Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

[rational experiences]

History of men gaining spiritual advice is via mountain changes.

As science a human evil practice pyramid temples. Mountains attacked. Temples atop mountains tip.

I can't find the story but once read a Buddhist community walked out of the temple high on mountain leaving books strewn everywhere.

Thesis origins of men's sciences were Multi gods as Alchemy advice.

Pyramid theme I rebuilt and put back an arose body the mountain tip that in visionary advice had been flat topped converted. Origin earth gods saved O planet body. Tips above water line.

Thesis said no thesis destruction event gone ignored.

Which brought men in science of creation to one thesis only fusion held as one mass was holy.

As it is science that you all discuss versus the spiritual life the reader.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

That is no edifice of anything, I repeat. They don't prove anything to hardly anyone. Such as people in this forum.

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.

My point is that he sees Hindiuism through the lens of the Baha'i Faith, which could be valid if the Baha'i Faith is the truth, which he investigated independently first. He thus would have a degree of independence. He would be somewhat handicapped by the little guidance from the central figures of our faith. Of course this means nothing to you. No matter what I say it is like talking to a brick wall.

 

[Truthseeker]

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

The evidence of divine virtues in the lives of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha, the reasonableness of the Writings taken as a whole, and for those who have spiritual susceptibilities the inspiration they take from those Writings. It does take a spiritual receptivity in the end to see the truth in the Baha'i Faith. There are outward evidences, but it takes an inner recognition ultimately or it doesn't last in the long run.

 

[Truthseeker]

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

View attachment 53450
View attachment 53451
View attachment 53452

It does challange that, we believe the human soul came into existence at birth, but my position is that these words are not necessarily what Krishna said (I'm not talking about how it was translated). Hindu believers believe that a witness wrote down these words as they were uttered, but to me this is part of what may be inaccurate. I hope that last sentence is clear to you.

In a sense we are all embodiments of a single self, but that self is not God in His entiredy in my view, but is an embodiment potentally of the Manifestion of God. God transcends his creation, but we all to some degree reflect Him, including the rest of creation through the Manifestation or what most people call Prophets. Wish you had provided your quotes in a way that could be copied and commented on on their own. I was unable to do that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As this is a discussion on the Gita, are you offering that stance can be supported with what is offered in the Gita, that the Gita does not in any way shape or form support God?

Did you pay attention to post #120 by Sayak? Your ignorance of Gita and Hinduism shows. It was the same with Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi. They knew next to nothing about Hinduism or Buddhism, but did not hesitate in trying to appropriate them. One does not need to study if one just wants to make a claim without evidence. And the poor man, Buddha, did not even talk about a creator God but they made him into a messenger. I quote:

"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)."

 

[Truthseeker]

Bahaollah was an uneducated Iranian of the nineteenth Century. He did not know anything of science. I am not surprised if his utterances or 'tablets' reflect 7th Century views.

"Among the most influential ideas of the 19th century were those of Charles Darwin (alongside the independent researches of Alfred Russel Wallace), who in 1859 published the book The Origin of Species, which introduced the idea of evolution by natural selection. Another important landmark in medicine and biology were the successful efforts to prove the germ theory of disease. Following this, Louis Pasteur made the first vaccine against rabies, and also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, including the asymmetry of crystals. In chemistry, Dmitri Mendeleev, following the atomic theory of John Dalton, created the first periodic table of elements. In physics, the experiments, theories and discoveries of Michael Faraday, Andre-Marie Ampere, James Clerk Maxwell, and their contemporaries led to the creation of electromagnetism as a new branch of science. Thermodynamics led to an understanding of heat and the notion of energy was defined."
19th century in science - Wikipedia

So much was happening in 19th Century science.

This utterance is mystical and not to be taken literally. That is the problem of those with a lot of people that believe only in science, they tend to take scriptures literally, and think that discedits religion. Christainity started this split in the West when they took their own scriptures literally and denied science. The scientists in a way have taken Christians at their word and interpreted them literally right back at them, and see how illogical those scriptures are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He thus would have a degree of independence.

I do not know if such people are paid by your House of Justice for their services. Evangelism takes many shapes.

The evidence of divine virtues in the lives of the Bab, Baha'u'llah, and Abdu'l-Baha, the reasonableness of the Writings taken as a whole, ..

Anything more or just their own writings and published by their own organization? That does not make much evidence.
Why do you have just a selection from writings of Bab and not the whole of it? Looks suspicious. Pick, choose?

 

[Truthseeker]

They knew next to nothing about Hinduism or Buddhism, but did not hesitate in trying to appropriate them.

I don't any attempt by the Founders to appropriate Hindu, or may you need to eluciadte what you mean by that. What I see are Baha'is in a thread like this expessing their views on Hinduism and how in some ways this might correlate with Baha'i views. It's good to find commonality. There are individual Baha'i views, not "official" Baha'i views. We have diverse views just like Hindus, though Hindus are more diverse. There's no religion as diverse as Hinduism, and this diversity doesn't cause disunity among Hindus usually, which is the best feature if Hinduism. We are striving to bring about in the world "unity in diversity" for all mankind which is a very difficult task.

 

[Truthseeker]

I

Did you pay attention to post #120 by Sayak? Your ignorance of Gita and Hinduism shows. It was the same with Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi. They knew next to nothing about Hinduism or Buddhism, but did not hesitate in trying to appropriate them. One does not need to study if one just wants to make a claim without evidence. And the poor man, Buddha, did not even talk about a creator God but they made him into a messenger. I quote:

"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)."

He's just trying to do this best he can. Have a little tolerance. You are so hard on people.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but my position is that these words are not necessarily what Krishna said
Wish you had provided your quotes in a way that could be copied and commented on on their own. I was unable to do that.

Always the same. If it does not suit you, you reject.
What difference does that make? The quotations are in English and you could have easily commented on them as was rquested by Sayak. Why do you need to copy them?

 

[Truthseeker]

Why do you have just a selection from writings of Bab and not the whole of it? Looks suspicious. Pick, choose?

Most of the Witings of the Bab are not translated in English it appears to me because the references in most of the Bab's Writings were such allegorical refences to the Qur'an which we Westerners have trouble relatinng to.

 

[Truthseeker]

Always the same. If it does not suit you, you reject.
What difference does that make? The quotations are in English and you could have easily commented on them as was rquested by Sayak. Why do you need to copy them?

I am lookig through the lens of the Baha'i Faith, which I am entitled to do. You look at the Baha'i Faith I beleve through your own lens.

They were in English, but when I hit reply, I could not see the verses from the Bhagavad Gita. It was a little little hard to cope with. I hoope you understand what I am saying this time.

 

[Martin]

I don't any attempt by the Founders to appropriate Hindu, or may you need to eluciadte what you mean by that. What I see are Baha'is in a thread like this expessing their views on Hinduism and how in some ways this might correlate with Baha'i views. It's good to find commonality. There are individual Baha'i views, not "official" Baha'i views. We have diverse views just like Hindus, though Hindus are more diverse. There's no religion as diverse as Hinduism, and this diversity doesn't cause disunity among Hindus usually, which is the best feature if Hinduism. We are striving to bring about in the world "unity in diversity" for all mankind which is a very difficult task.

Trying to impose some sort of perennialist "unity" on other traditions isn't respecting diversity at all.

Imagine if somebody came up with a new religion which included Baha'i teachings, but completely redefined them to fit that new religion. Do you see the problem here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since @loverofhumanity desired it, here is a copy-able version of the verses quoted by Sayak. Please note that in all these verses, Gita does not use the word God or Soul even once, and Krishna does not insert himself. It just says 'the imperishable'.

2.11: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.
2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
2.13: As the embodied continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, it similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.
2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.
2.17: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable.
2.18: All these bodies are perishable, the imperishable and immeasurable is said to be eternal in existence; therefore fight, O descendant of Bharata.
2.19: Neither he who thinks the living entity the slayer nor he who thinks it slain is in knowledge, for the self slays not nor is slain.
2.20: For it, there is neither birth nor death at any time. It has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. It is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not slain when the body is slain.
2.21: O Pārtha, how can a person who knows that it is indestructible, eternal, unborn and immutable kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Did you pay attention to post #120 by Sayak? Your ignorance of Gita and Hinduism shows. It was the same with Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi. They knew next to nothing about Hinduism or Buddhism, but did not hesitate in trying to appropriate them. One does not need to study if one just wants to make a claim without evidence. And the poor man, Buddha, did not even talk about a creator God but they made him into a messenger. I quote:

"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)."

Firstly there is no Baha'i view on those passages, so what I would offer would be what I see in those passages.

What it shows is that I am not looking at those scriptures through the same lens you are. I do not see what you are offering it says.

That would most likely be because I look for God in all scriptures and will never take God out of them. When I read them I see concepts Baha'u'llah has expanded upon, and to me Baha'u'llah brings God into all those passages.

It may be best to leave it at that.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most of the Witings of the Bab are not translated in English it appears to me because the references in most of the Bab's Writings were such allegorical refences to the Qur'an which we Westerners have trouble relatinng to.

That is why I said it is suspicious. Is it a conspiracy? No, I would have no trouble in relating to Quran (I have read that too), and so have many of our knowledgeable members.

When I read them I see concepts Baha'u'llah has expanded upon, and to me Baha'u'llah brings God into all those passages.

Yeah, you see all things through not 'God' (which is what all other theists do), but through Bahaollah 'goggles'.

 

[Martin]

Firstly there is no Baha'i view on those passages, so what I would offer would be what I see in those passages.

What it shows is that I am not looking at those scriptures through the same lens you are. I do not see what you are offering it says.

That would most likely be because I look for God in all scriptures and will never take God out of them. When I read them I see concepts Baha'u'llah has expanded upon, and to me Baha'u'llah brings God into all those passages.

It may be best to leave it at that.

Regards Tony

Instead of looking for your God in the scriptures of other traditions, why don't you approach them with an open mind, and see what they are really communicating? That would be much more revealing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Instead of looking for your God in the scriptures of other traditions, why don't you approach them with an open mind, and see what they are really communicating? That would be much more revealing.

That would be assuming that looking for the same One God in all scriptures is a closed mind, wheras it may take a very open mind to do so. It could be more revealing undertaking the journey in that way.

But that is our choices in life. Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

This utterance is mystical and not to be taken literally. That is the problem of those with a lot of people that believe only in science, they tend to take scriptures literally, and think that discedits religion. Christainity started this split in the West when they took their own scriptures literally and denied science. The scientists in a way have taken Christians at their word and interpreted them literally right back at them, and see how illogical those scriptures are.

When someone talks silly, you say it is mystical, like Paul speaking tongues. Very nice. And when there is no one else to blame, take up Christianity. Oh, I forgot that Bahaollah brought science back to the world. All progress in science is because of Bahaollah, the uneducated 19th Century Iranian preacher, who claimed to be a mirror copy of Allah, and could even be called Allah.

 

[ajay0]

The problem then becomes whether or not the narratives outlined should be considered as theological or literal truth. Reincarnation is a great example. As you have presented there are verses in the Gita that imply the soul's journey through many worlds of God beyond this mortal life including lives here on earth. Should these verses be regarded as a literal depiction of what actually happens as believed by many Vaishnava or is there latitude for allegorical interpretation as some Baha'is such as myself would take?

You have stated similarly this theme in a past post, and I have answered this in this post.

Hindu-Bahai Gita Discussion

If I may ask, why are you so repugnant to the idea of reincarnation/rebirth as taught by Krishna and the Buddha, while glorifying them as prophets and Avatars !

Also why are the Bahais, while emphasizing the equality of all sexes, still bans feminine leadership in their highest councils !

Baháʼí Faith and gender equality - Wikipedia

I believe there is a provision to revise their views in the light of evidence and proofs.


Does this inability to do so suggest a warped, static, conditioned mind stuck in the past teachings of bahai masters who have actually advocated a dynamic state of mind ready to revise stances and views when necessary !