Yesterday, there was an exchange on X/Twitter, where I took part. It was interesting so I post here, too.
One Austrian, Gloria Gotthard Reich, posted the following:
“Krishna is God. He is eternal. He does not belong to a particular person, people or nation. Krishna is God for everyone and all.”
And she attached the below photo with the prominent line “Krishna is not Indian”.
(I should mention that she had posted this earlier, too, and in another post she once said that Shiva is racially ‘white’ and has blonde hair.)
Her tweet got over 1 lakh views within 1 day, far more than my tweets usually get, even though her follower count is 12k and mine is 145k.
One @HellooSuee replied rather harshly:
“We don’t need a gora pakora stealing our Gods.”
The reaction to this tweet was in my view out of proportion. Almost every Hindu took Gloria’s side and came heavily down on HellooSuee. Some suspected her/him not to be Hindu. Others said, the tweeter is harming Sanatana Dharma. We should be glad when foreigners practise our Dharma, etc…
I felt @Helloosuee might have had genuine uneasiness when a foreigner declares that Krishna is not Indian, and I have actually similar apprehensions, maybe knowing westerners better than Indians do. Trying to appropriate Yoga as ‘Christian Yoga” is only one example.
So I replied to the post by HellooSuee:
“I think @HellooSuee could have used better language, but the outrage on her is too much.
Gloria Gotthard Reich @Ingestohter may not be aware (the pic is obviously not made by her), but there is clearly an attempt to take Hinduism away from Hindus, if I can say so.
Yoga is only one example.
Imo, Krishna has 2 sides – the person who was a King in Bharat and his direct identity/ knowing of being Brahman.
I would say, Krishna, the human form, was Indian, like Jesus was from Palestina (that’s what I learnt in school).
Why would anyone deny this? And make even posters to declare that Krishna was not Indian?
It doesn’t seem to be in good faith.
I wonder why Hindus came down so heavily on Helloo Suee but defend Gloria whose post also has its weakness.
Brahman of course is not describable, pervading and containing us all.” (end of my reply)
After that, there was a very lively debate in comments where another foreigner, William Seaborn, strongly took the side of Gloria.
He wrote among others:
“Krishna is the source of all that exists. Krishna existed before India existed. Krishna existed before the material world existed. Limiting Krishna to India is an insult and blasphemous.”
My reply:
“Is it so difficult to understand that there is also the Sri Krishna within Maya who was king, cousin of Arjuna, in Mahabharata… who was Indian, but his Divinity is not Indian, like our Divinity also is not Indian, Russian, German etc..
Why deny this?
I am suspicious because I once heard an US woman from Yoga Alliance at a yoga conference in India praise India for giving Yoga to the world.
I told her, I am glad, she acknowledged the Indian origin.
She immediately tensed up and said, of course we resist that some Indians claim that India owns yoga…
She also mentioned in her talk that “Yoga Alliance is on a roll now”.. So many institutes sign up (and pay). That may be the reason for not crediting India.” (end)
William wrote again:
“I’m saying that the almighty Krishna, his divinity is not Indian. I’m saying Krishna is universal and beyond nationality. Is it so difficult to understand? But some people got offended.”
So, I replied a bit longer:
“Look, William, absolute Divinity is without form and name, is pure (thought-free) consciousness. it is pervading everything. It alone is. everything in this apparent ‘creation’ is THAT only.
Do you agree?
So that indescribable, attributeless divinity is usually called Brahma(n) (not to be confused with the creator Brahma in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) or simply TAT (THAT). it has no history, no birth or death.
It is within all the Devas, Avataras, humans and the whole of nature.
Agreed?
Now when ISKCON followers (some do) claim, it is ONLY Krishna who is the absolute Supreme, from whom everything originates and by whom all is permeated, there is a problem.
Can you see it?
Because Krishna is ALSO one of the manifestation of THAT in the form of an Avatar of Vishnu, naturally with attributes.
So if you take one Avatar and claim THAT ALONE is the absolute Truth, and everyone needs to accept Krishna as the Absolute Godhead, it puts people off, me at least. It reminds me of the dogmas of Christianity.
Could you follow?
in the Ganapathi Atharvasirsa Upanishad, Ganapati is claimed to be THAT from which all originates, but in the Shiva Upanishad, it is Shiva, in Srimad Bhagavtam it is Krishna.
So it means, THAT is not only in everything and everyone, but everyone IS basically only THAT because the rest is like a dream.
Therefore, I prefer the Vedic terminology when i refer to the Absolute. I see the Devas and Avatars as access points, because they have attributes, they can be imagined, can be loved.
Could i make my point clear?”
By Maria Wirth
8 Comments
Sri Krishna is not an avatar of Vishnu. He is above Vishnu. The avatar stories are fabricated by puranic authors. Trimurti are devatas whereas Sri Krishna had transcended even the Deva stage, and attained the position of Ishwara in the 8th stage of Brahman realization.
do you agree with the Upanishadic “Aham Brahmasmi” or “Tat tvam asi”, means the absolute truth is nameless and formless out of which or in which this Maya plays out. this knowledge is experiential, whereas what you wrote, needs blind belief.
Shri Krishna is manifestation of Maha Vishnu with a purpose.
Shri Krishna has a mother, a father, brother , sister and friends.
But MahaVishnu, AdiShiv,AdiShakti are unborn, timeless, Svayambhooo.
MahaVishnu, AdiShakti and AdiShiv are One and the same.
I AM HAPPY TO SEE YOUR ESSAY SO BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN YOU ARE OUR GIFT AND IT IS THAT PARABRAHMAN WHO MADE YOU TO COME TO US TO DEFEND US . WHENEVER DHARMA IS DOWN, SEOMEONE , SOMEHOW, WILL EMERGE FROM SOMEWHERE BY HIS GRANCE TO DEFEND US
Doesn’t “Aham Brahmasmi” or “Tat tvam asi” require blind faith? It is very important to understand that these are not universally valid, intellectual explanations or definitions of the Absolute, but rather individual spiritual expressions of higher realizations that manifest or appear in the Rishi’s mind as part of realization or enlightenment.
it requires to follow the rules of trying to go beyond thoughts. the initial ‘blind faith’ is experiential. like you trust someone who has seen the ocean and tells you where you need to go to reach the ocean.
intellectually one can go quite far in supporting it (unlike the monotheistic religions)
But other religions or teachings say something very similar. In the beginning, you have to believe and follow God’s rules or commandments. Pray to him. Then God will reveal himself to you, will speak to you, work on you, etc., so that you won’t need faith anymore … This is then confirmed by the majority of other believers, who may all say that they even have a complete relationship with God…There’s no room for doubt.
The parable about the ocean isn’t entirely appropriate in my opinion, since there’s no path one can take to see the ocean of milk, the Brahman. Even though that’s often claimed and believed… Blind or not.
Who among us has really seen it?
It’s pure faith on both sides. It can’t be otherwise. Many believe they know, truth or God, on both sides.
Can’t judge whether that’s good or bad. It’s part of it, somehow. Otherwise, religion inklusive what we call today Hinduism wouldn’t work, I’m afraid.
Excellent and equally simple to understand for those who don’t or for those who obstinately debate otherwise. In Hinduism, we believe in avatars and Shri Krishna is one of the Avatars of Maha Vishnu. An Avatar is the essence or embodiment of a specified quality, a manifestation emerging during the vast expanse called **Time** — again divided into different Yugas according to Hindu theology namely Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga, Kali Yuga (which we live in) and the expected Kalki Yuga. According to Hinduism, Shri Krishna was the 8th Avatar, the human manifestation of Maha Vishnu and with his death marks the end of Dwapara Yuga and the advent of Kali Yuga. There is no harm in claiming ownership on Maha Vishnu as he is the *all pervading* . But Shri Krishna is a human with godly traits, born to human parents, in a place called Mathura in the then India which was called **Bharatvarsha**. This remains a undisputed fact and has been authenticated by actual scientific studies into the life of Shri Krishna. It is concluded that he was born around 3300 BCE in Dwaraka and lived for about 125 years, 08 months and 07 days in 3102 BCE. Once again, I thank Maria Writh for her valuable inputs on the subject.