On Historical Krishna UPDATE

[Guest guest]

On Lord Krishna. Let me up date too .

By Horacio Fco. Arganis J. Graduate Student in Linguistic and

Literature in U A de C.

 

Dearest Gopalkrishnan:} Namaste. Let me congratulate to your paper.

But regarding to follow objections:

A) As historian R.S. Sharma has written in his history textbook for

class X students: "Although Lord Krishna plays an important role in

the Mahabharata, the earliest inscriptions and sculpture pieces found

in Mathura between 200 BC and 300 AD do not attest his presence."

(The

BJP has attempted to have these lines deleted from the textbook.)"

 

B) Inevitably, some scholars and historians disagree. "No individual

character like Krishna or Rama can be found through archaeology,"

said

Prof. B.D. Chatopadhyay of the Centre for Historical Studies at JNU.

"Archaeology can reconstruct the material culture of a people.

Krishna

is kown form legends, epics and puranas. Interpolating archaeology

with literature is fraught with difficulties. The efforts of some

historians and archaeologists to correlate textual evidence with

archaeological finds have not found a consensus even among

themselves,

and serious archaeologists are questioning the exercise."

Is very important to up date, that "Tacitus, the classical Roman

writer, claimed to have described past events and personalities in

his works sine ira et studio, free from

hostility and bias. This motto has guided serious

historians through

the ages, and it became their highest ambition to write

history

'objectively', distancing themselves from opinions held

by

interested parties.

The ideal was not always followed, as we know. We have

seen

twentieth century governments commissioning re-writings

of the

histories of their countries from the standpoint of their

own

ideologies. Like the court-chroniclers of former times,

some

contemporary academic historians wrote unashamedly biased

accounts

of events and redesigned the past accordingly.

When, in the wake of World War II the nations of Asia and

Africa

gained independence, their intellectuals became aware of

the fact

that their histories had been written by representatives

of the

colonial powers which they had opposed. More often than

not they

discovered that all traditional accounts of their own

past had been

brushed aside by the 'official' historians as so much

myth and

fairytale. Often lacking their own academically trained

historians-or worse, only possessing native historians

who had taken

over the views of the colonial masters-the discontent

with existing

histories of their countries expressed itself often in

vernacular

works that lacked the academic credentials necessary to

make an impact on professional historians." But will be in the

correct the Dr. Klostermaier when affirming that this passed in the

India, in reference to the Puranas sacred history? Because it is

important to mention that this field of the knowledge, denominated

the indology, it is not unified. In fact in the current moment in

that this thesis arises, a strong confrontation exists among the

experts, what has created a series of divergent postures. This way,

the width of opinions is diverse as to make a precise generalization.

However, in tentative form the investigators can be divided in three

big groups:

a)The enthusiasts who seek that all the studies of the Westerns

indologist are seen like part of a dominance and suppression

strategy. That is a consequence of looking for self-trust, the

political self-assertion, intellectual and national of the India.

b) The conservative erudites whose reject any tentative of revision

to the paradigm created by the first indologits on the dates of the

texts. And they are reluctant, in visceral form, toward to anyone

that proposes new investigations that place in question this

paradigm, and they categorize to reviser researcher in the same cell

that the group (a) already mentioned.

c) The specialists that take a scientific attitude, neutral, self-

criticic and objective toward the new discoveries and they commit

with the facts and the revision, with the hope of opening new

horizons in the search of more discoveries that they allow the

advance of the knowledge.

The specialists of the categories (a) and (b), often they are

attacked mutually with denigrants and corrosive words. By way of

painting a brave and ridiculous square of their opponents, without

not even to grant the most minimum value to who question them. But

like Norvin Hein wrote: "Ultimatly, the competitors need one of the

other one... Those (a)... they are most attentive people in the works

of the academics (b), with a closet revision of their writings and,

as such, it would be said, that¨{(a) and (b)} they are as the bread

and the butter... Because for the other side, the contribution of the

erudites (b) it is necessary still for the traditionalist ones... to

that which, them (a) they are of the most irritable." 1

For that that without dredging in the punishable aspects of the

colonial legacy , coarse to say that many Western investigators,

although certainly not all, they have confirmed their ability to talk

more objectively about the study topic that those grateful ones

inside the community (a) as reliable spokesmen, and this has created

a real tension. Because it has given to those (b) an autoritarism

fame. The point here is that the Western investigators are not the

antagonistic of the studies of the Hindu literature. In fact, much of

the Western learning about the India, so much today and as in the

past, it has been excellent and invaluable. For that in this part, by

way of making the most objective thing this exploration, the

elementary steps of the methodology of the scientific investigation

will be provided.

>From XIX Century, Lord Krishna was accepte wordly by the indologist

like a historical personality: . In 1825, Bentley objected: "By his

[= Playfair's] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against

absolute (biblical) facts, he thereby supports all those horrid

abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of

antiquity. Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he

endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very

foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity

of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a

fable, or a fiction."4 "we find that Bentley has "proven" that

Krishna was born on 7 August in AD 600 (the most conservative

estimate elsewhere is the 9th century BC), and on p.158ff., that

Varaha Mihira (AD 510-587) was a contemporary of the Moghul emperor

Akbar (r.1556-1605).

So I am surprised that to these heights, somebody takes seriously the

declarations like those from R. S. Sharma and B.D. Chatopadhyay.

Because their corrosive scepticism doesn't have lives base than the

morbid rhetoric. But, what evidences exists from the past, that

affirms the non historicity of Krishna? Until the atheistic jains and

buddhist, they recognized His historicity. Therefore, their acid

negative asseverations don't come to the case. Before a rigorous

observation the discovery of a ephistemological problem is noticed,

denominated, by the funder of scientific methode philosopher Francis

Bacon, íldolus specus or cavern idols. This refers that due to

prejudices of temperament, character, personal likes, religious,

ethnocentric, social and political factors that had contaminated the

investigations on the Lord Krishna from the past. In other words,

these erudites like Sharma and Chatopadhyay tend to lock in their own

fossilization of suppositions and they deformed the reality from the

study phenomenon, when accommodating it to their paradigm atheistic,

for the suppression of everything that could contradict them. In

fact, this ídolus-specus type is applied to the racial, national

prejudices and all type of subjective attitudes, as those that have

an incompatibility with the search of new discoveries and vehement

adherence to certain paradigm. Nevertheless, the first thing that is

demanded when one attempts an approach in the scientific

investigation, it is the suspension of all the previous trials. That

is to say the phenomenical application of the epoje; what means,

momentarily to suspend any previous trial and to proceed from zero to

the examinación of the object, and this way to discover the reality

of such a phenomenon. Otherwise, the psychological studies of

perception demonstrate, that among more there is demarcation toward a

posture, she/he gets lost the capacity to evaluate the evidences that

document that this could be missed objectively.

Mahâbhârata age (7).

On these discoveries it can make an appointment to Romila

Thopar: "The incidents that relates the epic poetry can be accepted

as historically valid if they can be evidences to support

them.This is what happens to some from the relative excavations to

this period. For example in Hastinapura... excavations were made, and

it was found that a part of its was desolated... in an overflow of

the Ganges. In the Puranas it is said that incident took place in

the reign of the king's seventh successor [Pariksit] that governed

immediately in Hastinapura after the war [of Kuruksetra]...

Incidentally, the tests of the flood appear in the level where the

culture of the Ceramic of Gray finishes in Hastinapura." According to

the indologist, the events of the Mahâbhârata took place in the Era

of Iron of the Civilization of the Ganges. Some archaeologists like

D. P. Agrawal proposes an age from the X to the IX B. C. But other,

as Jim G. Shaffer, estimates an age of the XXV one to. C.This is

sustained with the ruins of Kaushumbi, the one that worked as capital

when Delhi was flooded whose structures resemble each other to the

constructions of Harappa. In the decade of the 60's, Indigolist

Gangulli discovered artefacts in Kuruksetra that corroborate the

authenticity of the war that is mentioned in Mahabhârata.

In 1986, S. R. Rao directed a commission of archaeologists, whose

after applying the techniques characteristic of the their branch,

under the Arabic Ocean, they gave as fruit the rediscovery of the

ruins of Dwaraka, the capital of the hero's Kingdom, in the costs of

the current Dwaraka in Gujarata. Among the objects are distinguished

a brass bell, iron nails, vessels of mud, similar to the style of the

brass age in other places, and ruins of the walls from was the fort

described in the Purana in analysis. They also carried out

excavations in other near areas as Bet Dwaraka or Sankotora, arriving

to satisfactory results. The official dataciones on this places went

of XV to XVI B. C. These dates woke up the scepticism of other

experts as R. Rajaram, who proposes that it is another called city

Dwaraka. However, until the present has not been discovered a

historical reference that indicates such supposition. For what other

experts sustain that if there is an identification among the

discoveries like Andrew Rasanen indicated: "The information on the

recent excavations of Dwaraka in particular is a new addition to the

academic cellar." Well, the datación of the XV one to the XVI one had

been development under two premises:

1) Rao in his report pointed out that the level of the sea in

other parts of the world, including the Bahamas, it goes up a height

60 meters in 10,000 years, and Dwaraka it was posing on 10 meters

deep.

2) The results of the analysis of Termoluminiscency of Bet

Dwaraka's ceramic allow to estimate a similar age XV BC.

However, the vestige of the stamp or mudra of this place, tend to be

closet similarity to those of Mohenjo dharo. Also, one table whose

motive is the child Krishna found in Harappa, whose age is of 2600 B.

C., it allows to infer that Dwaraka dates of a previous date. This is

corroborates by the author of the URL on the topic, when he mentions

the discoveries of the astronomy on the hero's birth: "Lord Krishna

was born to the midle night Julio's Friday 27 in the 3112 B. C. This

date and the time has been calculated by the astronomers based on the

planetary position on the day registered by the Wise Vyasa." Although

this calculation is not the last datación, like it will be presented

in the following category of this variable; other investigators as P.

Gokhale supposes: "The ruins of the submerged city of Dwaraka

discovered by the Dr. S. R. Rao and his group in 1985 (Archeological

Unit Marinates) along the coast of Gujarat, it provides authenticity

of the existence of the civilization of the Mahâbhârata c. 3000 B.

C."

 

10.5.8 Beginning of Kali yuga (7).

The historian Juan de Dios Gonzales J., indicates: "The Christian

chose Christ's birth like the beginning of a new era; the Muslims,

the escape of Mohammed from Meca (Hégira). Starting from these

[religious] events. Each civilization begins to count the years." In

similar form, Teresa. E. Rohde reports that for the historians, the

Hindus marked the beginning of an calendaric era called Kali-

yuga "starting from the death of Krishna." What The Bhâgavatam

relates when: "Lord Visnu... well-known as Krishna... He ascended to

the spiritual sky, Kali entered in this world, and people began to

take pleasure in the sinful acts." For that the determination of the

beginning of this era, is a key hint to approach to the possible

datación of the text in study. Because this date will allow to

clarify the events like the Battle of the Mahâbharata, and the hero's

birth and the period of the Gangetic Culture .

The specialists have proposed three possible dataciones:

a) The era of Kali began in the 900 or 1000 B. C. This date has been

broadly accepted by the specialists, working like an useful tool for

numerous investigations.

b) The erudites of V d. C.: Varaha Mihira, Vriddha Garga and

Kalhana, in base of astronomical calculations, proposed that the

taking of king Yudhistira, after the Battle of Kuruksetra, was to 653

years of the era of Kali. This suggests the 2526 B. C. Nevertheless

that their proposal was an advanced tentative for his time, it has

been objected together with the following one, for approaches that

will be explained in the later lines.

c) The era of Kali began officially when Krishna disappeared of the

planet in the 3102 B. C. For what the battle of the Mahâbhârata had

to be a little before this period. This was computed in the V. A. D.

for astronomer Aryabhatta and sustained later by Bháskara. However,

this date has received an emotional underestimate from the part of

the circles of erudites, especially who resist to the revision of

the müellerane model dates . Inside this oscillation of dates, the

proposition (a) it works as a tool, although it tend to be

disintegrate before with the discoveries mentioned. Because as it was

already explained in the justification, it is based on the

supposition of 12º Canto, that predicts a chronology where it is

pointed out that of king Pariksit until king Chandragupta Maurya,

about 1250 years would pass. And then the Greek historian's

registration Meghastenes in the s. IV B. C, in his Indika work, on

king Sandrakutus, which was identified with king Chandragupta Maurya.

Therefore the battle of the Mahabhâtara had to have been for the X B.

C. Also, such a conjecture loses credibility before the calculations

astronomical overdrafts in the last decades. The (b), although it

differs of the © in the datación of the period of the Battle of

Kuruksetra, which opened the way to king Yudhistira's coronation,

this doesn't disagreed in their astronomical calculations with the

proposal © of the Kali-yuga beginning. Also that evidences don't

exist in the texts, that this events had happened to 600 years after

the mentioned era. With respect to the proposition ©, it was

rejected by the erudites under the supposition pointed out in the

justification, that Aryabhatta plagiarized his data of the Greek

astronomy of Tolomeo. That which has also been doubtful. Adding that

that R. L. Thompson has demonstrated that the arguments of those that

sustain such a plagiarism, suffer of serious methodological lacks;

and this investigator has exposed as Aryabhatta it arrived to those

calculations for means characteristic of his culture. Jointly, other

independent investigators have arrived to a similar datación through

astronomical computations, with more recent calculation systems,

discarding Waerden who affirmed: "According to the modern

calculations, no conjunction took place in the 3102 B. C."

One of the first works that corroborated the meeting of the planets

in Kali Yuga's star in the mentioned date, was of astronomers Jean-

Sylvain Bailly and John Playfair in 1790. Another of the tentatives

to locate the stellar figures that are mentioned in the texts, was

the work carried out by K. Srinivasa Raghavan and their team in

1979, using the Vedanga Jotysha, verified the event in the 3104 B.

C. and the Bharatas battle in the 3138 B. C. Shiram Sathe has

evaluated the counts of several experts and they tend to coincide

with the 3102 B. C., like date limit. A brief variation has been

obtained by K. N. Partanik denoting October 16 for the Battle of the

Mahâbhârata 3138 B. C.Count Bijornstierna summarizes a calculation

for the beginning from Kali to February 20 of the 3102 Bc .Starting

from their investigations in India, Henry P. Stapp in 1994

reported: "According to the same Vedic texts and to the traditional

almanacs Panchangas of the India, these computations were registered

at the beginning of the present time called Kali yuga, 5091 years

behind." What suggests the 3097 B. C. Richard L. Thompson has

calculated with the programs Duffet–Smith of astronomy, the positions

of the planets and they coincide with brief variation to the

registrations of the texts, dating February 18 of 3102 B. C. for the

beginning of Kali yuga.

This has been confirmed with another registration. The cycle of the

constellation of the seven sages, the one which pass in 3600 years

when Seven Rishis iniate travels all the lunar mansions, and the

studies of J. E. Mitchiner suggests that this phenomenon began the

6676 B. C. and it finished the 3076 B. C., that which is narrated in

The Bhâgavatam: "When the constellation of the seven sages is passing

through the lunar mansion Mabhâ, the era of Kali begins. This will

last a thousand two hundred years of the devas."

Another type of evidences that indicate these dates is the

inscriptions of Pulakésisa II c. VIII AD. and other earlier ones ,

they were found in Belgaum and Nidhapur, that point out the 3102 for

the Battle of Kuruksetra. Likewise, the star Rohini or Aldebaran were

in the localization that is described in the Purana in exam, when the

hero Vásudeva was born, in the 3162 B. C., according to the program

Sky Globe. The dependability of this program can vary for five years

with an 1% average of error. Jointly, Heliodoro pointed out that

Krishna lived hundred thirty eight generations of kings before

Alejandro's time, to which the investigators attribute around of

twenty years average for king, what suggests 2760 years, more 330

B. C. = 3090 B. C.The sum of the vestiges inside this variable that

sustains this datación, is

, nevertheless like I noticed in my thesis mentioning to

Klostermaier:

 

"While the older theory rested on exclusively philological arguments,

the new theory includes astronomical, geological, mathematical and

archaeological evidence. On the whole, the latter seems to rest on

better foundations."

And also to Max Planck who pointed out:

"A new scientific truth doesn't triumph by means of the convincing

of its opponents, making them see the light, but rather because this

opponents end up dying and a new generation grows that familiarizes

with it ."

As last factor, indepently archeology experts themselves, however,

tend to doubt the veracity of their own sicence. According to William

Fixx, author of The Bone Peddlers: Sellin Evolution, there is a

virtual "catalogue of fiascos" in the world of archeology. Fix

attributes these errors no only to the sincere-but-wrong." His well

documented book reveals that many archeologist and researcher are

more interested in publicity and reputation than in ther truth, to

protect their pet hipothesis and speculations, says Fixx, researchers

have deliberetely ingored or dismissed evidence that detracts form

their claims. Archelogist claim to be materilistic-scientifics and

mundane atheists are motived. This is the case of R. S. Sharma and

B.D. Chatopadhyay.