Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Yes, at times I am. Othertimes, I am a nice respectful cheerful guy. The only business Bahais have here, behind all their sweetness, is proselytization, which I hate.

 

[atanu]

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?

I see that it is not the essential Bahai thing. And there is no need to see OP in light of this.

YMMV.

 

[Marcion]

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?

Sarkar uses the term 'tantra' in a very broad sense as any (proven) spiritual practice that is effective and mostly connected with mystic spirituality.
So prayer, ritualism (such as offering fruit etc. to a deity) and purely theoretical religious ideas don't seem to belong to tantra in his ideology. For Sarkar tantra is not limited to any particular religion or culture. Even a person like Boyan Slat (or Margaret Thatcher, Nelson Mandela) would be seen as tantric by Sarkar because they have that mentality of never giving up and overcoming any kind of obstacle no matter what, people who are practical and get things done (tantra can also be used for the wrong purpose).

I have no knowledge yet of specific tantric practices in other tantric paths. Perhaps it is the close mystical connection to the Guru that makes it tantric in our case as well as the stress on relying on His support in everything you undertake. The teachers do some special tantric practices that help extra to conquer fear and overcome other weaknesses that hinder a person's spiritual growth and power to get things done in society.

 

[Terese]

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.

Yes Sri Vaishnavas worship the Lord as Sriman Narayana but its a mistake to call Lord Krishna as something separate from Narayana. If Narayana is God, it also means Lord Krishna is God. This extends to all of his manifestations. Though yes Vishnu is Para-Vasudeva (Supreme original form) in the eyes of Sri Vaishnavas.

 

[Vinayaka]

Sarkar uses the term 'tantra' in a very broad sense as any (proven) spiritual practice that is effective and mostly connected with mystic spirituality.
So prayer, ritualism (such as offering fruit etc. to a deity) and purely theoretical religious ideas don't seem to belong to tantra in his ideology. For Sarkar tantra is not limited to any particular religion or culture.

I have no knowledge yet of specific tantric practices in other tantric paths. Perhaps it is the close mystical connection to the Guru that makes it tantric in our case as well as the stress on relying on His support in everything you undertake. The teachers do some special tantric practices that help extra to conquer fear and overcome other weaknesses that hinder a person's spiritual growth.

Thank you. I don't want to derail this thread, but may start another on on this subject. Your stuff coincides with mine.

 

[Marcion]

I see that it is not the essential Bahai thing. And there is no need to see OP in light of this.

No need, but I definitely do see it in that light and it stops me from saying anything specific about Krishna in this thread.

 

[stvdv]

. 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?

OMG

 

[stvdv]

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?

I see that it is not the essential Bahai thing. And there is no need to see OP in light of this.
YMMV.

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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]

It 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.

BTW: do you take a similar approach with Heracles?

 

[atanu]

I understand that statements of differences fetch attractive worldly rewards. I understand that proselytization drives the most so-called world religions, driven by ego of men. But the truth is non dual. Hindus do not forget transitory nature of mental beliefs and the truth of rebirth.The truth is one -- sages give it names. I am secure in that knowledge.

I believe that when Shri Krishna says "I am the self in all beings", God means that.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Yes, at times I am. Othertimes, I am a nice respectful cheerful guy. The only business Bahais have here, behind all their sweetness, is proselytization, which I hate.

But how do you know he is proselytizing? I mean I think what the OP is trying to do is find some understanding concerning Hinduism and perhaps a bridge between these two faiths. I know I’m guilty of thinking Hinduism is mostly theistic but I think a lot of our knowledge of Hinduism is mostly stereotypical from what we know from media and little from our respective faiths.

 

[ajay0]

That's really interesting too as we have have both Krishna and Jesus as literal physical incarnations of God. Rather than trying to argue which narrative is more correct, its enough for now to reflect on the diversity of belief surrounding the Divinity of Krishna. What you have told me enables more research into the origins of those differing perspectives.

Both Krishna and Jesus have stated that they are God. Same with the sufi enlightened sage Mansur Al-Hallaj.

I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings. ( BG - 10:20) ~ Krishna

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30 ) ~ Jesus Christ

Ana al Haq (I am the Truth) ~ Mansur Al- Hallaj

Aham Brahmasmi ( I am He ) - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

What this means is that they were Self-realized, and identified with the Self or pure consciousness within them, and which is all-pervasive as per Advaitan philosophy. Upon enlightenment, they realized their oneness with all of existence, and hence stated thus.

A young enlightened master whom I was privileged to come in contact with, also stated to me that upon enlightenment, he was able to see pure consciousness pervading everything . Prior to his enlightenment, he did not have this perception.

Other enlightened masters in modern times have also stated the same such as Ramana Maharshi and Gary Weber...

Pure Consciousness, which is the Heart, includes all. Nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the ultimate Truth. – Sri Ramana Maharshi


Here is an account of enlightenment by Gary Weber...

Somehow, I happened upon the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. I began looking in the other direction, back inside at what it was that was doing all of these practices and causing all of this confusion. One day, realizing that enlightenment was impossible as long as there was an “I” insisting on being present for the exciting conclusion as well as keeping all of its attachments, I surrendered completely. Everything was surrendered, everything; my “self”, possessions, job, corner office, parking space, options, house, attachments, everything. I said deeply and sincerely from the bottom of my being, that I had to know the Truth, even if it cost my life. With that surrender, I could feel something shift.

Shortly afterwards, doing an asana that I had done thousands of times before, the “I” blew out like a candle in the wind, and a page turned. I went into the asana one way and came out transformed. Consciousness shifted completely and irrevocably. Thought stopped as a continuous activity and stillness and presence were there at a level I could never have imagined. I realized that I was not this body, nor these thoughts, but the undying consciousness behind them. I saw that everything was perfect just as it was and that everything was somehow inside me and was in fact, all One. Surprisingly, I also realized that everything was God. - Gary Weber

So you can see that enlightenment is a phenomenon that can happen to anyone and is the innate potential within each human being.

Jesus Christ and Mansur Al-Hallaj were enlightened beings, who expressed their oneness with existence. This was however misinterpreted as blasphemy by conditioned fundamentalists who had no idea of the enlightened experience, as it is actually an unconditioned state. And this was the main reason for their false conviction in religious courts of law, and assassination later on.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bhaghavad Gita - Chapter 7

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

@Vinayaka doesn't.

Have you asked Vinayaka?

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

Not just the Vaishnavas, even Shiavas, Shaktas and atheists advaitists like me also agree that theist Hindus consider Lord Krishna as God himself, an avatara of Lord Vishnu. I take Lord Krishna to be Brahman since (as per advaita) there is no second entity in the universe, there is just one.

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)

That is the crux of the problem. It is not love of other people or the quest for knowledge about other religions that guides the Bahais, but the quest for converts. Did the Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) think that Hindus are fools?

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.

Yeah, for Sri Vaishnavas, it is Vishnu before any other.

 

[ajay0]

So Krishna did not speak of love?

Krishna was love himself. He stated himself as the Self in all beings. And what is the Self !

'The Self alone is real love. One who knows the secret of that love finds the world itself full of universal love.' – Sri Ramana Maharshi

 

[Aupmanyav]

But how do you know he is proselytizing? I mean I think what the OP is trying to do is find some understanding concerning Hinduism and perhaps a bridge between these two faiths. I know I’m guilty of thinking Hinduism is mostly theistic but I think a lot of our knowledge of Hinduism is mostly stereotypical from what we know from media and little from our respective faiths.

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.

 

[Jainarayan]

As far as I'm concerned, these two are the same, but I'm going with Door #2 for purpose of the poll...

1. A Manifestation of God
2. An Incarnation of Vishnu

 

[Vinayaka]

As far as I'm concerned, these two are the same, but I'm going with Door #2 for purpose of the poll...

1. A Manifestation of God
2. An Incarnation of Vishnu

There are always 3 doors, Buddy.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are always 3 doors, Buddy.

Yes, very true.

 

[Jainarayan]

but that is far in future (some 425,000 years from now).

429,898 years to be precise. But on such a large timescale, who cares about 4,000 years?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.
...

Thank you for sharing your perspectives and seeing this thread as an opportunity to learn more about Krishna for myself and others who are interested.

I do like what Yogananda says about the discourse between Krishna (God) and Arjuna most importantly being allegorical or symbolic of the deeper spiritual realities within us all.

I had always thought of Lord Krishna as having innate knowledge given his close association with the Supreme God-head. Do you have any links about him being a disciple of sage Ghore?