Krishna and the Baha'i faith

[George-ananda]

Is that belief justified by authoritative texts by Krishna is something Baha'is would ask. Your interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita may be different from mine. Is what is recorded in the Bhagavad Gita in all cases what Krishna said?

I am sure translations of the Bhagavad Gita into English are many, but in all there is no missing the central idea that we are Brahman at our core and will realize this through our efforts and incarnations on the lower planes.

This is different than what is taught in Abrahamic and Baha'i religions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I appreciate your openness and honesty. Thank you for that. I do have my concerns that Baha'is and Hindus worship a different Krishna than each other. However, as powerful as Krishna is, perhaps both our prayers still get redirected to him.

I think it’s like us each looking at the same Sun but through different coloured glasses. The same truth, the same light just we are outwardly seeing differences. But to me Krishna is Krishna and my Beloved as well.

 

[Vinayaka]

Myself I have many different translations from the Bhagavad Gita As It Is to the one by Gandhi. I think that Baha’is in different countries may use differing ones but commentary is not read, only the scripture itself.

So it's read in Sanskrit, as that is the scripture itself, untranslated. Do many Baha'is understand Sanskrit?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think it’s like us each looking at the same Sun but through different coloured glasses. The same truth, the same light just we are outwardly seeing differences. But to me Krishna is Krishna and my Beloved as well.

There are vast unresolvable differences in the way 'truth' is interpreted.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So it's read in Sanskrit, as that is the scripture itself, untranslated. Do many Baha'is understand Sanskrit?

So it's read in Sanskrit, as that is the scripture itself, untranslated. Do many Baha'is understand Sanskrit?

Indian Baha’is would but it’s like any Holy Book where most read translations.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There are vast unresolvable differences in the way 'truth' is interpreted.

Yes, each individual has his own understanding.

 

[Vinayaka]

Indian Baha’is would but it’s like any Holy Book where most read translations.

So most of the converted Baha'i came from the Brahmin priesthood, the only Indians who know Sanskrit well? Good to know.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think when it comes to Bahai's discussing Hinduism or India, Twain's quote is apt. "Better to keep silent and have people believe you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[loverofhumanity]

So most of the converted Baha'i came from the Brahmin priesthood, the only Indians who know Sanskrit well? Good to know.

People from varying backgrounds become Baha’is so there would likely be those from Brahmin priesthood just as Christian and Muslim clergy have joined.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think when it comes to Bahai's discussing Hinduism or India, Twain's quote is apt. "Better to keep silent and have people believe you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Im not saying anymore. Think of me as you will

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think when it comes to Bahai's discussing Hinduism or India, Twain's quote is apt. "Better to keep silent and have people believe you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Of course we have so much to learn as many of us weren’t born into Indian Hindu families and only when we became Baha’is began to be aware of many other Faiths.

 

[Vinayaka]

People from varying backgrounds become Baha’is so there would likely be those from Brahmin priesthood just as Christian and Muslim clergy have joined.

So the Christians and Muslims speak Sanskrit. How interesting!

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course we have so much to learn as many of us weren’t born into Indian Hindu families and only when we became Baha’is began to be aware of many other Faiths.

I wasn't born into an Indian Hindu family either. As always, I think Bahai's would do well to stick to Baha'i and not go off into religions where you're lacking in knowledge of. It does your faith a disservice, in my view.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So the Christians and Muslims speak Sanskrit. How interesting!

I agree that being able to read any sacred text in its original form is preferable.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I wasn't born into an Indian Hindu family either. As always, I think Bahai's would do well to stick to Baha'i and not go off into religions where you're lacking in knowledge of. It does your faith a disservice, in my view.

The problem is that other religions are a core part of our beliefs and inseparable. We believe in all the major religions as part of our religion.

 

[sayak83]

The problem is that other religions are a core part of our beliefs and inseparable. We believe in all the major religions as part of our religion.

I would be interested to have a verse by verse discussion on Gita if you are interested. It would be interesting to see how much of the Gita jibes with what the Baha'i believe and you may learn something new.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is that belief justified by authoritative texts by Krishna is something Baha'is would ask. Your interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita may be different from mine. Is what is recorded in the Bhagavad Gita in all cases what Krishna said?

Everyone has an agenda or POV. To get what the conversation was between Krishna and Arjuna, one needs to read the original Sanskrit and understand the context or read several versions and the commentaries and weed through them.

Sanskrit is notorious for having the most synonyms in any language. Krishna can mean dark, black, attractive. Krishna paksha is the dark fortnight of the moon cycle, for example. Pretty diverse meanings for one word. Sanskrit is also a nightmarishly inflected language.

When J. Robert Oppenheimer translated Bhagavad Gita 11.32 he translated it as “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”. But that’s not at all what the verse says:

śrī-bhagavān uvācha
kālo ’smi loka-kṣhaya-kṛit pravṛiddho
lokān samāhartum iha pravṛittaḥ
ṛite ’pi tvāṁ na bhaviṣhyanti sarve
ye ’vasthitāḥ pratyanīkeṣhu yodhāḥ

The Supreme Lord said: Time I am (literal translation, kalah + asmi-> kalo’smi by rules of Sanskrit grammar) the source of destruction that comes forth to annihilate the worlds. Even without your participation, the warriors arrayed in the opposing army shall cease to exist.

sri bhagavan uvaca—the Personality of Godhead said; kalah—time; asmi—I am; loka—the worlds; ksaya-krt—destroyer; pravrddhah—to engage; lokan—all people; samahartum—to destroy; iha—in this world; pravrttah—to engage; rte api—without even; tvam—you; na—never; bhavisyanti—will be; sarve—all; ye—who; avasthitah—situated; pratyanikesu—on the opposite side; yodhah—the soldiers.

This is Prabhupada’s translation. Śrī Bhagavān is not “The Personality of Godhead”. Prabupada usually uses Supreme personality of Godhead”. It doesn’t mean that at all. It simply means “the Blessed Lord”.

So my point, getting back to Oppenheimer, his translation was either simple error, which I actually doubt, or a deliberate mistranslation to underscore the horror of what he saw, for dramatic effect. Śrī Krishna is telling Arjuna not to mourn for those who, because of Time, are already dead. Arjuna was Kshatriya, he was duty-bound by birth to fight. He didn’t want to because he was going to kill his cousins, his beloved grand uncle (Bhishma), his teacher. In the verses surrounding this one, and preceding chapters Krishna explains the nature of the soul and existence. He’s not talking about horrible gruesome destruction at all, or even the horrors of war.

Therefore, one has to know the context and the language to get a true understanding. I like Prabhupada’s English translations because they are rather poetic but his commentaries are often completely unlike the Sanskrit, and even unlike other translators who are closer in commentary to the Sanskrit.

 

[Vinayaka]

The problem is that other religions are a core part of our beliefs and inseparable. We believe in all the major religions as part of our religion.

Yes I know. There's no way out. The many contradictions found and expressed are summed up by simply saying, 'There are no contradictions.' Beyond me how it works for you, but if it does, it does, what can I say? I will be out of this one ... until once again someone misrepresents the reality of my religion, at which point I'll have to step up to the plate once again.

 

[Marcion]

This is Prabhupada’s translation. Śrī Bhagavān is not “The Personality of Godhead”. Prabupada usually uses Supreme personality of Godhead”. It doesn’t mean that at all. It simply means “the Blessed Lord”.

That depends on who you ask. My Master gave a much more elaborate explanation of Shrii and Bhagavan (not simply 'Blessed Lord'). It has something to do with a very special type of charme and being the master of all of the bhags, the occult powers .

 

[Jainarayan]

That depends on who you ask. My Master gave a much more elaborate explanation of Shrii and Bhagavan (not simply 'Blessed Lord'). It has to do with a very special type of charme and being the master of all of the bhags, the occult powers.

That’s more than a bit of a stretch. Śrī is an honorific, not unlike Don is used in Italian and Spanish. Bhagavān is from bhagavat meaning fortunate, blessed. It’s translated as Lord because there really isn’t a one for one correspondence Sanskrit to English. More importantly it’s the convention used in Indian languages as a title or an epithet. Millions of native Indian-speaking languages are a pretty good source. The Supreme of any sect is referred to as Bhagavān (or Bhagwān depending on dialect) or Bhagavātī for a Supreme goddess. “He (pronounced hey) Bhagavan” (vocative without ā, Bhagavān is nominative) is used for “oh God!” “He Bhagavatī” is the feminine... “oh Goddess”.