Who was Krishna in your tradition?

[atanu]

IMO, this thread being in the debate section is a problem. Why should it be, if the purpose as stated in OP is learning? Can a person not ask about any other religion without inviting so much debate?

@adrian009 Should this thread be moved from debate section? If yes, then we may request @Kirran and/or @sayak83?

 

[Sundance]

Did someone say........a Vaishnava??

Hahahahahaha......okay, let's see here.

*puts on reading glasses*


Brother Adrian, I hope you are doing well. Hare Krishna!


To answer your question — as a returning Gaudiya Vaishnava — “Who is Krishna?”, speaking to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna establishes His own Identity as none other than God Himself in the flesh, svayam bhagavan (the Supreme Lord). He gave me, myself, even a glimpse of His human form in a dream I had some years back. This firmly convined me of the truth regarding who He is. Krishna is not just a mere man, much more than a Messenger of God....He is God Incarnate, Para Brahman (“The Highest Brahman”), His Vishvarupa being the fullness of the incarnation.

Jai Shree Krishna!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, I do have more respect in your openness; and, I also think youre shortsided on cultural sensitivity and direct empathy of other cultural views. If you cant worship idols, jump up and down with Hindus, and worship with the rest of them, regardless the questions and interaction, unless you have another approach,you. wont. get it.

Im part Cherokee on my mothers side, blackfoot, fathers side, and african american both sides.

African-American, Indigenous ancestry, female....

That is culturally some history and experience that I have never had.

I'm from European ancestory and have had to work hard at education to broaden my horizons. I'm the first in my family to achieve a university degree let alone to become a doctor. I've married someone outside my culture and am a father.

We've had very different experiences and yet I could not hope for a better friend than you on this forum.

I accept my shortcomings and that includes cultural awareness and sensitivity.

Idol worship doesn't bother me in the slightest. Its not part of my traditions and never has been. Its part of my wife's traditions with Shinto-Buddhism. I just pray direct to God or Buddha.

There's plenty of Japanese gods around and we have quite a few lying around our house lol.

Here...check them out.

List of Japanese deities - Wikipedia

So as Aup has his atheism, he is still a Hindu. As Vinayaka doesn't have Krishna as part of his traditions he's still a Hindu. As much as I don't worship the pantheon of Japanese Kami I do recognise the supreme-Kami as God and worship Buddha too. I could do it in front of a statue or idol but its unnecessary.

....We're only outhere because we need to to make money for our family and tribe. The government only gives us X money but unless we say we want to be recognized, we have to fend for the rest- we arent americans.

Heres a short link: Seeking Native American Spirituality and Traditional Religion: Read This First!

Selling culture for money? I've seen the Maoris do it. Its unattractive.

A lot of people dont share their culture and their beliefs (even with me!) because they feel their personal practices will be taken advantage of. When you ask questions to compare them to Bahai faith and conclude (and even talk for Hindu on what they should know and believe) it becomes an insult. So, like native americans, they may give you things here and there but even visiting a temple, there is a sense of boundary you must have when wanting information to learn not to compare with your faith.

It doesnt read as if you want to learn something new. It reads as if what you learn wil confirm and maybe support what you already believe. Its like trying to learn a new language by first translating it in your own language then reproducing it in the target language. Going to multicultural meetings to "translate" Krishna beliefs into yours by using your criteria is counteracting the intent of wanting t learn.

The medium of an internet discussion group is not the ideal place to learn about another culture or faith. There are limitations. I have said on several occasions to Vinayaka if he wants to learn about the Baha'i Faith he needs to meet Baha'is. That is true for me to learn about Hinduism. The crucial difference for me is that Hinduism as been part of my life since childhood as we had family friends that are Hindus and I have met many Hindus throughout my life. So the experience on RF is to augment that experience.

My experience of the discussion on this thread is that there has been a strong reactions amongst some Hindus to having a question asked about their faith in the open debates section of this forum. It is as if I have entered someone's house without being invited. I am a stranger to be seen with the intent of cultural appropriation and a hidden agenda to convert the Hindus to the Baha'i Faith.

You must drop bahai at the door, relax, have tea, and literally converse in a matter that youre not saying "I know what you know lets talk" but more, accept and say, "I do not know nor believe what you do, and I accept whatever information you give me I will not press for more." Letting the host direct the conversation that youre asking information for.

But the reason of the thread literally does not seem like you want to learn Hinduism. Theyve told you that to know it, you have to practice, drop bahai, and basically act like a child because you dont know anything. (Bluntly paraprhasing)

For me the mere use of the word Krishna invokes powerful and unseen forces of a spiritual nature. I'm already worshipping Him and listening to His words. He speaks to me and I speak to Him. He is just as much a Manifestation of God to me as Baha'u'llah or Christ. I'm not asking for guidance on how to worhip Him or permission to do so. I already have it and I'm already doing it.

Maybe it will make sense if you dont use bahai as criteria of understanding another persons language and cultural nusances.

But we all have filters. There is only so far that each of us can go to walk in the shoes of another. We all experience Krishna in different ways according to who we are....or don't experience Him at all.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm from Otago, the deep south. I have made it up to Auckland a couple of times this year.

I have seen people defined by their past in ways that are not helpful and ways that can enable better living. In some ways we can choose to be a victim of a troubled past or find a way to transcend it. If our faith enables us to reflect the nobility of the human spirit then it does not matter how people feel about us.

If religion becomes a negative force in life that leads to estrangement and hatred between people then better to be without it. In both our countries there is growing disillusionment with organised religion and many peoples are leaving traditional religions and choosing no religion or faith at all. It is not hard to understand why.

OTOH if we are essentially spiritual beings and not just part this material realm then finding a path becomes important.

We do not know each other, that is true. You don't know my motive as I don't know yours. The problem is when we assign malice and alterior motive when none is intended.

This thread is about Krishna and who He is. Its not about the purity of my heart, my motive and imperfections. If we start looking at each other in a negative way and assume the worst its just as bad as niavely trusting everyone we have contact with.

I'm presuming your avatar is Maa Kali?

Is this wikipedia article any good?

Kali - Wikipedia

To quote a pop song, "we are choice millionaires." Everything can be used for good or evil. Religion, politics, tradition etc.

I try to remain neutral in religious matters. Though I can't always.
I fell into the trap of going too far one way politically in the past. I took a step back and was able to see my error. Both sides have flaws, in religion, in politics, in laws even. Nothing is perfect, I suppose.

So I try to voice a middle ground as best I can. To see each other's weaknesses is easy, but people often have trouble acknowledging each other's strengths.

I accept your claim of sincerety in good faith. I accept also that that might be a lie.

True one should not blindly trust another or assume the worst. A healthy skepticism is perhaps a good middle ground.

Krishna, like most anything, is as important or unimportant as people make him. God to some, incarnation to others, myth to others still.
A poll is fine, to speak to people one on one is perhaps better. More nuanced and personal.

Vinyaka suggested speaking to ISKCON members. Which is interesting.
I suggest a more mainstream Krishna worshipping sect to try to seek out and speak to. Which is unusual for my more liberal and rebellious tendencies. But there you go. RF probably is a microcosm really. But I suppose we have to work with what we have.

Indeed my avatar is Maa Kali.
The article is fair though a little limited. Still Wikipedia has its merits I guess.

 

[Dawnofhope]

IMO, this thread being in the debate section is a problem. Why should it be, if the purpose as stated in OP is learning? Can a person not ask about any other religion without inviting so much debate?

@adrian009 Should this thread be moved from debate section? If yes, then we may request @Kirran and/or @sayak83?

Thank you for your thoughts @atanu . What I hear is that you are feeling uncomfortable with this discussion. I do not want to offend anyone least of all the Hindus who I want to learn from. It was never my intention. My inclination is to have free discussion of a respectful nature...about Krishna.

I hadn't thought about having the thread moved...but I will reflect on the matter now that you have raised it. Thank you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder if you are projecting your atheism onto your own traditions. Are you stating with certainty there is nothing in your traditions that could be seen as a Diety or dieties trying to educate humans? One of the central themes of the Krishna-Arjuna discourse is Krishna educating and comforting Arjuna during his time of deepest despair.

So what does that mean to you Aup? Would it not have different meanings for an atheist and theist?

Its an attitude that is part of human nature whether we are from the West or East.

Is not hospitality next to Godliness?

Krishna was not a messenger, he was "Swayam Bhagawan", God incarnate.

"When one ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies ..", relevant to me as an advaitist and an atheist. 'Whatever exists in the world is one'. There is no God separate from what seems as his creation.

No, proselytization is not a part of Hindu culture. Actually Krishna said it is best to follow one's own religion even if it means death (Swadharme nidhanam shreyah .. BG 3.35). Proselytization is an Abrahamic thought, greed, hunger, ego.

It is, but it does not mean that one should get fooled by fakers. Shoghi Effendi said "it is a most vital obligation on you to convert Hindus to Bahaiism". Don't take us to be fools.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

For all your apparent sweetness (a Bahai trait) you are belittling Hindu belief repeatedly. Krishna was not a close associate of the Supreme God-head. He was himself an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Now, who is Sage Ghore?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

Ive never had any Cherokee or Blackfoot experiences. All the tribes I spoke with are very closenet about their practices and beliefs. Since Im not white, we had some commonality given we are both minorities. I wasnt raised in minority struggles, so it wouldnt be my place to say I share and believe the same thing.

I would like to know more, but, I ask myself-why? Is it to help me learn something. But what for? How can I apply this knowledge without shaping it to mirror my own beliefs. How do I see things in their shoes. Do I want to take on their stories; as an empathetic person, can I handle it. What can I contribute to the other in this conversation. What are their cultural nusensces to outsiders.

As for idol worship, I mean, if you personally cannot idol worship, among other things, a lot of things youre asking you can look up online. Cultural sensitivity and think of others is changing how you present information to people for the betterment of the other. But if you feel that is compromising your beliefs, then it could be youre more open to cultures but not sensitivity insofar to adapt your understanding of their views without comparing them to your own. Its natural to do so; but, then, it depends if you have the ability to do so. Reflection.

Ive never heard of a Hindu Atheist until I came on RF. I dont ask about it nor tell him (or her) whether their belief is valid compared to my own view of a deity because that is rude. I just accept they know more than me about hinduism and its "denominations" and let it be.

Yeah. A lot of nonrecognized tribes do it too. The thing is, tourist think they are getting the full culture just by buying a feather or two and dancing with the indians. You should see their faces. Thats why it bothers me so much on these threads. I cant imagine the faces of Hindu in regard to Christian and bahai views of their belief systems.

But there ya go.

Sometimes the Universalist Uniterian Church invites people of various faiths to talk and have some multicultural events. Im not a universalist; but, I see the attempt to bring people together. The difference is the center of their communion isnt god and its more social than religious. I went to two sermons of theres. Its alright.

I agree with the other about moving the thread to a non-debate section. Just be mindful, there is only but so much information you can get. Its not like reading the Gita and reading Wiki and all of the sudden you can speak of and for Krishna. Doesnt work that way.

Eh. I dont know how you worship all the manestations unless you change their definition of how to worship and intepret their nature off of how bahaullah would see it.

We cant experience Krishna unless we practice Hinduism (to keep it simple). Thats like saying I experience, I dont know, jesus christ all because we are both human and have the abiity to love.

That last paragraph/quote is off from a culturally sensitive perspective. But, Im not syncretic nor eclectic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is true.

Ahmadiyyas may believe whatever they want (Mirza was a Mahdi ). That takes care of his five generations. Mohammad wanted Ali to succeed him, Bhaullah's line ended with Shoghi Effendi (all others were eliminated), elsewhere also Khilafat is family business. But Ahmadiyyas should respect the Hindu views. They should not forget that they live a peaceful life in India when they are persecuted in neighboring countries.

I have no desire to live in a monocultural bubble.

What about your 'most vital obligation'? Don't try to fool us with a sheep's clothing.

They are progressive thoughts. My thought is God is white light, that we can not directly look at. As such, we see in its refacted state and we see it as all the colours of the rainbow.
We call all the colours by different names but we can see the source of light is One.

God at best is human imagination and at worst a tool for charlatans, given the long list of claimants to being God himself, being a son or son-in-law of God, prophethood, messengerhood, manifestationhood, Mahdihood. None has any evidence. In Islam, prophethood was blocked by Mohammad and Jesus being son of God was not accepted, so the later Islamic personality cults (Bahai and Ahmadiyyas) had to invent new names/positions for themselves, that is why Manifestations and Mahdis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may not be of interest to you whether he was a real person or not, but its certainly of interest to others.

I think the people who are most interested in Krishna would be equally disappointed if Krishna was a regular man who has had myths attached to him, or if Krishna was an amalgam of multiple people, or if Krishna was a whole-cloth fabrication.

Krishna is a central figure, both real and mythologised for Hinduism that is the third largest religion worldwide with over 1.2 billion adherents and over 15% of the worlds population.

Hercules is in all likelihood a mythological figure in Greco-Roman times. Beyond that I haven't investigated further. Have you?

Truth isn’t a function of popularity. Do you have any reason to rate Krishna as more likely to be true than Heracles? They seem pretty similar to me: they’re both god-man figures from ancient religions, both have scant evidence for their literal existence.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Krishna was not a messenger, he was "Swayam Bhagawan", God incarnate.

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.

"When one ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies ..", relevant to me as an advaitist and an atheist. 'Whatever exists in the world is one'. There is no God separate from what seems as his creation.

That seems reasonable. Of course its not how most other Hindus would understand that verse, particularly those who are Vaishnavite.

No, proselytization is not a part of Hindu culture. AProselytization is an Abrahamic thought, greed, hunger, ego.

Then why do you do it?

Actually Krishna said it is best to follow one's own religion even if it means death (Swadharme nidhanam shreyah .. BG 3.35).

I don't believe that is what He said or meant.

Seen in the context of Lord Krishna advising Arjuna to follow his duty and engage in a battle where he is morally conflicted.

Better is one’s own law though imperfectly carried out than the law of another carried out perfectly. Better is death in (the fulfilment of) one’s duty for to follow another’s law is perilous.

It is, but it does not mean that one should get fooled by fakers. Shoghi Effendi said "it is a most vital obligation on you to convert Hindus to Bahaiism". Don't take us to be fools.

Those are the words spoken by Shoghi Effendi 82 years ago taken out of context. I've explained this to another already.

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

For all your apparent sweetness (a Bahai trait) you are belittling Hindu belief repeatedly. Krishna was not a close associate of the Supreme God-head. He was himself an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Now, who is Sage Ghore?

I don't see that I am belittling Hindu belief but I do see you belittling me and my beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Did someone say........a Vaishnava??

Hahahahahaha......okay, let's see here.

*puts on reading glasses*


Brother Adrian, I hope you are doing well. Hare Krishna!


To answer your question — as a returning Gaudiya Vaishnava — “Who is Krishna?”, speaking to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna establishes His own Identity as none other than God Himself in the flesh, svayam bhagavan (the Supreme Lord). He gave me, myself, even a glimpse of His human form in a dream I had some years back. This firmly convined me of the truth regarding who He is. Krishna is not just a mere man, much more than a Messenger of God....He is God Incarnate, Para Brahman (“The Highest Brahman”), His Vishvarupa being the fullness of the incarnation.

Jai Shree Krishna!

Namaste and Hare Krishna @Devananda ,

Thank you for your candid response. That's really helpful.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Namaste Adrian
Jai Shri KrshNa ! ~ ~


KRshNa KRshNa what do you see?
I see sheer transcendence looking back at me....

Thus began the first lines of my first silly poem on KRshNa

Short Answer: Shri KRshNa is pUrNa Bramhan' , pUrNA NArAyaN (VishNu).
pUrNa = Complete. 100%

*Another thing. The poll says God and VishNu,,,, but VishNu IS God. Shiv is God. It is none but God who is VishNu

Others have given good introductions and pointers to scripture. I will bring a small selection of verses from Bhagavad Geeta and Shrimad BhAgvat PurAN. In the meanwhile, you are invited to Walk With Mukunda

Without writing anything further , this is what I listed for Unveiled Artist on another thread yesterday

• An Ocean of Love
• Most Compassionate
• Blissful
• Extremely tranquil - demonstrates pure existence. Sheer existence.
• Most Beautiful
• Very very real, simple, direct and an embodiment of Truth
  
• Friend of all living beings. Remember a good Father is a friend to His children. Wants what is best for them. (Someone may ask - why Father? why not Mother? He is Father, Mother, Friend, like a sibling, Most precious jewel, highest knowledge. Has no gender, and yet, is complete with both genders, i.e. is 100% masculine and 100% feminine at once).

• Lets you be. Gives you freedom within limits. On the other hand, not a blade of grass , not a bat of an eyelid, can happen without His sanction.
• Most humble and Egoless
• Selfless - has no agenda for Himself,
• Has nowhere to go, has nothing to achieve and nothing unknown/ left to know for Himself, is completely full and fulfilled in Himself.
• Only an authentic emotion, a true sentiment, a real feeling of Love will attract Him
• He knows us intricately and accurately. No one can fool Him.
• The fact that He understands us more than we do, is a gift.
• He is very sincere about the promises He makes. No one is standing there to judge Him, but He will not fail His own standards
• He is very very gentle
• Whatever He undertakes - He goes out full all the way 100%.... be it protect, love, guide, teach, mentor, nurture, support, just be there, ...

|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

Namaste @ameyAtmA

I love your avatar.I agree whole heartedly with your correction as Krishna is alive to us and Ever present for us both.

That is the most beautiful expression of your love and understanding of Lord Krishna I could have hoped for. Thank you so much for dropping in your faith and beliefs.

Best Wishes
Adrian

 

[sayak83]

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?

Most Hindus are lay Hindu's and don't follow any specific tradition in a hard and fast manner. In that generic world Krishna is mostly regarded as an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Do you have any links about him being a disciple of sage Ghore?

Namaste

In the ChhAndogya Upanishad, Ghor Angiras )of Angira's clan) mentioned a few things to KRshNa about the eternal nature of OneSelf. This shows KRshNa's humility in playing the role of a student of Sandipani and Ghor Angiras to set an example to mankind.

KRshNa washed the feet of guests at Yudhisthir's RAjagUya yadnya to set an example of hospitality respect, love and humility.

Shri RAma , incarnation of VishNu in Treta Yuga, also was a student of VasishTha and VishwAmitra.

Avatars and God Himself, BhagavAn svayam, draw upon themselves to follow the rules of humans when then descend here for the benefit of humans,

It is a huge sacrifice on the part of the Lord.

They went to school like all other children.

They were exemplary and outstanding students.

KRshNa's out of the ordinary GuruDakshiNA (fees paid to the teacher), to SAndipani Muni was to bring his drowned dead son back alive. Can an ordinary human bring back the dead who have drowned in the sea?

Sandipani Muni knew KrshNa is BhagavAn Svayam , PUrNa Bramahan' and expressed that it was his honor that KRshNa and Balaram were his students. KRshNa completed the formality of "learning" 64 art-sciences in 64 days at Sandipani Ashram. Knowing KRshNa's powers, Sandipani Muni asked Him to bring his lost son back. GuruDakshina was just an excuse, , it was a devotee's plea to the Lord just like any other.

Uddhav and Sudama were among the blessed lucky ones who went to school with Him.

KRshNa was in touch with celestials, supernatural beings , and had control over nature.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Pilgrim's notes are unrelaible. Someone goes overseas and meets Abdu'l-Baha. They go back home and write what they thought he said. Some will acturately reflect what he said. Others won't at all and will add their own thoughts and impressions. So pilgrims notes are not selected on the basis of whether they look good or not. None of them are considered reliable and are rightly excluded as being part of our writings." Unquote.

It is for this reason that I will start study of Bahaullah from Kitab-i-Aqdas, "The Most Holy Book" of him, for both claims and reasons given by him.

Regards

Once again, this thread isn't about Baha'u'llah, its about Krishna. Your logic is completely flawed btw.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Namaste @ameyAtmA

I love your avatar.I agree whole heartedly with your correction as Krishna is alive to us and Ever present for us both.

That is the most beautiful expression of your love and understanding of Lord Krishna I could have hoped for. Thank you so much for dropping in your faith and beliefs.

Best Wishes
Adrian

I am glad my post was useful. Jai Shri KrshNa!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I think the people who are most interested in Krishna would be equally disappointed if Krishna was a regular man who has had myths attached to him, or if Krishna was an amalgam of multiple people, or if Krishna was a whole-cloth fabrication.

Not all people. I do not believe in any divinity, I do not even believe that BhagawadGita was written 5,000 years ago. It is in modern (Panini) Sanskrit. Some anonymous person wrote it in the beginning of the Christian era and other people added verses to it over time. Krishna is an idea and BhagawadGita is a concise book of Hindu wisdom. Anyone can benefit from it irrespective of their faith and beliefs

 

[atanu]

Thank you for your thoughts @atanu . What I hear is that you are feeling uncomfortable with this discussion. I do not want to offend anyone least of all the Hindus who I want to learn from. It was never my intention. My inclination is to have free discussion of a respectful nature...about Krishna.

I hadn't thought about having the thread moved...but I will reflect on the matter now that you have raised it. Thank you.

I am speaking from my POV, which I will explain.

See, my ishta is Shiva. There was a time when I used to engage foolishly in debate on superiority of deities. But that changed. If this thread was about Shiva, in a debate thread, I would know that there would be all sorts of uninformed comments. So, I would not participate. To me there is nothing to debate about Shiva, the Godhead of the Vedas. But many Hindus and non Hindus will not understand and honour the Vedas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Tabernacle of Unity | Bahá’í Reference Library

Bahaullah had very little knowledge about Hinduism. That is why he sys that those who eat meat will not see paradise. That is not true. If the tradition of a person allows him to eat meat, it is not prohibited in Hinduism. I am a Kashmiri brahmin and my tradition is non-vegetarian. We relish non-vegetarian food. We even use it during our rituals for Shiva and the Mother Goddess. My family's Mother Goddess is 'Jwala Devi', and she does not mind non-vegetarian food. Of course, even if Bahaullah mentioned Hinduism (of that too I am not very sure, you said Krishna is not mentioned in your main 'Kitab' (book), it could be an addition by Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi). Please know that 70% of Hindus are non-vegetarians. Vegetarainiansim is a Vaishnava trait and there too, there are many exceptions. For example fish is consumed even by Bengali Vaishnava brahmins.

You and Marcion are not Vaishnavite of course and seem to either know little about Krishna or don't want to discuss Him openly. What's the problem with talking to other Hindus who do want to discuss Him?

I think, Marcion is not a Hindu, though he has interest in Tantra. Vinayaka and myself and many others have no problem about discussing Krishna, though we are not Vaishnavas. But Krishna still is an avatara of Lord Vishnu for us. Not being a Vaishnava does not mean that we do not recognize Lords Vishnu, Rama or Krishna (and others too).