Baha'i and Krishna

[Chaitanyananda]

Arthra made a comment in another thread that he "wouldn't go so far as to say 'I am God' in my deepest identity."

This made me curios. It is my understanding that the Baha'i faith looks at Krishna a a prophet. Is the Bhagavad Gita part of the scripture that the Baha'i faith includes?

If so, how to reconcile the above comment? Krishna's primary teaching from the Gita is that at our very inner most identity, we are nothing but God. That was why He told Arjuna that he must fight, because no one will die, only the body will die, but not what we are inside, which is God, and can thus never be killed.

If Baha'i peole do not believe we are God in our deepest identity, why do they view Krishna amongst their revered ones, when His primary teaching was about how to discover that very fact in a most personal way?

[bahai9]

Chaitanyananda
You have asked a question I cannot even attempt an answer. Yes, Baha'is accept Krishna as a Manifestation of God. I believe it because I believe Baha'u'llah was who He said He was, and He said Krishna was a Manifestation.

I am an ignorant man when it comes to understanding the links the Baha'i Faith has to Hinduism, and to Krishna specifically. And I know virtually nothing about Hinduism. The more I read the more I understand that I don't know anything.

Last week I began a series of recorded lectures on Hinduism (from the Teaching Company), and have begun reading (as a supplement) A Survey of Hinduism by Klaus K. Klostermaier. I have only read snippets from the Bhagavad Gita as they have come up in reference notes.

If pushed, this is what I, out of the depth of ignorance, think (not 'know'):
Hinduism is not polytheistic (as I once thought many years ago), and that
Krishna was a Manifestation of God and revealed a Holy Book. But as I understand it at this point, only a very small part of the many volumes considered Hindu Scripture, only the Bhagavad Gita is held in common among all Hindus and is commonly attributed to Him (Krishna) directly. So we know very little about Him and what His actual revelation was.

Sadly, that is all I understand about Hinduism (flawed though it undoubtedly is at this point). I am glad you are here and I read all of your posts closely. Perhaps in a year or so I will have a more informed opinion. In the mean time, please understand the context within which I write and know that I mean no offense (should I appear insensitive).

I fully expect that Art (Arthra) can shed some light on this subject. I have been a Baha'i for a relatively short time and Hinduism was not, until recently, 'in my path' so to speak. --Steve--

[arthra]

Hello my friend Chaitanya..

and welcome to the Baha'i section here at Interfaith forums!

In answer to your question it is true Baha'is accept Bhagavan Krishna as a Manifestation of God however we cannot be sure how much of His original teachings have survived... thus we cannot say for sure or that is we cannot acknowledge that the scriptures attribted to Sri Krishna are actually authentic..

On the issue of pantheism. Baha'is believe God's atributes are reflected in His creation but that God Himself does not descend or is identical with say the believer. There are also in Hinduism as yor are aware I'm sure different philosophical views so some are Advaita and some Dvaita..but Baha'is are not really involved in that controversy.

Baha'is do believe that Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies of the Kalkin Avatar.

- Art

[Chaitanyananda]

Thank you both for answering. If I understand correctly, as a Baha'i, you are to understand Krishna as a Manifestation of God (we call Krishna an avatar - very similar understandings, I believe), but at the same time, you do not study or utilize any of the writings from or about Him, such as the Bhagavad Gita or the Mahabharata. Is that correct?

Do you study the writings of or about any of the other Manifestations of God, or do you only study your own sacred texts? If so, what would the distinction be? Why would you study a text about one Manifestation but not another?

Also, what do you mean when you say that you are unsure of what teachings have survived. I am unaware of any doubts surrounding the authenticity of the teachings within the Bhagavad Gita. Are you saying there are such doubts as to whether those were the authentic teachings of Krishna?

Thanks for you responses. This is interesting.

[bahai9]

Chaitanyananda wrote:

If I understand correctly, as a Baha'i, you are to understand Krishna as a Manifestation of God (we call Krishna an avatar - very similar understandings, I believe), but at the same time, you do not study or utilize any of the writings from or about Him, such as the Bhagavad Gita or the Mahabharata. Is that correct?

Do you study the writings of or about any of the other Manifestations of God, or do you only study your own sacred texts? If so, what would the distinction be? Why would you study a text about one Manifestation but not another?

Please do not take my personal experience or understanding as indicative of all Baha'is. First, I have been a Baha'i for only 6 years, and there is so much more for me to understand. In devotionals that I host, I include readings I have come across taken from writing from a number of scriptural texts, including the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata. But I have not yet read them completely, nor do I feel I fully understand them as I have lifted them out of context (scriptural and cultural).

Of course my primary study is within my own Faith tradition, but I also actively participate in a weekly Bible study with a number (15 - 20) of Christian ministers from several different denominations. My strong focus on Christian Scripture is in part due to my own Christian background and the culture I am in. I feel I must test the Baha'i writings against the Bible, for if they differ, both could not be true. Both could be false, I suppose, but both could not be true. I have found them both to be true, and enjoy the continued study.

I continue to read the Qur'an and a number of supplemental works and histories of the Middle East. Surely I am no Muslim scholar, but this effort has paid great dividends in my own quest.

As I noted in my response earlier, I do not yet have much understanding of the Hindu Faith. I am trying now to fix that by listening to a taped course on Hinduism and reading some survey texts before reading Hindu Scripture, such as those mentioned by you above.

The universality of Baha'i belief (i.e, the oneness of religions, the unity of the spiritual messages of all religions, the prophetic continuity linking Jesus, Baha'u'llah, Buddha, Krishna, and other religious figures) requires us, I believe, to read and understand these other Scriptures. Indeed, a study done on the Atlanta Baha'i community in the early 90's showed that over 27% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "It is important to me as a Baha'i to attend worship services of other religious faiths." Also, over 95% agreed or strongly agreed that Baha'is should cooperate with other groups who have similar goals.

Finally, the survey responses showed that 4.2% of Baha'is in Atlanta GA, at the time, read daily from the scripture of other religious faiths (including Hinduism). 10.2% read scripture from other religious faiths weekly, 15.7% monthly.

A long post I know, but my point is that Baha'is accept Krishna as a Manifestation, and the writings (Scripture) are accepted as inspired from God. The questions I have about Hinduism, Krishna, the Holy Books, etc, are out of ignorance. Your posts help but I truly have a great deal yet to learn about Hinduism. Only study will fill in those blanks for me.

All that said (whew), my primary focus is on the Scripture revealed, I believe, by the most recent of this long line of Manifestations of God, many written in His own hand, others dictated directly to His emanuensis (scribe) and proofed by Him for accuracy. I hope this makes sense on its face and requires no further explanation. Great questions! --Steve--