Muslims; is Lord Krishna a prophet of God?

[Slaedi7324]

Still reading and catching up, but just wanted to point out: Abraham already went to the Hebrews, why did God need Moses??

Moses lived in Egypt and preached to ancient Egyptians, not Hebrews.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Moses lived in Egypt and preached to ancient Egyptians, not Hebrews.

I don't think Moses gave the Egyptians the Pentateuch, he gave it to the Hebrews. Why do that if the Scrolls of Abraham would suffice??

Another example is the Cycle of Judges. Many times did Israel turn from God, and many times were they sent new Prophets. One did not suffice there. And if (speculation time) Krisna had been a Prophet of Allah, and Hinduism had become (as you said earlier) far from Islam... why would he not send a new Prophet to correct the mistakes, as he did for the Jews (quite often)??

 

[Slaedi7324]

The Hebrews are the one possessing it now. But Moses taught them originally to the Egyptians.

But, I get your point and you're right. I am sorry. I retrieve my argument about that.

 

[kalyan]

There is zero doubt that Sri Krushna is indeed the Supreme Brahman....The only authority is the Vedas for the sanatana dharma or now modernly called as 'hinduism'.
Even the different schools like Dwaita/ Advaita/ Visista advaita acharyas/gurus accepted Sri Krushna as the supreme Brahman. Unlike other religions like muhammad/jesus they have never claimed to be anything near god and their followers says they are just prophets. Sri Krushna has the supreme authority to claim he is the Bhagawan or the supreme himself and the fact that Bhagawadgita is sustaining after 5000 years is a just a simple proof of Sri Krushna's authority. Even the Vedas supported it, if the Bhagawad Gita is against Vedas, we can reject it, but is totally in line with the Vedas.

If one wants to even start understanding of BG, he needs to understand that he/she is not the physical body which is prone to changes and death, physical body is just a vehicle that the jIva/atma/Soul resides in, just like one lives in a house but he is not the house. Atma/ Soul is eternal and it is neither a he/she. It just occupies a physical body based on the past karma it accrued. Soul/Atma is eternal and nothing can destroy and soul is the actual 'I'. I am the soul/atma and I occupy different physical bodies based on the karma. Until the entire Karma is gone, the soul wanders in the cycles of life and death. If by grace of a guru, one gets the knowledge in accordance to Vedas and he surrenders to Supreme Krushna, then only the atma gets released from cycles of life and birth and it will reach a place called 'Vaikuntam' where it attains Vishnu/Krushna form(though he is beyond forms and is in all forms) and serves him eternally and enjoys eternal bliss.

The sanatana dharma does not rely on the heaven and hell that much because those who got to heaven and hell again has to return back to earth when their good/bad virtue is over and will have to occupy a physical body again...heaven and hell are just very low level planes.
That is why it is said if you do a certain work expecting that it will form good virtue, immediately it is like a golden handcuffs because to enjoy that fruit you have to come back again to this mundane world, the same goes with bad virtue, except you go to hell for sometime and again come back to be caught in cycles of life and death, these are iron handcuffs. The idea is to get liberated.

Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada who belongs to advaita tradition says in his commentary to the only 1 of 700 slokas of Gita :

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'":

ahaM paraM brahma vAsudevAkhyaM sarvasya jagataH prabhava utpattiH | matta eva sthiti-nAsha-kriyA-phalopabhoga-lakSaNaM vikriyA-rUpaM sarvaM jagat pravartate |

"It (the Bhagavad Gita) expounds specially the nature of the Supreme Being and the Truth known as vAsudeva, the para-brahman, who forms the subject matter of the discourse":
paramArtha-tattvaM ca vAsudevAkhyaM parabrahma-abhideya-bhUtaM visheSataH abhivyaj~nayad vishiSTa-prayojana-sambandha-abhideyavad gItA-shAstraM

In the below verse, Lord Narayana, in his Krishna form, teaches the following to Arjuna: "I am seated in the hearts/manas(sanskrit) of all beings. Memory, knowledge, as well as their loss come from Me. I alone am to be known from all the Vedas

sarvasya ca-ahaM hRdi sanniviSTo mattaH smRtirj~nAnamapohanaM ca |

vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyo vedantakRt-vedavit-eva ca-aham ||
(Bhagavad Gita 15.15)

In the bhagavad gItA bhAShya 11.43, Shri Shankara says that Vishnu is the unparallelled Supreme Deity, and that there can not be another Supreme Deity, since that would violate logic:

na tvat samo.asti, abhi adhika kuto-anyo loka-trayo-api, apratima-prabhAva?
(Bhagavad Gita, 11.43)

[There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?]

Though the Lord’s(nArayaNa) incarnation as Rama lasted for a longer duration than His incarnation as Krishna, it is in this latter episode that the Lord(nArayaNa) demonstrated the unbounded limits of His easy accessibility (saulabhya). It is the possibility that the Supreme Lord, whose greatness spans a vast expanse that the Vedas fail to successfully describe (yata vaco nivartante), and whose abode remains unattainable to seers performing rigorous austerities, can descend down this earth, walk amongst cowherds, engage in memorable pastimes, and above all, demystify the Upanisads to posterity in the form of Bhagavad Gita, that makes Him celebrate-worthy. Has there been a more generous and an easily approachable God?

 

[paarsurrey]

Muslims; is Lord Krishna a prophet of God?

Sure Krishna was a prophet/messenger of G-d, he fits the criteria of prophets/messengers of G-d as mentioned in Quran.
Regards

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Greetings to all of you, especially to the Muslims as I have a question for you:

When I was looking at Wikipedia about Krishna, I see that Ahmadis and followers of Baha'i Faith believe in Krishna to be prophet of God, followers of Baha'i Faith only believe that because their prophet told them that he was, but the Ahmadis claim to have proof of Muhammad teaching that Krishna was prophet of God. They come with this Hadith:

"There was a prophet of God in India who was dark in colour and his name was Kahan."

According to the official Ahmadi website: "Now anyone acquainted with the history of Indian religions would immediately connect this description to Lord Krishna, who is invariably described in the Hindu literature as being dark of complexion. Also, the title Kanhaya is added to his name Krishna. Kanhaya contains the same consonants K,N,H as does the name Kahan -- in no way an insignificant similarity. But whether any non-Arab prophet was mentioned by name or not is only an academic discussion. There is no denying the fact that the Holy Quran makes it incumbent on every Muslim not only to believe in all the prophets, but it also clearly informs us that in every region of the world and in every age, God did raise messengers and prophets."

Therefore, the Hadith speaks about Krishna as a prophet. But is the Hadith authentic and from where is the source? It has taken me many months to find out, the source of the Hadith is from a book called "Taarikh-i-Hamdaan Dailami" Baab-ul-Kaaf. See Pocket book p: 854 by Malik Abdur Rehman Khadim 6th edition Published in 1952.

But is it authentic? It seems to be weak.

Either way, thanks for the help.

While this is an interesting idea, Abrahamic faiths have absolutely no connection with Hindu deities. Krishna is not thought of by Hindus as a prophet of the God of Abraham, and the cult of Krishna was in fact around long before there were any ideas about a God of Abraham. The primary book about Krishna, (a section of the Mahabharata called the Bhagavad Gita) does not present him as a prophet, but as God himself. A pantheistic god, who is in fact the inmost self of all beings. In fact, Krishna says that no matter what god you worship, it is really him. All gods are permutations of him. If some followers of a later religion such as Islam should decide to try and hijack Krishna as somehow being part of their story, or a prophet of their god, this really has nothing to do with Krishna. Because according to Krishna, any god you believe in is simply a spin off of him, and when you peel away the layers of the onion, he is just you, pretending to be something other than what you really are, which is God.

 

[paarsurrey]

While this is an interesting idea, Abrahamic faiths have absolutely no connection with Hindu deities. Krishna is not thought of by Hindus as a prophet of the God of Abraham, and the cult of Krishna was in fact around long before there were any ideas about a God of Abraham. The primary book about Krishna, (a section of the Mahabharata called the Bhagavad Gita) does not present him as a prophet, but as God himself. A pantheistic god, who is in fact the inmost self of all beings. In fact, Krishna says that no matter what god you worship, it is really him. All gods are permutations of him. If some followers of a later religion such as Islam should decide to try and hijack Krishna as somehow being part of their story, or a prophet of their god, this really has nothing to do with Krishna. Because according to Krishna, any god you believe in is simply a spin off of him, and when you peel away the layers of the onion, he is just you, pretending to be something other than what you really are, which is God.

Well that is an opinion.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Greetings to all of you, especially to the Muslims as I have a question for you:

When I was looking at Wikipedia about Krishna, I see that Ahmadis and followers of Baha'i Faith believe in Krishna to be prophet of God, followers of Baha'i Faith only believe that because their prophet told them that he was, but the Ahmadis claim to have proof of Muhammad teaching that Krishna was prophet of God. They come with this Hadith:

"There was a prophet of God in India who was dark in colour and his name was Kahan."

According to the official Ahmadi website: "Now anyone acquainted with the history of Indian religions would immediately connect this description to Lord Krishna, who is invariably described in the Hindu literature as being dark of complexion. Also, the title Kanhaya is added to his name Krishna. Kanhaya contains the same consonants K,N,H as does the name Kahan -- in no way an insignificant similarity. But whether any non-Arab prophet was mentioned by name or not is only an academic discussion. There is no denying the fact that the Holy Quran makes it incumbent on every Muslim not only to believe in all the prophets, but it also clearly informs us that in every region of the world and in every age, God did raise messengers and prophets."

Therefore, the Hadith speaks about Krishna as a prophet. But is the Hadith authentic and from where is the source? It has taken me many months to find out, the source of the Hadith is from a book called "Taarikh-i-Hamdaan Dailami" Baab-ul-Kaaf. See Pocket book p: 854 by Malik Abdur Rehman Khadim 6th edition Published in 1952.

But is it authentic? It seems to be weak.

Either way, thanks for the help.

I appreciate your research.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The second time that he is mentioned, he is praised yet again as the Company of the Good. These describe Buddha, the name is even a title for Buddha. It is sensical to assume that this man was Buddha.

Will you please provide the reference from Quran in this connection?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Greetings, Acintya_Ash & Poeticus.

I believe that you have both misinterpret what I truly meant to say and I might have not expressed myself eloquently, in my first reply.

Let me give you an insight what I believe about Buddha and why he is the prophet of God:

Buddha is mentioned in the Quran, under the title Dhul-Kifl, Kifl is an Arabic form of "Kapil," which is a shorter form of Kapilavastu, which is where Buddha significantly appeared. God mentions Buddha twice in the Quran as Dhul-Kifl. God praises Buddha as a prophet. The first time Buddha is mentioned in the Quran, he is described as a man of constancy and patience, which is true. He also called him for a righteous man. The second time that he is mentioned, he is praised yet again as the Company of the Good. These describe Buddha, the name is even a title for Buddha. It is sensical to assume that this man was Buddha.

Now, that is what Quran has shared with us about Buddha, now we need to make our own research about the history of Buddha.

Some Buddhist scriptures are written in Pali, but Buddha was born in Nepal and spoke the language that is Sanskrit. This has been unanimously agreed upon by various scholars.

I will now mention some facts that we know about the history of Buddha:

He taught peace and Jihad (i.e striving, good deeds), he met with many of the divine through his asceticism. One of these were Mara (which is Satan), other times he met with God or the Angels. He learned to control his desires and he performed several miracles, such as taming a wild elephant.

What proves Buddha to be a prophet is that several of his teachings are very similar to Quran, Buddha taught about a messiah that will return to restore the true messages of his that has been corrupted, this fulfillment has occurred through Jesus Christ to Mohammad's Quran. He knew that all the prophets' messages will be destroyed and predicted Muhammad to return and restore them through what Jesus originally taught.

We are taught that God has sent prophets to every nation and region:

"And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged." [Q, 10:47]

This verse is reflecting upon what I meant to say. The Quran teaches every nation had a prophet, not to submit to God, but to avoid from being wronged, meaning deviate from idolatry, Buddha always taught that no one should ever worship him or make any sculptures of him, he several times taught that he were no different from any other man.

Because of this, he is still qualified to be called the prophet of God, even if he didn't preach about God. When I say that he were a prophet, I do not mean a messenger or prophet in the sense that he preached what God told him, but I do believe that he was considered to be a curious man that wished to understand why there were misery in this world and had questions to God and he achieved wisdom like no other person, since God had ordained him with divine knowledge and a compassionate universal message, that is very compatible with Islam and why he is a sage and in some sense a prophet as a prophet means to be divine or divinely inspired or having the ability to meet the divine.

Therefore, his silence on submission to God do not change that he still were a prophet, which the first reply of the other user disagreed upon.

I did not say that he preached about submitting yourself to God, what I said is that he weren't silent on God in his everyday times when he had debates, although he were mostly silent in his teachings. But what he spoke about God does not contradict my opinions, I said that he did believe in God and that he received the answers of the questions he asked.

Buddha never taught about this God, but he did believe in the same God. That is what I said.

But, he admitted some kind of truths on that his teachings were not infallible, he admitted that his teachings has the capacity to change and be nullified and abrogated according to times, on what he will adapt to, which is somewhat him saying that his teachings will be changed to fit to those of Jesus and Muhammad's teachings in the future, in my interpretation.

His purpose was only a messenger from God to make the people not to be wronged, which was his job and he did it well, he wasn't supposed to be anything more. He submitted to God by meditating. He was a Muslim in every way, he taught peace, promoted knowledge and submission to yourself. He spread knowledge and awareness in his own way.

The God that Buddha believed in can be found in the Gospel of Buddha by Paul Carus:

From the story "The Two Brahmans;"

The Holy One said: 'The Brahmans cling to the five things leading to worldliness and yield to the temptations of the senses; they are entangled in the five hindrances, lust, malice, sloth, pride, and doubt. How can they be united to that which is most unlike their nature? Therefore the threefold wisdom of the Brahmans is a waterless desert, a pathless jungle, and a hopeless desolation.' When the Buddha had thus spoken, one of the Brahmans said: 'We are told, Gotama, that the Sakyamuni knows the path to a union with Brahma.' And the Blessed One said: 'What do you think, O Brahmans, of a man born and brought up in Manasakata? Would he be in doubt about the most direct way from this spot to Manasakata?' 'Certainly not, Gotama.' 'Thus,' replied the Buddha, 'the Tathagata knows the straight path that leads to a union with Brahma. He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it. There can be no doubt in the Tathagata.' The two young Brahmans said: 'If thou knowest the way show it to us.' And the Buddha said: 'The Tathagata sees the universe face to face and understands its nature. He proclaims the truth both in its letter and in its spirit, and his doctrine is glorious in its origin, glorious in its progress, glorious in its consummation. The Tathagata reveals the higher life in its purity and perfection. He can show you the way to that which is contrary to the five great hindrances. The Tathagata lets his mind pervade the four quarters of the world with thoughts of love. And thus the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere will continue to be filled with love, far-reaching, grown great, and beyond measure. just as a mighty trumpeter makes himself heard--and that without difficulty--in all the four quarters of the earth; even so is the coming of the Tathagata: there is not one living creature that the Tathagata passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free, and deep-felt love.'

Tathagata: What I perceive to be the highest realm in meditation and asceticism, he is referring to the Barzakh.

Brahma: The creative force of Brahman. In other words; the divinity of God.

Brahman: The transcendent absolute being that pervades and supports all reality. Another definition of Brahman is that which is absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything, from the Creator down to the lowest of matter. It, being everywhere, is also in each and every individual.

The word "Brahman" is not a deity in itself, just like "God" does not mean the Christian deity. It's a term to refer to a definition of such a deity that is all-knowing, all-powerful, etcetera. Whose ability is everything. God of Islam fits to the definition of "Brahman."

That, above, is what I meant by "... but his language (Sanskrit) expressed God in a different way."

In this story, we see that Buddha do believe in a supreme God. If Buddha claimed there is no such thing as God, why is he discussing God with Brahmans? By Buddha claiming to know the path to Brahma he was also claiming to know the path to Brahman. In other words, he knew the correct path to God and he preached that path.

Buddha's views on God as you lists are either prior to his Buddhahood or interpolated during the 500 years oral transmission. We are not to expect an unaltered story here. Problem of evil, which was a philosophy Buddha had prior to his enlightenment and prophethood, were only that, philosophies prior to his enlightenment, he had questions and they were answered by God during his enlightenment. They shouldn't be used here.

Thank you for reading my opinions.

I appreciate your research about Buddha.
Regards

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Well that is an opinion.
Regards

Actually I am asserting that what I have stated are facts, not an opinion. Unlike the teachings in the Old and New Testaments, there is no debate among Hindus as to the meaning of the teachings in Hindu texts. They are direct, well thought, unambiguous and do not lend themselves to divergent interpretations. This is one of many ways they differ from Abrahamic texts. That said, did you have a counterpoint that we could discuss?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Lyndon]

You don't know much about God, obviously. Krishna was a man on earth, he can claim as much divinity as Jesus, but nothing much more, same for Buddha, basically they are all prophets of some God, maybe not the same God, but prophets, the idea that a God could walk on earth in their full power is totally preposterous.

 

[kalyan]

You don't know much about God, obviously. Krishna was a man on earth, he can claim as much divinity as Jesus, but nothing much more, same for Buddha, basically they are all prophets of some God, maybe not the same God, but prophets, the idea that a God could walk on earth in their full power is totally preposterous.

No all the accepted Vedic scriptures and BhagawadGita says Sri Krushna is the only Supreme and he is in everything from the smallest atom to entire universe and Sri Krushna is the supreme godhead himself and all others are mini gods employed by him to perform various duties....Idk on what basis hadith has quoted Krushna as prophet of God when all the scriptures clearly say he is supreme brahman?

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

You don't know much about God, obviously. Krishna was a man on earth, he can claim as much divinity as Jesus, but nothing much more, same for Buddha, basically they are all prophets of some God, maybe not the same God, but prophets, the idea that a God could walk on earth in their full power is totally preposterous.

To say that God walking on earth is preposterous is an opinion Lyndon. The opinion of Hindus is that Krishna was God Incarnate. The opinion of the major Christian denominations is that Jesus was God Incarnate. Your opinion is that this is preposterous. I can't say who is right or who is wrong. As for the Buddha, I really don't think he fits in the argument, as he didn't characterize himself as God and insofar as I am aware, doesn't have much to say on the subject.

As for what I know or don't know about God, I have never claimed to know anything about that. I can only tell you what certain religions say. My personal opinion (and this is just an opinion) is that if there is a God, it is not something other than you and me and every other living thing, and not some far off or separate deity. This is simply because of the way I perceive myself and the world around me, and I cannot say that it's actually true, because I really don't know.

 

[paarsurrey]

You don't know much about God, obviously. Krishna was a man on earth, he can claim as much divinity as Jesus, but nothing much more, same for Buddha, basically they are all prophets of some God, maybe not the same God, but prophets, the idea that a God could walk on earth in their full power is totally preposterous.

I appreciate your viewpoint.
Such reply was also given by Mirza Tahir Ahmad to a question asked from him:
Question and Answer with Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, 12 January 1996
http://www.alislam.org/v/546.html
Q2 @ 00:03:58
"My question is about Lord Krishna. We Hindus treat Lord Krishna as the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of all beings. As he himself said, “Of all the creations I am the beginning and the end and the middle. I am unborn and without beginning, though I am the lord of all beings. I still appear every millennium in my original transidental form.” My question is how far this religious philosophy confirms to the philosophy if Islam?"
Regards

 

[arthra]

I see that Ahmadis and followers of Baha'i Faith believe in Krishna to be prophet of God, followers of Baha'i Faith only believe that because their prophet told them that he was, but the Ahmadis claim to have proof of Muhammad teaching that Krishna was prophet of God. They come with this Hadith:

Since this issue has been brought up .. Let me offer a few points. To be more correct.. Baha'is believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God.. that is, that God was manifested in Him. The suggestion that when there is darkness a new Manifestation appears is found in the Baha'i Writings as well as the Gita.

Secondly there are also similarities in our view to the Bhakti or devotional statements in the Bhagavad Gita and the Gospel of John.

Abdu'l-Bahá said:

"The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love. None has ever thought that war and hate are good. Every one agrees in saying that love and kindness are best."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 35

For more information see:

http://bahai-library.com/momen_hinduism_bahai&chapter=2

 

[kalyan]

Since this issue has been brought up .. Let me offer a few points. To be more correct.. Baha'is believe Krishna was a Manifestation of God.. that is, that God was manifested in Him. The suggestion that when there is darkness a new Manifestation appears is found in the Baha'i Writings as well as the Gita.

Secondly there are also similarities in our view to the Bhakti or devotional statements in the Bhagavad Gita and the Gospel of John.

Abdu'l-Bahá said:

"The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love. None has ever thought that war and hate are good. Every one agrees in saying that love and kindness are best."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 35

For more information see:

http://bahai-library.com/momen_hinduism_bahai&chapter=2

there are atleast 2 instances in your posted article

Righteousness

For I am Brahman... The law of righteousness is my law.(41) Bhagavad Gita

Whenever righteousness declines and evil-doing increases, the Almighty Lord, Hari, creates himself. (1)

Hari is none other than Sri Krushna...Vedic texts and BG says Sri Krushna / Sri Maha Vishnu is the supreme godhead, Krushna is an avatara you can say but the very meaning of avatara is come down directly.

Bhagavad Gita, 10.20:

'अहम आत्मा गुडाकेश सर्वभूताशयस्थितः
अहम आदिश च मध्यं च भूतानाम अन्त एव च'

'aham atma gudakesha sarva bhutasaya sthitah
aham adis ca madhyam ca bhutanam anta eva ca'

I am the Supersoul, O Arjuna, seated in the hearts/manas of all entities living and non living and I am in everything in this universe, there is no place where i am not there.

I am at the beginning when I kept all the jivas/souls inside me and I alone was existing at that time,

the middle, to give the jivas/souls a body so that they can surrender to me and reach me as they belong to me.

and the end of all beings, when finally all this world is destroyed and at that point I take back all the jivas/souls plus prakriti(nature) into me

So at all these 3 points of time, jivas are with me only as they belong to me but due to ignorance they are caught up getting attached to materialistic things.

This is Krushna point and BG says he is supreme himself not a messenger of any kind

However i found your posted link interesting, does Baha'i have concept of reincarnation

 

[Aupmanyav]

(speculation time) Krisna had been a Prophet of Allah, and Hinduism had become (as you said earlier) far from Islam... why would he not send a new Prophet to correct the mistakes, ..

(speculation time) Is there a God?

.. the idea that a God could walk on earth in their full power is totally preposterous.

If God/Gods/Goddesses exist and decide to come to earth in the form of a man or a lion, who can stop them from doing what they want?

As for the Buddha, I really don't think he fits in the argument, ..

Well, for Hindus, he surely is. What is the problem in his fitting in the argument.

Abdu'l-Bahá said:

Bahaullah did not say anything about Krishna or any other Hindu God/Goddess. You forget there are Godesses too.

 

[atanu]

?....A pantheistic god, who is in fact the inmost self of all beings. In fact, Krishna says that no matter what god you worship, it is really him. All gods are permutations of him. If some followers of a later religion such as Islam should decide to try and hijack Krishna as somehow being part of their story, or a prophet of their god, this really has nothing to do with Krishna. Because according to Krishna, any god you believe in is simply a spin off of him, and when you peel away the layers of the onion, he is just you, pretending to be something other than what you really are, which is God.

An excellent summary. I will only change 'pantheistic' to 'panentheistic'.

 

[arthra]

However i found your posted link interesting, does Baha'i have concept of reincarnation

Thanks for your question...

Baha'is do not believe in reincarnation.. We believe that the soul ascends to the spiritual worlds of God which are limitless...

"'The Bahá'í view of 'reincarnation' is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the (return of the) attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.'

- Shoghi Effendi

(To an individual believer, March 27, 1938)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 535)