Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[Dawnofhope]

I hate to interrupt, but since hinduism and bahai (according to your links and general consensus of what hinduism is) are so different, why call bahai interpretation of eastern mysticism, symbolizing their gods, setting aside their images hinduism?

Why call it something that it is not?

I mean I can say I believe in an absolute reality (not represent) and say the images are god (not representation of) but that doesn't make me a Hindu... as a bahai, why call it that in 'any' sense of the word?

Every worldview has a narrative that helps us make sense of who we are and who our brothers and sisters are. The Baha’i Faith is no different. Our view is world embracing. We have something simple yet powerful to say about Hinduism. 1/ Hinduism is a religion 2/ Hinduism has Divine origins. We further identify two men who emerged from the Indian subcontinent as being among the best of Divine Educators who walked the earth, Krishna and Buddha. That is not to deny many other outstanding teachers and gurus. However a Baha’i worldview sees Guatama Buddha and Lord Krishna as distinguished beyond other teachers and we consider then Manifestations of God. That is simply what the Baha’i Faith teaches. You are free to accept or reject such a view.

 

[Sirona]

Taking the time to genuinely learn about individual religions rather than arrogantly misrepresenting then is what distinguishes the sincere from the insincere.

Glad that at least we found something to agree on.

Mystical experience s at the heart of my faith.

Maybe I'm wrong but in my eyes mystics don't proselytize. I would call the Bhagavad Gita a mystical book and it does forbid "teaching" anyone who is uninterested and is not open for its message. IMHO, Krishna also doesn't force anyone to believe in him and fully accepts the listener's choice to reject him. Of course there are Hindu "denominations" that do proselytize, but these are minor exceptions, not the general rule.

There is no dichotomy between such experience and scripture.

This topic would probably deserve a thread of its own.

 

[Sirona]

I think its funny that given all the sincere and deeply-felt love of Bahais for Hinduism, Bahai’s and Hindus don’t seem to get along with each other although the majority of both faiths seem to claim that "you can find God in every religion or scripture.“ Why do you think this is so? I remember when I brought up that website of that Baha’i renegade who became a Hindu and started chanting the names of God (Baha'i Faith's Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Real 'Hidden Words') a Bahai became very upset about him. Since Bahais seem to consider Krishna a respected teacher and religion as the great unifying factor in this world, shouldn’t they rather be happy about said man having found the truth in Hinduism?

In my humble opinion, the great divide between Abrahamic and Hinduism, is that in Abrahamic religions, God is considered to be hidden, and therefore needs a human mouthpiece, whereas Hindus generally believe that they can experience God directly though processes such as chanting (in the tradition that I follow).

From the website I mentioned:

"Rejoice in the joy of My Greatest Name with which hearts are entranced and the minds of those brought near (to God)."

This a mystical statement and bears on the divine experience of religious chanting and mantra repetition. It pairs up with Baha'u'llah's command that Baha'is repeat, out loud, their "Allah'u'abha" mantra in one sitting each day and it is highly significant.

The Hindu yogis say "the mantra becomes nectar." Chanting and repetition is a powerful device for both concentrating the mind and directing all of your feelings to God. The kind of joy one gets through religious repetition, or "repetition of the name of God" -- is a causeless bliss (ananda) that comes from contacting God Himself, within. It opens out onto the spiritual worlds within. It is most likely that Baha'u'llah, being part of the Sufi-like mystical traditions of the Bab, did a lot of chanting and had himself found that joy in chanting.

Source: Analysis of the Baha'i "Book of Laws," Part 2

 

[Vinayaka]

One time I suggested that if you really respected all religions, and especially Hinduism, putting a small statue of Ganesha in your temple, preferably by the door, would be a start. Another sign of respect would be to stop proselytising ('sharing') in India.

"No no no" was the response. In my view it's mostly just talk, with no real substance. As for the Gita discussion, confirmation bias, as expected, is at the forefront.

There are perhaps, individuals, who differ.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i Faith envisages progress through the worlds of God beyond this world. Those worlds however are not the same as this physical world. So there is no issue with multiple births and deaths. Some of those worlds may be hellish or heavenly. However, Baha'i theology does not support the transmigration of souls to another human or animal form on this earth that one might conclude with the literal interpretation you suggest. I would view the narrative allegorically.

Is there any specific Hindu Scriptures listed in the Baha'i writings as being authentic? And, if so, is the Gita one of them? And, if it is, are the events within it considered actual historical events? As I would have thought necessary, the Baha'i view has to make the reincarnation verses "allegorical", but what does the Baha'i writing say about there being multiple worlds of God where the souls of people that existed on Earth when then, after death, go to? And would the soul get a body of some sort or just exist as a soul or spirit?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is there any specific Hindu Scriptures listed in the Baha'i writings as being authentic? And, if so, is the Gita one of them? And, if it is, are the events within it considered actual historical events? As I would have thought necessary, the Baha'i view has to make the reincarnation verses "allegorical", but what does the Baha'i writing say about there being multiple worlds of God where the souls of people that existed on Earth when then, after death, go to? And would the soul get a body of some sort or just exist as a soul or spirit?

Shoghi Effendi is clear we can’t be certain of the authenticity of any Hindu scriptures and its a matter for scholars to investigate. So we have somewhat of a blank canvas to start forming a picture.

The Bhagavad Gita was written long after Krishna lived and historians wouldn’t agree on whether or not Krishna was a real person let alone the specific details in the Gita.

As a Baha’i I believe in the Divine origins of Hinduism and that Krishna was a real person and a Manifestation of God. I believe in the progress of the soul through the world’s of God beyond this world. What we do in this life positively or negatively affects our progress in our next life. I don’t believe in literal transmigration of the soul from one earthly body to another human or animal as many Hindus do.

It makes a great deal of sense to study the Bhagavad Gita and have a degree of reverence for it as sacred scriptures.

In regards the Baha’i view of the afterlife:

If any man be told that which hath been ordained for such a soul in the worlds of God, the Lord of the throne on high and of earth below, his whole being will instantly blaze out in his great longing to attain that most exalted, that sanctified and resplendent station. – Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 156.

How We Make Progress In the World Beyond

 

[Truthseeker]

The Bhagavad Gita was written long after Krishna lived and historians wouldn’t agree on whether or not Krishna was a real person let alone the specific details in the Gita.

As a Baha’i I believe in the Divine origins of Hinduism and that Krishna was a real person and a Manifestation of God.

Yes, the Gita was written long after Krishna lived, and I don't think there's any real idea how long that was, on my part or anyone else. But the Gita seems to have some inspiration behind it. It agrees in a number of respects with Baha'i as I dimly remember it. I do quote portions of the Gita for devotions today, and those are compatible with Baha'i.

By faith, we have to believe that Krishna was a Manifestation of God.

I'm not sure if all of Hinduism has divine origins. There's probably some inpiration there.

 

[Truthseeker]

That is not to deny many other outstanding teachers and gurus.

That's right.

Warn, O Salmán, the beloved of the one true God, not to view with too critical an eye the sayings and writings of men. Let them rather approach such sayings and writings in a spirit of open-mindedness and loving sympathy.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 154

 

[Truthseeker]

I think its funny that given all the sincere and deeply-felt love of Bahais for Hinduism, Bahai’s and Hindus don’t seem to get along with each other although the majority of both faiths seem to claim that "you can find God in every religion or scripture.“ Why do you think this is so? I remember when I brought up that website of that Baha’i renegade who became a Hindu and started chanting the names of God (Baha'i Faith's Kitab-i-Aqdas: The Real 'Hidden Words') a Bahai became very upset about him. Since Bahais seem to consider Krishna a respected teacher and religion as the great unifying factor in this world, shouldn’t they rather be happy about said man having found the truth in Hinduism?

The Baha'i are human like anyone else. We can get upset when we shouldn't sometimes.

 

[ajay0]

However, Baha'i theology does not support the transmigration of souls to another human or animal form on this earth that one might conclude with the literal interpretation you suggest. I would view the narrative allegorically.

Western psychology and psychiatry itself has created a huge body of documented evidence for reincarnation through the likes of Dr. Ian Stevenson, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Michael Newton, Dr. Jim Tucker , Carol Bowman and others. There are a large, increasing number of adherents to the doctrine of reincarnation in the west itself.

The Bahai leadership had taken in Krishna and Buddha as their prophets, but had confessed to their ignorance of them.

Being an Abrahamic faith, they went along with the other Abrahamic faiths in non-belief in reincarnation so as not to appear too different from them. This was important as they were subjected to heavy persecution then.

Like the other Abrahamic faiths, they also do not admit women leaders in the higher councils out of misplaced prejudice. A female Pope or a female Ayatollah will not be realized even in fantasy books.

On the other hand the Prajapita Brahmakumaris is a Dharmic monotheistic faith which have women leaders at their highest levels. In the Hindu faith, Mata Amritanandamayi, Anandamayi Ma, Anandmurti Gurumaa, Nirmala Devi, Mother Meera, Sharda Devi are female enlightened masters having their own teaching institutions and worshipped by millions of devotees throughout the world.

It is high time the Bahai religion revised their old , antiquated views and scriptural teachings regarding reincarnation and prohibition of women leadership if they wish to remain relevant and progressive in modern times.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You know that I'm always bringing up reincarnation. So what does the Gita say about it?

You are welcome. But please note that BhagawadGita is basically a Vaishnava scripture (as Bhagawat Purana also is), though all Hindus take advantage of what these books say. It does not apply to all Hindus in totality. For example, in Advaita (my belief), there could be no next birth, no reincarnation, no need for any salvation, and not even worship of any deity (because you are yourself considered none other than 'Brahman', 'Tat twam asi', You are that). Sankara's Atma Shatakam (Six Verses to Nirvana - Atma Shatkam - Wikipedia, Verse 3):

"na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

I have no hatred or dislike, nor greed, nor any affiliation, nor pride, nor feelings of jealousy;
(I have) no duty (dharma), nor money (artha), nor desire (kāma), nor liberation (mokṣa);
I am the auspicious, the eternal, in the form of the bliss of heart.

 

[ajay0]

All the basic philosophies of Hinduism cover the theme of reincarnation, and the need to attain enlightenment or liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth due to latent psycholocial impressions of karma or vasanas.

Adi Shankaracharya, the great teacher of Advaita Vedanta states thus with respect to reincarnation and enlightenment.....

Thus , when the sage who abides as Brahman , which is pure Being , obtains his disembodied absolute state he is never again reborn . ~ Adi Shankaracharya ( Vivekachudamani, "The Crown Gem of Discrimination")

Enlightenment through purification of consciousness through spiritual exercises such as meditation, selfless service, love and compassion, self-inquiry results in the elimination of all psychological impressions or vasanas that results in reincarnation.

 

[CG Didymus]

You are welcome. But please note that BhagawadGita is basically a Vaishnava scripture (as Bhagawat Purana also is), though all Hindus take advantage of what these books say. It does not apply to all Hindus in totality. For example, in Advaita (my belief), there could be no next birth, no reincarnation, no need for any salvation, and not even worship of any deity (because you are yourself considered none other than 'Brahman', 'Tat twam asi', You are that). Sankara's Atma Shatakam (Six Verses to Nirvana - Atma Shatkam - Wikipedia, Verse 3):

"na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

I have no hatred or dislike, nor greed, nor any affiliation, nor pride, nor feelings of jealousy;
(I have) no duty (dharma), nor money (artha), nor desire (kāma), nor liberation (mokṣa);
I am the auspicious, the eternal, in the form of the bliss of heart.

Yes, Baha'is have put themselves in an awkward position. They have to believe in Krishna, but not as an incarnation of a God. They have to "say" that Hinduism is a true "revealed" religion, but which Hindu Scriptures do Baha'is accept as truly from the same God that they say is the one and only God. Even with the Gita, they can "say" they believe in it, and that many things in it are true and compatible with the Baha'i Faith, but as soon as something doesn't agree with their beliefs, it is written off as "allegorical." So no Scripture from any other religion is ever believed as literal as the adherents of that religion might take it. So, for me, I don't really see that Baha'i truly believe in any of the other religions. What they do believe in is their version and interpretation of those other religions. So it doesn't matter what the Gita says... Only things that match Baha'i beliefs are going to be accepted as true.

Then the other problem for Baha'is... what do they do with you and other forms of Hinduism that worship a different deity or no deity? They can't agree with everything within every religion and they can't agree with every sect within a religion. So what do they do? The best they can do is say, "Originally" the teachings were from God and compatible, then people changed them." But it's funny all those "original" Scriptures that would be more compatible and agreeable to the Baha'i teachings are gone.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Gita to me is a beautiful rendition of the battle that goes on within oneself. It is what we face everyday, every minute.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, Baha'is have put themselves in an awkward position. They have to believe in Krishna, but not as an incarnation of a God. They have to "say" that Hinduism is a true "revealed" religion, but which Hindu Scriptures do Baha'is accept as truly from the same God that they say is the one and only God. Even with the Gita, they can "say" they believe in it, and that many things in it are true and compatible with the Baha'i Faith, but as soon as something doesn't agree with their beliefs, it is written off as "allegorical." So no Scripture from any other religion is ever believed as literal as the adherents of that religion might take it. So, for me, I don't really see that Baha'i truly believe in any of the other religions. What they do believe in is their version and interpretation of those other religions. So it doesn't matter what the Gita says... Only things that match Baha'i beliefs are going to be accepted as true.

Then the other problem for Baha'is... what do they do with you and other forms of Hinduism that worship a different deity or no deity? They can't agree with everything within every religion and they can't agree with every sect within a religion. So what do they do? The best they can do is say, "Originally" the teachings were from God and compatible, then people changed them." But it's funny all those "original" Scriptures that would be more compatible and agreeable to the Baha'i teachings are gone.

The question I wish to pose is what IF Baha’u’llah is the Tenth Avatar, Kalki? Then whatever He would say that would be truth and that would include interpretations of scriptures. Just because a belief has been long standing does not mean it is true or correct. And Krishna is not accountable to His followers to obey their wishes and desires but to tell the truth so is it so far fetched that Figures such as Moses, Buddha, Chrust and Muhammad were all the same Spirit of the Avatar returning from age to age to renew religion as stated in the Gita?

Noting this, then, I think it in error to hurriedly write off Baha’u’llah as not having anything to do with the promises in the Gita because He did renew religion and was a very great spiritual Personage.

 

[sayak83]

The Gita to me is a beautiful rendition of the battle that goes on within oneself. It is what we face everyday, every minute.

Great to see you here. If you are interested we can start a close reading of the Gita and see how far the Baha'i beliefs align with what is said in the Gita.
So far we have discussed two things. First is the fact that Krishna advocates Arjuna to fight the Kurukshetra war. @adrian009 had said that the Baha'i have no objection to a war if the cause is just. You would agree correct?
The second point is that Krishna multiple times speak of literal rebirth in this world of humans as well as in other worlds. This the Baha'i do not accept and considers allegorical. Is that correct?

 

[sayak83]

The question I wish to pose is what IF Baha’u’llah is the Tenth Avatar, Kalki? Then whatever He would say that would be truth and that would include interpretations of scriptures. Just because a belief has been long standing does not mean it is true or correct. And Krishna is not accountable to His followers to obey their wishes and desires but to tell the truth so is it so far fetched that Figures such as Moses, Buddha, Chrust and Muhammad were all the same Spirit of the Avatar returning from age to age to renew religion as stated in the Gita?

Noting this, then, I think it in error to hurriedly write off Baha’u’llah as not having anything to do with the promises in the Gita because He did renew religion and was a very great spiritual Personage.

Somebody can't be a 10 th avatar of Vishnu if his words contradict the first 9 avatars... obviously.
You must understand that Vishnu is directly experienced by Vaushnava saints and many of the saints are considered partial avatars of Vishnu. So there is continuous and ongoing interaction between Vishnu and the world, and not once in a thousand year kind of thing. The full avatars have a different task and comes only come when a turning of the ages happen. Vaishnava system will never accept Bahaullah as Kalki as no supra-historical break in history happened at his coming.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Moreover, loverofhumanity forgets that time of coming of Kalki is absolutely and clearly mentioned, i.e., 425,000 years from now. That cannot be changed. Kaliyuga has to last all the years that have been assigned to it, whether one likes it or not.

"Then one day, the Kali demon came to speak with Pariksheet. It told Pariksheet, 'Oh King! I am Kali! The Kali Yuga has started, but I cannot enter your kingdom...If things have to go properly, I have to take over all the places in earth...'

Pariksheet shook his head, 'You are a demon...You make people wicked...I will not let you inside my kingdom...'

Kali smiled and said, 'You don't have a choice my king, the four ages – Satya yuga, Treta yuga, Dwapara yuga and Kali yuga are a cycle...each must follow the other...it is the law of the universe...'."
Full story at: http://hindumythologyforgennext.blogspot.com/2012/05/parisk****-and-kali-death-of-parik****.html
The original conversation can be checked in Srimad Bhagawat Purana.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Great to see you here. If you are interested we can start a close reading of the Gita and see how far the Baha'i beliefs align with what is said in the Gita.
So far we have discussed two things. First is the fact that Krishna advocates Arjuna to fight the Kurukshetra war. @adrian009 had said that the Baha'i have no objection to a war if the cause is just. You would agree correct?
The second point is that Krishna multiple times speak of literal rebirth in this world of humans as well as in other worlds. This the Baha'i do not accept and considers allegorical. Is that correct?

Hi Dayak. Glad to be here and thank you for taking the time to explore these matters together.

On the first point, we all have our inner demons to fight, so the war being fought by Krishna is synonymous with our inner battle of our lives between our spiritual selves and the ego. But true, we also believe in a just war to free people from persecution and oppression.

On the matter of return. We believe the Avatars or Prophets are pre existent, that is they existed in the world of God not conceived in this word at conception. With people Baha’u’llah, in His Book of Certitude states that by return is meant the return of the same qualities. So for example the clergy who opposed and persecuted Him could be said to be the return of Caiphas and Herod.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"You may turn your bones to fuel, your flesh to meat, letting them roast and sizzle in the gold-red blaze of severe austerities. But unless your heart melts in love's sweet ecstacy, you never can possess my Lord Siva, my treasure-trove." Tirumantiram Verse 272

Wow! That are almost exact words as in the Bible (1 Corinthians 13:3):

If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.