Contradictions

Abdulhamit

Member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I would say that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah clearly affirm the idea of reincarnation and rebirth, however, Abdul-baha (the son and appointed successor of Baha'u'llah) denies this and calls it a "man made doctrine". On another note, Shoghi Effendi has no appointed successor as Abdul-Baha promised. This is no attack against you, my brothers, simply curious. Forgive any mistakes I've made and I welcome correction.




(Proofs of Baha'u'llah on reincarnation)
Baha’u’llah, Athar-i Qalam-i A`la, vol. 2, no. 91, p. 607-8
Baha’u’llah, Athar-i Qalam-i A`la, vol. 2, no. 84, p. 518
Baha’u’llah, Athar-i Qalam-i Ala, vol. 2, no. 75, pp. 396-7
 
Thanks for your post Abdul-Hamit! and welcome to the Baha'i Forum.

I noticed as "proofs" you cite "Athar-I Qalam-i A'la". Can you provide a verifiable translation into English so we can see what you refer to?

As to the successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian yes it's true the Guardian did not leave any Will or reference to a Successor. He passed away in 1957 from a case of influenza. He was working on establishing the Universal House of Justice which was elected in 1963.
 
I thank you for the links and the civil responses. I do have another question, though, if anyone would oblige me. Baha'u'llah is understood as the divine incarnation of the names and attributes of the supreme being, along with Krishna and many others, correct? I've seen a few members of the Baha'i faith affirm this with the Lord's promise of returning to restore Dharma in every age (Bhagavad Gita chapter 4 verses 7 and 8). My question then would be, if Krishna is in fact a messenger of God, why would he contradict Baha'u'llah? The verses are as follow:
Bhagavad Gita Chapter 4
Verse 7
yadā yada hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthanam adharmasya tadatmanaṁ sṛijamyaham
Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, O Arjun
At that time I make myself manifest.
What is important here is the way Krishna phrases this in Sanskrit. He says the words "atmanam" which can only ever mean "self", "srijami" which is "to manifest" and "aham" which means "I" but can never mean "one like me" or "one with my qualities".
Verse 8
paritraṇaya sadhunaṁ vinashaya cha duṣhkṛitam
dharma-sansthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge
To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked
To reestablish the Dharma I appear, age after age.
Again we notice the Lord's choice of words, which leave no question. He says "sambhavami" which means, and can only ever mean, "I appear".

What we can gather from this is a promise of Lord Krishna to his worshipers that he will indeed come whenever we are in the most dire need of him, and he will be as himself in essence (atman, soul). Now, please understand that I mean no disrespect and have no intention of discrediting your faith. I have the utmost respect and admiration of Baha'u'llah and his teachings, I simply have questions and put them forth so that they may be answered. If I have spoken against your faith in any way then please forgive me.
 
Abdulhamit... Thanks for your post! If I can allow me to quote briefly some of your question here:

The first part being:

"Baha'u'llah is understood as the divine incarnation of the names and attributes of the supreme being, along with Krishna and many others, correct?"

One part of your first question I would suggest focusing on is that as Baha'is we do not believe God in-carnates Himself. We believe in a concept called "Manifestation" God manifests His attributes and His attributes emanate from Him. The Manifestations of God such as Krishna, Zarathustra, Buddha, Moses, etc. perfectly reflect the attributes of God to humanity.

We are not as certain about some of the ancient scriptures being totally accurate as some were passed down verbally over many years or as in the case of the Bhagavad Gita a result of psychic transmission to King Dhritarâshtra via Sanjaya but we do feel many scriptures have Divine inspiration.

The promise of the return of the Lord Krishna we take to mean that God will manifest Himself again as the need arises:

"Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, O Arjun
At that time I make myself manifest." . Bhagavad Gita 4:7-8.

Baha'u'llah Himself is not quoting this verse as you may know but the promise of the return of Krishna is mentioned by Shoghi Effendi. Shoghi Effendi, "God Passes By", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1987), pp. 94-95

Baha'is believe there is an ancient Covenant that God has promised He will not leave humanity alone without Divine Guidance.

Read more:

http://bahai-library.com/books/hinduism/ch4.htm
 
Last edited:
We believe in a concept called "Manifestation" God manifests His attributes and His attributes emanate from Him. The Manifestations of God such as Krishna, Zarathustra, Buddha, Moses, etc. perfectly reflect the attributes of God to humanity.

To lend some extra support to this idea, there are a number of sources that say the word pradurbhava (manifestation) predates the word avatara (incarnation). For a list of sources noted by a Baha'i scholar that confirms this in the scholarly community, click here, and then scroll down to page 74. For example, Geoffrey Parrinder, a Christian professor of comparative religion, noted: "The term Avatar is relatively late, and an older word for the phenomenon is 'manifestation'". It seems someone named Paul Hacker was the one who established this view in certain scholarly circles.
 
To lend some extra support to this idea, there are a number of sources that say the word pradurbhava (manifestation) predates the word avatara (incarnation). For a list of sources noted by a Baha'i scholar that confirms this in the scholarly community, click here, and then scroll down to page 74. For example, Geoffrey Parrinder, a Christian professor of comparative religion, noted: "The term Avatar is relatively late, and an older word for the phenomenon is 'manifestation'". It seems someone named Paul Hacker was the one who established this view in certain scholarly circles.
Thank you for your input, and I respect the opinion of the scholar, but the word "Avatara" is present in the Rig Veda (oldest of all religious texts known to man) in reference to Vishnu's divine incarnations: Matsya, Vamana, Varaha, Kacchap and Mohini. While the word "pradhurbhava" is used in early texts, it's understood in a similar way as "avatara" (to descend).
 
Lord Shakyamuni (the Buddha) has taught that at the end of a man's life, he shall not return to this world. He tells us, though, that there is something that returns; he compares this to beads upon a string and the law of karma. Would this fit into a Baha'i perspective? If so, in what way? And if not, then do the Baha'i consider the Dhammapada to be corrupted? The more I read the more questions I have, but the more I feel that there may be deep truth in these lessons.
 
Abdul:

In the Baha'i Faith the soul is immortal and after ascending from this world the bodily elements return to the earth and are "recycled" among other elements.
We do not believe in cremation or embalming the corpse.

Abdul-Baha has said:

"....the rational soul, meaning the human spirit, does not descend into the body -- that is to say, it does not enter it, for descent and entrance are characteristics of bodies, and the rational soul is exempt from this. The spirit never entered this body, so in quitting it, it will not be in need of an abiding-place:

"no, the spirit is connected with the body, as this light is with this mirror. When the mirror is clear and perfect, the light of the lamp will be apparent in it, and when the mirror becomes covered with dust or breaks, the light will disappear.
The rational soul -- that is to say, the human spirit -- has neither entered this body nor existed through it..."


~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 239

Below are some references you might be interested in

http://www.momen.org/relstud/buddhism.htm
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your input, and I respect the opinion of the scholar, but the word "Avatara" is present in the Rig Veda (oldest of all religious texts known to man) in reference to Vishnu's divine incarnations: Matsya, Vamana, Varaha, Kacchap and Mohini.

My three non-Baha'i sources are below.

(1) Wikipedia

"The word avatar does not appear in the Vedic literature,[5] but appears in verb forms in post-Vedic literature, and as a noun particularly in the Puranic literature after the 6th century CE.

Neither the Vedas nor the Principal Upanishads ever mention the word avatar as a noun.[5] The verb roots and form, such as avatarana, do appear in ancient post-Vedic Hindu texts, but as 'action of descending', but not as an incarnated person (avatara).[24] The related verb avatarana is, states Paul Hacker, used with double meaning, one as action of the divine descending, another as "laying down the burden of man" suffering from the forces of evil.[24].

The term is most commonly found in the context of the Hindu god Vishnu.[1][3] The earliest mention of Vishnu manifested in a human form to empower the good and fight against evil, uses other terms such as the word sambhavāmi in verse 4.6 and the word tanu in verse 9.11 of the Bhagavad Gita,[4] as well as other words such as akriti and rupa elsewhere.[25] It is in medieval era texts, those composed after the sixth century CE, that the noun version of avatar appears, where it means embodiment of a deity.[26] The idea proliferates thereafter, in the Puranic stories for many deities, and with ideas such as ansha-avatar or partial embodiments.[4][1]"​


(2) Sukdaven's "A systematic understanding of the evolution of Hindu deities in the development of the concept of avatara"

"An investigation into the development of the term avatara is well postulated by Bassuk (1987:3). He suggests that Sanskrit terms used to describe the manifestation of the descent of God into the realm of this world evolved from rupa (form, figure), vapus (having a beautiful form) and tanu (a living entity who accepted a material body) to pradurbhava (appearance). He claims that the Sanskrit word avatara gradually evolved from these terms and that this word is composed of two parts: the root verb tr meaning to pass or cross and ‘ava’ signifying down."
(3) Mary Brockington's "Helping the Cosmos: Indian Avatars":

"The [avatara] concept is not found in the earliest phases of Indic religion, where the systems now named 'Hinduism' had not yet emerged.2 Absent from Vedic thought, it begins to develop in the epics, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, only in their very latest stages (from perhaps the third century AD onwards), and the word itself is not applied to the concept until considerably later (Brockington 1998: 277-89, 460-3; Brinkhaus 1993)."​

While the word "pradhurbhava" is used in early texts, it's understood in a similar way as "avatara" (to descend).

Source?
 
My three non-Baha'i sources are below.

(1) Wikipedia

"The word avatar does not appear in the Vedic literature,[5] but appears in verb forms in post-Vedic literature, and as a noun particularly in the Puranic literature after the 6th century CE.

Neither the Vedas nor the Principal Upanishads ever mention the word avatar as a noun.[5] The verb roots and form, such as avatarana, do appear in ancient post-Vedic Hindu texts, but as 'action of descending', but not as an incarnated person (avatara).[24] The related verb avatarana is, states Paul Hacker, used with double meaning, one as action of the divine descending, another as "laying down the burden of man" suffering from the forces of evil.[24].

The term is most commonly found in the context of the Hindu god Vishnu.[1][3] The earliest mention of Vishnu manifested in a human form to empower the good and fight against evil, uses other terms such as the word sambhavāmi in verse 4.6 and the word tanu in verse 9.11 of the Bhagavad Gita,[4] as well as other words such as akriti and rupa elsewhere.[25] It is in medieval era texts, those composed after the sixth century CE, that the noun version of avatar appears, where it means embodiment of a deity.[26] The idea proliferates thereafter, in the Puranic stories for many deities, and with ideas such as ansha-avatar or partial embodiments.[4][1]"​


(2) Sukdaven's "A systematic understanding of the evolution of Hindu deities in the development of the concept of avatara"

"An investigation into the development of the term avatara is well postulated by Bassuk (1987:3). He suggests that Sanskrit terms used to describe the manifestation of the descent of God into the realm of this world evolved from rupa (form, figure), vapus (having a beautiful form) and tanu (a living entity who accepted a material body) to pradurbhava (appearance). He claims that the Sanskrit word avatara gradually evolved from these terms and that this word is composed of two parts: the root verb tr meaning to pass or cross and ‘ava’ signifying down."
(3) Mary Brockington's "Helping the Cosmos: Indian Avatars":

"The [avatara] concept is not found in the earliest phases of Indic religion, where the systems now named 'Hinduism' had not yet emerged.2 Absent from Vedic thought, it begins to develop in the epics, the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, only in their very latest stages (from perhaps the third century AD onwards), and the word itself is not applied to the concept until considerably later (Brockington 1998: 277-89, 460-3; Brinkhaus 1993)."​



Source?
I thank you for your sources and apologize for having made arguments without proving a source. After consulting with more learned devotees I have found that you are indeed correct about the term "avatara".
However, the book you've provided shows and implies that the words are understood to mean the same thing.
Sukdaven's "A systematic understanding of the evolution of Hindu deities in the development of the concept of avatara" "Miranda (1990:50) claims that the doctrine of avatara is indeed a characteristic feature of a theistic system of thought distinctive in Hinduism. It is a Sanskrit word which can be expressed in English as ‘descent’. Pandey (1979:1) and Parrinder (1997:14) imply that the word avatara means ‘to come down’, ‘to go down’ or ‘to descend’. Parrinder adds that avatara is the manifestation of the divine in human form. Burnett (1992:129) suggests that the etymology of the word avatara is from two root words, ava meaning ‘down’ and tr meaning ‘to cross over’. An investigation into the development of the term avatara is well postulated by Bassuk (1987:3). He suggests that Sanskrit terms used to describe the manifestation of the descent of God into the realm of this world evolved from rupa (form, figure), vapus (having a beautiful form) and tanu (a living entity who accepted a material body) to pradurbhava (appearance). He claims that the Sanskrit word avatara gradually evolved from these terms and that this word is composed of two parts: the root verb tr meaning to pass or cross and ‘ava’ signifying down. The finite verb avatarati means ‘he descends’. Miranda (1990:50) refers to this descent as “the godhead’s crossing over from the celestial regions down to the earth. It is the manifestation of the power of the deity. As a specifically religious term, it signifies both the ‘descent’ of the http://ngtt.journals.ac.za 210 Deel 53, NOMMERS 1 & 2, MAART & JUNIE 2012 godhead from heaven and his ‘appearance’ in the form of animals (boar, fish, and tortoise), monster (man-lion), or men with superhuman and divine attributes.” In Sanskrit the variant of the verb avatara is the word avatarana, which is used to describe an actor making his appearance on the stage from behind the curtain just as the God-man manifests himself from heaven on the world stage. The word avatar became the Anglicised word of avatara. In Hindu philosophy an avatara is the ability of God to descend into the human world to address a specific problem. A clear indication of this is to be found in the Bhagavad Gita 4:7 where it states: “Whenever there is a decay of religion, O Bharata, and an ascendency of irreligion, then I manifest Myself.” However, even in this instance the word avatara is not used as such. One can therefore conclude that an avatara in Hinduism is the manifestation of God in the form of man or animal in this world so as to address a specific problem. These manifestations have taken many forms which are discussed more comprehensively in this article."

As he says, the word "avatar" evolved from the terms given, but the text given shows he understands them to be used for the same purpose.
"One can therefore conclude that an avatara in Hinduism is the manifestation of God in the form of man or animal in this world so as to address a specific problem. These manifestations have taken many forms which are discussed more comprehensively in this article."
 
And though the authority of Bhagavad Gita may be questioned by the Baha'i, we (Vaishnava) consider it absolute and infallible. I do respect that Baha'i honor our Lord, but from his own words we accept that he is the divine creator, sustainer and destroyer of all known worlds. Now the Baha'i and the Ahmadiyya consider our dear Lord as a prophet, which brings me a bit of self-conflict. And the Baha'i consider the authority of the Quran as certain (as evidenced by Mulla Husayn and Quddus being deceived by promised made of the Quran). In the Quran the greatest sin is shirk.
Wikipedia says
"In Islam, shirk is the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything besides the singular God, i.e. Allah. Literally, it means ascribing or the establishment of "partners" placed beside God. It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid. Those who practice shirk are termed mushrikun.

Within Islam, shirk is an unforgivable crime if it remains unpardoned before death: Allah may forgive any sin if one dies in that state except for committing shirk.=

The word širk comes from the Arabic root (ش ر ك), with the general meaning of "to share". In the context of the Quran, the particular sense of "sharing as an equal partner" is usually understood, so that polytheism means "attributing a partner to Allah". In the Qur'an, shirk and the related word mušrikūn (مشركون)—those who commit shirk and plot against Islam—often refer to the enemies of Islam (as in verse 9.1–15)."


I would argue, then, that calling the lord as merely a messenger could also be considered blasphemy.

The following are words of Prabhupada, leader of the Hare Krishna mission (which I do not follow), that I find to ring with truth:
"One should not tolerate blaspheming of the Lord or His devotees. In this connection, in the Tenth Canto, 70th Chapter, 25th verse, of Śrīmad-Bhagavatam,Śukadeva Gosvāmī tells Pariskit Mahārāj: "My dear King, if a person, after hearing blasphemous propaganda against the Lord and His devotees, does not go away from that place, he becomes bereft of the effect of all pious activities."
Nityananda, He immediately ran to the spot and wanted to kill the offenders, Jagai and Madhai. This behavior of Lord Caitanya's is very significant. It shows that a Vaishnava may be very tolerant and meek, foregoing everything for his personal honor, but when it is a question of the honor of Krishna or His devotee, he will not tolerate any insult.


There are three ways of dealing with such insults. If someone is heard blaspheming by words, one should be so expert that he can defeat the opposing party by argument. If he is unable to defeat the opposing party, then the next step is that he should not just stand there meekly, but should give up his life. The third process is followed if he is unable to execute the above-mentioned two processes, and this is that one must leave the place and go away. If a devotee does not do any of the above-mentioned three processes, he falls down from his position of devotion."
Now, again, I have much respect for the Baha'i faith, but I still question whether it is acceptable to call the Lord less than what he is.
 
And though the authority of Bhagavad Gita may be questioned by the Baha'i, we (Vaishnava) consider it absolute and infallible. I do respect that Baha'i honor our Lord, but from his own words we accept that he is the divine creator, sustainer and destroyer of all known worlds.

Two things I would like to leave with you my dear Abdul...

The first is that you are free to reach your own conclusions and we are free here to reach ours...

The second is that for us the Manifestations perfectly reflect the attributes of God to mankind and God has offered guidance through Them.

"The holy Manifestations of God come into the world to dispel the darkness of the animal or physical nature of man, to purify him from his imperfections in order that his heavenly and spiritual nature may become quickened, his divine qualities awakened, his perfections visible, his potential powers revealed and all the virtues of the world of humanity latent within him may come to life. These holy Manifestations of God are the educators and trainers of the world of existence, the teachers of the world of humanity. They liberate man from the darkness of the world of nature, deliver him from despair, error, ignorance, imperfections and all evil qualities. They clothe him in the garment of perfections and exalted virtues. Men are ignorant; the Manifestations of God make them wise. They are animalistic; the Manifestations make them human. They are savage and cruel; the Manifestations lead them into kingdoms of light and love."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 110

Also see:
https://bahaiwritings.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/manifestation-of-god-compilation.pdf
 
Namaste Arthra, to cut to the chase as it were...don't all bahai beliefs about the 9 beliefs they encompass differ from the beliefs of most of the adherents to those beliefs?

I mean Bahai massage/update/translate/interpret things differently than the traditional beliefs to show how they are similar, to lessen their differences? Would you not have a similar discussion with many if not most of every faith? (not to say all adherents of any faith agree with all other adherents of the same faith)
 
I thank you for your sources and apologize for having made arguments without proving a source. After consulting with more learned devotees I have found that you are indeed correct about the term "avatara".

So we agree pradurbhava predates avatara.

As he says, the word "avatar" evolved from the terms given, but the text given shows he understands them to be used for the same purpose.

But that does not mean they are identical, for Ramchandra Narayan Dandekar, a Vedic scholar from India, observed:

"In other concepts, which are in some ways related to the concept of avatara but which must needs be essentially differentiated from it, may be mentioned . . . pradurbhava wherein God manifests Himself while remaining transcendent to His true form."
And, as Mrinal Das Gupta noted in Indian Historical Quarterly:

"The term pradurbhava probably implies God manifests Himself at the same time in definite forms (rupani) for particular purposes, presumably through his yoga powers. But the idea involved in the term avatara seems to be that either the whole (purnavatara) or a part (amsavatara) of the Divine essence is imagined to descend from heaven, taking a particular form (murti) or birth (janma)."
While I agree the paper I quoted above in post #11 points out the way these terms are related, it does not necessarily follow there are no differences whatsoever. That is what I am trying to understand when I asked for your source earlier.

Would you like to move on to Buddhism and rebirth now or do you still want to discuss this point?
 
Last edited:
Namaste Arthra, to cut to the chase as it were...don't all bahai beliefs about the 9 beliefs they encompass differ from the beliefs of most of the adherents to those beliefs?

I mean Bahai massage/update/translate/interpret things differently than the traditional beliefs to show how they are similar, to lessen their differences? Would you not have a similar discussion with many if not most of every faith? (not to say all adherents of any faith agree with all other adherents of the same faith)

There's always a redefining to a certain extent that occurs with each new dispensation redefining and clarifying an earlier dispensation. The essential spiritual truths remain however clarification and redefining can occur as well. Ordinances and laws change from dispensation to dispensation as they appeared in different contexts.
 
Back
Top