Interesting Article

sumeet · January 19, 2001

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

A merry christmas and a very happy new year to all of you.

I have got some interesting sites for all of you to read:

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-age_fs.html

Read sections on Vedic Archaeology & Vedic Chronology[Vedic Discoveries is only presently available].

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

shvu · January 22, 2001

Hi,

I went thru the articles.

Apparently someone, sometime has come up with a fake Chandogya Upanishad which talks about Krishna and Radha. I find quite a few Krishna worshippers (unknowingly) quoting that to others.

A simple question to be asked here is why did the english refuse to accept the dates of Krishna while they had no problems with the dates of the Buddha ?

Simply because there was ample evidence to show that the Buddha did live around 500 bc. While there is NO evidence to show that there was a Krishna who lived during 3000 bc.

Let alone 3000 bc, to the best of my knowledge there is no record of Krishna which dates to before the time of the Buddha, that is 500 bc !!

That is a reason why there exists a theory which says that the Purana and Itihasa culture started after the time of Buddha. The Buddha rejected the Vedas and the Upanishads. Out of fear of their declining religion, the Hindus of that time came up with the Puranas and a new set of Gods (probably borrowed from South India).

Add to it the fact that there is no record of all these Gods dating before 500 bc. I msut also add that the Rig-Veda which is the oldest Veda does not talk about these Puranic Gods at all.

Coming to Megasthenes's Indica, he does not talk about Krishna anywhere (At least in the surviving portions). He does talk about a Heracles who was a hero, who lived for 40 years, and was worried about marrying his daughter off. Then he married her himself.

Some people connected this to Krishna(Based on what?). This sounds nothing like the Krishna that we read about. This Heracles who married his own daughter is a puzzling character though. He does not appear in any Indian record. Unless it was a myth of that time which vanished long since.

Krishna started gaining prominence in a big way, only after the time of Shankara (700 ad). Alberuni who visited India around 1000 ad, mentions the Bhagavatam which describes the glory of Vasudeva.

The fact remains that we still do not have any evidence towards proving the fantastic dates, stories and characters, mentioned in the Puranas. It is still debatable and subject to doubt.

Cheers

shvu · January 22, 2001

I don't know how many people here have read about Plato's Atlantis. According to Plato Atlantis was a major advanced civilization, which was destroyed during 9000 bc. It's destruction was so complete that there is no evidence left.

1. Perhaps Krishna's date of 3000 bc is false. He must have lived long before that. Long before the Egyptians and the Bible. That would explain why no one knows about him.

Along with Atlantis that would also explain all the sophisticated weapons used during the Mahabharata war. Perhaps Atlantis was destroyed during that war ! Later on these stories may have been modified to suit local folklore and was written epic style, choosing places of North India.

2. Or of course, Krishna was an enlightened person who lived around 3000 bc and there was a war although not as exagerrated in the epic. Later on with time, people added color to his character.

3. Total fiction.

Cheers

sumeet · January 22, 2001

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

My dear friend Shvu you are not correct in saying that Krishna is not pre-buddhistic.

& that there is no evidence confirming His presence Because:

1) According to the Aihole inscription of Pulakesin II, the Battle of Kuruksetra took place in 3102 B.C.

2) Also it has been well noted by sanskrit scholars that in terms of grammatical construction many sentences and the archaic forms of many words do not follow the strict rules of grammar which all sanskrit scholars follow as expounded given by Panini, who lived in the 6th century B.C. So BG is before 6th century BC.

3) That the Bhagavad-Gita is pre-Buddhistic can be determined by the fact that no where is there any reference to Buddhism.[Had BG would have been after Buddha, Lord Krishna would have thoroughly refuted Buddhism by mentioning it.] Whereas in the Buddhist scripture Niddesa written in 4 B.C. in the Pali Canon is found reference to the worship of Vasudeva and Baladeva, who are Krishna and Balarama respectively.

4) I would also request every one to go through the following Webpage very carefully.

http://www.orientalthane.com/speeches/srrao/1.htm

And lastly about the europeans against the dating of Vedic civilization- we can clearly see how Max Muller played around with the Vedic scripture to call them imaginary, myth because what they said and recorded something that challenged the history accepted by the Europeans. Also in one of the earlier posts you talked about no european civilization took a note of Krishna. You also said that if they could love and respect a person who walked on water then how much they could have loved one who lifted mountains. In reply I would like to state that Bhagavatam calls those Yavanas and melechha sinful. We know from history that earliest organized religion known in the west is Judaisim. And before the Jewish religion these people had no concept of a religion that was proper and and well organized based on any scripture. There are only three scriptures that belong to West: Old Testament, New Testament and the Holy Quran. And people without any scriptural injunctions to follow and with no concept of God[religion] are called sinful as Bhagavata calls them. So if there were people at time of Krishna why would have they preserved a record of Him, who is only adored by the hearts of saintly people. And if you don't agree with this then tell me one more thing; BG was first translated into English in 1785 by Charles Wilkins. It was translated into Latin in 1823 by Schlegel, into German in 1826 by Von Humbolt, into French in 1846 by Lassens and into Greek in 1848 by Galanos. So only in 19th Century did the Europe came to know about BG the very glory of Lord Krishna. Does that means that BG was not in existence before that. What europeans have recorded and what they have not has nothing to do with the validity of Vedic culture.

With Love

OM TAT SAT

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

sumeet · January 22, 2001

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Dear Shvu

On the net I found the following verse from Chandogya Upanisad 7.6

" Ghora Angirasa has explained it to Krishna, the son of Devaki" ... he was free from thirst [commonly understood as desire]" - Chandogya Upanishad 7.6

Since you have the upanisad kindly let me know whether it is authentic or not.

With Love

OM TAT SAT

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

shvu · January 23, 2001

Hi Sumeet,

I looked up the Chandogya and interestingly found this verse.

-------

Ghora Angirasa, communicated this teaching to Krishna, the son of Devaki and it quenched Krishna’s thirst for any other knowledge and said: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: 'Thou art indestructible' , 'Thou art unchanging' and 'Thou art the subtle prana.' On this subject there are two Rik—verses:

- Chandogya 3.17.6

---------

This is interesting because the Vedas were around long before Krishna was born. So it would have to mean a different Krishna from an earlier time, or else the upanishads were still being edited during the time of Krishna. Either way, it is interesting and I have to do some more research on this.

-----

1) According to the Aihole inscription of Pulakesin II, the Battle of Kuruksetra took place in 3102 B.C.

-----

The Aihole temple was built during 600 ad, and by then the Krishna culture had started gaining popularity. So that is not surprising.

------

2) Also it has been well noted by sanskrit scholars that in terms of grammatical construction many sentences and the archaic forms of many words do not follow the strict rules of grammar which all sanskrit scholars follow as expounded given by Panini, who lived in the 6th century BC. So BG is before 6th century BC.

------

Not following the strict rules of Grammar can mean several things. It can be treated as a point in favor of the Mahabharata being earlier than 600 bc. Or the author was not in favor or knowledge of Panini's system.

-------

3) That the Bhagavad-Gita is pre-Buddhistic can be determined by the fact that no where is there any reference to Buddhism.

--------

The BG is simply a consolidated form of all the Upanishads. It does not have anything new to say in itself. It was composed by the author of the Mahabharata. (Of which it is a small part).

That being the case, why would it talk about Buddhism ? The whole idea was to retain Hinduism.

You must also note that in the Buddha's biography, during his long struggle, and following various different paths, there is no mention of Krishna, Rama, Vishnu or any of the Gods. His biography gives the impression of a Ritualistic society and the Upanishad era.

------

Whereas in the Buddhist scripture Niddesa written in 4 bc. in the Pali Canon is found reference to the worship of Vasudeva and Baladeva, who are Krishna and Balarama respectively.

------

This again, is after the time of the Buddha.

-------

I would like to state that Bhagavatam calls those Yavanas and mlechha sinful.

-------

For the Vedic people, anyone who did not follow the Vedic religion was considered sinful.

------

And people without any scriptural injunctions to follow and with no concept of God[religion] are called sinful as Bhagavata calls them.

-------

They always had a God too. The OT does have a God. They had moral and social values. The egyptians had their own Gods, the Greeks had their Gods. They were no more sinful than the Hindus.

This 'sinful mlechcha' concept came with foreign invaders entering India after Alexander. After 300 bc.

-------

So if there were people at time of Krishna why would have they preserved a record of Him, who is only adored by the hearts of saintly people ?

---------

One does not have to be saintly to know about a person who performed impossible feats. No one adores Mohammad of Ghazni in India. But don't we have a record of him here ?

And it is the Bhagavatam which says that the glory of Krishna had spread to all the 3 worlds during his time. And Krishna is supposed to have come down for all of mankind, not just for North India. btw all the avatars seem to be taking birth in North India only. Coincidence ?

Why was Jesus accepted by these 'sinful people' as the son of God ? It was because of his miracles. Otherwise no one would have been interested.

Since Krishne perfomred miracles on a more grander scale, they would have been definitely impressed.

Of course, the point that they have no record does not mean that there was no Krishna during that time. But it is a strong point to say that even if there was a Krishna then, he was not as heroic and extra-ordinary as exaggerated in the stories.

----------

So only in 19th Century did the Europe came to know about BG the very glory of Lord Krishna. Does that means that BG was not in existence before that?

---------

The BG does not describe the glory of Krishna. The BG is part of the Mahabharata of which Krishna is only one part. It is the Puranas which describe Krishna's glory and extra-ordinary traits in detail.

Again I must go back to the statement made by the Bhagavatam saying that his glory had spread to all the 3 worlds. Now obviously this has to be false. If one statement is false, then it can mean that several other statements are false too. I will quote the Bhagavatam here,

O Great King ! I have narrated to you the stories of many who lived to make their names famous in their life time and then to pass away and become a memory soon after. These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation. They have no significance in themselves and are not to be taken as literal facts.

12.3.14

The Bhagavatam itself admits that not all the stories are facts. Which means one should not take it as a historical authority.

Furthermore Vyasa says elsewhere,

'I have explained virtue and good character to man IN THE GUISE OF the mahabharata...'

Perhaps that is how it is. The Authors composed these books to instill good character, virtue and devotion in people. They used epic style poetry and heroic characters like Rama, Krishna, Arjuna to inspire interest in the common man.

That is very much possible and actually makes a lot of sense too.

Personally I can't imagine thousands of soldiers waiting, while Krishna speaks out 700 verses to Arjuna. That would take one whole day by itself. Can you imagine something like that ?

If the British were intent on proving that Christianity came before all the Indian stuff, they would have tried to place the Buddha after Jesus too. But that was impossible because there was clear evidence to support the dates of the Buddha.

So if the Britishers distorted anything, they could do so only in those areas, where there was not sufficient evidence.

We are yet to find evidence to show that the concept of Krishna was around before the time of the Buddha. I will check some other sources on that too.

Cheers

shvu · January 23, 2001

From the Mahabharatha,

------

Dense arrows of flame, like a great shower, issued forth upon creation, encompassing the enemy... A thick gloom swiftly settled upon the Pandava hosts. All points of the compass were lost in darkness. Fierce winds began to blow. Clouds roared upward, showering dust and gravel.

Birds coaked madly... the very elements seemed disturbed. The sun seemed to waver in the heavens. The earth shook, scorched by the terrible violent heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flame and ran to and fro in a frenzy... over a vast area, other animals crumpled to the ground and died. From all points of the compass the arrows of flame rained continuously and fiercely.

Gurkha, flying in his swift and powerful Vimana, hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns, rose in all its splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of Vrishnis and Andhakas.

The corpses were so burnt they were no longer recognizable. Hair and nails fell out. Pottery broke without cause... Foodstuffs were poisoned. To escape, the warriors threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment...

------

If all this is true, then I am willing to bet that other civilizations would be knowing about this war and the people involved.

Either the author let his imagination run wild or he borrowed some fascinating points from an earlier story to use in his poetic epic. That will explain the contradicting nuclear-like weapons and the primitive horse, elephant, arrow style fighting. Which takes us back to the time of Atlantis.

Perhaps there had been a large scale war at that time, with sopisticated weapons and the memories of that war served as material to describe weapons for the later epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Cheers