How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

Some Hindus don't call this view 'God' at all. So I think much of it is in words, and words are of the intellect. God, knowing God, Self, understanding Self, etc., as you know, in dharmic faiths, it's not of the intellect, so it's really hard to say. I don't know' is most likely the best assessment I can give you.

Probably.

From Buddhist point of view (just speaking from my experience as a whole), it's more about wisdom and full knowledge rather than a mystic connection to god-self-all.

I mean I'ma try to go every week or at least once a month to the Dhamma talks our Sangha has to learn more about how Vietnamese Buddhist see things as compared to Buddhism as a whole. Sometimes it's just cultural differences that make one view mystic (say the devas and bodhisattvas have a play in our faith) compared to other views were only the Dhamma plays a part but reverence to The Buddha and acknowledgement of the Sangha and monastery monks are missing.

I mean, I would not doubt that Buddhism from a cultural perspective has mysticism to it but when referring to that connection to The Buddha (to self) and Dhamma (reflection of self) outside of paramitas (generosity, compassion, knowledge, giving, etc) to see that connection as an external being like abrahamic faiths would be foreign.

I don't know how I could compare that to Hinduism, though. Maybe the cultural differences and lack of the same source makes the two religions drastically different since The Buddha does talk about experience of Brahman but doesn't quite take to well of Brahma.

I love the theology part of religion too but I don't know if many non western dharmic followers have theological interest in their faith and/or want to talk about it in addition to experience-views. That and the language barrier is huge.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually I usually get banned, I note there was a warning on my profile, not sure when that was put there

Wait, what!! (I'm at home re-reading posts). Ummmm. Weird.

Yeah, that's weird........ ...

 

[siti]

Excuse me - I have missed the last 300 or so pages of this thread (which also seems to be a bit of a cycle thing although it did, I assure you, have a beginning). But I am attracted back again by a couple of recent posts.

I like the impermanence, the constant change, the dance. But to beleive the permanent reality is also there is nourishing.

I like the image of the dance in particular and, as I have long been attracted to a kind of Heraclitean panta rhei (everyhting flows) process view of reality that was brought up to date in the 20th century by philosophers like Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead, I think impermanence and change are the most obvious and striking and possibly even fundamental characteristics of reality. But where is the evidence for the existence of a "permanent reality"? And how is belief in it "nourishing"? Comforting - yes, I can see that. But "nourishing" - I'm not so sure it isn't the philosophical equivalent of "fast food" - a pat answer to satisfy an immediate hunger for answers to questions that may not have answers at all - but if they do are surely too complex by far to be answered by a dollop of "God dunnit" comfort food. Forgive the negative symbolism - this is a reaction to my 40-years enslavement to theism not a pop at your beliefs. But I would genuinely like to hear how belief in a permanent deity (of either the Abrahamic or dharmic persuasion) is genuinely either spiritually or philosophically "nourishing".

"where is god in all of this?" aka translation, how is there a creator when everything goes in a cycle. That's like saying there is a beginning to a circle.

So, that's why I ask the question. I asked it to Christians before but didn't get an answer. I'm hoping maybe Bahai has a different spin on this? Hindu?

Don't know who else is lurkin' on this thread.

I will try and write something (succinct enough for an RF discussion) a bit more positive about how I think the (possibly endless) cycle can have infinitely many beginnings (and ends) without ever having begun (or ended) and definitely without having anything beginningless (or endless) to set it all off in the first place. But it definitely isn't as simple as "God dunnit" as far as I can see.

 

[Vinayaka]

Excuse me - I have missed the last 300 or so pages of this thread (which also seems to be a bit of a cycle thing although it did, I assure you, have a beginning). But I am attracted back again by the last two posts.

I like the image of the dance in particular and, as I have long been attracted to a kind of Heraclitean panta rhei (everyhting flows) process view of reality that was brought up to date in the 20th century by philosophers like Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead, I think impermanence and change are the most obvious and striking and possibly even fundamental characteristics of reality. But where is the evidence for the existence of a "permanent reality"? And how is belief in it "nourishing"? Comforting - yes, I can see that. But "nourishing" - I'm not so sure it isn't the philosophical equivalent of "fast food" - a pat answer to satisfy an immediate hunger for answers to questions that may not have answers at all - but if they do are surely too complex by far to be answered by a dollop of "God dunnit" comfort food. Forgive the negative symbolism - this is a reaction to my 40-years enslavement to theism not a pop at your beliefs. But I would genuinely like to hear how belief in a permanent deity (of either the Abrahamic or dharmic persuasion) is genuinely either spiritually or philosophically "nourishing".

I will try and write something (succinct enough for an RF discussion) a bit more positive about how I think the (possibly endless) cycle can have infinitely many beginnings (and ends) without ever having begun (or ended) and definitely without having anything beginningless (or endless) to set it all off in the first place. But it definitely isn't as simple as "God dunnit" as far as I can see.

Nice to see new people on this thread. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what a sense of a permanent reality means to me, and you have come up with a much better word for it ... comforting. In Hinduism, until you have Self-Realisation, nirvikalpa samadhi, we don't really know. All we have is the wisdom of sages about it, and they all agree on it. But they too will say you have to experience it to really believe it. So we trust that. But it's not a personal 'knowing without a doubt thing either.

When I refer to the dance, it is a reference to Nataraja, the version of God in Hinduism who emanates, sustains, reveals, conceals, and dissolves. But other dance analogies work for other people too.

I agree it isn't as simple as God dunnit.

 

[Dawnofhope]

'Care' in this sense comes in degrees. One can be mild to adamant about that. I really don't care very much, as Hindus themselves have varying viewpoints on it. There are threads I started on here to demonstrate that. Defining a religion or faith is a minor thing compared to putting the tenets into practice.

I agree the most important aspect of faith is putting it into practice. Baha'u'llah has said 'let deeds, not words be your adorning.'

I don't feel Baha'i' has done justice to other religions, because of all the interpreting that differs from what the religious adherents themselves say. I prefer to go with the adherents views. It is their religion, after all. There is work to be done, and if the Baha'i' considered that more important, it would happen.

I would definitely want to hear what adherents have to say about their own faith, first and foremost, but it is valuable to hear the views of someone who isn't an adherent who has genuinely taken the time to properly research that faith. I feel comfortable discussing Christianity as my ancestors were Christians, I grew up Christian to some extent, and I was a Christian. I have spent a lot of time studying Christianity and talking to Christians.

I am very cautious about expressing an opinion in regards to Hinduism as I know so little about it. That is part of the attraction for RF for me, an opportunity to talk to other faith adherents about their religion. Whether or not I'll get to the stage of being able to say anything remotely insightful about Hinduism is another story.

I do see individuals varying substantially, just in this thread. For example, you have adjusted your 'manifestation' list at times to exclude Krishna, while others haven't.

Its not that I don't believe it, rather it hinders our discussion, and is probably a meaningless concept for many Hindus. Hinduism is composed of different religions and traditions that have become merged, yet distinct in ways that are hard for me to be clear about (and I suspect a lot of Hindus too). Krishna is not an important part of belief/traditions for many Hindus such as yourself. For those who do revere Krishna, there are differing beliefs about whether or not He is a man or God (Vishnu). We have a vast array of texts in Hinduism that the Bhagavad Gita seem to form only a small part of. The concept of avatars seems to be understood differently throughout Hinduism in ways I am yet to grasp, and clearly is a concept that is not important at all to some. Krishna if He did exist, would have been an estimated 5,000 or so years ago so it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to separate fact from fiction.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nice to see new people on this thread. I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what a sense of a permanent reality means to me, and you have come up with a much better word for it ... comforting. In Hinduism, until you have Self-Realisation, nirvikalpa samadhi, we don't really know. All we have is the wisdom of sages about it, and they all agree on it. But they too will say you have to experience it to really believe it. So we trust that. But it's not a personal 'knowing without a doubt thing either.

When I refer to the dance, it is a reference to Nataraja, the version of God in Hinduism who emanates, sustains, reveals, conceals, and dissolves. But other dance analogies work for other people too.

I agree it isn't as simple as God dunnit.

I guess when it comes to my understanding, you or any Hindu would have to describe it as if they were talking to a toddler. For example, I'd probably have trust issues if I grew up Buddhist and tried to explain the nature of experiencing the effects of kamma doing worship and not just when one is reading a sutta or doing an action. So, with a toddler, they wouldn't already have preconceived ideas of what The Buddha is and because I'm not harming him verbally nor physically, he has no reason to not trust me in the survival sense of the term.

That would also mean that I have to level my language to words he would understand. So, if Bahai explained their concept of god to me-an "essence" and something indescribable, to a toddler, that would go over his head. Parents don't say "okay, I'll teach you later" but they find ways to say "okay... it's like this..." but it really does take getting to know the person rather than, in my personal opinion, a trust issue.

When I got to know Jehovah's Witness view of Christ and God, it made more sense when I got to know them. They literally had to dumb their language to the point of asking me what I believed in and saying they would research it at that. The intent behind it to find ways to prove their view wasn't the point (but they were my friends so they that wasn't their goal), but to find a common foundation of tongue.

That takes a lot of patience, time, and interest. On RF, people can write thousands of posts not just this of odd ball material, talk about things that I didn't know entered people's heads at all, and odds an ends but no one takes the time to get to know the person.

I do not believe being online is an excuse to be far from someone on a sensitive topic. I fell in love/crush with a woman in Chile and had that crush for little over four years. I met her in my dreams but never in person.

Also age, personality, and culture does play a huge part. That's why getting out of one's comfort zone is a huge plus when talking about topics like this. I mean, I don't know the purpose of conversation if there is no level of trust to get beyond "read this and you will see" vs. "go to the temple and you will experience."

I think another atheist popped her head in one time. I don't know who else is here since some don't have a religion beside their religion-title.

 

[RoaringSilence]

Krishna if He did exist, would have been an estimated 5,000 or so years ago so it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to separate fact from fiction.

The place where the mahabharat war took place is known as kurukshetra , its between new delhi and punjab .. archaeologists have found weapons and evidence of war there as well.

 

[Vinayaka]

Its not that I don't believe it, rather it hinders our discussion, and is probably a meaningless concept for many Hindus.

Well, that's rather sad that you don't say what you think, and that all the Hindus in the world couldn't actually convince you. Infallibility rules still. In 560 pages nothing has actually changed.

At least there is still a discussion. Thank you for sharing that. It gives me new perspective on whether this is worth it one iota.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well, that's rather sad that you don't say what you think, and that all the Hindus in the world couldn't actually convince you. Infallibility rules still. In 560 pages nothing has actually changed.

At least there is still a discussion.

I think its impossible to rule it in or out. If you are able to prove categorically that Krishna can't possibly be a manifestation of God.....I'm all ears

 

[Vinayaka]

I think its impossible to rule it in or out. If you are able to prove categorically that Krishna can't possibly be a manifestation of God.....I'm all ears

Now I think you're just backing out, to keep the discussion going. We can't categorically prove anything. All we can tell you is what Hindus believe about Krishna. Nearly a billion people believe Krishna is God. (I'm not personally a Vaishnavite, but I certainly believe Krishna is God ... for Vaishnavites. They're Vaishnavites, and that's what they believe.

Outsiders can misinterpret all they want to, but it is still a misinterpretation. That is the huge failing of Baha'i' ... with audacity to inform other adherenets of other faiths what they believe, rather than just accepting what they believe, or at least their right to it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Really excellent post until this part. Which common faith would that be? Are you excluding the atheists again?

The religion of God. The process of God revealing and manifesting Himself to humanity and inspiring us all. Atheists are part of that process as we all are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Now I think you're just backing out, to keep the discussion going. We can't categorically prove anything. All we can tell you is what Hindus believe about Krishna. Nearly a billion people believe Krishna is God. (I'm not personally a Vaishnavite, but I certainly believe Krishna is God ... for Vaishnavites. They're Vaishnavites, and that's what they believe.

Outsiders can misinterpret all they want to, but it is still a misinterpretation. That is the huge failing of Baha'i' ... with audacity to inform other adherenets of other faiths what they believe, rather than just accepting what they believe, or at least their right to it.

So no Vaishnavites believe that someone who took the form of a man called Krishna walked the earth and dwelt amongst us?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The place where the mahabharat war took place is known as kurukshetra , its between new delhi and punjab .. archaeologists have found weapons and evidence of war there as well.

So you think Krishna was involved in this war guiding Arjuna much more than 5,000 years ago?

Edit ....and the battle as recorded in the Bhagavad Gita actually happened with Krishna a man/God by Arjuna's side guiding him in his perplexity?

 

[RoaringSilence]

So you think Krishna was involved in this war guiding Arjuna much more than 5,000 years ago?

Edit ....and the battle as recorded in the Bhagavad Gita actually happened with Krishna a man/God by Arjuna's side guiding him in his perplexity?

yes

 

[Dawnofhope]

yes

So was Krishna a man or God or both?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ganesha doesn't really have any symbols just for Him. Usually it is a picture. There are hundreds of those.

I’m still learning about all this. It’s fascinating but hard to take it all in. Ganesh is accepted by a wide spectrum of Hindu belief from what I’ve read.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You don't have to debate this unless you want to. It is a question. How can you exclude yourself from something that does not exist?

The comment offered that if you live the virtues you are not excluded, you live the required life, belief or no belief.

If you do not live the virtues you do not live the life belief or no belief.

This is what I do not ned to debate. Goodness is always prefered over what is not.

Sorry, just do not have the time....maybe next week.

Regards Tony

 

[RoaringSilence]

So was Krishna a man or God or both?

Avatar , a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Avatar , a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

So the diety is Vishnu who is the supreme being?

When does He Manifest Himself again?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes. But that was only part of it. Another factor was just the 'I'm right and you're wrong. For example, if you describe a miracle attributed to Jesus, and then describe a miracle attributed to Muhammed, the Christian will say it's absolutely true about Jesus, but absolutely false about Muhammed, wheras the Muslim will say it';s absolutely true about Muhammad but absolutely false about Jesus. That sort of 'sticking to dogma got to him. He was just too smart for that. So are you.

The idea that you can be homosexual but be forbidden to act on it is preposterous. He knew that. He hopes his son can find a mate and have a healthy relationship on all levels.

It’s a choice one voluntarily makes. If one agrees with Baha’u’llah’s teachings and laws then you can be a Baha’i but for instance a person who does not believe in God they couldn’t be a Baha’i because that is what we believe.

The same with laws on homosexuality. If you don’t agree you don’t join this religion because the lifestyle it teaches is against what your lifestyle is. It’s just common sense. If one doesn’t agree with the Baha’i laws then don’t join the religion. It’s freedom of choice for us to have our beliefs and others to have theirs.

We can’t go around saying homosexuality is right and try and force that view into the Baha’i Faith just as we can’t go around opposing homosexuality and trying to force them to accept our views.

All we can justly and fairly do is agree to disagree and each go His/her own way.