Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[loverofhumanity]

How does science finds the truth. Not that accepting what some Einstein said as true. Scores, hundreds of people check things claimed. Scores, hundreds of laboratories engage in testing things claimed. What comes out true is then accepted.
But if you go just by faith and accept what some uneducated Iranian said a century and half ago without any evidence and claimed that he is a messenger of Allah, then it is your wish. Generally, people in 21st Century do not accept such things, I have nothing against that. But you might be an exception.
It is a typical Iranian thing. It is recorded that at the time of Iranian revolution, there were 1200 people in Iranian jails claiming that they were saviors, Mahdis.Common thought is the 'Argumentum ad populum'. Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
By personal experience and not by what someone says. When they see that injustice harms everyone.

How did Hindus arrive at the conclusion that the Bhagavad-Gita was truth? Apart from just believing in it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

'And what is not compatible, we reject.' Is not that smart? Accepted till it suits you.
If Gita says that Krishna is God himself, then you reject it. Not just Gita is rejected that way, but scriptures of all religions.

I see It is not about rejection Aupmanyav, I see it is all about understanding.

If the Gita says that Krishna is the Self of God, then that is an understanding that Baha'u'llah has explained in depth. So I would agree with the Gita, in the knowledge of what Baha'u'llah offerd.

Jesus helps us understand this concept, of how the old is again made new by increasing our frames of references in the topic. Many times Jesus says 'You have heard it said' and then goes on to say 'But I say to you'.

The world also teaches us that everything is made new, for every thing there is a season and faith I see is no different.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

I see It is not about rejection Aupmanyav, I see it is all about understanding.

If the Gita says that Krishna is the Self of God, then that is an understanding that Baha'u'llah has explained in depth. So I would agree with the Gita, in the knowledge of what Baha'u'llah offerd.

Jesus helps us understand this concept, of how the old is again made new by increasing our frames of references in the topic. Many times Jesus says 'You have heard it said' and then goes on to say 'But I say to you'.

The world also teaches us that everything is made new, for every thing there is a season and faith I see is no different.

Regards Tony

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.”

Excerpt from
The Kitáb-i-Íqán
Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Truthseeker]

In Some Answered Questions, Abdul-Baha interprets woes to be the Manifestations because they destroy sin, evil and wickedness through their teachings.


“The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.The first woe was the advent of the Apostle of God, Muḥammad the son of ‘Abdu’lláh, peace be upon Him. The second woe was that of the “Báb, upon Him be glory and praise. The third woe is the great Day of the advent of the Lord of Hosts and the revelation of the promised Beauty.

“It is therefore evident then that the day of woe is the day of the Lord; for in that day woe is upon the heedless, the sinners, and the ignorant. That is why it is said, “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.” This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the Day of God, and it is near to the day of the appearance of the Báb.”


Some Answered Questions
‘Abdu’l‑Bahá

Christians interpret these woes as calamities to befall mankind. Even Jesus said He came not to bring peace but a sword yet in other passages in the Bible the tongue is described as the sharpest of swords.

All the Holy Books have references to things like ‘cast into hell fire’ and such but these are not literal, however those who oppose religion will use these terms to degrade religion.

Whether we use the name Kalki or not the Guardian did refer to Him in this passage,


“To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the "Most Great Spirit," the "Tenth Avatar," the "Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”

Excerpt from
God Passes By
Shoghi Effendi

The Guardian clearly referred to Kalki and scholars are entitled to their viewpoints but according to the Guardian Baha’u’llah is the Tenth Avatar Who is Kalki according to Hindu tradition.

The 10 Avatars of the Hindu God Vishnu

I don't believe we should assume that Shoghi Effendi meant Kalki. Do you see the word "Kalki" there? According to Christopher Buck the tradition of Kalki being the 10th avatar perhaps didn't take place until the 14th century:

Whether or not Kalki was actually a historical personage is an interesting question. Famed Indologist, K. P. Jayaswal argued that the Kalki Avatar was actually a historical king of the early sixth century, Visnuvardhana Yasodharma, defeater of Mihirakula, king of the White Huns of India. So, if Kalki was a historical personage, when (and how) did he become a future Avatar? Jayaswal explains:

Belief about Kalki’s futurity. The Kalki-Purana, in describing the life of Kalki, uses the past tense. The present, Hindu belief that Kalki is yet to come, is a recent development. … The belief about the futurity of Kalki in Northern India seems to have been a growth later than the 14th-century. – p. 148.

The point to me, whether the 10th Avatar is Kalki or not, it would not be wise to present Kalki as the 10th avatar. He may have been an historical person, and not the 10th avator, though there is uncertainty there. We should just refer to the 10th avatar and avoid any possible difficulty, because in the legend about him he is associated with violence against Buddhists among others, and Baha'is believe in the Buddha.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why should we? He is a Bahai.

He's a scholar independently trying to see if Kalki is the 10th avatar. A lot of Baha'is believe the 10th avatar is called Kalki, so he is going against a lot of Baha'is beliefs. It's up to each Baha'i what to believe about that. It's also up to you what you believe about all that. I am not trying to force anything on you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science and reason to me are very important because I don’t accept blind belief.

Really, loverofhumanity? I never knew that.

How did Hindus arrive at the conclusion that the Bhagavad-Gita was truth?

Some accept the whole of BhagawadGita, other accepts some parts of BhagawadGita but do not accept other parts. Some understand BhagawadGita in their own way. No two commentaries on BhaawadGita will ever be the same. Prabhupada will say something, Shankara would say something else and BG Tilak would say another thing. People have the liberty to understand Gita in their own way. Acceptance and to what extent depends on the person.

If the Gita says that Krishna is the Self of God, ..

No, what is this BS about 'self of God'. Theist Hindus believe Krishna to be Lord Vishnu himself, who is one of the principal Gods of Hinduism but not the sole God. There are Shiva, Durga and Brahma too.

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto.

He will be verily taken as Allah, if he giveth any evidence of being that. What evidence doth Bahaollah provideth? Till he doth not provideth evidence, the doubt attacheth thereto.

 

[Truthseeker]

I wouldn't expect a group of Abrahamic syncretists to even understand the Dharmic traditions, let alone represent them accurately.

All, including Baha'is are entitled to their opinion on Dharmic traditions. There is little in the Baha'i Writings about Dharmic traditions, so some of us study Dharmic traditions and come to our own conclusions. The views of Buddhism and Hinduism of Baha'is are diverse. We usually don't have the time to spend on those religions such as Buddhists and Hindus very extensively since the Baha'i Writings are extensive themselves. So you, in a sense, are right that we don't understand Dharmic religions very well usually. I don't thnk we should be blamed for that. It's just the way things are. We do glean some understandings sometimes that further our understanding of Baha'i.

 

[Truthseeker]

And what about Rāma? Why isn’t Rāma included in the list of Baha’i “messengers”? Rāma’s task and mission was to restore dharma and destroy evil, and teach us what dharmic conduct and living is. So, where’s Rāma?

Yes, Rama is not mentioned in authoritative Baha'i literature and Baha'is are free to believe what they will about Rama because of this. You can't expect extensive references to Hinduism from a religion that grew in the lifetimes of our authoritative fgures in Abrahamic countries.

 

[Truthseeker]

Personally CG I do not see a line by line discussion will be helpful.

All things are made new, old concepts are given new meanings.

All the best.

You decided not to completely abandon RF after all? Why can't I access your profile? How do you casue not to be able to see your profile in the first place?

 

[Truthseeker]

What is the 'it' you're talking about? In my view, the Baha'i faith, in it's entirety, gives the wrong impression to Hindus. There is a huge difference between traditional Hinduism, in almost any form, than the Baha'i version, which isn't Hinduism at all, but a distortion, which can only be termed the Baha'i version of Hinduism. Certainly not Hinduism.

There is no single Baha'i version of Hinduism, and all are entitled to their opinion about Hinduism, even Baha'is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whether or not Kalki was actually a historical personage is an interesting question. Famed Indologist, K. P. Jayaswal argued that the Kalki Avatar was actually a historical king of the early sixth century, Visnuvardhana Yasodharma, defeater of Mihirakula, king of the White Huns of India. So, if Kalki was a historical personage, when (and how) did he become a future Avatar? Jayaswal explains:
Belief about Kalki’s futurity. The Kalki-Purana, in describing the life of Kalki, uses the past tense. The present, Hindu belief that Kalki is yet to come, is a recent development. … The belief about the futurity of Kalki in Northern India seems to have been a growth later than the 14th-century. – p. 148.
The point to me, whether the 10th Avatar is Kalki or not, it would not be wise to present Kalki as the 10th avatar. He may have been an historical person, and not the 10th avator, though there is uncertainty there. We should just refer to the 10th avatar and avoid any possible difficulty, because in the legend about him he is associated with violence against Buddhists among others, and Baha'is believe in the Buddha.

What a silly statement. Kalki is supposed to appear only after 425,000 years from now, and you are asking whether Kalki is a historical personage?
Well like the Abrahamic prophets, the person who introduced Kalki thing in Bhavishya Purana must also have been a prophet. He must have known what exactly is going to happen. He knew he place and date of birth of Kalki and the name etc. of his parents. That is why talking in past tense.
And if Kalki is a recent addition, then it could even be an interpolation and false. Hindus do not build their edifice on prophecies like the Abrahamics. Otherwise also, I am not one to believe in any kind of prophecy. I find no reason to even believe in appearance of any 10th avatara.

 

[Truthseeker]

Shoghi and his predecessors slighted all other religions.

Nope. progressive revelation does not mean we slight all other religions. It means that religous truth is relative, not absolute, and grows over time, like science. Religious truth will advance more in the next revelation after the Baha'i revelation. We may not understand the Hindu perspective very well, but neither do you or other Hindus understand the Baha'i perspective. It takes study of our extensive Writings to understand it really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He's a scholar independently trying to see if Kalki is the 10th avatar. .. I am not trying to force anything on you.

You cannot. We all have our views. He looses his independence just by being Bahai.

There is no single Baha'i version of Hinduism, and all are entitled to their opinion about Hinduism, even Baha'is.

Sure. It is not that Bahais have there own view just about Hinduism; they have their own view about all religions, Zoroasrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam, which do not match with the views of adherents of those religions.

Nope. progressive revelation does not mean we slight all other religions. It means that religous truth is relative, not absolute, and grows over time, like science. We may not understand the Hindu perspective very well, but neither do you or other Hindus understand the Baha'i perspective.

Again, that is your view. The other religions do not need or accept any revision of what their religions say.
I understand Bahaiism very clearly and perhaps more than even some Bahais themselves. It has been 14 years since I started studying Bahaiism after joining RF in 2007.

 

[Truthseeker]

What a silly statement. Kalki is supposed to appear only after 425,000 years from now, and you are asking whether Kalki is a historical personage?
Well like the Abrahamic prophets, the person who introduced Kalki thing in Bhavishya Purana must also have been a prophet. He must have known what exactly is going to happen. He knew he place and date of birth of Kalki and the name etc. of his parents. That is why talking in past tense.
And if Kalki is a recent addition, then it could even be an interpolation and false. Hindus do not build their edifice on prophecies like the Abrahamics. Otherwise also, I am not one to believe in any kind of prophecy. I find no reason to even believe in appearance of any 10th avatara.

I don't depend on tradition like that aout the time period, just like you don't believe in any of this stuff. I don't build any edifice on prophecies. Prophecies can be interpreted in many different ways by different people, so they are not an edifice for anything. I don't want discuss prophecy much at all, and not with you. It s unknown according Christopher Buck, as I understand him, whether Kalki was historical. He was citing someone else's understanding. He's a scholar. He's careful about coming to conclusions.

 

[Truthseeker]

He looses his independence just by being Bahai.

How do you know? Do you know whether or not he investigated the Baha'i Faith fairly and independently?

 

[Truthseeker]

And what is the guarantee that scriptures have any truth? After all, they were also created by humans.

We investigate. There is no guarantee until and if we investigate fairly.

 

[Truthseeker]

The criteria is: 'if the infallible one said so, then it's true'. Gee, doesn't that make sense to you?

We investigate first whether to believe these sources are infallible. We don't assume they are infallible, at least ideally.

 

[Truthseeker]

Again, that is your view. The other religions do not need or accept any revision of what their religions say.
I understand Bahaiism very clearly and perhaps more than even some Bahais themselves. It has been 14 years since I started studying Bahaiism after joining RF in 2007.

That's just your opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prophecies can be interpreted in many different ways by different people, so they are not an edifice for anything.

Are you not a Bahai, and Bahais proudly claim that Bahaollah fulfilled all the prophecies of not just Abrahamic religions but of other religions as well.

Do you know whether or not he investigated the Baha'i Faith fairly and independently?

Why should I care about that? Believing in anything or not is his problem. We cross roads only when Bahais talk about Hinduism, some thing which they do not know, and something which even the propounders of their religion Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi did not know very well.

We investigate. There is no guarantee until and if we investigate fairly.

How do you investigate? What evidences you take to be examined?

 

[sayak83]

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.”

Excerpt from
The Kitáb-i-Íqán
Bahá’u’lláh

I am just randomly quoting this to continue the (slow and steady) discussion with respect to the Gita.

One of the things Krishna says speaks about the uncreatedness of the human Self. Krishna says that neither him nor anybody else in this battlefield have never not existed and will never not exist. I am interested about whether this challenges the idea of a Creator who created all human souls? How do the Bahai think of creation. Are human beings (not the body but the inner self or soul) co-eternal with God/Divine Self or not? Note also how the Gita shifts from talking about many souls to the single Self embodied in all bodies. This is one of main arguments supporting a strong non-dualism between God's Self and the Human Self and the Self that is immanent in the universe (reality).
Comments and thoughts about how the Bahai view these?
Quoting the Gita and the associated arguments here (from Chapter 2)
@Tony Bristow-Stagg @Truthseeker9 @adrian009