My current version of Hinduism

[TransmutingSoul]

Is this part of your creed?

It is part of you, me and all which we can choose to overcome.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

It is part of you, me and all which we can choose to overcome.

You speak for yer self cobber.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You speak for yer self cobber.

No need to spit the dummy and we need to stop faffing around. Crikeys mate, if my cheese and kisses agrees with what I originally offered and I ran it by her, she must be obeyed.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

I personally wouldn’t label those who hold a different worldview ignorant.

Belief without evidence is ignorance, whether it is about existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or about claims made by people that they bring word of these Gods. Ignorance can be eradicated and is not such a bad word. But claiming Bahaullah to be Kalki avatara against the belief of all Hindus is an aggression. Aggression brings a retort.

All that is written by Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi and Universal House of Justice is Authorised under the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah has said, it is as He had given it.

And who other than Bahais cares for the Bahai trio?

There is very little danger in giving to others of all that is good, in preference to self.

And what good are you giving us other than the Bahai blah-blah? That is proselytization and should not be there in the RF.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And what good are you giving us other than the Bahai blah-blah? That is proselytization and should not be there in the R

Good cheer, best wishes, stimulating conversation, boundless love, friendship.

Thats what I try to offer.

I am beginning to think all this chitter chatter may not have anything to do with Jims version of Hinduism, but it might, lets ask @Jim

Regards Tony

 

[LuisDantas]

I see that is but one choice we make, we choose to be ignorant. Or the current selfish world, chooses that for us, and keeps us that way.

Regards Tony

I don't particularly believe that choices even exist.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Belief without evidence is ignorance, whether it is about existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or about claims made by people that they bring word of these Gods. Ignorance can be eradicated and is not such a bad word. But claiming Bahaullah to be Kalki avatara against the belief of all Hindus is an aggression. Aggression brings a retort.

A retort, is that then a chance at more stimulating conversation? Maybe, maybe not!

I see one that comes to know and love God can get over that quite quickly, as it appears that all of Gods Messages have been given amongst people that see it as an aggression. They have all been given amongst a people that have, as a majority, rejected that Message. Mainly because the Message does show that error has permeated the lives of men.

It could then be said, given that above statement is a provable in the history of Faith, that ignorance is just a knee jerk rejection to a specific message, without a good sound reason to do so. Time does prove that the Message can and does bring about a change for the better.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't particularly believe that choices even exist.

Mmmm, I replied because I wanted to show you that I chose to reply. I will choose not to reply to your response to this, if you give another one, no matter how wonderful it will be.

If you come for a cuppa, what would be your choice of whats on offer? Tea, coffee, Bonox, Milo, water, milk, Juice, nothing?

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

All comments disagreeing with me are helpful for my purposes. Thanks to everyone who posted.

I think I’ve found what I was looking for. I have some better ideas now about what Shoghi Effendi might have meant when he said that the Bhagavad Gita referred to Bahá’u’lláh as the “Most Great Spirit,” the “Tenth Avatar,” and the “Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”

I retract what I said about Baha’i Manifestations as Hindu avatars. I’m not sure that they aren’t, but I would need to learn more about Hindu avatars, before I would say that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

All comments disagreeing with me are helpful for my purposes. Thanks to everyone who posted.

I think I’ve found what I was looking for. I have some better ideas now about what Shoghi Effendi might have meant when he said that the Bhagavad Gita referred to Bahá’u’lláh as the “Most Great Spirit,” the “Tenth Avatar,” and the “Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna.”

I retract what I said about Baha’i Manifestations as Hindu avatars. I’m not sure that they aren’t, but I would need to learn more about Hindu avatars, before I would say that.

My personal thought to offer that may lead to more ideas, is that Shoghi Effendi tells us who Baha'u'llah is, in peoples current frames of reference. It does not necessarily support the idea in its entirety.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

My point was about the attitudes and values for those who want to engage in respectful dialogue with those of differing beliefs. If we have no interest in such a dialogue, then it’s only natural to label others as ignorant and superstitious.

Your point is valid but look at what Bahais say about Krishna in spite of the Hindu denial. That too is not conducive to a respectful . Don't know if ever and when you people will learn.

Thus If we all practice what Faith came to teach us, or what is just the right thing to do, then we would all be living together in a unity of virtues, serving each other selflessly.

The Abrahamic faiths teach us that Moses met YHWH and saw his hind parts, Christianity says that Jesus was fathered by a ghost, Mohammad rode Burraq to go to heaven and Bahaullah was visited by Elizabeth Taylor (or whoever) sent by God to begin his mission.

Thats what I try to offer.

Thanks, and no thanks. Your offer is courteously rejected. We do not need it.

I see one that comes to know and love God can get over that quite quickly,

God/Gods are a fiction.

 

[siti]

if my cheese and kisses agrees

Strewth Tony! If you'd told me that straight off I'd never have dared question it - no matter how much of a furphy it looked. Anyway, no wuckas (oops - that's a bit naughty isn't it?) - er - no worries mate. See ya later.

 

[Marcion]

That's not Hinduism, Jim, its the Baha'i faith. It's what Baha'is have been affirming and Hindus been denying for at least 100 years now. All it does is re-affirm how little Baha'is know or care about Hinduism.

That would suggest that Hinduism is a religion and that Hindus agree among themselves how they should see their Gurus and Gods. I would say neither is true, so Bahaullah is equally entitled to have his own ideas or views on how to see the Gurus and Gods that were born in India.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Belief without evidence is ignorance, whether it is about existence of God/Gods/Goddesses or about claims made by people that they bring word of these Gods. Ignorance can be eradicated and is not such a bad word. But claiming Bahaullah to be Kalki avatara against the belief of all Hindus is an aggression. Aggression brings a retort.

I don't see the Baha'is being aggressive. There are aspects of Baha'i Faith that makes comment about Hinduism, as you make comments about the Baha'i Faith based on your world view.

Comments like the Hindu Faith having Divine origins. I think a lot of Hindus would agree. If Baha'is were pointing the finger saying look at those devil worshipping Hindus with there many gods and idols, that would be different.

I do agree the claim that 'Baha'u'llah is the 10th avatar of Vishnu' is a strong and radical claim to make.

Your point is valid but look at what Bahais say about Krishna in spite of the Hindu denial. That too is not conducive to a respectful . Don't know if ever and when you people will learn.

Krishna being a Manifestation of God sounds very similar to being an incarantion of Vishnu as far as I can see. If we were saying Krishna was a murderous sexually deviant tyrant, then sure....

 

[LuisDantas]

That would suggest that Hinduism is a religion and that Hindus agree among themselves how they should see their Gurus and Gods. I would say neither is true, so Bahaullah is equally entitled to have his own ideas or views on how to see the Gurus and Gods that were born in India.

In which sense is Hinduism not a religion, and why would a group need agreement for part of it to deserve acknowledgement of what they believe in?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see the Baha'is being aggressive. There are aspects of Baha'i Faith that makes comment about Hinduism, as you make comments about the Baha'i Faith based on your world view.

Comments like the Hindu Faith having Divine origins. I think a lot of Hindus would agree. If Baha'is were pointing the finger saying look at those devil worshipping Hindus with there many gods and idols, that would be different.

Co-optation is often more pleasant than aggression, but it is not necessarily more respectful, and rarely if ever more truthful.

I do agree the claim that 'Baha'u'llah is the 10th avatar of Vishnu' is a strong and radical claim to make.

You get used to it, sort of. You may or may not know that Buddha has been put in that situation even more often than Baha'u'llah. No Buddhist that I know of agrees... it is kind of funny really.

Krishna being a Manifestation of God sounds very similar to being an incarantion of Vishnu as far as I can see. If we were saying Krishna was a murderous sexually deviant tyrant, then sure....

Vishnu is a Deva. A Deva is not a God in the Abrahamic sense, and it is very much worth pointing out that the two concepts should not be used interchangeably.

I don't think that is convenient for the Bahai Faith, but I think that it is helpful and advisable overall.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Co-optation is often more pleasant than aggression, but it is not necessarily more respectful, and rarely if ever more truthful.

I had to look up co-optation so thanks for introducing me to a new word. In regards one religion adding aspects of other religions, don't all religions do that to some extent?

I don't see why such approach would be less respectful or truthful. Any good religious teacher builds on what has been taught in the past, adapts those teachings to the exigencies of the time with a few new teachings added in.

You get used to it, sort of. You may or may not know that Buddha has been put in that situation even more often than Baha'u'llah. No Buddhist that I know of agrees... it is kind of funny really.

I see no point in anyone getting upset every time Baha'is bring up Hinduism and Buddhism. It is what it is. My wife is half Japanese so I'm familar with Japanese Buddhism/Shinto as well as a little Tibetan Buddhism when I was more intently investigating the nature of reality and religion. The Baha'i Faith appealed as it acknowledged the spirituality and light from Buddhism and Hinduism, whereas the religion I had grown up with (Christianity) didn't. I have no problem reconciling Buddhism, Hinduism and the Baha'i Faith in my own head. I appreciate there are important and huge contradictions and differences between these faiths.

Vishnu is a Deva. A Deva is not a God in the Abrahamic sense, and it is very much worth pointing out that the two concepts should not be used interchangeably.

I don't think that is convenient for the Bahai Faith, but I think that it is helpful and advisable overall.

The starting point for God in Baha'i theology is that of an unknowable essence. Devas are an important part of Japanese spirituality and belief so it would be interesting to consider how the concepts differ with Hinduism. I don't know of you have heard of the term 'scattering angels of the All-Merciful'.

Another aspect of Baha'i theology is the importance given to a world embracing vision. Baha'is are forced to come to terms with Hinduism and Buddhism eventually whether they want to or not. That can be particularly difficult for Baha'is who have grown up with Christianity or Islam but ultimately rewarding.

 

[Vinayaka]

That would suggest that Hinduism is a religion and that Hindus agree among themselves how they should see their Gurus and Gods. I would say neither is true, so Bahaullah is equally entitled to have his own ideas or views on how to see the Gurus and Gods that were born in India.

Of course everyone is entitled to their views. For me, that goes without saying.

 

[Marcion]

I don't see why such approach would be less respectful or truthful. Any good religious teacher builds on what has been taught in the past, adapts those teachings to the exigencies of the time with a few new teachings added in.

I see no point in anyone getting upset every time Baha'is bring up Hinduism and Buddhism. []
Another aspect of Baha'i theology is the importance given to a world embracing vision. Baha'is are forced to come to terms with Hinduism and Buddhism eventually whether they want to or not.

That is also what I like about the universality of the spiritual philosophy of Ananda Marga. All human spirituality (as indeed humanity itself) is seen as one and indivisable and on that same singular Path of Bliss.

The only differences that are described are those between the Vedic and the Tantric approach in spiritual life, where the Vedic approach is considered a more primitive and less speedy precursor of or preparation for Tantra. Tantra is identified with anything practical that furthers a person's spiritual progress, so nothing bound to a particular path or religion.

 

[Jim]

But claiming Bahaullah to be Kalki avatara against the belief of all Hindus ...

((If you mean that it’s against the belief of all Hindus to think that Kalki avatara has already come, that’s false, unless you make rejection of that belief part of your definition of “Hindu.” Or are you claiming that every Hindu in the world who disagrees with multiplying by 360 has rejected Bahá’u’lláh explicitly, as Kalki avatara?))