What About Rama?

[arthra]

In the Baha'i Faith all men are mortal and beings that will pass....

There are men that we call Manifestations because they perfectly reflect the attributes of the central spiritual Sun of the universe;

Their spiritual nature continues as an Intercessor.

"And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of their grace."

Gleanings, pp. 177-79.

So in this category according to the Baha'i teachings we have Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc.

There are lesser prophets who reflect the light from the Manifestations. These could be prominant disciples or those who taught and spread the early Teachings..

So each Manifestation is compared to a "sun" in the heaven of a given religion and the prophets under His shadow reflect from His light.

The rest of us are trying to polish the inner mirror of our hearts to catch a reflection from the Manifestation.

There's much more about this but space here is limited.

- Art

[I am free]

Hi Prajapati,

Originally Posted by prajapati

its not Rama , its Raam.

This is not relevant to the topic, but I was wondering what your objection was to the word "Rama"... is it the English spelling? Would you prefer "Raamaa"? Or it seems that you would remove the ending "aa" sound altogether?

I feel "Raam" is Hindi and with 18 official languages in India I dont see any reason to say that "Raam" is the only correct pronounciation. The name is "Rama" in the southern languages and as far as I know it is "Rama" in Sanskrit as well (with 'a' pronounced as 'aa').

W Regards.

[I am free]

Originally Posted by prajapati

you could be right - vaishnavites are peraps the only type of hindus who think of Raam and Krishna more as prophets (descents of God himself)
than Avatars (God reflected in them)

be that as it may, irrespectives of what vaishnavites think, fact remains (ie. as per hindu scripture) - raam and krishna were walking talking human beings who each examplified a certain godly virtue - and hance have been deified/considered Avatars (God reflected in them).

its an insult to hinduism to state that hinduism's theologies and philosophies were divinely given.

the "revealed by God into the minds of the Sages." thing you talk about comes from one of the two traditions which led to the Vedas (Ved actually). - that of Smriti (rememberence) and Shruti (that which you hear from your concience after long pondering/meditation).


i think you refer to the second - shruti - when you say "revealed into the minds of sages".

well thats just the way in which common man puts the thoughts of the sages on a pedestal - by supposing that the maker himself revealed to them.

Hi Prajapati,

You have put forward some interesting points. I appreciate your point of view. They are logical and probably even historically correct.

But I would agree with Agnideva. Most hindus do consider Rama and Krishna to be divine from birth and not just as "deified humans". Also for Hindus the Vedas (Ved in Hindi?) are revealed texts.

You may personally hold different views but to say that "it is an insult to hinduism" to say or hold that hindu texts are divine, is itself an insult I feel.

w regards.

[Agnideva]

Originally Posted by prajapati

i think you refer to the second - shruti - when you say "revealed into the minds of sages".

Yes I am speaking of the Shruti canon, which includes both Vedas and Agamas in traditional Hinduism (Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism).

its an insult to hinduism to state that hinduism's theologies and philosophies were divinely given.

No Prajapati. This is the traditional Hindu view held in Vaishnavism, Shaktism and Shaivism. You have your own views and you’re entitled to them. What is an insult to Hinduism is to express one’s own rather narrow vision and say that it is THE Hindu view.

[prajapati]

, fr

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Perhaps there are three type beings from God;

1. Actual incarnations of God, who are a God in a man's body (ie Jesus, Krishna by some).

2. Prophets of God, who God speaks directly to from heaven (ie Mohammed, Moses).

3. People filled with the knowledge on what God wants but have not ever talked to God directly or not a God themselves. (ie Buddha, Guru Nanak Dev).

Of course Buddha might be something different. He maybe a man who became a God by reaching Nirvana, although he may hve started out as number 3.

Jesus belongs verily to category 2 - that of prophets.

Krishna is considered an avatar, as is raam as is buddha - god manifested Himself through them.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I am free

Hi Prajapati,I feel "Raam" is Hindi and with 18 official languages in India I dont see any reason to say that "Raam" is the only correct pronounciation. The name is "Rama" in the southern languages and as far as I know it is "Rama" in Sanskrit as well (with 'a' pronounced as 'aa').

W Regards.

yes its Rama in south indian languages.

but Raam is a prince from Ayodhya in whats today Uttar Pradesh, and is from those days when Sanskrit was the language of the whole of india except the 4 southern provinces.

Also the epic Ramayana, written in sanskrit, never calls him "Rama" - always "Raam". its NEVER Rama in sanskrit or in any of the daughter languages of Sanskrit.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I am free

most hindus do consider Rama and Krishna to be divine from birth and not just as "deified humans". Also for Hindus the Vedas (Ved in Hindi?) are revealed texts.

its not a question of my view or the collective view of all hindus.

its just what IS.

according to hindu scripture, Raam, Krishna and Buddha are deified humans.
which does not change if people think otherwise.


Again, whether or not hindus, out of reverence, consider vedas (Ved in sanskrit) to be revealed, does not change the fact that the vedas came from only 2 traditions - Shruti and Smriti (which itself is Shruti that someone noted down and/or passed down).

no god in the picture.

and yes its an insult to these two traditions of hinsuism to bring hinduism under the "Revealed" umbrella. also an insult to siddharta Gautama and the degree of wisdom/enlightenment he achieved to say it was revealed to him.

if it were indeed revealed, then the buddha is not a special person - it could be reaveled to lalloo prasad yadav and then lalloo could preach like an master. buddha wasnt an ordinary person who became wise cos someone smiled upon him !!!

also if the Veds ar considered revealed, then it means that they (the Ved) was written by a congress of prophets !!!

which is as un-hindu an idea as can be.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Agnideva

No Prajapati. This is the traditional Hindu view held in Vaishnavism, Shaktism and Shaivism. You have your own views and you’re entitled to them.

historical facts are not democratically decided by weighing the number of views for an against something.

its NOT my view that vedas come from Shruti and Smriti - its A HISTORIC FACT, that they do, regardless of what my view or the whole country;s view may be.

Originally Posted by Agnideva

What is an insult to Hinduism is to express one’s own rather narrow vision and say that it is THE Hindu view.

true.

only that i never expressed my "view" here. i stated from the hindu scriptures.

what you said applies to the hindu "way" - there's no one correct hindu way.

hindus are not duty bound to believe that the Ved are revealed, nor duty bound to believe that they are not revealed.

what i want to say, is irrespective of which of these two views they hold, fact remains, that as per hindu scripture (ie the Veds itself, on Vedic tradition), its never for once mentioned that any god revealed stuff to the sages.

Whats mentioned is that the sages either noted down what they got from their own gurus (Smriti) or noted down the conclusions they arrived at after meditation/ponderation (Shruti).

[arthra]

You know my friends...

I used to be a moderator of this Baha'i board and it occurred to me that perhaps some of this discussion might be more properly held in the Hindu board. A good reason to do this is I think that people on the Hindu board would benefit more from the discussion being there, than here... Of course the traffic won't hurt the Baha'i board either but it would probably at this point benefit the Hindu Board more.

Any way my best to you all and hope you continue enjoying the CR forum!

- Art

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by prajapati

, fr

Jesus belongs verily to category 2 - that of prophets.

Krishna is considered an avatar, as is raam as is buddha - god manifested Himself through them.

You sure about Jesus being in category 2? Many people think he is the son of God and God as well. We can't say these people are wrong unless there is hard proof but there really isn't. Also Jesus never got any messages from God directly on Earth, so you know.

So you put Krishna, Raam, and Buddha in option number 1, right?

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

You sure about Jesus being in category 2? Many people think he is the son of God and God as well. We can't say these people are wrong unless there is hard proof but there really isn't. Also Jesus never got any messages from God directly on Earth, so you know.

So you put Krishna, Raam, and Buddha in option number 1, right?

prophets and avatars are not the same thing at all.

[arthra]

Originally Posted by prajapati

prophets and avatars are not the same thing at all.

We Baha'is would probably say there's a "middle ground" between the concepts of Avatara and Prophets...

An Avatar is sent to the world when mankind is in greatest need:

"Whenever there is a decine of dharma O Bharata and rise of adharma I incarnate Myself"

Similarly a Prophet appears when man is in desparate straights...

The Manifestations of God we believe do this... They are from their inception pure burnished Mirrors that reflect the Divine Attributes.

To quote Baha'u'llah:

These sanctified Mirrors, these Day Springs of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of Divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the Light that can never fade   These Tabernacles of Holiness, these Primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles. By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest.

The above is from an article:

http://bahai-library.com/books/gandhi/node21.html

In friendship,

- Art

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by prajapati

prophets and avatars are not the same thing at all.

And your point is?

Originally Posted by arthra

We Baha'is would probably say there's a "middle ground" between the concepts of Avatara and Prophets...

An Avatar is sent to the world when mankind is in greatest need:

"Whenever there is a decine of dharma O Bharata and rise of adharma I incarnate Myself"

Similarly a Prophet appears when man is in desparate straights...

The Manifestations of God we believe do this... They are from their inception pure burnished Mirrors that reflect the Divine Attributes.

To quote Baha'u'llah:

These sanctified Mirrors, these Day Springs of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of Divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the Light that can never fade These Tabernacles of Holiness, these Primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles. By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest.

The above is from an article:

http://bahai-library.com/books/gandhi/node21.html

In friendship,

- Art

Hmmm that is an interesting concept, I have never thought of the "inbetween" of an avatar and a prophet, except for maybe the idea of Buddha starting as a man and becoming a God.

But I do believe some "Manefestations" have more power and importance than others. For example Jesus I consider to be higher than Nanak or Moses, because many people consider him the son of God. So I can't equate a prophet and an avatar in the same category, because avatars clearly have more importance.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

And your point is?

that prophets and avatars are not the same thing

[arthra]

Silver wrote:

I do believe some "Manefestations" have more power and importance than others. For example Jesus I consider to be higher than Nanak or Moses, because many people consider him the son of God. So I can't equate a prophet and an avatar in the same category, because avatars clearly have more importance.

My comment:

For Baha'is the Manifestations of God are the same, that is they reflect the same Sun of Divine Truth. One could say they are the same. Just as you would not differentiate the Sun that shined on Monday from the Sun that shined on Thursday. It is the same Sun.

But there is also in our view a special mission that Each has for the time They arise in...

So Moses and Jesus are for us the same. They just had different missions and goals for times and places They lived in. Compare it to teachers in the same school... Your first grade teacher was as qualified as your sixth grade teacher. They both had to meet certain qualifications in order to teach. But their missions differed. They presented what you were capable of at a certain stage in your developement and your capacity increased over time.

This is true we believe with the developemnet and progress of mankind. That we have more capacity today than we did say at the time of Moses. Hence the Manifestations have nurtured humanity over time and worked toward establishing an ever advancing civilization:

"A process that occurs in the light of man's purpose which according to Baha'u'llah is to carry forward an ever advancing civilization, having evolved though the various units of social life, family, tribe, city-state and nation, mankind's present goal is the unity of nations a world superstate, the final step in man's social evolution. This goal is concomitant with his impending spiritual maturity."

- Shoghi Effendi