Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[Dawnofhope]

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?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Since Krishna is god and, from what I learned on RF for a good number of years, god isn't a deity and supreme being or anything similar, I can only conclude he or she isn't historical. Maybe mythological. Not a deity in his or her on right but is god (for lack of better context-terms) itself.

It's a good question and I hope you're not attacked too much for it, but I just put I don't know. I get a good amount of gist for so far I know of Hinduism (just had no name for my perspective of life), but all in all, it's a bit more complicated than how you're implying it. Also, seeing it through abrahamic lens is a huge barrier just as looking at bahaism without having atheist lens.

Somethings have to give, ya know?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There are a lot of possibilities:

Krishna could have existed with most stories being true.

Krishna could have existed with many stories being exaggerated or false.

Krishna could be a spiritual figure that some people touched upon, but never existed on Earth.

Krishna could be a metaphor for a bigger spiritual thing. Told through stories.

None of it could be true.

Etc.

 

[sun rise]

The problem with understanding the verifiable historical basis for Krishna is the same as for figures in the Bible such as Moses and Abraham. The focus on scientific evidence is very recent historically speaking, much more recent than Krishna, Rama and Western figures.

There is evidence for Dwarka having existed but nothing archeologists would accept as proof positive as far as I know.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since Krishna is god and, from what I learned on RF for a good number of years, god isn't a deity and supreme being or anything similar, I can only conclude he or she isn't historical. Maybe mythological. Not a deity in his or her on right but is god (for lack of better context-terms) itself.

It's a good question and I hope you're not attacked too much for it, but I just put I don't know. I get a good amount of gist for so far I know of Hinduism (just had no name for my perspective of life), but all in all, it's a bit more complicated than how you're implying it. Also, seeing it through abrahamic lens is a huge barrier just as looking at bahaism without having atheist lens.

Somethings have to give, ya know?

It is true that many Hindus believe Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu/God. However part of that belief for many Hindus was that He was a real historical character as well. In that respect, there are parallels with Christ who was both historical and an incarnation of the Jewish God, Yahweh. However, the OP question is about whether or not Krishna existed as an historical figure and the evidence supporting that belief. Its a question that can be considered using accepted methods of historical analysis. On the other hand the question regarding whether Krishna was a man or God incarnate is about belief not verifiable fact.

The answer "I don't know" is completely reasonable. We are considering whether or not someone lived five thousand years ago. It extremely difficult to reliably know if any religious figure from that era really lived. Take the Hebrew Bible and the characters Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses who allegedly walked the earth between 3 1/2 to 6 thousand years ago. From a scientific/historic perspective we can not reliably determine the existence of any of these characters.

Questions of historical veracity and science transcend Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms which are more about belief than actual facts. Thanks for your post and good to hear from you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is true that many Hindus believe Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu/God. However part of that belief for many Hindus was that He was a real historical character as well. In that respect, there are parallels with Christ who was both historical and an incarnation of the Jewish God, Yahweh. However, the OP question is about whether or not Krishna existed as an historical figure and the evidence supporting that belief. Its a question that can be considered using accepted methods of historical analysis. On the other hand the question regarding whether Krishna was a man or God incarnate is about belief not verifiable fact.

The answer "I don't know" is completely reasonable. We are considering whether or not someone lived five thousand years ago. It extremely difficult to reliably know if any religious figure from that era really lived. Take the Hebrew Bible and the characters Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses who allegedly walked the earth between 3 1/2 to 6 thousand years ago. From a scientific/historic perspective we can not reliably determine the existence of any of these characters.

Questions of historical veracity and science transcend Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms which are more about belief than actual facts. Thanks for your post and good to hear from you.

I don't think he has. I think it's more mythology and indian cosmology than historical. Unless jesus is god, and can be historically and factually proven, I think both of them are different. Jesus a human. Krishna deity. It would be different if you compared jesus to guatama because he was human just as Christ. But krishna?

Unless you devalue Hindus opinions, wouldn't what they say give some factual context (culture) to what you're looking up?

I can go to bahai scripture and look at history all day and draw conclusions with only a non god view but if I went to a bahai,temple, talked with bahai, and get their testimony if value that over what I read and study. You learn about krishna though it's followers.

First, I don't know who/what krishna is personally. Is there a way you can describe him without dependency on what you read and study?

Do you think god can only depend on the words people say about it?

Unfortunely, I don't know the language and context of the Dharma to make a sound statement of fact whether krishna is aligned with jesus. But I do value believers statements. My study is not the same as their experience.


.....

(I think puting this on scriptural or like debate would get more book knowledge discussion than opinions in a general debate forum.)

 

[The Anointed]

Krishna, is the eighth manifestation of the evolved Vishnu, and he is that supreme personality of Godhead to have developed in 'The Great God' Brahman.'

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

Shabda Brahman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Shabda OR SHABDA STANDS FOR ‘WORD’ MANIFESTED BY SOUND [VERBAL]

Bhartrhari speaks about the creative power of shabda, the manifold universe is a creation of Shabda Brahman

The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vāc (R.V.X.114.8), and has hymns in praise of ‘SPEECH AS THE CREATOR.’ Much the same as the Logos=WORD, is said to be 'THE CREATOR'

Both Logos and Brahman, are seen to be the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all must return at the close of each period of universal activity.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest, are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

Like Jesus, Krishna was born of a brother sister relationship, and because he was seen as a threat to the King, (Not Herod the Great) he was spirited away to another country, (Not Egypt) etc, Many similarities with the Abrahamic scriptures, taught by Jesus and his apostles.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Krishna, is the eighth manifestation of the evolved Vishnu, and he is that supreme personality of Godhead to have developed in 'The Great God' Brahman.'

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

Shabda Brahman From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Shabda OR SHABDA STANDS FOR ‘WORD’ MANIFESTED BY SOUND [VERBAL]

Bhartrhari speaks about the creative power of shabda, the manifold universe is a creation of Shabda Brahman

The Rig Veda states that Brahman extends as far as Vāc (R.V.X.114.8), and has hymns in praise of ‘SPEECH AS THE CREATOR.’ Much the same as the Logos=WORD, is said to be 'THE CREATOR'

Both Logos and Brahman, are seen to be the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates and to which all must return at the close of each period of universal activity.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy=anti-matter.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest, are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

Like Jesus, Krishna was born of a brother sister relationship, and because he was seen as a threat to the King, (Not Herod the Great) he was spirited away to another country, (Not Egypt) etc, Many similarities with the Abrahamic scriptures, taught by Jesus and his apostles.

What source?

 

[The Anointed]

What source?

Source for 'WHAT?"

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not just one myth but a combination of two myths - 1. The King of Dwarika, 2. A cow herd of Agra region (Vraja). Two places about 650 (as the crow flies) miles from each other.

There are a lot of possibilities:
Krishna could have existed with most stories being true.
Krishna could have existed with many stories being exaggerated or false.
Krishna could be a spiritual figure that some people touched upon, but never existed on Earth.
Krishna could be a metaphor for a bigger spiritual thing. Told through stories.
None of it could be true.

At least one of the theories is true.

The root to the word “BRAHMAN” originally meant “SPEECH”, much the same as the “LOGOS” is said to mean ‘WORD.

That is 'Religious Biryani' (Resotto).
Do you know the meaning of Brahman? When it is Brahman, there cannot be a God.
Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman)
Tat twam asi (That is what you are)
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma (All things here are Brahman)

 

[The Anointed]

Not just a myth but a combination of two myths - 1. The King of Dwarika, 2. A cow herd of Agra region (Vraja). Two places about 650 (as the crow flies) miles from each other.
At least one of the theories is true.
That is 'Religious Biryani' (Resotto).
Do you know the meaning of Brahman? When it is Brahman, there cannot be a God.
Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman)
Tat twam asi (That is what you are)
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma (All things here are Brahman)

Brahman (Speech) as with Logos (Word) is the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal evolving spirit from which all being originates and to who all being must return. The LOGOS God, and Brahman God, is today as they/He have always been. He/they is the only true constant in that he is constantly evolving. Vishnu becomes Krishna over 8 periods of universal activity.

Brahman - Nature of Ultimate Reality in Hinduism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not just a myth but a combination of two myths - 1. The King of Dwarika, 2. A cow herd of Agra region (Vraja). Two places about 650 (as the crow flies) miles from each other.

How can you know for certain?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think he has. I think it's more mythology and indian cosmology than historical. Unless jesus is god, and can be historically and factually proven, I think both of them are different. Jesus a human. Krishna deity. It would be different if you compared jesus to guatama because he was human just as Christ. But krishna?

Unless you devalue Hindus opinions, wouldn't what they say give some factual context (culture) to what you're looking up?

I can go to bahai scripture and look at history all day and draw conclusions with only a non god view but if I went to a bahai,temple, talked with bahai, and get their testimony if value that over what I read and study. You learn about krishna though it's followers.

First, I don't know who/what krishna is personally. Is there a way you can describe him without dependency on what you read and study?

Do you think god can only depend on the words people say about it?

Unfortunely, I don't know the language and context of the Dharma to make a sound statement of fact whether krishna is aligned with jesus. But I do value believers statements. My study is not the same as their experience.


.....

(I think puting this on scriptural or like debate would get more book knowledge discussion than opinions in a general debate forum.)

I don’t believe we can accurately determine historical fact through subjective beliefs. For example, the majority of Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. However none of this is accepted historical fact. However most reputable historians and scholars with expertise in this area will agree, Jesus was a real person. How do they make such a determination? Not through what believers religious claims, rather through contemporary historical documents. Of particular relevance are works from the historians Josephus and Tacitus whose works were produced within 100 years of the lifetime of Jesus.

So it is generally accepted Jesus was an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans. There’s no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus other than the Gospel accounts and Paul’s letters. However these works while containing useful historical information, are considered theological as opposed to historical accounts.

So how about Krishna? What contemporary records mentioned Krishna? There are none. There are accounts in Hindu writings. However these works were written at least two thousand years after Krishna lived.

So the debate needs to be focused on historically reliable information for which none exists for Krishna. So you could be correct to claim Krishna was mythical but we simply have no way of knowing for certain.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He/they is the only true constant in that he is constantly evolving.

Brahman is changeless. Gods may have desires, Brahman has none.

How can you know for certain?

Yeah, it is an indigenous belief, probably 4,000 years old. Aryan Indra encountered Krishna in the Govardhan myth when Aryans came into India. Indra was defeated by Krishna, and his worship banned. What can one say about a myth that old?

 

[SomeRandom]

It is true that many Hindus believe Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu/God. However part of that belief for many Hindus was that He was a real historical character as well. In that respect, there are parallels with Christ who was both historical and an incarnation of the Jewish God, Yahweh. However, the OP question is about whether or not Krishna existed as an historical figure and the evidence supporting that belief. Its a question that can be considered using accepted methods of historical analysis. On the other hand the question regarding whether Krishna was a man or God incarnate is about belief not verifiable fact.

The answer "I don't know" is completely reasonable. We are considering whether or not someone lived five thousand years ago. It extremely difficult to reliably know if any religious figure from that era really lived. Take the Hebrew Bible and the characters Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses who allegedly walked the earth between 3 1/2 to 6 thousand years ago. From a scientific/historic perspective we can not reliably determine the existence of any of these characters.

Questions of historical veracity and science transcend Abrahamic and Dharmic paradigms which are more about belief than actual facts. Thanks for your post and good to hear from you.

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.

 

[stvdv]

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

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

 

[The Anointed]

Brahman is changeless. Gods may have desires, Brahman has none.Yeah, it is an indigenous belief, probably 4,000 years old. Aryan Indra encountered Krishna in the Govardhan myth when Aryans came into India. Indra was defeated by Krishna, and his worship banned. What can one say about a myth that old?

When was Vishnu the supreme personality to develop in Brahman, and when did Krishna enter into Brahman as the supreme personality of Godhead and the eighth manifestation of Vishnu?

 

[Sirona]

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?

 

[Aupmanyav]

When was Vishnu the supreme personality to develop in Brahman, and when did Krishna enter into Brahman as the supreme personality of Godhead and the eighth manifestation of Vishnu?

Your questions are not clear. The worshipers of Vishnu (Vaishnavas) consider him to be the Supreme God orBrahman. Other Hindus may differ from them. Since Krishna is considered the eighth avatara of Vishnu, he is none other than Vishnu or Brahman. Th same holds true for Rama and Buddha, the seventh, the ninth and earlier avataras of Lord Vishnu.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Source for 'WHAT?"

Your POST.