-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who was Krishna in your tradition?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
ajay0
Well-Known Member
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.
The Buddha too taught about reincarnation , though in a different context from the other dharmic religions. He obviously did not find teaching about reincarnation to be part of ' excess reflection of metaphysical matters'.
Understanding about reincarnation can help in the sense that it establishes the theory of karma or cause and effect. What you sow is what you reap. If you do good, you reap good and if you perform evil , you reap evil.
It also establishes the presence of a reincarnating entity, call it spirit or soul, through numerous reincarnation case studies, which itself effectively counters modern materialistic theories of life, and which have brought about conflict through nationalistic and racial ideologies that brought about the two world wars.
I would say the theory of reincarnation has the best bet to bring about international, inter-racial and inter-religious harmony. This is because a black or red can be born as a white in the next life, a Jew or Christian can be born as a Muslim, or an American can be born as a Mexican or Russian in the next life.
While the body may belong to a unique nationality, religion, class, creed, sect, race, the reincarnating spirit or soul is not bound by such barriers and can be born anywhere and in any segment of society or country.
I had understood the concept of reincarnation that Buddha taught to be that of rebirth which does not necessarily involve rebirth back into this world.
The rebirth doctrine in Buddhism, sometimes referred to as reincarnation or metempsychosis, asserts that rebirth does not necessarily take place as another human being, but as an existence in one of the six Gati (realms) called Bhavachakra. The six realms of rebirth include Deva (heavenly), Asura (demigod), Manusya (human), Tiryak (animals), Preta (ghosts), and Naraka (resident of hell). This rebirth, state Buddhism traditions, is determined by karma, with good realms favored by Kushala (good karma), while a rebirth in evil realms is a consequence of Akushala (bad karma). While Nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhist teaching, much of traditional Buddhist practice has been centered on gaining merit and merit transfer, whereby one gains rebirth in the good realms and avoids rebirth in the evil realms.
Rebirth (Buddhism) - Wikipedia
Some traditions such as the Tibetans may be similar to many Hindus.
Some Buddhists assert that as Buddha taught there is no soul then the concept of rebirth must be thought of differently.
The comment about excess metaphysical speculation may have implied criticism with the state of religion as He saw it in His homeland India.
Do you think Buddha was a theist and believed in the existence of a soul or Anatman?
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Buddha taught about reincarnation, whether as a human or other entities, depending on one's karmas. There it ends.
The same goes for Krishna who taught about reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita....
BG 2.13: Just as the embodied soul continuously passes from childhood to youth to old age, similarly, at the time of death, the soul passes into another body. The wise are not deluded by this.
BG 2.27: Death is certain for one who has been born, and rebirth is inevitable for one who has died. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable.
Buddha never talked about having faith in God or gods, but mainly about having faith in oneself, and using one's own mind as a tool to attain peace and happiness in life.
He had great clarity of mind, and was a hyperintellectual. So there was not much room for theistic emotional sentiments with him.
He focussed on the psychology of the mind, and designed a philosophy and methodology based on his teachings to help one attain peace,happiness, mental health and clarity in life.
There was no mental rot in him due to delusion or senility or ill-health at any point of time in his life. His was a strong mind that was in total correspondence with reality as it was.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That is why its hard for me to understand how you have an intimate connection with Hinduism.
We are going by what Bahai quote and what you guys say here. If everything would be good once we come in contact with with something new, we would probably be a part of every religion, every hobby, job, so have you. We receive information to decern whether a said interest, idea, faith, (job promostion), is worth going into based on the information we receive. To draw opinions about it is very natural. Kinda like saying I would be misguided if I read the bible in full. I read the bible in full and it didnt pull me regardlss how it is written and what it does for others.
Same as Hinduism. It needs to be practiced not believed in nor studied. Thats why I dont quote Hindu text. I dont know the context to which these scriptures talk about the Hindu faith. I know the Buddhist suttas because Ive gone to temples and participated in Dharma talks (in person) to get an idea of what some of the sutras mean. Also, its nice to have a sutta study group.
I used to meet with about five or six people. We would read a paragraph of a sutta an discuss it. When the monks have time, sometimes they interact with us as well. Others are long term practitioners.
But why quote when the knowlege of your faith needs to be experienced and not studied?
Christian religions that focus on study believe once you read the bible, you will have an automatic revelation to follow christ. If what you say is true, its very misleading.
Enjoy work.
I wonder if the meaning of 'sutta' is the same as of Sanskrit 'sutra'.
And I'm curious to know what well educated Buddists would think of the philosophy expressed in the Ananda Sutram of Anandamurti.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
The monks I talked with probably do. A few theravada from the monastery near me. One from an abbot at another temple; though, it was hard to understand given english barriers. Outside of that, laymen arent immune to advance studies of the Pali Canon (suttas). Few others read from the sutras like the Lotus and Heart etc. Mahayana school seems to have many commenaries align with its teachings.
I am sure there are educated Buddhist who do know that. I wouldnt say just because they are layman doesnt mean they are not studied practitoners. That, and a studied practitioner in Buddhism is one who has insight and practice not who knows the 1,450, 998 verse of the SN text with its commentary. We're not scholars.
Last edited:
This verse I see is reflected in many other scriptures, the Bible also says this to me.
1 Corinthians 15:53"For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die; our mortal bodies must be transformed into immortal bodies."
That is through development of our Soul or rebirth as the Bible puts it.
The Baha'i Writings confirm all these scriptures and say this world is the Matrix of the Spiritual Worlds to come, where we are to grow our limbs for the next body, that is born in the spiritual worlds upon death of our material body.
Regards Tony
Happy birthday Tony! I think with that beard you could easily be my guru. Then again we are each others guru as we are both teacher and student, brother and friend, as we learn from each other.
As Baha'is we know of the necessity of meditation along with prayer, reflection, reciting and chanting of sacred writings.
We do not require education in a special technique to attain cosmic consciousness. We aleady have that and it can be readily accessed by all. At the heart of any faith is mysticism.
I would agree with your view.
'The Mystery of God' being the ultimate Guru and what I see to be the aim and path of a true Guru. Virtues and deeds giving power to any utterance one may offer, that utterance not being attached to self.
Thank you for the happy birthday, 60 yeras young.
Regards Tony
I spent over 4 hours yesterday talking with a Hindu who had become a Baha'i in his teenage years.
You can only speak for yourself of course. Sincerity and truthfulness are key virtues in my faith and I have no reason to doubt your sincerity.
It sounds like my Baha'i study group.
I have been to a Hindu temple when in Fiji. The Baha'is are assisting the Hindus in my locality to move towards establishing a Hindu temple here as are all sincere people of genuine good will and faith.
Sacred writings are important in most faiths. Knowledge of sacred writings and living our faith are not mutually exclusive.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Under a guru?
I have mixed feelings over that.
We know a lot about bahai as in theological knowledge given the quotes and conversation. As for actually practicing and believing before understanding, usually we get a first or second impression and draw opinions and interest from there. Its not religious oriented and the point doesnt address ones sincerity on the issue. Its with any subject.
There are some common structures in study groups. How you describe yours reminds me of SGI mostly. Just observation nothing negative.
Thats good. Not really what Im getting at, though. Social communion is different perspective than how one sees each other within (not working with) each others culture. Very different.
Depends. I live in a scripture based country where things written are highly important (Declaration of Indepence, importance of signatures, archived american historical documents, one of the earliest christian bibles preseved in our Library of Congress). Library of Congress Bible Collection | Exhibitions - Library of Congress They dont let you touch the glass either.
I mean, I am a Buddhist. But, I dont have nor raised in a culture to which there are specific practices and teachings that shape understanding and belief of a said "buddhist" scripure. So, it highly depends on your place in Hindu religion and culture rather than communal effort to make a better society. Though they go together, I dont think you get it.
But with Krishna, to know more about krishna in a hindu sense is like what you are saying about needing to visit a bahai temple. Yall just wont get each others religions. I dont know if other hindus really care to ask about abrahamic faiths as though it correlates with their own. They probably learn not because its in their faith but just genuine knowledge. Since Krishna is in bahai text, it makes it hard to see whether you are asking to gain more perspective of your faith or theirs.
That, and did you figure how to reconcile reincarnation into your worldview? (Can you reconcile rebirth, reincarnation, abrahamic afterlife which is different beween jews, muslims, and christians, and bahai view on universalism all in one religion??)
Asking about krishna is one thing, being friends with hindus is one thing, but reocnciling their belief in yours?
Thats my point.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@adrian009
Anyway, since hindus are at fault in their faith because they are not universalist, how can you learn more about krishna and reconcille reincarnation with your belief when you believe they fail to understand something critical to your faith?
Anyway, since hindus are at fault in their faith because they are not universalist, how can you learn more about krishna and reconcille reincarnation with your belief when you believe they fail to understand something critical to your faith?
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Please don' t think i am being rude, hopefully i don' t intend to come across as being just negative about everything you say, if i do come across as that i do apologise.
Then if it just a belief, i assumed you mean this is not a requirement for Bahais to believe that Krishna was a manifestation of God, but it is just a belief that some Bahai have. which is fine.
If we re-trace the conversation i am sure you did imply that Krishna started or was a founder of a Tradition and religion which is Hinduism, if you did not mean this, then please clarify what you mean when you state:
"If Krishna was a real person, its the most likely of all options from an historic perspective, unless you want to believe the term and use of the word Hinduism predates Krishna.",
I am sorry for any misunderstanding on my behalf.
Dhanyavad
Namaste,
I have no problem or issues with you. We are having trouble understanding each other but that is common with many interfaith discussions. Communication is a two way street so apologies from me as well if I am not being clear.
Here's the conversation we've had in regards whose founded Krishna. Hinduism dates back 10,000 years and Krishna was around 5,000 years ago so Krishna could not possibly have founded Hinduism.
It is probably a common misunderstanding amongst those who have not studied Hinduism or thought about it very much.
To state the obvious, Hinduism has not always been called Hinduism. Hinduism has not always been as it is today. Hinduism is a synthesis of different traditions. Some of those traditions were almost certainly founded on devotion to Krishna. Such tradition (s) would most likely have met the criteria for being a religion. However they are now completely integrated or fused into a religion like no other called Hinduism. That's what I meant.
Best Wishes
Adrian
I have no problem or issues with you. We are having trouble understanding each other but that is common with many interfaith discussions. Communication is a two way street so apologies from me as well if I am not being clear.
Here's the conversation we've had in regards whose founded Krishna. Hinduism dates back 10,000 years and Krishna was around 5,000 years ago so Krishna could not possibly have founded Hinduism.
It is probably a common misunderstanding amongst those who have not studied Hinduism or thought about it very much.
To state the obvious, Hinduism has not always been called Hinduism. Hinduism has not always been as it is today. Hinduism is a synthesis of different traditions. Some of those traditions were almost certainly founded on devotion to Krishna. Such tradition (s) would most likely have met the criteria for being a religion. However they are now completely integrated or fused into a religion like no other called Hinduism. That's what I meant.
Best Wishes
Adrian
Last edited:
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Dhanyavad on the reply, all good here mate.
Now that makes more sense, and i agree that traditions were founded on devotion to Krishna and every other Deva/Avatar/Devi ect, by their devotees and Bhaktas, which forms the Body of what we term today as Hinduism.
Dhanyavad.
Hinduism is not a universal religion, nor is Buddhism or Christianity. That is my observation based on what I have learnt. I'm not saying it as a criticism or to find fault. "I'm right and you are wrong religions" suit many people. I'm not one of those people.
Regardless of belief, many Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Baha'is take the time to about other faiths. One of the best ways to learn about other faiths is by personal experience in our day to day lives. Internet discussions can only go so far.
I'm not someone who believes in seperate so-called 'faiths' so I don't feel the need to learn about them. What I am interested is are real and effective (tantric) spiritual practices.
In tantric Hinduism, tantric Buddhism, tantric Jainism and Sufism, these spiritual practices are most well developed, so they are the most interesting paths to me.
This does not however mean that there is no tantric spirituality to be found outside those cultural areas, however they are often more weakly developed or much smaller in their impact regarding the number of people benefitted.
Krishna was not a Hindu nor did He specifically direct His teachings for people with a particular faith.
His teachings are of a yogic-tantric nature just like those of Shiva were.
They were both true universalists and brought people together through Their unifying ideologies.
Their teachings are the backbone of all effective spirituality on this planet.