How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

I just wish all well and happy and all the best in this life.

May we all meet one day in our common foundation.

Regards Tony

Hindus don't see it as 'this life' but rather a series of lifetimes. But sure.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

We all have different ways of delivering the same Truth, each from our own understanding and frame of Reference.

Investigate Truth said rightly that both Scriptures agree with each other. I also see this to be so.

It was not said that the current Hindu Interpretation was agreed to. It is others that see it this way.

Go read again knowing this.

Regards Tony

Exactly!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Investigator. I think you, Tony, and Lover have different interpretations of the Bahai faith. When I read Bahaullahs writings and about it I read it without bias because I have no background. Here is what I found:

-

(To an individual believer, April 1, 1946) Lights of Guidance

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

-

(To an individual believer, March 27, 1938)

'Evolution in the life of the individual starts with the formation of the human embryo and passes through various stages, and even continues after death in another form. The human spirit is capable of infinite development.

'Man's identity or rather his individuality is never lost. His reality as a person remains intact throughout the various states of his development. He does not preexist in any form before coming into this world.'

--

To: The Universal House of Justice
Date: 25 April 1995
From: Research Department

1. Reincarnation, the Soul and the Concept of "Return"

1.1 The Spiritual Assembly is correct that Bahá’ís do not believe in reincarnation. We have several references in the Bahá’í Writings which state that the concept of reincarnation is based on an incorrect view of the progress of the soul and life after death. For example,Reincarnation is a "man-made doctrine" [15, 16]. "No Revelation from God has ever taught reincarnation" [15]. Bahá’u’lláh would have mentioned it in His Teachings if it had any importance or reality [17].



Transmigration of Souls (Hinduism)

The idea of the transmigration of souls is also present in Hinduism. Generally speaking, a human soul evolves from incarnation to incarnation. Therefore, it is normal for a human soul to be born again and again only in human bodies until liberation. But there may be rare exceptions. In these exceptional cases a human soul may be born once or twice in a subhuman body to work out very bad Karma. When the bad Karma is worked out, the soul incarnates again in a human body and goes through the process of gradual spiritual evolution.

-

I will be honest. It does not matter would you believe. Your belief says X and their belief says Y. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions.

No one has the right to present their beliefs of other religions and people as facts. Its like saying I have a red shirt and you insist that god told you I wear blue. If you believe in humanity and diversity, dont interpret other peoples religious system.

Yes, you are wrong. We know this. Thats not more the issue than correcting us and agreeing with us at the same time.

Good findings. Yes, those writings you found, express the Bahai view.

You misunderstood me though. Tony understood my post.

 

[Vinayaka]

Tony understood my post.

Of course. Only Baha'i's understand Baha'i's. It makes total sense. It also makes total sense that the other nearly 7 billion souls on this planet don't. Else they'd be Baha'i's too.

 

[Vinayaka]

'The Bahá’í view of 'reincarnation' is essentially different from the Hindu conception.

Carlita, this was from the stuff you quoted from Effendi, I think. It clearly states that the Hindu view and the Baha'i' view are different. You didn't misunderstand at all. They're not the same view at all, just like so many other things.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Carlita, this was from the stuff you quoted from Effendi, I think. It clearly states that the Hindu view and the Baha'i' view are different. You didn't misunderstand at all. They're not the same view at all, just like so many other things.

It was never, not once offered it was the same view. It is deception to say that was offered.

It was offered and is always offered there is a different way to look at the same scriptures. That to look at them in a different way is not wrong by logical.

Why is it Logical, well we find the common foundation, we become one people on one planet looking for the One Truth.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Of course. Only Baha'i's understand Baha'i's. It makes total sense. It also makes total sense that the other nearly 7 billion souls on this planet don't. Else they'd be Baha'i's too.

What was offered in that statement, was that the accusation that we all present the writings without a common understanding, is a false concept. It said no more than that.

As we move on in this, it becomes more and more apparent when one searches for fault or disagreement, then that is what you will find.

I offer lets look for the good and common foundations.

I will try to only respond to that from now on.

Sorry to all the readers for allowing disagreement to continue.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm really glad that there is such disagreement. It means that the various religious people are strong in their own beliefs, and not willing to compromise on such fundamental differences as the nature of God, how to worship, the nature of the afterlife, and much much more. It means there is a place for everyone on this diverse planet. Disagreement is a great thing.

When there is no such thing as a common foundation, it helps all beings make sense to their interpretation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good findings. Yes, those writings you found, express the Bahai view.

You misunderstood me though. Tony understood my post.

How does bahai view define reincarnation as related to hinduism given Krishna, a manifestation, are subject to Hindu definition?

If there is a better term than reincarnation tha bahai can use what would it be?

Do you apply how you define reincarnation to krishna or how hindu define it?

Also, it does not make sense for krishna to be a manifestation if you take out what makes krishna, krishna and his role in hindu faith.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, this was from the stuff you quoted from Effendi, I think. It clearly states that the Hindu view and the Baha'i' view are different. You didn't misunderstand at all. They're not the same view at all, just like so many other things.

Thank you.

I think they use the wrong words to discribe their faith. As Tumah said, changing the words to abrahmic doesnt make it true. (Rephrasing) but it would be different if Krishna wasnt there. Since he is, Id assume its more appropriate to keep hindu definition of him.

I mean, I know bahai disagree but I dont understand how they find peace with people who disagree with them on foundational teachings in ither faiths.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you.

I think they use the wrong words to discribe their faith. As Tumah said, changing the words to abrahmic doesnt make it true. (Rephrasing) but it would be different if Krishna wasnt there. Since he is, Id assume its more appropriate to keep hindu definition of him.

I mean, I know bahai disagree but I dont understand how they find peace with people who disagree with them on foundational teachings in ither faiths.

We (you and I, and all the non-Baha'i) find peace from mutual respect about the differences, and an emotional detachment about it. As Tumah said earlier, he doesn't care what they believe, it's only when they start telling us what to believe, that we're wrong, etc. that the troubles start.

Right now, I wish I was more familiar with the Bhagavad Gita, but I'm not. Oh well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What was offered in that statement, was that the accusation that we all present the writings without a common understanding, is a false concept. It said no more than that.

As we move on in this, it becomes more and more apparent when one searches for fault or disagreement, then that is what you will find.

I offer lets look for the good and common foundations.

I will try to only respond to that from now on.

Sorry to all the readers for allowing disagreement to continue.

Regards Tony

How does fault and disagreement relate?

I disagree that two and two is five even though Bob does.

That is disagreement

I know bob is wrong in the mathematics in his equation

That is finding fault

What we are doing is correcting you on where you have fault so that you represent the correct definition of who Krishna is.

Once you "look into the fault" and kindly correct it, we can find how our beliefs relate without again misinterpreting them.

Finding fault (an error) is natural. People do this a lot. Watch a mother with five year old in a toy store.

Fault: finding error (it could be constructive or plain you are stupid)

You are finding definition of words that I personally dont intend to be negative in nature. You have to understand the context and ask us How we are using these words before making a negative assumption base on your definition rather than ours or the dictionary.

Its constructive criticism and correction.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We (you and I, and all the non-Baha'i) find peace from mutual respect about the differences, and an emotional detachment about it. As Tumah said earlier, he doesn't care what they believe, it's only when they start telling us what to believe, that we're wrong, etc. that the troubles start.

Right now, I wish I was more familiar with the Bhagavad Gita, but I'm not. Oh well.

Here is something from The Buddha's Suttras

"He [the bodhissatva] should not delight in speaking of the faults of other people or scriptures. He should not display contempt for other teachers of the Law or speak of other people's shortcomings. " The Lotus.

The thing is the Dhamma isnt the text itself just as christ isnt the bible. Its the practice and tenants of faith (a lot of them in the former) and a person as a spokesman for god in the latter.

So going to the Dhamma and Im assuming the Gita for that matter would do nothing. In Buddhism, if one wants to experience it in full they can go to a monastary and meditate with the monks there. A lot of it is meditation and charity work. But none scripture study. Even catholics dont depend on scripture to confirm their faith. Its about the community.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How does bahai view define reincarnation as related to hinduism given Krishna, a manifestation, are subject to Hindu definition?

.

We need to understand that, the words of a Manifestation can be interpreted in different ways.

For instance, see how different Christian denominations often, have different interpretations of the same verse of Bible, and even debate on it?

In Bahai View, Krishna was the same person as Bahaullah; and Bahaullah was that same Krishna, returned.

In Bahai View, Krishna did talk about rebirth, and return.

Now, we need to realize that, it depends how one interprets the words of Krishna, when He talked about Return and Rebirth.

Thus, who else other than Krishna Himself can best tell us what He meant by return, and rebirth?

Bahaullah, in principle said, He is that same Krishna. Therefore, in Bahai View, Krishna has returned and had told us what He meant by return and rebirth. He said, these terms are not to be taken literally. They have a mystical meaning.
It means, return of same spiritual qualities in a new person, not return of the same individuality.
Moreover, we need to realize, that just because the mainstream Hindus understood it as literal reincarnation, is not a proof that their interpretation is correct. Let's remember, there was a time, majority of Christians, interpreted bible as teaching the Earth is flat. Later, they realize, they had all misunderstood the Bible.
In any case, for Bahais, whatever Bahaullah teaches, Abdulbaha or Shoghi Effendi interprets, that is the very Truth, even if all mankind have a different opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

So going to the Dhamma and Im assuming the Gita for that matter would do nothing. In Buddhism, if one wants to experience it in full they can go to a monastary and meditate with the monks there. A lot of it is meditation and charity work. But none scripture study. Even catholics dont depend on scripture to confirm their faith. Its about the community.

Yes, we're not scripture based either. It's primarily the individual's personal relationship to the divine.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We need to understand that, the words of a Manifestation can be interpreted in different ways.

For instance, see how different Christian denominations often, have different interpretations of the same verse of Bible, and even debate on it?

In Bahai View, Krishna was the same person as Bahaullah; and Bahaullah was that same Krishna, returned.

In Bahai View, Krishna did talk about rebirth, and return.

Now, we need to realize that, it depends how one interprets the words of Krishna, when He talked about Return and Rebirth.

Thus, who else other than Krishna Himself can best tell us what He meant by return, and rebirth?

Bahaullah, in principle said, He is that same Krishna. Therefore, in Bahai View, Krishna has returned and had told us what He meant by return and rebirth. He said, these terms are not to be taken literally. They have a mystical meaning.
It means, return of same spiritual qualities in a new person, not return of the same soul.
Moreover, we need to realize, that just because the mainstream Hindus understood it as literal reincarnation, is not a proof that their interpretation is correct. Let's remember, there was a time, majority of Christians, interpreted bible as teaching the Earth is flat. Later, they realize, they had all misunderstood the Bible.
In any case, for Bahais, whatever Bahaullah teaches, Abdulbaha or Shoghi Effendi interprets, that is the very Truth, even if all mankind have a different opinion.

But Krishna is god. Krishna is incarnation of Vishnu amd Vishnu of Brahma. (@Vinayaka) Im assuming Krishna goes through reincarnation or has just as everyone else. (At least in buddhism even gods go through rebirth-not to be mixed with reincarnation).

Saying Bahaullah is the same as Krishna is saying Bahaullah is god. Not only that, saying Bahaullah is an incarnationnof Vishnu and Vishnu of Brahma. Its saying that Bahaullah believed in reincarnation since everyone goes through it to go to god.

Krishna returning? Krishna is already here. So is Vishnu and Brahma. Brahma isnt even a being to even come back. The nature of god is not the same as the nature of god of abraham.

Christians didnt misinterpret their bible. In my opinion, they are missing the point.

It is not about words. It is about the Word. Throw the bible in the trash. It isnt about the words. You allnare stuck on words and using other peoples words that are not yours to use to prove truth only opinion.

That and you put less trust in the people. You dont give the benefit that they walk different spiritual paths.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But Krishna is god. Krishna is incarnation of Vishnu amd Vishnu of Brahma. .

We need to realize where did this idea that Krishna is God comes from. Did Krishna say He is God? Or He said He is created? Or both. You would need to quote authentic sayings of Krishna on this. We need to base our words on verifiable evidences, otherwise anybody can say anything. Where is the proof though?

 

[Vinayaka]

We need to realize where did this idea that Krishna is God comes from. Did Krishna say He is God? Or He said He is created? Or both. You would need to quote authentic sayings of Krishna on this. We need to base our words on verifiable evidences, otherwise anybody can say anything. Where is the proof though?

IT, it's common knowledge in Hinduism. It's becoming more and more obvious how little you know about Hinduism.

Krishna - Wikipedia

Pleas do yourself a favour and at least read a Wiki article before making false statements about another person's religion.

 

[Willamena]

How are these Great Beings explained?

Veeeerrrryyyy carefully.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We need to realize where did this idea that Krishna is God comes from. Did Krishna say He is God?

Or He said He is created? Or both.

You would need to quote authentic sayings of Krishna on this. We need to base our words on verifiable evidences, otherwise anybody can say anything. Where is the proof though?

Investigator. Hinduism is not a book faith. Evidence has clearly been repeated that it is in the experience of one to one relationship with the creator not a prophet intermediary.

It has also been said that god (using the term as a medium for understanding) is not someone who dictates what is truth and what is not. God is life itself. God is in all. God is energy. It's what makes you live, move, and have a spiritual self.

This is not the god of abraham because to have this experience one must believe in reincarnation. There is no getting around it. It's not knowledge based. It's what you do and what you experience.

If you do not trust yourself, you will not understand Hinduism, Buddhism, even Catholicism for that matter because god is totally different in the first one, absent in the second, and an actual person in the last.

I asked @Vinayaka for "proof" just not in those terms, of course. I asked what is his and Tony's experience that defines who each person calls god. Not from a book but a dialogue. Vinakaya explained later on god is energy (we were talking about Chakras or something). He would have to repeat it, though.

You can't verify it unless you trust your experiences with god himself.

-

God created?

I never heard of god, being an eternal energy with incarnations being able to be created. It's not something written it just makes sense. I mean, I don't have to believe in reincarnations and incarnations to understand god as an eternal concept and specifically energy that can neither be created nor destroyed.

But you really need to practice Hinduism, really. You can't learn it from quote unquote verifiable resources. You have go passed your dependency on external things and have a one on one internal relationship with god.

Once you have that, what more evidence do you need?