What About Rama?

[Silverbackman]

If Baha'is recognize Krishna as a manifistation of God, what about Rama? Rama is considered by Hindus to be a former incarnation of Krishna (both coming from the Brahman) so why isn't Rama considered apart of the prophethood? Or do Baha'is view Krishna and Rama as the same people?

 

[smkolins]

If Baha'is recognize Krishna as a manifistation of God, what about Rama? Rama is considered by Hindus to be a former incarnation of Krishna (both coming from the Brahman) so why isn't Rama considered apart of the prophethood? Or do Baha'is view Krishna and Rama as the same people?

I'm not aware of any reference in the Baha'i scriptures to Rama. Within the limitation that we cannot make official statements ourselves I can say nothing one way or the other specifically about Rama that is considered authenticated. Should something appear I would welcome it heartily.

There are a variety of ideas that are relevant however. First is an attitude of relating to and investigating with a positive attitude of the Hindu scriptures - taking into account relatively scholarly issues, Baha'i principles, etc.

For example there are striking similarities of reference to the idea of Manifestations, aka Prophets, aka Avatars. Baha'is can use the term easily as a synonym for Baha'i ideas. There is also certainly an idea of a past series of Manifestations as well as a future series and a cyclic character about how things happen (even a cycle of cycles.)

Efforts to wrestle with all these ideas have taken place in a variety of places including, this book which reviews aspects of the Baha'i Faith and Hinduism. Here's a chapter-faq of another individual Baha'is work in the field. I am sure there are other references as well.

Overall I would say that Baha'is have no problem supporting that a figure known as Rama once lived among us as a Prophet of God but like various figures in various religions has more mythic qualities that may convey symbolic truths more than historical truths.

But right behind the question of Rama is a whole realm of prior Avatars (Turtle, Fish, etc.) in Hinduism as well as Figures in Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism at least who are less solid as historical figures than as more completely mytholigical figures who may convey a sense of a symbolic truths and almost no historical truths. Occasionally curious historical elements may appear though. One of the most curious to me is occurs in Zoroastrianism - most religions have Noah-like figures who rescue or gather animals during a period of flooding. Curiously in Zoroastrianism this Figure rescues animals during a period of widespread ice and cold. The one factual history possible of world wide flooding known so far is the end of the last Ice Age when large amounts of water would have been released in relatively short form leading to large scale if temporary flooding and reference to an Ice Age would fit right in as something connecting with the begining of that period more than 10,000 years ago.

 

[arthra]

If Baha'is recognize Krishna as a manifistation of God, what about Rama? Rama is considered by Hindus to be a former incarnation of Krishna (both coming from the Brahman) so why isn't Rama considered apart of the prophethood? Or do Baha'is view Krishna and Rama as the same people?

Baha'is do recognize Krishna as a Manifestation of God because He is mentioned and we accept that there have been many Manifestations of God in the past that are not known to us today...

The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Bábí and the Bahá'í Dispensations, Bahá'u'lláh being the ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabaeans Whose name is unrecorded, the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh"Buddha appeared in the Adamic cycle"

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 13 July 1938)


So we can't be sure about Rama... We can't say he wasn't a Manifestation either.

- Art

 

[iBrian]

smkolins and arthra - what would you both think on the issue, though? Rama is generally accepted within Hinduism to have been a manifestation of Brahman, in the same pattern of Krishna. Would this therefore mean that the Baha'is would see Rama as equivalent to Krishna in terms of being a single "entity", ie, no need to count the same apparition twice - or would you need to relate to Rama on a completely different level according to Rama being consider a completely separate being, not related to Krishna?

 

[arthra]

Brian as above...

I think we Baha'is would basically consider Rama as a figure that we cannot be sure was a Manifestation of God nor can we necessarily deny that he was because he is not mentioned in our Writings.

Abdul-Baha:

"...[T]here have been many holy Manifestations of God. One thousand years ago, two hundred thousand years ago, one million years ago, the bounty of God was flowing, the radiance of God was shining, the dominion of God was existing."

(Promulgation of Universal Peace, 463)

The model for how Baha'is regard past Manifestations that we do not know of is from a statement by the Universal House of Justice:

The Bahá'í Teachings do not explicitly confirm, nor do they rule out, the possibility that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas. In the absence of a clear Text the Universal House of Justice has no basis for issuing the kind of statement you propose which would confirm, "in principle, that God sent Manifestations to the indigenous peoples of the Americas."

From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice dated 16 May 1996.

So this would probably be similar to how we would regard say Rama or other reputed "Prophets".

- Art

 

[iBrian]

I think we Baha'is would basically consider Rama as a figure that we cannot be sure was a Manifestation of God nor can we necessarily deny that he was because he is not mentioned in our Writings.

Are you not able to make any kind of personal statement, though? What do you think of the matter? What would you personally think may be the case? Or would the Universal House of Justice have to make a declaration of the matter before you would even be able to venture an opinion on the matter??

 

[arthra]

Brian wrote:

Are you not able to make any kind of personal statement, though? What do you think of the matter? What would you personally think may be the case? Or would the Universal House of Justice have to make a declaration of the matter before you would even be able to venture an opinion on the matter??

Comment:

My personal view is that it also makes a lot of sense that we cannot be sure one way or the other about Rama...because of his antiquity and there being lack of much evidence.

One of the things you may not understand or appreciate about Baha'is is that we accept our Faith based on our independent investigation so we as individual Baha'is also have our personal views but they are not offficial. You could talk to a Baha'i who might believe Rama was a Manifestation for instance but that is his personal view. He doesn't go about campaigning for this however or launching a Baha'is for Rama group.

This also means we as Baha'is are probably more united than many other groups you're familair with.

In India the name "Rama" is used as widely as a popular name of God and Baha'is there respect that however they wouldn't officially say that Rama is a Manifestation of God.

- Art

 

[iBrian]

My personal view is that it also makes a lot of sense that we cannot be sure one way or the other about Rama...because of his antiquity and there being lack of much evidence.

Certainly I wouldn't ask to be sure - I was simply surprised not to see speculation. Throw ideas into other faiths, and people have personal opinions, which remain simply personal speculation, rather than official declaration.

This also means we as Baha'is are probably more united than many other groups you're familair with.

You almost seem to be suggesting that Baha'is are not allowed to express personal views on such issues, unless they are clearly in agreement with already existing written doctrines of the Faith - ie, that you cannot comment on having an opinion of where Rama *may* possibly relate to Baha'i as a Faith, until such time as the Universal House of Justice makes an official declaration on the matter that you can that relate as your own opinion. Surely this is not so?

 

[arthra]

Brian,

Silver simply asked the question:

"If Baha'is recognize Krishna as a manifistation of God, what about Rama?"

And I think this question has been responded to... Since Rama is not mentioned in our Writings we cannot be sure.

I am not saying Baha'is cannot express their personal views...

I provided a similar example regarding how Baha'is see possible previous manifestations in the Americas:

"The Bahá'í Teachings do not explicitly confirm, nor do they rule out, the possibility that Messengers of God have appeared in the Americas."

So this is as close to I think how Rama is to be regarded.

So that's it my friend!

- Art

 

[smkolins]

Certainly I wouldn't ask to be sure - I was simply surprised not to see speculation. Throw ideas into other faiths, and people have personal opinions, which remain simply personal speculation, rather than official declaration.



You almost seem to be suggesting that Baha'is are not allowed to express personal views on such issues, unless they are clearly in agreement with already existing written doctrines of the Faith - ie, that you cannot comment on having an opinion of where Rama *may* possibly relate to Baha'i as a Faith, until such time as the Universal House of Justice makes an official declaration on the matter that you can that relate as your own opinion. Surely this is not so?

The House cannot author any similar statement to the Scriptures of our Faith where such references as you seek could be found. They could find and affirm such a reference of course but that's entirely different.

What confuses me most about this is dogged pursuit of this issue when the very thing you claim hasn't happened, happened in my post above aside from implications from the quotes offered up. And not seeing it, you persist in thinking a hesitancy among Baha'is against engaging in rampant guessing and speculation is a clue to some bigger issue of cencorship.

Now as to the reasons why Baha'is are somewhat hesitant, and often at pains to make clear what is personal thought, why is this so unclear?? How often does general speculation become a mass understanding when it is clearly fictionally based? I've already written elsewhere about absolutely fictional sources becoming dillusions of belief and it became so only on the basis that it was popularized! So on the one hand Baha'is do think and feel, and on the other hand Baha'is respect that there is a very important difference between individual speculation and statements of Faith even in as an obscure place as a very popular discussion area. I've heard people who know alittle bit of the Baha'i Faith claim we believe all manner of oddities - yourself included in the early posts of this very discussion area if I recall correctly. Are we then to ignore such a tendancy and then become blamed by them for not fullfilling what they think we beleive??

 

[iBrian]

What confuses me most about this is dogged pursuit of this issue when the very thing you claim hasn't happened, happened in my post above aside from implications from the quotes offered up. And not seeing it, you persist in thinking a hesitancy among Baha'is against engaging in rampant guessing and speculation is a clue to some bigger issue of cencorship.

It's simply because I wasn't asking for a declaration on the issue from the Baha'i Faith overall - I was trying to ask for personal comments.

If Krishna is held in high esteem by Baha'is, then the relatiosnhip between the different avatars of Vishnu must surely be an interesting topic for comment?

Instead, it seems that as the UHJ has not made any pronouncement on the issue, therefore no Baha'i member will not even speculate on what is otherwise a very significant theological question.

This is surely a shame.

As for having misunderstandings - certainly this may be the case, but there is surely a big different between idle personal speculation, and authorative theological commentary?

Is the hesitancy to make a reply on the issue therefore a defence against continued misunderstandings, or is it because Baha'i members cannot be seen to hold opinions on spiritual matters which are not already set in writing by authorities within the Baha'i movement??

 

[arthra]

Brian:

This is probably a side step from the topic.

Brian wrote:

It's simply because I wasn't asking for a declaration on the issue from the Baha'i Faith overall - I was trying to ask for personal comments.

If Krishna is held in high esteem by Baha'is, then the relatiosnhip between the different avatars of Vishnu must surely be an interesting topic for comment?

My comment:

Most Baha'is in the West probably don't really know much about Krishna but we nonetheless accept Him because of Abdul-Baha's recognition of Him as a Manifestation. We accept all major religions as having a divine origin. There maybe some Indian Baha'is though who speculate on this.

Brian:

Instead, it seems that as the UHJ has not made any pronouncement on the issue, therefore no Baha'i member will not even speculate on what is otherwise a very significant theological question.

This is surely a shame.

Comment:

This isn't really the case, as there are many books for instance by Baha'is that are speculative in nature. You probably are unaware of them because tehy are not widely known.

The Universal House of Justice is limited by what the Baha'u'llah, and His Interpreter Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi have written on the subject. So it doesn't really hinge on a prouncement.

The House cannot change revealed Writings it can only deal with areas outside or not covered by them. Earlier I quoted what the House had determined about Manifestations in the Amercas that we couldn't rule them out but neither can we add them to the list because they are not dealt with in our Writings.

Brian:

As for having misunderstandings - certainly this may be the case, but there is surely a big different between idle personal speculation, and authorative theological commentary?

Comment:

Again, there are speculations by individual Baha'is. It's just maybe that your unfamiliar with them. There are Baha'i academics for instance that publish in our journals for instance.

Brian:

Is the hesitancy to make a reply on the issue therefore a defence against continued misunderstandings, or is it because Baha'i members cannot be seen to hold opinions on spiritual matters which are not already set in writing by authorities within the Baha'i movement??

Comment:

The authority in the Baha'i Faith are the Writings and Interpretations of them by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi... The Universal House of Justice is occasionally asked questions by individual Baha'is and the House researches these and responds.

Individual Baha'is are free to speculate but they cannot by themselves constitute an authority on the Faith and lay their own interpretations above those mentioned above.

- Art

 

[iBrian]

Thanks for the comments, Art - it seems that we're going to have to run something on Rama here, and therefore get some good discussion points going.

 

[arthra]

Incarnation vrs. Manifestation:

Thanks for the comments, Art - it seems that we're going to have to run something on Rama here, and therefore get some good discussion points going.

One other point that may have been overlooked in the above discussion is that the concept of an Avatar is basically that there is an incarnation of Diety somewhat like in Christianity where it was believed that God was incarnated.

Baha'is don't accept that God incarnated Himself. We don't believe God descended and was incarnated.

We believe the attributes of God are perfectly reflected in the Manifestation as in a perfect Mirror. The rest of us have to polish our "mirrors" to begin to reflect the attributes of God. The Manifestations perfectly reflect the Attributes of God to humanity in the given time and situation.

- Art

 

[smkolins]

So did anyone actually read post #2?

It links to a whole book about Hinduism and the Baha'i Faith - and another to an extended faq a Baha'i put together for themselves.

As for what the House has commented on and not, perhaps, Brian, you would like to email the House of Justice your question(s)? I don't know any reason you shouldn't. The email of the Secretariate which handles incoming email in general is not a secret though like any email address I hesitate to publize it in a discussion area. Of course this should not be an excercise idle curiousity - the people there are dealing with important matters. I myself emailed them questions about the role of parenthood and adoption - personally weighty matters if you recall our recent adoption. Answering your questions would be in the que along with such questions and other matters. I would also console patience - it can take some months for a response to come (well you often get an acknowledgement of your email being recieved in short order.) I'm moderately sure other Baha'is who have commented here have also communicated with the House of Justice. I've written several times in fact.

 

[iBrian]

Indeed, thanks for the link and offer smkolins - really, though, we're a discussion group and the most value can be had where we simply engage most in our own opinions so far as we're comfortable with. Otherwise, imagine how difficult it would be to converse if every question had to be referred to the relevant authority for an authoritative answer? It wouldn't be much fun for discussion, would it?

When this thread came up, I wasn't trying to push for an official declaration - merely some personal commentary and discussion.

Sometimes Baha'i members seem very hesitant to provide personal comment on theological issues, so I was simply trying to engage in the spirit of personal discussion, but I appreciate that different people have their own safe limits they prefer to work within.

Additionally, I appreciate a little more something you more or less pointed out yourself - that as part a lesser known Faith in the Western world, Baha'is are in danger of misrepresentation and ridicule for idea and beliefs that may be alien to them - so obviously this further complicates matters when it comes to being able to differentiate between personal comment and official representation.

Of course, the timing of my prodding may also have been a little off - obviously the Baha'i board has undergone recent disruption, not least the appearance of Diamondsouled and board restructuring - so it may have seemed insensitive to try and make a discussion issue of points of belief, before Baha'i members felt more reasonably settled in again - sorry about that.

 

[prajapati]

If Baha'is recognize Krishna as a manifistation of God, what about Rama? Rama is considered by Hindus to be a former incarnation of Krishna (both coming from the Brahman) so why isn't Rama considered apart of the prophethood? Or do Baha'is view Krishna and Rama as the same people?

its not Rama , its Raam.

Raam and Krishna are deified mortals and are considered to be the incarnations of Vishnu as the Ideal Man and as the Super Man respectively.

Brahman means "the only truth" in the world. When someone attains Moksha he/she becomes part of the brahman.
its different from Brahma, who is the god supposed to have created the universe and Brahmin which refers to the priestly caste amongst hindus.

All gods, including brahma and vishnu are manifestations of Brahman.

Prophetism is alien to hinduism and is characteristically middle eastern.



And i dont know what B'ahai view Raam and Krishna as. only that their view is only that - their view. The Shinto view of Christ is not to be considered final is it??
similarly.

 

[arthra]

Welcome Prajapati!

prajapati wrote

its not Rama , its Raam.

Raam and Krishna are deified mortals and are considered to be the incarnations of Vishnu as the Ideal Man and as the Super Man respectively.

Brahman means "the only truth" in the world. When someone attains Moksha he/she becomes part of the brahman.
its different from Brahma, who is the god supposed to have created the universe and Brahmin which refers to the priestly caste amongst hindus.

All gods, including brahma and vishnu are manifestations of Brahman.

Comment:

Yes, thanks for sharing that and I would acknowledge this is the traditional view from teh Hindu perspective...

Prajapati wrote:

Prophetism is alien to hinduism and is characteristically middle eastern.

Comment:

Yes... I see your point. We Baha'is also accept Zoroaster in the prophetic tradition.

Prajapati:

And i dont know what B'ahai view Raam and Krishna as. only that their view is only that - their view. The Shinto view of Christ is not to be considered final is it??
similarly.

Comment:

Baha'is believe Govinda Krishna was a Manifestation of God which is probably different from your understanding of Krishna as Hinduism would normally accept Him. We believe God was perfectly reflected in Krishna rather than that He was God.

Also we accept that Hinduism has a Divine Origin...

- Art

 

[arthra]

Correct Interpretations:

Brian wrote:


"....as part a lesser known Faith in the Western world, Baha'is are in danger of misrepresentation and ridicule for idea and beliefs that may be alien to them - so obviously this further complicates matters when it comes to being able to differentiate between personal comment and official representation."

Comment:

Yes that's why we want to be careful when we respond so people can distinguish a personal view of mine or someones from the authentic Baha'i perspective. Correct interpretation of scriptures has been a major issue I think in Christianity as well as in Islam and conflicts and polarities have splintered religions in the past. So in the Baha'i Faith we have avoided that to a great degree by recognizing the interprertations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

- Art

 

[prajapati]

Welcome Prajapati!

Baha'is believe Govinda Krishna was a Manifestation of God which is probably different from your understanding of Krishna as Hinduism would normally accept Him. We believe God was perfectly reflected in Krishna rather than that He was God.

Also we accept that Hinduism has a Divine Origin...

- Art

Thanks.

We do not believe that he was god. We also dont think he was born as god (prophet). We think god manifested the "super man" through him, the way he manifested the "enlightened man" through buddha.

and for Bahai's to accept that hinduism has a divine origin - someone has to make such a proposal first before it can be accepted. Hinduism is not divine, its "for the people by the people of the people".


tell me if hindus believed Bahaiullah to be a saint, or a prophet or a heretic or an incarnation/avatar or god himself or a sage - would you believe the hindu opinion on bahaiullah ???