Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[Unveiled Artist]

Not all Hindus believe in reincarnation (meaning literal transmigration of the soul).

But that doesn't mean it's central to the faith just like other faiths, people have their views (say trinity v. non-trinity) that help them follow their religion. It would be odd for a christian to say all people will be saved eventually when the faith determines who is saved and who isn't after one's death.

So, unless they grab me by the neck, reincarnation is a pretty big part of the Hindu faith. I know some don't believe in it like some christians don't believe in the trinity, but that doesn't exclude the teaching (practice) itself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It gets confusing what is a Baha'is opinion and what is something actually an official Baha'i belief or interpretation. As I recall a Baha'i here on the forum said that reincarnation is a misinterpretation of something that Krishna said. If that is true then, no, Krishna didn't teach it, but his followers thought he did. But even if it is as plain as can be in the Hindu Scriptures, Baha'is would still find a reason to discount it, because they don't believe in reincarnation, therefore a true manifestation of God could never have taught it.

While many Hindus believe in reincarnation, a belief in reincarnation will often have nothing to do with a belief in Krishna or interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. Saivite Hindus worship Shiva and may place different emphasis on other scriptures. Besides the sacred don’t take quite the same role as they do in Abrahamic Faiths.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But that doesn't mean it's central to the faith just like other faiths, people have their views (say trinity v. non-trinity) that help them follow their religion. It would be odd for a christian to say all people will be saved eventually when the faith determines who is saved and who isn't after one's death.

So, unless they grab me by the neck, reincarnation is a pretty big part of the Hindu faith. I know some don't believe in it like some christians don't believe in the trinity, but that doesn't exclude the teaching (practice) itself.

What about Hindus who are atheists and don’t believe in life after death? Hinduism doesn’t require worship of a Deity or even attendance at a temple. Hinduism can be culturally or ethnically defined without the need for strong spiritual beliefs. Of course many Hindus do believe in reincarnation, but the context of those beliefs are diverse. There are many different gods in Hinduism but only One in Christianity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What about Hindus who are atheists and don’t believe in life after death? Hinduism doesn’t require worship of a Deity or even attendance at a temple. Hinduism can be culturally or ethnically defined without the need for strong spiritual beliefs. Of course many Hindus do believe in reincarnation, but the context of those beliefs are diverse. There are many different gods in Hinduism but only One in Christianity.

I'm not sure of the atheist "interpretation" of the religion and their deities (I'm not even familiar with the Abrahamic deity, to tell you honestly). Unlike abrahamic religions, there seems to be a flexible means of interpretation (not redefinition) of the core tenets of that religious-category.

Reincarnation is a huge and main tenant of the Hindu faith regardless who believes in it or not. I don't even think Hinduism as a religion would exist without it.

In your opinion, without reincarnation, how do Hindus (or should?) Hindus see god and life and their current state of being and process without some form of reincarnation?

Are you saying there is such thing as death (thus afterlife) in Hinduism?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The stories may have been passed down through word of mouth. The Torah, traditionally ascribed to Moses was written down during the Jewish Babylonian exile hundreds of years after Moses lived. Similarly Buddha’s Teachings weren’t written down until about 400 years after His passing.

That is correct.

Texts were transmitted orally in India for a long time. The first known written records are Ashoka's pillars (3rd Century BCE).

The oldest extant manuscript of the Mahabharata is from the second century AD. Several existing manuscripts were compared and a critical edition was produced sometime ago.

 

[CG Didymus]

The bottom line for the purposes of this thread is that its about Hinduism, Krishna and history. Its not a "let's really talk about the Baha'í Faith" thread. So I'm not trying to fit Hinduism into an Abrahamic or Baha'i paradigm. So however Hindus view this topic is fine by me.

Well good for you. But how does anyone prove that a incarnation of God existed several thousands of years ago? To say he was a real historical person is just going to be that person's belief, and probably their religious belief.

 

[CG Didymus]

But that's silly. From what I learned, reincarnation is a huge cornerstone of Hinduism regardless how people believe or interpret it I gather.

I like the idea of reincarnation a lot... To be born into different places and times and situations. Even to have been different animals, and then to remember all the things your soul went through, the good the bad and to finally break free. Much better than one life choose right or spend eternity in hell. But either one, I think the point was to get people to do good in their life and things will be better for them later in the next life.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well good for you. But how does anyone prove that a incarnation of God existed several thousands of years ago? To say he was a real historical person is just going to be that person's belief, and probably their religious belief.

We can prove an incarnation of God, Jesus, existed two thousand years ago. Of course we can't prove He was an incarnation of God but that is implied through the Gospels. We can neither prove Krishna existed as an historic character, nor that He was an incarnation of God. However the Hindu Writings imply he was an incarnation of God. It needs to emphasised that lack of evidence for someone's existence five thousand years ago, can't possibly mean they didn't exist. Just because ancient writings (eg Bhagavad Gita and Gospels) imply an historic character was an incarnation of God, doesn't mean He was.

 

[Dawnofhope]

With all due respect... these statements sound incredibly subjective.

Most scholars of antiquity will agree Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher who was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Other than the New Testament accounts, we have references to Jesus from two historians within the century Jesus lived, Josephus and Tacitus.

We simply don't have any contemporary documents or records in relation to Krishna that would enable us to reliably establish His existence.

The question of whether or not Jesus was an incarnation of God is based solely on an analysis of the New Testament for Christians. The majority of (but not all) Christians equate Jesus with God. The question of why Hindus regard Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu comes from an analysis of how Krishna is portrayed in the Mahabharata and the Puranas.

Why is incarnation of Shri Krishna considered as absolute ? - Hindu Janajagruti Samiti

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Arian who/what is god that correlates to Hindu "and" abrahamic belief when you say there is no proof he is an incarnation of god (in another one of your posts)?


I remember if I'm not mistaken that bahai doesn't define what their god is just his attributes/adjectives that describe his character.

If you don't know what god is, how would you recognize and acknowledge there is no proof for what you can't define?

Unless you're going off read and oral opinions and beliefs, it would make sense to go off your own experiences to explain answers to people's questions?

Likewise, observation, but knowing the study and knowledge isn't the same as answering questions from experience and wisdom.

Have you experienced krishna before? If so, who is he to You based on your experience?

If not, how could you say what he is or isn't? Does study show spiritual accuracy for you?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Have you experienced krishna before?

Yes

If so, who is he to You based on your experience?

I have no idea.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But, I honestly don't know about the hard evidence of Krishna's existence that doesn't involve abductive reasoning arguments. I'd have to ask someone more informed on my faith, but they usually steer clear of some questions.

If the answer overall is "we don't know"... then, there's really just philosophical arguments... much like what usually happens with religious debates.

I think you are better understanding the nuances of what is being discussed and why it is important. While it may not matter to some who believe in Krishna, whether or not He really existed, it does matter to some of who do believe in Him. It matters to me.

It should also be clear asking the question about Krishna's historicity isn't an attempt to invalidate Hinduism or those who worship Krishna. That would be invalidating my own faith in Krishna as both a Manifestation of God AND a real historic person.

The foundation of our faith should be able to withstand us asking questions of ourselves and others. If the answer to our question is "I don't know", that's OK.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I understand. It's just difficult because in my view, you may be better off asking Baha'is because they have a very different view of Hindu figures. You seem to be looking for something very specific here.

I honestly feel that the Baha'is make Krishna into someone different.

So, it seems like the question is really:

1. Hear the long winded answers by people practicing a religion more in tune with Krishna, the thought processes and all that. Though, it may just confuse you more, I don't know.

2. Get a specific set of facts to support your worldview from people of your faith, to satisfy a specific thing which *some* Hindu people may shake their head at, saying that since the premise "may" have some errors to begin with, they're not sure how your conclusion applies (or would really benefit).

Sorry if I'm making things too broad here, though. For me it'd be like if I looked at a 1000 line piece of computer code and thought a 1 should really be a 0.

I'm clear about Baha'i belief and have spoken to a few Baha'is from a Hindu background over the years. There are only a few scant references to Krishna and Hinduism in our writings or 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 we haven't much 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, Hinduism and Hindu scriptures we haven't anything specific from the Baha'i writings. Hinduism is a true religion with Divine origins. Otherwise Hinduism and the nature of Krishna is an open book. Hope you understand.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Edit: Never mind. Bowing out.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Edit: Never mind. Bowing out.

OK. All the best.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes



I have no idea.

Then how do you know? ...

For conversation rather than yes/no answers.

(Hope you get back to the other questions. No rush)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What about Hindus who are atheists and don’t believe in life after death? Hinduism doesn’t require worship of a Deity or even attendance at a temple. Hinduism can be culturally or ethnically defined without the need for strong spiritual beliefs. Of course many Hindus do believe in reincarnation, but the context of those beliefs are diverse. There are many different gods in Hinduism but only One in Christianity.

Are you basing your view soley on some groups of Hindus mostly who believe one thing over another? (Not study)

It seems like when we say "Hinduism is this" you say "but..not all Hindus do," that sounds more like dodging what Hinduism and your interpretation by the fact that Hinduism is diverse rather than fixed. Varied interpretation all comes from the same unredefined source regardless who believes in it and how strong it is.

Hinduism can be culturally or ethnically defined without the need for strong spiritual beliefs.... but there needs to be spiritual believes regardless, right (regardless how strong or weak it is to a person or whether the person believes that particular interpretation of those/that spiritual belief/s)?

That an from what I gather, Hinduism does not have a life after death abrahamic scenario. Even @Aupmanyav mentioned Hindus believe in reincarnation (not life after death) though he personally doesn't believe in it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even @Aupmanyav mentioned Hindus believe in reincarnation (not life after death) though he personally doesn't believe in it.

I do not believe in normal kind of reincarnation, i.e., soul getting a new body; since I do not believe in existence of soul. My reincarnation is 'Chemical recycling', atoms of my body going into millions of living and non-living things.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not believe in normal kind of reincarnation, i.e., soul getting a new body; since I do not believe in existence of soul. My reincarnation is 'Chemical recycling', atoms of my body going into millions of living and non-living things.

A reproduction of atoms in different forms?

 

[chinu]

Krishna is regarded by many Hindus as one of the most important deities in Hinduism. He is worshiped as the eighth avatar of the God Vishnu and also as the supreme God in his own right. He is the God of compassion, tenderness, love and is one of the most popular and widely revered among Indian divinities.

Shri Krishna is NOT the avatar of supreme God. Rather, "He" is the avatar of one out of the very few major God's (Energies) ranked below the supreme God.

Was He a real historic character or are the accounts of His life in Hindu sacred scriptures wholly mythical?

Yes "Shri Krishna" existed in the real history.

Another interesting thing I would like to add here is that.. Both "Parashurama" and "Krishna" were said to be the avatar's of lord "Vishnu", and they both existed in real history at one same time during Mahabharata.

Now, the more interesting question here is.. How come both "Parashurama" and "Krishna", two avatars of lord Vishnu, possible at the one same time ?

There's need to understand the term "Vishnu' to understand this puzzle.
"Vishnu" is NOT a living person, Its the "Rank" given to a certain "Energy" in Hinduism.

The only difference between "Parashurama" and "Krishna" is that.. "Krishna" was having this "Energy" / "Rank" by birth (Similarly like any child is born with a certain skill)

Whereas, "Parashurama" attained this "Energy" / "Rank" by doing Sadhana (Practice)

But, both were equal in powers.

Is there reasonable evidence to conclude Krishna was a real person or merely wishful thinking on the part of some Hindu scholars?

Only a face to face meeting with a person who has attained such powers can be the evidence. Rest everything is unsatisfactory.