Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

Adrian, I hate to pick toes but your words are very distinct (as in other posts)

The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is they fail to acknowledge Christianity. The Baha'i Faith affirms it. The problem for me with Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism is they are not universal religions (280)

If hinduism and buddhism fail to acknowledge christianity and since the two religions are (unfortunately?) not universal religions like bahai, why would you want to reconcile hindus belief in reincarnation with your faith?

This statement makes me think your objective for learning Hindu Krishna is to gain more information as a reflection of whats in your faith.

It is alright to say they failed and are flawed; thats being honest. However, when you contradict what you said and your actions dont show it, can you clarify why you would learn and incorporate teachings of a faith that fails to meet the criteria set by bahai (such as universalism)?

That, and hinduism and buddhism doesnt reject christianity etc. They are different beliefs systems nothing more. Hindus and Buddhist may object (I know many Buddhist who do), but The (Buddha) Dharma doesnt teach to reject others faith in light of its own. Its not abrahamic.

What it does say is one cannot be enlightened outside the Dharma. Any person can consider that rejection if you are a universalist. Outside of universalism, its just a different belief system.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If hinduism and buddhism fail to acknowledge christianity and since the two religions are (unfortunately?) not universal religions like bahai, why would you want to reconcile hindus belief in reincarnation with your faith?

It is true that in the future I may want to reconcile Baha'i beliefs with Hindu beliefs. However I have no wish to do so at present. For now its enough to learn about Hinduism.

This statement makes me think your objective for learning Hindu Krishna is to gain more information as a reflection of whats in your faith.

I already know what's in my faith. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years. I want to know what's in the Hindu Faith. Krishna is a perfect starting point as Krishna is in the Baha'i Faith too.

It is alright to say they failed and are flawed; thats being honest.

Its also being disrespectful and blind to the beauty and power of the spiritual teachings that over 15% of the world's population identify with.

However, when you contradict what you said and your actions dont show it, can you clarify why you would learn and incorporate teachings of a faith that fails to meet the criteria set by bahai (such as universalism)?

The Hindu Faith is what the Hindu Faith is. That's my criteria. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the core teachings agree or disagree with the Baha'i Faith.

That, and hinduism and buddhism doesnt reject christianity etc. They are different beliefs systems nothing more. Hindus and Buddhist may object (I know many Buddhist who do), but The (Buddha) Dharma doesnt teach to reject others faith in light of its own. Its not abrahamic.

That's not entirely true though. Many Hindus believe in Moksha and reincarnation and spiritual practices that can achieve ultimate freedom from the cycle of rebirth. Because these are core aspects of the nature of reality then Hindu religions are superior because they promote these truths, as part of the Eternal Dharma. The Abrahamic Faiths are inferior because they do not teach these eternal truths. Perhaps in a few lifetimes practitioners of such Faiths will abandon these lesser truths for the greater truth of particular Hindu faiths that alone can enable the Eternal Dharma to become clear.

Further Hinduism believes in Ahisma. It is a peaceful religion, unlike the Abrahamic Faiths that promote violence, hatred and intolerance.

So although God may through emanating the Abrahamic Faiths to assist lesser beings such as myself to work through unresolved karma, eventually I'll become sufficiently enlightened to embrace Sanatana Dharma. Being able to devote myself to a few other gods as well as make use of idols will naturally greatly assist my Sampradaya.

What it does say is one cannot be enlightened outside the Dharma. Any person can consider that rejection if you are a universalist. Outside of universalism, its just a different belief system.

Of course it depends on how you define Dharma. If its exclusively the Teachings of the Buddha then that's looking every bit as elitist as some sects of Hinduism and Christianity have become.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

In other words you don't need to have a religion at all to become a fundamentalist and religious bigot.

 

[Marcion]

In other words you don't need to have a religion at all to become a fundamentalist and religious bigot.

That is rather trying to twist things around. It is only among the religious where you will find the fundamentalist outlook. Non-religious people are flexible and can see the good in spiritual practices wherever they are found.
Fundamentalists will say that only their prophet or messenger had the final word e.g..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is true that in the future I may want to reconcile Baha'i beliefs with Hindu beliefs. However I have no wish to do so at present. For now its enough to learn about Hinduism.

This influences (and kinda contradicts) the nature of why you want to learn about Krishna. I dont remember you saying this directly, though until now. Thanks.

I already know what's in my faith. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years. I want to know what's in the Hindu Faith. Krishna is a perfect starting point as Krishna is in the Baha'i Faith too.

It makes make me think that learning about krishna (in your belief system) is not a reflection of Hindu belief but your own. It does take away from your wanting to be open about other peoples faiths because you do so in light of your own.

That is my observation. It isnt negative. You dont have to defend it, it just, well, is.

The Hindu Faith is what the Hindu Faith is. That's my criteria. It doesn't matter to me whether or not the core teachings agree or disagree with the Baha'i Faith.

Yes, it does. If not, you would not need to reconcille it with your faith.

That's not entirely true though. Many Hindus believe in Moksha and reincarnation and spiritual practices that can achieve ultimate freedom from the cycle of rebirth. Because these are core aspects of the nature of reality then Hindu religions are superior because they promote these truths, as part of the Eternal Dharma.

Thats all abrahamic view. Vinakaya (and others) already told you that Hindus (in regards to their faith) dont see that worldview. Its not a you vs. them religions. Why do you see it that way and then at the same time call it peaceful? Are you reinterpreting their faith so that it wont be superior in your view?

But, yeah, this is totally off. Abrahamics usually say this. Buddhism (since I know that) just says that after we are not attach to life to make it simple, we have no rebirth. No Moska. We die. Its just stating our beliefs. Its not rejecting bahai belief just saying we believe X and you believe Y.

Where is Hinduism superior? I know you guys have different religions; but, differences doesnt make one superior of another (christians would kindly disagree with me ) and that is fine. Since its not my belief, I feel no need to reoncille their opinions with mine. We are just, different. Why do you need to reconcille reincarnation to your faith? Why cant you accept it as is?

Further Hinduism believes in Ahisma. It is a peaceful religion, unlike the Abrahamic Faiths that promote violence, hatred and intolerance.

Yes. How can a religion have a flaw and reject universalism yet be peaceful just enough to change that definition of peacefulness by reconcilling reincarnation with your faith?

So although God may through emanating the Abrahamic Faiths to assist lesser beings such as myself to work through unresolved karma, eventually I'll become sufficiently enlightened to embrace Sanatana Dharma. Being able to devote myself to a few other gods as well as make use of idols will naturally greatly assist my Sampradaya.

Woah! Um. Gosh. Um. Wow. I dont know what to say. That is so left field that I have to come back. Punch me in the stomach.

Of course it depends on how you define Dharma. If its exclusively the Teachings of the Buddha then that's looking every bit as elitist as some sects of Hinduism and Christianity have become.

No. It's not the suttas. The Practice of Dharma is not a sacred-scripure religion. Its the Practice of The Buddha not the study of it. Also, Dharma isnt a buddhist word. Just its easier to use that word than use Practice since itsa little more specific. Hindus have Dhamma too.

 

[ajay0]

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

Krishna's verse stands for reincarnation of the soul in a new physical body.

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."

The material body dies but the spirit or soul which is pure consciousness never dies. The verse actually calls for identification with the Self within that is immortal and not the temporary physical body.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is rather trying to twist things around. It is only among the religious where you will find the fundamentalist outlook. Non-religious people are flexible and can see the good in spiritual practices wherever they are found.
Fundamentalists will say that only their prophet or messenger had the final word e.g..

Often when we make a criticism of another, not always, it is more a reflection of ourselves.

There are a whole range of attitudes that can accompany fundamentalism.

You have a 'preceptor' that has the same rank as Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna that you are avoidant and guarded about explaining.

On the other hand you are quick to disparage and twist the meanings of religions you have little understanding of including Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Marcion]

You have a 'preceptor' that has the same rank as Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna that you are avoidant and guarded about explaining.

That may only seem so to you because I don't like to flaunt my preceptor as someone everyone should follow as happens in some fundamentalist interpretations of religions. Baba is my very private guru, belongs to me alone and doesn't need my public praise.
I'm happy for you that you have developed such a deep understanding of those religions, I remain only interested in their spiritual practices, thank you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It makes make me think that learning about krishna (in your belief system) is not a reflection of Hindu belief but your own. It does take away from your wanting to be open about other peoples faiths because you do so in light of your own.

That is my observation. It isnt negative. You dont have to defend it, it just, well, is.

We all have a worldview and framework which enables us to make sense of the what we observe. Many of us can step outside our worldview and simply accept different POVs as they are.

Thats all Abrahamic view. Vinakaya (and others) already told you that Hindus (in regards to their faith) dont see that worldview. Its not a you vs. them religions. Why do you see it that way and then at the same time call it peaceful? Are you reinterpreting their faith so that it wont be superior in your view?

I'm simply reflecting back what I've heard and read. People can have a superiority complex without saying "I'm superior and your inferior". People can think "I'm right, and your wrong" without saying it. For Vinayaka, he has limited interest in learning about aspects of Hinduism let alone Abrahamic Faiths. The majority of what I've heard from him about the Abrahamic Faiths including my own has been negative. That's fine by me but it would be a mistake to conclude that no Hindus compare their religion with others and have a feeling of pride about their beliefs and traditions. Sometimes that spills over into disparaging the Abrahamic Faiths.

But, yeah, this is totally off. Abrahamics usually say this. Buddhism (since I know that) just says that after we are not attach to life to make it simple, we have no rebirth. No Moska. We die. Its just stating our beliefs. Its not rejecting bahai belief just saying we believe X and you believe Y.

Sometimes I think whatever I say will be wrong because I belong to an Abrahamic Faith lol. That is good to state your beliefs and that's what I do too. I believe X and you believe Y. End of story really.

Where is Hinduism superior? I know you guys have different religions; but, differences doesnt make one superior of another (christians would kindly disagree with me ) and that is fine. Since its not my belief, I feel no need to reoncille their opinions with mine. We are just, different. Why do you need to reconcille reincarnation to your faith? Why cant you accept it as is?

As I see it, I have absolutely no problem reconciling reincarnation to my faith. I completely accept that others have a different POV.

Yes. How can a religion have a flaw and reject universalism yet be peaceful just enough to change that definition of peacefulness by reconcilling reincarnation with your faith?

Hinduism has blood on its hands as do other religions. The massacre of innocent people during the partition was not just the fault of Muslims and Christians. However I have known many Hindus who are gentle and peaceful people.

Woah! Um. Gosh. Um. Wow. I dont know what to say. That is so left field that I have to come back. Punch me in the stomach.

Why is that 'left field'?

No. It's not the suttas. The Practice of Dharma is not a sacred-scripure religion. Its the Practice of The Buddha not the study of it. Also, Dharma isnt a buddhist word. Just its easier to use that word than use Practice since itsa little more specific. Hindus have Dhamma too.

Thank you for that. Buddhism is very different from Hinduism. Its the religion you have the most experience with along with Catholicism. As this is a thread about Krishna, its somewhat of a digression discussing Buddhism too much. I would like to talk to you further about Buddhism and the opportunity is likely to come soon.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why is that 'left field'?

I gotta get ready for an appointment. Left field as in baseball. You totally threw me off guard like a ball missing the mark outside the bases.

Didn't know if you mixed that up with politics. Not much of a political person.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That may only seem so to you because I don't like to flaunt my preceptor as someone everyone should follow as happens in some fundamentalist interpretations of religions. Baba is my very private guru, belongs to me alone and doesn't need my public praise.
I'm happy for you that you have developed such a deep understanding of those religions, I remain only interested in their spiritual practices, thank you.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of any religion including my own. However I know enough to recognise when the faith of others is being misrepresented and trashed.

Its fine you don't answer my questions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I gotta get ready for an appointment. Left field as in baseball. You totally threw me off guard like a ball missing the mark outside the bases.

Didn't know if you mixed that up with politics. Not much of a political person.

I know what you mean by left field. Its a great phrase. I was just curious as to your reaction.

I generally avoid political discussion.

All the best with your appointment and talk to you later.

 

[Marcion]

Thank you for that. Buddhism is very different from Hinduism.

That sounds to me a bit like saying 'New York is very different from the Eastside of the United States'.
Krishna may not have been a Buddhist, but His teachings are more tantric-yogic, so to me the two are indirectly quite related in their going back to the pure basis of spirituality instead of bothering with religious (or so-called 'vedic') aspects.

I don't claim to have a deep understanding of any religion including my own. However I know enough to recognise when the faith of others is being misrepresented and trashed.

Its fine you don't answer my questions.

Which questions weren't answered to your satisfaction, please?
I'm sorry you somehow got the feeling that faiths were being 'trashed' as you call it.
However, I never speak negative about people's faiths but I do feel free to analyse aspects of ideologies that are not mine.
As I said, I'm more interested in people's actual spiritual practices than in which things they believe or don't believe.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Krishna's verse stands for reincarnation of the soul in a new physical body.

The material body dies but the spirit or soul which is pure consciousness never dies. The verse actually calls for identification with the Self within that is immortal and not the temporary physical body.

Thank you for your explanation. From what you have said I would conclude you see the soul bound to this world transfering from one material being to another.

At some time is not the goal to be released from that cycle?

Regards Tony

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We all have a worldview and framework which enables us to make sense of the what we observe. Many of us can step outside our worldview and simply accept different POVs as they are.

It's hard to. When I ask it makes it seem like y'all need to compromise your faith to have empathy. Tooth picking.

I'm simply reflecting back what I've heard and read. People can have a superiority complex without saying "I'm superior and your inferior". People can think "I'm right, and your wrong" without saying it. For Vinayaka, he has limited interest in learning about aspects of Hinduism let alone Abrahamic Faiths. The majority of what I've heard from him about the Abrahamic Faiths including my own has been negative. That's fine by me but it would be a mistake to conclude that no Hindus compare their religion with others and have a feeling of pride about their beliefs and traditions. Sometimes that spills over into disparaging the Abrahamic Faiths.

Both abrahamics and hindus can say that or have that overtone. The difference is hinduism doesn't teach that seperation. @Vinayaka mentioned that the reason some people aren't considered hindu is because they don't follow The Dharma. Which means belief in reincarnation. Abrahamics teach seperation. No one would need to be bahai if bahai accepted all faiths on their terms, their gods, their definitions, without mix. But universalism itself doesn't teach that. I don't know other universalist other than UU. But they don't have a god foundation for all different religions so it's a different approach.

Sometimes I think whatever I say will be wrong because I belong to an Abrahamic Faith lol. That is good to state your beliefs and that's what I do too. I believe X and you believe Y. End of story really.

Haha. You are not wrong. It's your faith. Universalism and cultural appropriation (I know) isn't specific to a religion. Personally I don't like either concept. Whichever religion has that view I dont follow. I don't go to the UU church cause of it. Pagan and Christian mix is bothersome. Some Buddhist sects do it to an extent but I don't know about overseas.

As I see it, I have absolutely no problem reconciling reincarnation to my faith. I completely accept that others have a different POV.

I know. I don't see the logistics in it. I'm curious How you can do that. Whether it's right or wrong we have a difference of opinion. But for RF sake, how?

Hinduism has blood on its hands as do other religions. The massacre of innocent people during the partition was not just the fault of Muslims and Christians. However I have known many Hindus who are gentle and peaceful people.

Why would you want to be apart of a faith you don't consider peaceful and is flawed in its approach to humanity's problems? (I keep asking)

Thank you for that. Buddhism is very different from Hinduism. Its the religion you have the most experience with along with Catholicism. As this is a thread about Krishna, its somewhat of a digression discussing Buddhism too much. I would like to talk to you further about Buddhism and the opportunity is likely to come soon.

I use buddhism because I don't feel comfortable talking for hindus. What I say about Hindus is what Vinayaka and Aup and others mentioned. Even if I knew more, I still have my place.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh. Forgot. A million years later.

I know what you mean by left field. Its a great phrase. I was just curious as to your reaction.

So although God may through emanating the Abrahamic Faiths to assist lesser beings such as myself to work through unresolved karma, eventually I'll become sufficiently enlightened to embrace Sanatana Dharma. Being able to devote myself to a few other gods as well as make use of idols will naturally greatly assist my Sampradaya.

This is kinda confusing. You devoting yourself to a few other gods but you are a monotheist. You feel hinduism is flawed and dont address humanities questions in a universalist point of view.

You also mentioned about the violent history of hindus that on many times you and your peers told us bahai never had.

Then you ask about who krishna is to relate to him but at the same time redefining him as a separate person (like jesus) and not god itself.

Using Hindu words as if it were your own and maintain you believe in Hindu main concept of god but dismiss reincarnation until it matches as part of your belief. Then say you accept all faiths as they are but dont accept them on their terms without trying to find agreement (try? wouldnt bahaullah be more distinct on the universal nature of these beliefs and how they are reonciled?) with your faith.

Then, after listing this facts that you have specifically and directly said, you get defensive because it is probably challenging you that others have a different opinion about how you relate to these different faiths and why is it appropriate and not appropriate from their perspective.

Recap.

I know. A lot of Yous in one full post. But, yeah, its interesting. You say

1. You are a universalist, accept all faiths, but only on your terms not theirs (you would not need to reconcile reincarnation if this werent true; you would respect it as is)

2, Hinduism (and others) have flaws and doesnt adress humanity through universalism but then still consider yourself part of their faith. (Why? How?)

3. Then excuse yourself by being hindu because you say hindus have different views so, I assume, why cant you? The answer is two things: belief in Brahma and belief in reincarnation. Their terms not yours.

A lot of things you guys say punch me in the gut. Some things are so out there that I honestly (and being honest) didnt know people actually think that way. Kinda realizing not everyone respects differences in the same way Americans have been for years even though we are highly open to others coming here. I cant go into other countries unless to some I know their uclture and language and others I have to be asked or sponsored; I cant just go.

Universalism is highly discouraged here. So, you can see the issue. Cultural differences not just religious.

Edit: Americans respect differences in relation to our Independence, values, and culture. Of course, historically, we dont follow our own laws and recreate them to match our government behaviors. In the everyday joe smoe world, though, respect for differences and ideals is why America is so open. How we do so, well, is a matter of perspective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's hard to. When I ask it makes it seem like y'all need to compromise your faith to have empathy. Tooth picking.

Its sounds so painful when you express it like that.

Both abrahamics and hindus can say that or have that overtone. The difference is hinduism doesn't teach that seperation. @Vinayaka mentioned that the reason some people aren't considered hindu is because they don't follow The Dharma. Which means belief in reincarnation. Abrahamics teach seperation. No one would need to be bahai if bahai accepted all faiths on their terms, their gods, their definitions, without mix. But universalism itself doesn't teach that. I don't know other universalist other than UU. But they don't have a god foundation for all different religions so it's a different approach.

Does Hinduism have a coherent worldview that makes sense of the world in the twenty first century and the existence of Faiths other than its own? What does it have to say about the existence of other Faiths? Quite alot actually as India as a history with the other three main world religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. The Islam invasion in the 8th century and the Hindu-Muslim wars may have been an important developmental of the Hindu concept.

One of the earliest but ambiguous uses of the word Hindu is, states Arvind Sharma, in the 'Brahmanabad settlement' which Muhammad ibn Qasim made with non-Muslims after the Arab invasion of northwestern Sindh region of India, in 712 CE. The term 'Hindu' meant people who were non-Muslims, and it included Buddhists of the region.

Hindu - Wikipedia

Then the period of British (Christian ) Colonial from the 18th to 20th centuries were significant.

During the colonial era, the term Hindu had connotations of native religions of India, that is religions other than Christianity and Islam.In early colonial era Anglo-Hindu laws and British India court system, the term Hindu referred to people of all Indian religions and two non-Indian religions:

Hindu - Wikipedia

How about in the modern era. The term appears to have just as much to do with geographical, national, and ethnic identity as it does religion.

In contemporary era, the term Hindus are individuals who identify with one or more aspects of Hinduism, whether they are practising or non-practicing or Laissez-faire.[39] The term does not include those who identify with other Indian religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or various animist tribal religions found in India such as Sarnaism. The term Hindu, in contemporary parlance, includes people who accept themselves as culturally or ethnically Hindu rather than with a fixed set of religious beliefs within Hinduism. One need not be religious in the minimal sense, states Julius Lipner, to be accepted as Hindu by Hindus, or to describe oneself as Hindu.

Hindu - Wikipedia

So of course when you asked did I find my guru we could all have a laugh at the very Persian and non-Indian Abdu'l-Baha. Definitely not Hindu because he is not culturally Hindu.

So therein lies a problem. My guru (teacher) isn't even Indian! So although I worship a Hindu diety Krishna, the founder of my Faith isn't even from India. My only hope of being part of the Hindu fold on religious grounds has collapsed, To add insult to injury, I don't even believe in reincarnation.

So although I revere Krishna as a Manifestation of God who is equal to the founder of my Faith, I am an outsider, cast adrift, lonely and dejected.

Haha. You are not wrong. It's your faith. Universalism and cultural appropriation (I know) isn't specific to a religion. Personally I don't like either concept. Whichever religion has that view I dont follow. I don't go to the UU church cause of it. Pagan and Christian mix is bothersome. Some Buddhist sects do it to an extent but I don't know about overseas.

Now true to my Abrahamic colours where colonisation, slavery, and economic exploitation have been the modus operandi, we can add cultural appropriation to my list of crimes...if not successfully carried out then clearly guilty by association.

I know. I don't see the logistics in it. I'm curious How you can do that. Whether it's right or wrong we have a difference of opinion. But for RF sake, how?

There are two possible explanations.

1/ I am totally out of my mind and about to be permanently institutionalised.

2/ I am a Baha'i.

Why would you want to be apart of a faith you don't consider peaceful and is flawed in its approach to humanity's problems? (I keep asking)

I think the more relevant question is, why would I want to be part of a faith that regards me as an outsider, views me with suspicion and is generally ambivalent or hostile? I wouldn't of course.

I use buddhism because I don't feel comfortable talking for hindus. What I say about Hindus is what Vinayaka and Aup and others mentioned. Even if I knew more, I still have my place.

Maybe I would fit in better with Buddhism than Hinduism.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh. Forgot. A million years later.

It took a while but you got there in the end.

This is kinda confusing. You devoting yourself to a few other gods but you are a monotheist. You feel hinduism is flawed and dont address humanities questions in a universalist point of view.

You were taking me literally. I was reflecting on why some Hindus would see themselves as superior to their Abrahamic cousins.

So although God may through emanating the Abrahamic Faiths to assist lesser beings such as myself to work through unresolved karma, eventually I'll become sufficiently enlightened to embrace Sanatana Dharma. Being able to devote myself to a few other gods as well as make use of idols will naturally greatly assist my Sampradaya.

It is an attitude I hope to never have along with Christianities narrative as why only Christians go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell.

You also mentioned about the violent history of hindus that on many times you and your peers told us bahai never had.

The Baha'is have never been in a war. Baha'u'llah teaches it is better to be killed than kill.

Then you ask about who krishna is to relate to him but at the same time redefining him as a separate person (like jesus) and not god itself.

I see Krishna how I see Krishna. Hindu's see Krishna how they see Krishna. I revere and worship Krishna. I see the path of connecting to others within Hinduism who feel the same on RF as extremely difficult.

Using Hindu words as if it were your own and maintain you believe in Hindu main concept of god but dismiss reincarnation until it matches as part of your belief. Then say you accept all faiths as they are but dont accept them on their terms without trying to find agreement (try? wouldnt bahaullah be more distinct on the universal nature of these beliefs and how they are reonciled?) with your faith.

I admit my feeble attempts to assimilate some of the more universal Hindu concepts into my own faith have not worked out.

Then, after listing this facts that you have specifically and directly said, you get defensive because it is probably challenging you that others have a different opinion about how you relate to these different faiths and why is it appropriate and not appropriate from their perspective.

As I've always maintained, I have no problem with Hindus and what they believe. The problem as I see it is others have a problem with what I believe.

Recap.

I know. A lot of Yous in one full post. But, yeah, its interesting. You say

1. You are a universalist, accept all faiths, but only on your terms not theirs (you would not need to reconcile reincarnation if this werent true; you would respect it as is)

2, Hinduism (and others) have flaws and doesnt adress humanity through universalism but then still consider yourself part of their faith. (Why? How?)

3. Then excuse yourself by being hindu because you say hindus have different views so, I assume, why cant you? The answer is two things: belief in Brahma and belief in reincarnation. Their terms not yours.

A lot of things you guys say punch me in the gut. Some things are so out there that I honestly (and being honest) didnt know people actually think that way. Kinda realizing not everyone respects differences in the same way Americans have been for years even though we are highly open to others coming here. I cant go into other countries unless to some I know their uclture and language and others I have to be asked or sponsored; I cant just go.

Universalism is highly discouraged here. So, you can see the issue. Cultural differences not just religious.

I am a Universalist. I believed there was something special about Buddha, Krishna and Jesus before I became a Baha'i. The Baha'i Faith affirms that belief. I feel no obligation to believe in Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus exactly as Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians believe.

I am agnostic when it comes to reincarnation.

I don't consider myself part of the Hindu Faith. I am a Baha'i. As previously stated Hinduism is not a universal religion, the Baha'i Faith is.

Edit: Americans respect differences in relation to our Independence, values, and culture. Of course, historically, we dont follow our own laws and recreate them to match our government behaviors. In the everyday joe smoe world, though, respect for differences and ideals is why America is so open. How we do so, well, is a matter of perspective.

America appears divided and confused at the moment. I wonder if that is relevant to our discussion?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its sounds so painful when you express it like that.



Does Hinduism have a coherent worldview that makes sense of the world in the twenty first century and the existence of Faiths other than its own? What does it have to say about the existence of other Faiths? Quite alot actually as India as a history with the other three main world religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. The Islam invasion in the 8th century and the Hindu-Muslim wars may have been an important developmental of the Hindu concept.

One of the earliest but ambiguous uses of the word Hindu is, states Arvind Sharma, in the 'Brahmanabad settlement' which Muhammad ibn Qasim made with non-Muslims after the Arab invasion of northwestern Sindh region of India, in 712 CE. The term 'Hindu' meant people who were non-Muslims, and it included Buddhists of the region.

Hindu - Wikipedia

Then the period of British (Christian ) Colonial from the 18th to 20th centuries were significant.

During the colonial era, the term Hindu had connotations of native religions of India, that is religions other than Christianity and Islam.In early colonial era Anglo-Hindu laws and British India court system, the term Hindu referred to people of all Indian religions and two non-Indian religions:

Hindu - Wikipedia

How about in the modern era. The term appears to have just as much to do with geographical, national, and ethnic identity as it does religion.

In contemporary era, the term Hindus are individuals who identify with one or more aspects of Hinduism, whether they are practising or non-practicing or Laissez-faire.[39] The term does not include those who identify with other Indian religions such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or various animist tribal religions found in India such as Sarnaism. The term Hindu, in contemporary parlance, includes people who accept themselves as culturally or ethnically Hindu rather than with a fixed set of religious beliefs within Hinduism. One need not be religious in the minimal sense, states Julius Lipner, to be accepted as Hindu by Hindus, or to describe oneself as Hindu.

Hindu - Wikipedia

So of course when you asked did I find my guru we could all have a laugh at the very Persian and non-Indian Abdu'l-Baha. Definitely not Hindu because he is not culturally Hindu.

So therein lies a problem. My guru (teacher) isn't even Indian! So although I worship a Hindu diety Krishna, the founder of my Faith isn't even from India. My only hope of being part of the Hindu fold on religious grounds has collapsed, To add insult to injury, I don't even believe in reincarnation.

So although I revere Krishna as a Manifestation of God who is equal to the founder of my Faith, I am an outsider, cast adrift, lonely and dejected.



Now true to my Abrahamic colours where colonisation, slavery, and economic exploitation have been the modus operandi, we can add cultural appropriation to my list of crimes...if not successfully carried out then clearly guilty by association.



There are two possible explanations.

1/ I am totally out of my mind and about to be permanently institutionalised.

2/ I am a Baha'i.



I think the more relevant question is, why would I want to be part of a faith that regards me as an outsider, views me with suspicion and is generally ambivalent or hostile? I wouldn't of course.



Maybe I would fit in better with Buddhism than Hinduism.

I will be back to comment. Probably Islam first. Christianity second.

Um. I will give you Buddhism a smitch more sence your wife buddhist so you have some of the cultlure (japanese I believe it is?)

Hinduism, not at all. But its nice you have Hindu friends and work with them to build stuff in your community. Other than that, I would say no to Hinduism.

 

[ajay0]

@ adrian

Thank you for your explanation. From what you have said I would conclude you see the soul bound to this world transfering from one material being to another.

At some time is not the goal to be released from that cycle?

Regards Tony

The soul moves from material bodies, and can also move to the astral regions for a time as well ( as depicted by Sri Yukteshwar in Paramahamsa Yogananda's 'Autobiography of a Yogi'.

Total release from bondage results in Moksha or Nirvana.