Hindus and Baha'is: about Krishna

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah? If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened? Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Xavier Graham said:

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah? If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened? Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Click to expand...

Baha'is believe that Krishna was a Manifestation of God and Baha'u'llah was also a Manifestation of God, and there have been other Manifestations of God throughout human history.

I do not know what the other Baha'is believe but I do not believe we can ever know if the events surrounding the Gita really happened as I don't have any reason to believe it is historically accurate.

I do not know that Krishna taught reincarnation since Krishna never wrote anything. Rather what was written by Vyasa and it came by way of oral tradition so it is not necessarily accurate. It is possible that Krishna taught reincarnation, but if He did it was because that is what people needed to hear and could understand at that time. Bear in mind that was over 5000 years ago and people were different back then.

No, Baha'is do not believe in reincarnation. We believe that when our bodies die our souls leave the body and go to the spiritual world where the soul takes on a new form, a spiritual body, and then the soul continues to progress for eternity in the spiritual world. It never comes back to earth.

Xavier Graham said:

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

This topic has been repeated here and if I find the thread I will link it here.

What a strange idea. Why should we care about their view? In any case I think it is incomplete and inaccurate.

It is good that they see the truth in different faiths. However, to keep that if they have to twist it that is not good.

If you want to know about Shri KRshNa first hand, ask Hindus , not Bahai's! They have (by their own self-admission) incomplete knowledge about Hindu dharma and Shri KRshNa.

Why do you give their guesses more weight than what Hinduism tells you first hand?

If you are Dharmic/Eastern (the religion field in your profile) , then learn about KRshNa from the DhArmic, and not from indirect derived sources which say "a lot is unknown" in their writings because that is where their study ends.

5300 years ago writing was not common but there was a unique way to record. At the same time, we know that Rukmini wrote a letter to KRshNa which means writing was prevalent at the time. Shri KRshNa spoke more than one Geeta. Uddhav Geeta is KRshNa's discourse to Uddhav and that makes a major part of the 11th Canto of Shrimad Bhagvatam.
Geetas are from KRshNa. He helped VedaVyas compile them in writing and successive oral traditions. That was Vyas's role. To divide the Veda into 4 parts and compile the rest - itihaas.


We have archeological evidence of Dwarka remains and evidence in Vraj region - Vrundavan Mathura GokuL, of KRshNa.
Here we have numerous devotees of KRshNa, Hindus, who have first-hand experience of KRshNa's presence, guidance, speaking to them, visions, protection, like no other has done, to keep His promise in the Bhagvad Geeta. (Now as soon as I post this some obnoxious content may spring up in irrelevant areas of RF . It is very sad. )
However, instead of asking them, you are more interested in whether Bahai's believe that the events around Mahabharat and Geeta took place! Strange isn't it? You are not the first to ask though.

ameyAtmA said:

This topic has been repeated here and if I find the thread I will link it here.

What a strange idea. Why should we care about their opinion?
If you want to know about Shri KRshNa first hand, ask Hindus , not Bahai's! They have (by their own self-admission) half baked knowledge about Hindu dharma and Shri KRshNa.

Why do you give their "guesses" more weight than what Hinduism tells you first hand?

If you are Dharmic/Eastern (the religion field in your profile) , then learn about KRshNa from the DhArmic, and not from indirect derived sources which have not bothered to study Hinduism and they say "a lot is unknown" in their writings because that is where their study ends.

5300 years ago writing was not common but there was a unique way to record. At the same time, we know that Rukmini wrote a letter to KRshNa which means writing was prevalent at the time. Shri KRshNa spoke more than one Geeta. Uddhav Geeta is KRshNa's discourse to Uddhav and that makes a major part of the 11th Canto of Shrimad Bhagvatam.
Geetas are from KRshNa. He helped VedaVyas compile them in writing and successive oral traditions. That was Vyas's role. To divide the Veda into 4 parts and compile the rest - itihaas.


Another strange trend (you are not alone) :

We have archeological evidence of Dwarka remains and evidence in Vraj region - Vrundavan Mathura GokuL of KRshNa.
Here we have numerous devotees of KRshNa, Hindus, who have first-hand experience of KRshNa's presence, guidance, speaking to them, visions, protection, like no other has done, to keep His promise in the Bhagvad Geeta. (Now as soon as I post this some obnoxious content may spring up in irrelevant areas of RF . It is very sad. )
However, instead of asking them, you are more interested in whether Bahai's believe that the events around Mahabharat and Geeta took place! Strange isn't it?

Click to expand...

You raise good points!

Strange indeed.

I suppose the OP was more of a result in my curiosity of Baha'i belief.

Trailblazer said:

I do not know that Krishna taught reincarnation since Krishna never wrote anything. Rather what was written by Vyasa

Click to expand...

5300 years ago writing was not common but there was a unique way to record. At the same time, we know that Rukmini wrote a letter to KRshNa which means writing was prevalent at the time. Shri KRshNa spoke more than one Geeta. Uddhav Geeta is KRshNa's discourse to Uddhav and that makes a major part of the 11th Canto of Shrimad Bhagvatam.
The 3 Geetas are from KRshNa. He helped VedaVyas (who was His contemporary at the time) compile them in writing and Vyasa setup successive oral traditions. That was Vyas's role. To divide the Veda into 4 parts and compile the rest - itihaas.

Another thing to note is that Veda VyAsa is one of the 'cheeranjeevi' which means he is one of the rare ones blessed with extra-long life for a special divine purpose. There are 12 such cheeranjeevis known in the Hindu tradition. they live across the yuga (eras) from dvApar to Kali and some from treta to kali (3 eras).

So Veda Vyas lived before, during and after KRshNa's avatAr on earth.

. It is possible that Krishna taught reincarnation, but if He did it was because that is what people needed to hear and could understand at that time. Bear in mind that was over 5000 years ago and people were different back then..

Click to expand...

Wow. What a convenient way to align KRshNa's and Upanishadic teachings with Bahai beliefs.

Please do not take what I said personally. I have nothing against you. You are a sincere seeker and devotee of God. We are just surprised at this Bahai trend to make their own versions.

Bhagavd Geeta 2.22 वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय
नवानि गृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि |
तथा शरीराणि विहाय जीर्णा
न्यन्यानि संयाति नवानि देही || 22||

As a person sheds worn-out garments and wears new ones, likewise, at the time of death, the soul casts off its worn-out body and enters a new one.

This is a basic and fundamental part of Hinduism.

However, in the Bhagavad Geeta, further KRshNa says that reincarnation happens but ones you realize what is going on in a fortunate birth, you wake up and reincarnation stops. He promises that under those very exalted conditions or consciousness , one goes to His place and attains a state like His , and never returns.

There are incidents where a 3 or 4 year old remembered their past life and claimed to be someone's mother, wife, son etc. , told what happened, where things were kept, that the old family members still living did not know or anyone else could have possibly not known. How did this child know? Because the child was their <someone> in the past life.

ameyAtmA said:

We are just appalled at this Bahai trend to make their own versions.

Click to expand...

I do not have version because I know hardly anything about Hinduism, but when people post a thread asking Baha'is what they think I sometimes post my opinion, which is not based upon actual knowledge of Hinduism. It is important to note that Baha'u'llah did not write about Krishna or Hinduism so I don't know where other Baha'is are getting their information.

Trailblazer said:

I do not have version because I know hardly anything about Hinduism, but when people post a thread asking Baha'is what they think I sometimes post my opinion, which is not based upon actual knowledge of Hinduism.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but do you see what happens? It is not your fault that someone asked for your opinion, but these Bahai opinions have been on RF on and off. That makes readers think it is an informed view. They find it safer to take that as a given, as Hinduism is weird and fictitious to them. It is safer to ask the Bahais. And Bahai's learn from Bahai's. Others learn from Bahai's.

It is important to note that Baha'u'llah did not write about Krishna or Hinduism so I don't know where other Baha'is are getting their information.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty and forthright statements.

That being said, the good part of Bahai faith is their acceptance of the different faiths/religions.
I like the general Bahai position on God and humanity.
What I don't agree with is the view that old or ancient means it is no longer true or applicable. Not always. The Geeta is universal for instance, and large corporations are learning from it.

ameyAtmA said:

What I don't agree with is the view that old or ancient means it is no longer true or applicable. Not always. The Geeta is universal for instance, and large corporations are learning from it.

Click to expand...

It is a Baha'i belief that the spiritual teachings of all the great religions are eternal so they will always be true and applicable, so of course the teachings in the Geeta are still applicable.

Xavier Graham said:

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah? If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened? Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

Bahais believe that All major Religions are revealed from the same God, and that Krishna was a Manifestation of God in an older Age, while Baha'u'llah is a Manifestation of God with a new Revelation for our Age or Time.
Now, since there is only One God in Bahai view therefore we cannot expect any discrepancy between words of God revealed by Krishan or Baha'u'llah.
You asked about reincarnation that Hindus believe and Bahais don't. Well, the Hindu scriptures does talk about Return, and cycles, which the Hindus interpreted them as Return of a soul to another Body, which is called reincarnation. The Baha'is while do believe that Krishna originally taught about Return, yet, we Bahais do not believe in literal interpretation of the words of God. One of the fundamental teachings of Baha'u'llah is, that Manifestations of God, very often spoke in a symbolic language. Thus, the concept of Return while confirmed in Bahai scriptures, yet, it is interpreted differently. To understand its meaning from Bahai view, I recommend Book of Iqan.

Xavier Graham said:

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah?

Click to expand...

No. Both Krishna and Baha'u'llah are considered Manifestations of God/Vishnu.

Xavier Graham said:

If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened?

Click to expand...

It is possible that much of it is true, but no one knows for certain.

Xavier Graham said:

Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Click to expand...

The Teachings about reincarnation in the Bhagavad Gita would be seen as allegorical rather than literal.

Xavier Graham said:

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah? If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened? Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

Along with the Dharmic religion of Sikhism, there are Hindu monotheistic sects like the Arya Samaj, Kabir Panthis, Brahmakumaris who consider Krishna to be a prophet of God, similar to the Bahai and Ahmediya point of view, and not God Himself. They are strictly monotheistic and consider God to be incorporeal. However all the above Dharmic religions and sects mentioned have reincarnation as a fundamental belief.

Ghulām Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmediya sect, stated that the terms "avatar" and "prophet" were synonymous, and that the Avatar was equivalent to the Qur'anic Messenger.

ameyAtmA said:

Another thing to note is that Veda VyAsa is one of the 'cheeranjeevi' which means he is one of the rare ones blessed with extra-long life for a special divine purpose. There are 12 such cheeranjeevis known in the Hindu tradition. they live across the yuga (eras) from dvApar to Kali and some from treta to kali (3 eras).

Click to expand...

I found that interesting, it has a similarities with Disciples of Jesus or the Imams of Muhammad, both12 in number.

The Bab had Letters of the living, which will total 24, which is interesting as the Revellation embraces the Message of Baha’u’llah. Currently only 19 have been named, so 5 more may be known in the future.

Regards Tony

ajay0 said:

Along with the Dharmic religion of Sikhism, there are Hindu monotheistic sects like the Arya Samaj, Kabir Panthis, Brahmakumaris who consider Krishna to be a prophet of God, similar to the Bahai and Ahmediya point of view, and not God Himself. They are strictly monotheistic and consider God to be incorporeal. However all the above Dharmic religions and sects mentioned have reincarnation as a fundamental belief.

Click to expand...

I would like to mention here Abrahamic religions like the Druze and Alawites which are monotheistic as well as having the doctine of reincarnation as a fundamental belief. Their religious philosophies are quite similar to Sikhism, the Arya Samaj and the Brahmakumaris.

This shows that reincarnation is not totally alien to the Abrahamic religious philosophical framework.

I had created a thread on them...

The Druze, an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that holds belief in reincarnation...

Xavier Graham said:

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

My view is that it is irrelevant. They can think whatever they like, but it certainly won't change the minds of some 500 000 000 Vaishnavite Hindus, for whom Krishna is God. There is nil influence, despite what the Baha'i's claim.

Xavier Graham said:

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

As a former Baha'i turned Hindu my opinion is that Baha'u'llah was not versed in Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) and talked very little about them but tried his best to incorporate them into his teaching of 'progressive revelation' where each world teacher confirmed and advanced on the former manifestation of God in man's history. Krishna and Buddha were part of the 9 main ones.

But in reality, Baha'i is very much part of the Abrahamic tradition.

Xavier Graham said:

Baha'is, do you believe that the Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita was the manifestation of Bahaullah? If so, do you believe that the events surrounding the Gita really happened? Also, Krishna teaches about reincarnation, I didn't think Baha'is believed in that?

Hindus, what is your opinion on the Baha'i view of Krishna?

Click to expand...

As a Bahá’í who had been a Guadiya Vaishnava years ago, I’m in a distinct position, so let me gather my thoughts coherently.

The specific idea of the Manifestation of God in the Bahá’í Faith is sort of like a cross between the Islamic idea of rasul and the Vaishnava concept of avatara (that is, a Lawgiving Teacher who is both human and divine). They’re not incarnations of God’s Essence, but human appearances of His Spirit. Thus, in a sense, each and all of them are God, especially if they claimed it as so, so in the particular case of Lord Krishna, He is God.

As to whether or not the events in the Gita happened, I would think they did, but I cannot say for certain, being as those events are set 5,000 years ago.

As to reincarnation, the Bahá’í Faith does not teach it, coming as it does from a particularly Shi’a Islamic and Sufi (and broader Abrahamic and Zoroastrian) cultural matrix. The soul of an individual progresses through higher and higher realms of being, ultimately attaining the Divine Presence. As to the Manifestations, there is idea of Return wherein the fullness of Divine Qualities and Attributes successively manifest in particular Individuals in different forms and manners.