Why Hinduism

[CG Didymus]

Krishna was the eight Avatar of Vishnu and Buddha the ninth. Obviously Buddha is historic for Baha'is. No doubt there is an abundance of mythology for both Krishna and Buddha that obscures and distorts their historicity. We simply don't know if earlier Avatars were historic or mythical or a combination of both.

Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think you can ever speak for Hindus in general, Hinduism is not a religon and there are many different philosophies or differences in the details.
My samgha does not believe in the reality of "avatars", god or gods do not reincarnate (and God does not/cannot incarnate within Himself as a whole, it is an illogical idea).

We see only God as the Guru, not any rishi or any other type of human teacher with followers.
Which does not mean that the teachings of the rishis or other teacher cannot be very usefull also, it depends on their level of realisation and power to express that in words.
Bhagavan, who is a special and mysterious incarnation does not himself have any teachers, He is born as a fully realised Guru with all the qualities and powers of Bhagavan (which means someone who has all the 'bhags' or spiritual powers).

Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna were Bhagavan and their words are automatically those of the Guru, but since they did not author any books, their teachings are not preserved in perfect form, although better so for Krishna than for Lord Shiva (who lived thousands of years earlier even before script was used).

Because they lived so long ago, the stories of their lives have in time been mixed with many mythological stories that have no base in reality. Also many other smaller gods and godesses were later linked to especially Shiva eventhough this is not historical. So they were as it were encapsulated in religious Hindu mythology and their teachings were diluted and partially lost.

We don't see Rama as Bhagavan, but as a mostly mythical god created in order to educate people in dharma, whose story is even older than that of the historical Lord Shiva.
But we don't believe that you can only develop spiritually by devotion to a historical Bhagavan. Whether it is the mythical Rama or even Jesus, what matters is that you surrender your I-feeling (individual consciousness) to the Supreme Consciousness or God (can also e.g. be done through the Buddhist sanga or mystical Sufism).

A Hindu can pick a path that suits the person best, a path that fits your personality. I suppose that is also true to a lesser extent for Christians. Hinduism is however much deeper, broader and freeer than most Abrahamic religions. But even between the many sects and branches there are also many things they have in common.

Thanks to you too. And thanks again to Firedragon for a great thread. I'll read on.

 

[Vinayaka]

I would like to thank my Hindu brothers and if anyone is not Hindu but has so much knowledge for whatever reason, for giving some great insights. Honestly, i have changed a lot of my perceptions after interacting with you because there is one area i lack a lot in, and i have started a little new path because of you.

Thanks a load. I leaned a hell of a lot.

To be honest, I'm skeptical whenever some non-Hindu starts asking about Hinduism, as very often it's just a doorway for comparison, and how to show that their religion is far superiour. That's the nature of many evangelizing faiths, and individuals who see that part of it as duty use questioning as a tool, not as a legitimate way to learn stuff. That happened in this thread ... no listening, just thinking, 'What else can I ask to make my faith look better, or Hinduism look stupid?"

But you've reduced some of that skepticism in me. Thank you.

 

[metis]

Let me correct you here. Choice of religion is not forbidden in India.

Yes, one has a choice, but Indian law prohibits proselytizing-- at least the last time I read.

 

[Jainarayan]

Incorrect, Jai. Krishna, omniscient, omniotent, always knew what he was, and what he was doing even as an infant. Did he not kill Pootana? Did he not show Mother Yashoda all three worlds in his mouth? Learn your scriptures through a strong atheist.

I was referring to Rama. Krishna always knew of his divinity.

 

[firedragon]

To be honest, I'm skeptical whenever some non-Hindu starts asking about Hinduism, as very often it's just a doorway for comparison, and how to show that their religion is far superiour. That's the nature of many evangelizing faiths, and individuals who see that part of it as duty use questioning as a tool, not as a legitimate way to learn stuff. That happened in this thread ... no listening, just thinking, 'What else can I ask to make my faith look better, or Hinduism look stupid?"

But you've reduced some of that skepticism in me. Thank you.

The honour is all mine brother. Thanks a lot for your patience to accommodate some questions that may from your insider perspective seem so dum.

Peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, one has a choice, but Indian law prohibits proselytizing-- at least the last time I read.

Prohibits going over the rules and not proselytization. For example if any organization is getting funds from other countries, then they have to give a report on how the money was spent - FCRA - Foreign Constributions Regulation Act.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I was referring to Rama. Krishna always knew of his divinity.

Whether Rama or Krishna, they were appearances of the triple-omni Lord Vishnu. Is it possible that they would not know what they really are?

 

[Jainarayan]

Whether Rama or Krishna, they were appearances of the triple-omni Lord Vishnu. Is it possible that they would not know what they really are?

I think it's part of leela. I used to think Rama was a real git for what happened to Mother Sita after the return to Ayodhya, even with Agnidev vouching for Sita. But I see him very differently now. He didn't even use his authority as king to stop the gossip, much less his divinity. Now I look at him a lot differently. I will concede that maybe he was just acting in looking like he forgot who he is in order to fulfill his mission.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Lord Rama did not sleep on a bed but on the floor after Mother Sita was exiled and never used any thing of luxury, as the story says.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe I do cherry pick to suit my agenda and that is one way of viewing it. Alternatively it seems like a logical starting point for Baha'is (who is unfamiliar with Hinduism) who believes Krishna is a Manifestation of God to consider what the Hindu scriptures have to say about Krishna.

What have you learned about Krishna from those writings?

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, one has a choice, but Indian law prohibits proselytizing-- at least the last time I read.

And well it should. Proselytising is third only to genocides and wars in terms of harm.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What have you learned about Krishna from those writings?

It is better to read one verse from the Hindu writings with joy and radiance rather than wearily read them all.

Here’s one verse from the Bhagavad Gita:

O son of Kunti, the contact between the senses and the sense objects gives rise to fleeting perceptions of happiness and distress. These are non-permanent, and come and go like the winter and summer seasons. O descendent of Bharat, one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

Chapter 2, Verse 14 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

Now here is a little light reading about Krishna...

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM: CANTO 10 Part 1 - CONTENTS (Bhagavata Purana)

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, Lord Rama did not sleep on a bed but on the floor after Mother Sita was exiled and never used any thing of luxury, as the story says.

I just finished watching season 1 of the 1987 tv Ramayan series. It seems fairly true to the story as I remember it. Netflix isn’t carrying season 2 though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, Ramananda Sagar did a good research. To explain the small differences in the story, he used this line from Tulsi Das' "Rama Charit Manas":
"Hari Ananta Hari Katha Ananta" (The Lord is endless, and so are his stories).
Search, you will find all episodes.

 

[ManSinha]

@firedragon - there is a learned person who writes on Quora - Rami Sivan - he has - IMO - some very interesting insights in to some of the questions you have raised -
Also I noticed an injection by @Muffled earlier trying to proclaim - without evidence - that "Christianity is superior"

In the Geeta - Krishna replies directly to Arjuna about worshipping "other" deities

yo yo yāṁ yāṁ tanuṁ bhaktaḥ śhraddhayārchitum ichchhati
tasya tasyāchalāṁ śhraddhāṁ tām eva vidadhāmyaham

Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form

sa tayā śhraddhayā yuktas tasyārādhanam īhate
labhate cha tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān

Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality I alone arrange these benefits.

And it is not a free pass -

antavat tu phalaṁ teṣhāṁ tad bhavatyalpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

But the fruit gained by these people of small understanding is perishable. Those who worship the celestial gods go to the celestial abodes, while my devotees come to me.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon - there is a learned person who writes on Quora - Rami Sivan - he has - IMO - some very interesting insights in to some of the questions you have raised -
Also I noticed an injection by @Muffled earlier trying to proclaim - without evidence - that "Christianity is superior"

In the Geeta - Krishna replies directly to Arjuna about worshipping "other" deities

yo yo yāṁ yāṁ tanuṁ bhaktaḥ śhraddhayārchitum ichchhati
tasya tasyāchalāṁ śhraddhāṁ tām eva vidadhāmyaham

Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form

sa tayā śhraddhayā yuktas tasyārādhanam īhate
labhate cha tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān

Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality I alone arrange these benefits.

And it is not a free pass -

antavat tu phalaṁ teṣhāṁ tad bhavatyalpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

But the fruit gained by these people of small understanding is perishable. Those who worship the celestial gods go to the celestial abodes, while my devotees come to me.

What you're saying is you can worship another being? I'm really sorry. I dont seem to have understood your comment.

 

[ManSinha]

Yep - that is exactly right - worship whom you would like - there are other passages that say that as long as one is spiritual and does good by one's fellow beings - one comes to the divine.

 

[firedragon]

Yep - that is exactly right - worship whom you would like - there are other passages that say that as long as one is spiritual and does good by one's fellow beings - one comes to the divine.

Thats great. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is better to read one verse from the Hindu writings with joy and radiance rather than wearily read them all.

Here’s one verse from the Bhagavad Gita:

O son of Kunti, the contact between the senses and the sense objects gives rise to fleeting perceptions of happiness and distress. These are non-permanent, and come and go like the winter and summer seasons. O descendent of Bharat, one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

Chapter 2, Verse 14 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

Now here is a little light reading about Krishna...

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM: CANTO 10 Part 1 - CONTENTS (Bhagavata Purana)

Well, more specifically, how does the story of Krishna fit into the Baha'i interpretations? Like him being a manifestation but not an incarnation of a God? Like he spoke for the One True God and was not part of a polytheistic Godhead? Like a manifestation brings new social teachings and affirms the same eternal spiritual teachings? Since Baha'is don't believe in reincarnation, did you find some more things to support your belief that Krishna didn't actually teach reincarnation? And, how can Hinduism not have a manifestation as its founder?