My current version of Hinduism

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah. Any Hindu who says that Kalki avatara would come earlier than 425,000 years from now is ignorant. And yeah, anyone who calls him/herself Hindu and accepts Bahaullah is no more a Hindu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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....

Krishna is not a manifestation. He is an 'avatara' (who has come down), verily Allah (in your jargon) in human form, and so were the other avataras. Do you mean that Bahaullah is Allah?

 

[Jim]

I want to try to clarify some more what I’ve been doing, and not doing, in this thread. First I want to apologize again for the distracting and confusing title. There was some defiance in it, and in the OP, against what looks to me like selective and hypocritical thought policing against Baha’is saying what they think about their religions and others. A better title for this thread might have been “Some thoughts about possible relationships between Baha’i and Hindu stories and scriptures.” I was trying to see 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.” If he meant what I think he might have meant, it all looks true to me now, after the research that I’ve done.

I’m not claiming that he was right. I’m sure that what he said was well researched, and carefully considered, but in my understanding he could still be wrong about what the Bhagavad Gita says. For me, being an authorized interpreter of Baha’i scriptures doesn’t make him an authorized interpreter of the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Which even Bahullah did not make.

I was trying to see 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’m not claiming that he was right. I’m sure that what he said was well researched, and carefully considered, but in my understanding he could still be wrong about what the Bhagavad Gita says.

BhagawadGita nowhere mentions Bahaullah. That tells you about how well-researched and carefully considered statement of Shoghi Effendi was.

 

[Jim]

Yeah. Any Hindu who says that Kalki avatara would come earlier than 425,000 years from now is ignorant. And yeah, anyone who calls him/herself Hindu and accepts Bahaullah is no more a Hindu.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Sirona]

I see my mistake now. I got my idea about avatars of Krishna from a website that I thought was a Hindu website. Looking again, I see that it’s a Hare Krishna website.

Who's First: Vishnu or Krishna? | Back to Godhead

Back to Godhead is a Hare Krishna website. Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that Krishna is the top god and Vishnu is his avatar. The majority of Hindus believe the opposite.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hare-Krishna is a Hindu fringe.

 

[Jim]

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

Which even Bahullah did not make.

I’ve never seen Him making that claim, but I haven’t seen everything that He ever wrote. I’ve only seen that claim in one place in authoritative Baha’i writings, in those words of Shoghi Effendi.

 

[Jim]

... anyone who calls him/herself Hindu and accepts Bahaullah is no more a Hindu.

((—and never really was?))

 

[Sirona]

I’m sure that what he said was well researched, and carefully considered, but in my understanding he could still be wrong about what the Bhagavad Gita says. For me, being an authorized interpreter of Baha’i scriptures doesn’t make him an authorized interpreter of the Bhagavad Gita.

In order to know about a religion, wouldn't it be better to read one of its source texts (here: Bhagavad Gita) directly rather than a third party's interpretation of it?

 

[Marcion]

Yeah. Any Hindu who says that Kalki avatara would come earlier than 425,000 years from now is ignorant. And yeah, anyone who calls him/herself Hindu and accepts Bahaullah is no more a Hindu.

Krishna is not a manifestation. He is an 'avatara' (who has come down), verily Allah (in your jargon) in human form, and so were the other avataras. Do you mean that Bahaullah is Allah?

Hare-Krishna is a Hindu fringe.

Your approach has a distinctly fundamentalist feel, more like an Abrahamic than someone from India.
There is no "centre" or "fringe" in Hinduism nor do real Hindus make sweeping statements about who is "ignorant" about things we cannot possibly be sure of.

 

[ajay0]

I agree from the view point of advaita. But from Vaisnava point of view, to which the avatara concept belong, this will not Be agreeable, imo.

Then from the monotheistic pov which the Prajapita Brahmakumaris , Arya Samaj and Sikhism adhere to, Rama and Krishna can be seen as prophet like figures or great souls who worshipped the incorporeal God.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

That is a very proper question to ask, thanks for doing that.

Learning from others, including other creeds, is very much proper, useful and advisable.

All the same, deciding unilaterally that one's own valued references should be perceived as the actualization of someone else's is, at best, rude, and may far too easily slide into arrogance and dishonesty.

I freely admit that it may be tempting as well. It is difficult to learn to be at peace with the wild variety of beliefs out there.

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.

Indeed, and that is very much a good thing.

But there is a responsibility that comes with that. A responsibility that can be abused and lead to misguidance. We must be careful not to misrepresent other people's concepts and creeds, or at the very least accept that our own statements about the "true" nature and fulfillments of other people's beliefs can be freely dismissed, and perhaps should be.

That is IMO a major hurdle for the Bahai Faith, which finds itself in the uneviable position of having the conflicting yet self-imposed duties of both rejecting the Dharmic perspective's validity (since it is not reliant on an Abrahamic God) and attempting to convince itself and its listeners that it is somehow either ultimately compatible with it or in some sense its own natural complement and successor.

Frankly, it is an impossible task, and should be acknowledged as such.

The Bahai Faith is a doctrine that insists on being strictly Abrahamic, that does not allow itself to question the need of belief in a literal God of Abraham, that attempts to reconcile the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an despite themselves, and that has at its core the need for a very rigidly delimited concept of progressive revelation by way of a very small number of prophets.

Such a doctrine is explicitly not interested in being Dharmic, and ultimately does not acknowledge the Dharmic approach as valid. No amount of sincere desire to establish good relations with other creeds can change that, and therefore your strategies for dealing with Dharmics are severely restricted.

You may attempt to co-opt the doctrines, which is pointless and destructive; you may attempt to keep your distance and accept that the respective premises are mutually exclusive, which is respectful but clashes with Bahá'u'lláh's teachings of prophets and progressive revelation and therefore conducts you towards concluding that the Dharmics are mistaken; or you may decide that, since Bahá'u'lláh's teachings can't be reconciled with the Dharmics, it is therefore necessary to rescue the Dharmics from their own beliefs.

It is an impossible situation, caused by the Bahai Faith's own insistence on keeping the God/Prophets/Progressive Revelation model at its core. It is very much an advancement over other Abrahamic Faiths, but all the same it is insistence on being Abrahamic at the expense of the ability to learn from other religions.

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.

I can't speak for how you reconcile those even as you admit that there are contradictions.

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 take it that you meant to say "Kami"? Far as I know, there are no Devas in any native Japanese creed.

In any case, sure, it is definitely exciting to consider how the Devas compare and contrast with the Kami. Shinto is a very interesting faith.

I don't know of you have heard of the term 'scattering angels of the All-Merciful'.

Not until now. It sounds like an understandable yet unadvisable attempt at explaining the variety of beliefs under the lens of Abrahamic expectations. Comparable concepts have on occasion surfaced in Christian environments, and probably even Muslims ones as well.

They mean well, but that does not necessarily mean that they should be encouraged.

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.

It must be. But I fear that it may be misleading, particularly if there is a self-imposed restriction that the creeds must be reconciled no matter what.

A similar, but less ambitious challenge broke the Islaamic Faith. It, too, had to come to terms with its own fairly contradictory stance towards Judaism, Christianity and a small number of other creeds. In practice, that meant developing a lot of inner conflict and becoming fertile grounds for co-optation and condescending hypocrisy. I don't think that did the Islaamic doctrine any favors; it would be far better off simply accepting that it considers Judaism and Christianity mistaken and that it offers a competing doctrine of its own.

Then again, I don't think that the challenges that come with attempting to reconcile the belief in Abraham's God with the plain fact of the variety of creeds, most of which do not really have room for such a God, can be easily solved. And I do not advise anyone to attempt to.

 

[LuisDantas]

((—and never really was?))

Bahahullah preached an Abrahamic doctrine. To adhere to that doctrine is to hold Abrahamic beliefs.

That could only be argued to make the person no less of a Hindu if it could be demonstrated that somehow Abrahamic beliefs are compatible with Hinduism. Which is stated as a truism in Bahai doctrine, but not without the necessary support.

 

[Marcion]

The Bahai Faith is a doctrine that insists on being strictly Abrahamic, that does not allow itself to question the need of belief in a literal God of Abraham, that attempts to reconcile the Torah, the Gospels and the Qur'an despite themselves, and that has at its core the need for a very rigidly delimited concept of progressive revelation by way of a very small number of prophets.

Such a doctrine is explicitly not interested in being Dharmic, and ultimately does not acknowledge the Dharmic approach as valid. No amount of sincere desire to establish good relations with other creeds can change that, and therefore your strategies for dealing with Dharmics are severely restricted.

You may attempt to co-opt the doctrines, which is pointless and destructive; you may attempt to keep your distance and accept that the respective premises are mutually exclusive, which is respectful but clashes with Bahá'u'lláh's teachings of prophets and progressive revelation and therefore conducts you towards concluding that the Dharmics are mistaken; or you may decide that, since Bahá'u'lláh's teachings can't be reconciled with the Dharmics, it is therefore necessary to rescue the Dharmics from their own beliefs.

It is an impossible situation, caused by the Bahai Faith's own insistence on keeping the God/Prophets/Progressive Revelation model at its core. It is very much an advancement over other Abrahamic Faiths, but all the same it is insistence on being Abrahamic at the expense of the ability to learn from other religions..

The Mormon faith has a similar type of shortcoming.
The frames are too much tied to irrational beliefs in mythical (pseudo-historical) cosmological scenarios which started for the greatest part from the examples that Christianity and to some extent Judaism had given them.
They cannot let go of these frames or their whole house of cards of religious validity would collapse.
Perhaps that is why so many modern folk get disillusioned and turn away completely from these faiths.

 

[Muffled]

In my current version of Hinduism, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah are avatars of Krishna, and Baha’u’llah Is the Kalki Avatar.

I believe Krishna is not an avatar of God but Jesus definitely is. Mohammed, Moses, the Bab and the B man are also not avatars of God.

 

[Muffled]

We have read this a thousand times in RF. I think Baha'ullah was an avatara of Bakāsura.

I believe the B man wasn't a cannibal. Would this information have come to you in a dream or vision? Otherwise how would you recognize an incarnation?

 

[Muffled]

In regards Hinduism Shoghi Effendi has said:

...Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islám and the religion of the Sabaeans. These religions are not the only true religions that have appeared in the world, but are the only ones which are still existing. There have always been divine prophets and messengers, to many of whom the Qur'án refers. But the only ones existing are those mentioned above.

So Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins. Otherwise the Baha’i writings have little to say.

In regards the authenticity of the sacred writings including the Bhaghavad Gita we don't have much to go on either. In response to questions of a more detailed nature Shoghi Effendi said it would be a matter for scholars to investigate further.

Your question concerning Brahma and Krishna: such matters, as no reference occurs to them in the Teachings, are left for students of history and religion to resolve and clarify.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 14 April 1941)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin birth mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion.

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects

So even in consideration of Krishna we haven't anything specific from the Baha'i writings to say. What do we have?

Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?"
('Abdu'l-Bahá from a Tablet - translated from the Persian)

The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love....
("Paris Talks: Addresses given by `Abdu'l-Bahá in Paris in 1911-1912", 11th ed. (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1979), p. 35)

In my experience many Hindus don’t believe in Avatars or Krishna was a person who walked the earth. As you are aware Shoghi Effendi made this connection.

My favourite question for my fellow Baha’is when the topic of Hinduism arises is who founded Hinduism? As you will appreciate, it wasn’t Krishna. Most are receptive to an alternative view based on known history and studies of comparative religion which is essential to understanding any faith as well as close association with those who practice the religion in question.

I believe like Bahaism, Hinduism does not have anything God breathed. I t would appear the knowledge of God is either traditional or learned from others.

 

[Jainarayan]

I see they do all lead to a single source, many others are finding this also.

To be clear, what I mean is that the paths are not all the same. There are many routes to get to Chicago from NYC; some are more difficult than others, some are more direct, some have more roadside attractions that would delay the travelers.

 

[Jainarayan]

I believe Krishna is not an avatar of God but Jesus definitely is.

That's because you're not a Vaishnava Hindu. To the overwhelming majority of Vaishnava Hindus, Krishna is not an avatar of God either, he is God. To the overwhelming majority of Hindus, Jesus is neither.