Krishna and the Baha'i faith

[Vinayaka]

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

But it absolutely does, whether you want to admit it or not. Hindus think it does. Christians think it does, Muslims think it does. Once again ... saying it doesn't, doesn't mean it doesn't. You can't just say stuff, and expect others to believe it. All those previous faiths have current adherents who absolutely believe they're suited to the present, just as much as they were in the past. If not, we'd have all become Baha'i by now.

Progressive ... it means to progress ... progress means to get better. The Baha'i faith is better than all the previous ones, according to Baha'i.

I realize I'm speaking to a brick wall (A cloned one at that) here, so most likely I'll be out soon. You personally weren't here for the two years I engaged with other Baha'is. Best wishes.

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

They just do, Sir. It's what my scripture says, and my leaders say, so I'm right and the Hindus, all 1.3 billion of them, are wrong about the way they view reincarnation. We've brought them a more progressive view. (Good to see you, but most likely I'll be out of this one soon. I'm not prepared to watch that movie for 100 more times, lol)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

But it absolutely does, whether you want to admit it or not. Hindus think it does. Christians think it does, Muslims think it does. Once again ... saying it doesn't, doesn't mean it doesn't. You can't just say stuff, and expect others to believe it. All those previous faiths have current adherents who absolutely believe they're suited to the present, just as much as they were in the past. If not, we'd have all become Baha'i by now.

Progressive ... it means to progress ... progress means to get better. The Baha'i faith is better than all the previous ones, according to Baha'i.

I realize I'm speaking to a brick wall (A cloned one at that) here, so most likely I'll be out soon. You personally weren't here for the two years I engaged with other Baha'is. Best wishes.

My own feelings are mixed. I really appreciate the time of @Truthseeker9 and @adrian009 answering these questions. And I don't think @Truthseeker9 is doing anything wrong in regards to the directions within his own religion. However, I have learned from this thread that I was right to get away from the Baha'i faith 1.5 years ago when I was considering it. Because while people like @Truthseeker9 are telling the truth in regards to their religion - those truths are rather dark ones to some of us, not all, in the outside world. But I don't blame them for that.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

As a Saivite, He's irrelevant to me personally, just as Christ is. Hinduism is broad in belief. I've never read the Gita, and don't worship Krishna actively, although I can. As a member of the umbrella term called Hinduism, I'll defend my Hindu brothers and sisters against false propaganda. That's why I entered this mess.

So He is the Supreme God to Vaishnavas, just as Siva is the Supreme to me.

 

[Vinayaka]

My own feelings are mixed. I really appreciate the time of @Truthseeker9 and @adrian009 answering these questions. And I don't think @Truthseeker9 is doing anything wrong in regards to the directions within his own religion. However, I have learned from this thread that I was right to get away from the Baha'i faith 1.5 years ago when I was considering it. Because while people like @Truthseeker9 are telling the truth in regards to their religion - those truths are rather dark ones to some of us, not all, in the outside world. But I don't blame them for that.

Oh I don't blame anyone, until they mislead about my faith. The Hindu POV should be put forth. Live and let live. It's all good, at least on this side, although I have been told I have an anti-Baha'i agenda here. That single Baha'i doctrine does make interaction for them unique though.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

No, that’s quite all right. I really don’t care to debate fringe commentaries, theories or opinions. As a practicing Hindu I’m quite content to follow the conventions and traditions of a billion Indians and Hindus. But thank you for the offer.

 

[Marcion]

No, that’s quite all right. I really don’t care to debate fringe commentaries, theories or opinions. As a practicing Hindu I’m quite content to follow the conventions and traditions of a billion Indians and Hindus. But thank you for the offer.

That's ok, I have no wish to debate etymology, it is what it is.

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

The Bhagavad Gita was recorded as Krishna was conversing with Arjuna in the chariot on the battlefield. This was seen and heard by Sanjaya, King Dhritarashtra’s confidant, charioteer and secretary. Sanjaya was given “divine sight” to narrate the war as it happened because Dhritarashtra was blind and could not be in the battle. Further, the Mahābhārata was transcribed by Lord Ganesha as Veda Vyasa, who also had divine sight, narrated it. These are our traditional beliefs.

As to the contradictory versions of Krishna please do point us to them. Most or many other Hindus brush these things off, but having probably been Kshatriya in past lives l’m easily irked by misinformation about Hinduism.

 

[Truthseeker]

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?

He was just as important as Baha'u'llah. If it were not for Krishna, humanity wouldn't have advanced, and Baha'u'llah would not be possible.

 

[Truthseeker]

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?

I can't answer that for you. I only know the Bhagavad Gita well, and have not read that for a while. The Hindus, if you ask them, will show you the scriptures that leads them to believe what they do.

The only thing I can say right on behalf of Baha'is now is that those scriptures are unreliable to show what Krishna said, and no other source but what Krishna said in the first place is considered reliable truth. Here's some stuff on reincarnation from the Baha'i Writings:

“The Bahá'í view of ‘reincarnation’ is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.” (to an individual believer, March 27, 1938

Some of our qualities can be transmitted to another person who is born later, I think he is saying.

“Evolution in the life of the individual starts with the formation of the human embryo and passes through various stages, and even continues after death in another form. The human spirit is capable of infinite development. … [A human being] does not pre-exist in any form before coming into this world.” (to an individual believer, Nov. 26, 1939)

He passes into another form, but this form is not a physical body.

“We know from His Teachings that Reincarnation does not exist. We come on to this planet once only. Our life here is like the baby in the womb of its mother, which develops in that state what is necessary for its entire life after it is born. The same is true of us. Spiritually we must develop here what we will require for the life after death. In that future life, God, through His Mercy, can help us to evolve characteristics which we neglected to develop while we were on this earthly plane. It is not necessary for us to come back and be born into another body in order to advance spiritually and grow closer to God."

“This is the Bahá'í Teaching, and this is what the followers of Bahá’u’lláh must accept, regardless of what experiences other people may feel they have. You yourself surely know that modern psychology has taught that the capacity of the human mind for believing what it imagines, is almost infinite. Because people think they have a certain type of experience, think they remember something of a previous life, does not mean they actually had the experience, or existed previously. The power of their mind would be quite sufficient to make them believe firmly such as thing had happened.” [ibid]

 

[Truthseeker]

But it absolutely does, whether you want to admit it or not. Hindus think it does. Christians think it does, Muslims think it does. Once again ... saying it doesn't, doesn't mean it doesn't. You can't just say stuff, and expect others to believe it.

Of course I can't expect you to believe what I say. I can hope fot it. You also seem to be implying, I may be wrong, that since the Baha'is are in the minority in believing this, we are wrong.

The Bhagavad Gita was recorded as Krishna was conversing with Arjuna in the chariot on the battlefield. This was seen and heard by Sanjaya, King Dhritarashtra’s confidant, charioteer and secretary. Sanjaya was given “divine sight” to narrate the war as it happened because Dhritarashtra was blind and could not be in the battle. Further, the Mahābhārata was transcribed by Lord Ganesha as Veda Vyasa, who also had divine sight, narrated it. These are our traditional beliefs.

As to the contradictory versions of Krishna please do point us to them. Most or many other Hindus brush these things off, but having probably been Kshatriya in past lives l’m easily irked by misinformation about Hinduism.

Like you said, this is your tradition. You have to believe in tradition? You can't think for yourself? You can believe that as you wish. There are other other versions I have heard besides that in the Bahagavad Gita I have heard. He was a diffeent kind of Krishna, with different characteristics written down at different points of time.

Historical and literary sources
The tradition of Krishna appears to be an amalgamation of several independent deities of ancient India, the earliest to be attested being Vāsudeva.[42] Vāsudeva was a hero-god of the tribe of the Vrishnis, belonging to the Vrishni heroes, whose worship is attested from the 5th-6th century BCE in the writings of Pāṇini, and from the 2nd century BCE in epigraphy with the Heliodorus pillar.[42] At one point in time, it is thought that the tribe of the Vrishnis fused with the tribe of the Yadavas, whose own hero-god was named Krishna.[42] Vāsudeva and Krishna fused to become a single deity, which appears in the Mahabharata, and they start to be identified with Vishnu in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita.[42] Around the 4th century CE, another tradition, the cult of Gopala-Krishna, the protector of cattle, was also absorbed into the Krishna tradition.

Krishna - Wikipedia

I don't subscribe wholely to all of this, but this shows that different accounts were written down about Krishna at different times.

 

[Truthseeker]

Progressive ... it means to progress ... progress means to get better. The Baha'i faith is better than all the previous ones, according to Baha'i.

It builds on the previous ones, which were absolutely essential to get to where we are.Shoghi Effendi said:

Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final.
Shoghi Effendi, "The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh", 4.19

You're making the mistake of thinking your religion is final. We don't do that.

 

[Vinayaka]

He was just as important as Baha'u'llah. If it were not for Krishna, humanity wouldn't have advanced, and Baha'u'llah would not be possible.

To Hindus, Krishna is God, period, not some manifestation. And with that, I'm out.

 

[CG Didymus]

As a Saivite, He's irrelevant to me personally, just as Christ is. Hinduism is broad in belief. I've never read the Gita, and don't worship Krishna actively, although I can. As a member of the umbrella term called Hinduism, I'll defend my Hindu brothers and sisters against false propaganda. That's why I entered this mess.

So He is the Supreme God to Vaishnavas, just as Siva is the Supreme to me.

It's always good to hear from you. "Umbrella" term I think is important here. From what I've learned from these threads is... for Baha'is to only talk about Krishna ignores the vastness of what is called Hinduism. I think it would be similar to calling Jesus the founder of the Abrahamic religions and ignore each individual Abrahamic religion and their prophet/founders... especially if they ignored Judaism.

From making a quick search, it sounds like Saivite is thought to be the older than the sects that worship and believe in Krishna. Yet, Baha'is put Krishna at the top and even listed him as the prophet, "founder" of Hinduism. It's just way to general. Beliefs, teachings, practices aren't important... except to say that some of the beliefs are incorrect. For me, if the Baha'i Faith and its prophet was all that they make him out to be, the connection and the teachings should be greater and include Hinduism. But Hinduism is barely mentioned. And what can the Baha'is say? Except that they accept Krishna as a manifestation and expect that should be good enough. But even with that, Baha'is ignore the other incarnations of Vishnu. Take care, see you on the next thread... 'Cause I'm sure there will be another one.

 

[CG Didymus]

He was just as important as Baha'u'llah. If it were not for Krishna, humanity wouldn't have advanced, and Baha'u'llah would not be possible.

Outside of some parts of India, who else was affected by the teachings of Krishna? What new teachings did Krishna bring that caused humanity to advance? What were those advancements? And what were the things that the followers of Krishna got wrong that another manifestation was needed to correct those teachings? And who was the manifestation prior to Krishna and what was his teachings. And how did Krishna's teachings change them?

 

[Vinayaka]

It's always good to hear from you. "Umbrella" term I think is important here. From what I've learned from these threads is... for Baha'is to only talk about Krishna ignores the vastness of what is called Hinduism. I think it would be similar to calling Jesus the founder of the Abrahamic religions and ignore each individual Abrahamic religion and their prophet/founders... especially if they ignored Judaism.

From making a quick search, it sounds like Saivite is thought to be the older than the sects that worship and believe in Krishna. Yet, Baha'is put Krishna at the top and even listed him as the prophet, "founder" of Hinduism. It's just way to general. Beliefs, teachings, practices aren't important... except to say that some of the beliefs are incorrect. For me, if the Baha'i Faith and its prophet was all that they make him out to be, the connection and the teachings should be greater and include Hinduism. But Hinduism is barely mentioned. And what can the Baha'is say? Except that they accept Krishna as a manifestation and expect that should be good enough. But even with that, Baha'is ignore the other incarnations of Vishnu. Take care, see you on the next thread... 'Cause I'm sure there will be another one.

Yes, Shiva goes more into antiquity, according to most historians. I'm trying to switch from calling Hinduism vast to calling it broad. I think broad is a better term for such diversity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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?
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.

Baha’u’llah is very clear about the negative effect that the different religions have upon humanity by shunning one another and addresses this in His Teachings.

“Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship.”
“Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation of these words, been nullified and abolished.”

Excerpt from
Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh
Bahá’u’lláh
This material may be protected by copyright.


“It is not his to boast who loveth his country, but it is his who loveth the world.”

Excerpt from
Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh


This is the aim of being a Bahá’í - is to accept all humanity. Instead of a being a restricted love it’s a universal all encompassing love for all. There are deep seated hatreds and prejudices between races, religions and nations which doesn’t exist when one becomes a Baha’i because one then accepts all as brothers. So previously the conflicting religions which hated one another, as Baha’is become brothers dedicated to the well being of humanity.

Now I can pray happily in the mosque, Synagogue, Church, Pagoda, Temple as they are all sacred to me. It’s so liberating to be a Bahá’í like being let out of a cage where I see the essence of all the religions, the virtues, the moral teachings as one and equal.

Being free from prejudice is one of the most rewarding feelings out there. No confusion anymore about who’s right and who’s wrong. All the religions are right and good. They all teach different aspects of truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, Shiva goes more into antiquity, according to most historians. I'm trying to switch from calling Hinduism vast to calling it broad. I think broad is a better term for such diversity.

One site I looked at said that there were incarnations of Shiva. Is that something you believe in or just some Hindus? Either way that creates a problem tor Baha'is... not only don't they recognize the other incarnations of Vishnu but they don't recognize any of the incarnations of Shiva.

For me, I still see what the Baha'is say and do as a way for them to be able to say that they "believe" in all the other religions, yet still make parts of those religions not true by saying that things got added in to the religion and that we really don't know for sure what the prophet said. The thing that bothers me the most is that this thread had a Baha'i quote that says to make converts out of Hindus. In other threads some Baha'is deny that they are trying to convert people, but it sure seems as if they are. They pass up opportunity after opportunity to accept Hindus as they are and not try and tell them they are wrong. Take care my friend.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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"?

Hi CG. I’ve been really busy lately so haven’t dropped in for a while. Hope you’re managing well in this pandemic. We are getting heaps of new cases in Sydney.

Anyway I see that all the religions teach the same eternal truths such as virtues and morals. But they also have had man made interpretations and doctrines added that we’re not part of the original teachings.

Baha’u’llah distinguishes between them so we accept His Teachings on theses matters.
As to the Names of God there are many. And they are all beloved. Muhammad, Moses, Buddha, Krishna and do on. These Names are endowed with an unseen power which inspires hearts and lives.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

Yes I have Bhagavad Gita As It Is and that’s an awesome translation. It would have to be as time permits.