Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I was thinking about this question recently, and a very simple answer came to me:
The Vedas were revealed by Brahma at the beginning of the Satya Yuga, while the Rama Avatara took place during the Treta Yuga and the Krishna Avatara took place during the Dwapara Yuga.
Namaste Marble,
Krishna is not a tribal deity. He lived on earth around 3000 BCE. His city, Dawarka, which was buried in a tsunami after his departure was found a few years back right off the coast of Gujarat. Coins have been brought to the surface inscribed with his name dating from about that time. Also, Gunja berries have little connection with the jungle. They are used throughout India for various garlands to decorate deities.
Aum Hari Aum!
I hear this claim being thrown around a lot, but I've never seen any evidence given to back it up. Do you have a link to any websites following a traditional Hindu Sampradaya, or a quote from an acharya of a traditional Hindu Sampradaya that makes this claim?Actually, the Chandogya does mention a Krishna, the son of Devaki. Not as a God, but as a student. Traditional schools do not consider this Krishna as THE Krishna.
I've always struggled with idea of whether or not Rama and Krishna were historical figures.
That makes two of us. When someone says the Mahabharata was 3000 BC, and warriors flew threw the sky with chariots, my logic kicks in.
Same for the Ramayana. When someone tells me Ravana had 10 heads literally, I get to thinking. 10 heads, eh? Well, that does seem a tad overdone. I prefer to think it was all metaphor ... ego rising etc. All this might be one of the reasons I'm not a Vaishnavite.
Namaste Riverwolf.Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that the two stories were based in actual historical fact, but, like the Greek Iliad, have been colored with mythology over time.
Though I still love the stories
Namaste Riverwolf.
I've held views similar to yours for awhile now, but it's always made me wonder, were Sri Krishna and Sri Ram (assuming they were historical figures who existed) actually divine, or was divinity later projected unto them as their stories became mythologized and sensationalized.
Namaste Riverwolf.
I've held views similar to yours for awhile now, but it's always made me wonder, were Sri Krishna and Sri Ram (assuming they were historical figures who existed) actually divine, or was divinity later projected unto them as their stories became mythologized and sensationalized.
I guess we can only speculate. But whoever spoke or dreamed the Bhagavad Gita is/was a pretty special entity imo.
I'd definitely agree with you there. I don't regard its every word as being God spoken, but Bhagavad Gita has definitely had a huge influence over my philisophical and theological views over the past few years. I can recall after I had finished reading it for the first time, I had been fully convinced of God's existence, and personal nature.I guess we can only speculate. But whoever spoke or dreamed the Bhagavad Gita is/was a pretty special entity imo.
There is plenty of historical material in the Veda. Rishis like Vishwamitra, Kuru princes like Janamejaya, etc., North Western Indian rivers and locations - all find a mention in the Veda.Why would the Vedas speak of Krishna in Vrindavana? That is clearly historical.
However, why should this mean that Krishna is not Vishnu or an avatar?
1. Vishnu is mentioned in the Veda several times.
2. The concept of avatars is absent in the Veda.
3. Alleged Vishnu avatars ranging from Matsya to the Buddha are absent in the Veda.