Krishna, Myth or Historical Reality?

[Guest guest]

Krishna, Myth or Historical Reality?

Written by Pournamasi dasi, From a report by:Hare Krsna dasa

 

There is a parallax, or apparently displaced view of Krishna as an

observed 'object', according to the position of the observer. To some

He is adored as the One Supreme Godhead--with many forms and

pastimes. To others He remains a myth: the iconoclasts deem Him 'men-

tir-a', false--an untruth.

 

 

>From time to time, there are attempts to look for more evidences to

support our understanding of the historical validity of Krishna, in

order to substantiate our own spiritual beliefs. But, in the

eagerness to dispel our doubts, sometimes we may have to supercede

the hypercritical language used in reference to Lord Krishna, and the

Vedic History. For example, in many Indological literatures when

referring to Sri Krishna, whether they use the Greek root of the

Spanish word, men-ti-ra, or in Sanskrit the concept of falsity (which

is called mithya), these traditional believers agree that they are

still probing whether Lord Krishna was an actual historical

personality--even though Lord Krishna has been recognized by scholars

for a very long time.

 

According to Dr. Bimabihari, in 1968: " The Western scholars at first

treated Krishna as a myth." But many of the orientals in the present

century have arrived at the conclusion that Krishna was a Ksatriya

warrior Who fought at Kuruksetra. According to Dr. R.C. Majumdar

(1968); "The Western scholars at first treated Krishna as a

myth....there is now a general consensus of opinion in favor of the

historicity of Krishna. Many hold the view that Vasudeva--the Yadava

hero, and the cowherd boy Krishna in Gokula, were one and the same

Krishna."

 

Horace Wilson in 1870 stated;..."Rama and Krishna...appear to have

been originally real and historical characters.." The new British

Encyclopedia describes thus: "Vasudeva Krishna, a Vrisni Prince, Who

was presumably also a religious leader, was levitated to Godhead by

the 5th Century BC" Finally, Rodolf Otto in 1933 asserts, "That

Krishna, Himself, was a historical character is indeed quite

indubitable."

 

One Indologist, Benjamin Preciado Solis, published a lecture in 1980

with the 'first historical evidences' of Sri Krishna Vasudeva, dating

back as far as 3100 BC. But, as a good expert tentatively drives

puzzle concepts to arrive at a possible conclusion--Preciado and

other British Imperialist scholars, i.e.: Lessen, Weber, Hopkins,

throughout their lives were to obsess with this thought--merely

dribbling the ball and still not able to score the point.

 

At least Preciado was honest in recognizing his inability to arrive

at a conclusion; creating a 'trinket' hypothesis where he adulters

the age of Ghata Jataka and the Puranas, and transfers them to the

Christian Era. The Ghata Jataka dates back to the 3rd Century BC, and

the Puranas are mentioned as far back as the ancient Upanishads

(Chandogya 7.1.14, and Brhat Aranyaka 2.4.10). Although Preciado

stated many incongruities, his most damaging premise was, "..that he

could count the evidences supporting the historicity of Krishna on

the fingers of his hands."

 

There are, as we know, evidences from at least fourteen sources;

eight literary, and six archeological--to support the validity of Sri

Krishna's presence on this planet. Some of the reference books are:

The Chandogya Upanishad, the "Indice of Megastenes", where they state

that Mathura was the birth city of Krishna and they refer to the

Yadus, and the "Quinto Curcio" which mentions the "Poros", (Purus),

with a Deity of Krishna, Hari, on the front battle line with

Alexander the Great. In the grammatical Pantanjali Krishna is said to

be not an ordinary king --but, the Supreme. And, of course, the

Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita refer to Krishna throughout the

literatures.

 

As far as archaeological references: On an ancient heliodoro column

there was found an inscription: "Vasudeva--God of Gods". In the cave

of queen Nagnika in Decan, there are inscriptions of Sankarshana and

Vasudeva. The coins of Aghtodes, (Indo-Greek), have inscriptions of

King Krishna and Balarama.

 

So, in conclusion, one can say that Preciado was hasty in his

assertions that there are very few evidences of an historical

Krishna, and for those with the eyes to see--it's written in stone

from time immemorial, that Krishna is verily recognized as the

Supreme Godhead, Who appears in many forms--the original being Sri

Krishna Vasudeva, Himself