A commentary on the differences between Hindu Religions and the Baha’i Faith

A Comment by Julian on a YouTube thread:

Indian people should not give up their natural and ancient religions for the Baha’i faith. The Baha’i faith is very different from Indian religion. And it lacks a great deal by comparison.

Response by an Indian who is adopting and promoting the Baha’i Faith:

“Hi friend, thank you for sharing your views. My background is Hindu and I consider myself to uphold the Hindu religion where ever I go.”

Julian: This is clearly because you are unfamiliar with your own religion.

The Indian: “Allow me to give you some insight, perhaps you have been misguided or miss understood the Baha’i Faith.”

Julian: I was a very involved Baha’i for 12 years. I know full well about the shallow, religion-reductive Baha’i Faith.

“Baha’i Faith is a beautiful religion you just need to investigate what it truly means. Being a Baha’i”

It means ignoring and being clueless about the contents of other religions but acting like you know. It also means world-obsession and a fetish for mixing bodies of different types together; getting thrills from that. That is, verily, an embarrassment to religion.

“Baha’u’llah says “you are upholding all the divine religions of the past.” This means i am Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh, a Babi, and so on. How can a Baha’i stay away from Indian people when Indian people like myself are Baha’is. Peace, light and love :-)”

Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh even. That’s a typical Baha’i mouthful. The Sikhs are centered on listening to the enrapturing inner divine sound of God that they call Shabd. Do Baha’is have a take on that? Not last time I checked.

In brief: Do you even know what’s in these religions? Baha’is have no concept of the contents of the Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads, Yoga-Sutras, etc. That content is far beyond Baha’i conceptions of religion. Most basic concepts of Hinduism — such as meditation and meditation techniques, analysis of the mind, analysis of the problem of samsara/duality, or the divine efficacy of austerities (tapas) — do not exist in the Baha’i Faith. And yet these are fundamental conceptions — and religious realities —  that bear on mankind’s fundamental problem as beings trapped in dualistic external existence. That last profound concept of man’s problem — a central starting point in Hinduism and Buddhism — has no conceptual development in the Baha’i Faith; it cannot even be found on their mental radar.

“My Friend, change is the only constant thing in life, as civilization progresses then so does mankind progress and evolve, it is inevitable. We must embrace change and embrace new religions as one. It does not mean you should through away your culture or heritage.”

Whether the simplistic and primitive Baha’i Faith represents cultural progress or evolution is a question I’ll leave for later. But you are throwing away your magnificent religious heritage by embracing the Baha’i Faith. I know both religions, and of this there can be no doubt. Baha’is alternately clueless or phobic towards most your profound religious heritage. If they don’t ignore it and trivialize it with ersatz posturing toward meditation (a subject beyond them) they outright reject it. For example they discredit the spiritual value of austerities/tapas. (Though none have tried it, I am sure.) Baha’u’llah calls your saints and ascetics deluded “creatures.” Baha’u’llah had a clueless disdain for all your yogis, rishis, and saints who sought and found God within. In fact, the very idea of a God that is personally realizable within — the central and choicest aspect of Hinduism — is utterly undeveloped in the Baha’i Faith! They even consider discussion of such subjects taboo and shun whatever content speaks to it in their own writings. Baha’u’llah’s simplistic Islamic, exterior-focused religious viewpoint in no way encompasses the vast spiritual understanding of the Hindu religious heritage. May as well try to invite and elephant into a mouse’s hole.

So Hindus worship “change” now, do they? An educated Hindu would say that Brahman — the immutable Pure Consciousness — is the only constant in life, and that it must be found. Clearly you don’t understand that the purpose of religion, in Hinduism and other great religions, is to get beyond the tyranny of change and find the Changeless God. the Immutable. You were sadly not educated in your own religion, thus how can you know that the Baha’i Faith fulfills it or improves it?

Constant change is a basic feature of unsatisfactory samsara. Bringing more “change” to the ever-changing world is no attainment for a group to crow about. Change happens anyway, the inevitable quality of samsara or repetitive dualistic existence. Even Obama sold “change” to get elected — and he’s nothing but a dishonest politician. Change is nothing new, and all change is dualistic — featuring good and bad.

Real religion leads a man to become established in the eternally satisfactory Changeless, fulfilling desires, giving contentment, and making him a true benefit to others because he can now lead them to the same imperishable Brahman.

Which brings me to another subject. There is no “saving the world” without a worthy analysis of what the world is. Hinduism has made this analysis; Baha’i scriptures fail here. Hinduism is far more profound & effective in their analysis of world-problems. They analyzed the exterior world as the self-projection of the viewer.

Are you even aware of the magnificent contribution your own religion has made to  understanding of the world phenomena? That the outer material world is has all the characteristics of nightly ephemeral dreams which are self-projected? Are you not aware of the spectacular contributions of your sage Sankara to the understanding of exterior reality? Believe me, the Baha’i Faith is not aware and can’t hold a candle to it. But you should be.

Your religion makes a flawless analysis of the world and all its problems/flaws as one’s self-mind, projecting outward. Flaws in it are one’s own impurities. Thus by self-purification the exterior projected world-dream upgrades and improves of itself; without that self-purification no world-improvement is possible. This was the same conclusion of Buddha! Thus as a Baha’i you block out the profound understanding of your own multiplicitous religious heritage, but Buddhism as well. Beyond an occasional reference to “the world of dust” which Baha’is take no guidance from and never develop, the Baha’i culture lacks all these recognitions of the transitory world, as well as the elegant failsafe solution founded in personal purification. Baha’is are, in my experience, not even able to answer these ideas much less entertain them significantly as a religious system!

Related to this, your religion has a profound, hard-edged concept of the significance of austerities or “tapas.” Austerities are undertaken, in your religion, to burn out impurities which block the perception of God and are the basis for outer flaws in the projected world-dream. This insight into the value of asceticism for uncovering God plus changing the nature of the world-projection is deeply resonant with Christian ideas and the life of Christ. The Baha’i Faith lacks any of this understanding. The one place where Baha’is make some gesture towards austerities is once per year in their so-called fast which is not a fast at all. (They still eat, just during the dark 12 hours instead of the daylight. Big deal.) Your religion’s understanding of tapas and austerities is of immortal value in the development of God-knowledge. Why trade it for a religion where this concept has no development and no place? From the Hindu, Buddhist, and even Christian point of view, ascetism is use to conquer life’s existential personal problems: lust, the small ego, and the mind. Baha’is say, “We reject asceticism.” That means the Baha’i Faith rejects any practical tools for conquering these three mortal problems.

As to “progress,” do you really believe the primitive, harsh contents of the Baha’i “Most Holy Book” represents positive cultural progress? With it’s complete lack of metaphysical sophistication present in the Vedas and Upanishads? The vision of human life presented in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is primitive compared to the rarefied and refined cultural ages of India’s past. If you want real progress for your people, embrace the values and ways of your own ancient religion — far superior to the Baha’i Faith.

“Being a Baha’i – Baha’u’llah says “you are upholding all the divine religions of the past.”

This is a simple lie. To uphold the Divine Religion of Hinduism one does this:

— He practices austerities

— He seeks God within through the stilling of the mind (in meditation or chanting technique) or devotional practices such as concentrated rituals

— He practices brahmacharya

All 3 above are central to the God-realizing religions of Hinduism. And all 3 are ignored — or even condemned — by the Baha’i Faith. There is another principle in Hinduism, and that is guru-devotion. But this principle is ignored in mainstream Baha’i life, and they have no conscious consideration of it as a principle at all. And how can you blame them? Baha’u’llah was an angry gnome with a thoroughly Islamic religious mind and can’t hold a candle to the Vedic rishis. How can you prefer him, as a guru, over your own luminous saints like Swami Sivananda? Ramakrishna? Or even a modern living saint such as Karunamayi?

To be a Hindu is to renounce the world and seek God-within instead. Baha’is do not even have a concept of these two; and don’t even truly respect the ideas in their actual daily culture. It is far better to be a God-seeker — and a true Hindu — than be “every religion” in a false, inauthentic, way. Why would you want to be “every religion.” What is the point of that? Especially if while pretending to be that, you have no concept of God Himself or the tools to find God within. That is the situation with Baha’is. While pretending to be “every religion” (pretending, because they do not even comprehend the contents of other religions), they dispense with the central value of religion: Inner God-search and solving of the problem of the dualistic outer world-projection (samsara). Beyond Baha’u’llah’s occasional references to “this world of dust,” words  Baha’is ignore and find no guidance from, Baha’is have no evaluation or analysis of the problem of samsara. What a naive concept to think that samsaric duality dissolves by obsessing on the world’s problems or getting people to agree on a few shallow concepts.

These are fundamental Hinduism:

— Austerities

— Brahmacharya

— Meditation for experiencing God within.

These concepts are barely present in the Baha’i Faith; that is, in the actual culture and mindset of Baha’is. Though austerities is a core principle in development of Hindu religious life, the Baha’i faith disparages austerities, saying “We don’t believe in asceticism.” Then say goodbye to the most spiritually effective aspect of most of the great religions!

As to brahmacharya and the spiritual significance of continence, Baha’is simply do not possess this in their material or in the religious culture that produced Baha’is texts.

As to meditation, Baha’is are phobic toward the very word “meditation.” Perhaps they try to humor Hindus in India around their temple with some entertainment of the meditation concept. It would be like Baha’is to at least humor it. But Baha’is themselves lack any catalog of knowledge regarding meditation, the pursuit of God within, or the inner territory. Although their Holy Book obviously specifies a mantra (outloud or japa) Baha’is don’t even recognize it as a mantra, or as japa, or have any conception of its significance. By contrast, the science of concentrating the mind for God-perception within is highly developed in Hinduism, having an extraordinarily elaborate lexicon. Hindus have words and basic concepts like manas (mind), dharana (concentration), dhyana (steady concentration), vrittis (movements of the mind), with all aspects of the breath analyzed. This is significant because the moving mind, in Hindu metaphysics, is identified as the producer of the moving outer world-samsara. None of this knowledge exists in the Baha’i Faith. They ask that Hindus give it all up — not even understanding its value themselves — to be replaced by a material world-obsession. The Hindu rishis have identified man’s fundamental problem: His mind. They have also mapped the inner territory for the God-seeker — territory encountered by all who grapple with the mind. None of this knowledge exists in Baha’i culture, and is only hinted at in the Sufi language of texts like “The Seven Valleys.” But such texts never intrude, in any significant way, into the Baha’i worlds-view which is externally-oriented. Truly, spiritual and metaphysical knowledge in the Baha’i Faith is comparable to a deaf mule with a basket standing beside the most advanced flying car.

Hinduism/Yoga renounces the world and the unreal in preference for God and the Real. But Baha’is are world-focused, world-obsessed, and material. Don’t be a fool and reject or devalue your more genuine religious heritage that is far more profound and effective than Baha’i world-obsession.

Certain traditions in many countries are not improving or evolving society but are negating the well being of society. Its important to reflect on such issues.

At core the problems of societies are founded in man’s attachment to the world and the flesh; and his lack of the state-of-grace. The state-of-grace dawns for a man by self-purification, which is the purpose of Hindu yoga and austerities, and samadhi. Hinduism-Yoga addresses this deep metaphysical root of the problem; the Baha’i faith does not.

The Baha’is even suppressed what little yoga (spiritual technique) that they had — their own “Most Holy Book” and it’s chanting procedures, considering them unimportant. You cannot “organize the world into happiness.” Human happiness is only secured by contact with the faultless, blissful sat-chit-ananda within. Hindu religion specializes in showing men the way to that. The Baha’i Faith lacks even a concept of it. And in practical daily Baha’i life, they shun discussion of such matters. Happiness also is not secured by watching various different colored, or different shaped bodies mixing it up. For certain psychological dispositions, this is a transient thrill or pleasure, only. Later boredom sets in. “The thrill is gone.” Or differences or tensions arise. Or you miss your own people — or the distinct peoples — and what they once were. Body obsessions and world obsessions — the warp and woof of Baha’i life — can never secure man’s happiness.

Our vision should be global and united.

No, your vision should be of God. “Globe” means world. You are telling me that you should be world-focused. Do you know how many material worlds there are in this samsara? Do you know how many globes? No creditable religion can be constructed from a “vision” or focus on the tired, samsaric, inert world.

No man can have another man’s same vision. The only way you can share another man’s exact vision is to attain samadhi — alone explored by Hinduism and Buddhism — and get at least temporary oneness with him and all things. As to your Baha’i buzzword “unity,” in well-trained Baha’i fashion I see you are learning to throw around a vague concept begging for analysis.

There is no such thing as “unity” in material terms. Each soul remains separate. (Do you want us all to gel into one ball of protoplasm?) Nobody wants such “unity.”

But Hinduism understands unity in authentic terms: It is the experience of at-one-ment known by the religious seeker in God-meditation. When Baha’is speak of “unity” they really mean transient pleasurable experiences in which this group is “cooperating” with this group and having transient, pleasant experiences of human interaction.

It is what we need in this world, lets put our egos aside and unite and respect all.

The Vedic rishis had a profounder insight into what we need in this world: Detachment from the samsara, spiritual practices, and actual destruction of the ego through God-union. Even utmost “respect for all” does not guarantee your happiness. Utmost “respect all” does not end the problems of duality and samsara that the individual faces: Constant change, impermanence, and all karmic situations mixed with good/bad. You can remain quite unhappy, and still immersed in duality, while you “respect all.” Now, though the Baha’i Faith has “prayers for detachment” in practice they are a highly world-attached and world-focused religion. Meanwhile, the Baha’i Faith lacks any techniques or practices — at least in conscious presentation — for the development of world-detachment.

Start to independently investigate about other religions and start to open your minds to love and accept all as one. To me when someone asks me what religion I am I simply except the faith they are following as mine, because being a Baha’i is a platform for me respect and love all religions as one. To me someone who believes and respects all religion as one, humanity as one and God as one is a Baha’i, unknowingly they just don’t know it, they have to investigate it themselves.

“We must embrace change and embrace new religions as one.”

Sad to hear an Indian having this concept of religion! A genuine Hindu — and a genuine religious person — says: “We must embrace God, the changeless, the ever-Satisfactory. And take our minds off the transitory world-miasm to solve the problem of how it arises.”

All people at all times are swept away with the changing world miasm; merging with it or “embracing” it; considering it important; considering it real, fully mixed with the continuous change of both mind and world. To be in full embrace with the transitory samsara is the ordinary state of the suffering human being!

There is no point in saying “there is one religion” if the religion you embrace– the Baha’i Faith — is conceptually shallow with no address to the fundamental problem of yourself and all men. That problem is mankind’s immersion in unsatisfactory dualistic phenomena; inevitability of death, and repetition of sorrows (caused by karmic vasanas). Better to embrace one religion, from among a thousand, that is authentic and solves that problem, than construct a “one world religion” that merely pretends to be “all religions” and does not address the fundamental problem of man.

“being a Baha’i is a platform for me respect and love all religions as one.”

The typical thing with Baha’is is that they do not even know the contents of the other religions, or wish to know them. You are not “embracing” a thing when you don’t know what it is. You need to ask: Is this a real platform? Do Baha’is truly “respect” or “love” other religions that they do not even understand or wish to learn about? Baha’is do not truly respect the other religions, have no answers for them, and fear them. I have never met a Baha’i who understood most of the concepts in the Bhagavad-Gita. In fact, they reject many of its concepts, and have disinterest for the rest. Better to embrace one religion that gives you God-knowledge than falsely “embrace” “all religions” for the pleasure of a soft-focused pink cloud.

The Hindu rishis get a genuine platform for respecting other religions because they have analyzed them aright: In Non-Dualistic Vedanta (of the Mandukya and G. Karika Upanishads) all exterior religions are understood to be one’s own transient karmic mind-projections, like the rest of the daily world-dream. They all arise from Pure Consciousness behind the mind and are products of individual karma, like the rest of the external world-dream. In other words, all religions just like all other externals are emanations of Brahman or Pure Consciousness. They are one’s own karmic mental projections based on conditioning and vasanas a he evolves over incarnations.This is a profounder understanding of the “oneness of religion.” And it’s in Hinduism. And the better karmic erections (religions) direct you to God within. The Baha’i Faith is not one of those better religions from this point-of-view. Speaking of “incarnations,” the Baha’i Faith rejects reincarnation, so basic to Hinduism and Buddhism, with no convincing demonstration of proof. (Even though the Bab apparently believed in it.) The Baha’i Faith has a vision only for this one life; only the material world. The vision of the Hindu spans beyond lifetimes, ages, and embraces All Time.

It has long been a trait of the Hindu sages to not argue with other religions, not deny their validity, and not attack them. Hindus excel at this in true depth; not Baha’is. It has long been the view of the Vedic seers and yogis that all saints have the same basic attainment, reaching the same mountaintop but by alternate routes, and that all God-realized saints salute each other from their mountain peaks, and finally seeing the essence behind all  nomenclature and even all forms. However, the Baha’i faith does not even have the concept of the sage, the yogi, or the saint in the first place, nor the tools that allow men and women to become such. Who wants to adopt the Baha’i worldview in which yogis, bhaktas, siddhas, adepts, rishis, and saints — don’t exist? And one is not allowed to look upon their pictures. But the one picture of their little scowling gnome which is hidden away for PR purposes?

The Baha’i approach is a stealth destruction of other religions. They present themselves as “the new replacement and upgrade” for religions, without even understanding the contents of the other religions. In reality the Baha’i Faith is far more crude and primitive than Hindu scriptural philosophy and historical Hindu periods. And the true religion of the Baha’i Faith can be summed up in this phrase: “Thrills from external experiences of bodily ethnic mixing.”

“To me someone who believes and respects all religion as one, humanity as one and God as one is a Baha’i. “

Sounds boring and insensate. There is not much “oneness” between Baha’i doctrine and Hindu conceptions, and even littler common ground in terms of religious technique. Certainly there is common ground between them. For example, both contain the profound technique of chanting. However, Baha’is tend to disavow the value of their own chanting rules, and there is no knowledge or even discussion concerning them. Hinduism, on the other hand, has a spectacularly well-developed and ancient lore — even a science — relative to chanting, japa, and mantra. The Baha’i Faith is not even on the platform by comparison. The Baha’i Faith ignores most of the riches that Hinduism brings to the table, yet says it is superior and should supplant Hindu knowledge. Supplant it with what? Baha’i offers so little knowledge compared to just a few verses of the Katha Upanishad!

We get enough “oneness” in the state of prajna, or deep dreamless sleep, nightly. (This is pointed out by the Upanishads.) Nobody wants life to be One Blob. The mind prefers differences, distances, familiar/foreign, close-far. The mind will continually generate differences in the external world-dream. That’s what the mind does; and prefers it. Many religions is best. Many religions and many paths is best for the great University of the human world. Many religions — or paths to the mountaintop — is part of the diversity God created. The sad thing is that Baha’is don’t even have a conception for “a mountaintop” or what that means.

Real “oneness” is only truly experienced in samadhi (God-union). Because the external world is mind-generated, the duality and transitoriness inherent in the mind — inherent in the very phenomenon of mental “movement” — will always show up in the external mind-projected world. Only by understanding the external world as your own mind-created dream-projection, powered by Brahma, as taught in Hinduism, does one experience true “oneness” with it. The concept of samadhi (blissful God-union) does not even exist in the Baha’i Faith! To even discuss it would disturb sadly limited Baha’is.

“Unity” is a big concept. The sages of India considered “unities” in a much more intelligent manner. Their metaphysics includes the concept of prakriti, a primordial field of nature. Also space or akasa, the first creation of the Creator God (Isvara/Brahma) in which He then placed dualistic creations. There is the concept of Aum — the divine sound heard by Hindu adepts — in which all knowables exist. Then there is the final “unity” Nirguna Brahman, or “Pure Consciousness” — out of which all of these arise. (Though Nirguna Brahman, the ‘uncarved block,’ transcends concepts like “unity.”)

Baha’i scriptures don’t conceive of these things. In fact, the Baha’i Faith lacks what could be called any coherent metaphysics at all, much less an elaborate metaphysics. There is no analysis of God’s nature or the processes of his creation, or unities such as prakriti, pradhana, Aum, or Light.

What a Baha’i actually means when he speaks of “unity”

But Baha’is always talk about “unity” as if they want everything to coalesce into a giant ball or blob. Unity is a pretty high-falooting word. So we have to ask ourselves: What do Baha’is really mean when they talk about “unity”? Is it some cosmic static state that, once arrived at, never again changes? And only able to move or change  with the introduction of disunity?

People don’t like a static state. Does it really mean “harmony”? Lack of significant conflict? But that is not the same thing as some kind of metaphysical unity. A “relative lack of conflict” only references a relative condition, and another dualistic state. (Some conflict is present.) And a profound lack of conflict, should that transitory condition be seen for any length of time, is uncreative and becomes boring. In music a bit of dissonance is required to give it life and interest. Like, say a change from the  major 3rd to the minor. Or the use of a diminish 5th note, etc. Nobody enjoys a play or story that contains no conflict or opposing forces. Would the ideal world of the Baha’i be one in which everybody would die of boredom?

Does their “unity” really refer, perhaps, to prosperity? Growth? Is it like the concept of coherence? What? Let’s analyze it…

It’s easy to find out what Baha’is mean by unity. I know, I used to be one. I knew what it meant to me, and others were like me. Let’s say you are talking to a Baha’i. You say, “Why do you like this religion.” They may say, “I like the unity ideal.”

Now you ask them: “What do you mean by unity? Have you ever experienced this unity?”

The Baha’i will say, “Oh, most certainly!”

Now ask the Baha’i to tell you how and when they experienced “unity.” They will proceed to describe a pleasurable experience that they had. Likely it was at some human gathering, where “this colored” people smiled at “that” colored people and shook hands, etc. And this experience gave the Baha’i pleasant, happy, and transient feelings, for psychological reasons. The Baha’i goal of “unity” turns out to be nothing but the pursuit of pleasurable outer experiences in the material and social human world.

The Baha’i, due to his particular psychological conditioning (including notions about “what’s been wrong with the world”) — gets a pleasurable experience when he sees “this type” smile at “that type,” and shake hands at their meeting, or a certain mix of bodies/genes all together, or a group saying “We all declare the same thought” (for the moment). This experience gives the Baha’i psychological pleasure, and he describes that as an experience of “unity.” In reality its just a fleeting pleasure.

So in reality, Baha’is are a people who pursue pleasurable experiences. “Oh look, this one is getting along with that one and they are smiling.” “Oh look, I never knew blacks before, but now I am hanging around with black bodies. What a thrill.” “Oh look, these islanders are dancing their special samba and we are being all kindly and enjoying the interesting performance. I enjoy these differences and this ‘diversity.’ And I feel good about myself because I am so righteous and welcoming.”

These are experiences of external and psychological pleasures only. They are transitory. It is quite easy, also, to analyze their goals as nothing but desires for thrills in the external material world. The desire to enjoy “differences” (because you are bored or jaded) is not a spiritual desire. It is, according to Buddha and others, the central fault of man’s mind. Lust for “diversity” — different shapes and types of bodies — is just that: Worldly and material lust.

The great religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism have to laugh at a religion that considers the pursuit of transitory human or social pleasures, and pursuit of thrills from “diversity” and different bodies — as a religious goal! The prospect of turning such impulses into a religion — how much more the “one religion” to replace all others — is absurd to any perceptive man.

The core teaching of Buddhism is that the external transitory world is unsatisfactory and in fact pure suffering; that this ends when one withdraw from the False Outer, stops craving worldly experiences, and turns toward The Real. (Such as “this group smiling at that group.”) Hinduism is similar: True religion begins when the aspirant realizes the pointlessness and unsatisfactoriness of material existence. (See Yoga-Sutras, Yoga-Vasistha.)

Although Baha’u’llah, in his writings, did have a strong world-renouncing attitude (always calling it the “world of dust”) and always admonished to turn to God (him, in this case — he didn’t direct them to find God elsewhere) — the Baha’i Faith as a religious culture ignores these ideas. It is, in practice, a completely world-oriented religion, obsessed with “world problems,” buildings, and watching new amalgams of people mix it up. Sort of like those who enjoy interracial sex, really.

Their religion does not point them to “God within” and such mystical ideas are, in fact, shunned by the Baha’i leadership notwithstanding statements like those found in the “Hidden Words.” The official religion points Baha’is continually to the external world, and away from the inner. Their pursuit of “unity” is easily analyzed as nothing but the pursuit of human pleasures through seeing types mix together. They don’t seek “unity” in any cosmic sense; but an endless round of “happy parties.”

And did you think that “unity” was a new concept in religion? Not at all. The Hindu rishis have been pursuing — and attaining — unitive consciousness for millennia. But when the Hindu offers “unity” he is offering something much more personal, real, and fundamental — than Baha’is conceive of.

There are two areas where use of the term “unity” has legitimacy in Hinduism, and both of them are areas beyond the ken of Baha’i religion. One is the state of Samadhi pursued by the pious, ascetic Hindu. In that state one knows God directly and merges with Him as pure Bliss-Consciousness while in a conscious state. He then knows his oneness with all things. Yet the Baha’i Faith shuns this mystical knowledge. The other is the state of deep, dreamless sleep, which Hinduism calls “prajna.”

The Vedic rishis taught that all of us nightly become “in unity” with God during the state of deep dreamless sleep, though we are not conscious and a thin layer of nescience or unknowing is there. But we actually wake, and re-manifest “a world” out of desire for differences, drama, diversity, and changes. Thus the mind itself, though it gets comfort and strength from merging in God, is inclined to differences & fragmentation. The world itself is nothing other than one’s mind-created fragmentation.

Any such metaphysics analyzing the world-problem, especially what the world actually IS — as a phenomenon — are completely lacking in the primitive, childlike, and world-obsessed Baha’i faith. Baha’is see the world as separate from themselves, and as real and important (though Baha’u’llah spurned it as “dust.”) They have no understanding. Hinduism identified the mind as the generator of the world-miasm, and developed an approach to taming the mind. Baha’i grotesquely lacks this knowledge.

In a sense the Hindu devotee is trying to come into the deep-sleep knowledge while still awake. This is what is attained in the state of samadhi through assiduous work at concentrating the mind plus developing the devotional attitude.

If a religion has no insight into the fundamental laws of the outer world-erection, and offers no techniques for mastering that world-projection, it is an impoverished religion. In Hinduism, with or without “pleasant experiences” (such as Baha’is seek) — the devotee becomes happy. He becomes established in happiness from a causeless bliss not dependent on outer conditions. Baha’i happiness is tied to outer conditions and a constantly desired repetition of pleasant social & human experiences.

Courtesy :http://bahaiface.com/Bahai_Faith_Compared_To_Hinduism_Julian_Lee.html

2 Comments on “A commentary on the differences between Hindu Religions and the Baha’i Faith”

  1. This post will assist the internet users for building up new web site or
    even a weblog from start to end.

  2. I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me
    to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create
    your theme? Fantastic work!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s