Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[paarsurrey]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Catholics will use statues of Mary, Jesus and the saints" Unquote.

But Jesus and Mary did not worship any idols/statues. Did they, please?

Regards

 

[robocop (actually)]

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 thought there were 9 levels of evolution from a fish to Buddha and Krishna and Kalki.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I thought there were 9 levels of evolution from a fish to Buddha and Krishna and Kalki.

You would need to ask the Hindus about the fish avatar of Vishnu. The Baha'is recognise Krishna, Buddha and the Kalki as being avatars of God/Vishnu.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

Although Baha'is would see Krishna and Baha'u'llah as both being Manifestations of God they had different Teaching reflecting the very different cultures they emerged from.

 

[ajay0]

Although Baha'is would see Krishna and Baha'u'llah as both being Manifestations of God they had different Teaching reflecting the very different cultures they emerged from.

Yeah, Bahaullah through the establishment of the bahai religion, had its goal the universality and harmony of all religions, which was and is an important need of the times when inter-religious conflict is high.

Other masters in recent times like Sri Ramakrishna and Shirdi Sai Baba also greatly emphasized the fact that all religions are expressions of the one divinity, and strove to reduce inter-religious conflict and disharmony.

Krishna's purpose in those times similarly was to harmonise and synthesize the various sects of yoga, vedanta, sankhya, bhakti, karma and jnana together and to show that these sects were also various paths to the same goal of Self-realisation, as shown in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[Marcion]

Krishna's purpose in those times similarly was to harmonise and synthesize the various sects of yoga, vedanta, sankhya, bhakti, karma and jnana together and to show that these sects were also various paths to the same goal of Self-realisation, as shown in the Bhagavad Gita.

And so did Lords Shiva and Anandamurti, they unified by blending, modernizing and creating a renewed systematic cult of spiritual practices, after the original teachings had become blurred/diluted, scattered and no longer up to date with the demands of their day and age.

Shiva was such an important Guru that they even started to worship His wives, tantric children as well as the son who wasn't tantric. Much later different godesses were coupled with Him as His "wives" eventhough in real life they could never have met (due to them having lived thousands of years apart).

 

[Rajat Kumar]

Lord Krishna is a major deity and is worshiped as the eight avatar of Lord Vishnu. So, he is certainly an avatar of Vishnu. Also, his name is 57th in the list in Vishnu Sahasranama. I was unaware of this fact, however after reading: Lord Shri Krishna | Life of Lord Krishna | Life Rules by Lord Krishna | Guru Kripa, I came to know about this.
If anybody, knows more about Lord Krishna, please suggest. Also, I would be going to Vrindavan next week, please suggest what all places should I go.

 

[Marcion]

Lord Krishna is a major deity and is worshiped as the eight avatar of Lord Vishnu. So, he is certainly an avatar of Vishnu.

Who is Lord Vishnu, when did he live and is he also worshipped directly by Hindus?
Vishnu - Wikipedia

Ah, Vishnu is the 'preserver part or aspect of God' in the Trinity Brahma, Vishnu, Devo Mahesvara.
So it seems Vishnu is an aspect of Saguna Brahma, the expressed side of Brahman?
But why would this be associated with the physical appearance of Lord Krishna?
Who developed this idea? Is this coming from the authors of the Purana's?

 

[Jainarayan]

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.

That can be said for almost any deity. Many Vaishnavas cling to the belief that Shiva is the most ardent devotee of Vishnu. I don't subscribe to that. And I daresay I'm not in the minority.

 

[Jainarayan]

I thought there were 9 levels of evolution from a fish to Buddha and Krishna and Kalki.

That's actually not true. The avatars of Vishnu number 24 in total 24 Avataars of Lord Vishnu and are not in the order of the Dasavatara (lit. "ten avatars"). It was Jayadeva Goswami who composed the poem Dasakritikrite listing the Dasavatara. The theory of evolution per the Dasavatara is silliness concocted by a westerner very likely based on the Dasakritikrite. Dashavatara - Wikipedia

Some modern interpreters sequence Vishnu's ten main avatars in a definitive order, from simple life-forms to more complex, and see the Dashavataras as a reflection, or a foreshadowing, of the modern theory of evolution. Such an interpretation was first propounded by Theosophist Helena Blavatsky in her 1877 opus Isis Unveiled, in which she proposed the following ordering of the Dashavataras:[34][35]

 

[Jainarayan]

You would need to ask the Hindus about the fish avatar of Vishnu. The Baha'is recognise Krishna, Buddha and the Kalki as being avatars of God/Vishnu.

No Rāma, no Paraśurāma? They were human avatars who had very important tasks on Earth.

 

[Marcion]

Ah, this idea of avatars was indeed invented quite recently in the 6th Century CE in the Puranic age:

Avatar - Wikipedia

The word avatar does not appear in the Vedic literature,[5] but appears in verb forms in post-Vedic literature, and as a noun particularly in the Puranic literature after the 6th century CE.[6] Despite that, the concept of an avatar is compatible with the content of the Vedic literature like the Upanishads as it is symbolic imagery of the Saguna Brahman concept in the philosophy of Hinduism. The Rigveda describes Indra as endowed with a mysterious power of assuming any form at will.[7][8] The Bhagavad Gita expounds the doctrine of Avatara but with terms other than avatar.[6][9]

I wonder how it is worded in the Bhagavad Gita?

 

[CG Didymus]

You would need to ask the Hindus about the fish avatar of Vishnu. The Baha'is recognise Krishna, Buddha and the Kalki as being avatars of God/Vishnu.

Where is this in the Baha'i writings that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu? And also about Krishna and Kalki? The Baha'is recognize them as avatars of Vishnu? I've always heard Baha'is say Krishna is a manifestation but not an avatar. And, while you're at it, Jainarayan asks why Rāma, and Paraśurāma are not included?

 

[Jainarayan]

I wonder how it is worded in the Bhagavad Gita?

Avatar literally means descent, appear, cross (movement). But the word is not used in these verses.

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśhāya cha duṣhkṛitām
dharma-sansthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge

paritrāṇāya—to protect; sādhūnām—the righteous; vināśhāya—to annihilate; cha—and; duṣhkṛitām—the wicked; dharma—the eternal religion; sansthāpana-arthāya—to reestablish; sambhavāmi—I appear; yuge yuge—age after age

BG 4.8: To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked, and to reestablish the principles of dharma I appear on this earth, age after age.

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣhīṁ tanum āśhritam
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśhvaram

avajānanti—disregard; mām—Me; mūḍhāḥ—dim-witted; mānuṣhīm—human; tanum—form; āśhritam—take on; param—divine; bhāvam—personality; ajānantaḥ—not knowing; mama—My; bhūta—all beings; mahā-īśhvaram—the Supreme Lord

BG 9.11: When I descend in My personal take on my human form deluded persons are unable to recognize Me. They do not know the divinity of My personality, as the Supreme Lord of all beings.

 

[Jainarayan]

I've always heard Baha'is say Krishna is a manifestation but not an avatar.

The problem is in the word 'avatar'. As I mentioned, it literally means "descent, appear, cross (movement)". Shaivas and Shaktas do not have the concept of avatars, yet Shiva and Devi take many forms. Avatar is a uniquely Vaishnava concept or usage, yet it really is not different than a form or incarnation. Yet, maybe the difference is 'incarnation'. Vishnu has taken physical forms; I don't know if Shaivas and Shaktas believe Shiva and Devi take physical form. I tend to think of them as incorporeal and metaphysical, not physical. Just as I do not take Vishnu himself as physical.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No Rāma, no Paraśurāma? They were human avatars who had very important tasks on Earth.

It is clear from the Baha’i writings there have been other Manifestations of God/Vishnu too. So Rāma and Parasurama may well have been human avatars of Vishnu. One thought is the difficulty from a purely historic approach to distinguish myth, allegory, symbolism and historical truth from sacred texts such as the Mahabharata. So many historians are likely to agree Krishna was a real person who walked the earth. The historicity of earlier avatars are harder to verify. Do you think such considerations are useful?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Where is this in the Baha'i writings that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu? And also about Krishna and Kalki? The Baha'is recognize them as avatars of Vishnu? I've always heard Baha'is say Krishna is a manifestation but not an avatar. And, while you're at it, Jainarayan asks why Rāma, and Paraśurāma are not included?

Please see my response to @Jainarayan in regards earlier avatars. Further he has explained the similarities between the concepts of avatars and incarnations as well as necessity of a metaphysical rather than a purely physical perspective.

Shoghi Effendi specifically used the word avatar.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

BG 4.8: To protect the righteous, to annihilate the wicked, and to reestablish the principles of dharma I appear on this earth, age after age.

BG 9.11: When I descend in My personal take on my human form deluded persons are unable to recognize Me. They do not know the divinity of My personality, as the Supreme Lord of all beings.

There many verses in many Scriptures that to me say the same things.

Thank you for sharing.

Regards Tony

 

[Marcion]

Vishnu has taken physical forms; I don't know if Shaivas and Shaktas believe Shiva and Devi take physical form. I tend to think of them as incorporeal and metaphysical, not physical. Just as I do not take Vishnu himself as physical.

That is because Shiva and his three wives lived very much longer ago so the idea of them having been corporeal people like you and me has faded in time.

If Vishnu is indeed the pervasive presence of God in literally everyone and everything then the idea of this Vishnu incarnating in a separate single body makes no sense, but that seems to be the religious perhaps Puranic idea of so-called avatars.

 

[Jainarayan]

That is because Shiva and his three wives lived very much longer ago so the idea of them having been corporeal people like you and me has faded in time.

If Vishnu is indeed the pervasive presence of God in literally everyone and everything then the idea of this Vishnu incarnating in a separate single body makes no sense, but that seems to be the religious perhaps Puranic idea of so-called avatars.

In my view, because God is outside of time and space, and there are an infinite number of universes and planes, He/She/They exist simultaneously and concurrently in all times, universes and planes. So yeah... Krishna, Rāma, Narasimha, and even possibly Kalki (if a particular universe is far enough along in "time") all exist now. The same for Shiva, Devi and their forms, manifestations. Is this a little "out there"? Yes possibly, but who are we to put limits on God?