Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Dawnofhope]

Whoever wrote that is not an authorized interpreter of Baha’i scriptures.

I think the Universal House of Justice would have twigged by now if it wasn't correct, don't you?

The Universal House of Justice elucidates the matter in a letter that references one of the Guardian's comments I included in the OP.

In a letter written on behalf of the beloved Guardian to an individual believer there appears the following statement:

"The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Babi and Bahá'í Dispensations, Bahá'u'lláh being the Ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabeans whose name is unrecorded, the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh."

It can, therefore, be confidently stated that the teachings of the Faith name Krishna as a Manifestation of God. In light, however, of the other statements of the Guardian, in which he stresses the paucity of our information about the beginnings of Hinduism, we should be cautious not to assert the historical accuracy of specific stories related about Krishna. A similar case where allegorical statements and legends surround the figure of a known Manifestation of God is that of Adam.

Krishna, historiography of; Meaning of "Qayyúm"

 

[Dawnofhope]

To answer the OP: a deity/mythical person from another religion that is irrelevant to mine.

Welcome back

 

[Jim]

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.

Baha’is calling Krishna a Manifestation of God are just giving their own opinion about it. That includes whoever wrote that on the Baha’i website. That might be a popular opinion among Baha’is. I used to think that way myself, but now I’m reconsidering, from seeing discussions like this. Besides, I have a different view from other Baha’is about what Bahá’u’lláh meant by “Manifestation of God,” so even if Abdu’l-Baha did mean to say that Krishna was a Manifestation of God, he might not have meant it the way most Baha’is do, like interchangeable tires.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Welcome back

Thanks.

 

[Jim]

I just want people to know that I personally object to people superimposing Baha'i concepts and terminology on other people's religions

 

[Jim]

Please, don't anyone think that just because I'm a member of the Baha'i Faith and learning to follow Baha'u'llah, don't think that I agree with any Baha'is in Internet discussions about anything.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Please, don't anyone think that just because I'm a member of the Baha'i Faith and learning to follow Baha'u'llah, don't think that I agree with any Baha'is in Internet discussions about anything.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!

You are infinitesimally insignificant. You stand nowhere among the big boys.

I have no wish to convert you. .. Because I'm interested in learning new things.

That is not what the Guardian said. He was very clear about it. As Marcion said, you are a creepy guy.

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.

Yes, as a Muslim, he had no business to associate with people of other faiths. Allah said that in his book. Mohammad has the last message, not Bahaullah. Did he not have tea in his home? Why did he go to a Bahai home? And see the result, he became a Mushrik and a sinner in the eyes of Allah.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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"?

For Hindus, Buddha is the ninth and currently the last avatara of Lord Vishnu. Sure, there have been many realized sages over the ages.

According to Advaita Philosophy in Hinduism, even a street dog is none other than Brahman or even a grain of sand. Because Brahman is the only thing that exists, there is none other. Clear and final.

"Eko Sad, Dwiteeho Nasti. Nasti, Nasti, Na Nasti Kinchana."
(What exists is one, there is no second. No, no, no, not in the least.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical, although a "Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. .. The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites may go back to the 7th-century BCE sources of the Deuteronomist, .. Biblical minimalists such as Philip R. Davies and Niels Peter Lemche regard all biblical books, and the stories of an Exodus, united monarchy, exile and return as fictions composed by a social elite in Yehud in the Persian period or even later, the purpose being to legitimize a return to indigenous roots.
Moses - Wikipedia

Yehud Medinata (Aramaic for "the province of Judah"), or simply Yehud, was an autonomous province of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, roughly equivalent to the older kingdom of Judah but covering a smaller area, within the satrapy of Eber-Nari. The area of Yehud Medinata corresponded to the previous Babylonian province of Yehud, which was formed after the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (c. 597 after its conquest of the Mediterranean east coast, and again in 585/6 BCE after suppressing an unsuccessful Judean revolt). Yehud Medinata continued to exist for two centuries, until being incorporated into the Hellenistic empires following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Yehud Medinata - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does the mythical character status that some Hindus have about Krishna undermine those Hindus who belief He was God?
Personally, I'm entirely comfortable with the words 'incarnation of Vishnu'.
Are these reasonable portrayals of your beliefs? If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to believe in these Dieties?

Such people are very few. Hinduism has no problem with their views as it is perfectly OK in Hinduism to differ.
As also Vishnu being the Supreme God?
Perfectly reasonable. To choose a personal deity is an individual's right.

 

[Jim]

I think the Universal House of Justice would have twigged by now if it wasn't correct, don't you?

The House of Justice has no authority to correct anyone’s interpretations of Baha’i scriptures. I don’t think that the House of Justice reviews books or articles about the Faith. I’m not even sure that everything on that site is reviewed by a national spiritual assembly.

In a letter written on behalf of the beloved Guardian to an individual believer there appears the following statement:

"The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Babi and Bahá'í Dispensations, Bahá'u'lláh being the Ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabeans whose name is unrecorded, the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh."

It can, therefore, be confidently stated that the teachings of the Faith name Krishna as a Manifestation of God.

That’s enough for me to think that Krishna was what Bahá’u’lláh said, that is translated into English as “Manifestation of God.” Do you think that you or I, or any other Baha’i, fully understand what God means by that?

 

[Jim]

At least Bahaullah did not say anything more insulting about Lord Krishna than calling him a so-called prophet in the Abrahamic style of thinking. Let's look on it from the positive side, he simply did not know any better.

I’ve never seen or heard of anything that Bahá’u’lláh said about Krishna. Someone writing on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf responded to a question that someone asked, including Krishna in a list of prophets. The response used the terminology in which the question was asked. It seems like a long stretch to me, from there to saying that Bahá’u’lláh called him a prophet in Abrahamic style of thinking.

 

[Marcion]

So who has the authority or rather Who is in a position to know the real status of Lord Krishna? The answer depends on whether you believe there is or was such an authority and if you indeed believe there was, who that Authority was.

I write Authority with capital 'A' because no ordinary person can know such things for sure, He will have to have a perfect knowledge of all the things that went on in the distant past (and future).

 

[Jim]

So who has the authority or rather Who is in a position to know the real status of Lord Krishna? The answer depends on whether you believe there is or was such an authority and if you indeed believe there was, who that Authority was.

I write Authority with capital 'A' because no ordinary person can know such things for sure, He will have to have a perfect knowledge of all the things that went on in the distant past (and future).

Are you asking my opinion? In my opinion, if there is any such authority, it is certainly not any Baha’i or Baha’i institution. In any case, I don’t see that Baha’is have any privileged status in answering the question.

"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

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is not what the Guardian said. He was very clear about it. As Marcion said, you are a creepy guy.

Being on RF and discussing and learning about different religions has its challenges. One challenge is being misunderstood and insulted. I haven't been called 'creepy' before.

The Guardian said a lot of things at different times in different contexts. I had never read it before. Where the Baha'i Faith was 82 years ago and where it is now are very different.

Yes, as a Muslim, he had no business to associate with people of other faiths. Allah said that in his book. Mohammad has the last message, not Bahaullah. Did he not have tea in his home? Why did he go to a Bahai home? And see the result, he became a Mushrik and a sinner in the eyes of Allah.

The Baha'i Faith teaches associating with people of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. The Muslim was probably a Baha'i at heart and just didn't know it. I have no problem with people leaving and joining different Faiths including my own. What works for one may not work for another.

 

[Jim]

So who has the authority or rather Who is in a position to know the real status of Lord Krishna? The answer depends on whether you believe there is or was such an authority and if you indeed believe there was, who that Authority was.

I write Authority with capital 'A' because no ordinary person can know such things for sure, He will have to have a perfect knowledge of all the things that went on in the distant past (and future).

Bahá’u’lláh might have had that authority, but if He ever said anything about Krishna, I’ve never seen or heard anything about it. Abdu’l-Baha might have had that authority, but all I see Abdu’l-Baha saying is that Krishna was “the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity.” Considered in the context of everything else Abdu’l-Baha says about Manifestations of God, I think that He meant to say that Krishna was one, but I don’t think that means what people think it means. I think that the point of it is for Baha’is to recognize Hindu lore and scriptures as being authentic sources of divine knowledge, wisdom and inspiration, not so we can claim ownership of them, or authority over them. I’m not sure that even Bahá’u’lláh would claim that. Certainly I don’t think that it gives Baha’is any privileged status in discussions with Hindus about Hinduism.

As I said before, the letter on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf, listing Krishna as one of the prophets, was in answer to a question, using the same terminology as the question. Consider, out all the volumes and volumes of Baha’i writings, that one private message from Shoghi Effendi, is all anyone has been able to find as a reason to call Krishna a “Manifestation of God.”

 

[Dawnofhope]

The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical, although a "Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century B.C." Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure. .. The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites may go back to the 7th-century BCE sources of the Deuteronomist, .. Biblical minimalists such as Philip R. Davies and Niels Peter Lemche regard all biblical books, and the stories of an Exodus, united monarchy, exile and return as fictions composed by a social elite in Yehud in the Persian period or even later, the purpose being to legitimize a return to indigenous roots.
Moses - Wikipedia

Yehud Medinata (Aramaic for "the province of Judah"), or simply Yehud, was an autonomous province of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, roughly equivalent to the older kingdom of Judah but covering a smaller area, within the satrapy of Eber-Nari. The area of Yehud Medinata corresponded to the previous Babylonian province of Yehud, which was formed after the fall of the kingdom of Judah to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (c. 597 after its conquest of the Mediterranean east coast, and again in 585/6 BCE after suppressing an unsuccessful Judean revolt). Yehud Medinata continued to exist for two centuries, until being incorporated into the Hellenistic empires following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Yehud Medinata - Wikipedia

I believe Moses, like Krishna was a real historic character but what we know of them both has been changed with time so their actual history becomes embellished and mythologised. I'm not particularly attached to the details but its good to know about historical research, what key sacred texts say, and how they are seen by their followers.

Who Moses was for the Jews, the differing understandings they have based on the Tanakh and known history is a theme I'm yet to explore in depth. I'll have a conversation with the Jews like I'm having with the Hindus. I suspect that how I see Moses now and how I'll view Him after researching will be quite different. If it does, then that's a good thing. Knowledge changes and evolves. Our understandings shift in subtle and major ways.

Perhaps the Jews will regard me with suspicion. Maybe there's writings about converting the Jews somewhere and someone clever will fish it out and say look...you're trying to convert us.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The House of Justice has no authority to correct anyone’s interpretations of Baha’i scriptures. I don’t think that the House of Justice reviews books or articles about the Faith. I’m not even sure that everything on that site is reviewed by a national spiritual assembly.

I don't see the Universal House of Justice correcting anyone's scriptures. They do bring to light the authoritative interpretations of Shoghi Effendi or any of the Baha'i writings to resolve difficult problems. So the question about what the Baha'i writings say about Krishna is clear. To Baha'is He is a Manifestation of God.

That’s enough for me to think that Krishna was what Bahá’u’lláh said, that is translated into English as “Manifestation of God.” Do you think that you or I, or any other Baha’i, fully understand what God means by that?

I doubt if anyone will ever fully understand let alone agree on anything but a superficial meaning the terms like Manifestation, God, and prophet. I suspect its the same deal for Incarnations, Vishnu, and Avatars. For me, its good to talk to Hindus and hear from them how they see their religion.

 

[Marcion]

I believe Moses, like Krishna was a real historic character but what we know of them both has been changed with time so their actual history becomes embellished and mythologised.

The Purana's have a lot of mythology but the Mahabharata is much more historical.
And there is of course Namámi Krishnasundaram which will give you a historical perspective as well.
That will give you very much more information than any vague remarks about the meaning of Shrii Krishna from the Bahai people.
And don't forget to study Lord Shiva as well, He is as least as important a Teacher as Lord Krishna is.

And don't be tempted to cut down their Personalities into an imagined Abrahamic mold because that would seem more realistic to you because They far outshine all the saints and preceptors of the Abrahamic faiths. In fact They don't Themselves belong to any sect or faith because They belong to the whole of humanity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha’is calling Krishna a Manifestation of God are just giving their own opinion about it.

Jim I do not see it that way, as Krishna has been mentioned in enough detail by the Writings to safely use the term Manifestation of God. After all Baha'u'llah tells us they are one and the same Spirit and Baha'u'llah is the return of that Spirit of Krishna.

These are some of the quotes (I like the 2nd one, it mentions Atheists) ;

1) "An Indian said to Abdu'l-Bahá: 'My aim in life is to transmit as far as in me lies the message of Krishna to the world.'

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

2) "...The Jews await the Messiah, the Christians the return of Christ, the Moslems the Mahdi, the Buddhists the fifth Buddha, the Zoroastrians Shah Bahram, the Hindoos the reincarnation of Krishna, and the Atheists - a better social organization! Bahá'u'lláh represents all these, and thus destroys the rivalries and the enmities of the different religions; reconciles them in their primitive purity, and frees them from the corruption of dogmas and rites." Abdu'l-Baha : Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Volume 1

3) "...He alone (Baha'u'llah) is meant by the prophecy attributed to Gautama Buddha Himself, that "a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship" should, in the fullness of time, arise and reveal "His boundless glory." To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the "Most Great Spirit," the "Tenth Avatar," the "Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna." Shoghi Effendi : God Passes By Part 1

Are you asking my opinion? In my opinion, if there is any such authority, it is certainly not any Baha’i or Baha’i institution. In any case, I don’t see that Baha’is have any privileged status in answering the question.

"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

With that quote, we do not know what was the question was, "Your question concerning Brahma and Krishna" and we do not know what were the "such matters", that "no reference occurs to them in the Teachings".

Edit: Jim I note a few replies were done as I wrote this up and covered most of this reply, it took a while, I got interrupted quite a few times...

Regards Tony