Krishna and the Baha'i faith

[loverofhumanity]

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.

Thats a great idea.

 

[Marcion]

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”.

If you like I could find and copy the etymological-philosophical explanations from my scriptures. In religions the original meaning gets changed ("stretched"). The tantric explanations stay closest to the actual meaning of the Sanskrit words.
Shrii is indeed used honorific, but it has a specific meaning as well.

Quoted from Namámi Krishnasundaram (spoken) by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti (underlining and bolding added by myself):

Let us analyse the scriptural interpretation of the term bhagavána. The word bhaga plus the Sanskrit suffix matup becomes bhagavata, and bhagavána when declined in the first case, singular number. From the spiritual point of view, the word bhaga has two meanings - the first "spiritual effulgence" and the second, "a combination of six qualities".
The bha of bhagavána signifies bheti bhásayate lokán - "one who illuminates all the lokas by one's own aura" - by the excellence of infinite vitality, wisdom and greatness. Bha represents all these superhuman qualities. Bha is an acoustic root having immense attribution. Human beings owe their radiance to Him alone. The earth receives its light from the sun, the sun receives its light from the stars, and the stars receive their light from Parama Purusha alone. Tasya bhásá sarvamidam vibháti - "Everyone is radiant with His light." Where does human intellect originate from? It emanates from Him. People learn by reading books or by hearing and understanding discourses. These faculties of hearing, reading and understanding are not human creations. They are the gentle rise and fall of the waves flowing in the vast body of Parama Purusha. Jiivas have nothing of their own. Everything they receive is from Him alone. They get their food from Him and they get their air from Him. Everything is a gift from Him. Thus bha is an adequate description of His immense attribution.
Next is ga. Ityágacchatyajasram gacchati yasmin imá prajá ágacchati yasmát - "the Entity to whom all microcosms return". Gacchati means "goes", yasmin means "to whom" and ágacchati yasmát means "from whom all jiivas originate". Countless are the creations which issue forth from Him and return back to Him. So bha and ga together make the word bhaga.
Bhaga has another interpretation. It means a combination of six superhuman qualities. They are:

Aeshvaryainca samagrainca viiryainca yashasah shriyah;
Jinana vaerágyayoshca tu shannám bhaga iti smrtam.

[Bhága is a collection of six attributes: aeshvarya, virya, yasha, shrii, jinana and vaerágya.]

Follows a detailed explanation of these six attributes (occult power, valour, fame, power of attraction, spiritual knowledge, renunciation), I will only copy Shrii.

Shrii: Sha is the accoustic root of rajoguna [the mutative principle] and the ra of energy. When people plunge headlong into the field of action with all the rajas [mutative force] at their disposal, and backed by their stored-up energy take to karma yoga, that is, when they take up the challenge with all the inherent force and vigour of their personality, we say that sha and ra are well blended in them. So sha + ra = shra. The word is in the feminine gender, so it becomes shrii when suffixed by uniish. Shrii means the power of attraction - a unique combination of mutative lustre and inner vitality. All human beings covet this rare quality, shrii, so even those who are devoid of shrii like to prefix their names with shrii. This is a very old custom in India. One may not have shrii, but one wants it, so that person adds it to his name.

So saying "Shrii Bhagavan" is a bit funny, because the quality of Shrii (as described above) is already included in the meaning of the word Bhagavan.

 

[Truthseeker]

What's the structure of the covenant?

Universalist unitarians go by covenant instead of dogmatic but they have structure, services, initiation, and beliefs.

They're church structure and type is a covenant and they have dogma that structures their group and ideally explains what the group believes in without leaving everyone out.

They don't like the words traditions and dogma as most I know well are ex-christians.

It's the same question, though, regardless the term used. If the beliefs are so varied then what is the covenant based on and how does it function?

Is it more of a social group or activist organization? Charity?

Well, we all believe in the words of Baha'u'llah, but our interpretations of the words of the Baha'u'llah differ. As 'Abdu'l-Baha is considered the interpreter of what Baha'u'llah said, we believe in those words, but our interpretations may differ. Sometimes, it comes up though that some believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha is not really interpreting the words of Baha'u'llah, but that should theoretically not be a problem, though some may get upset. Same with Shoghi Effendi being the authorized interpreter. We differ on how we interpret his words.

But what really keeps us together is that we recognize the Universal House of Justice as the head of the Baha'i Faith today. It has all been in writing all the way. Baha'u'llah appointed "Abdu'l-Baha as the head of the Baha'i Faith in writing. 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi as the head of the Baha'i Faith in writing. Shoghi didn't pass on any one person to be the head of the Baha'i Faith, but Baha'u'llah provided for that contingincy by in writing making the Universal House of Justice the head of the Faith. The secret of the covenant is that it doesn't matter what anyone says as long as they don't try to supplant the authority of the head of the Faith at the time. There is no heresy in the Baha'i Faith in the sense no one is thrown out of the Baha'i Faith for what they say. It is definitely a religion, but man made dogma is out for us. We don't consider the interpretations of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi to be man made, but they come from God.

Those who challenge the authority of the head of the Baha'i Faith we call covenant-breakers, and they are out lest they take other people with them challenging the head. Before they are declared covenant-breakers every effort is made to convince not to do what they are doing. If that doesn't work, no one is very likely at all to stop what they are doing so no contact is to be made with them, because they might make you a covenant-breaker possibly.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think Baha'i folks could learn a lot if they seriously listened to stuff from outside the Baha'i teachings, like the dharmic faiths.

I have looked at the dharmic faiths and have learned from them myself.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yeah, uh no. Most Hindus’ knowledge of the Vedas is limited to some mantras and hymns priests chant in temple, or the more famous ones... Gayatri Mantra, Pushpam Mantra and a few others. Hinduism today is largely Puranic and Agamic, not Vedic. Most Hindus have never seen a copy of the Vedas.

Okay. I heard differently, but whatever is happening now may be different from the past, especially the long past.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

It has nothing to with translations. The Bhagavad Gita has been inserted in the Mahabharata for some reason, and according to scholars was not written by Vyasa or whatever. Krishna probably existed thousands of years before the Bhagavad Gita, whaereas the Baha'i scriptures were written down immediately. Baha'is also believe that the divine spark is in us, and that the divine is in everything. Where we differ is that God also transcends all of that, and that God is immensely greater than what is in His creation. Reincarnation could also be, if it was actually said, to be going to a new body in a higher plane than this physical plane. Another way of looking at reincarnation is that the "qualities" of a person returns, not the essence of the person.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Like I told someone else, it has nothing to do with the origivnal sanscrit or the translation of it. It's whether all the sanscrit words were said at all. There were thousands of years between when the Krishna existed probably and when the Bhagavad Gits was written down. I have also read recently that there were diffferent contradictory versions of Krishna elsewhere than in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have looked at the dharmic faiths and have learned from them myself.

In my interaction with Baha'is, this is what most say, but then when you get into an actual discussion about it, the truth comes out that usually they know very little. What they do know comes from their own biased Baha'i sources, which are incredibly minimal. With about 10 different people, one person did know quite a bit. So once again ... saying you understand doesn't mean you understand. I taught school for 27 years, and one quickly learns in that setting to distrust the two words 'I understand'.

 

[Truthseeker]

In my interaction with Baha'is, this is what most say, but then when you get into an actual discussion about it, the truth comes out that usually they know very little. What they do know comes from their own biased Baha'i sources, which are incredibly minimal. With about 10 different people, one person did know quite a bit. So once again ... saying you understand doesn't mean you understand. I taught school for 27 years, and one quickly learns in that setting to distrust the two words 'I understand'.

I learned from the Buddhist perspective that in a sense there is no "self" as what we call our self is always changing, so there is no set self. However, I disagree with the interpretation that this means there is no soul. How else can I see this I ask you, but through a Baha'i lens? I think everyone does see things through the lens of their own religion. Also we are inseparable from our environment, all is one is something I learned from Buddhism. I already knew that detachment from the world minimizes suffering, and that attachment to the world causes a lot of suffering from the Baha'i Faith.

 

[firedragon]

I learned from the Buddhist perspective that in a sense there is no "self" as what we call our self is always changing, so there is no set self. However, I disagree with the interpretation that this means there is no soul. How else can I see this I ask you, but through a Baha'i lens? I think everyone does see things through the lens of their own religion. Also we are inseparable from our environment, all is one is something I learned from Buddhism. I already knew that detachment from the world minimizes suffering, and that attachment to the world causes a lot of suffering from the Baha'i Faith.

There is no concept of soul in Buddhism. The word for soul is attha or athma. Anattha or anathma itself is the Buddhist philosophy. It also means no soul.

You were kind of right in saying detachment from the world minimises suffering, but not quite right. It is not really detachment from the world. It is detachment, period. Lets say your self. It is not the world. But the concept of detachment is to detach from your "self". Not only detachment from the world. I dont know what you mean by world but the idea of madhyama prathipadha is to take the middle path. The void in between. Not this, or that, but the void in between. So the Buddhas isolation, starvation, dushkara kriya or the difficult acts he did in his path for salvation was a failure. His detachment from everything was a failure. So the idea is that he developed the middle path after learning from these failures. Then he started eating properly, but not like a glutton, and took it not to any extremes but the middle path.

 

[firedragon]

I have looked at the dharmic faiths and have learned from them myself.

Do you believe Krishna was a bit of a player?

 

[Vinayaka]

I learned from the Buddhist perspective that in a sense there is no "self" as what we call our self is always changing, so there is no set self. However, I disagree with the interpretation that this means there is no soul. How else can I see this I ask you, but through a Baha'i lens? I think everyone does see things through the lens of their own religion. Also we are inseparable from our environment, all is one is something I learned from Buddhism. I already knew that detachment from the world minimizes suffering, and that attachment to the world causes a lot of suffering from the Baha'i Faith.

You do know that Hinduism is different from Buddhism, don't you? Krishna has nothing to do with Buddhism. The lens thing varies by individuals, in my view. In some cases, some people are quite able to take off their own lens, if only temporarily, and from that, see an alternative view, most certainly that that alternative view is valid. Baha'is stand out to me as unique in that part of the dogma, because of that one central tenet, (progressive revelation) is to criticize other faiths. I see no other way out of that for Baha'is unless they drop that tenet, which would basically mean you're no longer a Baha'i. In many other cases, like mine, there is no central tenet that says others are inferior, so it's easier to enter discussions, and not come across as debating. We take the stance of live and let live.

A long time ago I learned a method of determining just how attached folks are to their individual lenses, either their egos, or their religious identity. It was to use the following sentence ... With ______, it's always about ________. So let's use a sample on a person, say John. (no offense to any Johns on here. With John, it's always about John. I think that says a lot about John's ego.

But so too with faiths, we can say, for example, that with fundamentalist Christians, everything is always about fundamentalist Christianity. (I once won a bet with a friend, that our joint acquaintance would mention his religion within five minutes of a coffee get together.)

I have found, that very often, although not always the case, that with Bahai', it's almost always about Baha'i. We could look at post history to prove that. With many others, it's not always about their faith. They have lots more to say.

Best wishes.

 

[sayak83]

Thats a great idea.

Not sure where the thread on this would be. I have several translations, do you have any?

 

[Marcion]

The Bahai seem to punch above their weight in trying to force the dharmic viewpoints into their own viewpoint.

I myself believe that Tantra is the central cult on which all serious spiritual traditions depend.
If you cannot find a tantric centre inside a faith it will always be weaker because it will lean too much on irrational ideas.
And India has been the main powerhouse for Tantra for thousands of years.

The Abrahamic faiths don't seem to be aware of this and try putting their own imagined foundational importance in the limelight. I don't blame them because they have lost the connection to the source due to geographical isolation.

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'is stand out to me as unique in that part of the dogma, because of that one central tenet, (progressive revelation) is to criticize other faiths.

Progressive revelation is not to criticize other faiths. Each faith was suited to the understanding and circumstances of the time.

 

[Marcion]

Progressive revelation is not to criticize other faiths. Each faith was suited to the understanding and circumstances of the time.

So I guess your vision would be that I am following an outdated or not enough updated faith?
The founder of my faith in your eyes would be Shrii Krishna who was important for His age but whose teachings are now surpassed in importance by those of Bahá'u'llah?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

What did the Sun do and teach? Religions are different. They teach different things. In very general ways they are "one". The Baha'i Faith only wants people to see the very general things and then move on and accept their religion as the most important "truth" of our time. A "truth" then can change the world and bring peace and harmony to all people. If that is true, then great. Lets all hear what Baha'u'llah has to say. Many do, but only some actually join the religion... And then some drop out. Just like all other religions.

Krishna is your "beloved"? What do you really know that's true about him? Even some Hindus don't believe in him. It very similar to what some Christians say, "Oh, how I love Jesus. Their is something about that name." That wasn't his Hebrew name. So what are they "loving"? An idea? So why would a Baha'i call Krishna his "beloved"?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

As I recall you didn't believe in Krishna as being a real person. If that's true, then how do you see him? And even if he's not real, do the stories still have great spiritual meaning and truth to you? Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

That's the thing... are people that are already Baha'is wanting to truly learn about the different Hindu beliefs, or are they here to be "friendly" with the ultimate goal of making converts out of some of the Hindus?

Nevertheless the friends should do their best to make as many converts among the Hindus as they possibly can.

Sorry to say, but it seems like Baha'is want to show how their beliefs are true and the beliefs of some Hindus, Hindus that might be Atheists, or Hindus that don't believe in incarnations or manifestations, or Hindus that believe in reincarnation, that those things aren't true.

But again, if Baha'is do have "The Truth" for today, the right thing to do would be to tell everybody about it. And part of what a Baha'i would believe is that all the other religion do have false and incorrect beliefs in them. So, naturally, you wouldn't be interested in learning about those incorrect beliefs but want to help those people in the other religions to see the "light".

Trouble is, everyone suspects that. I don't think they trust that a Baha'i really wants to learn about those other religions. But only wants to appear to care and learn enough to be able to show the contrast between their religion and the Baha'i Faith. And by doing so, make those people rethink their old religion and maybe convert. For sure, you, in my opinion, do the best job at really, genuinely trying to be friendly and be friends. But if you are not thinking about converting to another religion, then what is it that you're trying to learn from those people in those other religions? Again sorry, but, for me, it's to get them into a conversation about beliefs to show how the Baha'i beliefs are better.

 

[CG Didymus]

Reincarnation could also be, if it was actually said, to be going to a new body in a higher plane than this physical plane. Another way of looking at reincarnation is that the "qualities" of a person returns, not the essence of the person.

So why do some Hindus believe that a person dies and that spirit part of them, whatever that is called, is put into a different body on Earth? What Scriptures do they use to come up with those beliefs? Since Baha'is don't believe that, then how are those Hindus wrong?

Then, how are Baha'is right in saying that a body dies and goes on to a higher plane, and that only the "qualities" of a person returns?