Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[PoetPhilosopher]

What is surprising to me, is the aggressive and suspicious nature of some respondents. The OP question may be irrelevant to some but its certainly not irreverent.

Sorry that's happened in your thread. I think the miscommunication goes something like this:

You are a Baha'i questioning a pretty significant element of Hinduism. Whereas you probably see it as, you are criticizing an element of your own religion (Baha'is recognize Hinduism and Krishna), most people familiar with Hinduism and accepting of it will disagree and see that you're a non-Hindu person bringing great scrutiny to a part of Hinduism through a challenging question. So, it does bring the heat.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sorry that's happened in your thread. I think the miscommunication goes something like this:

You are a Baha'i questioning a pretty significant element of Hinduism. Whereas you probably see it as, you are criticizing an element of your own religion (Baha'is recognize Hinduism and Krishna), most people familiar with Hinduism and accepting of it will disagree and see that you're a non-Hindu person bringing great scrutiny to a part of Hinduism through a challenging question. So, it does bring the heat.

There's some merit in that assessment.

 

[Vinayaka]

You are a Baha'i questioning a pretty significant element of Hinduism.

Indeed. I found it quite aggressive and suspicious. This, even though I'm not a Krishna worshiper. I also find the attitude about Christ's existence from non-Christians aggressive and suspicious. So too somebody going after the credentials of Baha'ullah for no clear reason. It's attack, and it's not very useful, from any side. Better to look at an individual's actions today.

But some days I guess there is merit in fighting fire with fire.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Okay, so Baha'is believe Krishna was a real historical person. And does it matter if there is no physical evidence? Does it matter if most everyone says that Krishna is mythical? No, because Baha'u'llah said he was real. But what was real about him? Was he an incarnation of Vishnu/? For Baha'is probably not. Is Baha'u'llah the return of Krishna/Kalki? For Baha'is yes, and a prophecy about how years are to elapse before the return is made to fit. Did he teach reincarnation? No, Baha'is say that was a misinterpretation. Yes, Baha'is believe he was real, but with terms and conditions.

What Baha’is believe is not the topic of the OP. Of course Baha’is believe Krishna was a real historical person but that is a matter of faith in Bahá’u’lláh. Perhaps the journey to better understanding Krishna would be to invoke His presence or to consider the text of the Mahābhārata where the earliest accounts of the Life of Lord Krishna is to be found. Then as you know, concepts such as reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita, like the Resurrection in the Gospels are at odds with Baha’i beliefs. However ‘resurrection’ and ‘reincarnation’ are theological concepts and/or realities that may or may not withstand empirical analysis. It doesn’t matter to me but an understanding of Who Krishna is and what He taught are central to not only what many Hindus believe but non-Hindus too.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But not to Hindus, which shows great disrespect for Hindus. If this is a topic of interest to Baha'is, then it should have been put in the Baha'i forum.

I look forward to being banned now, for being 'disrespectful', and personal attacks.

Is there one united view by Hindus on the topic of Krishna? I understand that some Hindu sects do not believe in Krishna at all but other sects do. The Hare Krishnas portray Him as a Divine Being from their colourful paintings. I think there is room for a diversity of viewpoints on Krishna.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What is surprising to me, is the aggressive and suspicious nature of some respondents. The OP question may be irrelevant to some but its certainly not irreverent.

I'm not saying that you, in particular, solicit aggression or suspicion in what you post, but is it fair to blame these respondents for behaving in a way they've been conditioned to?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sorry that's happened in your thread. I think the miscommunication goes something like this:

You are a Baha'i questioning a pretty significant element of Hinduism. Whereas you probably see it as, you are criticizing an element of your own religion (Baha'is recognize Hinduism and Krishna), most people familiar with Hinduism and accepting of it will disagree and see that you're a non-Hindu person bringing great scrutiny to a part of Hinduism through a challenging question. So, it does bring the heat.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. It's for the reason @Sirona so eloquently stated in post #26 of this thread. Not that @adrian009 has a habit of doing this, but there are Baha'is here that do behave in such a fashion.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is there one united view by Hindus on the topic of Krishna? I understand that some Hindu sects do not believe in Krishna at all but other sects do. The Hare Krishnas portray Him as a Divine Being from their colourful paintings. I think there is room for a diversity of viewpoints on Krishna.

I'm not aware of any Hindus that don't consider Krishna a deity. Are you?

 

[Vinayaka]

Is there one united view by Hindus on the topic of Krishna? I understand that some Hindu sects do not believe in Krishna at all but other sects do. The Hare Krishnas portray Him as a Divine Being from their colourful paintings. I think there is room for a diversity of viewpoints on Krishna.

This just shows how little you know about Hinduism. And that is the main reason Hindus object to Baha'is saying anything at all about Hinduism. You come along with this aura of authority, and speak as if you know something at all about which you know nothing at all. It all stems from the progressive manifestation concept, which is unique to Baha'i. Because of that being central to your faith, you have to speak about other faiths, and just your interpretation of them, not what they really are. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, alike, take exception to that. Did you ever think, just for once, that progressive manifestations just might be a false concept? For one, it insults all the other faiths, which goes against other Baha'i goals of unity. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not saying that you, in particular, solicit aggression or suspicion in what you post, but is it fair to blame these respondents for behaving in a way they've been conditioned to?

I don’t see value in attributing blame but it can be useful to identify when others appear to be reacting to something that isn’t there or over-reacting. Its like “where did that come from?”

I think Interfaith dialogue can be challenging and its easy for members of one faith to misunderstand members of another or project unresolved conflicts onto others.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don’t see value in attributing blame but it can be useful to identify when others appear to be reacting to something that isn’t there or over-reacting. Its like “where did that come from?”

As I said previously, conditioning.

I think Interfaith dialogue can be challenging and its easy for members of one faith to misunderstand members of another or project unresolved conflicts onto others.

Like I said, it is my opinion that your posts are typically intended for educational interfaith dialogue, but that's not true for everyone. There are those here who clearly make veiled attempts at proselytizing.

 

[Vinayaka]

but its certainly not irreverent.

Since when do you get to be the judge of that? If it insults someone, it insults someone. Let the insultee be the judge.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since when do you get to be the judge of that? If it insults someone, it insults someone. Let the insultee be the judge.

We all need to make judgments and take responsibility for our actions. There’s no intent to offend on my part. Do you feel insulted?

 

[Vinayaka]

We all need to make judgments and take responsibility for our actions. There’s no intent to offend on my part. Do you feel insulted?

Yes, because it's about questioning Hinduism, by a non-Hindu. In order to practice tolerance for other religions, it's best to leave them alone. I just feel that folks should get their own house in order before they go about questioning stuff from other religions. In Sanatana Dharma, we tolerate other faiths, and especially the right to practice them, and we don't go sticking our noses into what someone else believes. It serves no fruitful purpose.

Of course the Bahai's on this forum will accuse me of an anti-Baha'i agenda, and criticising your faith, or using personal attack. But all that started with what a Baha'i said about Hinduism some 3 years or so back. In other words, self-defense. From the other responses here, I don't think I'm alone.

But you're free to feel you didn't intend any insult. I've done the same, from ignorance. I've deleted my own posts on here several times because of it.

Krishna, for Vaishnavites, is here and now. People go to Krishna temples, sit and feel His darshan (energy) and feel bliss, a temporal relief from the daily stresses of the world, or a place and time to center oneself. It has nothing to do with history, or debate about how Krishna worship started. He is God Himself, the Godhead. Sanatana Dharma is a living breathing religion that brings great joy to nearly a billion embodied souls on this planet on a daily basis. For me it's Shiva, but since at the essence they are the same God, if you insult Vaishnavites, you insult me. By saying He's a mere manifestation, and a long since unuseful one at that, yes, it's insulting. How could it not be?

Often insults aren't hurled, they just come as a consequence of ignorance on a topic. Still, it is an insult, and the only way to alleviate that is to become less ignorant. Instead of questioning everything about a different faith, if you want to learn, why not just listen? Focusing on the history is an insidious way of saying the religion is dead, like the Greek or Roman religions of yesteryear.

 

[CG Didymus]

What Baha’is believe is not the topic of the OP. Of course Baha’is believe Krishna was a real historical person but that is a matter of faith in Bahá’u’lláh. Perhaps the journey to better understanding Krishna would be to invoke His presence or to consider the text of the Mahābhārata where the earliest accounts of the Life of Lord Krishna is to be found. Then as you know, concepts such as reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita, like the Resurrection in the Gospels are at odds with Baha’i beliefs. However ‘resurrection’ and ‘reincarnation’ are theological concepts and/or realities that may or may not withstand empirical analysis. It doesn’t matter to me but an understanding of Who Krishna is and what He taught are central to not only what many Hindus believe but non-Hindus too.

I would imagine most of us here would be extremely surprised if there was any evidence of the existence of Krishna. Then there is the question of how literal does a person take the stories? And I would think that Baha'is would not take the stories very literal at all. Then you get the same problem you have with Christians, Baha'is say they believe the person is real, but they believe the stories about him are not literally true. Some believers worship Krishna as an incarnation, maybe even believe all the stories are literally true. They probably believe Krishna taught reincarnation. So we end up with the same situation. You believe in Krishna, but only in the Baha'i interpretation of Krishna. Baha'u'llah said Krishna is real and existed. So then, what ever the Baha'is say about Krishna is the real and historical Krishna. The Krishna believed and followed by some Hindus is the mythological Krishna.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, because it's about questioning Hinduism, by a non-Hindu. In order to practice tolerance for other religions, it's best to leave them alone. I just feel that folks should get their own house in order before they go about questioning stuff from other religions. In Sanatana Dharma, we tolerate other faiths, and especially the right to practice them, and we don't go sticking our noses into what someone else believes. It serves no fruitful purpose.

Of course the Bahai's on this forum will accuse me of an anti-Baha'i agenda, and criticising your faith, or using personal attack. But all that started with what a Baha'i said about Hinduism some 3 years or so back. In other words, self-defense. From the other responses here, I don't think I'm alone.

But you're free to feel you didn't intend any insult. I've done the same, from ignorance. I've deleted my own posts on here several times because of it.

Krishna, for Vaishnavites, is here and now. People go to Krishna temples, sit and feel His darshan (energy) and feel bliss, a temporal relief from the daily stresses of the world, or a place and time to center oneself. It has nothing to do with history, or debate about how Krishna worship started. He is God Himself, the Godhead. Sanatana Dharma is a living breathing religion that brings great joy to nearly a billion embodied souls on this planet on a daily basis. For me it's Shiva, but since at the essence they are the same God, if you insult Vaishnavites, you insult me. By saying He's a mere manifestation, and a long since unuseful one at that, yes, it's insulting. How could it not be?

Often insults aren't hurled, they just come as a consequence of ignorance on a topic. Still, it is an insult, and the only way to alleviate that is to become less ignorant. Instead of questioning everything about a different faith, if you want to learn, why not just listen? Focusing on the history is an insidious way of saying the religion is dead, like the Greek or Roman religions of yesteryear.

Thanks for your response and I really don’t want to make matters worse between us than they already are. I am going to speak freely and openly though, so once again no offence intended.

The thread I’ve started is about Hinduism, Krishna and history. It has nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith. The question asked is about the nature of Krishna. There’s no intent to compare a Baha’i perspective with a Hindu perspective of Krishna. There’s no attempt to link Hinduism with religions of Rome and Greece through questioning about history. There’s no proselytising about the Baha’i Faith. It is a simple open ended question where anyone is free to respond or not.

A religious forum such as this relies on individuals sharing their beliefs and faith with others. If a Baha’i became defensive and offended every time someone who isn’t a Baha’i asks the Baha’is a question, I would question whether this was the right place for them. Alternatively if a Baha’i had no genuine interest in the faith of others, its not the right place.

I don’t often start threads looking at Hinduism. What you appear to be saying is that I should never ask questions of Hindus and mind my own business. Is that right?

 

[loverofhumanity]

This just shows how little you know about Hinduism. And that is the main reason Hindus object to Baha'is saying anything at all about Hinduism. You come along with this aura of authority, and speak as if you know something at all about which you know nothing at all. It all stems from the progressive manifestation concept, which is unique to Baha'i. Because of that being central to your faith, you have to speak about other faiths, and just your interpretation of them, not what they really are. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, alike, take exception to that. Did you ever think, just for once, that progressive manifestations just might be a false concept? For one, it insults all the other faiths, which goes against other Baha'i goals of unity. You can't have it both ways.

From my research into the major religions, I have found the idea of progressive revelation to be supported and upheld in the majority of Holy Books. For instance Christ said to the Jews with regard to Moses...

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.(John 5:46)

In the Gita we read a similar idea of progressive revelation

Whenever there is a decline in righteousness and an increase in unrighteousness, at that time I manifest myself on earth" (Gita)

And in other Holy Books this idea is also promoted. So Christians accept all the Jewish Prophets gone before plus Jesus. The Muslims accept all the Prophets of the past up till Muhammad.

Buddha too speaks of another Buddha Who will appear. These are all written and revealed in the major scriptures of every faith which you can see for yourself without any Baha’i interpretation whatsoever. All the major religions, including sects of Hinduism accept previous avatars and predict future zones to appear.

This is in no way an exclusive Baha’i view. If you study for yourself, you will find that the Holy Books of the major faiths all accept previous Teachers and predict new Ones to come, independent of the Baha ‘I view. You can verify these facts for yourself by consulting the sacred scriptures of the major faiths.


All Baha’is have done is give this phenomenon of recurring appearance of Teachers a name and called it progressive revelation, which simply means that God continues to send great Teachers to this world to guide men. It’s not a Baha’i concept at all, but a process inherent in all the major faiths.

It’s most important I believe that people be clear that progressive appearance of Divine Teachers is not a Baha’i idea, but what every major faith teaches - that Great Divine Educators continue to appear on earth.

All the major religions accept the Divine Educators of the past and all predict the advent of future Ones but whether they accept the new Teacher is another thing. The Jews do not accept Christ, Christians fo not accept Muhammad and Muslims do not accept Baha’u’llah.

As to Buddhism and Hinduism, it much depends upon which sect one follows as to whether they accept progressive Teachers or not, but in the Gita and Buddhist texts, the appearance of regular Divine educators appearing on earth, from time to time, is mentioned in their scriptures. It is not a Baha’i idea but an ancient one.

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks for your response and I really don’t want to make matters worse between us than they already are. I am going to speak freely and openly though, so once again no offence intended.

The thread I’ve started is about Hinduism, Krishna and history. It has nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith. The question asked is about the nature of Krishna. There’s no intent to compare a Baha’i perspective with a Hindu perspective of Krishna. There’s no attempt to link Hinduism with religions of Rome and Greece through questioning about history. There’s no proselytising about the Baha’i Faith. It is a simple open ended question where anyone is free to respond or not.

A religious forum such as this relies on individuals sharing their beliefs and faith with others. If a Baha’i became defensive and offended every time someone who isn’t a Baha’i asks the Baha’is a question, I would question whether this was the right place for them. Alternatively if a Baha’i had no genuine interest in the faith of others, its not the right place.

I don’t often start threads looking at Hinduism. What you appear to be saying is that I should never ask questions of Hindus and mind my own business. Is that right?

Yes. But it won't help. I will bow out once again.

 

[Vinayaka]

From my research into the major religions, I have found the idea of progressive revelation to be supported and upheld in the majority of Holy Books. For instance Christ said to the Jews with regard to Moses...

This is simply not true at all, for anyone besides Baha'i. But I will bow out ... again. No point really.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes. But it won't help. I will bow out once again.

Thanks for dropping by. We need to agree to disagree of course so I appreciate your honesty.