Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[Truthseeker]

I had heard of that. Unusual.

I should add here I just found out that Alawite Shi'is also believe in reincarnation. That's the sect that Assad is part of in Syria.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I see that proof is also a relative truth. What you see as proof, may not be what I see is proof.

That is true. You take the writings of your religious books as proof, I take what science accepts as truth. Therein lies the whole difference. Has science accepted the existence of God/Gods, soul, prophets and prophecies, messengers and manifestations?

 

[ajay0]

I should add here I just found out that Alawite Shi'is also believe in reincarnation. That's the sect that Assad is part of in Syria.

I am glad to know of an another Abrahamic religion which has reincarnation as one of its core beliefs, other than the Druze.

I am in awe of your intellectual honesty and indebted to you, Truthseeker9.

You are indeed a noble truthseeker and not a superficial propagandist, and there is a great difference between the two. This for me is a sign that the Bahai religion indeed has substance and dynamism in it, which augurs well for its future. Without this, any individual or religion or institution is bound to regress and get extinct like the dinosaurs .

Motivated by your noble example, I hope I can play a role in reconciling these faiths and their teachings in a manner that is productive for both its adherents.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I am glad to know of an another Abrahamic religion which has reincarnation as one of its core beliefs, other than the Druze.

There is also Jewish (Kabbalah) "gilgul".

Gilgul - Wikipedia

 

[ajay0]

There is also Jewish (Kabbalah) "gilgul".

Gilgul - Wikipedia

Hey Pearlseeker,

Thank you for this information. I believe that I was a Jew in a past life.

So this information was interesting.

 

[sayak83]

There are Baha'i writings that both support and reject non-dualism. It is quite a theological expedition. I would lean more towards dualism, but there are Baha'i writings that support non-dualism as well.

O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 6-7

It is important to recognise the Baha'i writings see the nature of God as being unknowable, yet our purpose is to know and worship God. The soul is seen as being a mystery that no mind, however advanced can fathom.



There are Baha'i writings that refer to the oneness of humanity and we should see ourselves as one soul.

O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 20

However there is also distinction between man and His creator.

To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.”…

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 46-49

That is a good set of scriptures. I do get the sense however we are still within the dualist framework and we are seeing God (according to Bahai) clearly saying that humans were created by Him (though from the same substance and he wants them to be united in purpose and thought). A disciple of God can however look within and see that God is indwelling within his heart. I think this much is consistent with the traditional Islamic and Christian views as well.

Some similarities as well as a few differences is how I would reckon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

BG 2:22-30 reads:

Just as a man casts away worn-out, old clothes and puts on others that are new, in the same way the embodied Self casts off its worn-out bodies and enters into others that are new. So there is no reason to lament over them.
The weapons, even though sharp, cannot tear apart this individual Self, fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it, and wind cannot dry.
Since it cannot be cut, it cannot be burnt, it cannot be wetted and it cannot be dried, it is eternal, present everywhere, of steady nature, immovable and extant from the beginning of time.
This Self is said to be unmanifest as it cannot be perceived directly by senses, like objects other than itself. It is inconceivable by the inner organs, i.e. mind, intellect, etc., and it is unchanging, incapable of modifications. Therefore, knowing it thus, you should not grieve.
From another point of view, if you suppose that the Self is born at the same time as the birth of the body and it dies the same time the body dies, even then, O mighty armed (Arjuna), you should not grieve like this.
For beings who are born, indeed, death is certain, and also re-birth is certain for the dead. Therefore knowing this situation of birth and death as being unavoidable, do not become sad.
O Arjuna! Beings are not manifest in prior state; they are manifest (are seen) in the middle state (only) and again they return to the unmanifest at death. Then what is there to grieve for over all these?
Someone who can discriminate between the body and Âtmâ and can see, with great virtue, the Âtmâ, see this soul as full of wonder. Likewise, another speaks of it as full of wonder, yet others hear of it as being full of wonder. Even after hearing of it one knows it not.
Occupying every body, the Self can never be slain. Thus all living beings are not worthy to be mourned.

Krishna continues to address the eternal nature of the soul, distinguishing it from our transient physical bodies.

BG 2:31-40 addresses the themes of Dharma and Karma, themes that are universal and have parallels in Baha'i theology.

BG 2:40 - 44 addresses the theme of attachment to transient worldliness, similar to the Baha''=i concept of detachment.

BG 2:45-46 highlights the importance of the Vedas themselves.

The remaining verses BG 2:47-72 weave together concepts of Dharma, Karma, freedom from and attachment. It introduces concepts of spiritual practice (Yoga/meditation) and describes the state of one who has freed himself from the conditions of the world.

 

[sayak83]

I agree it does say that. The reason I say it may be inauthentic is because I believe in Baha'u'llah, and I also believe in Krishna, and sometimes the only way to recocile two irreconcilable statements in my case, as definitely what Baha'u'llah said was recorded immediately from my knowledge of this, and by following historical scholarship on this, which of course is not infallible in any sense, it appears to me that Krishna's words were not written down as they were spoken. I would be denying Baha'u'llah, and Krishna also to do otherwise, because the reason I believe in Krishna, frankly, is because my faith says so.

As a man, [after] discarding worn-out garments, seizes other,
new ones, so does the embodied , [after] discarding worn out
bodies, enter other, new ones.

As to this one, besides the historical scholarship on whether He said those exact words, this particular one could be interpreted to mean the person after this life is over enter a new spiritual body, as the Baha'i Faith teaches, and it doesn't stop there. There are many worlds in the next life, many spiritual bodies he will go to.

I think two major differences between you and me is that
i) I do not actually have a faith of this sort. That is I believe what makes sense to me and seems to have evidential and experiential merit and remain agnostic about the rest. This is also reflected in Hinduism in general. If you see a recent survey, almost half the Hindus did not believe in rebirth though its supposed to be a key tenet. So I do not see any need to agree with anything and everything Hinduism says or does not say. Bahai seems to be a more orthodox and structured religion where one is expected to believe most of the major teachings.
ii) Furthermore, I can (hopefully) bracket my beliefs from influencing how I interpret whatever a given book is saying. If I do not allow the author of the book to say what he/she wants but rather try to read in my own views on the topic, what is the point of reading anything? I sincerely hope that while reading Gita, you can bracket away your Bahai beliefs and I can bracket away my Hindu beliefs so that we can read Gita's beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is a good set of scriptures. I do get the sense however we are still within the dualist framework and we are seeing God (according to Bahai) clearly saying that humans were created by Him (though from the same substance and he wants them to be united in purpose and thought). A disciple of God can however look within and see that God is indwelling within his heart. I think this much is consistent with the traditional Islamic and Christian views as well.

Some similarities as well as a few differences is how I would reckon.

I was reading about the central importance of the Bhagavad Gita for many Hindus and how different traditions/philosophies (eg non-dualism vs dualist) might inspire different commentaries.

Numerous commentaries have been written on the Bhagavad Gita with widely differing views on the essentials. According to some, Bhagavad Gita is written by the god Ganesha which was told to him by Vyasa. Vedanta commentators read varying relations between Self and Brahman in the text: Advaita Vedanta sees the non-dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman (universal soul) as its essence,[6] whereas Bhedabheda and Vishishtadvaita see Atman and Brahman as both different and non-different, while Dvaita Vedanta sees dualism of Atman (soul) and Brahman as its essence. The setting of the Gita in a battlefield has been interpreted as an allegory for the ethical and moral struggles of human life.

Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia

It seems clear from a study of the BG verses how interpretation can vary. Each school of thought views the Gita from a different lens and finds affirmation of his particular theology. That appears to be part of the enduring appeal of such a great work. It remains as relevant today as when it was first composed centuries ago. Literary works that are rigid and dogmatic, telling the audience what to think have limited value and soon become outdated. A work such as the Bhagavad Gita encourages the student discover the pearls of wisdom for himself. Every time he returns to the Vedas, new meanings and truths unfold.

Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 118-119

 

[sayak83]

BG 2:22-30 reads:

Just as a man casts away worn-out, old clothes and puts on others that are new, in the same way the embodied Self casts off its worn-out bodies and enters into others that are new. So there is no reason to lament over them.
The weapons, even though sharp, cannot tear apart this individual Self, fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it, and wind cannot dry.
Since it cannot be cut, it cannot be burnt, it cannot be wetted and it cannot be dried, it is eternal, present everywhere, of steady nature, immovable and extant from the beginning of time.
This Self is said to be unmanifest as it cannot be perceived directly by senses, like objects other than itself. It is inconceivable by the inner organs, i.e. mind, intellect, etc., and it is unchanging, incapable of modifications. Therefore, knowing it thus, you should not grieve.
From another point of view, if you suppose that the Self is born at the same time as the birth of the body and it dies the same time the body dies, even then, O mighty armed (Arjuna), you should not grieve like this.
For beings who are born, indeed, death is certain, and also re-birth is certain for the dead. Therefore knowing this situation of birth and death as being unavoidable, do not become sad.
O Arjuna! Beings are not manifest in prior state; they are manifest (are seen) in the middle state (only) and again they return to the unmanifest at death. Then what is there to grieve for over all these?
Someone who can discriminate between the body and Âtmâ and can see, with great virtue, the Âtmâ, see this soul as full of wonder. Likewise, another speaks of it as full of wonder, yet others hear of it as being full of wonder. Even after hearing of it one knows it not.
Occupying every body, the Self can never be slain. Thus all living beings are not worthy to be mourned.

Krishna continues to address the eternal nature of the soul, distinguishing it from our transient physical bodies.

BG 2:31-40 addresses the themes of Dharma and Karma, themes that are universal and have parallels in Baha'i theology.

BG 2:40 - 44 addresses the theme of attachment to transient worldliness, similar to the Baha''=i concept of detachment.

BG 2:45-46 highlights the importance of the Vedas themselves.

The remaining verses BG 2:47-72 weave together concepts of Dharma, Karma, freedom from and attachment. It introduces concepts of spiritual practice (Yoga/meditation) and describes the state of one who has freed himself from the conditions of the world.

One point of Gita that I really like is that it gives primacy of direct experience over scripture. Thus Gita is anti-literalist and anti-fundamentalist to the core.
Here are the sentences from 2.42 onwards,

Undiscerning [people] , delighting in the lore of the Veda,
0 son-of-Pritha, utter flowery speech, saying there is nothing else.

Having desire [as their] essence (atman ), intent on heaven, claim
that [a good re-] birth is the fruit of [ritual] action, [and have]
many special rites for the attainment of enjoyment and lordship.

Of [those who are] attached to enjoyment and lordship [and
have] "carried-away" minds-[ their] wisdom-faculty, [which is
of] the essence of determination, is not settled in deep meditation.

The triad of primary-qualities [of the manifested universe]
is the subject-matter of the Vedas. Become free of the triple
primary-qualities, free of the pairs-of-opposites, and, 0 Arjuna,
abide always in sattva (Truth/Discernment), without [trying to] gain or keep [anything]
. [Be] Self-possessed !

As much use [as is] a water-reservoir flooded with water all round,
so much [use is there] in all the Vedas for the knowing Brahmin (sage).


Gita, therefore marks a trend in Hinduism in moving away from scripture based beliefs and rituals (which continue to exist of course) to direct experiential enlightenment. The Hindus today therefore cannot be said to be a people of the book(s) so to speak. The scripture serves as a secondary aid (like a driving manual) to the actual focus which is for experiential gnosis. Thus Hinduism is comfortable with a wide range of scriptures and praxis methods (from Yoga to Tantra to Bhakti) and new ones crop up all the time without causing charges of heresy. While individual groups can give primacy to one guru or one scripture, as a whole the concept of one primary book, one primary revelation or practice system or one primary way of thinking about the Ultimate Reality is alien to Hindu thought.

How does this compare with the Bahai beliefs and praxis.

PS: I would note though this point is often lost to some fundamentalist Hindu people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

BG 2:22-30 reads:

If you have quoted from ISKCON Gita, then kindly note that it biased and differs from the original.

"Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths."

Yes, I didth, very thoroughly, but unfortunately, I didth not seeth anything other than self-aggrandizement. The rest was all decor. I didth not hath Bahaollah 'goggles' over my eyes.
"My words". So much of I, my, mine. He meant all the pearls of wisdom are only in his words.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Undiscerning [people] , delighting in the lore of the Veda,
0 son-of-Pritha, utter flowery speech, saying there is nothing else.

Having desire [as their] essence (atman ), intent on heaven, claim
that [a good re-] birth is the fruit of [ritual] action, [and have]
many special rites for the attainment of enjoyment and lordship.

One needs to note that Vedas are the lore of herders in Pontic Steppes and Central Asia, and belong to a period older than 2000 years before Gita (which dated around beginning of the Christian Era). They believed in their Gods and most Hymns and rituals of Vedas are their praises and practices. Philosophy in Vedas is incidental. So why blame Vedas to be flowery? They were meant to be as flowery as the poet could make them. After all, the poets had to please their Gods.

Later worship among Hindus also is for heaven and material benefits. Why blame just the writers of Vedic hymns? How many people go into the philosophy of worship?

Om jai jagdish hare
Bhakt jano ke sankat Daas jano ke sankat
Kshan mein door kare.. Om jai ..
Jo dhyaave phal paave Dukh binse mann ka
Sukh sampati ghar aave, Kasht mite tan ka.. Om jai ..

Hail the Lord of the Universe
who removes the problems of the devotees instantly
one who worships will get the benefits
and removal of sorrows of the heart
Happiness and prosperity come to his house
and his bodily ailments are relieved.
Hail the Lord of the Universe.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Hey Pearlseeker,

Thank you for this information. I believe that I was a Jew in a past life.

So this information was interesting.

You're welcome. There is some more. In Christianity for example:
The Christian Community - Wikipedia

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you have quoted from ISKCON Gita, then kindly note that it biased and differs from the original.Yes, I didth, very thoroughly, but unfortunately, I didth not seeth anything other than self-aggrandizement. The rest was all decor. I didth not hath Bahaollah 'goggles' over my eyes.
"My words". So much of I, my, mine. He meant all the pearls of wisdom are only in his words.

Which versions do you prefer? I would like to know so I can use these in our discussion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Progress of the Soul

Gita 2:22

As one abandons worn-out clothes and acquires new ones, so when the body is worn out a new one is acquired by the Self, who lives within.

Baha’i Writings

In the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.


“Likewise, thou wilt not forget (there) the life that thou hast had in the material world.”

(Abdul-Baha)

 

[Truthseeker]

Has science accepted the existence of God/Gods, soul, prophets and prophecies, messengers and manifestations?

Science can't prove anything about that, in my view.

 

[ajay0]

Progress of the Soul

Gita 2:22

As one abandons worn-out clothes and acquires new ones, so when the body is worn out a new one is acquired by the Self, who lives within.

Baha’i Writings

In the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.


“Likewise, thou wilt not forget (there) the life that thou hast had in the material world.”

(Abdul-Baha)

Yes, in the 'Autobiography of a Yogi', Yogananda talks about the astral dimensions and how deceased humans appear in their astral bodies over there. Such will also have memories of their past lives as well.

This is also there in the Hindu scriptures but is elaborated in detail in this book.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think two major differences between you and me is that
i) I do not actually have a faith of this sort. That is I believe what makes sense to me and seems to have evidential and experiential merit and remain agnostic about the rest. This is also reflected in Hinduism in general. If you see a recent survey, almost half the Hindus did not believe in rebirth though its supposed to be a key tenet. So I do not see any need to agree with anything and everything Hinduism says or does not say. Bahai seems to be a more orthodox and structured religion where one is expected to believe most of the major teachings.
ii) Furthermore, I can (hopefully) bracket my beliefs from influencing how I interpret whatever a given book is saying. If I do not allow the author of the book to say what he/she wants but rather try to read in my own views on the topic, what is the point of reading anything? I sincerely hope that while reading Gita, you can bracket away your Bahai beliefs and I can bracket away my Hindu beliefs so that we can read Gita's beliefs.

You have to do that in Hinduism because of the nature of Hinduism, with different contradctory texts. One believes in certain texts experientally and pick and choose. We have texts that support one another, though one has to think carefully sometimes, and we have texts that were written down, whereas your stuff is oral.

It doesn't surprise me that Hinduism is experiental then. There is also an element of experiental in Baha'i also, but the experience has to support the Baha'i texts, it can illumine what the texts mean or we have to quit being a Baha'i, or limp along half-believing in Baha'i with no real conviction in it.

We live in totally different situations.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thus Hinduism is comfortable with a wide range of scriptures and praxis methods (from Yoga to Tantra to Bhakti) and new ones crop up all the time without causing charges of heresy. While individual groups can give primacy to one guru or one scripture, as a whole the concept of one primary book, one primary revelation or practice system or one primary way of thinking about the Ultimate Reality is alien to Hindu thought.

Yes, I understand completely. It's admirable that heresy doesn't exist in Hindu. Heresy also doesn't exist in Baha'i. We are all free to interpret our scriptures as we wish. Even if an understanding seems very unusual they are not thrown out. Only an understanding that the leaders of our faith are to be replced by others or another will someone to be thrown out. That we call covenant-breaking. There can be no unity of humanity if we can't maintain our unity.

 

[Truthseeker]

He meant all the pearls of wisdom are only in his words.

That's slander, and you know it, I suspect.