oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi.......
Heracles?
Melgarth Heracles?
Was this God, (named in Greek,) in fact the God Baal in enmity to the Israelites?
In any event, he failed and disappeared, didn't he?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who was Krishna in your tradition?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
Hi.......
Heracles?
Melgarth Heracles?
Was this God, (named in Greek,) in fact the God Baal in enmity to the Israelites?
In any event, he failed and disappeared, didn't he?
It's entirely possible Rāma and Paraśurāma were historical figures, and I think it likely. Maybe even Vamana. I firmly believe Krishna was historical, as were the events in the Mahābhārata. Other avatars such as Narasimha, Hayagriva, Varāha... I don't think they were historical and necessarily of this plane. Their appearances may be more allegorical than anything else. But I don't know, I take them on faith.
Do you believe that Shiva was an historic person who walked the earth as Krishna did? I know from talking to @Marcion he believes this to be true but then @Vinayaka a Saivite Hindu would disagree.
The Vaishnavaism and Shiavism appear to be the two major traditions in Hinduism.
The Ananda Marga movement that Marcion follows appears to recognise Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna as having special status and powers then has Anandamurti himself as one who has similar powers.
Why learn about other faiths?
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar - Wikipedia
No. If he was and did, that would derail the no-avatars beliefs of Shaivism. While I believe God works continuously and simultaneously in many forms "behind the scenes", I think it's only Vishnu who takes physical form for specific reasons.
According to Anandamurti both Shiva and Krishna were (like Himself) not 'avatars of Vishnu' but personal expressions of 'Taraka Brahma' coming from the tangent plain between Saguna Brahma and Nirguna Brahma.
So who are your final authorities?That's his belief.It doesn't make him a final authority.
That's his belief.
One of the major differences between Hinduism and some other faiths is that we disagree so amicably. I totally disagree with Marcion, and Aup, but the overriding belief is that it is just belief. Nobody I know of in the Hindu umbrella is saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." So when a non-Hindu, ingrained in that mindset of there has to be one that is right, enters a Hindu discussion, it must be really puzzling to them, besides the fact that they misinterpret that we're all saying we're the ones that are right, and everyone else is wrong. But hey it's just projection.
Last edited:
It's not of much importance spiritually which view you hold on such cosmological subjects. But it certainly is fun comparing them and feeling smug about your "better" viewpoint.
The difference with fundamentalist folk is that they think their spiritual destiny depends on such beliefs.
I'm pretty sure believing in all the Hindu myths of the Puranic religion will in no way harm your spiritual progress. But I dislike it just the same way I dislike the colour pink.
The Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Vedas, Puranas. I like what certain swamis and acharyas write... Yogananda, Vivekananda, Sivananda, Shankaracharya and others. I respect them as learned men but I don’t take everything as authority. That’s the beauty of Hinduism. Even those saints, acharyas and swamis would probably say “sure, whatever works for you”.
I don't agree with Puranic religion either, but if someone else does, so what? The essential matter is conduct, and that is most certainly related to karma. We all want to be evolving towards moksha, and what philosophical path we're on is mostly intellectual conjecture, not real true knowledge (jnana) attained from the sustained meditation of raja yoga.
The fundamentalists, temporarily are accruing papa, because of anava. .
You know what I always say, “ask 1 billion Hindus 1 question and you’ll get 2 billion answers”. And none of them will be at odds.
Even the Rig Veda has questions. 10.129, anyone? Hint: Nasadiya Sukta.
Isn't this just emotional maturity rather than a distinguishing feature of one religion?
We all have differing beliefs and its just learning detachment and appreciation of diversity.
Its not an exclusively Hindu trait to be tolerant and its not an exclusively Abrahamic trait to be intolerant.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I belong to Ahmadiyya peaceful Islam. We believe that Krishna was a prophet/messenger of G-d.
1. Irrespective of the objections of the Hinduism religions, we have to believe in the truth of Krishna as a truthful prophet/messenger of G-d as a principal article of our faith, if we deny their being prophets/messengers of G-d, we cannot be Muslims.*1
2. Denial of one prophet/messenger of G-d is denial of all the prophets/messengers of G-d as they are all sent by G-d. And denial of one of them is denial of G-d who has sent them.*2
3. Prophets/messengers have been sent to all the peoples of the World from themselves as Warners and as Guides.*3
4. Quran mention that only some prophets/messengers of G-d has been mentioned in Quran, and there are others that have not been mentioned.*4
5. It is a wrong notion that only prophets/messengers of G-d from the off-spring of Abraham have been mentioned in Quran. Luqman and Zul-Qurnain (Cyrus the Great of Persia, a Zoroastrian) are two examples.
Regards
*1
[2:5]
And who believe in that which has been revealed to thee, and that which was revealed before thee, and they have firm faith in what is yet to come.
[2:6]
It is they who follow the guidance of their Lord and it is they who shall prosper.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah
*2
*[11:60]
And these were ‘Ad. They denied the Signs of their Lord and disobeyed His Messengers and followed the bidding of every haughty enemy of truth.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 11: Hud
[2:286]
This Messenger of Ours believes in that which has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers: all of them believe in Allah, and in His angels, and in His Books, and in His Messengers, saying, ‘We make no distinction between any of His Messengers;’ and they say, ‘We hear, and we obey. We implore Thy forgiveness, O our Lord, and to Thee is the returning.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 2: Al-Baqarah
*3
[13:8]
And those who disbelieve say, ‘Wherefore has not a Sign been sent down to him from his Lord?’ Thou art, surely, a Warner. And there is a Guide for every people.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 13: Al-Ra`d
*4
[40:79]
And We did send Messengers before thee; of them are some whom We have mentioned to thee, and of them there are some whom We have not mentioned to thee; and it is not possible for any Messenger to bring a Sign except by the leave of Allah. But when Allah’s decree came, the matter was decided with truth, and then there perished those who uttered falsehoods.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 40: Al-Mu'min
Satyamavejayanti
Well-Known Member
Namaste,
Can i first ask, Why are you asking only about Krishna, Why not ask about the other Avatars or Shiva, Shakti or Brahma, or other Devas and Devis of Hinduism?
I only ask because i notice that most non Hindus only ask about Krishna?
If there seems to be not enough information about Krishna in your texts, can i please ask then why would the Bahai consider Krishna a manifestation of God? and in that regard is Prophet Mohammad also a manifestation of God? is this conforming to the Islamic belief?
What does a Prophet mean to Bahai faith? Are they "Manifestation", of God? or just a "Messenger", of God similar to Islamic belief (Muslims can correct me if i am wrong on this).
In your link about the Manifestations of God, it is said that Bahai consider Krishna as the "Founder", of Hinduism, do you know that this is not correct? and is this why the Bahai are interested in Krishna only, is it because they think Krishna is the Founder of Hinduism?
As for the original question, Krishna to me is what Krishna says he is/was, I am not going to assume Krishna as something apart from what he himself has declared to be.
Dhanyavad
The word tolerant does not describe the major difference.
Bahai, orthodox Christians and orthodox Muslims often really do believe that people are better off if they also become Bahai, Christians or Muslims because they have the irrational belief that people in their own religious bubble are given preference in the afterlife.
Dharmic paths do not think in that way, they don't believe in this idea of a God handing out boons to people just because they joined a certain religious bubble, they think such thoughts are irrational or ignorant. They don't believe that God hands out "dispensations" to certain "messengers" or so-called faiths, they do believe that God or the universe is totally impartial in this respect.
Last edited:
Namaste Dhanyavad,
Thank you for dropping by,
I ask about Krishna as He is the only Manifestation of God from Hinduism identified in the Baha'i writings. Buddha is a Manifestation of God too, though not strictly Hindu. There may be many others. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith spent all of His life within Islamic teroritories surrounded by Muslims. The subject of Hinduism rarely arose. There are exceptions.
Baha'is believe in Avatars. In that sense Krishna was an Avatar of Vishnu, and we believe Buddha was too.
Baha'is believe in a Supreme Deity who may have many names and aspects. In that sense it would be reasonable for this Baha'i to consider Brahma and Shiva along with Vishnu names and aspects of the Supreme Diety.
Its also possible Shiva was an historic figure such as Krishna but I have no solid evidence to support that.
My Supreme Deity is both transcendant beyond all creation and Omniscient and Omnipresent so part of all creation. Shakti if seen as a form of primordial cosmic energy that pervades the universe is consistent with Baha’i cosmology.
I don’t personally believe in other gods but have no problems with those who do.
I grew up Christian, but as a young adult searched other traditions including Buddhism and Hinduism for the best path. Ultimately God led me to the Baha’i Faith. I could accept it because it acknowledged the deep spiritual origins of what I had explored through Dharmic traditions but from Christianity too. That was nearly 30 years ago.
A Manifestation of God is a perfect representation of the Divine attributes and One whom God Himself speaks through. In that sense Krishna is a Manifestation of God and so is Jesus. I believe Bahá’u’lláh is too. Krishna, Jesus and Bahá’u’lláh are all specifically mentioned in the Baha’i writings.
Baha’is believe Muhammad was a Manifestation of God too. God manifested through Him and the Quran was revealed. Through His Divine attributes of wisdom, justice and love He was able to unite a disparate group of Nomadic tribes on The Arabian peninsula. Later a great Islamic Civilization flourished that was one of the largest and most influential in history. For reasons of wisdom Muhammad downplayed any identification with Divinity and used the term Messenger. Unfortunately His followers have corrupted His religion.
A prophet is simply one through whom the Supreme Being communicates to people. They may be Manifestations or not. There will be many great spiritual leaders in Hinduism who are gurus. The term prophet is Abrahamic and hard to use in a Hindu setting as the word Dharma is not readily understood in Western culture.
The Baha’i link says that Krishna founded a great religion. That is true and along with other great traditions and beliefs we have Hinduism. It does not say Krishna founded Hinduism and I agree that would be incorrect. The roots of Hinduism are obscure and unclear but may date back over 10,000 years to Indus Valley thousands of years before Krishna was born.
Nor would I. One question I had in mind was does the reality of Krishna conflict with how He is portrayed in my Faith. I don’t think He is. Do you?
So what deity or deities do you worship?
Kind regards
Adrian
Thank you for dropping by,
I ask about Krishna as He is the only Manifestation of God from Hinduism identified in the Baha'i writings. Buddha is a Manifestation of God too, though not strictly Hindu. There may be many others. Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith spent all of His life within Islamic teroritories surrounded by Muslims. The subject of Hinduism rarely arose. There are exceptions.
Baha'is believe in Avatars. In that sense Krishna was an Avatar of Vishnu, and we believe Buddha was too.
Baha'is believe in a Supreme Deity who may have many names and aspects. In that sense it would be reasonable for this Baha'i to consider Brahma and Shiva along with Vishnu names and aspects of the Supreme Diety.
Its also possible Shiva was an historic figure such as Krishna but I have no solid evidence to support that.
My Supreme Deity is both transcendant beyond all creation and Omniscient and Omnipresent so part of all creation. Shakti if seen as a form of primordial cosmic energy that pervades the universe is consistent with Baha’i cosmology.
I don’t personally believe in other gods but have no problems with those who do.
I grew up Christian, but as a young adult searched other traditions including Buddhism and Hinduism for the best path. Ultimately God led me to the Baha’i Faith. I could accept it because it acknowledged the deep spiritual origins of what I had explored through Dharmic traditions but from Christianity too. That was nearly 30 years ago.
A Manifestation of God is a perfect representation of the Divine attributes and One whom God Himself speaks through. In that sense Krishna is a Manifestation of God and so is Jesus. I believe Bahá’u’lláh is too. Krishna, Jesus and Bahá’u’lláh are all specifically mentioned in the Baha’i writings.
Baha’is believe Muhammad was a Manifestation of God too. God manifested through Him and the Quran was revealed. Through His Divine attributes of wisdom, justice and love He was able to unite a disparate group of Nomadic tribes on The Arabian peninsula. Later a great Islamic Civilization flourished that was one of the largest and most influential in history. For reasons of wisdom Muhammad downplayed any identification with Divinity and used the term Messenger. Unfortunately His followers have corrupted His religion.
A prophet is simply one through whom the Supreme Being communicates to people. They may be Manifestations or not. There will be many great spiritual leaders in Hinduism who are gurus. The term prophet is Abrahamic and hard to use in a Hindu setting as the word Dharma is not readily understood in Western culture.
The Baha’i link says that Krishna founded a great religion. That is true and along with other great traditions and beliefs we have Hinduism. It does not say Krishna founded Hinduism and I agree that would be incorrect. The roots of Hinduism are obscure and unclear but may date back over 10,000 years to Indus Valley thousands of years before Krishna was born.
Nor would I. One question I had in mind was does the reality of Krishna conflict with how He is portrayed in my Faith. I don’t think He is. Do you?
So what deity or deities do you worship?
Kind regards
Adrian
Every true religion encourages their followers towards love, compassion, kindness and justice. Other than what our traditions teach about an afterlife most of us don’t know with any certainty what happens when we die. Living each day to the fullest in the service of humanity is the best we can do.
Sounds very much like “I’m right and your wrong” and “My path is better than your path”. As soon as you think this way let alone speak or write of it, you attract negative Karma.
Last edited:
Pleased to hear that you believe in ahisma and Krishna.
That all sounds excellent. We have very similar beliefs.
Thanks for sharing
Threatening someone with more logical and universal ideas with hell or negative karma is a tactic of trying to create fear in the minds of so-called "disbelievers". That itself is a negative action dear Adrian. Packaging that message in sweet sounding words is nothing but static peace.
Such tactics are not found in the Dharmic paths but they can be found plentiful in the scriptures of the Abrahamic paths. Just because good can be found in all paths does not mean we are released of the duty to help point out defects and mistakes in those paths. It is our duty to help liberate the human mind from suffocating dogmas. Do you see the difference in approach? Soft on the outside but hard on the inside (the keepers of static peace) versus soft on the inside but hard on the outside.
Last edited: