
For, how could we be happy, 0 Madhava, if we slay our own people?
Even if they, [with their ] minds corrupted by greed, cannot see that to destroy the family is flawed, and treachery toward a friend is a transgression, how should we not be wise [enough ] to turn away from this sin, [we who] behold the flaw in the destruction of the family, Janardana? Upon the destruction of the family, the everlasting family laws collapse. Once the law has perished, lawlessness (adharma) befalls the whole family.

@adrian009
@loverofhumanity
@Truthseeker9

To be clear, Baha'is are not pacifists, although we strongly advocate for peace and strenuously seek resolution of conflict through non-violence. However, conflict is sometimes necessary. It is the duty of a Baha'i to participate in armed conflict if our government mandates it and we have no choice. Similarly, Baha'u'llah while advocating for disarmament also proposed that countries have sufficient arms for self-defense. Further if a rogue nation were to invade another, all the other nations should arise to oppose that country and remove the government that initiated war.

Let No Soul Slay Another: are Baha’is Pacifists?

Nuclear Disarmament and the Blueprint for Peace

 

[sayak83]

To be clear, Baha'is are not pacifists, although we strongly advocate for peace and strenuously seek resolution of conflict through non-violence. However, conflict is sometimes necessary. It is the duty of a Baha'i to participate in armed conflict if our government mandates it and we have no choice. Similarly, Baha'u'llah while advocating for disarmament also proposed that countries have sufficient arms for self-defense. Further if a rogue nation were to invade another, all the other nations should arise to oppose that country and remove the government that initiated war.

Let No Soul Slay Another: are Baha’is Pacifists?

Nuclear Disarmament and the Blueprint for Peace

I understand, but I am more interested in the situation described in the Gita. Will, according to Bahai thought, Arjuna should fight the war or refrain from the war. What do you think of the merits of the arguments that Arjuna puts forward.

 

[sayak83]

While the majority of Hindus believe in reincarnation, the view is not universally held among all Hindus.

The Bhagavad Gita certainly supports the belief in an imperishable soul. Here some of the key verses:

Chapter 2, verse 13

dehino'smin yatha deha kaumaram yauvanam jara tatha dehantara praptir dhiras tatra na muhyati

Translation: Just as in the physical body of the embodied being is the process of childhood, youth, old age; similarly in the transmigration from one body to another the wise are never deluded.

Chapter 2, verse 17

avinasi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam tatam vinasam avyayasasya na kascit kartum arhati

Translation: But know that by whom the entire physical body is pervaded is indestructible. No one is able to cause the destruction of the imperishable soul.

Chapter 2, verse 20

na jayate mriyate va kadacin nayam bhutva bhavita va na bhuyah ajo nityah sasvato yam purano na hanyate hanyamane

Translation: The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable and timeless and is never terminated when the body is terminated.

Chapter 2, verse 22

vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya navani grhnati naro'parani tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany anyani samyati navani dehi
Translation: As a person gives up old and worn out garments and accepts new apparel, similarly the embodied soul giving up old and worn out bodies verily accepts new bodies.

Chapter 2, verse 24

acchedyo'yam adahyo'yam akledya'sosya eva ca nityah sarva-gatah sthanur acalo'yam sanatanah
Translation: The soul is indestructible, the soul is incombustible, insoluble and unwitherable. The soul is eternal, all pervasive, unmodifiable, immovable and primordial.

Chapter 2, verse 27

jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad apariharye'rthe na tvam socitum arhasi
Translation: For one who has taken birth, death is certain and for one who has died, birth is certain. Therefore in an inevitable situation understanding should prevail.

I would view these verses as supporting the eternal nature of the soul. Many Hindus would also view these verses as supporting the literal transmigration of the soul from one physical body to another (ie reincarnation). Reincarnation or rebirth could also mean being reborn into a new life after physical death that is very different from the physical existence we once had.

Note that multiple births and deaths are mentioned like wearing and changing clothes from one day to another. The verse also talks about re-births and re-deaths. I can quote more verses, but the Gita certainly supports multiple births and deaths. I fact it explicitly says that one is reborn here on earth as well is other (heavenly and hellish) realms.

So my question here is, would the Bahai theology support such rebirth cycles?

 

[firedragon]

Thread started for myself and @loverofhumanity to converse in detail about the verses of Gita.
Basic question to be discussed: What does the Gita actually say, and is it compatible with the Bahai theology?

I haven't read it at all, although Boss did, on Kindle just last week. I didn't quiz her much. I'm sure it has great things in it.

You know something? Once some time ago, there was a survey of top business books top CEO's read. One of them was the Bhagvad Githa. They were not Hindus by the way. It is considered a business book for business strategy by some. This among Attila the Hun and the art of war.

I find that amazing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I understand, but I am more interested in the situation described in the Gita. Will, according to Bahai thought, Arjuna should fight the war or refrain from the war. What do you think of the merits of the arguments that Arjuna puts forward.

In the final chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna addresses Arjuna:

"Have you heard this, O Arjuna, with undivided attention? Has your delusion caused by ignorance been dispelled, O Dhananjaya!"

Arjuna responds to Lord Krishna:

"...by Your grace my delusion has been destroyed and I have gained true knowledge. I stand free from doubt. I will carry out your behest. "

Sanjaya who has witness this conversation between Lord Krishna and Arjuna says:

"Thus, I have heard this wonderful dialogue between high souled Vâsudeva and Arjuna, which makes my hair stand on end."

BG 18:71-73

Like Arjuna, I am convinced of the arguments presented by Lord Krishna. I hope that I too would arise to carry out the admonitions of my Lord and arise to perform my Dharma. In this instance if I were to be worthy of hearing the counsel of the Lord Himself, I would unhesitatingly play my part as a warrior in the Kurukshetra war.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Note that multiple births and deaths are mentioned like wearing and changing clothes from one day to another. The verse also talks about re-births and re-deaths. I can quote more verses, but the Gita certainly supports multiple births and deaths. I fact it explicitly says that one is reborn here on earth as well is other (heavenly and hellish) realms.

View attachment 53198


So my question here is, would the Bahai theology support such rebirth cycles?

The Baha'i Faith envisages progress through the worlds of God beyond this world. Those worlds however are not the same as this physical world. So there is no issue with multiple births and deaths. Some of those worlds may be hellish or heavenly. However, Baha'i theology does not support the transmigration of souls to another human or animal form on this earth that one might conclude with the literal interpretation you suggest. I would view the narrative allegorically.

 

[sayak83]

You know something? Once some time ago, there was a survey of top business books top CEO's read. One of them was the Bhagvad Githa. They were not Hindus by the way. It is considered a business book for business strategy by some. This among Attila the Hun and the art of war.

I find that amazing.

I wonder how much that is simply because its the "cool and trendy" thing to do vibe.

 

[firedragon]

I wonder how much that is simply because its the "cool and trendy" thing to do vibe.

Not really. It was not a trend because no body was really reading it except for a few of the top CEO's in the world. Also, the study was not a hypothesis testing based on trends or fads, it was an exploratory study. It was about 20 years ago, maybe in 2002 or 2003. So if I find the literature, maybe I will share with you.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not really. It was not a trend because no body was really reading it except for a few of the top CEO's in the world. Also, the study was not a hypothesis testing based on trends or fads, it was an exploratory study. It was about 20 years ago, maybe in 2002 or 2003. So if I find the literature, maybe I will share with you.

Around the same time The legend of Bagger Vance came out.

 

[firedragon]

Around the same time The legend of Bagger Vance came out.

Maybe.