[world-vedic] Critique of 1st Historical Evidences of KRSNA

[Guest guest]

>"HECTOR CERVANTES" <saltillo_mandir

>vaidika1008

 

>

>Dear Vrindavan

>Pranam, Prabhupada ki jay. Prabhuji, I am sending one paper, about the

HISTORICAL RESEARCH of Lord Krsna. Please make a proof reading and

correct all orthographical mistakes and send a copy to Dr. Preciado to

this adress: webmaster, Dr. Benjamin Preciado Solis,

Departamente de Estudios de Africa y Asia, COLMEX. And let me know what

happend with the publicity of the Vedic conference here.

 

>Preciado in the Sophistic Cycle.

>Contracritique to: First historical evidences of Krishna.

>Primeras Evidencias Históricas Sobre Krishna"

>Estudios de Asia y África, Vol. XV; #4

>Benjamín Preciado Solís

>

>By Hare Krishna Das, BA degree in the Education sciences and

Humanities faculty in the U A de C, Round Campus and Priest at the

Radha Govinda Mandir of ISKCON in Saltillo City, Northeast in Mexico

>

>An indologist named Benjamin Preciado Solis, published a lecture in

l980, trying to discover the first historical evidences about Sri

Krishna Vasudeva

>( c. 3200-·3175 B. C.), the Great Yadava prince, identified as Godhead

incarnate in the Indian culture. Like a good 'expert', tentatively

promoting puzzling concepts, he supported the Christian ideologist

theories of people like Lessen, Weber, E. Hopkins, etc. He also bows

down before another British imperialist scholar, the late A. L. Bhasam.

 

>Preciado was honest enough to recognise his inability to arrive at a

conclusion on the topic, but still created a trinket hypothesis. He

adulterated the age of the Ghata jataka and the Puranas to fit them

into the Christian era. The falsity of this notion is obvious, because

the Ghata jataka can be dated to the III century B.C., and the Puranas

are mentioned in the old Upanishads like Chandogya 7.1.14,

Brhat-Aranyaka 2.4.10 and other archaic texts, which predate the

Christian era.

>

Although he proposed many faulty theories, the most obvious falacies

were seen when he referred to the evidences by saying: "We can count

those evidences with the fingers of the hands". He also stated: " The

evidence that is obtained from fourteen sources-eight literary and six

archeologically". About this point; it is obvious that any child in

kinder garden (unless he has learning problems) can count that every

hand has five fingers or ten in total. Also we can denote, how it is

possible to teach the deaf-mute language to simians like chimpanzees

and gorillas and that even they know very well how to count, and

comprehend the simple truth that every normal hand has five fingers, or

ten in total. Therefore it is amazing, in this sense, that Dr. Preciado

asserts such a point.

 

>However, a closer study of the good Doctor's own evidences, shows us

that there are more than fourteen points to consider. I list the

various historical evidences refering to the Historical Lord Krishna

below:

 

>1.-Chandogya 3.17: Krishna Devakiputra.

>2.-Astadyayi de Panini. Mentions of Krishna .

>3.- Niruty of Yaska: Krishna and his wives Jambavati y Satyabhama.

>4.-Bhaudayana-dharma-Sutra, where it said tree names of Krishna:

"Kesava, Govinda and Damodara".But in this quote there are more:

"Madhava, Madhusudana, Hrsikesha, Padmanabha, Visnu", names used quite

often for Lord Krishna. these names are also found in the in the

Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam; also the term"servents of Vishnu"

is found often.

>5.-Preciado quoted the Indica of Megastenes, where we can see:

Surasena, the Yadus's King, Mathura,the birth city of Krishna,

Krishnapura o Kampura, Yamuna river, Krishna like Hari.

>6.-Quinto Curcio, who mentioned the "Poros" (Purus), with a deity of

Krishna Hari, in front of battle with Alexander Magno.circa 3rd century

BC

>7.-Artha-sastra de Chanakya, gives the follow references: Krishna and

Kamsa, the birth history of Krishna, the Vrisnis Dvaipayana or Vyasa,

Balarama and devotees of Krishna, heads shaved with topknot (shika).

>8.-Mahanarayana Upanisad, mentions that Krishna Vasudeva is recognised

as Vishnu-Narayana.

>9.-Mahabharata, where Krishna is one of the primary charachters.

>10.-Bhagavad-gita, "The Song of God" Krishna's teachings.

>11.-Grammatical Pantajali where he explained: Krishna is not ordinary

king; but the Supreme, Krishna the enemy of Kamsa, Balarama, Janardana

(Krishna), one temple of Balarama and Kesava (Krishna), Akrura the

uncle, Svapalka the granduncle, Ugrasena his grandfather, Vasudeva,

Balarama, Andhakas, Vrisnis, Kurus.

>12.-Maitreniya samhita del Yajur Veda, makes allusions to Krishna in

the Narayana gayatri same as that of the Mahanarayana Upanisad,quoted

above, but without Vasudeva's name,(according to Preciado).

>13.- Nidesa, a Buddhist book, talks about Krishna and Balaram.

>14.-Ghata jataka, refering to Krishna as Vasudeva.

>

>

Archaeological Evidences:

>15.-Heliodoro column, built by Greek worshipper of Vasudeva

Krishna,clearly calls Krishna the God of gods.

>16.- Ghosundi inscription about Bhagavan Samkarsan and Vasudeva.

>17.- Hathibada inscription, about Bhagavan Samkarsan and Vasudeva too.

>18.-Other column of Garuda in Besnegar, of a king Bhagavata,

dedicated to Bhagavata (Vasudeva Krishna).

>19.-The cave of queen Nagnika in Deccan, it has inscriptions in

honor of Sankarshan (Balaram) and Vasudeva (Krishna).

>20.-Mora inscriptions make reference to Krishna and Balarama, also to

Krishna's sons: Pradyumna, Samba, Anirudha.

>21.-The inscription of Sodasa en Mathura, makes references to Krishna

Vasudeva.

>

>In the foot page notes:

>22.-One stamp of Gopal, gopalasya from Kumrahar.

>23.-The coins of Aghatocles indo-greek king with images of Krishna and

Balarama, (6 pieces).

>.

It is quite strange that Dr. Preciado states there were a total of

fourteen proofs but clearly mentions 20, and then two more in his

footnotes 43 pp.782. In other words he actually mentions 22 evidences,

with at least another 40 historical references about Krishna. The

Mahabharata with 100,000-verses, again and again speaks of Krishna .

Therefore Dr Preciado's study, on this topic, is incompatitable with

the facts.

>

In the next step, he uses a puzzling tactic to confuse the validity of

the proofs. It is called in the epistemology of Dviatavedanta

philosophy, anvaradhana-jñana, which means doubt or uncertainty of

knowledge. And how is this created? A cause is vipratipatt, conflictive

testimony by jati-futile objections.

 

He puts forward the distorted concoctions of psuedo scholars, who had

the motive of converting the Hindus into Christians, and imposes the

theory that Krishna is really Jesus Christ hinduized.

This theory while ignoring all the evidences proving that Krishna

worship predates the birth of Christ, proposes that it is nothing more

than a degenarate form of Christianity.

 

Even Dr. Preciado admits that there are problems with this

theory-pp.796-

This thesis is bogus, and even most Christian scholars, themselves,

admit its falsity. Therefore, his fallacies can't impact the case. For

example, if we want demonstrate the hypothesis of Dr. Bill Kissing,

"Never Went to the Moon", creating doubts about the Apollo travels, by

beginning by the skeptical claims of Ticinelli against the airship of

Da Vinci. Later, he quotes the Astronomer that opined the impossibility

of heavy machines being able to fly. Or Bicker, who considered the

stupidity of space voyage, also Wooley and Wulton, with their skeptical

claims against the astronauts, etc. What happened? All this

presuppositions have been demonstrated to be false, because they

defended a false theory that has now been obviously exposed. Therefore

his arguments in defense of a false theory are consequently equal in

value and are therefore false as well. For example: x+y+d+b=O/

O=x+y+d+b. In other words, Preciado's so called objections are

worthless, and his points which are based on them are worthless as

well(pure sophistry).

 

I might also add that another theorist, Dr. Vogel, attempted to distort

Mora's ephigraphical inscription, so as not to change his paradigm (AV.

pp. 28). He supported his theories with the opinions of others like

Müeller, etc. When all these British indologists, have been carefully

researched and probed, it is obvious that they were arbitrarily forcing

their assumptions in order to fit into the political and missionary

agenda of the British Empire. This point has been recognized by many

specialists in the field of Ancient Indian research. Concerning this

point, some authors wrote: "The Max Müeller thesis (on India's history

and dating of the Vedas)is unsupported by the evidence and is full of

presuppositions and theories that were obviously reached before any

research had been carried out". (RV pp 46).

>

 

About the culture approach: "His preoccupation was not the knowledge of

a culture and its literature, but the desire to spoil and refute any

Vedic evidences as superstition, to annull the Hindu beliefs and to

find proofs in support of and accord with Christian dogma" (Idem). All

the Hindu scholars that Dr Preciado quotes, such as Raychaduri,

Pulsaker, Majumdar, etc.; were programmed to be Anglophiles by the

British educational systems.

 

Dr. Thomas Hopkins of Harvard, wrote, that the British with their

systematic denigration of Indian culture(INODOFISTIC), intentionally

created an inferiority cultural complex amongst native Hindus.(HK, pp.

111). Therefore, many native Hindu scholars, adopted in great part, the

British indosophistic paradigm. Some of them, like Mr. S.K. De, deride

their own culture. But, fortunately, the majority can not be so

deviated. Even though they didn't defend Krishna's divinity, they

defended His historicity.

 

Unfortunately, however, from these scholars arises another nonsensical

and paradoxical theory: "A deified Vrisni prince called Vasudeva; and a

tribal hero Krishna, religious leader of the Yadavas". pp.795.In other

words, the theory that Krishna and Vasudeva were two different

historical figures amalgamted into one over time. We could expand on

this topic; but let us leave this nonsense for another time.

END OF PART ONE