Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Aupmanyav]

@adrian009, Why does bahai (HOJ?) believe one interpretation of Krishna and not Hindu version?

Because they are here to sell Bahaullah and not Krishna.

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.

If Anandmuthy talks about Shiva and Krishna, then he is hardly 'rational'.

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

It was perhaps Akhenaten or Zoroaster who started this "One God" humbug.

Unfortunately I understand myself all too well.
Did I get moksha!? (not after that irreverence! ).

If you do, then you already are Brhman. You don't need 'moksha'.
"Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman)

"Na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau, mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ;
na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."
(I have no hatred or dislike, nor affiliation or liking, nor greed, nor delusion, nor pride or haughtiness, nor feelings of envy or jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kāma), nor even liberation (mokṣa). I am the form of eternal bliss, I am the auspiciousness personified, I am Shiva)
Atma Shatkam - Wikipedia (or Nirvana Shatakam, Verse 3

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'u'llah had little to say of idol worship.

Other than that the practice was bad.

I really have no problem with diversity and tolerance.

No, but you have to make the whole world Bahai (Hindus included) and make them bow before Bahaullah.

 

[Marcion]

. If Anandamurti talks about Shiva and Krishna, then he is hardly 'rational'

If you'll read it, you will see how it is very philosophical and not religious in the way most texts on the subject usually are. Although religious probably means different things to different people.
Anyway, I experience a big difference.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

adrian009

Namaste and Dhanyavad for your reply.

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

My queries was not really about the diverse views of Hindus, all i want to know is would you agree the Bahai claim of Krishna is undermining and rejecting the Hindu claim of Krishna, specifically those that claim Krishna as a Avatar?

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.

Ok, the claim is that "Hinduism", was started by "Krishna", because the word "Hindu", was used after Krishna?

I assume this is your opinion and not part of the Bahai faith?

Can i ask then: Would this claim not undermine the Majority (Maybe All) Hinduism about their own origins?

So did Krishna start the Bahai faith as well, seeing that the word Bahai came after Krishna?

 

[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.

Hindus add nearly four times the number of all Bahais in the world to their ranks each year. Of course, Christians and Muslims do better than us.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Namaste

My queries was not really about the diverse views of Hindus, all i want to know is would you agree the Bahai claim of Krishna is undermining and rejecting the Hindu claim of Krishna, specifically those that claim Krishna as a Avatar?

It’s just a belief like any other belief. We accord Krishna the highest honour and rank to any human. Why should what Baha’is believe about Krishna undermine Hindus anymore than what Hindus believe about Bahaullah undermine what Baha’is believe?

Ok, the claim is that "Hinduism", was started by "Krishna", because the word "Hindu", was used after Krishna?

No, that’s not what I’ve said at all. Hinduism is clearly different from other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and Islam where there is a clear founder and Teachings attributed to that Teacher. Hinduism is what scholars and historians say Hinduism is.

Hinduism is an Indian religion and dharma, or a way of life, widely practised in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Southeast Asia. Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world, and some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal tradition", or the "eternal way", beyond human history. Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions,with diverse roots and no founder. This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE),and flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in India.

Hinduism - Wikipedia

I assume this is your opinion and not part of the Bahai faith?

If you reread my OP you will see how little my faith says about Hinduism. We leave it to scholars of religion and follow their conclusions. If Hinduism is a fusion of religious traditions then those concerning Krishna play an important part.

Can i ask then: Would this claim not undermine the Majority (Maybe All) Hinduism about their own origins?

I think you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.

So did Krishna start the Bahai faith as well, seeing that the word Bahai came after Krishna?

 

[Marcion]

It’s just a belief like any other belief. We accord Krishna the highest honour and rank to any human. Why should what Baha’is believe about Krishna undermine Hindus anymore than what Hindus believe about Bahaullah undermine what Baha’is believe?

If it is "just a belief like any other belief" then you will not mind me saying that expressing your beliefs about Krishna are disrespectful since Krishna is Parama Purusha and not just any human such as Bahaullah, whatever Bahaullah's qualities may have been.

Hinduism is an Indian religion and dharma, or a way of life, widely practised in the Indian subcontinent and parts of Southeast Asia. Hinduism has been called the oldest religion in the world, and some practitioners and scholars refer to it as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal tradition", or the "eternal way", beyond human history. Scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions,with diverse roots and no founder. This "Hindu synthesis" started to develop between 500 BCE and 300 CE, after the end of the Vedic period (1500 BCE to 500 BCE),and flourished in the medieval period, with the decline of Buddhism in India.

Hinduism cannot be both a religion and dharma, those are two incompatible concepts. It is because of your lack of understanding of the concept Dharma that you are saying such nonsense. Hinduism may be called a religion if you refer to the Puranic religion but actually it can be defined in various ways so to call it a religion at all seems not very wise, religion is a Western concept that doesn't apply in that way. Even in Islam the concept of Dharma is known and it is not the same as religion.
Hinduism is not dharma either, Dharma is a spiritual philosophical concept that has no religious or sectarian connotations.

If you deepen your understanding of Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna you will start to realise your faulty interpretation of who They actually were. They cannot in any way be compared to humans like Muhammed, Jesus, Bahaullah, Moses, etc., except that they also walked the earth in a human body and had human parents. There are simply too many differences.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If it is "just a belief like any other belief" then you will not mind me saying that expressing your beliefs about Krishna are disrespectful since Krishna is Parama Purusha and not just any human such as Bahaullah, whatever Bahaullah's qualities may have been.

So what exactly does Parama Purusha mean and how does it differ from an incarnation of Vishnu or a Manifestation of God?

You have been quick to question my motives on this thread and used that as an excuse not to disclose your understanding of Krishna which I suspect is much more left field than anything I have to say.

That being said we’re all entitled to our beliefs.

Hinduism cannot be both a religion and dharma, those are two incompatible concepts. It is because of your lack of understanding of the concept Dharma that you are saying such nonsense. Hinduism may be called a religion if you refer to the Puranic religion but actually it can be defined in various ways so to call it a religion at all seems not very wise, religion is a Western concept that doesn't apply in that way. Even in Islam the concept of Dharma is known and it is not the same as religion.
Hinduism is not dharma either, Dharma is a spiritual philosophical concept that has no religious or sectarian connotations.

So how is Hinduism and Dharma incompatible? Hinduism encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices. Dharma can have many meanings. To say the two are incompatible makes no sense to me.

Religion is a Western concept as Dharma is Eastern. They are words with a diverse array of underlying meanings. We need language to communicate so if you have a better way of expressing the concepts that sheds light for us all, then you please share.

If you deepen your understanding of Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna you will start to realise your faulty interpretation of who They actually were. They cannot in any way be compared to humans like Muhammed, Jesus, Bahaullah, Moses, etc., except that they also walked the earth in a human body and had human parents. There are simply too many differences.

The fact they walked on the earth rather than just mythical figures is a good start. They all had a profound and enduring influence on the hearts and mind of millions. They all taught high moral standards, a spiritual path to enable closer connection with the mystic realm, along with profound spiritual truths.

If Lord Krishna and Shiva are to be seen as uniquely distinct how will you demonstrate that to me and to others?

 

[Marcion]

So what exactly does Parama Purusha mean and how does it differ from an incarnation of Vishnu or a Manifestation of God?

Parama Purusha literally means Great or Cosmic Consciousness. That is not how Muslims see Muhammed nor how Christians see Jesus. Parama Purusha never dies, He has always been there and always will be there. I have already quoted the explanation of the concept of Dharma and explained how to find out more about the meaning of Lords Shiva and Krishna.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Since bahai has different beliefs than hindu, and to each his own in his respective religions, even though krishna is in Bahai text, why consider it hinduism as opposed to saying its bahai belief?

Anyone can use a name from any religion and put their respective definitions and understandings under that name. Using krishna in your faith doesnt make your interpretation hindu. Why use the word or relate yourself to Hindus when you said to us that we have differing faiths despite our similarities of compassion etc?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009

Since bahai has different beliefs than hindu, and to each his own in his respective religions, even though krishna is in Bahai text, why consider it hinduism as opposed to saying its bahai belief?

Anyone can use a name from any religion and put their respective definitions and understandings under that name. Using krishna in your faith doesnt make your interpretation hindu. Why use the word or relate yourself to Hindus when you said to us that we have differing faiths despite our similarities of compassion etc?

For me this has been a life changing thread if that be possible on RF. The mere mention of Krishna has invoked Him as a much stronger reality in my life. I believed in Krishna before I was a Baha’i and believe in Him now though that understanding has evolved and changed. So He is a reality in my life independently of being a Baha’i.

Words such as Baha’i, Hindu, belief, interpretation and religion are just words that can never adequately describe the Trancendant, the Holy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For me this has been a life changing thread if that be possible on RF. The mere mention of Krishna has invoked Him as a much stronger reality in my life. I believed in Krishna before I was a Baha’i and believe in Him now though that understanding has evolved and changed. So He is a reality in my life independently of being a Baha’i.

Words such as Baha’i, Hindu, belief, interpretation and religion are just words that can never adequately describe the Trancendant, the Holy.

Do you agree there is a difference between how you define krishna and how krishna is defined by majority of hindus and their interpretation of the Vedas?

I honestly dont see how the hindu view of krishna is the same krisna you believe. The words are the same, but the source by which this deity is defined? Do you have a hindu experience and cultural practices of this experience that let you see krishna in the same way their Dharma explains it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you agree there is a difference between how you define krishna and how krishna is defined by majority of hindus and their interpretation of the Vedas?

The terms Manifestation of God and Incarnation of Vishnu can have important differences for some Baha’is and Hindus.

It’s important to realise two things in regards Baha’i belief.

1/ The essential reality of the Manifestation of God is as incomprehensible as God in Himself.

2/ Manifestation of God can mean being God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The terms Manifestation of God and Incarnation of Vishnu can have important differences for some Baha’is and Hindus.

It’s important to realise two things in regards Baha’i belief.

1/ The essential reality of the Manifestation of God is as incomprehensible as God in Himself.

2/ Manifestation of God can mean being God.

They are such huge differences that once you deviate from hindu definition to bahai, its no longer hindu.

There is no manifestation in hinduism (@Vinayaka). Even the word avatar, as so keeping up with Hindu beliefs, isnt used by all Hindus. Then you have some who are hindu one hundred percent but dont believe in gods.

So, bahai must have their own definition of hinduism; and, I understand your point of view but from theirs, do you see that it is more than just a difference in beliefs but underminds their faith?

Do you see how differences changes the definition of krishna from a bahai point of view and a hindu one making it no longer hinduism in any sense of the term?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Which goes along with your OP.

Who is krishna? Since your krishna and hindu krishna are different, whose krishna are you actually interested in learning about? Is there a way you can learn about the differenecs in krishna without comparing it to the krishna of the bahai faith?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009

Which goes along with your OP.

Who is krishna? Since your krishna and hindu krishna are different, whose krishna are you actually interested in learning about? Is there a way you can learn about the differenecs in krishna without comparing it to the krishna of the bahai faith?

Throughout this thread I’ve deliberately avoided the comparison for the purpose of learning about Hinduism. If a Hindu has said she believes such and such about Krishna I’ve simply expressed my appreciation for their response and left it at that. My purpose with this thread is to better understand Hinduism. It’s not to convince Hindus that my beliefs about Krishna are any better than their beliefs. It’s certainly not about discussing the Kalki avatar as you mentioned in another post, nor discussing anything about the Baha’i Faith at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Throughout this thread I’ve deliberately avoided the comparison for the purpose of learning about Hinduism. If a Hindu has said she believes such and such about Krishna I’ve simply expressed my appreciation for their response and left it at that. My purpose with this thread is to better understand Hinduism. It’s not to convince Hindus that my beliefs about Krishna are any better than their beliefs. It’s certainly not about discussing the Kalki avatar as you mentioned in another post, nor discussing anything about the Baha’i Faith at all.

Em. Dont know about that. It isnt something you do deliberately. if thats what your saying. But, Im serious. What hinduism are you interested in learning? Hindu says krishna is X and you say (and gave sources) that krishna says Y.

Now, of course Im not hindu nor bahai; but, looking at both sides, it would be easier to separate yourself from "being hindu." I think you would learn more about the different views if you take another aproach. It will take a lot of brain hopping, but probably wont get hindu defensive.

Krishna is defined and is different than bahai views. Do you agree their views are correct to hinduism or are they incorrect? (Not trying to poke at you, just this is a question thats been asked a lot and dont think any bahai answered it directly).

Its kinda hard to learn when your side is mish mashing with theirs based on terminology.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Em. Dont know about that. It isnt something you do deliberately. if thats what your saying. But, Im serious. What hinduism are you interested in learning? Hindu says krishna is X and you say (and gave sources) that krishna says Y.

Now, of course Im not hindu nor bahai; but, looking at both sides, it would be easier to separate yourself from "being hindu." I think you would learn more about the different views if you take another aproach. It will take a lot of brain hopping, but probably wont get hindu defensive.

Krishna is defined and is different than bahai views. Do you agree their views are correct to hinduism or are they incorrect? (Not trying to poke at you, just this is a question thats been asked a lot and dont think any bahai answered it directly).

Its kinda hard to learn when your side is mish mashing with theirs based on terminology.

Ive tried to be as open and transparent as I possibly can be. I think the problem is I belong to an Abrahamic Faith and that’s always going to be poorly received by some Hindus. The unpalatable truth that I see is that some Hindus have just as much prejudice and antipathy towards Abrahamic Faiths as some of the Christians and Muslims they love to criticise.

Christians may talk about false religion and Satan. Some Hindus completely denigrate other’s and their faiths. On the other hand those same Hindus claim to be tolerant and peaceful.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ive tried to be as open and transparent as I possibly can be. I think the problem is I belong to an Abrahamic Faith and that’s always going to be poorly received by some Hindus. The unpalatable truth that I see is that some Hindus have just as much prejudice and antipathy towards Abrahamic Faiths as some of the Christians and Muslims they love to criticise.

Christians may talk about false religion and Satan. Some Hindus completely denigrate other’s and their faiths. On the other hand those same Hindus claim to be tolerant and peaceful.

Shrugs. Everyone has something to say about each others religions. In this case, bahai faith misinterprets hindu faith. The interpretation in bahai scriptures however few doesnt match at all what hindus believe, their culture, and their scripture. Thats the problem.

Its not how you express it (at least to me, youre the only one that is respectful so far longer conversations are concerned) but they (we) are asking about the logic and interpretation your faith, the actual scriptures, says about krishna. What exactly is similar to hindu faith when there is so little you said bahai scripture talks about it. Thats why there is a problem; there is not much to go on to substantiate the relationship between your view of krishna and theirs.

But, my question is, though, how did you experience krishna?

I know you said our wife is Buddhist, right? and you used to be christian? and atheist? but hindu???

Was it just what you feel he represents? Is he god to you (not a manfestation, god himself)?

You know how I feel about cultural respect, but your relating yourself with krishna is a little new for me. Can you explain that?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Shrugs. Everyone has something to say about each others religions.

Exactly.

In this case, bahai faith misinterprets hindu faith. The interpretation in bahai scriptures however few doesnt match at all what hindus believe, their culture, and their scripture. Thats the problem.

I'm not interpreting the Hindu Faith. I'm asking Hindus how they see Krishna.

I'm clear that I am a Baha'i and what my Faith says about both Krishna and Hinduism, which isn't much.

Its not how you express it (at least to me, youre the only one that is respectful so far longer conversations are concerned) but they (we) are asking about the logic and interpretation your faith, the actual scriptures, says about krishna. What exactly is similar to hindu faith when there is so little you said bahai scripture talks about it. Thats why there is a problem; there is not much to go on to substantiate the relationship between your view of krishna and theirs.

Although the Baha'i Faith has little to say about both Krishna and Hinduism, what it does say is very different from its Abrahamic predecessors. That's probably what is so challenging for Hindus and their friends. There is this desire to pigeon hole the Baha'i Faith into something its not. It is this perplexing enigmatic religion which bugs the hell out of some people.

Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad had nothing to say about Krishna and Hinduism. That is not the case with Baha'u'llah or His authorised successors. Krishna isn't just some obscure name. For Baha'is He was a Manifestation of God. Not a false prophet, a mythical character, not inspired by Satan or misguided. That's very different from Christianity. In addition Hinduism becomes a religion with special significance for Baha'is.

So the Baha'is are making comments about other religions and religious figures as everyone else does. We're not interpreting Hinduism though. Some Hindus here have been great. They have dropped in, answered the question and then moved on as they should. There are several Hindus that are clearly aggravated. Responses are along the lines of "get lost", "You are trying to convert us", "You are proselytizing", "You are interpreting Hindu scripture for us", "You are telling us what to think and believe about our own religion", "You can't say anything about our religion", and "Whatever you say about our religion has to be exactly how we see our religion".

But, my question is, though, how did you experience krishna?

I know you said our wife is Buddhist, right? and you used to be christian? and atheist? but hindu???

Was it just what you feel he represents? Is he god to you (not a manfestation, god himself)?

You know how I feel about cultural respect, but your relating yourself with krishna is a little new for me. Can you explain that?

Over 30 years ago I sought to discover the meaning of life and lived in the countryside for 2 1/2 years. Inspired by what I read from Hindu and Buddhist literature I meditated morning and evening, communed with nature, and had as my goal to achieve enlightenment or find a guru who could assist me. The Bhagavad Gita and books from the likes of Yogananda were important to me. I had a period of about 1 - 2 years as a vegetarian. Although I reconnected with a Christian church when I moved back to the city I had changed. In addition to attending a Baptist church I was also attending Buddhist and Baha'i meetings. I would have tried to find a connection with Hinduism but there was no temple or community centre in my town at that stage. The biggest challenge for me on becoming a Baha'i was reconciling my belief in reincarnation with the Baha'i religion that didn't agree.

In hindsight I don't think I could never have fully committed myself to a Faith that rejected Hinduism and Buddhism. The Baha'i Faith affirms it, whereas Christianity rejects it. The problem with Hinduism and Buddhism is they fail to acknowledge Christianity. The Baha'i Faith affirms it. The problem for me with Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism is they are not universal religions. The Baha'i Faith is. Unless you are a universalist it will be impossible to appreciate how I can love Baha'u'llah, Christ, Krishna and Buddha.

You know how I feel about cultural respect, but your relating yourself with krishna is a little new for me. Can you explain that?

I hope that makes some sense for you.