Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Marcion]

I'm clear that I am a Baha'i and what my Faith says about both Krishna and Hinduism, which isn't much.

Indeed, it isn't much.

Although the Baha'i Faith has little to say about both Krishna and Hinduism, what it does say is very different from its Abrahamic predecessors.

No, it is not very different but very similar in attitude and depth. Such views are only of interest to the followers of such Abrahamic religions.

Over 30 years ago I sought to discover the meaning of life and lived in the countryside for 2 1/2 years. Inspired by what I read from Hindu and Buddhist literature I meditated morning and evening, communed with nature, and had as my goal to achieve enlightenment or find a guru who could assist me. The Bhagavad Gita and books from the likes of Yogananda were important to me. I had a period of about 1 - 2 years as a vegetarian. Although I reconnected with a Christian church when I moved back to the city I had changed. In addition to attending a Baptist church I was also attending Buddhist and Baha'i meetings. I would have tried to find a connection with Hinduism but there was no temple or community centre in my town at that stage. The biggest challenge for me on becoming a Baha'i was reconciling my belief in reincarnation with the Baha'i religion that didn't agree.

In this part of the world it is becoming increasingly popular to mix your own cocktail of religious beliefs into a personal belief system just like Bahaullah and yourself seem to be doing. I see that as a good sign in these times of fundamentalist extremism although I would never do such a thing myself.

 

[Vinayaka]

I see that as a good sign in these times of fundamentalist extremism although I would never do such a thing myself.

Certainly a step up from narrow fundamentalism, but radical universalism is also fundamentalism when they're going, "I'm right and you're wrong." Tolerance MY WAY isn't tolerance at all. True tolerance is practically indifference, leaving others alone to follow their own path, not interfering, re-interpreting, but still loving the human part. The minute we start comparing faiths in the hope to prove to ourselves that ours is better than theirs, we set up 'us versus them'.

 

[Marcion]

Certainly a step up from narrow fundamentalism, but radical universalism is also fundamentalism when they're going, "I'm right and you're wrong." Tolerance MY WAY isn't tolerance at all. True tolerance is practically indifference, leaving others alone to follow their own path, not interfering, re-interpreting, but still loving the human part. The minute we start comparing faiths in the hope to prove to ourselves that ours is better than theirs, we set up 'us versus them'.

Is radical universalism the illusion that your religion is universally suited for all of mankind and destined to replace all other traditions because they have become outdated or defective?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

Although the Baha'i Faith has little to say about both Krishna and Hinduism, what it does say is very different from its Abrahamic predecessors. That's probably what is so challenging for Hindus and their friends. There is this desire to pigeon hole the Baha'i Faith into something its not. It is this perplexing enigmatic religion which bugs the hell out of some people.

No one is the victim, though. Both sides have little of the other religion. Just hinduism is SOOO diverse in its beliefs that I think they know about your faith more than you of theirs. But both of you pingeon hole the others faiths. I mean, its the same with Buddhism, but like Hinduism, everyone is on different paths; and, I dont mind debating buddhism beliefs but at the end, bahai is your faith.

Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad had nothing to say about Krishna and Hinduism. That is not the case with Baha'u'llah or His authorised successors. Krishna isn't just some obscure name. For Baha'is He was a Manifestation of God. Not a false prophet, a mythical character, not inspired by Satan or misguided. That's very different from Christianity. In addition Hinduism becomes a religion with special significance for Baha'is.

To me, its not that. Your belief is your belief. Do you acknowledge how this underminds hindus and hindu faiths? I think Hindus are in their rights to challenge the information about krisha and hinduism that just isnt part of that faith. Thats as simple as it gets .

So the Baha'is are making comments about other religions and religious figures as everyone else does. We're not interpreting Hinduism though. Some Hindus here have been great. They have dropped in, answered the question and then moved on as they should. There are several Hindus that are clearly aggravated.

I wouldnt blame them, though. But, that aside, its about your beliefs not about bahai and hindu. (at least underneath the fuss, thats what I see). But there is a misinterpretation.

In other words, how do you know more about hinduism than hindus to say your faith description of krishna and hinduism isnt misinterpreted when its not bahais right to judge what is true of their faith and what is not? same thing with muslims and christianity. protestants to their catholics.

You all talk about your own faith, but why are each of you speaking for the other parties beliefs as if they are more true or correct than the people who actually live it?

Doing this makes it very hard to separate what hindus say krishna is and how you learn it as a reflection of what you already believe. Not intentional, but a big red flag, I tell ya.

Responses are along the lines of "get lost", "You are trying to convert us", "You are proselytizing", "You are interpreting Hindu scripture for us", "You are telling us what to think and believe about our own religion", "You can't say anything about our religion", and "Whatever you say about our religion has to be exactly how we see our religion".

That aside, since I disagree with half of it anyway, Im more interested in how your faith can tell hindus they are incorrect about their view of their own faith.

I would ask muslims the same question. I have asked protestants since they misinterpret catholicism but, all of you say -thats just my faith-. There is a lot more to that then saying -its just m faith- though. If you want t learn abuot krishna, than learning how krisna is to hindus is more relevant than how bahai interpret it.

Think about it. Wouldnt it be wrong or inaccurate for a buddhist to say Bahaullah is another form of Mara and to whomever tries to find enlightenment in himself, Mara will stop him (or be the deity that prevents people from being enlightened)? Each have their own beliefs, but the question is do you see how inaccurate that is?

Thats the conversation, the inaccuracy of interpretations. How can you learn differences your faith says something contrary to the information you believe is true?

Over 30 years ago I sought to discover the meaning of life and lived in the countryside for 2 1/2 years. Inspired by what I read from Hindu and Buddhist literature I meditated morning and evening, communed with nature, and had as my goal to achieve enlightenment or find a guru who could assist me.

Did you find a guru?

The Bhagavad Gita and books from the likes of Yogananda were important to me. I had a period of about 1 - 2 years as a vegetarian. Although I reconnected with a Christian church when I moved back to the city I had changed. In addition to attending a Baptist church I was also attending Buddhist and Baha'i meetings. I would have tried to find a connection with Hinduism but there was no temple or community centre in my town at that stage. The biggest challenge for me on becoming a Baha'i was reconciling my belief in reincarnation with the Baha'i religion that didn't agree.

The experiences are cool. Reconcilling reincarnation with bahai religion is the point of why hindus are defensive.

How can you reconcile bahai religion to reincarnationn in any sense of the term without any concept beyond what you read and meditation practices? Anyone can meditate and find revelation in a teaching. I find that all the time. Its a blessing. Thats totally different than practicing the metaphysic parts of hinduism.

But it would be hard, I guess if you can find reconcillation. It wouldnt be hinduism though. Thats the difference.

In hindsight I don't think I could never have fully committed myself to a Faith that rejected Hinduism and Buddhism. The Baha'i Faith affirms it, whereas Christianity rejects it. The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is they fail to acknowledge Christianity. The Baha'i Faith affirms it. T

This is exactly exactly why they are defensive. Can you see you just called them off as they did with you?

Hinduism rejects bahai in main areas that I picked up such as: reincarnation, levels of meditation and insight, importance of scripture versus practice, knowing and/or believing in deities associated with a particular god (krishna), seeing krishna as god, using manifestation where there is no concept of it in hinduism,

I dont know how you can reconcille these and still call it hinduism. Why use the term hinduism. Using bahai is more appropriate.

The problem with hinduism???

How can you reconcile with hinduis belief when you feel there is a problem with it from the get go???

The problem for me with Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism is they are not universal religions. The Baha'i Faith is. Unless you are a universalist it will be impossible to appreciate how I can love Baha'u'llah, Christ, Krishna and Buddha.

Yes. Its a huge difference that cant be reconcilled. Respected yes. Problem, no.

Abrahamics do have that they are a problem or they vs. us mindset. Isntead of saying its a problem or they fail to do this or reject that, learn from their differences as truth (universalism) not a failure to conform with the truth you guys believe in.

I never heard of a universalist see other religions failing to do X or have a problem with Y.

I dont think there is another definition of the term?

 

[Vinayaka]

Is radical universalism the illusion that your religion is universally suited for all of mankind and destined to replace all other traditions because they have become outdated or defective?

Basically it is just a belief that it's the only way to go ... accepting and integrating anything and everything. It's more about capitulation than tolerance. Lots has been written on it. Here's one paper: Hinduism and Radical Universalism

I view it as overly simplistic, and quite unworkable in reality. I also don't see any need for it at all, when we can get along with differences, or celebrate and rejoice the differences. To me, universalism just dilutes so much. It's saying 'we can do without that, we can do without this'. It's like a group of people so busy compromising they get nothing done.

 

[atanu]

Frank Morales again?

 

[paarsurrey]

Basically it is just a belief that it's the only way to go ... accepting and integrating anything and everything. It's more about capitulation than tolerance. Lots has been written on it. Here's one paper: Hinduism and Radical Universalism

I view it as overly simplistic, and quite unworkable in reality. I also don't see any need for it at all, when we can get along with differences, or celebrate and rejoice the differences. To me, universalism just dilutes so much. It's saying 'we can do without that, we can do without this'. It's like a group of people so busy compromising they get nothing done.

"It's saying 'we can do without that, we can do without this'. It's like a group of people so busy compromising they get nothing done." Unquote.

I agree, that is the end result.
Regards

 

[Vinayaka]

Frank Morales again?

I'm not really a fan either, but I was trying to point Marcion to something without going into some personal diatribe. I had personal questions regarding universalism, ad did others, far before Morales wrote his (in)famous paper. I think a better term for my view would be narrow-minded universalism.

Basically, if you're a universalist at all, you're leaning towards the dharmic faiths, or are already a member. The largest number of universalists come out of the Hindu tradition for sure. (Sai Baba organisation, Ramakrishna Math, and more) Harder to find universalists with roots in other faiths, although they are there, like Bahai, (Islam) or Unitarian Universalist (Christian). In Hinduism, because of our tolerance alone, it could be argued we're universalist, but not in this sense.

My personal doubts about universalism come from personal encounters and discussions with universalists, both from Ramakrishna Mission, and the Satya Sai organisation. Both times it became emotional, with them getting quite upset that I was recognising the differences, and choosing not to put Christ on my altar, while personally not being upset at their choice. So although it all sounded cool, in reality, the people I had met were really attached to their particular point of view, and rather intolerant of mine, which is tolerating without incorporating, because I don't see how you can easily incorporate contradicting beliefs into your belief system.

 

[Marcion]

Basically it is just a belief that it's the only way to go ... accepting and integrating anything and everything. It's more about capitulation than tolerance. Lots has been written on it. Here's one paper: Hinduism and Radical Universalism

I view it as overly simplistic, and quite unworkable in reality. I also don't see any need for it at all, when we can get along with differences, or celebrate and rejoice the differences. To me, universalism just dilutes so much. It's saying 'we can do without that, we can do without this'. It's like a group of people so busy compromising they get nothing done.

But I don't think it works that way any longer. In my part of the world the population is fast starting to accept that all religions have a great deal in common and people even combine things from different traditions by themselves. So this radical cross-religious ecomenism is becoming the mainstream paradigm here now.
I personally don't believe that this leads to a particularly strong or very helpful set of spiritual practices but I'm sure those people would disagree with me.
It does make it more superficial but on the other hand those people also drop a lot of the superstitious and dogmatic stuff, which is a good thing.

From that large pool of "mixers" of traditions will come more open-minded people who will start to yearn for deeper traditions that are more comprehensive.
In the old religions there was a lot of ritualism anyway and little real spiritual practice so nothing much is lost I feel.
And most of those people will then look to Buddhism and Yoga and not to the Abrahamic religions because that is where the more developed systems are to be found.

I can't judge neo-hinduism such as Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj well enough but perhaps you are right that too much may have been cut away by them but I should like to know more about their actual practices first.

 

[Vinayaka]

It does make it more superficial but on the other hand those people also drop a lot of the superstitious and dogmatic stuff, which is a good thing.

In the old religions there was a lot of ritualism anyway and little real spiritual practice so nothing much is lost I feel.
And most of those people will then look to Buddhism and Yoga and not to the Abrahamic religions because that is where the more developed systems are to be found.

I can't judge neo-hinduism such as Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj well enough but perhaps you are right that too much may have been cut away by them but I should like to know more about their actual practices first.

To me, it's very personal, and an individual matter as well as individual right to do what you want to. One person's superstition is another person's established mystic practice. Just because you don't understand it on a deeper level doesn't mean it's wrong or useless, it just means you don't understand it in the same way the practitioner does.

The Hindu temple comes to mind. Just because you don't understand the many complicated esoteric levels doesn't mean you should speak against it.

Where it all goes awry, to me, is when people feel the need to start telling others what to do, or informing them of what they believe. Right back to the too oft repeated 'I'm right and you're wrong."

 

[Marcion]

Where it all goes awry, to me, is when people feel the need to start telling others what to do, or informing them of what they believe. Right back to the too oft repeated 'I'm right and you're wrong."

I have encountered such people a couple of times, always born again Christians (sometimes ex-drug addicts or ex-psychiatric patients), only once it was a Muslim on a long distance bus ride.

In Hinduism there are also vast differences in practices. There are devout Hindus who go the temples to perform rituals and there are tantric ascetics who live naked on the banks of rivers eating whatever comes their way from a human skull (as an improvised dish).

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism there are also vast differences in practices. There are devout Hindus who go the temples to perform rituals and there are tantric ascetics who live naked on the banks of rivers eating whatever comes their way from a human skull (as an improvised dish).

And for the most part, each respects, or at the very least doesn't criticise what the other one does. I have great admiration for the aghori sadhu, partly because of the will power it would take. Not something I could do. The self appointed 'big brother advisors' are another matter, telling you what you should or shouldn't do. Of course the vast majority of Hindus would criticise adharma. If some guy wilfully commits adultery, hurting his kids, and family, I'm not about to say 'hey, good for you!'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In hindsight I don't think I could never have fully committed myself to a Faith that rejected Hinduism and Buddhism. The Baha'i Faith affirms it, whereas Christianity rejects it. The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is they fail to acknowledge Christianity

Shorter question. How can you learn about what Hindus teach about krishna (and see their teachings as accurate to their practice) when you feel there is a problem with hinduism and buddhism because they fail to acknowledge christianity?

Everyone has differences. But how is that a problem?

I know they aren't your preference in religion but how can you be open to other peoples perspectives when you already believe they have a problem with their belief?

The issue I see is relating to hindus as if you had a special connection while at the same time seeing them having a flaw. That leads me back to the OP question. How are you going to learn about krishna when you already said there is a problem in their faith?

 

[Marcion]

I'm not really a fan either, but I was trying to point Marcion to something without going into some personal diatribe. I had personal questions regarding universalism, ad did others, far before Morales wrote his (in)famous paper. I think a better term for my view would be narrow-minded universalism.

Basically, if you're a universalist at all, you're leaning towards the dharmic faiths, or are already a member. The largest number of universalists come out of the Hindu tradition for sure. (Sai Baba organisation, Ramakrishna Math, and more) Harder to find universalists with roots in other faiths, although they are there, like Bahai, (Islam) or Unitarian Universalist (Christian). In Hinduism, because of our tolerance alone, it could be argued we're universalist, but not in this sense.

My personal doubts about universalism come from personal encounters and discussions with universalists, both from Ramakrishna Mission, and the Satya Sai organisation. Both times it became emotional, with them getting quite upset that I was recognising the differences, and choosing not to put Christ on my altar, while personally not being upset at their choice. So although it all sounded cool, in reality, the people I had met were really attached to their particular point of view, and rather intolerant of mine, which is tolerating without incorporating, because I don't see how you can easily incorporate contradicting beliefs into your belief system.

I have never had such discussions on that subject with people from those universalist Hindu organisations you mention so I'm not sure what their exact teachings are in this respect.
AMPS never has Christ on their altar, only a photo of their preceptor.

Personally I have tiny miniature bronze statues of Krishna, Buddha and Shiva on my puja table, but that is not because I worship them actively as part of any kind of prescribed practice.
We respect Shiva and Krishna as previous advents of Taraka Brahma, so they do have the highest status in that respect.
I think AMPS is more universalist from the inside, affirming that mystic union is not dependent on any particular tradition a mystic person is following (it can also happen spontaneously in someone's life) but certainly sees qualitative differences between paths according to the type of practices they teach.

Would you think that Anandamurti saying that AMPS comes closest to Sufism puts him firmly in the universalist camp? By the way AMPS has a sub-organisation called Renaissance Universal.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have never had such discussions on that subject with people from those universalist Hindu organisations you mention so I'm not sure what their exact teachings are in this respect.

To be fair, I've had many positive relationships with people from those two groups and more, and one of the positive outcomes all around to maintain it is to not go into nitty-gritty discussions. Seems its difficult on all sides to even express what you believe. When I'm the receiver, it usually just goes in one ear and out the other. I know what I believe.

 

[Marcion]

To be fair, I've had many positive relationships with people from those two groups and more, and one of the positive outcomes all around to maintain it is to not go into nitty-gritty discussions. Seems its difficult on all sides to even express what you believe. When I'm the receiver, it usually just goes in one ear and out the other. I know what I believe.

Well, I have to admit that the same goes for me (although I also have a quite poor memory span).
Nevertheless I have a knack for comparing aspects of traditions, I also love making lists, enjoyed making a very long one about religions and spiritual paths on Wikipedia.

 

[ajay0]

The biggest challenge for me on becoming a Baha'i was reconciling my belief in reincarnation with the Baha'i religion that didn't agree.

Monotheistic hindu sects like the Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj and the Prajapita Brahmakumaris have reincarnation as their core beliefs.

Same too with the monotheistic Sikh religion.

The likes of Dr.Brian Weiss, Dr. Michael Newton, Dr.Ian Stevenson have given enough evidence that reincarnation is not a mere Oriental theory but may have its foundations in fact.

You can go through some books and articles on reincarnation in this thread here.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi @Unveiled Artist
Busy day today. Little time to respond but just a couple of points to make.

No one is the victim, though. Both sides have little of the other religion. Just hinduism is SOOO diverse in its beliefs that I think they know about your faith more than you of theirs. But both of you pingeon hole the others faiths. I mean, its the same with Buddhism, but like Hinduism, everyone is on different paths; and, I dont mind debating buddhism beliefs but at the end, bahai is your faith.

We can not make a statement such as the Hindus here know more about the Baha'i Faith, than Baha'is know about Hinduism.

Those criticising the Baha'i Faith on this thread have little or no actual experience with Baha'is other than online and what they have read. From the content of their posts they consistently miss the mark. On the other hand most Baha'is have had considerable experience and association with Hindus and many are from a Hindu background.

The Baha'i Faith like any religion is experiential. It is a faith to be lived, not just studied.

 

[osgart]

A lyric in a song by George Harrison.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Monotheistic hindu sects like the Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj and the Prajapita Brahmakumaris have reincarnation as their core beliefs.

Same too with the monotheistic Sikh religion.

The likes of Dr.Brian Weiss, Dr. Michael Newton, Dr.Ian Stevenson have given enough evidence that reincarnation is not a mere Oriental theory but may have its foundations in fact.

You can go through some books and articles on reincarnation in this thread here.

Thank you @ajay0 .
I appreciate your informative and balanced posts. The Baha'i Faith does not teach reincarnation as you may know. That is not to say that reincarnation is not true and there may well be evidence to support it as you say. The best course of action for me isreflected in the parable of the arrow as spoken of by Buddha where He appears to discourage excess reflection on metaphysical matters. So by deeds and words for each one of us to reflect the virtues taught in all religions and to be the best we can be.

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - Wikipedia

What the Baha'is do have in common with Hindus is a belief that we have a soul or a part of us that continues on despite the death of the physical body. Whether that soul continues to progress through the worlds of God or through many lives in this world we will both discover should either of us be correct.