Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[atanu]

This question is mainly for Hindus but open for anyone who would like to offer some respectful thoughts or insights...
So who was Krishna? What do we know of Krishna from history and Hindu traditions?

Although in sruti (Vedas and Upanishads), Krishna is a disciple of sage Ghora, in smriti (Gita) and purAna (bhagavata and vishnu purAna etc.) tradition, Shri Krishna is paramatman (brahman). Shri Krishna says in Gita "I am atma in all beings", which means the awareness of 'I' in all beings. In advaita, tradition, a self realised is the self that has realised all beings in one's self and oneself in all beings.. Vedantic schools, including the advaita school, consider Shri Krishna as paramatman (brahman).

Some spiritual teachers consider Gita to be an immortal dialogue between soul (living soul-jivatman) and the spirit (brahman). And Mahabharata to be a story wherein the characters are of spiritual symbolism. It depicts our endeavour to attain the highest through struggle in samsara. Two interpretations are cited below:

Symbolism in Mahabharata has spiritual insight - Times of India

Thoughts Guiding me.: Symbolism of Mahabharata Characters.
...

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Who Am I" question comes to mind: The one you think you are, the one others think you are, the one you really are.

I was told: Krishna is a Poorna (16 divine attributes) Avatar. I do not believe Buddha were Poorna Avatars. Rama was not a Poorna Avatar (He had 12 divine attributes; His wife Seeta had all 16 divine attributes)

1. Easy to know who am I? I am Brahman, Star dust, that which constitutes all things in the universe, since there is none other in the universe. Repeatedly stressed in Hindu scriptures (I won't post the verses or parts like the Abrahamics).
2. Ah, they give 16 points to Mother Sita but not to Lord Rama. Funny, is not it? Sectoral beliefs. They are welcome to their belief.

So Krishna did not speak of love?

No, he didn't. He talked of action solely for 'dharma' (roughly duties), untainted by thoughts like success or failure, reward or loss, pleasure or pain, love or hate, praise or abuse, life or death. The central teaching of BhagawadGita is 'Anasakti Yoga' (action without attachments). 'Asakti' is attachment.

Paar as been rather busy recently explaining to the Baha'is why his faith is the true one lol.

And Bahai's do not think that is correct, because their religion is the latest and true religion. Allah could not have sent a messenger so close of Bahaullah's time. And then Bahaullah is the sender of messengers. He said at least 800 years for another messenger. Is that not true? lol.

.. diversity of belief surrounding the Divinity of Krishna.

What diversity? All Hindus accept Lord Krishna as an avatara of Lord Vishnu.

 

[Dawnofhope]

As you know, I'm not a Vaishnavite, so I answered 'I don't know'. Can I presume that when the Baha'i talk about 'Hinduism', they're not actually talking about the umbrella of faiths termed Hinduism, but just Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

In Hinduism itself, many folks make the same error, thinking their own particular sect is representative of all of Hinduism, when in fact, there may be quite the variety. It's only because they gaven't gotten around much, which may well be the case with Baha'i.

Even here, with several different POVs being represented, you run the risk of cherry picking (and have already) the view that is the most compatible with the Baha'i faith.

It is clear to this Baha'i the huge and bewildering variety of traditions over many thousands of years. India is so vast and we have 10,000 years of history.

This is the first thread I've posted examining Hinduism. An obvious starting point is Krishna as there are specific references in my Faith to Him. Besides that, He appears to be one of the towering figures within Hinduism's rich history.

I'm here to learn about Hinduism. I'm not here to convert anyone to the Baha'i Faith as has been suggested by at least one person who has posted here. Who could achieve such a feat on a forum like this anyhow? I honesty had no idea before coming to RF how scary and Ogre-like people from Abrahamic traditions could become in the eyes of some Hindus. On the other hand you appear to have sincere and kind souls who are secure enough in their own faith to have a friendly chat.

I like the Hindus.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This question is mainly for Hindus but open for anyone who would like to offer some respectful thoughts or insights.

The Baha'i faith teaches that Krishna was a 'Manifestation of God' and is ranked alongside other Great Spiritual Teachers such as Buddha, Christ and Muhammad.

Manifestations of God | What Bahá’ís Believe

Manifestation of God - Wikipedia

Bahá'í Faith and Hinduism - Wikipedia

We have a few scant references to Krishna and Hinduism in our writings or from the talks of Abdu'l-Baha. For example:

Blessed souls whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, or Muhammad were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light?"
('Abdu'l-Bahá from a Tablet - translated from the Persian)

The Message of Krishna is the message of love. All God's prophets have brought the message of love....
("Paris Talks: Addresses given by `Abdu'l-Bahá in Paris in 1911-1912", 11th ed. (London: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1979), p. 35)

So in summary we haven't a lot to go on when it comes to Krishna.

In regards Hinduism Shoghi Effendi has said:

...Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islám and the religion of the Sabaeans. These religions are not the only true religions that have appeared in the world, but are the only ones which are still existing. There have always been divine prophets and messengers, to many of whom the Qur'án refers. But the only ones existing are those mentioned above.

In regards the authenticity of the sacred writings including the Bhaghavad Gita we don't have too much to go on either. In response to questions of a more detailed nature Shoghi Effendi said it would be a matter for scholars to investigate further.

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.
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 14 April 1941)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin birth mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion.

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and Related Subjects

So in regards Krishna we haven't anything specific from the Baha'i writings to say. In fact we don't have much to say about Hinduism other than it is a true religion with Divine origins.

So who was Krishna? What do we know of Krishna from history and Hindu traditions?

My personal take on Krishna is that I have no reason to believe that the character is anything more than a legend.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"I am, I am, I am the Promised One! I am the One whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at whose mention you have risen, whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of whose Revelation you have prayed to God to hasten." - The Báb

Hindus do not have messengers from God. None is promised to us and we have not prayed to God for any. Keep your views to yourself. When God so desires, he would come himself, but that is far in future (some 425,000 years from now).

 

[Vinayaka]

I honesty had no idea before coming to RF how scary and Ogre-like people from Abrahamic traditions could become in the eyes of some Hindus.

I see over-reaction on all sides. Merely pointing out that you disagree on some beliefs gets some overly sensitive people all defensive, or retaliatory.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see over-reaction on all sides. Merely pointing out that you disagree on some beliefs gets some overly sensitive people all defensive, or retaliatory.

I was thinking. How did you want bahai to approach your faith besides the direction in which they ask and interpret info given?

 

[Dawnofhope]

No, he didn't. He talked of action solely for 'dharma' (roughly duties), untainted by thoughts like success or failure, reward or loss, pleasure or pain, love or hate, praise or abuse, life or death. The central teaching of BhagawadGita is 'Anasakti Yoga' (action without attachments). 'Asakti' is attachment.

Thank you for your perspective. Its well considered as always once we get through the anti-Abrahamic rhetoric.

So none of the 64 qualities of Lord Krishna listed (whom you believe to be a mythical character) has anything to do with love?

https://nitaaiveda.com/Compiled_and...solute_Truth/64_Qualities_of_Lord_Krishna.htm

Cleave unto Me who cleave, who seek in Me Refuge from birth and death, those have the Truth!
Those know Me BRAHMA: know Me Soul of Souls,
The ADHYATMAN: know KARMA,my work;
Know I am ADHIBHUTA,Lord of Life,
And ADHIDAIVA, Lord of all the Gods,
And ADHIYAJNA, Lord of Sacrafice;
Worship Me well,with hearts of love and faith,
And find and hold me in the hour of death.

(Bhaghavad Gita - Chapter 7)

The Bhagavad Gītā

 

[stvdv]

"Who Am I" question comes to mind: The one you think you are, the one others think you are, the one you really are.

The question is a profound one that none of us can truly answer. If we are lovers of the Divine then its a mystery to be enjoyed rather than a problem to be solved.

Exactly, that is why I phrased that line, not to solve it. BUT to illustrate your question "who was Krishna in your tradition?" is a mystery to be enjoyed not to be solved

I was told:
Krishna is a Poorna (16 divine attributes) Avatar. I do not believe Bahaullah, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha were Poorna Avatars
Rama was not a Poorna Avatar (He had 12 divine attributes; His wife Seeta had all 16 divine attributes)

Would you elaborate on the distinguishing qualities of a Poorna Avatar please?

The attributes "normal" humans can't even develop, as I understand, are: Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence and unconditional love.
Sai Baba was "women friendly" (India was not like that). He said men have 4 of the 16 attributes and women 7, and said that women are more spiritual.
He started women universities and inaugrated "Ladies day" worldwide. I don't remember who has which qualities.

Links below shows the 16 attributes of the Poorna Avatar and some more information on these characteristics
Sathya Sai Baba - 16 attributes of Avatar- Sai Baba Of India
Sathya Sai Baba - Prophecies about and characteristics of an Avatar

Sai Baba also said "Consciousness is the only reality". God is limitless and attributeless, so obviously can't be described. But by using words the "coin might drop" about the indescribable (like "reading in between the lines"). If only consciousness is real (unchanging), then bodies are unreal(ever changing). So body Krishna was unreal in that sense (dying/changing). Tricky subject. Hence the "wise", who know, don't speak. And the ones speaking (like me) don't know. How strange can it get

And Sai Baba also said "Some Avatars come with more attributes, some with less. Just what is needed for the task at hand". No need to be proud "My Master has more attributes, and therefore more important etc.". Because in the end only consciousness is real. Books and even Avatar bodies disintegrate, so not real. At least that is what i understand at this moment.

May God Bless and Illuminate Us All

 

[Dawnofhope]

My personal take on Krishna is that I have no reason to believe that the character is anything more than a legend.

Fair enough. There are scholars who think otherwise of course.

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna - that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories." Yet, Beck also notes that there is an "enormous number of contradictions and discrepancies surrounding the chronology of Krishna's life as depicted in the Sanskrit canon."[123]

Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE - 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[124] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[125][126] A paper presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.[127][note 2][note 3]

Krishna - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

...appreciative knowledge of other religions improves people’s attitudes towards those communities and traditions. In other words there is a strong relationship between attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge — a magic triangle, so to speak. And that is precisely how the Dalai Lama has shaped his book and his recent teachings. Get to know people from other religions personally, preferably by doing service work together. And get to know some things you admire about their traditions, especially those areas that have commonality with your own. A good place to start is on the shared value of compassion.

His Holiness and the Art and Science of Interfaith Cooperation | HuffPost

 

[Dawnofhope]

What diversity? All Hindus accept Lord Krishna as an avatara of Lord Vishnu.

@Vinayaka doesn't.

 

[Marcion]

Thank you for your perspective. Its well considered as always once we get through the anti-Abrahamic rhetoric.

Well, to be fair, the anti-Abrahamic rhetoric did not exactly just fall from the sky now did it?

2. As regards your study of the Hindu religion: The origins of this and many other religions that abound in India are not quite known to us, and even the Orientalists and the students of religion are not in complete accord about the results of their investigations in that field. The Bahá'í writings also do not refer specifically to any of these forms of religion current in India. So, the Guardian feels it impossible to give you any definite and detailed information on that subject. He would urge you, however, to carry on your studies in that field, although its immensity is well-nigh bewildering, with the view of bringing the Message to the Hindus. The task of converting this section of the Indian population is a most vital obligation, although the Guardian is fully aware of the many difficulties that it presents. Nevertheless the friends should do their best to make as many converts among the Hindus as they possibly can.

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 17 April 1936)

So what are we to think of all this busy studying of other faiths other than a way to make conversion to the Bahai faith easier?

 

[Terese]

As you know, I'm not a Vaishnavite, so I answered 'I don't know'. Can I presume that when the Baha'i talk about 'Hinduism', they're not actually talking about the umbrella of faiths termed Hinduism, but just Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

In Hinduism itself, many folks make the same error, thinking their own particular sect is representative of all of Hinduism, when in fact, there may be quite the variety. It's only because they haven't gotten around much, which may well be the case with Baha'i.

Even here, with several different POVs being represented, you run the risk of cherry picking (and have already) the view that is the most compatible with the Baha'i faith.

To be fair, it's not just Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but all of Vaishnavism. All Vaishnavas see Lord Krishna as Bhagavan.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Hindus do not have messengers from God. None is promised to us and we have not prayed to God for any. Keep your views to yourself. When God so desires, he would come himself, but that is far in future (some 425,000 years from now).

You're quite the inhospitable "hindu" with the likeness of the hospitable dogmatic Christian. I'm actually reading and learning in this thread and you are sticking out like a sore thumb.

 

[Vinayaka]

I was thinking. How did you want bahai to approach your faith besides the direction in which they ask and interpret info given?

I see no need for them to approach it at all, other than from human to human. There is nothing I can see in Hinduism that can add to the Baha'i faith, given the unreceptiveness. Perhaps individuals like Adrian might benefit. So maybe, maybe not. Generally I advise people to go to a temple, rather than read books or have discussions, if they truly want to understand it. Hinduism is primarily an experiential religion in my view.

 

[Vinayaka]

@Vinayaka doesn't.

I understand it, accept it for Vaishnavites, just as I know Baha'u'llah is your manifestation. Aup doesn't believe in Krishna, he's an atheist. So we have to listen and read carefully and decide ... whether or not the person is giving a very personal opinion, or their opinion about the faith in general. In this case I was giving a personal opinion whilst Aup was talking for all Hindus in general. At least that's how I interpret it.

 

[Vinayaka]

To be fair, it's not just Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but all of Vaishnavism. All Vaishnavas see Lord Krishna as Bhagavan.

Thanks. I thought in Sri Vaishnavism Venkateswara (Balaji, Vishnu) was seen as Godhead before Krishna, but I could be wrong, obviously. I don't think we have any Sri Vaishnavites on here at the moment.

 

[Marcion]

Hinduism is primarily an experiential religion in my view.

That is another way to say that it is more tantric or practical spirituality than it is religious rhetoric.
These don't mix together well (it will become strained or fake).
So you will do an injustice to the understanding and reputation of Krishna by trying to bend Him into an Abrahamic religious mould.

 

[Vinayaka]

That is another way to say that it is more tantric or practical spirituality than it is religious rhetoric.
These don't mix together well (it will become strained or fake).
So you will do an injustice to the understanding and reputation of Krishna by trying to bend Him into an Abrahamic religious mould.

Absolutely, and what you are alluding to has been proven many many times on these discussion boards. Very differing paradigms. There is a small minority (very small) on both sides that fit in to the other paradigm somewhat ... the dharmic scholars, and the Abrahamic mystics.

BTW, in my sampradaya, we use 'tantra' as meaning a method. So we have the Vasana daha tantra for example. When you use the word, which meaning or connotation should I be receiving?