Was Krishna a historicized god?

[Peter Kirby]

I am not even an amateur when it comes to the study of Hinduism, so I turn to the advice of folks here.

Traditionally, Krishna is said to have lived c. 3100 BC.

My source for texts: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm

The oldest Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, do not contain a single reference to 'Krishna'. Apparently it was not used as a name at the time that the Vedas were compiled (c. 1000-600 BC?).

In the Upanishads, the name of 'Krishna' is found twice:

Sixth Khanda. 1. Next Krishna-Hârita confided this Brâhmana concerning speech to him (his pupil):

Seventeenth Khanda. 6. Ghora Ângirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devãkî--and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)--said: 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "Thou art the imperishable," "Thou art the unchangeable," "Thou art the edge of Prâna."

Here "Krishna" seems to be the name of certain people, teachers or pupils, not the god of the Mahabharata War.

But we also find what is possibly the earliest reference to Krishna as a deity:

Third Khanda. 3. That flowed forth and went towards the sun. And that forms what we call the dark (krishna) light of the sun.

In the Institutes of Vishnu is the first definite reference I found.

82. 'Thou art infinite. 83. Thou art Purusha. 84. Thou art the great (unbounded) Purusha. 85. Thou art (the sage) Kapila. 86. Thou art the teacher of the Sânkhya. 87. Thy powers are everywhere. 88. Thou art virtue. 89. Thou art the giver of virtue. go. Thy body is virtue (law). 91. Thou art the giver of both virtue and wealth. 92. Desires are gratified by thee. 93. Thou art Vishnu. 94. Thou art triumphant everywhere. 95. Thou art capable of bearing (the extremities of heat and cold and any others). 96. Thou art Krishna. 97. Thou art the lotus-eyed god. 98. Thou art Nârâyana (the son of Nara). 99. Thou art the final aim. 100. Thou art the resort of all beings. 101. Adoration, adoration (be to thee)!'

Here Krishna appears as one of many instantiations of Vishnu, but not necessarily a person living on earth ('virtue' and 'final aim' aren't historical people either).

There is another possible reference in the Institutes of Vishnu:

51. 'Thou art beyond the cognisance of the senses; thy end is most difficult to know; thou art brilliant; thou holdest the bow Sârnga; thou art the boar[1]; thou art terrible; thou art Govinda[2] (the herdsman); thou art of old; thou art Purushottama (the spirit supreme).

2 This epithet, which literally means 'he who finds or wins cows,' is usually referred to Vishnu's recovering the 'cow,' i.e. the earth, when it was lost in the waters: see Mahâbh. XII, 13228, which verse is quoted both by Nand. and by Sankara in his Commentary on the Vishnu-sahasranâma. It originally refers, no doubt, to Vishnu or Krishna as the pastoral god.]

So, if this is accurate, then Krishna was conceived as 'the herdsman', which recovered the earth, in the Institutes of Vishnu.

The Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita (dating to the turn of the ages, give or take a couple centuries?), is where we find clear and definite references to the life of Krishna.

Please shred this notion about the evolution of Krishna, if possible.

best,
Peter Kirby

[lpetrich]

I'm not sure how closely this is related to the topic at hand, but Krishna rather closely follows Lord Raglan's Mythic Hero profile, as I'd explained in a thread from last year.

[Peter Kirby]

So, are there no comments on the argument above? Does everyone agree that Krishna was a heavenly god later made out to be human?

best,
Peter Kirby

[hinduwoman]

The date of 3100 B.C is based on the assumption of Aryan invasion 5000 years ago. But a city has been unearthed in the Gulf of Cambay which occupies the site where according to legend Lord Krishna was said to have his capital and which sunk after his death. The city is 7000 years old; so dating becomes a problem.

RE; about the name I will have to check but I am pretty sure that RigVeda mentions a Krishna, son of Devaki, however a king and not a god.


Krishna might be a myth, but considering his conduct in Mahabharata it is entirely possible he really did exist. Later godhood was imposed on him and his hero-cult merged with the cult of several gods like Vishnu, Govardhan etc. Even in modern India we have evidence of human beings becoming first guardian spirits around whom a hero-cult rises, then becomes a local deity and finally merges with a pan-Indian God.
Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay in late 19th century wrote a very good treatise showing how Krishna was a great king who later became a god.

On the whole I think Krishna probably did exist unlike Ram.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
The date of 3100 B.C is based on the assumption of Aryan invasion 5000 years ago.

That's odd. I pulled the date off an anti-Aryan-invasion Hindu web site.

Originally posted by hinduwoman
But a city has been unearthed in the Gulf of Cambay which occupies the site where according to legend Lord Krishna was said to have his capital and which sunk after his death. The city is 7000 years old; so dating becomes a problem.

RE; about the name I will have to check but I am pretty sure that RigVeda mentions a Krishna, son of Devaki, however a king and not a god.


Krishna might be a myth, but considering his conduct in Mahabharata it is entirely possible he really did exist. Later godhood was imposed on him and his hero-cult merged with the cult of several gods like Vishnu, Govardhan etc. Even in modern India we have evidence of human beings becoming first guardian spirits around whom a hero-cult rises, then becomes a local deity and finally merges with a pan-Indian God.
Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay in late 19th century wrote a very good treatise showing how Krishna was a great king who later became a god.

On the whole I think Krishna probably did exist unlike Ram.

An electronic search shows that you are mistaken about "Krishna" being in the Rig Veda--rather, the cite you are thinking about is in the Upanishads, in the Seventeenth Khanda, quoted already above: <<6. Ghora Ângirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devãkî--and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)--said: 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "Thou art the imperishable," "Thou art the unchangeable," "Thou art the edge of Prâna.">>

If I had more knowledge of Hinduism, I would get into a debate over whether Krishna existed. My amateurish observations are that (a) Krishna depends on the Mahabharata war of eons ago being real -- what is the archaeological evidence? how likely is it that historical data was preserved in much later documents? and that (b) Krishna doesn't appear as a name at all in the oldest scriptures, the Rig Veda and other vedas, which suggest to me that it became a Hindu name sometime in the first millennium BCE.

My original post was not only the claim that there was no historical Krishna but also the idea that Krishna started out as a heavenly being and became historicized with the Mahabharata epic. However, it seems quite plausible that instead Krishna started out as a king, either historical or legendary, and became one of the incarnations of Vishnu, as indicated in the Institutes of Vishnu. The main evidence for this view would be the Upanishads, Seventeenth Khanda, 6. But the evidence is not clear that the Krishna named here (there's another Krishna-Hârita) is to be identified with the figure in the Mahabharata.

Without more documentary evidence, it cannot be said for sure whether the Krishna myth originally had a human king or heavenly deity.

best,
Peter Kirby

[hinduwoman]

Nope, Krishna is in the Vedas.
Rishi Angirasa krishna is the composer of the verseno. RV, 8/85 or depending on how the verses are arranged 8/74.
The problem with the electronic text (I assume you are using Muller's translation?) is that it does not give the name of the Rishis.

After reading the whole Mahabharata it seems to me that some Krishna actually existed. In fact one king even protested against Krishna being thought of as god and declared he was the incarnation of Vishnu. Of course krishna punished him.
Then a lot of minor deities and finally Vishnu became identified with him.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by hinduwoman
After reading the whole Mahabharata it seems to me that some Krishna actually existed. In fact one king even protested against Krishna being thought of as god and declared he was the incarnation of Vishnu. Of course krishna punished him.
Then a lot of minor deities and finally Vishnu became identified with him. I'm not convinced of Krishna's existence as a real person, but I am losing interest, because I couldn't find support for what I was looking for--an originally heavenly god that became historicized, which doesn't seem to fit Krishna in a clear way. So even though I don't agree, I won't debate. And it is an interesting obervation / prediction / belief of mine that (a) the objective evidence is earlier and more widely based for a HJ than a HK and (b) the claim of a HJ will be more trenchantly critiqued than the claim of a HK by western skeptics. I guess it shows that bias can even manifest itself in the form of skepticism and research interests, if not firm conclusions.

HJ = Historical Jesus, HK = Historical Krishna.

Out of curiousity, how much of Krishna's story do you consider to be factual?

best,
Peter Kirby

[hinduwoman]

I think he probably was the son a princely family who took over rule from his maternal uncle. Nephews inheriting is a feature of many early societies. Took part in the Mahabharata war which need not be as widespread as it is supposed to be. Beyond these two I am guessing at nothing.

Digressing a bit:
It is possible that coronation rites then demanded the sacrifice of the present king by the new king; or that the king was due to be sacrificed every 8 years and royal infants were sacrificed in his stead in the first seven. ?

[premjan]

It is very hard to imagine that Krishna was a mythological figure who was later historicized. I've never heard of this sort of thing happening.

However, the process of mythmaking definitely draws upon historical themes and probably merges them with imagination and poetry.

I thought the 3102 BC date for Krishna was based on astronomical configurations mentioned in the Mahabharata. The word Krishna itself just means "dark" so it is possible it has been used for many different people.

Rama may also have been historical (there is reference to his being about 20 generations ?? before Krishna). It is entirely too elaborate a tale to be completely made up. It also appears somewhat idealized but perhaps not that much (doesn't sound like a fairy tale, more like legend, no different than the Odyssey), involving many details. Of course, the monkeys (vanaras) were probably just tribal people.

I lean toward the historicity of these individuals, with some dating maye possible based on explicit astrological configurations.

I suppose the Vedas and myths are from different traditions so that may be why the cross-referencing is not much.

Generally the Indian tendency to dehistoricize will probably destroy the precise historical facts.

[hinduwoman]

for myself, I feel that Ram is an invented figure. He was a culture hero made up from various heroes and then became a god.

[premjan]

Rama doesn't seem to have a real personality, other than being an idealized "good guy" so he could very well be the product of sentimentalized idealistic poetry. While Krishna appears to be a real person: a mischief-maker and a conniver with greater insight than the average person into politics and intrigue. Also Rama never seems to have a sense of his own "godhood". However, I remember there was some scholar who tried to associate Rama with a Central Asian rather than Indian, king. Wonder if that is a possibility. Due to the open-ended nature of Hinduism, I don't see why all of its characters are drawn from inside India. The myth of Brahma may have its origin in the supposedly historical prophet Abraham (at least a couple of similarities are there).

[shivalinga]

since you're talkin bout Krishna,
i thought this might entertain you guys.

these are poems from Michael Jackson's
book of poetry,he quotes Krishna
from the Bhagavad-gita in this first poem,

"there never was a time when i was not,
or you were not,
there never will be a time
when we will cease to be"

then in the second poem he paraphrases
an entire chapter of the Bhagavad-gita,
and also quotes the Brahma-Samhita
in it's words about Krishna.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heaven is Here


You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

There is only one Wholeness
Only one Mind
We are like ripples
In the vast Ocean of Consciousness

Come, let us dance
The Dance of Creation
Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life

The birds, the bees
The infinite galaxies
Rivers, Mountains
Clouds and Valleys
Are all a pulsating pattern
Living, breathing
Alive with cosmic energy

Full of Life, of Joy
This Universe of Mine
Don't be afraid

To know who you are
You are much more
Than you ever imagined

You are the Sun
You are the Moon
You are the wildflower in bloom
You are the Life-throb
That pulsates, dances
From a speck of dust
To the most distant star

And you and I
Were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life
Let us dance
The Dance of Creation

Curving back within ourselves
We create
Again and again
Endless cycles come and go
We rejoice
In the infinitude of Time

There never was a time
When I was not
Or you were not
There never will be a time
When we will cease to be

Infinite - Unbounded
In the Ocean of Consciousness
We are like ripples
In the Sea of Bliss

You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Heaven is Here
Right now is the moment
of Eternity
Don't fool yourself
Reclaim your Bliss

Once you were lost
But now you're home
In a nonlocal Universe
There is nowhere to go
From Here to Here
Is the Unbounded
Ocean of Consciousness
We are like ripples
In the Sea of Bliss

Come, let us dance
The Dance of Creation
Let us celebrate
The Joy of Life

And
You and I were never separate
It's just an illusion
Wrought by the magical lens of
Perception

Heaven is Here
Right now, this moment of Eternity
Don't fool yourself
Reclaim your Bliss


© Michael Jackson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in this next poem he quotes the Brahma-Samhita
where it says

"isvara parama krsna
sat-cit-ananda vigraha"

sat-cit-ananda vigraha
he translates accurately as

"pure unbounded consciousness
truth,existence,bliss am I"

Are You Listening?

Who am I?
Who are you?
Where did we come from?
Where are we going?
What's it all about?
Do you have the answers?

Immortality's my game
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained
To Bliss I return
If you don't know it now
It's a shame
Are you listening?

This body of mine
Is a flux of energy
In the river of time
Eons pass, ages come and go
I appear and disappear
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye

I am the particle
I am the wave
Whirling at lightning speed
I am the fluctuation
That takes the lead
I am the Prince
I am the Knave
I am the doing
That is the deed
I am the galaxy, the void of space
In the Milky Way
I am the craze

I am the thinker, the thinking, the thought
I am the seeker, the seeking, the sought
I am the dewdrop, the sunshine, the storm
I am the phenomenon, the field, the form
I am the desert, the ocean, the sky
I am the Primeval Self
In you and I

Pure unbounded consciousness
Truth, existence, Bliss am I
In infinite expressions I come and go
Playing hide-and-seek
In the twinkling of an eye
But immortality's my game

Eons pass
Deep inside
I remain
Ever the same
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I am sustained

Join me in my dance
Please join me now
If you forget yourself
You'll never know how
This game is played
In the ocean bed of Eternity

Stop this agony of wishing
Play it out
Don't think, don't hesitate
Curving back within yourself
Just create...just create

Immortality's my game
From Bliss I came
In Bliss I'm sustained
To Bliss I return
If you don't know it now
It's a shame
Are you listening?


© Michael Jackson

[premjan]

the problem with Hinduism is that is nature-biased: in comparison to the semitic religions, it is "nature-worship". This is symbolized by the extreme unpopularity of Brahma in the modern day (only one or two temples plus the Pushkar festival). Brahma is the original creator God omniparent of Hinduism. He is the one originally called Narayana. I consider the weaknesses of Hinduism to stem from the neglect of the omniparent creator aspect of God.

[hinduwoman]

Nope, Brahma was the god of Brahmins basically which is one reason he lost popularity.
Again Hinduism is a more materialistic religion --- gods who grant prayers are more useful.

[premjan]

Brahma is the creator God maybe he was the God of the Brahmins, however, the loss of the creator aspect cannot be ultimately good for Hinduism, except as a matter of ego differentiation from other religions. Ultimately, this is one of the important differences between the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism, the relative unimportance of the creator.

Brahma can also be seen as the complete God, since Shiva is one of his invisible aspects Brahman, and Vishnu is the visible aspect Brahmanda.

Originally God is invented as the creator or father of mankind. All the other aspects of religion are coming from the creator only.

Vishnu is very much the usurper of the place of Brahma (probably this may have been accomplished by Krishna originally). However, Vishnu is merely the preserver of the universe. In modern times, we understand how the universe is running down from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so the universe cannot be indefinitely preserved. Hence the preserver aspect cannot remain popular forever. The Destroyer/Transcender aspects are dealing only with the invisible laws and structure of the universe. But the universe issues from Brahma. Hence Brahma only is supreme.

Moreover, religion is fundamentally amaterial in is psychology. A materialistic religion cannot be a truly life-giving religion. This is the weakness of modern Hinduism.

[shivalinga]

try this on Brahma

http://www.koausa.org/Gods/God12.html

essentially there are various creation myths depending
on which sect you listen to.

the most common,is the above, here is a short synopsis,

Vishnu(the all pervading being) lies on the causual ocean,
sometimes called the ocean of milk, or Brahman.

From his navel a lotus stem grows topped by a lotus flower.

in that flower sits Brahma, who meditates for countless
millions of years until he develops the knowledge and ability
to create the material cosmos.


This story is a metaphor.

Vishnu,or God, is born of the causual ocean, an ocean of milk,
which has caused the consciousness of god to be born
and feeds his existence.

From his navel or umbilicus sprouts the lotus flower,
the lotus represents the mind, the mind of God
is born from the consciousness of God and is substained
by it(like a child in a womb depends on the umbilical).

In the lotus flower there sits Brahma, Brahma represents
the intellect .


so the ocean of causuality or Brahman gives birth to God's consciousness,or the infinite reality comes alive,
from God's consciousness a mind is born,from the mind,
intellect.

after millions of years of meditation, god develops the ability
to create the material cosmos.

[premjan]

This story is a dirty Vaishnavite creation. Brahma was God before Vishnu, when the latter was just a minor Vedic deity. At that time Brahma was called Narayana.

Every story you hear will be biased after somebody's view or the other.

[shivalinga]

dirty vaishnavite creation ?

hardly.

it appears in many vedic texts,
Bhagavata purana etc.

what is the definition of bona fide or bogus
texts ?

it is all subjective.

if you insist that Brahma is given higher placement
in older texts and that later texts give him a lower position
therefore the later texts are bogus leaves the question,
why ?

does the specific time a specific dogma is created give it any more
authenticity then other dogmas created at a different time ?

it is all relative, in science do we accept the theories of the middle ages as being the higher truths then those created
in modern times ?

[premjan]

The ascendancy of Vishnu may have to do with Krishna (note that you cited the Bhagavata Purana). There is a story of how Krishna the earthly deity dethroned Indra who was a purely heavenly deity. The Vedic deities resided in heaven while Krishna and other Godmen were all of earthly origin. There is a cult built around Krishna that probably emerged around the time he did or later. Basically the habit of worshipping Krishna as a child, a lover, and so on, is an attempt to bring God down to earth. This is well and good in one sense, of increasing bhakti among people. However I believe it has also resulted in a dilution and corruption of religion. Religion and God are understood differently by all. In its pure form, heaven is pure and earth is corrupt. Incarnations of God such as Krishna and Rama help to bridge the gap between heaven and earth and bring about bhakti. Human beings who become immortal through their own effort are incarnations of Shiva and each may create a specific Yoga to assist believers who follow them. They are not as perfect as incarnations of Vishnu because the latter essentially are born perfect, or succeed without trying kind of thing. Shiva incarnations and methods however, always bear the stamp of their mortal origin (look at Buddha who abandoned his wife and child in a search for enlightenment, or Muhammad, who had sex with a nine-year-old girl giving age as his excuse). In contrast, Rama was reproached only once his entire life, by Vali. And Krishna, although a consummate politician was always aware of his own divine nature. However, his enormous ego gives him away too. Krishna's earthly objective was to become a "Vasudeva" kind of a hero of the age.

In the original post-Vedic formulation, Brahma's children are the Saptarishis or Pleiades (probably this is where the phrase Brahmarishi comes from).

[premjan]

is a process of continuous corruption and reformulation. In this sense, the earliest formulations are generally the purest. Separation from God is the original sin of man. See, even Christianity follows the same paradigm. Mere existence is corruption. Only heaven is perfect.

[premjan]

may be a metaphor for the earth's magnetic field which is sensed directly by our brain.

[shivalinga]

http://www.swaveda.com/Articles/extract7.htm

this article gives some contrast between physicists
like bohm and schrodinger to vedantic concepts
of brahman.

[premjan]

many quantum physicists are indulging in the same sort of mystery-mongering as the brahmanists. there is a reason why these sorts of speculations are in the vedanta rather than the vedas themselves: they are speculations of armchair philosophers. the vedas represent man's sense of awe at the forces of nature and that is a better beginning to a sense of religion than philosophy, since philosophy is essentially atheist. Atheism is another valid viewpoint, apart from theism, but it is historically clearly seen as not as nourishing to the human spirit (why it is usually called "passionless").

[shivalinga]

the difference between your description of these
physicists and your ideas is that theirs are based
on science not on incredulity.

their approach to the vedic understanding was caused by their
study of how the universe functions at the quantum level,
this has led the entire physics community to be unlike the other
academic science fields, we find in the physics community
an open acceptance of ideas concerning God, the physicists
didn't come into these ideas from their roots and backgrounds,
but from study of the fundamental building blocks of the universe,
how they work and are arranged has compelled these physicists
to investigate the vedic claims because they seem to answer
questions that they have been unable to resolve.

but then again, maybe you consider that to be mystery mongering, but then again Einstein said

"the more i learn i realize how little i actually know"

[hinduwoman]

Shivalinga, I am sorry but it seems to me that the resemblance between the Vedantic speculations and scientific theories today are purely coincidental. The sceintific speculations are slowly beinbg buttressed by hard evidence, or at least by anomalies for which classical physics cannot account for; but in Vedanta these remain only philosophies.

[premjan]

the philosophy parts (e.g. copenhagen interpretation vs many-worlds et cetera) are just interpretations given to mathematical equations. Physical observations and mathematical equations can be tested. States of mind are just states of mind. That is why "quantum consciousness" theories and "brahman" theories clearly belong together, in the realm of philosophical speculation based in introspective knowledge. They do not count as verifiable reality until some some corresponding reality has been measured.

[premjan]

the reason why quantum physicists believe in a vedantic concept of God or brahman is probably the same reason the ancient brahmanists believed in it in the first place -- it was internally satisfying to think about things this way.

this however merely means that human beings haven't changed much in 3000+ (or however many) years. Not that these speculations are true, except inasmuch as they yield meaningful testable theories.

[premjan]

I think many human beings have a fundamental difficulty in being fully analytical about the world. Our intelligence (even that of very intelligent people) is primarily equipped to think about the actions of other people, and not about inanimate things. Hence we tend to put cosmic meanings into mathematical equations. We personify when there is no need to. If I were a bible thumper, I would call this "worshipping the creation" instead of "worshipping the creator". See, even semitic monotheism has its entirely rational uses (a concept that might boggle the mind).

[shivalinga]

vedantic concepts are not born of philosophy,
they have a philosophical side ,but are in fact
claim to be born of experiential analysis.

the yoga process promises direct confirmation of vedanta,
it is not left to faith but to corroborating
experience.

quantum physicists see the world and make theories,
then they see the vedantic theories and are amazed
to find that they are comparable.

it's not that the physicists went looking for anwers
to vedanta then made up quantum theories