You are jumping at shadows lol. The only threat and tactics are the ones you imagine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who was Krishna in your tradition?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
You are jumping at shadows lol. The only threat and tactics are the ones you imagine.
You have a sneaky and funny way of discussing. But my point still stands strong.
Your leaders want to convert all the Hindus but need to take a closer look at the nature of their own ideology first.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Despite the suspicions and paranoia you seem like an intelligent guy. You seem happy in your faith as I am with mine. I have no wish to convert you.
Krishna is part of my religion as is Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. I'm really interested in Hinduism as I am all the other main religions.
Practically all the threads I have started while on RF have been about faiths other than my own. Why? Because I'm interested in learning new things. I don't make threads about the Baha'i Faith because I know all about the Baha'i Faith. I have minimal interest in advertising my religion. If people ask me about the Baha'i Faith I will explain. Otherwise I'm happy to met people of different Faiths and learn about their beliefs. Thats how it works.
This reminds me of a story I heard from some Persian Baha'is. In Iran where the Baha'i Faith originated, some Muslims are very paranoid and suspicious of the Baha'is and how they might convert them. It is even rumoured that we have a special type of tea that we get people to drink. Once they drink the 'Baha'i' tea, its like their mind and spirit is mysteriously affected. Why else would people become Baha'is. We seem like ordinary harmless people otherwise.
So a Muslim man had become friends with a Baha'i couple and everytime he went to their home he declined tea. Eventually he disclosed the reason. It was Baha'i tea. If he drunk it, he would become a Baha'i. The Baha'i couple found this extremely amusing so in a moment of silliness they restrained their friend and had him drink some of the tea. To their shock, their friend, stood up and seriously declared "OK, now I have become a Baha'i, what do you want me to go!"
Of course I have no idea whether the story is true or false. Sometimes I have no idea whose religion is true and false including my own. It doesn't matter. The wind blows where the wind blows.
So a Muslim man had become friends with a Baha'i couple and everytime he went to their home he declined tea. Eventually he disclosed the reason. It was Baha'i tea. If he drunk it, he would become a Baha'i. The Baha'i couple found this extremely amusing so in a moment of silliness they restrained their friend and had him drink some of the tea. To their shock, their friend, stood up and seriously declared "OK, now I have become a Baha'i, what do you want me to go!"
Of course I have no idea whether the story is true or false. Sometimes I have no idea whose religion is true and false including my own. It doesn't matter. The wind blows where the wind blows.
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste, Thanks (Dhanyavad) for your reply back,
It seems Krishna is most popular among the Non Hindus more then other Avatars (such as Ram) but i still cant understand why, for you and probably other Bahai's it seems that this intrigue and curiosity of Krishna only arises because his name is mentioned in your text as being a manifestation of God, but as i read further on the Bahai concept of Manifestation it seems this is referring to "Prophet", or a person who God speaks through.
Now for many Hindus Krishna IS God (Avatar- incarnation or Coming of Vishnu to Human level), and there is no idea of any God speaking through a Avatar, because that does not make sense from a Hindu perspective.
Now as the Bahai faith does not have enough information on Krishna specifically, don't you think that the Bahai claim of Krishna (a manifestation of God or Prophet) kind of undermines the Hindu claim of Krishna (Avatar or Vishnu in the flesh)? This is because the idea of a intermediary between God and Humans is not applicable to Avatar, the Avatar IS God, a intermediary is not required in Hindu concept of Avatar.
If we take manifestation of God as being a Prophet, then this would be in conformance with the Islamic claim that Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah, therefore there is no discrepancy in this Bahai claim from my perspective.
This is kind of contradictory to this Wiki page that you provided;
Manifestation of God - Wikipedia
From this wiki:
The concept of Avatar in Hinduism would be more akin to Incarnation, and not Manifestation according to Bahai faith, therefore would not this imply a lessening of Krishna from a Incarnation to a Manifestation?
As you want to know the Hindu position on a Hindu deity, would it not be more respectful toward Hindus if the Bahai acknowledge Krishna as incarnation of Vishnu?
Well this is also incorrect, Krishna was not a founder of any religion, if so can you please advise which religion did Krishna start?
Well it kinda does, especially because Krishna is not really portrayed at all in your faith, only his Name gets mentioned with Buddha ect.
Now i don't really know if the Bahai should be focusing on Krishna at all, especially claiming Krishna as a Manifestation and not Incarnation. Should the Bahai have respect for Hindu claims about Krishna or respect the teachings of Krishna then you are more then welcome to include Krishna in your theology.
Now i would appreciate it more if a Bahai says that "Krishna is a great Avatar (Incarnation as Hindus believe), and we respect his teachings, but i consider the Bahai Prophet or Manifestation as my guide.", Just like i would say the Bahai have a peaceful faith, i respect all Bahai prophets but Krishna is by IstDevta and guide.
My IstDevi is Durga Mata. MahaKali is what i worship.
Dhanyavad
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Who else is considered an Avatar in Hinduism? And, wouldn't there be many that are close to fitting the Baha'i definition of "manifestation" in Hinduism?
And, what is Buddha considered? What I've heard is that he was a normal human that meditated and got enlightened. Again, isn't there many sages and gurus in Hinduism that would be considered to have reached "enlightenment"?
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
See below for more on Avatar.
Avatar - Wikipedia
Also have some Modern Claims of Avatar
List of avatar claimants - Wikipedia
As for people in Hinduism being considered as intermediates between a inaccessible God and Humans, i would say that i have not come across any, so far.
I found this snipets of a article on the Net, which explains why Avatar would be more akin (although unlike the christian version) of incarnation.
I don't have money to pay for the full paper, but this few paragraphs are sufficient in this context.
Project MUSE - Hindu Avatara and Christian Incarnation: A Comparison
For me personally Sidharta Gautama would be a Rishi "one who sees", and will be on par with other Risi of the time such as Kapila, Patangali, Vyasa, ect ect, all the Risi were enlighten in my view.
Dhanyavad
Namaste Dhanyavad,
Two religious lineages need to be acknowledged, Abrahamic and Dharmic. When we talk about Abrahamic we begin with Adam and then move onto Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad and then for Baha'is the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Any Teachings or traces of the religion brought by Adam, Noah, and Abraham have been lost. Judaism which is founded on the Teachings of Moses originated in Egypt about 3,500 years ago. Christianity emerged from Judaism through Christ who brought a new Revelation from God nearly two thousand years ago. Muhammad had a vision from the angel Gabriel in the cave of Hira 610 AD and founded a new religion that draws significantly on traditions from both Judaism and Christianity. In later years some Islamic scholars acknowledged both Buddha and Krishna were founders of a revelation from God, as were their Abrahamic predecessors.
We have religious traditions that emerged out of India including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Krisha was thought to have lived about 5,000 years ago and Buddha born in India about 2,500 years ago.
The Baha'i Faith emerged from Persia in the nineteenth century and acknowledges both Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths. The language in which the Baha'i Faith is presented in Wikipaedia is for an Abrahamic audience.
I appreciate the distinction between a physical and spiritual incarnation of God. In that literal sense, the belief about Krishna amongst many Hindus is very much like the belief Christians have about Christ. Baha'is are not Hindus or Christians of course, but we believe both Christ and Krishna were Manifstations of God. There appears to be widely differing beliefs amongst Hindus about Krishna from Him being a literal incarnation to a mythical character who never existed. A Baha'i perspective is much more similar though not exactly the same as an incarnation of Vishnu.
Does the mythical character status that some Hindus have about Krishna undermine those Hindus who belief He was God?
Muslims would argue strongly against the Manifestation of God concept saying Muhammad never claimed any such thing about Himself. The words Messenger and Prophet are words that Muhammad would have used. When we are using words such as Prophet and Messenger there are many meanings. The word is used in different contexts in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. It is an Abrahamic word used to discuss Abrahamic concepts, but I don't believe the ideas necessarily exclude Dharmic Faiths.
It certainly does not fit concepts of Avatar and Incarnation if they are precisely defined.
Personally, I'm entirely comfortable with the words 'incarnation of Vishnu'.
I don't think anyone knows for certain. It seems there was a distinct tradition founded on Krishna given His importance in the history of Hinduism. You may have an alterantive explanation but wouldn't you be speculating as much as I am.
Western scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions. Among its roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India itself already the product of "a composite of the Indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations", but also the Sramana or renouncer traditions of northeast India, and mesolithic and neolithic cultures of India, such as the religions of the Indus Valley Civilisation, Dravidian traditions, and the local traditions and tribal religions.
History of Hinduism - Wikipedia
I appreciate your Hindu perspective. Krishna and Buddha are enormously important historic figures for Baha'is and amonst eight known Manifestations of God where religious traditiosn still exist. As I explore what that means, for me as a Baha'i its very helpful to hear the reflections of Hindu's such as yourself. My reading of the Bhagavad Gita is that its in harmony with what I believe as a Baha'i, but then I'm reading it as a Baha'i and not a HIndu.
Thanks for that. I see you live in Sydney.
Durga - Wikipedia
Mahakali - Wikipedia
Are these reasonable portrayals of your beliefs? If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to believe in these Dieties?
Kind Regards
Adrian
Two religious lineages need to be acknowledged, Abrahamic and Dharmic. When we talk about Abrahamic we begin with Adam and then move onto Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad and then for Baha'is the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Any Teachings or traces of the religion brought by Adam, Noah, and Abraham have been lost. Judaism which is founded on the Teachings of Moses originated in Egypt about 3,500 years ago. Christianity emerged from Judaism through Christ who brought a new Revelation from God nearly two thousand years ago. Muhammad had a vision from the angel Gabriel in the cave of Hira 610 AD and founded a new religion that draws significantly on traditions from both Judaism and Christianity. In later years some Islamic scholars acknowledged both Buddha and Krishna were founders of a revelation from God, as were their Abrahamic predecessors.
We have religious traditions that emerged out of India including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. Krisha was thought to have lived about 5,000 years ago and Buddha born in India about 2,500 years ago.
The Baha'i Faith emerged from Persia in the nineteenth century and acknowledges both Abrahamic and Dharmic Faiths. The language in which the Baha'i Faith is presented in Wikipaedia is for an Abrahamic audience.
I appreciate the distinction between a physical and spiritual incarnation of God. In that literal sense, the belief about Krishna amongst many Hindus is very much like the belief Christians have about Christ. Baha'is are not Hindus or Christians of course, but we believe both Christ and Krishna were Manifstations of God. There appears to be widely differing beliefs amongst Hindus about Krishna from Him being a literal incarnation to a mythical character who never existed. A Baha'i perspective is much more similar though not exactly the same as an incarnation of Vishnu.
Does the mythical character status that some Hindus have about Krishna undermine those Hindus who belief He was God?
Muslims would argue strongly against the Manifestation of God concept saying Muhammad never claimed any such thing about Himself. The words Messenger and Prophet are words that Muhammad would have used. When we are using words such as Prophet and Messenger there are many meanings. The word is used in different contexts in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. It is an Abrahamic word used to discuss Abrahamic concepts, but I don't believe the ideas necessarily exclude Dharmic Faiths.
It certainly does not fit concepts of Avatar and Incarnation if they are precisely defined.
Personally, I'm entirely comfortable with the words 'incarnation of Vishnu'.
I don't think anyone knows for certain. It seems there was a distinct tradition founded on Krishna given His importance in the history of Hinduism. You may have an alterantive explanation but wouldn't you be speculating as much as I am.
Western scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions. Among its roots are the historical Vedic religion of Iron Age India itself already the product of "a composite of the Indo-Aryan and Harappan cultures and civilizations", but also the Sramana or renouncer traditions of northeast India, and mesolithic and neolithic cultures of India, such as the religions of the Indus Valley Civilisation, Dravidian traditions, and the local traditions and tribal religions.
History of Hinduism - Wikipedia
I appreciate your Hindu perspective. Krishna and Buddha are enormously important historic figures for Baha'is and amonst eight known Manifestations of God where religious traditiosn still exist. As I explore what that means, for me as a Baha'i its very helpful to hear the reflections of Hindu's such as yourself. My reading of the Bhagavad Gita is that its in harmony with what I believe as a Baha'i, but then I'm reading it as a Baha'i and not a HIndu.
Thanks for that. I see you live in Sydney.
Durga - Wikipedia
Mahakali - Wikipedia
Are these reasonable portrayals of your beliefs? If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to believe in these Dieties?
Kind Regards
Adrian
Last edited:
To answer the OP: a deity/mythical person from another religion that is irrelevant to mine.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
@Terese @Aupmanyav @Marcion @Vinayaka @Jainarayan @CG Didymus @ameyAtmA @Satyamavejayanti
I haven't been able to find Krishna being called a "Manifestation of God" anywhere in Baha'i scriptures. Does anyone know where that's coming from? All I found Baha'i scriptures saying about Krishna is that he was "the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity." I also see Baha'u'llah being called "the reincarnation of Krishna," and "the Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna."
I haven't been able to find Krishna being called a "Manifestation of God" anywhere in Baha'i scriptures. Does anyone know where that's coming from? All I found Baha'i scriptures saying about Krishna is that he was "the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity." I also see Baha'u'llah being called "the reincarnation of Krishna," and "the Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna."
Jim
Nets of Wonder
This is the most learned Baha'i opinion that I could find about Krishna:My apologies, i am not at all informed about Baha'i scriptures. Regardless, this is something you may need to ask another Bahai who is learned in your religion's conception of Krishna, not a Hindu.
"Your question concerning Brahma and Krishna: such matters, as no reference occurs to them in the Teachings, are left for students of history and religion to resolve and clarify."
- Shoghi Effendi or on his behalf, April 14, 1941, to an individual Baha'i
There is no Baha'i scripture that refers specifically to Krishna as being a Manifestation of God but it is strongly implied through a number of references in both Baha'i writings and the statements of the Guardian.
For example the Guardian has said:
Concerning the uniqueness of Bahá’u’lláh’s station and the greatness of His Revelation, Shoghi Effendi affirms that the prophetic statements concerning the “Day of God”, found in the Sacred Scriptures of past Dispensations, are fulfilled by the advent of Bahá’u’lláh:
To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the “Everlasting Father”, the “Lord of Hosts” come down “with ten thousands of saints”; to Christendom Christ returned “in the glory of the Father”; to Shí’ah Islám the return of the Imám Ḥusayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the “Spirit of God” (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha.
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 233-234
You will note a clear reference to Krishna as being a Manifestation of God on the authorised Baha'i website.
Manifestations of God | What Bahá’ís Believe
That does make more sense since I would not expect your preceptor Bahaullah or the other Bahai leaders to have much if any knowledge about the meaning of such divine personalities as Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna. Their deeper understanding of these Personalities would otherwise have become clear from their writings.
Shrii Shrii Anandamurti calls Buddha a Maharishi, I would think because he founded such a great path (samgha) and was himself an enlightened human. The only real mistake that Buddha made was that he took a negative state as his starting point (that "life is suffering").
Last edited:
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Whoever wrote that is not an authorized interpreter of Baha’i scriptures.
