Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Aupmanyav]

Clearly from the reponses of Hindus so far there are a range of perceptions and understanding as to who Krishna was and where He sits in Hindu belief.
Then why do you do it?
I don't believe that is what He said or meant.
I don't see that I am belittling Hindu belief but I do see you belittling me and my beliefs.

Whatever be the range but onething remains constant - He is an avatara of Lord Vishnu.
Where have I ever done that? I love discussions. I only mention what I believe, which is much different from mainline Hinduism.
Now, a Hindu tells you something about his religion and you say you do not believe him! Let me give you the whole verse (normally, I do not do that):

"Shreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ, para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt;
sva-dharme nidhanaḿ śreyaḥ, para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ." BG 3.35

Synonyms
śreyān — far better; sva-dharmaḥ — one's prescribed duties; viguṇaḥ — even faulty; para-dharmāt — than duties mentioned for others; su-anuṣṭhitāt — perfectly done; sva-dharme — in one's prescribed duties; nidhanam — destruction; śreyaḥ — better; para-dharmaḥ — duties prescribed for others; bhaya-āvahaḥ — horrendous.

Translation
It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is horrendous.

It will be a travesty of Hinduism if I actively seek proselytization. I should be happy if they are sincerely following their own faith. Sure, we will welcome if people come on their own after studying Hinduism. (Here again, Bahaullah was wrong - the Tabernacle). We do not seek converts but do not prohibit people joining Hinduism. Herein lies the main difference from Abrahamic faiths. We are under no obligation to seek converts.

I am an atheist. It is natural that I will speak against belief in God, sons, prophets, messengers, manifestations and mahdis; especilly when someone tries to belittle the belief of my people. I have not abandoned Hinduism and I am speaking from within the Hindu fold. Advaita (non-duality) is a valid respected Hindu plank.

Note: Basically, we have no English equivalent of 'religion' other than 'dharma'.

 

[Marcion]

If this thread was about Shiva, in a debate thread, I would know that there would be all sorts of uninformed comments. So, I would not participate.

For the same reason I do not participate in this debate except for exposing its underlying motivation.

 

[ajay0]

For the same reason I do not participate in this debate except for exposing its underlying motivation.

Marcion. This made me laugh and great research work on the Shogen Effendi dude.

But I also think fear of prosleytisation is a sign of insecurity and lack of confidence in one's own religion. So let us discuss fearlessly and may the truth prevail.

 

[CG Didymus]

Firstly, just because something isn't authenticated by Baha'i doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, why would Bahais authenticate stuff like that? It certainly wouldn't look good on them. All that sort of stuff reads logically to me, but then I'm neutral, not biased. Not saying it's for sure, but certainly that it's possible. Covenent Breakers often became because they had the guts to point out the negatives. So I don't know. With the Bahai I've talked to here and elsewhere, it seems that there is an absolute defensive denial of anything negative. It's the infallibility thing I think. Not us, not us.

You still didn't answer why you want to study Krishna. Neither myself nor Marcion is a Vaishnavite. Why not just go to the ISKCON temple, and sit down and have a discussion? I'm sure someone there would be more than happy to explain it to you. They might even beseech His presence for you, and you could enjoy that. Or not, of course.

This sounds almost like asking a Jew, "Who is Jesus in your tradition?" But Judaism and Christianity are different religions, even though Christians say they are a continuation of "true" Jewish beliefs. But Hinduism pre-dates Krishna. So would it be more like asking a Christian, "Who is Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni in your tradition?" The answer would be, "They are nobody. We don't believe Smith found golden plates nor talked to some Angel Moroni." Or, would it even be like asking a Christian, "Who is Baha'u'llah, The Glory of God, in your tradition?' The answer would still be "nobody."

So Hinduism is more than those that believe in Krishna. But who is Krishna to the Baha'is? He is one of the manifestations. Is that who he is to the Hindus that believe in him? Sounds like he is an incarnation of God himself. But which God? I've read that it is Vishnu. But what about Shiva? And then what about Brahma? And what then is "Brahman"?

So what kind of answer can someone of another religion, a religion that believes it is the new truth from God, get from asking about one part of such a vast religion like Hinduism? Do Baha'is actually care what the beliefs are? No, because their religion have different beliefs about God, and theirs are what are considered to be true. I thought I had them with asking about reincarnation. But, they easily dodged the question by saying that reincarnation was added in, or was mistranslated, or something, and was not part of the original teachings. So what is it the a Baha'i could hope to learn about Hinduism that they would not try to explain away and make it fit into their religious world-view?

I can't wait for a Baha'i to just come out and ask the obvious question... "What do Hindus believe and why we believe they are wrong."

 

[Vinayaka]

So what is it the a Baha'i could hope to learn about Hinduism that they would not try to explain away and make it fit into their religious world-view?

Beats me. Certainly, by definition of infallibility, no other religion could add anything of value. If it's already perfect, nothing could be added, because you can't be more that perfect.

 

[ameyAtmA]

So Hinduism is more than those that believe in Krishna. But who is Krishna to the Baha'is? He is one of the manifestations. Is that who he is to the Hindus that believe in him? Sounds like he is an incarnation of God himself. But which God? I've read that it is Vishnu. But what about Shiva? And then what about Brahma? And what then is "Brahman"?

Namaste

These are excellent questions, and I do understand you are not asking them but using them to make a point..
Nevertheless, I would like to or at least try to answer them for anyone who may have these questions, including Hindus,

Bramhan'' is the source of all sources, the ultimate origin. Nothing is outside of Bramhan' and there is nothing else i.e. there exists nothing other than Bramhan'.
Bramhan' appears as the universe ("world", jagat in Sanskrit). This is a very densely packed statement. Further it is not a function of time. For practical purposes, the universal time is cyclical not linear, but here, it is all eternal and there is no time.
Yet there are three categories of functions -- Creation , Maintenance-nurturing , Annihilation of that which was created. This is really an appearance since nothing is essentially created. That which did not exist cannot come into existence, that which exists never stops existing, conservation of energy.. and there is merely transformation.

However, at a certain level we do have these 3 functions.
So, just as a spider spins a web out of itself, Bramhan' takes on roles of VishNu - preserver role, Shiv - annihilator role, and VishNu spins off a BramhA from Himself, one per BramhAnda (Universe)
As was already mentioned on this thread, BramhA's life is life of a bramhAnDa (universe)

So just because the same Bramhan is playing the roles of VishNu and Shiv, does that mean VishNu and Shiv are different Beings and stop being Bramhan' ? It is none but Bramhan'.

Just because X is a project manager at a company during the day, a parent or teacher in the evening, and a community volunteer on weekends, does not make X 3 people.

Bramhan' does not "become" NArAyaN (VishNu, the Infinite Purusha of Purusha Sukta - Rig Veda).
VishNu IS Bramhan'
It is just that the deed of descension (avatAr kArya) is the department of the Maintainer Role i,e,. VishNu as "pAlanhAr" . Similarly eradicating the apparent jagat (world, neissance) so that only spirit remains, is the department of Shiv. This is why yogis and sannyAsis sit surrounding Shiv discussing nirvANa - which is "pralay" - destruction, end, flood at the individual level. Jiva becomes Shiva.

The part of KRshNa that does the descent - "takes avatAr" , shelters devotees, gives them fearlessness, shelter, surrender and joy, is VishNu the Nurturer. BG Chapters 3,4,11,12,,15,18
The part of KRshNa that takes the devotees to task so they realize the Self, is Shiv the Destroyer of neissance - BG chapters 2, 6, 13, 7, 14 (guNAteet, nistraiguNa)
The part of KRshNa that explains the duties , karma kAnDa, states of Beings, Vedas rituals, is BramhA BG Chapters 1, 3, 8, 14, 16, 17
The KRshNa that is beyond all guNa (modes of material nature - subtle and gross) is ParaBramhan' and Purushottam BG Chapters 2 (eshA brAmhi sthiti pArtha), 4, 6,7,12, 15 (atosmi loke vede cha prathitah: purushottamah: ) , 14 (bramhaNyohi pratishthAham, triguNAteet, sthitapradnya muni)

It is the same Bramhan'. It is none but Bramhan'
.
This is why I voted "Manifestation of God" because that is what KRshNa is -- all over Bhagvad GeetA one finds ample evidences that KrshNa has VishNuness and Shivness (Maheshwara), and is the Complete Highest Bramhan'

Mad-bhAvam - "My bhAva" ... param bhAva ajAnanto mama bhUta-maheshwaram. (Bh. gita - People do not recognize My highest state of Being since they see Me in this human-like form)

BG 13 : upadRshTA anumantA bhartA bhoktA maheshwara...
Here also the word Maheshwara is used -- which is also used to refer to Shiv.

VishNusahasranAma -- the thousand names of VishNu , lists several names if Shiva among those thousand "names of VishNu"

Shiv, = pure, Auspicious
ShambhU = pure
Maheshwar, = Supreme Controller
VishNu = One who pervades everything, Omnipresent, and a lot more. Who brings the created back to Him

What does that tell us? It is Bramhan'


he nAtha nArAyaN vAsudeva ~

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am speaking from my POV, which I will explain.

See, my ishta is Shiva. There was a time when I used to engage foolishly in debate on superiority of deities. But that changed. If this thread was about Shiva, in a debate thread, I would know that there would be all sorts of uninformed comments. So, I would not participate. To me there is nothing to debate about Shiva, the Godhead of the Vedas. But many Hindus and non Hindus will not understand and honour the Vedas.

Thank you for explaining.

In starting this thread I’m interested to hear the diversity of views about Krishna in Hinduism from Hindus. That is sufficient to hear what others have to say. I’m not interested in debating the nuances and metaphysical subtleties. The Vedas are vast and rich. I’m here to learn, that is all. Having the thread posted in the open debates sections allows others to express their POV. Unfortunately that freedom can also be used to criticise another’s religion, for personal attacks and proselytising. Most haven’t descended to that level which is heartening. None of us can truly judge the motives of another but if we are sincere we experience kindness amidst even our harshest critics.

 

[Dawnofhope]

For the same reason I do not participate in this debate except for exposing its underlying motivation.

No one here can truly judge the heart or motive of another.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whatever be the range but onething remains constant - He is an avatara of Lord Vishnu.
Where have I ever done that? I love discussions. I only mention what I believe, which is much different from mainline Hinduism.

I have no problem with your beliefs. We have the freedom to believe as we wish. Of course you do not believe Krishna to be an avatar of Vishnu as you don’t believe in Krishna, avatars, Brahman, Vishnu, or Shiva.

Now, a Hindu tells you something about his religion and you say you do not believe him! Let me give you the whole verse (normally, I do not do that):

Then why do you not believe me when I tell you something?

Shreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ, para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt;
sva-dharme nidhanaḿ śreyaḥ, para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ." BG 3.35

Synonyms
śreyān — far better; sva-dharmaḥ — one's prescribed duties; viguṇaḥ — even faulty; para-dharmāt — than duties mentioned for others; su-anuṣṭhitāt — perfectly done; sva-dharme — in one's prescribed duties; nidhanam — destruction; śreyaḥ — better; para-dharmaḥ — duties prescribed for others; bhaya-āvahaḥ — horrendous.

Translation
It is far better to discharge one's prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another's duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one's own duty is better than engaging in another's duties, for to follow another's path is horrendous.

Of course there will be different understandings. To me the duty is to follow the true Dharma and not the duties as the world of illusion would tell us.

You have an intellectual understanding. A devotee of Krishna will have a spiritual insight though he be unlearned. In that spirit he would never address you as you have spoken to me. If he did he would be filled with shame but in a heartbeat he would forgive others who were unkind. That is the Divine nature of Krishna and the discourse between Krishna and Arjuna is allegorical for how our inner lives should be.

It will be a travesty of Hinduism if I actively seek proselytization. I should be happy if they are sincerely following their own faith. Sure, we will welcome if people come on their own after studying Hinduism. (Here again, Bahaullah was wrong - the Tabernacle). We do not seek converts but do not prohibit people joining Hinduism. Herein lies the main difference from Abrahamic faiths. We are under no obligation to seek converts.

Proselytising has many forms of which Hindus are not immune. Both hate and love can lead to blindness.

I am an atheist. It is natural that I will speak against belief in God, sons, prophets, messengers, manifestations and mahdis; especilly when someone tries to belittle the belief of my people. I have not abandoned Hinduism and I am speaking from within the Hindu fold. Advaita (non-duality) is a valid respected Hindu plank.

You openly reject and disparage many beliefs of your fellow Hindus. Yet the Hindus are kind and accept you as one of their own so I will too.

Note: Basically, we have no English equivalent of 'religion' other than 'dharma'.

Dharma is a beautiful word. Beliefs in Sanatana Dharma is another difference between us.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Truth isn’t a function of popularity. Do you have any reason to rate Krishna as more likely to be true than Heracles? They seem pretty similar to me: they’re both god-man figures from ancient religions, both have scant evidence for their literal existence.

I suspect historians and scholars who have studies the two would see a clear distinction.

I do agree that mythology becomes superimposed onto historic reality so historic figures become mythologised.

Truth is not always what we think we know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why do you not believe me when I tell you something?
You have an intellectual understanding.
Proselytising has many forms of which Hindus are not immune. Both hate and love can lead to blindness.
You openly reject and disparage many beliefs of your fellow Hindus. Yet the Hindus are kind and accept you as one of their own so I will too.
Beliefs in Sanatana Dharma is another difference between us.

I believe you sincerely believe what you say. My problem is not with you, but Bahaullah. I am an atheist and I would not believe in existence of one or many Gods, and consequently would also not believe the claims of revelation and someone being prophet, son, messenger, manifestation or Mahdi of the said God.
As I have posted elsewhere, in Pragmatic reality of the world, there are friends and enemies; though at the level of Absolute reality, friends and enemy are not different from us.
The newer sects in Hinduism look for converts - Hare-Krishnas, Arya Samaj, etc. Traditional Hindus do not look for converts. Converts must come on their own, and if someone asks us about conversion, we first direct him to books. First know about Hinduism, then only come to us.
As a Hindu, I have the right to maintain what I believe. I state my views but have no problem with beliefs of other Hindus. How can I? Even the rest of my family is theist.
Yeah. You are monotheists and disparage idolatry. And we do not believe in prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and Mahdis. Sanatan Dharma is for all times, it requires no periodic revision. Sanatan Dharma is contained in just one line 'Paropakāram punyāya, Pāpāya parapīdanam' (Helping others is merit. causing pain to others is sin). No more, no less.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect historians and scholars who have studies the two would see a clear distinction.

They're the products of two different cultures, of course, but I strongly doubt you'll be able to find any legitimate scholars who agree that Krishna really was a god-man and Heracles isn't.

I do agree that mythology becomes superimposed onto historic reality so historic figures become mythologised.

Truth is not always what we think we know.

But what religious believers care about is that superimposed mythology.

To me, arguing about the historicity of a mythical figure is like arguing over a pearl: yes, there may very well be a real grain of sand at the centre of the pearl, and it's entirely possible that the pearl wouldn't exist without that grain of sand, but the sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone cares about.

 

[ameyAtmA]

To me, arguing about the historicity of a mythical figure is like arguing over a pearl: yes, there may very well be a real grain of sand at the centre of the pearl, and it's entirely possible that the pearl wouldn't exist without that grain of sand, but the sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone cares about.

I do care about the historical KRshNa and my relationship is with Him. The Lord of my heart is the Historical Shri KRshNa , DevakiNandan (Who appeared as son of Devaki), Baal KRshNa (as Yashoda's adorable Baby), DwarakAdheesh (Lord and King of DwarakA although He did not consider Himself King, but took care of the citizens ) . He is well-known as the "King-maker" -- He facilitated establishment of righteous kings on thrones of provinces that did not benefit Him materially in any way -- or in the material sense, they were irrelevant.)

The Pearl is the Realer reality that is hidden from the mundane eyes. It is actually the complete Truth , and in fact the sand is what is visible.
Pearl is not fabrication, it is blurred and then visible more clearly as one's understanding grows and grace falls on them.

It is more like effulgence ==> manifestation rather than the opposite , sand-grain ==> pearl

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe you sincerely believe what you say. My problem is not with you, but Bahaullah. I am an atheist and I would not believe in existence of one or many Gods, and consequently would also not believe the claims of revelation and someone being prophet, son, messenger, manifestation or Mahdi of the said God.

I’m not to bothered by how others see me but I do try to be honest and truthful. Thank you anyway.

When I spent several months in a predominantly Indian town in Fiji, I would often go for days without seeing a white face. When I boarded a bus everyone would stare. I never felt alone as both the Indians and Indigenous Fijians were so friendly and hospitable. Atheism seemed uncommon amidst both races. In my culture it’s very common but only a very few are antitheist. Most of us just get on with each other and avoid discussing religion completely.

As I have posted elsewhere, in Pragmatic reality of the world, there are friends and enemies; though at the level of Absolute reality, friends and enemy are not different from us.

What struck me in Fiji was the poverty and how desperate it made some people. I avoid seeing others enemies. I’m sure to see the good in others and have compassion is what Krishna would want. I know you don’t believe in Krishna in a Theist way and I have no desire to be talking incessantly about Hindu Theism anymore than I do Abrahamic Theism.

The newer sects in Hinduism look for converts - Hare-Krishnas, Arya Samaj, etc. Traditional Hindus do not look for converts. Converts must come on their own, and if someone asks us about conversion, we first direct him to books. First know about Hinduism, then only come to us.

There’s very different attitudes towards respecting the boundaries of others even amidst adherents of one religion let alone between different religions. Within my culture many avoid the topic of religion because it’s a risky topic. There are those who proselytise and no one likes it. Most Christians these days avoid it to. It’s just the fundamentalists who give the others a bad name.

As a Hindu, I have the right to maintain what I believe. I state my views but have no problem with beliefs of other Hindus. How can I? Even the rest of my family is theist

Of course you have that right You do appreciate that atheists can push their beliefs on others just like anyone else? I like it if people just accept others as they are. Many of us have considered what we believe and have no desire to change.

My belief in Krishna goes back over 30 years even before I became a Baha’i. It would be hard to follow a religion that did not revere Krishna. I’ve a copy of the Bhagavad Gita of course from the 1980s. How come? The Hare Krishnas of course.

Yeah. You are monotheists and disparage idolatry. And we do not believe in prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations and Mahdis. Sanatan Dharma is for all times, it requires no periodic revision. Sanatan Dharma is contained in just one line 'Paropakāram punyāya, Pāpāya parapīdanam' (Helping others is merit. causing pain to others is sin). No more, no less

The emphasis against idolatry in the Abrahamic Faiths is rooted in Judaism and Islam. Christ spoke little of it, nor did Bahá’u’lláh. In the time of Moses it was to set the Hebrew peoples apart from pagan cultures. The Jews were taught to avoid it amongst themselves, not eradicate it from surrounding peoples. In Islam it was the pagan tribes particularly the Quraysh that tried to destroy the Muslims so Muhammad denounced them. Idol worship isn’t for everyone and besides even monotheists such as the the Catholics will use statues of Mary, Jesus and the saints. Just because a monotheist doesn’t use idols, there’s no reason to assume an aversion or repugnance towards those who do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most of us just get on with each other and avoid discussing religion completely.

Of course you have that right You do appreciate that atheists can push their beliefs on others just like anyone else?

Just because a monotheist doesn’t use idols, there’s no reason to assume an aversion or repugnance towards those who do.

Ah, we on the contrary have much fun discussing things.

I won't do that unless I am engaged in a discussion, either on internet or otherwise. We can't make any one theist or theist. It comes from inside.

Idol worship is a basic practice in Hinduism. But that is not the only difference. The other differences are insistence on one God; and sons, messengers, prophets, manifestations and mahdis, which we do not have in Hinduism. We have saints, philosophers and devotees. What they say are suggestions. Whether one accepts them or differs s an individual's choice. Other than 'dharma' (ethical behavior), there is no compulsion in Hinduism.

 

[ajay0]

The emphasis against idolatry in the Abrahamic Faiths is rooted in Judaism and Islam. Christ spoke little of it, nor did Bahá’u’lláh. In the time of Moses it was to set the Hebrew peoples apart from pagan cultures. The Jews were taught to avoid it amongst themselves, not eradicate it from surrounding peoples. In Islam it was the pagan tribes particularly the Quraysh that tried to destroy the Muslims so Muhammad denounced them. Idol worship isn’t for everyone and besides even monotheists such as the the Catholics will use statues of Mary, Jesus and the saints. Just because a monotheist doesn’t use idols, there’s no reason to assume an aversion or repugnance towards those who do.

I do not have anything against idol worship, but I also wish to point out that the Brahmo Samajis and Arya Samajis are two monotheistic Hindu sects which reject idol worship. The Prajapita Brahmakumaris too do not follow idol worship and same too with the Lingayats.

So there is a monotheistic element in present Hinduism as well which reject idol worship.


Ancient Hindu religion was also monotheistic and idol worship seems to have been come into the Hindu religion due to the influence of the jains.

You might find this discourse by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar interesting.

The other reason is that when Buddhists and Jains made their temples they would place such beautiful idols at the altar. So then those who followed Sanatan Dharma felt that they should also do something like this. So they also followed the same and began to establish different idols of Lord Vishnu, Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.

You will not find any mention of a practice of installing idols for worship in the Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana.

Only the Shiva Linga was installed. That is why only the Shiva Linga was there in the ancient period, which was worshiped by Lord Krishna, Lord Rama and everyone else. -- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

So you can see that only the Shiva Linga was worshipped by ancient Hindus.

And the Shiva Linga is considered as a cosmic pillar of light amonst the Shaivites while the Prajapita Brahmakumaris consider the Shiva Linga as a point of light synonymous with Allah, Jehovah and Ahura Mazda.

 

[Marcion]

I do not have anything against idol worship, but I also wish to point out that the Brahmo Samajis and Arya Samajis are two monotheistic Hindu sects which reject idol worship. The Prajapita Brahmakumaris too do not follow idol worship and same too with the Lingayats.

So there is a monotheistic element in present Hinduism as well which reject idol worship.

Anandamurti also rejects it because a stone idol is a crude material object.
The difference with Abrahamic monotheism though is that the latter is also dualistic and not panentheistic.

 

[CG Didymus]

Namaste

These are excellent questions, and I do understand you are not asking them but using them to make a point..
Nevertheless, I would like to or at least try to answer them for anyone who may have these questions, including Hindus,

Bramhan'' is the source of all sources, the ultimate origin. Nothing is outside of Bramhan' and there is nothing else i.e. there exists nothing other than Bramhan'.
Bramhan' appears as the universe ("world", jagat in Sanskrit). This is a very densely packed statement. Further it is not a function of time. For practical purposes, the universal time is cyclical not linear, but here, it is all eternal and there is no time.
Yet there are three categories of functions -- Creation , Maintenance-nurturing , Annihilation of that which was created. This is really an appearance since nothing is essentially created. That which did not exist cannot come into existence, that which exists never stops existing, conservation of energy.. and there is merely transformation.

However, at a certain level we do have these 3 functions.
So, just as a spider spins a web out of itself, Bramhan' takes on roles of VishNu - preserver role, Shiv - annihilator role, and VishNu spins off a BramhA from Himself, one per BramhAnda (Universe)
As was already mentioned on this thread, BramhA's life is life of a bramhAnDa (universe)

So just because the same Bramhan is playing the roles of VishNu and Shiv, does that mean VishNu and Shiv are different Beings and stop being Bramhan' ? It is none but Bramhan'.

Just because X is a project manager at a company during the day, a parent or teacher in the evening, and a community volunteer on weekends, does not make X 3 people.

Bramhan' does not "become" NArAyaN (VishNu, the Infinite Purusha of Purusha Sukta - Rig Veda).
VishNu IS Bramhan'
It is just that the deed of descension (avatAr kArya) is the department of the Maintainer Role i,e,. VishNu as "pAlanhAr" . Similarly eradicating the apparent jagat (world, neissance) so that only spirit remains, is the department of Shiv. This is why yogis and sannyAsis sit surrounding Shiv discussing nirvANa - which is "pralay" - destruction, end, flood at the individual level. Jiva becomes Shiva.

The part of KRshNa that does the descent - "takes avatAr" , shelters devotees, gives them fearlessness, shelter, surrender and joy, is VishNu the Nurturer. BG Chapters 3,4,11,12,,15,18
The part of KRshNa that takes the devotees to task so they realize the Self, is Shiv the Destroyer of neissance - BG chapters 2, 6, 13, 7, 14 (guNAteet, nistraiguNa)
The part of KRshNa that explains the duties , karma kAnDa, states of Beings, Vedas rituals, is BramhA BG Chapters 1, 3, 8, 14, 16, 17
The KRshNa that is beyond all guNa (modes of material nature - subtle and gross) is ParaBramhan' and Purushottam BG Chapters 2 (eshA brAmhi sthiti pArtha), 4, 6,7,12, 15 (atosmi loke vede cha prathitah: purushottamah: ) , 14 (bramhaNyohi pratishthAham, triguNAteet, sthitapradnya muni)

It is the same Bramhan'. It is none but Bramhan'
.
This is why I voted "Manifestation of God" because that is what KRshNa is -- all over Bhagvad GeetA one finds ample evidences that KrshNa has VishNuness and Shivness (Maheshwara), and is the Complete Highest Bramhan'

Mad-bhAvam - "My bhAva" ... param bhAva ajAnanto mama bhUta-maheshwaram. (Bh. gita - People do not recognize My highest state of Being since they see Me in this human-like form)

BG 13 : upadRshTA anumantA bhartA bhoktA maheshwara...
Here also the word Maheshwara is used -- which is also used to refer to Shiv.

VishNusahasranAma -- the thousand names of VishNu , lists several names if Shiva among those thousand "names of VishNu"

Shiv, = pure, Auspicious
ShambhU = pure
Maheshwar, = Supreme Controller
VishNu = One who pervades everything, Omnipresent, and a lot more. Who brings the created back to Him

What does that tell us? It is Bramhan'


he nAtha nArAyaN vAsudeva ~

Thanks, I took a couple of Religious Study classes in college, but I hardly remember the details. What I did remember, and always question the Baha'is about, is the question of reincarnation. I don't mind some type of reincarnation. I think it would be much more fair for each soul to experience life under different circumstances... and get judged by how well they do. Religions that say we only have one lifetime to get it right, do not seem fair at all. Too many people have no chance in life, while others have a relatively easy time.

Christianity has a hard time explaining this. Especially when children get killed. Some of them say there is an "age of accountability" where God will not hold their "sins" against them. But, how's that fair? One kid dies and is pardoned by God for being too young to be responsible, but another, maybe only a year older, or even one day older, would be beyond that age limit and be held responsible, and for the Christians, be sent to hell.

But Baha'is don't have hell, they don't have reincarnation, so for them, it doesn't matter. We all live at this level once and move on. We reach a higher spiritual plane the better we did here with what we were given. A little more fair, but not a perfect system. Like where's God going to put evil doers? Wouldn't be a place with some punishment? Do they think God will let them off easy?

But, when it comes to reincarnation, Baha'is say that no way that is true. Why? Because their Prophet of God said so. So, they have to explain away why Hinduism has such a belief. One thing they've said is that people have introduced the concept into the religion... that it was never something taught by Krishna or any other one of the manifestations, which would include Buddha. That means that anything that alludes to reincarnation by Krishna, doesn't really mean that, it has been misinterpreted into meaning reincarnation.

But this is only one concept. Anything that is not in the Baha'i writings, in any religion, they don't and can't accept as truth. Some things they can get around by saying that some laws were what they call "social" laws, that were specific to a time and place and for a certain people. Those laws, they say, get changed with each new prophet.

I personally think there is a good chance those type of laws were made by religious leaders and not from God or his Prophet. I think every people and culture had rules and moral codes that worked best for them. Not always perfect. Not always fair and just with every member of their society, but those rules thought best and helped maintain order in that society. And sometimes those laws were said to be from God or a prophet to give them more authority.

Anyway I, along with Adrian, are learning a lot. Even though, I give Baha'is a hard time, because they might have ulterior motives, and they might be really just trying to promote their religion, I do believe Adrian means well and without his threads, I wouldn't have learned as much as I have about your religious beliefs and his.

 

[paarsurrey]

Marcion. This made me laugh and great research work on the Shogen Effendi dude.

But I also think fear of prosleytisation is a sign of insecurity and lack of confidence in one's own religion. So let us discuss fearlessly and may the truth prevail.

That is the true spirit for investigation into truth.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

This sounds almost like asking a Jew, "Who is Jesus in your tradition?" But Judaism and Christianity are different religions, even though Christians say they are a continuation of "true" Jewish beliefs. But Hinduism pre-dates Krishna. So would it be more like asking a Christian, "Who is Joseph Smith and the Angel Moroni in your tradition?" The answer would be, "They are nobody. We don't believe Smith found golden plates nor talked to some Angel Moroni." Or, would it even be like asking a Christian, "Who is Baha'u'llah, The Glory of God, in your tradition?' The answer would still be "nobody."

So Hinduism is more than those that believe in Krishna. But who is Krishna to the Baha'is? He is one of the manifestations. Is that who he is to the Hindus that believe in him? Sounds like he is an incarnation of God himself. But which God? I've read that it is Vishnu. But what about Shiva? And then what about Brahma? And what then is "Brahman"?

So what kind of answer can someone of another religion, a religion that believes it is the new truth from God, get from asking about one part of such a vast religion like Hinduism? Do Baha'is actually care what the beliefs are? No, because their religion have different beliefs about God, and theirs are what are considered to be true. I thought I had them with asking about reincarnation. But, they easily dodged the question by saying that reincarnation was added in, or was mistranslated, or something, and was not part of the original teachings. So what is it the a Baha'i could hope to learn about Hinduism that they would not try to explain away and make it fit into their religious world-view?

I can't wait for a Baha'i to just come out and ask the obvious question... "What do Hindus believe and why we believe they are wrong."

The Bahaism people want to say that Bahaullah is like Krishna. If Hinduism religions could believe in Krishna with the same rationale they should believe in Krishna also.
I could be wrong, but that seems to be behind the question, no harm in it.
Well our friend @adrian009 may explain, if I am wrong.

Regards