How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

How do Hindus view humanity's history of war and violence and what is the solution?

It's always been a problem for other people, not for Hindus themselves. I suppose in the old days certain Hindu kings did more warring amongst themselves. I'm not that familiar with those days, other than if books like the Tirukural had stuff on armies, there must have been some. Certainly Hindus needed to develop armies to stop the genocide from Islamic invasions. So it's been almost entirely for defense.

We see the solution in ahimsa, and in personal transformation of character. like I said before. Right now it's capitalism, and greed that are the biggest enemies. Wars are promoted by weapon makers as much as by politicians. In Hinduism the goal is individual, to break out of the cycle, and that can only happen through dedicated sadhana and finding peace inside. The vast majority of people in warmongering societies aren't at all peaceful inside themselves, so the natural result is disharmony.

Most of the historical wars were away from us, and we see it as a natural evolution of the soul, just as we see children bickering on the playground to be due to a lack of self-control, and a natural learning process. If this planet did destroy, souls would just migrate to another planet like this one, and take on new bodies there.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I hope you have a good day then. I'm always amazed at how prophet based religions have the individual proclaiming, rather than a natural happening based on inner attainment. The sages in India just sat, and the crowds gathered because the sage was wise, not because he made some bold proclamation about being the next prophet. A few did yes, but not many, and those that did were largely unsuccessful, if size of following is any measure of success. (It sure wouldn't be for me, inner attainment would be.) In Hinduism we don't go looking for fame, it just happens by. So many quiet sages operating all over.

That's interesting about the calendar. My New year was just 6 days back. The degree of religiousity varies a lot in Hinduism, but those who are religious spend a great amount of time at it. The priest. pundits, many orders of monks, are full time. In a survey that compared how much time people spent at religion, India as a country far exceeded anywhere else. Many Hindus go to temple daily, or do daily ritual early morning in the home. It rubs off on the other religions too, as even many Christian churches are open daily. And the annual pilgrimage each serious one is obliged to take may be up to a month.

Thank you very much. Happy New Year also. Which new year or calendar is that? The Tamil new year was about 6 days ago. India is always a country that seems to have a very tolerant attitude and is very welcoming to all Faiths and religion itself.

 

[Evie]

It's always been a problem for other people, not for Hindus themselves. I suppose in the old days certain Hindu kings did more warring amongst themselves. I'm not that familiar with those days, other than if books like the Tirukural had stuff on armies, there must have been some. Certainly Hindus needed to develop armies to stop the genocide from Islamic invasions. So it's been almost entirely for defense.

We see the solution in ahimsa, and in personal transformation of character. like I said before. Right now it's capitalism, and greed that are the biggest enemies. Wars are promoted by weapon makers as much as by politicians. In Hinduism the goal is individual, to break out of the cycle, and that can only happen through dedicated sadhana and finding peace inside. The vast majority of people in warmongering societies aren't at all peaceful inside themselves, so the natural result is disharmony.

Most of the historical wars were away from us, and we see it as a natural evolution of the soul, just as we see children bickering on the playground to be due to a lack of self-control, and a natural learning process. If this planet did destroy, souls would just migrate to another planet like this one, and take on new bodies there.

It is amazing the variety of beliefs the human mind can possess.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you very much. Happy New Year also. Which new year or calendar is that? The Tamil new year was about 6 days ago. India is always a country that seems to have a very tolerant attitude and is very welcoming to all Faiths and religion itself.

Tamil New Year is my New Year. Works really well here, as I'm personally connected to the land and the weather. So it coincides with the onset of spring, and growing season. The harvest festival for Tamil Nadu is called Thai Pongal, and it's in January here (very cold) and doesn't exactly work well. There is an honouring of the sun, and our priest has to stand outside to do the ritual. He goes bare chested in -20 for 5 minutes or so.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is amazing the variety of beliefs the human mind can possess.

Yes we are a diverse lot, aren't we, and most of us haven't even seen 10% of it. North America had over 500 languages and cultural groups before the European invasion and attempted genocide.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's sounds like the church I left. Everyone has to believe the same or they are not true believers. Unity in conformity. That is why there was the schism between protestant and catholic. Too little latitude for independent thought.

Well, Catholics claim that the protestants broke off from them (being protestesters and all) because they didn't like how the true Church was handling things. Protestants, on the other hand, say "we have the real truth" we just don't need authority to tell us that we have it.

They are both problems. Just I find Catholics over here more nice about it. Protestants direct and indirect still want to protest against the Church as if they are hidden in their back yard with pitchforks ready to bring on the next inquisition.

I would rather be one with Christ Teachings than with an organisation that claims to represent Him.

Not everyone is comfortable with denominational worship. Funny thing is when JW get roughed up about Catholics but then I go to the Hall and see the same organizational-structure that all religions have. When you have a Mass of people of course you're going to have structure. Some is communions others are democratic. But it's hard to be one humanity if you don't have some conformity in the relationship. Right?

Was your reason for leaving was different from mine? I still believed, but had beliefs that were contrary to my church. This started 5 years before I left the church. I was thinking for myself, rather than blindly following what I was taught. Be staggered, but that's just the way it is.

Mine is opposite. I love the Church. Love all her teachings, practices, symbolism, literalisms, and all the nine yards. I never saw it as an organization. Never dawned on me to think bad about how people worship compared to others. It was just a natural thing to worship together. No, not everyone is going to think 100 percent alike. However, coming from where I live and Parishes I been to, they weren't concerned with whether you think jesus had five toes or six. They knew everyone has different ways they understanding of the Eucharist. I mean, other Catholic Churches dont even go to describe the Eucharist (similar to jews don't describe the word god).

I left because of Christian teachings not Catholic teachings. I believe they are one and the same. I don't believe in a deit(s), don't believe jesus is god, and don't hold the bible as an authority.

People who have been there for years tell me they finally were able to read their bibles. I come from a family where it's a sin if you don't read your bible.

So it wasn't doctrinal issues. Just plan religious ones.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It's always been a problem for other people, not for Hindus themselves. I suppose in the old days certain Hindu kings did more warring amongst themselves. I'm not that familiar with those days, other than if books like the Tirukural had stuff on armies, there must have been some. Certainly Hindus needed to develop armies to stop the genocide from Islamic invasions. So it's been almost entirely for defense.

We see the solution in ahimsa, and in personal transformation of character. like I said before. Right now it's capitalism, and greed that are the biggest enemies. Wars are promoted by weapon makers as much as by politicians. In Hinduism the goal is individual, to break out of the cycle, and that can only happen through dedicated sadhana and finding peace inside. The vast majority of people in warmongering societies aren't at all peaceful inside themselves, so the natural result is disharmony.

Most of the historical wars were away from us, and we see it as a natural evolution of the soul, just as we see children bickering on the playground to be due to a lack of self-control, and a natural learning process. If this planet did destroy, souls would just migrate to another planet like this one, and take on new bodies there.

Couldn't have put it better. We also view our history as a period of immaturity.

The only answer is a spiritual transformation like you said. Ahimsa everywhere is needed.

 

[Vinayaka]

List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia

Which really begs the question ... What stood out about the Bab that made you pick that one, of all the choices?

 

[Vinayaka]

Couldn't have put it better. We also view our history as a period of immaturity.

Perhaps you misunderstood. We view individuals as immature, or mature. So there are young souls and old souls. There is a triple bondage of anava, karma, and maya to contend with. It's like a cloud, a dark cloud, hanging over the young soul. As the individual soul matures, the cloud slowly lifts, and the soul can see life for what it is.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I know - that was my point earlier when I suggested that perhaps Gandhi was a greater teacher than Krishna - Gandhi guided his followers to the "highest moral virtue" of non-violence whereas Krishna was able to guide Arjuna only to the secondary virtue of performing his military duty. And that's often the dilemma we are faced with - the choice between not what's good and what's bad but between what's right and what's best. But I guess you're right - you've got to have the heart for it before you can even invoke the intellect - otherwise, as you suggest - its all just words. I think, I hope, I have the heart for it - but as my own teacher (as we all are in the end) I fear I am going to end up more Krishna-like than Gandhi-like, admitting that, under the circumstances I'll just have to do what I have to do and settling (albeit reluctantly) for duty over moral excellence. I'm guessing that the majority of good-hearted people are in the same boat. But the question is - can another incarnation of a great spiritual educator help us resolve that internal conflict any better than those that have gone before - or will they end up - as all of the previous ones have done as far as I can see - leaving us with a religion that tantalizes the intellect with words of excelling virtue whilst binding the heart with chains of dutiful devotion in the apparently (to me at least) vain hope that this will ultimately liberate us from the conflict?

This thread starts from the POV of Bahai faith and hence not a good place to discuss Hinduism and Krishna in Hinduism. I would say that (personal opinion) that Krishna provides the most sustained Hindu answer to the question of how God interacts with and manifests in the world. It provides a disciple with the means of connecting to and understanding the nature of God and to recognize God's presence in the world in various modes. Many Hindu-s believe that the entire life story of Krishna is historically true, while others are more agnostic. Of course with regard to historical knowledge, very little is demonstrable apart from the fact that followers of Krishna gains prominence at least from 500 BCE and Krishna is mentioned in Upanisads and other texts from around 800 BCE. However, questions of historicity plays a tertiary role to the fact that Krishna does provide a very comprehensive answer to the kind of Being God is (if you believe in God) and and extremely efficacious way of understanding, loving and connecting with him. You can think of Krishna as a fully real historical being (at one end of faith) or an extensive parable of God acting in the world (at the other extreme of skepticism) depending on your predispositions, but either way (and everything in between) will prove to be efficacious in understanding and absorbing what Hinduism has to offer.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Which really begs the question ... What stood out about the Bab that made you pick that one, of all the choices?

I had never heard of Ghulam Ahmad until I spoke to @paarsurrey on RF a couple of months ago. A reform movement that considers itself part of Islam has little interest to me, as I'm not a Muslim.

btw
One of your coreligionists just posted above pretty much supporting the Baha'i postion that Krishna was a real person that manifests God.

 

[Vinayaka]

I had never heard of Ghulam Ahmad until I spoke to @paarsurrey on RF a couple of months ago. A reform movement that considers itself part of Islam has little interest to me, as I'm not a Muslim.

btw
One of your coreligionists just posted above pretty much supporting the Baha'i postion that Krishna was a real person that manifests God.

Yes, that's the Vaishnava position, or at least one interpretation of it. I don't think I ever denied that, although this thread is so long, I may have. I can't really speak for Vaishnavas.

 

[siti]

This thread starts from the POV of Bahai faith and hence not a good place to discuss Hinduism and Krishna in Hinduism. I would say that (personal opinion) that Krishna provides the most sustained Hindu answer to the question of how God interacts with and manifests in the world. It provides a disciple with the means of connecting to and understanding the nature of God and to recognize God's presence in the world in various modes. Many Hindu-s believe that the entire life story of Krishna is historically true, while others are more agnostic. Of course with regard to historical knowledge, very little is demonstrable apart from the fact that followers of Krishna gains prominence at least from 500 BCE and Krishna is mentioned in Upanisads and other texts from around 800 BCE. However, questions of historicity plays a tertiary role to the fact that Krishna does provide a very comprehensive answer to the kind of Being God is (if you believe in God) and and extremely efficacious way of understanding, loving and connecting with him. You can think of Krishna as a fully real historical being (at one end of faith) or an extensive parable of God acting in the world (at the other extreme of skepticism) depending on your predispositions, but either way (and everything in between) will prove to be efficacious in understanding and absorbing what Hinduism has to offer.

Absolutely. It was never my intention to critique the spectrum of Hindu beliefs and ideas about Krishna. My intention was to point out that the Baha'i appropriation of this icon of the Hindu faith was, at best misguided, and at worst disingenuous. The main reason is that at least a significant part of the teachings that the Baha'i wish to appropriate from Krishna are clearly derived from accounts about the Kurukshetra War. By history or tradition, it was success in this war that established Krishna's 'teachings' as a national religion. This is contrary to Baha'i claims in the earlier part of this thread where the so-called "Manifestations" were all claimed to have been teachers of peace (and of humble and uneducated origins we might add, neither of which are the case for the human Krishna of Hindu tradition).

The Baha'i position, at one and the same time, flatly denies the historicity of the accounts and then cherry-picks the attributed teachings of Krishna. They do the same with Jesus. But in the case of Krishna, it is simply a fact that the popularity of teachings by and/or about Krishna in ancient India was based on success in warfare - real or mythological - it matters not. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna did not teach ahimsa (pacifism and non-violence) over dharma (duty and virtue). The lesson, it seems to me, was more about the dilemma between them that constantly confronts humanity (the battle between what's good - for me/mine - and what's right - for us/ours - more than between what's right and what's wrong) than the solution. But the record (and again I stress, it really doesn't matter whether it is a historical or mythological record) shows that the outcome, in the human sphere at least, is often at one and the same time both unavoidably and unacceptably bloody. It is an ultimately irresolvable conflict - and that, it seems to me, is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. In its broader context (Mahabharata), there is really no resolution - only an alternating and temporary flaring up and quelling of the outward violence - the internal conflict is never satisfactorily resolved (as long as we are in the human sphere). This is not the message of Baha'i - the message of Baha'i is that world peace is actually achievable, and that, it seems to me, is almost the opposite of the message of Krishna. The two are just not compatible and Krishna simply did not teach what Baha'i's would like him to have taught.

PS - Gandhi read the Gita and plumped for ahimsa (as the overriding dharma I suppose), but 70 years and a couple of modern states to the west of the ancient boundaries of the Kuru Kingdom and current conditions suggest that whilst Gandhi's interpretation of ahimsa and dharma was right (as in morally virtuous or good), Krishna's unresolved dilemma between ahimsa and dharma was probably right (as in an accurate summation of the human condition).

 

[loverofhumanity]

Perhaps you misunderstood. We view individuals as immature, or mature. So there are young souls and old souls. There is a triple bondage of anava, karma, and maya to contend with. It's like a cloud, a dark cloud, hanging over the young soul. As the individual soul matures, the cloud slowly lifts, and the soul can see life for what it is.

Yes I think we understand it similarly. We see Individual spiritual maturity as the need of our time. A spiritual transformation of the individual into maturity.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes I think we understand it similarly. We see Individual spiritual maturity as the need of our time. A spiritual transformation of the individual into maturity.

I don't believe we understand it the same at all, but you can think so if you wish. Our understandings are very different, in my opinion. The entire Baha'i paradigm, at least as far as I have explored, is chock full of contradictions, overcome by simplistic overgeneralisations, as proven throughout this thread. So much is secret, so much is hidden. It, like most other Abrahamic faiths, is fundamentally an 'us versus them' mentality. You're either a card carrying Baha'i or you're not.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You might like to talk to @Carlita and @Vinayaka about cultural misappropriation.


@InvestigateTruth is a Baha'i from a Muslim background who can answer all your questions. @loverofhumanity and @arthra are knowledgeable too. The Bab (forerunner to Baha'u'llah) is a Mahdi claimant too so they can't both be right.

List of Mahdi claimants - Wikipedia

Hi,

with the Quranic disconnected letters, the Name of Qaim is alluded to be "Ali Muhammad", which is based on interpretations provided by Shia Imams, as well as two other Hadithes from Imam Ali and Imam Sadiq and also name of Baha'u'llah is mentioned in a Quranic Figurative verse, which based on interpretations of the Shia Imams it is "Hussein Ali".
In general, many signs regarding manifestations of the Qaim and Christ are mentioned in Quran, such as the year They appear, the cities They come to and invite people, the number of years They rule, and etc. However, most of these are in the form of allusions and they are based on figurative interpretation of the Quranic verses by the Shia Imams. In another words they are not explicit, thus they depend if people are willing to accept these interpretations. The Muslims disagree about infallibility of the Shia Imams, as well as which Hadithes are authentic, and If these interpretations which are from Shia Imams are presented to them, they may not be willing to accept them. Of course I believe through logical arguments based on Quran, it is possible to prove the interpretations of the Shia Imams are the only acceptable interpretations, and also these Hadithes are authentic as they have evidence in Quran and are compatible with Quran, however all these would get into long debates, and when people are not willing to accept, they can just deny them.
On the other hand, The signs regarding the Bab, and Bahaullah, which are mentioned in Islamic Sources, are Somewhat similar to how previous Manifestations, such as Muhammad or Jesus were prophesied in Christian and Jewish Bible respectively but with more details though the Jews do not see it that way, neither Christians accept that Muhammad is mentioned in Bible, and you know, it was already prophesied in Islamic Sources that when the Qaim appears, the Muslims reject Him.
And We Baha'is believe that the reasons these things are mentioned in symbolic language was to Test mankind, and separate pure from impure hearts, as Baha'u'llah mentioned in the Iqan. If God wanted them to be explicit, He would have, but He wanted to use symbolic language and abstruse allusions, and if wants to guide anyone, in His ways He guides him.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't believe we understand it the same at all, but you can think so if you wish. Our understandings are very different, in my opinion. The entire Baha'i paradigm, at least as far as I have explored, is chock full of contradictions, overcome by simplistic overgeneralisations, as proven throughout this thread. So much is secret, so much is hidden. It, like most other Abrahamic faiths, is fundamentally an 'us versus them' mentality. You're either a card carrying Baha'i or you're not.

It is to be expected we will be misunderstood and misconstrued. What can we say but that we believe the people are fast asleep and will one day wake up and discover the truth.

I thought the same too at first but after a few years I found out otherwise. I was against this Faith at first and opposed it vehemently. I was nowhere near as tolerant or open minded as you are.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Absolutely. It was never my intention to critique the spectrum of Hindu beliefs and ideas about Krishna. My intention was to point out that the Baha'i appropriation of this icon of the Hindu faith was, at best misguided, and at worst disingenuous. The main reason is that at least a significant part of the teachings that the Baha'i wish to appropriate from Krishna are clearly derived from accounts about the Kurukshetra War. By history or tradition, it was success in this war that established Krishna's 'teachings' as a national religion. This is contrary to Baha'i claims in the earlier part of this thread where the so-called "Manifestations" were all claimed to have been teachers of peace (and of humble and uneducated origins we might add, neither of which are the case for the human Krishna of Hindu tradition).

The Baha'i position, at one and the same time, flatly denies the historicity of the accounts and then cherry-picks the attributed teachings of Krishna. They do the same with Jesus. But in the case of Krishna, it is simply a fact that the popularity of teachings by and/or about Krishna in ancient India was based on success in warfare - real or mythological - it matters not. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna did not teach ahimsa (pacifism and non-violence) over dharma (duty and virtue). The lesson, it seems to me, was more about the dilemma between them that constantly confronts humanity (the battle between what's good - for me/mine - and what's right - for us/ours - more than between what's right and what's wrong) than the solution. But the record (and again I stress, it really doesn't matter whether it is a historical or mythological record) shows that the outcome, in the human sphere at least, is often at one and the same time both unavoidably and unacceptably bloody. It is an ultimately irresolvable conflict - and that, it seems to me, is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. In its broader context (Mahabharata), there is really no resolution - only an alternating and temporary flaring up and quelling of the outward violence - the internal conflict is never satisfactorily resolved (as long as we are in the human sphere). This is not the message of Baha'i - the message of Baha'i is that world peace is actually achievable, and that, it seems to me, is almost the opposite of the message of Krishna. The two are just not compatible and Krishna simply did not teach what Baha'i's would like him to have taught.

PS - Gandhi read the Gita and plumped for ahimsa (as the overriding dharma I suppose), but 70 years and a couple of modern states to the west of the ancient boundaries of the Kuru Kingdom and current conditions suggest that whilst Gandhi's interpretation of ahimsa and dharma was right (as in morally virtuous or good), Krishna's unresolved dilemma between ahimsa and dharma was probably right (as in an accurate summation of the human condition).

Hello,

I just thought to mention some of my own understanding about Baha'i Faith position with regards to Hinduism.

The Baha'is believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God, and as you know there are many sects and denominations in Hinduism. To my knowledge, the Baha'i Scriptures does not talk a lot about different Hindu sects or denominations, but generally it says that, the teachings of Manifestations as well as historical accounts do become distorted over time. Thus, we do not believe that all teachings of Krsihna, or the History related to Him are all preserved today. On the other hand, we also do not believe that the teachings of all Manifestations, being Krishna, Buddha, ...or Jesus, are the same. No!, in our view, even in its original forms, they do differ, as each brought certain teachings that only suits the people of their Age.

 

[sayak83]

Absolutely. It was never my intention to critique the spectrum of Hindu beliefs and ideas about Krishna. My intention was to point out that the Baha'i appropriation of this icon of the Hindu faith was, at best misguided, and at worst disingenuous. The main reason is that the teachings that the Baha'i appropriate from Krishna are clearly derived from accounts about the Kurukshetra War. By history or tradition, it was this war that established Krishna's 'teachings' as a national religion. This is contrary to Baha'i claims in the earlier part of this thread where the so-called "Manifestations" were all claimed to have been teachers of peace.

The Baha'i position, at one and the same time, flatly denies the historicity of the accounts and then cherry-picks the attributed teachings of Krishna. They do the same with Jesus. But in the case of Krishna, it is simply a fact that the popularity of teachings by and/or about Krishna in ancient India was based on success in warfare - real or mythological - it matters not. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna did not teach ahimsa (pacifism and non-violence) over dharma (duty and virtue). The lesson, it seems to me, was more about the dilemma between them that constantly confronts humanity (the battle between what's good - for me/mine - and what's right - for us/ours - more than between what's right and what's wrong) than the solution. But the record (and again I stress, it really doesn't matter whether it is a historical or mythological record) shows that the outcome, in the human sphere at least, is often at one and the same time both unavoidably and unacceptably bloody. It is an ultimately irresolvable conflict - and that, it seems to me, is the message of the Bhagavad Gita. In its broader context (Mahabharata), there is really no resolution - only an alternating and temporary flaring up and quelling of the outward violence - the internal conflict is never satisfactorily resolved (as long as we are in the human sphere). This is not the message of Baha'i - the message of Baha'i is that world peace is actually achievable, and that, it seems to me, is almost the opposite of the message of Krishna. The two are just not compatible.

Here is one aspect of the story I would like you to consider:-

I would suggest that from 9th century BCE, we see in India important institutional, religious and political change led by some Brahmins (some of those would compose the Upanishads), some Kshatriya and sramanas (Jains, Buddhists) that led to the implementation of limited kingship and restricted the spiraling of warfare as seen in the Warring state period of China or in the Peloponessian or the later Hellenic and Roman wars. Kings and nobility were never able to raise to the prominence and influence required to mobilize the entire male population for war (already happening in Peloponessian war and obviously in China) or to implement comprehensive control over all aspects of civic life of the populace (as happened by the time the first Chinese empire rose up or Roman empire was instituted). This drastically reduced the scale of wars and the impact of kings, kingdoms and empires on society. The Mauryan Kings exercised an extremely limited form of authority and left much less of a mark when compared to the Han or the Roman empire. The formulation of law and ethics remained outside the control of kings and in the hands of Brahmanas and Sramanas. Neither could they bring anyone but the Kshatriya clans and mercenaries to arms. Thus, if one looks at history, barring the initial invasions of Islamic Kings, Indian history has not been blighted by large scale warfare and "glorious" generals as was common in Greece, Rome, Europe, Middle East and China. Nor did any totalitarian state develop there.

Mahabharata traces the origin of this Dharma-king idea and a kingship limited by ideological constraints to the Mahabharata period with Krishna as a pivotal player in developing a new set of ideals apart from conquest for kingship and instituting it through politics and war. I think, based on how further events unfolded, the importance of the Mahabharata event as a "war to end all wars" and the role of a possibly historical Krishna in it, is not as inconsequential as you think. While the Chinese emperor could wield total power as long as he had the mandate of heaven, and no Confucian scholar could gainsay him....while no Greek of Roman philosopher had much say on how the god-emperors conducted their affairs...in India the kings had to follow Dharma as public policy or risk losing authority of the religious and philosophical groups who wielded immense influence. The invention and implementation of this structure of Kings under Dharma, I suggest, was began by Krishna, who as a leader of a oligarchy, favored such an institution. The largest section in Mahabharata is the Santiparva, which probably is the earliest of these Dharma-shastra-s that limits the boundaries of legal kingship.

Mahabharata becomes, over time, an instruction for Dharma in this sense, and its war a warning of what happens when such checks are not maintained. Its quite successful in that function judging by the results.

List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia

 

[siti]

Hello,

I just thought to mention some of my own understanding about Baha'i Faith position with regards to Hinduism.

The Baha'is believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God, and as you know there are many sects and denominations in Hinduism. To my knowledge, the Baha'i Scriptures does not talk a lot about different Hindu sects or denominations, but generally it says that, the teachings of Manifestations as well as historical accounts do become distorted over time. Thus, we do not believe that all teachings of Krsihna, or the History related to Him are all preserved today. On the other hand, we also do not believe that the teachings of all Manifestations, being Krishna, Buddha, ...or Jesus, are the same. No!, in our view, even in its original forms, they do differ, as each brought certain teachings that only suits the people of their Age.

Yes I know. If you go back to the first page or two of this incredibly long thread, I argued that a number of these "Manifestations'" messages were propagated more by warfare and conquest than by the peaceful persuasiveness of their messages. In the case of Krishna, this would be the Kurukshetra War which is recorded in the Mahabharata and is the backdrop for the discussion between Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. For Moses, it was the conquest of Canaan, for Jesus it was the establishment of the Roman Empire and for Muhammad it was the conquest of Arabia and the ensuing Caliphates that ensured the longevity and wide acceptance of their reported teachings. These all became state religions and it was that fact that ensured that their message endured, not the veracity or content of their teachings. In response, your fellow Baha'is suggested that the military conquests were the result of the distortions of their teachings and that the "Manifestations" themselves were peace-loving, humble and generally uneducated and could not, therefore (I presume the argument was meant to go) be personally responsible for the bloodshed perpetrated in their names. These claims are patently untrue in the cases of Krishna, Moses and Muhammad all of whom personally led armies of conquest (one way or another). If we deny the historicity of these accounts then we have no idea whether anyone even closely resembling them even existed at all - let alone any reliable idea what they may or may not have said, taught and done. You just can't have it both ways. If Krishna did not stand in Arjun's chariot and admonish him to shoulder his military duty and abandon his filial compassion, if Krishna was not really a privileged nobleman with palaces and wealth at his disposal, if Moses was not educated in the court of Pharoah and did not personally direct the genocide of the Canaanite tribes, if Muhammad did not personally lead the conquest of Arabia...as recorded in the scriptural traditions of the religions they 'established' - then what, if anything, do we know about them at all? I had already retired twice from this discussion and only really came back to assure my Hindu friends that I was not disrespecting their beliefs, just taking issue with the Baha'i misappropriation (as others in the thread have termed it) of the faiths of others.

Of course Baha'is like everyone else, are entitled to believe what they like - but if they post untrue statements about the key figures in other faiths in a religious debate forum, they should expect to be called on it.