Krishna and the Baha'i faith

[loverofhumanity]

But which religion, other than the Baha'i Faith, do you think is teaching the real and accurate teachings about God and his prophets? Is even one sect of any one religion teaching the truth about God?

Now if you want to talk about the "essence" of all religions, maybe then you can say they all teach we should love one another and all that nice stuff. But in actual teachings and beliefs, religions are all over the place. And some religions do believe the other religions are all false. And one religion is so bad that each sect doesn't believe in the other sects.

But right here in this thread is another example where Baha'is would rather push their beliefs in such a way as to turn off others... and to come off as being superior... and as not accepting the beliefs of the different Hindus here on this thread. And Baha'is don't do they? Which Hindus do Baha'is agree with?

So it's awesome that you try and be as open and as friendly as you can, but still... the problem is with the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. They believe they are newer and have better information that has, essentially, made all the other religions outdated and, therefore, obsolete. So you can go to a Hindu Temple or a Christian Church but that doesn't mean you believe everything that the people in those places believe.

And I wouldn't expect you to. And given the opportunity, what should a Baha'i say to them? To keep believing the things you do, or that a new messenger has come and it's time for us all to follow him? Maybe Baha'i don't say it that bluntly, but in the end, that's what people are hearing. Baha'is believe in their own thing and are here to try and convert us and show us how our beliefs are wrong. I know you're doing the best you can and mean well, but you're not talking to seekers here... you are talking to people that have cherished beliefs and are practicing spiritual teachings that are working for them. Why would they leave that to accept the Baha'i Faith? A Faith that does contradict some of their beliefs? Anyway, I might not agree with everything you say, but I'm glad you're posting.

Of course all the major religions teach the truth. We unconditionally accept all religions and the beautiful truths they all teach.

However, we follow only what was originally taught and only the interpretations of the Prophets not what has been added later by clergy and scholars.

This is how it’s so easy to see oneness of all religions and paves the path for their eventual unity.

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course all the major religions teach the truth. We unconditionally accept all religions and the beautiful truths they all teach.

However, we follow only what was originally taught and only the interpretations of the Prophets not what has been added later by clergy and scholars.

This is how it’s so easy to see oneness of all religions and paves the path for their eventual unity.

Have you gone to the thread in the Interfaith Discussions about the Gita yet?

Anyway, the problem is who knows what was originally taught? What was written down wasn't by the prophet/manifestation, Messiah or incarnation. So who wrote it? Can we trust them to have accurately written the words of the prophet? I think someone said that a person wrote down what Krishna said, so for believers the words in the Gita are the "original" words. But then if something, like reincarnation, is being taught, then Baha'is say those words weren't meant to be taken literally. Or, they can always say those weren't the original words but were added in later. Or, that the words were misinterpreted. So by the time Baha'is are done with those teachings in the other religions, Baha'is can always nullify their validity. But the Gita is not the only Scriptures in Hinduism. What are Baha'is going to say about the other ones? Sure, you can always say they are "beautiful". But the trouble is... the followers of the religion take them more seriously and sometimes more literal than Baha'is.

So still, to me, Baha'i "say" they believe in the other religion and believe in their Scriptures, but I don't see them actually doing the things taught in those Scriptures. Which, again, Baha'i easily get around that by saying that those teachings were meant for that time and place and have now been replaced by newer teachings. But something like reincarnation is not a "social" teaching. It is supposed to be the way things are. But, according to most all Abrahamic religions, it is not.

 

[Vinayaka]

Have you gone to the thread in the Interfaith Discussions about the Gita yet?

Anyway, the problem is who knows what was originally taught? What was written down wasn't by the prophet/manifestation, Messiah or incarnation. So who wrote it? Can we trust them to have accurately written the words of the prophet? I think someone said that a person wrote down what Krishna said, so for believers the words in the Gita are the "original" words. But then if something, like reincarnation, is being taught, then Baha'is say those words weren't meant to be taken literally. Or, they can always say those weren't the original words but were added in later. Or, that the words were misinterpreted. So by the time Baha'is are done with those teachings in the other religions, Baha'is can always nullify their validity. But the Gita is not the only Scriptures in Hinduism. What are Baha'is going to say about the other ones? Sure, you can always say they are "beautiful". But the trouble is... the followers of the religion take them more seriously and sometimes more literal than Baha'is.

So still, to me, Baha'i "say" they believe in the other religion and believe in their Scriptures, but I don't see them actually doing the things taught in those Scriptures. Which, again, Baha'i easily get around that by saying that those teachings were meant for that time and place and have now been replaced by newer teachings. But something like reincarnation is not a "social" teaching. It is supposed to be the way things are. But, according to most all Abrahamic religions, it is not.

Hmmm ... who to trust, the insiders or the outsiders? lol CG, I'm planning a trip to California. I'm consulting my friend in Mauritius who's never been off that island about the sights to see in California. That's a good idea right?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Have you gone to the thread in the Interfaith Discussions about the Gita yet?

Anyway, the problem is who knows what was originally taught? What was written down wasn't by the prophet/manifestation, Messiah or incarnation. So who wrote it? Can we trust them to have accurately written the words of the prophet? I think someone said that a person wrote down what Krishna said, so for believers the words in the Gita are the "original" words. But then if something, like reincarnation, is being taught, then Baha'is say those words weren't meant to be taken literally. Or, they can always say those weren't the original words but were added in later. Or, that the words were misinterpreted. So by the time Baha'is are done with those teachings in the other religions, Baha'is can always nullify their validity. But the Gita is not the only Scriptures in Hinduism. What are Baha'is going to say about the other ones? Sure, you can always say they are "beautiful". But the trouble is... the followers of the religion take them more seriously and sometimes more literal than Baha'is.

So still, to me, Baha'i "say" they believe in the other religion and believe in their Scriptures, but I don't see them actually doing the things taught in those Scriptures. Which, again, Baha'i easily get around that by saying that those teachings were meant for that time and place and have now been replaced by newer teachings. But something like reincarnation is not a "social" teaching. It is supposed to be the way things are. But, according to most all Abrahamic religions, it is not.

All I can say is that Baha’u’llah teaches in the Book of Certitude that by return is the return of the same qualities not the actual same entity thus debunking the theory of reincarnation. As a Messenger of God I believe His Words are truth. Books like the Quran make clear things like the trinity are man made.

The more recent the Messenger the more proof we have of the authenticity of their scriptures. So we can rely on them to explain more accurately whether an ancient concept was a divine teaching or man made.

Yes, I’ve participated in that thread thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

All I can say is that Baha’u’llah teaches in the Book of Certitude that by return is the return of the same qualities not the actual same entity thus debunking the theory of reincarnation. As a Messenger of God I believe His Words are truth. Books like the Quran make clear things like the trinity are man made.

Well that's why the study of the Gita was going to be so important. Does it say the spirit part of a person returns into a different body? If so, then those words were added in and not said by Krishna? 'Cause it's a big, big difference to say "qualities" return. Like how many people in the world have similar qualities? Like almost everybody? Baha's do the same thing with Jesus. What is the big deal if his spirit rose from the dead. Baha'is believe everybody's spirit rises from the dead. Yet, the text makes it clear that there was some kind of physical return of Jesus. Rather than believing that was all "allegorical", I think it's easier to believe that it was all made up. So, same thing with reincarnation. if it isn't true, then why not just say that it was made up instead of trying to say that what was really meant, and the real truth is that the "qualities" of a person returns?

 

[CG Didymus]

Hmmm ... who to trust, the insiders or the outsiders? lol CG, I'm planning a trip to California. I'm consulting my friend in Mauritius who's never been off that island about the sights to see in California. That's a good idea right?

Yeah, it's like if you ask a Californian, they are going to tell things that they made up and not the truth. But the outsider will tell you the truth about California, because there is an all-knowing person there that knows the truth about California. It is an plains state with no mountains or deserts. And those people that talk about the ocean are only speaking allegorically.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well that's why the study of the Gita was going to be so important. Does it say the spirit part of a person returns into a different body? If so, then those words were added in and not said by Krishna? 'Cause it's a big, big difference to say "qualities" return. Like how many people in the world have similar qualities? Like almost everybody? Baha's do the same thing with Jesus. What is the big deal if his spirit rose from the dead. Baha'is believe everybody's spirit rises from the dead. Yet, the text makes it clear that there was some kind of physical return of Jesus. Rather than believing that was all "allegorical", I think it's easier to believe that it was all made up. So, same thing with reincarnation. if it isn't true, then why not just say that it was made up instead of trying to say that what was really meant, and the real truth is that the "qualities" of a person returns?

There will be no study of the Gita. That was never the intention. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[CG Didymus]

There will be no study of the Gita. That was never the intention. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Even if there was, as we know, the Baha'is already "know" what the true interpretation is. If it agrees with their beliefs... then it is literally true and an accurate account of what Krishna taught. If it disagrees with Baha'i beliefs, then Krishna meant it allegorically, or it was added in later by his followers and wasn't something that Krishna taught.

 

[Vinayaka]

Even if there was, as we know, the Baha'is already "know" what the true interpretation is. If it agrees with their beliefs... then it is literally true and an accurate account of what Krishna taught. If it disagrees with Baha'i beliefs, then Krishna meant it allegorically, or it was added in later by his followers and wasn't something that Krishna taught.

Yeah, it's never a real discussion. For the record, many Hindus have trouble with many Hindu interpretations or translations of any Hindu texts. The only true way to study the Gita is to know Sanskrit and know Sanskrit well. Since Sanskrit has many words that simply don't have adequate corresponding words in English, it's a challenge for us all. I'm not personally prepared to try to learn Sanskrit. I can hardly learn English.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Well that's why the study of the Gita was going to be so important. Does it say the spirit part of a person returns into a different body? If so, then those words were added in and not said by Krishna? 'Cause it's a big, big difference to say "qualities" return. Like how many people in the world have similar qualities? Like almost everybody? Baha's do the same thing with Jesus. What is the big deal if his spirit rose from the dead. Baha'is believe everybody's spirit rises from the dead. Yet, the text makes it clear that there was some kind of physical return of Jesus. Rather than believing that was all "allegorical", I think it's easier to believe that it was all made up. So, same thing with reincarnation. if it isn't true, then why not just say that it was made up instead of trying to say that what was really meant, and the real truth is that the "qualities" of a person returns?

Because it’s a matter of interpretation and the return of Krishna, Kalki Avatar, Whom we believe to be Baha’u’llah, has verified that by return mentioned in the Holy Books is meant the spiritual qualities and attributes not the return of the actual physical entity and I trust the Word of a Manifestation of God over the interpretations of men for They are All Knowing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Because it’s a matter of interpretation and the return of Krishna, Kalki Avatar, Whom we believe to be Baha’u’llah, has verified that by return mentioned in the Holy Books is meant the spiritual qualities and attributes not the return of the actual physical entity.....................

That really says it all. Maybe one could look up passages in the Gita that support the concept that all things are made new.

The Old Testament is clear on this topic;

Isaiah 43:18-19 "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland."

Then we get to what the New Testament offers;

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

Because it’s a matter of interpretation.

That really says it all. Maybe one could look up passages in the Gita that support the concept that all things are made new.

The Old Testament is clear on this topic;

Isaiah 43:18-19 "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland."

Then we get to what the New Testament offers;

2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"

Regards Tony

Hi Tony.

Yes if Krishna returned tomorrow, and in the Gita He says emphatically that He will return from age to age, then if He tells Hindus that reincarnation is a man made concept and not true, what will they reply to the Lord?

And if everyone’s interpretation is correct then why would He have the need to return from age to age? It says in the Gita that religion declines so we can’t expect current notions to necessarily be what was originally taught. And Krishna, when He returns verifies these things. Of course people don’t like being told they are wrong which is why they crucified Christ and persecuted all the Prophets. But are we to say to Lord Krishna, no you’re wrong and I’m right? The Lord of all mankind?

That’s why IF Baha’u’llah is Krishna returned then whatever He says is unquestionable truth and so do we cling to our own notions or accept His judgements?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Even if there was, as we know, the Baha'is already "know" what the true interpretation is. If it agrees with their beliefs... then it is literally true and an accurate account of what Krishna taught. If it disagrees with Baha'i beliefs, then Krishna meant it allegorically, or it was added in later by his followers and wasn't something that Krishna taught.

We are only stating what Baha’u’llah states Whom we believe to be the return of Krishna.

 

[CG Didymus]

So we can rely on them to explain more accurately whether an ancient concept was a divine teaching or man made.

Yes if Krishna returned tomorrow, and in the Gita He says emphatically that He will return from age to age, then if He tells Hindus that reincarnation is a man made concept and not true, what will they reply to the Lord?

And if everyone’s interpretation is correct then why would He have the need to return from age to age? It says in the Gita that religion declines so we can’t expect current notions to necessarily be what was originally taught. And Krishna, when He returns verifies these things. Of course people don’t like being told they are wrong which is why they crucified Christ and persecuted all the Prophets. But are we to say to Lord Krishna, no you’re wrong and I’m right? The Lord of all mankind?

So reincarnation is not from God but is a man made teaching according to the Baha'i Faith.

So even if it seems as though it is taught in the Gita, it isn't? Then, what about Buddhism? Why do Buddhist believe in reincarnation? Did Buddha "correct" the false teaching and then men added it back in? And then a couple other people that Baha'is say are "manifestations"... Moses and Jesus. They don't include any form of Hinduism or Buddhism as being from God. They don't try and "correct" errors that might have crept in... They don't believe any of those religions are true.

Then there's always the problem of "original" teachings. Were there ever "original" teachings of Krishna? It's just to convenient for Baha'is to say everything they don't agree with got added in by men and weren't in the "original" teachings. Now Baha'is said pretty much all of it was man made, I could see that. I think it is very possible that each culture and people made up their own religions and Gods.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then there's always the problem of "original" teachings. Were there ever "original" teachings of Krishna? It's just to convenient for Baha'is to say everything they don't agree with got added in by men and weren't in the "original" teachings. Now Baha'is said pretty much all of it was man made, I could see that. I think it is very possible that each culture and people made up their own religions and Gods.

I am currently reading a book that has sourced all the newspaper articles about Abdul'baha's visits to England, France and America.

When you read those articles and how inaccurate some of the reporters were in their stories, in an age of advanced communication, it is not hard to reflect on how scriptures that were not written down got influenced by outside factors.

I do not know why this is such a big issue, the world shows us that the Message of Christ did not reach the potential it contained, in fact that same word gave prophecy that it would not fulfil its full potential until a later age, an age that we now live in

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So reincarnation is not from God but is a man made teaching according to the Baha'i Faith.

It is good to make that point, that it is according to the Baha'i Writings, which one is free to choose to consider they are from God, or free to consider they are not.

That choice brings about our own understanding on such matters.

In the last post to you, I can show you many stories posted about the station of Abdu'lbaha and what he is reported to have said, that are far from being correct. So if faith was built on those comments, yes they would be wrong.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

So reincarnation is not from God but is a man made teaching according to the Baha'i Faith.

So even if it seems as though it is taught in the Gita, it isn't? Then, what about Buddhism? Why do Buddhist believe in reincarnation? Did Buddha "correct" the false teaching and then men added it back in? And then a couple other people that Baha'is say are "manifestations"... Moses and Jesus. They don't include any form of Hinduism or Buddhism as being from God. They don't try and "correct" errors that might have crept in... They don't believe any of those religions are true.

Then there's always the problem of "original" teachings. Were there ever "original" teachings of Krishna? It's just to convenient for Baha'is to say everything they don't agree with got added in by men and weren't in the "original" teachings. Now Baha'is said pretty much all of it was man made, I could see that. I think it is very possible that each culture and people made up their own religions and Gods.

These are not the judgements of individual Baha’is but the pronouncements of Krishna when He returned in the Person of Baha’u’llah. So it is with Baha’u’llah that you must take up your objections as Krishna He has said that it is the return of the qualities not the actual individuals that is what was meant in the Holy Books. This explanation can be found in the Book of Certitude.