Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[paarsurrey]

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?

What did Bahaullah say about Krishna in the Kitab-e-Aqdas, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sikhism, Arya Samaj , the Prajapita Brahmakumaris are dharmic sects which consider Krishna as a great soul who worshipped the Supreme Lord in the name of Om or Shiva respectively. This is very similar to the Bahai version of Krishna.
The Ahmediya sect of Islam also consider Krishna as a prophet and have the same perspective.

Hindu sects associated with the Vishistadvaita and Dvaita philosophies however consider Krishna as God in a similar manner to Christianity seeing Jesus as God.

"The Ahmediya sect of Islam also consider Krishna as a prophet" Unquote.

That is true.
We have to believe in the truthful prophets/messengers of G-d and the truthful Word of Revelation descended on them in general terms as guided by Quran . It is a requirement* to be a Muslim.

Regards
______________
*Articles of Faith

• Unity of God
• His Angels
• His Books
• His Prophets
• The Last Day
• Divine Decree

The Prophets | Islam Ahmadiyya

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

This is entirely unrelated to the theme and intent of this thread.

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).

I wonder if you are projecting your atheism onto your own traditions. Are you stating with certainty there is nothing in your traditions that could be seen as a Diety or dieties trying to educate humans? One of the central themes of the Krishna-Arjuna discourse is Krishna educating and comforting Arjuna during his time of deepest despair.

BhagawadGita is a Vaishnava literature, and I am a strong atheist. But BhagawadGita has knowledge even for atheists. For example:

"When one ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception." BG 13.31

So what does that mean to you Aup? Would it not have different meanings for an atheist and theist?

Have you asked Vinayaka?

Of course. He has reminded me on many occasions over the last 1 1/2 years we have been talking. Proselytizing (belittling and attacking other religions) is not an exclusively Abrahamic phenomenon. Its an attitude that is part of human nature whether we are from the West or East. We all need to make strenuous efforts at times to better ourselves. That appears another important theme in Vedic literature.

See what Marcion quoted above. OP is only trying to fool others. He is not at all interested in understanding Hinduism. He and other Bahais are just interested in quoting what Bahaullah or Abdul Baha said and trying to make us read that (Actually, I never do that. I am already aware of all their blah-blah). I have been around for many years. That is right. Hinduism is a much varied thing, from polytheism to atheism and every thing in-between.The difference between Abrahamic religions and Hinduism can never be bridged. The chasm is too wide.

Proselytizing can also take the form of personal attacks, seeing the worst in others and misconstruing their motives. As another has said, it is contrary to the love and hospitality for which the peoples of the Indian subcontinent are renowned. Is not hospitality next to Godliness?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you will do an injustice to the understanding and reputation of Krishna by trying to bend Him into an Abrahamic religious mould.

In my beleif Krishna is as a Manifestation of God. Which also says, it is the same Spirit of Krishna that is in all the Great Spiritual Teachers, in various intensities.

It would be helpful to say what you consider an Abrahamic Mindset is, as personally I see these tags are just confusing. When people mention these I have to look them up.

Then one could show how Krishna taught this mindset is incorrect.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Its helpful to hear from Hindus with differing perspectives. I enjoy basking in the millieu of Hindu ideology.

As you know I'm part of my cities interfaith council.

Other than ISHKON we don't have a Hindu centre of worship. The Tamils are working at establishing theirs and the Baha'is are assisting them.

Multiculturalism and diversity enriches our lives immensely. I have no desire to live in a monocultural bubble.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It was written in 1936, and if I remember well, Bahai is all about "growing" in wisdom and filter
out small "errors". This seems an error IMHO.
I did read quite a few books on Bahai, but never saw this line. But then I only read about
Bahaullah. He is the Founder, I wonder if He stated the same. I must have missed it.

Personally I find this statement so "not Bahai". I thought Bahai is all about not imposing their faith on others.
Maybe @adrian009 can explain how this happened. I don't understand this below quote at all.

The letter was written 82 years ago at a time when the Baha'i Faith was not well established worldwide. There was an emphasis on pioneers living in foreign lands and teaching the Faith to those who were interested. There has never been any coercion or pressure for anyone to become a Baha'i. If someone believes the Baha'i Faith is the best religion they ar free to join providing they have a very basic understanding of our teachings. If someone decides the Baha'i Faith is no longer for them they are free to leave. There is never any shunning of someone who decides he no longer wants to be a Baha'i. I'm still friends with someone who left the Baha'i Faith over 20 years ago.

This thread for me is as stated in the OP. I'm interested in learning about Krishna and Hinduism. Learning about other faiths is inherently valuable and assists us better understand others in a multicultural world. It has nothing to do with converting others to my religion or 'proselytizing'.

 

[Drew Henefer]

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?

I'm working with the theory that God, is made of all the colors in the rainbow. It's as if fear is pushing light into exitance and against itself generating a diverse consciousness of like 7 personalities working in harmony to construct the living world. A face could be given for each continent in this theory Jesus is to God of Isreal as Krishna is to God of Asia.

 

[Dawnofhope]

t doesn't matter to me either way whether there was a real person who the myth of Krishna was glommed onto. That's not the aspect of him that anyone cares about.

It may not be of interest to you whether he was a real person or not, but its certainly of interest to others.

BTW: do you take a similar approach with Heracles?

Krishna is a central figure, both real and mythologised for Hinduism that is the third largest religion worldwide with over 1.2 billion adherents and over 15% of the worlds population.

Hercules is in all likelihood a mythological figure in Greco-Roman times. Beyond that I haven't investigated further. Have you?

 

[Vinayaka]

Its helpful to hear from Hindus with differing perspectives. I enjoy basking in the millieu of Hindu ideology.

As you know I'm part of my cities interfaith council.

Other than ISHKON we don't have a Hindu centre of worship. The Tamils are working at establishing theirs and the Baha'is are assisting them.

Multiculturalism and diversity enriches our lives immensely. I have no desire to live in a monocultural bubble.

If the Tamils do get one established, it will be night and day different from ISKCON. Rural Alberta here was a monocultural bubble. Dad (and others) though having pizza or Chinese food was going out on a limb.

We were near the main railway line, and many Chinese folks who came as laborers on the rails stayed, and opened small restaurants, serving western food, but Chinese if you asked. I don't like monocultural bubbles either, but the fact is these days they are hard to find. Way too much migration going on for that. So even if you did want it, it would be hard to find.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course. He has reminded me on many occasions over the last 1 1/2 years we have been talking. Proselytizing (belittling and attacking other religions) is not an exclusively Abrahamic phenomenon.
Proselytizing can also take the form of personal attacks, seeing the worst in others and misconstruing their motives. As another has said, it is contrary to the love and hospitality for which the peoples of the Indian subcontinent are renowned. Is not hospitality next to Godliness?

Sorry, but there is a huge difference. In most proselytizing, the proselytizer suggests his/her faith is the best, and often only truth. In support of that premise they attack other faiths to show how right they are. This can be done from the street corner yelling, handing out pamphlets, by friendship evangelism, with bribery like food, with violence, with forced marriage and more. It is an aggressive stance. Any means necessary, including sweet words or playing down differences can be used. It's been used repeatedly with varying degrees of success. Some of the victim cultures have finally woken up to it, and have gotten defensive, even using some of the same tactics.

When Aup or I or others get pretend riled at another faith, it is defensively, not aggressively. We counter those points made against our faith. I view Aup's suspicions re motive as totally legitimate, given the history of India, and Hinduism being seen as 'ripe for conversion'.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm working with the theory that God, is made of all the colors in the rainbow. It's as if fear is pushing light into exitance and against itself generating a diverse consciousness of like 7 personalities working in harmony to construct the living world. A face could be given for each continent in this theory Jesus is to God of Isreal as Krishna is to God of Asia.

They are progressive thoughts. My thought is God is white light, that we can not directly look at. As such, we see in its refacted state and we see it as all the colours of the rainbow.

We call all the colours by different names but we can see the source of light is One.

Regards Tony

 

[Drew Henefer]

They are progressive thoughts. My thought is God is white light, that we can not directly look at. As such, we see in its refacted state and we see it as all the colours of the rainbow.

We call all the colours by different names but we can see the source of light is One.

Regards Tony

Put the rainbow separated by black lines in a white existence and that's God.

 

[paarsurrey]

adrian009 said: ↑
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.

Except for Bahaullah, for which I have first time met many of his followers recently, the founders of other religions I believe to be truthful in origin. For Bahaullah, I have started my research recently in my own style.

Regards

 

[Dawnofhope]

If the Tamils do get one established, it will be night and day different from ISKCON. Rural Alberta here was a monocultural bubble. Dad (and others) though having pizza or Chinese food was going out on a limb.

We were near the main railway line, and many Chinese folks who came as laborers on the rails stayed, and opened small restaurants, serving western food, but Chinese if you asked. I don't like monocultural bubbles either, but the fact is these days they are hard to find. Way too much migration going on for that. So even if you did want it, it would be hard to find.

Dressing up in robes and dancing and chanting Hare Krishna is not for me but I have a friend who does just that.

I'm looking forward to the establishment of a more mainstream Hindu temple in my city. It will be good the Hindus and good for our city that values multiculturalism and diversity.

I've always been attracted to peoples of different cultures for as long as I remember. Even the small provincial town where I currently work as become very multicultural. Pacific Islanders and Indians are coming here to do the work that many of European ancestory avoid. They are hard working, courteous, respectful, and really make for a better world.

Its harder these days to live in the monocultural bubble that was all too common when we were growing up. I personally find enormous happiness to see the world around me change and attitudes with it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Dressing up in robes and dancing and chanting Hare Krishna is not for me but I have a friend who does just that.

I'm looking forward to the establishment of a more mainstream Hindu temple in my city. It will be good the Hindus and good for our city that values multiculturalism and diversity.

I've always been attracted to peoples of different cultures for as long as I remember. Even the small provincial town where I currently work as become very multicultural. Pacific Islanders and Indians are coming here to do the work that many of European ancestory avoid. They are hard working, courteous, respectful, and really make for a better world.

Its harder these days to live in the monocultural bubble that was all too common when we were growing up. I personally find enormous happiness to see the world around me change and attitudes with it.

I think intercultural harmony may well be an unintended positive outcome of all the movement of peoples. We don't really have a choice. Of course I live in a richly diverse area of my city, so may well now be unaware of the bubbles of single ethnicity. I'm sure they are out there, and still get 'the stranger' in town on occasion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Sorry, but there is a huge difference. In most proselytizing, the proselytizer suggests his/her faith is the best, and often only truth.

This does come up quite a lot in our conversations.

I believe people can change their attitudes and be better people. With the poll I started within this thread not one person on RF has indicated they thought Krishna was misguided or a false prophet. I'm excited about that as it shows some maturity from the Christians here.

I'm sure Hindus can see their faith as being the best too in exactly the same way other religious adherents do. We're all human after all.

In support of that premise they attack other faiths to show how right they are.

What I've seen in this thread from a small few is largely a Pavlovian response to anything remotely Abrahamic.

This can be done from the street corner yelling, handing out pamphlets, by friendship evangelism, with bribery like food, with violence, with forced marriage and more. It is an aggressive stance. Any means necessary, including sweet words or playing down differences can be used. It's been used repeatedly with varying degrees of success. Some of the victim cultures have finally woken up to it, and have gotten defensive, even using some of the same tactics.

If peoples of any faith wish to hurl abuse and insults at those of another faith its best not to retaliate. Does that not hinder our own spiritual progress if we emulate the bad behaviour of others? I don't know a lot about it but the word karma comes to mind.

When Aup or I or others get pretend riled at another faith, it is defensively, not aggressively. We counter those points made against our faith. I view Aup's suspicions re motive as totally legitimate, given the history of India, and Hinduism being seen as 'ripe for conversion'.

If I had started a thread to discredit and undermine Lord Krishna I would totally understand. Instead the thread begins asking the question who is Krishna in your tradition? The Baha'is may be totally misguided in believing Krishna to be a 'Manifestation of God' but that is worlds apart from the kinds of derogatory remarks that characterise proselytizing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What did Bahaullah say about Krishna in the Kitab-e-Aqdas, please?
Regards

You will not find anything about Krishna in the Kitab-i-Aqdas.

Baha'u'llah mentions Hinduism on several occasions within the following tablet. If you scroll half down it will save some time.

The Tabernacle of Unity | Bahá’í Reference Library

Except for Bahaullah, for which I have first time met many of his followers recently, the founders of other religions I believe to be truthful in origin. For Bahaullah, I have started my research recently in my own style.

Off topic. Please read the OP. This thread is specifically about Krishna and more generally about what if anything other traditions have to say about him and why.

 

[SomeRandom]

This does come up quite a lot in our conversations.

I believe people can change their attitudes and be better people. With the poll I started within this thread not one person on RF has indicated they thought Krishna was misguided or a false prophet. I'm excited about that as it shows some maturity from the Christians here.

I'm sure Hindus can see their faith as being the best too in exactly the same way other religious adherents do. We're all human after all.



What I've seen in this thread from a small few is largely a Pavlovian response to anything remotely Abrahamic.



If peoples of any faith wish to hurl abuse and insults at those of another faith its best not to retaliate. Does that not hinder our own spiritual progress if we emulate the bad behaviour of others? I don't know a lot about it but the word karma comes to mind.



If I had started a thread to discredit and undermine Lord Krishna I would totally understand. Instead the thread begins asking the question who is Krishna in your tradition? The Baha'is may be totally misguided in believing Krishna to be a 'Manifestation of God' but that is worlds apart from the kinds of derogatory remarks that characterise proselytizing.

I ask for your patience and forgiveness of my brethren and their responses to you.
When your traditions are constantly undermined, when you're constantly prostelyzed to (through brute force and Trojan Horse like outwardly sweetness and cries of friendship) your back tends to be constantly against the wall. You will react and you will defend yourself from any perceived threat.
Even within my own family this has happened. My uncles and aunts were blackmailed into Catholicism, my grandfather dismayed at having to betray his values and traditions for the sake of giving his children a good future. A dishonour upon his name.

I walk between both the Dharmic and Abrahamic circles in my day to day life. Most on both sides are decent people who just want to mind their own business. But the scars are hard to lose and harder to ignore.
Many from all sides preach tolerance and harmony. There are those who would use such tolerance as a weapon against us "pagans."
On this board the scepticism and reactions may seem unfair, but they are not without a history.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm working with the theory that God, is made of all the colors in the rainbow. It's as if fear is pushing light into exitance and against itself generating a diverse consciousness of like 7 personalities working in harmony to construct the living world. A face could be given for each continent in this theory Jesus is to God of Isreal as Krishna is to God of Asia.

Hi Drew and welcome to religious forum. I like you inclusive and universalist leanings. I haven't heard too much of that from some of the other Jews here. Would you elaborate on how it relates to your own faith and journey please (only if you're comfortable).

 

[Vinayaka]

The Baha'is may be totally misguided in believing Krishna to be a 'Manifestation of God' but that is worlds apart from the kinds of derogatory remarks that characterise proselytizing.

Sneaky style proselytising is rarely derogatory. However, here is what Abdul Baha had to say about us, speaking of derogatory. This is from the top, not from an adherent.

"On the other hand, many exist as human beings who are adorers end worshippers of stone and clay, that is, the mineral, which is the lowest of beings. Consider how base and low are they when their object of worship is the basest of things, such as stone, clay and mineral!"

Clearly he was no fan of Hinduism, and idol worship in particular. Not did he have nay actual understanding of it.

Just as you can pick and choose the positive quotes, so too can others find the nasty ones. So who knows, really?

The question remains, "Why start the thread?"