Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[chinu]

I do not believe in such esoteric stuff. For me, it is trash. I wish people will not consider this as Hinduism.

Purpose of bringing this stuff here is.. NOT to believe in it.

Purpose is.. why NOT practice "Chakra-Meditation" to know the "Truth" by own-self ?

Why to relay on ANY information provided by history ?
History is just like what I explained in this thread: Searching "Truth" in history.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome to all practices, but 'Chakra', 'Kundalini' is farce.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not believe in such esoteric stuff. For me, it is trash. I wish people will not consider this as Hinduism. We too have snake-oil sellers.

There goes Tirumoolar, Patanjali., and many others. I wonder where they found the snakes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not find any scientific reason to accept it. To me it seems a self-induced hallucination.

 

[Vinayaka]

I do not find any scientific reason to accept it. To me it seems a self-induced hallucination.

Apparently a few thousand seers over the years have had the same 'hallucination'.

But I also understand how some folks have pretended for ego reasons, and to sound cool. You can tell because they usually get it wrong, even the pronunciation. This 'clearing your chakras' idea is totally new age. Chakras indicate where you're at in consciousness. If you say you're in the heart chakra, but then you go out and commit adultery ... well, sorry to say this, but you're not. Actions speak louder than words, as usual.

 

[Muffled]

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 believe he could be a real person. Mythological does not mean fictional. It just means we don't have corroborative evidence to support his historicity.

I believe he was not a god and definitely not God. I would put him in the realm of religious philosopher.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe God does not change.

I believe the idea that God incarnated before Jesus is fictional.

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe that would be a corrupt view of God. Jesus had prayers and God was always giving commands. That sounds like desires to me.

 

[atanu]

I believe God does not change.

God was always giving commands.

'Always giving orders' seems 'always changing' to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe that would be a corrupt view of God. Jesus had prayers and God was always giving commands. That sounds like desires to me.

I am not concerned about people in Abrahamic religions. Most Hindus are theists. Their Gods have the desires to create, sustain, destroy humankind and do other Godly things. But I am an atheist Hindu. I believe in an entity, Brahman, which is eternal, form-independent, changeless and uninvolved in worldly happenings. Brahman is not God but the sole constituent of all things in the universe.

 

[chinu]

You are welcome to all practices, but 'Chakra', 'Kundalini' is farce.

Facts ?

 

[chinu]

This 'clearing your chakras' idea is totally new age.

But Wikipedia says.. the concept is found in the early traditions of hinduism.
Chakra - Wikipedia

Chakras indicate where you're at in consciousness. If you say you're in the heart chakra, but then you go out and commit adultery ... well, sorry to say this, but you're not. Actions speak louder than words, as usual.

So what, history says that even lord Krishna had many wife's and girlfriends. The most popular names I remember are Rukmini (wife) & Radha (Girlfriend)

 

[Aupmanyav]

But Wikipedia says.. the concept is found in the early traditions of hinduism.
Chakra - Wikipedia
So what, history says that even lord Krishna had many wife's and girlfriends. The most popular names I remember are Rukmini (wife) & Radha (Girlfriend)

Sure, Hindus too believe in many silly things. IMHO, Belief in chakras is one of them.
Your second statement does not relate to anything that I said. Yes, according to Hindu mythology, Krishna had eight wives and ten sons to each. That makes it 80 sons. He is also supposed to have married 16,000 princesses/women rescued from a demon. Also, in his childhood, he is supposed top have frolicked with many cow-herd girls, Radha being the most prominent among them. But I do not even accept Krishna as a historical person or as a God. I am an strong atheist (which means I deny even the possibility of existence of God / Allah; of prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / Mahdis). My views are different.

 

[chinu]

Your second statement does not relate to anything that I said.

Reply was made to Vinayaka's post.

 

[Vinayaka]

But Wikipedia says.. the concept is found in the early traditions of hinduism.
Chakra - Wikipedia

So what, history says that even lord Krishna had many wife's and girlfriends. The most popular names I remember are Rukmini (wife) & Radha (Girlfriend)

Yes the knowledge of chakras has been around for a very long time. Tirumular is about 200 BC I think. Many sages spoke about that, and much more, in the mystic magical realms. Nothing really unusual here, normal stuff. It's in the Upanishads as well. So, back in Vedic times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am sure that there are many words for it in Hinduism, but I keep away from all mysticism and like to keep things straight. One wrong word and one lands up in what they term as 'Quagmire' (with all respect to our Mod here).

How do you describe brahma (right?) without the esoteric mystic language?

 

[Dawnofhope]

If that is it, then why do we not have many temples of Brahma or Indra? They are deprecated deities, though Brahma is still considered the creator of the universe and writer of fate of all living beings (yeah, even of an ant ) - Vidhata.
Brahma is not eternal, there is a new Brahma in every cycle of creation which happens after every 311 trillion years.
The interregnum between two creations is of 1,728,000 years.
Indraship is a rotating chair (like Chairpersons in an organization) and lasts for only 306,702,000 years, i.e., one manavantara.
Each manavantara has a new Indra, a new Manu (Hindu Adam), and a new set of seven sages. We have it all figured out.
Manvantara - Wikipedia

Its an interesting question as to why Vishnu and Shiva are revered in so many temples and Brahma is not. Brahma never manifested Himself as an Avatar in this world in contrast to Vishnu who has numerous Avatars including Krishna. Although Saivite Hindus don’t believe in Avatars, some traditions suggest Shiva was an actual historical character who lived long before Krishna.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I searched this on internet for you to read. Hope you will find this interesting.

Source: Who is fit to be called as Satguru or Sadhguru? - Soul Prajna

There are many energy centres in the body called Chakras and a parallel can be drawn between the space between chakras and the trinities namely Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

The Vedas say that absolute knowledge is ‘Brahman’. ‘Brahman’ is different from Brahma. Brahman is our inner wisdom. There is a great difference between knowledge and wisdom. A single drop as well as the entire ocean is considered to be water but they are totally different.

The span between Sahasrara and Vishuddhi chakra is considered to be the area of Brahma. The guru in the form of Brahman is our inner wisdom, and that wisdom can be realized between Vishuddhi and Sahasrara i.e. in the Ajna Chakra. Ajna Chakra is the seat of Brahma – the personification of knowledge.

Vishuddhi to Manipura is the realm of Vishnu, Vishnu personifies love and devotion. Love and devotion emerge from the heart and the heart chakra is called ‘Anahata’.
Manipura to Muladhara is the realm of Shiva.

“Satyam Shivam Sundaram”, this means Shiva is the embodiment of truth and beauty. What is truth? Truth is ’that’, which doesn’t change with time – past, present or future. My surroundings and I were not like at the present a hundred years ago, and what they will be ten years hence, no one knows. Is there nothing called ‘Truth’? Creation is truth, because creation, was, is and will be there. Living and non-living things are mere manifestations of creation.

Living beings procreate through Swadisthana Chakra. Shiva’s symbol is the symbol of creation. Without truth and creation there can be no self-realization.

Meditation and chanting is part of my daily spiritual practice. Bhakti yoga with devotion to the exalted Personage of Krishna and Karma Yoga with emphasis on service to humanity have similarities to my beliefs and practice. Although Chakras are important to both Bhakti and Karma Yoga I’m somewhat of a chakra agnostic and rarely think in such terms. However if it genuinely works for others I’m all for it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you describe brahma (right?) without the esoteric mystic language?

No, a bit of correction. Brahma is a deprecated God in the trinity for theists Hindus. What I accept is Brahman, the sole stuff of the universe, 'physical energy', with which we started at the time of Big Bang, and which constitutes all things in the universe without any exception, humans, animals, vegetation, non-living substances. Brahman, for me is not a God, it does not want to be worshiped, it is not a judge of peoples' deeds, and is completely neutral to what is happening in the world. No mysticism, no esoteric language there.

 

[Aupmanyav]

1. Its an interesting question as to why Vishnu and Shiva are revered in so many temples and Brahma is not.
2. Although Saivite Hindus don’t believe in Avatars, some traditions suggest Shiva was an actual historical character who lived long before Krishna.

1. I have mentioned the reason in my posts here, but it does not seem to have been noticed by you. Therefore, I give it again. Around 2,500 BC, the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the constellation of Orion (Mrigashiras) in the region where Indo-Europeans were staying at that time (most probably in the Pontic steppes, north of Caspian sea, in the Volga valley). Orion was considered Prajapati, Brahmanaspati. But as the time went on, the point where the sun rose tilted towards Rohini (Star Aldebaran). Now, Rohini was considered to be Prajapati's daughter. This movement was considered bad and akin to incest. It also confused the priests for the beginning of the ritual cycle, it changed the seasons. This was due to 'precession of equinox' which of course those people did not understand at that time. To sync the season back to the cycle, the people changed the beginning of the year by one month and made the constellation of Pleiades (Krittikas) as the beginning point. It is at that time that Brahmanaspati/Prajapati lost its importance. After another 2000 years, the beginning of the year was changed again by one month and was made to coincide with Aries (Ashwinis).
2. Such a view would not be held by Hindus, but yes, evangelists of Abrahamic religions may say so to confuse those who do not know. It is said that if you speak a lie unashamedly for hundred times, it becomes truth.