Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[Dawnofhope]

Dear Baha'is, for a religion that claims to promote understanding between religions, an OP like this is most destined to hurt the religious feelings of bhaktas. Why not asking whether God/Allah exists? Moreover, if a religion that claims Krishna to be one of its "manifestations of God", implying that Krishna didn't exist undermines the existence of one of its so called "manifestations".

Assumed Leonardo da Vinci had the idea of painting the Mona Lisa in his mind, and then painted it. Does the Mona Lisa "exist"? Does the fact that we may or may not be able to find out who was the historical person portrayed in the "Mona Lisa" change anything about the beauty or the value of it? Dear Baha'is, do you really want to know whether some guy hearing voices while rotting in an inhumane Tehran prison was hearing the voice of Allah or just exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia?

The question is open ended without trying to persuade others towards my beliefs. There is no implication that Krishna was a real person or He wasn’t. My intent is to consider the evidence Krishna existed. No evidence does not imply He didn’t exist. Lack of evidence is simply a product of someone having lived five thousand years ago.

If you want to ask whether or not the Founder of my religion or any other religion was insane, go ahead. There is reliable historical information to assist us in our investigation.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Many Hindus would likely shrug and say, why not both?
Krishna could have been a real historical figure. He could just be pure myth. But both takes are actually largely irrelevant in many Dharmic circles. At least the ones I grew up in, I can’t speak for them in general.

Knowing the nature of the One whom I worship and adore is central to my faith. I can appreciate why it might be completely irrelevant to others. We’re all a product of our upbringing and culture after all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think that a "normal" human being (not enlightened) will never know for sure, at best he can believe what he heard or read
Even when enlightened I think you will not have the ability to be all knowing, or at least know all about the past

So we have to rely on what others say. For me, I trust Sai Baba most on these things, as He is a Poorna Avatar Himself
But even His words can be Leelas, Krishna was known for His naughtiness and Leelas

So, I believe that Krishna was a real person, but did not look like the pictures we see in the books

Furthermore I find the teachings more important than to know whether or not He existed or not

I think the "knowledge" whether or not He/others existed is not needed to reach our goal in life
But the "teachings" He/others gave to follow are needed to reach our goal in life

Thanks for explaining how you view Krishna and the what the question of His existence means to you.

 

[firedragon]

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.

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

According to Wikipedia:

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories." Yet, Beck also notes that there is an "enormous number of contradictions and discrepancies surrounding the chronology of Krishna's life as depicted in the Sanskrit canon."[140]

Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE – 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[141] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[142][143] A paper[which?] presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.

Krishna - Wikipedia

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

As far as I know there is no "reasonable evidence" to establish that Krishna was a historical figure. The oldest depiction of him in a coin in 180 BCE as shown in the Wikipedia page you had given is actually of Vasudeva who according to some factions is "ekathu" or amalgamation of Krishna, so Vasudeva Krishna is Krishna himself. Krishna is called Swayam Bhagavan which is not really translated properly in the Wikipedia page because maybe its difficult to say it clearly. Swayam means "Self". Like in Swayam posha which means "Self Sufficient". This is a depiction of Krishna as God. So one must think of these as not really mythology, but something else. The reason is Indian "mythology" is not like Greek Mythology. For Greek Mythology there are not many historical evidences but for Rama there are some things in the surrounding's that may indicate some historicity.

Rama has a wife called Sita who is kidnapped (Apparently) by Ravana who is another powerful God from the adjoining country Sri Lanka. Now in Sri Lanka Ravana is very well known as an old king and there are actual evidences and legends surrounding him. Ravana was the greatest kind to have ever lived, and has several places named after him recorded in the Deepa Wamsha etc. So there is some indication of him. He was no God though, he was a king. Legend says that he had a Vimana which was a flying machine. So some people believe that he may have flown around. But there is no indication or legend that he kidnapped someones wife, yet, there was war between the two countries. Thus, it can be inferred that Rama and Rawana had a war over something and they may have been kings or warlords who fought each other. Yet, all the magic and 12 heads of Ravana as recorded in the Ramayana could be just myths.

Thus, taking the same route, the Ramayana being within the Mahabaratha which records Krishna, maybe Krishna was an actual historical person. Maybe he was Vasudeva's son, and was a king or prince or whatever. Maybe he was the son of Ghora. The scripture about Krishna themselves vary in their stories so much. In the Bhagvat Geetha Krisha is called Vasudeva. Yet Vasudeva is the father of Krishna so most believe the meaning of Vasudeva was attributed to Krishna, not as a name. Vasu meaning living or good, deva meaning God.

With all of this in mind, the only conclusion that I can see is that since there is some historicity to Rama and Ravana, being from the same book, maybe Krishna will also have some historicity in the midst of all the discrepancies in narration. You cannot negate it because tomorrow some archaeologist somewhere will discover something to authenticate his historicity, yet there is also doubt since just like the historicity of Ravana, there is nothing for Rama, Sita, Hanuman, or the Great War "between them", Thus since a lot of it could be legend and mythology, this has to be considered as a different genre.

Apologies for the rant. I think you get the gist.

 

[firedragon]

Dear Baha'is, for a religion that claims to promote understanding between religions, an OP like this is most destined to hurt the religious feelings of bhaktas. Why not asking whether God/Allah exists? Moreover, if a religion that claims Krishna to be one of its "manifestations of God", implying that Krishna didn't exist undermines the existence of one of its so called "manifestations".

Assumed Leonardo da Vinci had the idea of painting the Mona Lisa in his mind, and then painted it. Does the Mona Lisa "exist"? Does the fact that we may or may not be able to find out who was the historical person portrayed in the "Mona Lisa" change anything about the beauty or the value of it? Dear Baha'is, do you really want to know whether some guy hearing voices while rotting in an inhumane Tehran prison was hearing the voice of Allah or just exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia?

With all due respect, I think that's a straw man. It's not relevant to this thread. It's not fair to bring a faith when the OP is not on that topic, even though the faith may have some significant footstool on it. Thus, its a straw man you are building.

 

[Sirona]

With all due respect, I think that's a straw man. It's not relevant to this thread. It's not fair to bring a faith when the OP is not on that topic, even though the faith may have some significant footstool on it. Thus, its a straw man you are building.

With all due respect to you, I think a great deal of what I perceive as a Baha'i stategy is a continuous attempt to destabilize other people's faith by questioning the more "fantastic" elements of all faiths except their own, wih interludes of "oh, I really appreciate your faith, what you believe is also in my religion ... but only at my own terms and conditions". If an atheist wants to discuss whether certain religious figures existed, I can see the point because many atheists believe in "hard evidence only" and for many of them, beliefs that are not backed up by hard evidence are questionable, to say it politely. I don't agree with the atheist line of argumentation, but I can understand where it comes from.

With the Baha'is its a little different. They want to proselityze others to give up one "superstitious" religious belief (yours) for another "superstitious" belief (theirs).As many people with a Biblical belief for example are mostly required to believe the events of the Bible as facts, the Baha'i faith is probably is very well documented and "backed up by facts" because it's only around 150 years old. So there is much more "evidence" for the existence of Baha'ullah then, let's say Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago, or Krishna, who is said to have lived some 5000 years ago. The more you go into the past, the more possible evidence changes into myths and lore.

Now, do I believe that Krishna existed? As the origins of the Krishna myth are around 5000 years ago, it becomes impossible to tell. However, science acknowledges the existence of a Yadu dynasty, scientists claim to have found the ruins of a city which could have been Dwarka, and there seems to have been some actual military conflict which was later narrated as the Mahabharata war. This seems as close as it gets with regard to facts concerning Krishna, and actually these facts are not relevant to my faith. I know that the Krishna myth blends together at least who different myths, an older one about a warrior prince and diplomat, and a younger other one about a sassy village boy/possible fertlity god tending cows. I don't believe that somebody from a farmer's background could have made it successfully to a war strategist and diplomat in real life. Does that mean that the teachings and the bhakti approch that comes with it are irrelevant to his followers? At least not for me. I can even accept the fact that a literal Krishna could have been nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author long time ago.

However, if a possible origin of one "superstitious belief" (in this case, Hinduism), is questioned in order to validate another "superstitious belief" (in this case, Baha'i faith), which as well could be nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author some 150 years ago, just because the latter is much younger and therefore has much more "evidence", I'm not playing this game. Many Baha'is on this forum raise questions not because they want an actual discussion, but into share with others the latest gospel, the one of Baha'ullah, at some point or another, because that's what their faith seems to require them to do. As the lore about Krishna (Jesus, Zarathustra, Mohammed, Buddha) is too old to get any "hard evidence" for the existence of these people, most Baha'is consider these religions to be "outdated". How convenient they have a "modern" one for you, and if you object to this strategy, then you are "intolerant" or "against progress".

I know that for atheists/agnostics, the question of authoritativeness of a religion may be ridiculous. But for those who believe in God(s), such questions often touch the heart of what they believe. If a religion promoting itself as the paragon of "interfaith" and "religious tolerance" utilizes a strategy which may hurt the religious feelings of others, I question the integrity and the veracity of said religion to actually promote "religious tolerance" and "interfaith".

 

[firedragon]

With all due respect to you, I think a great deal of what I perceive as a Baha'i stategy is a continuous attempt to destabilize other people's faith by questioning the more "fantastic" elements of all faiths except their own, wih interludes of "oh, I really appreciate your faith, what you believe is also in my religion ... but only at my own terms and conditions". If an atheist wants to discuss whether certain religious figures existed, I can see the point because many atheists believe in "hard evidence only" and for many of them, beliefs that are not backed up by hard evidence are questionable, to say it politely. I don't agree with the atheist line of argumentation, but I can understand where it comes from.

With the Baha'is its a little different. They want to proselityze others to give up one "superstitious" religious belief (yours) for another "superstitious" belief (theirs).As many people with a Biblical belief for example are mostly required to believe the events of the Bible as facts, the Baha'i faith is probably is very well documented and "backed up by facts" because it's only around 150 years old. So there is much more "evidence" for the existence of Baha'ullah then, let's say Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago, or Krishna, who is said to have lived some 5000 years ago. The more you go into the past, the more possible evidence changes into myths and lore.

Now, do I believe that Krishna existed? As the origins of the Krishna myth are around 5000 years ago, it becomes impossible to tell. However, science acknowledges the existence of a Yadu dynasty, scientists claim to have found the ruins of a city which could have been Dwarka, and there seems to have been some actual military conflict which was later narrated as the Mahabharata war. This seems as close as it gets with regard to facts concerning Krishna, and actually these facts are not relevant to my faith. I know that the Krishna myth blends together at least who different myths, an older one about a warrior prince and diplomat, and a younger other one about a sassy village boy/possible fertlity god tending cows. I don't believe that somebody from a farmer's background could have made it successfully to a war strategist and diplomat in real life. Does that mean that the teachings and the bhakti approch that comes with it are irrelevant to his followers? At least not for me. I can even accept the fact that a literal Krishna could have been nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author long time ago.

However, if a possible origin of one "superstitious belief" (in this case, Hinduism), is questioned in order to validate another "superstitious belief" (in this case, Baha'i faith), which as well could be nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author some 150 years ago, just because the latter is much younger and therefore has much more "evidence", I'm not playing this game. Many Baha'is on this forum raise questions not because they want an actual discussion, but into share with others the latest gospel, the one of Baha'ullah, at some point or another, because that's what their faith seems to require them to do. As the lore about Krishna (Jesus, Zarathustra, Mohammed, Buddha) is too old to get any "hard evidence" for the existence of these people, most Baha'is consider these religions to be "outdated". How convenient they have a "modern" one for you, and if you object to this strategy, then you are "intolerant" or "against progress".

I know that for atheists/agnostics, the question of authoritativeness of a religion may be ridiculous. But for those who believe in God(s), such questions often touch the heart of what they believe. If a religion promoting itself as the paragon of "interfaith" and "religious tolerance" utilizes a strategy which may hurt the religious feelings of others, I question the integrity and the veracity of said religion to actually promote "religious tolerance" and "interfaith".

Great approach, and thank you for the knowledge you imparted.

I agree that many Bahais try to proselytise in every single thread and I do detest it honestly. Yet in this case, anticipating that you preemptively created a straw man. I do not mean to be offensive to you. I only pointed that out. So far no Bahai has tried to proselytise in this particular thread so I believe that accusation should come at the time it happens. In management as kids we learnt to judge the situation, not the person.

Yet all that being said, it is not my place to tell you anything so I do apologise.

Anyway, leaving that aside I do agree that the Kurukshethra siege may have occurred because well hell, humans are always at war and maybe some legendary characters were deified as has happened everywhere in the world. So maybe Krishna was a real character. Maybe not. I agree.

Cheers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

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

According to Wikipedia:

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories." Yet, Beck also notes that there is an "enormous number of contradictions and discrepancies surrounding the chronology of Krishna's life as depicted in the Sanskrit canon."[140]

Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE – 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[141] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[142][143] A paper[which?] presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.

Krishna - Wikipedia

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

Hi Adrian. Great topic.

To me there are physical signs and spiritual signs. A sign to me is proof that something exists. Proof of the physical sun is it’s light and even a person without sight can feel it’s warmth.

Then there are the Spiritual Suns Who often leave very great traces in both the physical and spiritual realms. From Their Light often emanates guidance in the form of a narrative or Holy Book which affects the course of history and civilisation. Evidences of both the physical and spiritual signs of Krishna can be seen all over the world in such manifestations as the Bhagavad Gita and Maharbarata. Books like these have guided men for thousands of years and they continue to have a very powerful effect on souls.

A non existent person leaves no signs or traces whatsoever. We don’t have birth certificates for Moses, Christ and Muhammad but we know they existed because of the many ‘signs’ They left us which was in the form of a Holy Book. But not any book. Millions of books have been authored only to be forgotten the next day, but with the Manifestations, Their Words affect whole civilisations for century upon century and live on in the daily lives of Their followers thousands of years later.

Krishna to me, was One such Manifestation,

 

[Windwalker]

I don't believe that somebody from a farmer's background could have made it successfully to a war strategist and diplomat in real life.

There is an example of something like that in Jewish history with the story of King David, a shepherd boy with a simple sling defeating a giant in battle, and becoming the King of Israel. So, it is possible.

That said however, it really doesn't matter what the actual histories of them are. It's what they evolved into that constitutes what they are in the traditions handed down that gives them their substance.

Atheists, and other modern, "latest revelation" religions don't seem to understand that. It's not about the facts of history. There is a relationship between truth and facticity, which is fluid and dynamic and held in the heart, not in the head. It's not about a correct math formula to engineer a bolt to fit a machine. It's about the transcendence of the mind to find Truth in the soul, beyond mere mental constructs.

 

[Vinayaka]

Dear Baha'is, for a religion that claims to promote understanding between religions, an OP like this is most destined to hurt the religious feelings of bhaktas. Why not asking whether God/Allah exists? Moreover, if a religion that claims Krishna to be one of its "manifestations of God", implying that Krishna didn't exist undermines the existence of one of its so called "manifestations".

Assumed Leonardo da Vinci had the idea of painting the Mona Lisa in his mind, and then painted it. Does the Mona Lisa "exist"? Does the fact that we may or may not be able to find out who was the historical person portrayed in the "Mona Lisa" change anything about the beauty or the value of it? Dear Baha'is, do you really want to know whether some guy hearing voices while rotting in an inhumane Tehran prison was hearing the voice of Allah or just exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia?

You noticed. I call it sneaky, but yeah that's what they do. I don't understand faiths that are more focused on what other people do than on their own practices.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is an example of something like that in Jewish history with the story of King David, a shepherd boy with a simple sling defeating a giant in battle, and becoming the King of Israel. So, it is possible.

That said however, it really doesn't matter what the actual histories of them are. It's what they evolved into that constitutes what they are in the traditions handed down that gives them their substance.

Atheists, and other modern, "latest revelation" religions don't seem to understand that. It's not about the facts of history. There is a relationship between truth and facticity, which is fluid and dynamic and held in the heart, not in the head. It's not about a correct math formula to engineer a bolt to fit a machine. It's about the transcendence of the mind to find Truth in the soul, beyond mere mental constructs.

They're saying 'We're more valid because we can prove our history." It's nonsense because their history is after written language and only less than 200 years old. If such were the case, I could start a religion today, and tomorrow say it's more valid because I can prove its history.

 

[Vinayaka]

Krishna to me, was One such Manifestation,

But not to Hindus, which shows great disrespect for Hindus. If this is a topic of interest to Baha'is, then it should have been put in the Baha'i forum.

I look forward to being banned now, for being 'disrespectful', and personal attacks.

 

[firedragon]

Hi Adrian. Great topic.

To me there are physical signs and spiritual signs. A sign to me is proof that something exists. Proof of the physical sun is it’s light and even a person without sight can feel it’s warmth.

Then there are the Spiritual Suns Who often leave very great traces in both the physical and spiritual realms. From Their Light often emanates guidance in the form of a narrative or Holy Book which affects the course of history and civilisation. Evidences of both the physical and spiritual signs of Krishna can be seen all over the world in such manifestations as the Bhagavad Gita and Maharbarata. Books like these have guided men for thousands of years and they continue to have a very powerful effect on souls.

A non existent person leaves no signs or traces whatsoever. We don’t have birth certificates for Moses, Christ and Muhammad but we know they existed because of the many ‘signs’ They left us which was in the form of a Holy Book. But not any book. Millions of books have been authored only to be forgotten the next day, but with the Manifestations, Their Words affect whole civilisations for century upon century and live on in the daily lives of Their followers thousands of years later.

Krishna to me, was One such Manifestation,

How about Atnatu?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”...

No.

We've been through this already.

"Sanskrit (ब्रह्म) Brahman (an n-stem, nominative bráhmā, from a root bṛh- "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge") is a neuter noun to be distinguished from the masculine brahmán—denoting a person associated with Brahman, and from Brahmā, the creator God in the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. Brahman is thus a gender-neutral concept that implies greater impersonality than masculine or feminine conceptions of the deity."

Brahman - Wikipedia

Please stop making things up about Hinduism to fit your own personal agenda. Thank you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With all due respect to you, I think a great deal of what I perceive as a Baha'i stategy is a continuous attempt to destabilize other people's faith by questioning the more "fantastic" elements of all faiths except their own, wih interludes of "oh, I really appreciate your faith, what you believe is also in my religion ... but only at my own terms and conditions". If an atheist wants to discuss whether certain religious figures existed, I can see the point because many atheists believe in "hard evidence only" and for many of them, beliefs that are not backed up by hard evidence are questionable, to say it politely. I don't agree with the atheist line of argumentation, but I can understand where it comes from.

With the Baha'is its a little different. They want to proselityze others to give up one "superstitious" religious belief (yours) for another "superstitious" belief (theirs).As many people with a Biblical belief for example are mostly required to believe the events of the Bible as facts, the Baha'i faith is probably is very well documented and "backed up by facts" because it's only around 150 years old. So there is much more "evidence" for the existence of Baha'ullah then, let's say Jesus, who lived 2000 years ago, or Krishna, who is said to have lived some 5000 years ago. The more you go into the past, the more possible evidence changes into myths and lore.

Now, do I believe that Krishna existed? As the origins of the Krishna myth are around 5000 years ago, it becomes impossible to tell. However, science acknowledges the existence of a Yadu dynasty, scientists claim to have found the ruins of a city which could have been Dwarka, and there seems to have been some actual military conflict which was later narrated as the Mahabharata war. This seems as close as it gets with regard to facts concerning Krishna, and actually these facts are not relevant to my faith. I know that the Krishna myth blends together at least who different myths, an older one about a warrior prince and diplomat, and a younger other one about a sassy village boy/possible fertlity god tending cows. I don't believe that somebody from a farmer's background could have made it successfully to a war strategist and diplomat in real life. Does that mean that the teachings and the bhakti approch that comes with it are irrelevant to his followers? At least not for me. I can even accept the fact that a literal Krishna could have been nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author long time ago.

However, if a possible origin of one "superstitious belief" (in this case, Hinduism), is questioned in order to validate another "superstitious belief" (in this case, Baha'i faith), which as well could be nothing but the brainchild of a seer or talented author some 150 years ago, just because the latter is much younger and therefore has much more "evidence", I'm not playing this game. Many Baha'is on this forum raise questions not because they want an actual discussion, but into share with others the latest gospel, the one of Baha'ullah, at some point or another, because that's what their faith seems to require them to do. As the lore about Krishna (Jesus, Zarathustra, Mohammed, Buddha) is too old to get any "hard evidence" for the existence of these people, most Baha'is consider these religions to be "outdated". How convenient they have a "modern" one for you, and if you object to this strategy, then you are "intolerant" or "against progress".

I know that for atheists/agnostics, the question of authoritativeness of a religion may be ridiculous. But for those who believe in God(s), such questions often touch the heart of what they believe. If a religion promoting itself as the paragon of "interfaith" and "religious tolerance" utilizes a strategy which may hurt the religious feelings of others, I question the integrity and the veracity of said religion to actually promote "religious tolerance" and "interfaith".

This is easily one of the most interesting and articulate posts I've encountered in a long, long time.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I answered "I don't know" because...well...I don't know.

Whether he's historical or mythological is irrelevant to me. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is to others.

I'm confident that there have been those Bhaktis who have had a very real experience with Krishna, and for them, Krishna is historical. And that's okay. Just as there are those who have merely read the Bhagavad Gita or the entire Mahabharata and feel that he is a mythological figure. That's okay, too.

As I see it, Krishna, as well as other deities, Hindu or otherwise, are, just as I am, an appearance in maya.

Whether Krishna is historical or mythological, the message of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is invaluable, and that is why I find the question irrellevant.

 

[Windwalker]

They're saying 'We're more valid because we can prove our history." It's nonsense because their history is after written language and only less than 200 years old. If such were the case, I could start a religion today, and tomorrow say it's more valid because I can prove its history.

Besides, what is it that some teacher was historical? There are thousands of gurus alive today. That doesn't make their teachings more valid than other teachings, simply because we know they are real people. It doesn't matter if the "Jesus says...." teachings are an amalgam of different traditions and schools of thought (which they are, btw). Things get selected which speak truths, and attribution to a founding figure is commonplace to give voice to those different traditions.

How these things evolved, arises out of oral traditions, which were all about applying one's knowledge to an adaptive storytelling. None of that was about preserving historical facts. That is simply not the intent of oral tradition. It's later on that a scribal tradition attempted to write these stories down in order to "preserve" that oral tradition. There is an entirely different mindset between a scribe and a storyteller, or "singer" as they would be called.

So this whole "God's word" being preserved in this book or that, is simply a tiny slice, and a cross-section of a popular "song" sung by storytellers of the that narrow period of time. The only thing preserved, was that scribal traditions recording session of the singers on stage at that time. But unlike modern pop music, where each note is sung the same each time, these are improvisational around various recognizable melodies. Think Indian Ragas. So, just because I have a recording of Hariprasad Chaurasia performing Raag Saraswati, that does not mean that alone is Raag Saraswati in its exact performance, and all others are just "the words of men", not the Word of God, like with that one single recording.

Yeah, I think there is some real diminishment in the inspirational qualities of our mythologies, when we canonized them and historize them, in order to establish them as supposedly more "authoritative". How is it more beneficial to the soul to restrict the movements of songs sung in harmony with the environment? How is it that song has stopped being in tune with the mood of the moment, and is now only about "playing the correct notes". It's sad, but the way things are.

 

[CG Didymus]

"oh, I really appreciate your faith, what you believe is also in my religion ... but only at my own terms and conditions".

A non existent person leaves no signs or traces whatsoever.

Krishna to me, was One such Manifestation,

Okay, so Baha'is believe Krishna was a real historical person. And does it matter if there is no physical evidence? Does it matter if most everyone says that Krishna is mythical? No, because Baha'u'llah said he was real. But what was real about him? Was he an incarnation of Vishnu/? For Baha'is probably not. Is Baha'u'llah the return of Krishna/Kalki? For Baha'is yes, and a prophecy about how years are to elapse before the return is made to fit. Did he teach reincarnation? No, Baha'is say that was a misinterpretation. Yes, Baha'is believe he was real, but with terms and conditions.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

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

According to Wikipedia:

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories." Yet, Beck also notes that there is an "enormous number of contradictions and discrepancies surrounding the chronology of Krishna's life as depicted in the Sanskrit canon."[140]

Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE – 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[141] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[142][143] A paper[which?] presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.

Krishna - Wikipedia

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

I'm more than half way through the Mahabharata.

For much of my life I thought I had seen an Alien and that those strange-colored people in the Hindu books were the same color.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I answered "I don't know" because...well...I don't know.

Whether he's historical or mythological is irrelevant to me. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is to others.

I'm confident that there have been those Bhaktis who have had a very real experience with Krishna, and for them, Krishna is historical. And that's okay. Just as there are those who have merely read the Bhagavad Gita or the entire Mahabharata and feel that he is a mythological figure. That's okay, too.

As I see it, Krishna, as well as other deities, Hindu or otherwise, are, just as I am, an appearance in maya.

Whether Krishna is historical or mythological, the message of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is invaluable, and that is why I find the question irrellevant.

As a student of religious studies, the historicity of any major religious character or founder is of interest. Krishna is one such figure.

Regardless of historical issues, I have no doubt about the experience of devotees in regards Krishna and the value of the Bhagavad Gita.

Regardless of what we can know to verify the existence of Krishna, its apparent we don’t have too much to go on that would satisfy historians. That’s not surprising given Krishna, if He did exist, was around five thousand years ago.

What is surprising to me, is the aggressive and suspicious nature of some respondents. The OP question may be irrelevant to some but its certainly not irreverent.