• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Don't the Vedas Mention Rama or Krishna?

TTCUSM

Member
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.
 

Marble

Rolling Marble
Or more historical spoken, Krishna and Rama are figures from folk mythology who only later were incorporated into the Sanskritic tradition.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
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.

1. The Veda has no beginning. Its content is not dependent on the time of revealation which puts a hole in your hypothesis.

2. The concept of Yugas is not found in the Veda. It comes from Puranas. In other words, no Veda makes the claim that it was revealed by Brahma or that it was revealed at the start of Satya Yuga. Second hole in the hypothesis.

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 am with Marble on this one. My theory (unproven) is that Rama and Krishna came from local religion which merged with the Aryan religion to form what we now call Hinduism. In this process, they were avatarized, as was the Buddha.

Btw, it is not until the time of Buddha (600 BC) that Indian history emerges from mythology to clear history. To put it differently, no names before the time of the Buddha can be safely considered to mean real people and not mythical characters.
 

Marble

Rolling Marble
Rama is just a human in Valmiki Ramayana, perhaps he has his origins in one or several folk legends?
Krishna was perhaps a tribal deity, he wears a mala of Gunja berries around his neck which, I believe, grow only in the jungles.
It is interesting that the goddess Matangi also wears those berries and she is strongly associated with outcaste and with pollution.
 

Andal

resident hypnotist
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!
 

Chisti

Active Member
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!

Could you please tell me more on this, what sort of objects they found, how old, and all that?
 

Atman

Member
I've always struggled with idea of whether or not Rama and Krishna were historical figures.

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 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?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Religion is always a work in progress. It changes over time, even while proclaiming itself eternal and unchanging.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
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.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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.

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.
 

Atman

Member
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.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
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.

Probably the latter. But to me, that doesn't matter. (hey, I just rhymed!:D)
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
 

Atman

Member
Namaste Madhuri

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.
 

bhaktajan

Active Member
Because the Vedas & its charater list of Personages (personae dramatis) appear inorder of their appearence on the stage of history . . . after Brahma's birth and later poluation of the cosmos.

It's a historical soap-opera of the family tree of personalities extending from the first born person/engineer/raja-tama-guna Deva/progenitor known as Brahma.

Krishna arrives "Once in a day of Brahma" [aka, once per Kalpa] within the 'brahmanda' that we are all in.

Krishna, as Godhead is directly revealed to all that can hear and listen and understand . . . and still within the limits of freewill Krishna explainss Sanatana-Dharma and ends with, "That is My opinion. " So just see, we must exercise freewill to obtain benedictions.

:::::::::::::

Bhagvad-gita Chapter 6 verse 40:
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, said: Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

41 The unsuccessful yogi, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

42 Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.

43 On taking such a birth, he revives the divine consciousness of his previous life, and he again tries to make further progress in order to achieve complete success, O son of Kuru.

44 By virtue of the divine consciousness of his previous life, he automatically becomes attracted to the yogic principles--even without seeking them. Such an inquisitive transcendentalist stands always above the ritualistic principles of the scriptures.

45 And when the yogi engages himself with sincere endeavor in making further progress, being washed of all contaminations, then ultimately, achieving perfection after many, many births of practice, he attains the supreme goal.

46 A yogi is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna in all circumstances, be a yogi.

47 And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me--he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

7.1 Now hear, O son of Prtha, how by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me, with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full, free from doubt. 2 I shall now declare unto you in full this knowledge, both phenomenal and numinous. This being known, nothing further shall remain for you to know.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
Why would the Vedas speak of Krishna in Vrindavana? That is clearly historical.
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.

However, why should this mean that Krishna is not Vishnu or an avatar?

Depends on how we we look at it. If the authors of the Veda were aware of the concept of Avatars (they were not) and if they knew of Vishnu avatars, they would have mentioned them. At the least, I would expect to see the fish avatar mentioned.

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.

It follows, belief in the Veda and Vishnu does not mean belief in Krishna or his avatar status. One has to rely on non-vedic sources for the latter.
 

kaisersose

Active Member
In the above context, the Shatapata Brahmana (Yajur Veda) mentions the story of Manu and the fish. But it does not say the fish was an avatar of Vishnu or an avatar at all.
 

bhaktajan

Active Member
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.


"by any other name is still called an iconoclast"

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hey K,

The Vedas are taken as a whole culture ---yes that will include hillbilly customs too in the foothills of south Asian Homeys.

So as a whole--- they are taken as a whole.

It can alway be found that some argue that certain "Books" can or should be omitted from the cannon. Yet, ironically, the more the better ---rather than the lessor the better is most popular rule of thumb in the case of all mundane affairs. The kama-sutra is Not the Vedas. Yet any warning or encouragement given in the Kama-sutra would be classified as from Vedic culture.

The Vedas don't deny it's related doctrines ---they supplement each other.

Read the Bible! The Old testiment? Or the New testiment? Or the Mormen? Or the King James? Or the Greek Script? Or just a Tract? Or just the Lord's Prayer? Or just the commandments? Or just the John The Baptist Regime? Or just a repertoire of Gospel Songs?

Some inside advise: While attempting to state progressive ideas it is best not to use terms or means of approach that are "in the negative". Progression by negation is standard faire of sunyavadi philosophers.

It is sufficient to know what the contents of the Vedas are as they are actually written in their pages ----weather one has faith is over and above the degree to which the reader's ablilities & devotional aptitude for yogic life.

IE: Read the Gita find out out is spoken of therein ---Just know what Krishna says ---take it or leave it.

But I repeat, know for your self what Krishna says. Tell your all those family friends with top security clearances. Be a Good putra and mitra.
 
Last edited:
Top