Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Marcion]

Not complicated at all, to me. solution to conflict is merely agreeing to disagree, amicably, without attempts to interfere with other's ways, without the superiority (more accurately inferiority) complex. Different strokes for different folks. This idea of having to agree on everything is just some fantasy, and totally unrealsitic.

I think that satifies you because you have a more religious outlook than I do. I am a very rational person, at least I have the need for a rational understanding of the world and the universe. So myths do not satisfy me. I do realise that spirituality goes beyond understanding things rationally but otherwise I am rather an irreligious person. So if I believe that my preceptor is profoundly rational and at the same time cosmic/spiritual I must believe that his vision is true to reality.

It does not make me feel superior, in fact I dislike feelings of inferiority and superiority as they make me feel uncomfortable and scattered. Agreeing to disagree is fine, but at the same time it leaves an unpleasant feeling of separation from the brother or sister you are conversing with. Surely the internet is bringing people closer together and causes more fusion of ideas which I perceive as a good thing. E.g. many people in the West are accepting the idea of karma (often also reincarnation) despite them not becoming Hindu or Buddhist, even some progressive Christians are accepting these two things. But ideas should always be accepted in a free spirit from inner conviction, not from religious pressure or dogmatic indoctrination.

 

[Jainarayan]

@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."

It may have been something that was misinterpreted and/or passed along incorrectly by a non-Bahai'i. There are many misconceptions in many religions. The Gods know there are plenty of those in Hinduism from non-Hindus.

 

[Vinayaka]

So myths do not satisfy me.

I'm not a Puranic Hindu. I don't take much heed in myths. In my mystical tradition, the training is to study the mind, and in particular one's own mind. But since there is a universal mind, in the process of studying oneself, we also learn about how other mind's operate. So the key to getting along is to understand where another person is coming from, and just leave it at that.

There are many today whose main motivation is fear, fear of understanding themselves, mostly. That helps understand a great many souls in bodies.

 

[Vinayaka]

It may have been something that was misinterpreted and/or passed along incorrectly by a non-Bahai'i. There are many misconceptions in many religions. The Gods know there are plenty of those in Hinduism from non-Hindus.

No, it's the Bahai's here that quote it. Their 'progressive revelation' theory includes Krishna.

 

[Jainarayan]

No, it's the Bahai's here that quote it. Their 'progressive revelation' theory includes Krishna.

I knew I got it from somewhere. Well, wherever it comes from and whoever started it, it's wrong.

 

[Jainarayan]

fear of understanding themselves

Unfortunately I understand myself all too well.

Did I get moksha!? (not after that irreverence! ).

 

[Vinayaka]

I knew I got it from somewhere. Well, wherever it comes from and whoever started it, it's wrong.

I laugh at the way you word things. I suppose you're going to tell me that I'm wrong if I believe New Jersey is an island because it was named after the island of Jersey. Yankees lost. Yay.

 

[Jainarayan]

I laugh at the way you word things. I suppose you're going to tell me that I'm wrong if I believe New Jersey is an island because it was named after the island of Jersey. Yankees lost. Yay.

No, I didn't mean it that way. Sometimes I'm worthy of Norm Crosby or Yogi Berra. I think you may be right about naming New Jersey. But I don't think the Island of Jersey is or was as politically corrupt as the state.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Saying that Krishna is a "manifestation of God" and that he had a "message of love" does not mean very much. Many special people (Maharishi's) were in their own way a special "manifestation of God" and taught (universal) love in their teachings.

However saying that Bahaullah is the "reincarnation or immaculate manifestation of Krishna says a lot about the Bahai faith. They really seem to have little idea about who Lord Krishna was or they would never say such things. Of course no Hindu even would ever say that Krishna would/will reincarnate. If you accept (which I don't) that Krishna was an incarnation or avatar of Vishnu, then you would expect a new avatar of Vishnu and not a reincarnation of Krishna. Deities do not reincarnate, they are no ordinary beings.

I am very happy for you to see Faith the way you choose to. I can say calling Krishna a Manifestation from God, the expounder of Love, has to a Baha'i no higher thought, this is the focus of our lives.

I can tell you that I am happy to see Krishna as a giver of all virtues and as such out of Love for Krishna I will try to live those Virtues. I am Happy to see Krishna is also the same Spirit in all of Gods Mesengers.

As such we can share these Messengers in a diversity of that Love and let all humanity choose their own path.

Peace be with you always, regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No, what I was implying is that the claims are so incredibly varied that one would be tempted to turn into an atheist.
As a person who does not believe in the usefulness of separate religions that comes quite close I guess.
I'm happy for you that you found your Bahaullah but for me he is no comparison whatsoever with Lord Krishna and I don't feel Bahaullah had the knowledge he needed to be able to suggest any such thing if indeed he did so.

Whereas we hold Krishna in the highest of esteem and We would never offer anything but Love for Krishna, even our lives.

I would not deny any of Gods Mesengers, they are the One and same for me and that is a great gift from Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why does it have to be so complicated, why can't all those preceptors just agree on the explanation and hierarchy? Or is this kind of confusion just part of the game God plays with us?

We are told to look at this material realm to understand the Spiritual. All what happens in the Material world is a reflection of spiritual realities.

So if we were to look at the process of the birth of a human being who is at the end of darkness and the beginning of light, we can see also how Religion as a whole is born and developes.

Faith has to be born, it has to be nourished, it will learn to walk, it will go through the terrible 2's, through discovery as a child on to the rebellion of adolescents, into the conflicting teens to the beginning of maturity.

This is the age at the end of adolescence and beginning of maturity.

Regards Tony

 

[YmirGF]

My relationship with Krsna is probably unique on RF. Krsna stepped into my life at a time that was pivotal for me. His role was to change and expand my view of what God is. What I didn't expect, for a second, that these highly creative visitations were actually designed to aid me in understanding personality and to eventually go past all ideas of god into the uncharted realms of being. So, I'll always have a smile for my eternal well-wisher.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

adrian009

Namaste,

In later years some Islamic scholars acknowledged both Buddha and Krishna were founders of a revelation from God, as were their Abrahamic predecessors.

Yes i see this, But I would like to Know why is Krishna the only one being talked about and acknowledged by non Hindus, I know there are the Abrahamic and Dharmics, the history and what not ect ect, but this curiosity is only recently say past 200-250 years (compared to the timescale of Krishna) have the non Hindus gone from calling us all Heathen idolaters to saying maybe Krishna is also a manifestation of God, or he is a Prophet or Jesus is also a Avatar like Krishna - Why Krishna Only is my question.
And it seems you agree, that if Krishna's Name was not Mentioned in the Bahai texts, the Bahais will not consider him a Manifestation of God, and it is only because his name is mentioned that many Bahais are interested to find out if the claim of their scriptures is correct or not.

Does the mythical character status that some Hindus have about Krishna undermine those Hindus who belief He was God?

Yes, this is a rejection (calling Krishna Mythical), and therefore is undermining those who Hindus who claim Krishna was a Historical character.

Now, Do you then Agree the Bahai claim of Krishna is undermining and rejecting the Hindu claim of Krishna?

Personally, I'm entirely comfortable with the words 'incarnation of Vishnu'.

And that is fine with me, but you do agree that Incarnation and Manifestation are not compatible?

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.

So the claim that Krishna (and Sidharta as well) founded a religion, was only a Bahai opinion, but does not form part of the religious theology and scripture of the Bahai faitth.

Are these reasonable portrayals of your beliefs? If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to believe in these Dieties?

My potrayal of MahaDurga Mata would be a Vadic/Vedantic one, the Devi Sukta is sufficient for explanation here:

I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship.
Thus gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.
Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, – each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken.
They know it not, yet I reside in the essence of the Universe. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.
I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that gods and men alike shall welcome.
I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him nourished, a sage, and one who knows Brahman.
I bend the bow for Rudra [Shiva], that his arrow may strike, and slay the hater of devotion.
I rouse and order battle for the people, I created Earth and Heaven and reside as their Inner Controller.
On the world's summit I bring forth sky the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean as Mother.
Thence I pervade all existing creatures, as their Inner Supreme Self, and manifest them with my body.
I created all worlds at my will, without any higher being, and permeate and dwell within them.
The eternal and infinite consciousness is I, it is my greatness dwelling in everything.

– Devi Sukta, Rigveda 10.125.3 – 10.125.8,[32][33][34]

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Marcion

Namaste,

The only real mistake that Buddha made was that he took a negative state as his starting point (that "life is suffering").

Well the reason for the focus of Dukha is a practical one, and i think Sankhya, Veshishika ect and also later Vedanta and bhakti traditions also focused on Dukha and how to alleviate it.

If you read the Sankhya karika for example, the vary first sutra is about Dukha and how to remove it, and therefore what Sidharta says about Dukha was and is the most important topic of discussion within the Astika Darshans and Nastika Darshans as well.

Dhanyavad

 

[Marcion]

Well the reason for the focus of Dukha is a practical one, and i think Sankhya, Veshishika ect and also later Vedanta and bhakti traditions also focused on Dukha and how to alleviate it.

If you read the Sankhya karika for example, the vary first sutra is about Dukha and how to remove it, and therefore what Sidharta says about Dukha was and is the most important topic of discussion within the Astika Darshans and Nastika Darshans as well.

Namaskar,
It is however a mistake to start any spiritual endeavor with wanting to escape from something negative. Christians have their 'I am a sinner' as their negative starting point. It is a bad idea to ideate in any way that you are something negative.
AMPS has as its starting point that the essence of life is bliss (anandam).

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Marcion

Namaste,

It is however a mistake to start any spiritual endeavor with wanting to escape from something negative. Christians have their 'I am a sinner' as their negative starting point. It is a bad idea to ideate in any way that you are something negative.
AMPS has as its starting point that the essence of life is bliss (anandam).

Well this is the great thing about Dharmic Systems, weather one starts with the Problem (Dukha) or one starts with the Remedy (Ananda), the purpose remains the same, which is to alleviate Dukha by isolating the causes.

I would not call either approach a "mistake'.

Dhanyavad

 

[Dawnofhope]

Namaste,

Yes i see this, But I would like to Know why is Krishna the only one being talked about and acknowledged by non Hindus, I know there are the Abrahamic and Dharmics, the history and what not ect ect, but this curiosity is only recently say past 200-250 years (compared to the timescale of Krishna) have the non Hindus gone from calling us all Heathen idolaters to saying maybe Krishna is also a manifestation of God, or he is a Prophet or Jesus is also a Avatar like Krishna - Why Krishna Only is my question.

I can not speak for non-Hindus as a whole but can provide my opinion. I suspect with the world becoming a global village and as we learn more about each others cultures, Krishna becomes distinguished as a towering figure hsitorically, within the beliefs of many Hindus as is clearly recorded in the Gita and Puranas.

Idol worship has seen in a negative light particularly through the historic circumstances in which Judaism and Islam arose. Although Christ spoke little of idol worship, His religion originated from within Judaism. Baha'u'llah had little to say of idol worship.

I have no need for idols as part of my devotions but if others feel the need then that's fine. I believe in tolerance and diversity.

And it seems you agree, that if Krishna's Name was not Mentioned in the Bahai texts, the Bahais will not consider him a Manifestation of God, and it is only because his name is mentioned that many Bahais are interested to find out if the claim of their scriptures is correct or not.

In regards Krishna in the Baha'i sacred writing, its there in the OP. He's certainly there and there's no doubt we consider Him a Manifestation of God. I have no problem with the little that is written which makes perfect sense.

Yes, this is a rejection (calling Krishna Mythical), and therefore is undermining those who Hindus who claim Krishna was a Historical character.

That sounds very intolerant. The three Hindus I've talked to in recent times all have very different perspectives about Krishna. One believes Him to be mythical, another has no particular opinion or belief at all about Krishna, and yet another sees Him as some Great Being with occultic powers. It doesn't bother me at all that Hindus have diverse beliefs about Krishna.

Now, Do you then Agree the Bahai claim of Krishna is undermining and rejecting the Hindu claim of Krishna?

And that is fine with me, but you do agree that Incarnation and Manifestation are not compatible?

You may want to consider the responses of some other Hindus on this thread.

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Sounds diverse to me. I have no problem with any of these perspectives.I understand the distinction between incarnation and manifestation and how the two can overlap.

So the claim that Krishna (and Sidharta as well) founded a religion, was only a Bahai opinion, but does not form part of the religious theology and scripture of the Bahai faitth.

If Krishna was a real person, its the most likely of all options from an historic perspective, unless you want to believe the term and use of the word Hinduism predates Krishna.

My potrayal of MahaDurga Mata would be a Vadic/Vedantic one, the Devi Sukta is sufficient for explanation here:

I am the Queen, the gatherer-up of treasures, most thoughtful, first of those who merit worship.
Thus gods have established me in many places with many homes to enter and abide in.
Through me alone all eat the food that feeds them, – each man who sees, breathes, hears the word outspoken.
They know it not, yet I reside in the essence of the Universe. Hear, one and all, the truth as I declare it.
I, verily, myself announce and utter the word that gods and men alike shall welcome.
I make the man I love exceeding mighty, make him nourished, a sage, and one who knows Brahman.
I bend the bow for Rudra [Shiva], that his arrow may strike, and slay the hater of devotion.
I rouse and order battle for the people, I created Earth and Heaven and reside as their Inner Controller.
On the world's summit I bring forth sky the Father: my home is in the waters, in the ocean as Mother.
Thence I pervade all existing creatures, as their Inner Supreme Self, and manifest them with my body.
I created all worlds at my will, without any higher being, and permeate and dwell within them.
The eternal and infinite consciousness is I, it is my greatness dwelling in everything.

– Devi Sukta, Rigveda 10.125.3 – 10.125.8,[32][33][34]

Thanks for that. She sounds remarkably similar to the God I believe in. Funny thing that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009

Why does bahai (HOJ?) believe one interpretation of Krishna and not Hindu version?

Kinda like Muslims believe in their view of christ rather than accepting christian view.

I really have no problem with diversity and tolerance. We are free to believe what makes the most sense to us. I don't believe anyone has the authority to impose beliefs on another.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My relationship with Krsna is probably unique on RF. Krsna stepped into my life at a time that was pivotal for me. His role was to change and expand my view of what God is. What I didn't expect, for a second, that these highly creative visitations were actually designed to aid me in understanding personality and to eventually go past all ideas of god into the uncharted realms of being. So, I'll always have a smile for my eternal well-wisher.

That's certainly a unique experience.

 

[Marcion]

I really have no problem with diversity and tolerance. We are free to believe what makes the most sense to us. I don't believe anyone has the authority to impose beliefs on another.

This is a forum where people are free to speak about ideas or theories they have little regard for (as long as they don't say things in a nasty way and motivate their opinion).