Chandogya Upanisad & Lord Krishna

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Dear Shvu

Coming to the point that Krishna in Chandogya not being Lord Krishna,

 

The Chandoya says that Ghora Angirasa taught Krishna the son of Devaki, all the truths which quenched his thirst for any other knowledge. I must also mention here that I checked this up with other Vaishnava Scholars [not GVs] and they all say this Krishna cannot be the one. The reasons given by them follow,

 

1. Because Krishna's Guru was Sanidipini and this Ghora Angirasa is not mentioned in any of the stories of Krishna. Which is unlikely because a person who taught Krishna all the basic truths, would surely be worth mentioning.

 

>>> Read your own translation:

" 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

 

However I found translation of this verse by Dr. Radhakrishnan-

" Ghora Angirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devaki -and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)-said:

'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad:

"You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' On this subject there are two Rik verses

 

This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna.

See how-

First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this.

 

 

 

2. According to the stories of krishna, he was a know-all. So there is no question of him hearing any truths which would quench his thirst to learn anything else.

 

>>>Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru

just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more.

 

3. The point that Sruti is believed to have been in existence long before the time of Krishna.

>>>Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15.

Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies.

Analyse this very verse of Chandogya:

Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna-

'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad:

"You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."'

Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks:

'Let a man, when his end approaches"

If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man.

What he asks the common man to do is:

" take refuge with this Triad "

What is that triad:

1)You[Krishna]are the imperishable.

2)You[Krishna]are theunchangeable

3)You[Krishna]are the subtle prana.

Now you know for certain that this part of the verse is being spoken to Krishna who is the son of Devaki as mentioned in the verse itself. Then next thing to note is that it is being said as an instruction to common man. What is that instruction: it is that he must take refuge in three thoughts-

Krishna is indestructible, unchanging and subtle pran.

Critic may object by saying that no in this verse man is being asked to take shelter of Atman and hence putting forward an advaitist viewpoint.

Reply to that:

No, that is totally wrong understanding of the verse because Angiras says that for a common man , he specifically mentions the word "man"[Let the man.....] so he is refering to man in general and asks man to take refuge in Krishna the son of devaki whom he describes to be indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. Had he been refering to Atman or self he would have clearly spoken that the Man should take refuge in three thoughts-

Atman is indestructible

Atman is unchanging

Atman is the subtle prana.

Or Angiras would have said that Man should approach the following three thoughts-

the he is Indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. But instead of both of this he says "You" which clearly refers to Lord Krishna. Now which Krishna the son of Devaki, other than one in Bhagavatam, and Krishna of Gita can possess these qualities:

Eternity,Unchanging,subtle prana.

At time of death every Man is asked by Vedas to take refuge in God, so why would chandogya ask man to take refuge in some ordinary Krishna.

Furthermore more topic for research:

Chandogya 3.4.1-2 refers to Itihas and purana

Also

Chandogya 7.1.12

ca rg-vedam bhagavo'dhyemi yajur-vedam sama-vedam atharvanam caturtham

itihasam puranam pancamam vedanam vedam

 

"O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas."

 

Hope that this helps

With Love

Your Servant Always

In Service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga

Sumeet.

 

 

[shvu]

Hi Sumeet,

 

----

This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna.

See how- First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this.

----

 

Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so. The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end. The chandogya is a real long one. A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself. So the Thou there refers to Brahman. And imparting a view will mean teaching, after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here. And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else?

 

Nowhere does the Sruti talk about worshipping a human, and if x is the son of y, then obviously x and y are humans.

 

---

Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more.

---

 

Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable. Especially in the case of Krishna who could not have had a thirst for knowledge, as he already knew everything.

 

---

Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed)

---

 

Let me correct that. In case you are not aware of this, it is the basic foundation of the Sanatana Dharma, making it a timeless truth. All Vaishnavas are clear that the Sruti was revealed at the time of creation. If you know of any Vaishnava Scholar who claims that the Sruti was not revealed, then I would be interested to know why he says that.

 

----

Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15.Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies.

----

 

First of all let me differentiate between Krishna, Rama and Narayana. Narayana is the Supreme being mentioned in the Sruti. Rama was a kshatriya who was born like a regular human being and who passed on. The same with Krishna too. Now let us be clear about what you mean by Krishna. If you want to discuss dates and history then obviously you have to talk about the person Krishna who lived and died. The transcendental Krishna and Narayana cannot figure in here.

 

And Krishna, the son of Devaki has definitely got to be a a human being. Otherwise according to you Devaki was always existent and Krishna was not [since he was born to her at some point] and that sounds silly. That would make Devaki transcendental, her husband and their whole family tree as transcendental.

 

----

Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna-

'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad:

"You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."'

Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks:

'Let a man, when his end approaches"

If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man.

----

 

Yes, he is speaking this for a common man.

 

---

O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas.

---

 

Ok, let me ask you something here. Since the Shastras claim that the Sruti was revealed to man at the beginning of creation, how can it talk about Itihaasa and Purana? If you say that the Itihaasa is ramayana and Mahabharata, then do you admit that the Sruti was edited at a later time by/after Vyasa to accomodate new additions? In which case the Chandogya was after the Mahabharatha dating it to a time after the Buddha.

 

btw all the Sad-Vaishnava [Madhva sampradaya] scholars, believe that this is not Lord Krishna and also the Advaitis. I however have a different angle, which I will present later.

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so.

>>>I haven't read the Chandogya. I don't have it.

 

The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end.

>>>Even Lord Krishna is without a beginning and end. [bG 10.3 and many other verses]

Whenever upanisads talks about brahman they are actually trying to give the description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead only, however indirectly. At some places this is directly stated. Here I shall reproduce the following verses from major upanisads and the essence of upanisads[bG]. Kindly note that personality of Godhead is beyond the Brahman effulgence as confirmed by sruti mantras. He is the foundation of this impersonal effulgence. So it is understood that when the upanisads talk about impersonal brahman they are only indirectly gloryfing the Supreme Person whom they themselves state to be not only beyond it but also as the foundation of it as confirmed in BG.

 

 

A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself.

>>>Brahman of upanisads is non different from Lord Krishna. Brahman in vedas at places indicates jivaatma, Supreme Personality of Godhead, impersonal Absolute.

It is used for all of them. It takes certainly more than just mere scholarship and grammatical knowledge to know what is meant when. Furthermore in BG 14.27 Lord Krishna himself testifies that Brahman is resting on him by saying-

brahmano hi parthisthanam.

Verily I'm the foundation of brahman.

The formless brahman is just a dazzle of Lord's own personality.

Mundaka upanisad describes this effulgence as brahmajyoti or Brahman effulgence

Mundaka Upanisad (2.2.10-12):

hiranmaye pare kose virajam brahma niskalam tac chubhram jyotisam jyotis tad yad atma-vido viduh na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarakam nema vidyuto bhanti kuto 'yam agnih tam eva bhantam anu bhati sarvam tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati brahmaivedam amrtam purastad brahma pascad brahma daksinatas cottarena adhas cordhvam ca prasrtam brahmai- vedam visvam idam varistham

 

"In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. In that realm there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, fire for illumination. Indeed, whatever illumination appears in the material world is only a reflection of that supreme illumination. That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies."

 

Isa upanisad furthermore states that

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham tat tvam pusann apavrnu satya-dharmaya drstaye

 

"O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee."

(Isopanisad 15)

Kindly note the word " mukham " meaning face used in the above Sruti mantra. This clearly shows that form of Supreme is hidden by His effulgence.

Furthermore Svetastavatra Upanisad states:

yasmat param naparam asti kincid yasman naniyo no jyayo 'sti kincit vrksa iva stabdho divi tisthaty ekas tenedam purnam purusena sarvam

 

" There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies." Svetasvatara Upanisad(3.9)

 

This is the reason why the Gitopanisad which is the essence of entire upanisads says:

BG 15.6

 

" That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. "

 

This is furthermore confirmed in the same Gitopanisad in " aditya-varnam tamasah parastat ".(BG 8.9)

 

aditya-varnam: Resplendent like Sun. This indicates a dazzling effulgence emanates out of His form or personality. It is this very effulgence which is known as the nirankara brahman or impersonal absolute. Therefore Lord Krishna states that brahman is resting on Him. Narayana upanisad of Atharva Veda in which Lord Narayana is glorified clearly states that " brahmanyo devaki putra. brahmanyo madhusudhno ".

 

So the Thou there refers to Brahman.

>>> In this verse thou means you, and you refers to the person to whom the speaker addresses. This is simple english.

 

And imparting a view will mean teaching,

>>> No imparting a view doesn't means teaching. If there is some discussion then one can impart a view. When you ask a person the question that may I have your views on that , this certainly doesn't means that you are asking him to teach you. Had Ghora Angiras being instructing Krishna then correct way of stating that would be to say that instructed or taught. But my point was that as you said that all basic truths were taught to Krishna by Ghora angiras, i just wanted to state that nowhere this verse of chandogya refers to this fact. It is only knowledge about a certain sacrifice that is being communicated to Lord Krishna. So by just imparting a view of a certain sacrifice one doesn't becomes one's Guru. I learn so many things from so many different people yet all of them are not my Guru. Because had Ghora was this person's Guru then correct words like taught or instructed would have been used. And like you earlier said that this verse of chandogya would have been actually saying that Ghora imparted all basic truths to Krishna or atleast Ghora Angiras taught Krishna……..

Furthermore Narada Muni himself confirms about Lord Krishna being eternal. See the chapter 5 of 1st canto of SB. There Narada Muni describes that in previous millennium

How in association of munis He heard krsna-katah. See the text 26. It is specifically mentioned Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna’s glory was even being sung in previous millennium. The entire Srimad Bhagavatam is Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna is eternal. His glory is sung eternally. See how Narada muni got self realized just by giving aural reception to Krsna-katah. So He inspired the troubled Vyasadeva to glorify the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam. Also go through the 6th chapter and see the verse 27, where Narada muni after describing His encounter with Lord says that then He became “ evam krsna-mater ”. or absorbed in thinking of Lord Krishna. Narada who is mentioned in Chandogya how did he come to know Lord Krishna, that too in His previous life? Now you know that SB was written after departure of Lord Krishna, still when Vyasa Deva sat in trance to see the puruna purusa described in Vedanta [see verse 4 of chapter 7th] He didn’t see Narayana or any one else, but saw Lord Krishna.[ krsne parama-puruse, verse 7th].

 

 

after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here.

>>> This doesn't means that Krishna's GURU was Ghora Angiras. As explained above.

 

And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else?

>>> Explained above.

 

Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable.

>>> There is nothing unacceptable here. The pastime of Lord are of bewildering nature.

Like Bhagavatam states that although Lord Krishna is all-pervading, He is sitting on lap of His mother, Yasoda. Verily this in itself is not only bewildering but also contradictory.

Although there is nothing contradictory about it. Because as Krishna says in BG His form is acintya, inconceivable, therefore he can do such things. Anyway this specifically is not the point here so I won’t address this here. Although Lord Rama was Supreme yet throughout His life He took knowledge from Vasistha Muni, took weapons from Vishwamitra, although omniscient took help from vibhisana to know even the most simplest details as if knowing totally nothing. To defeat Ravana he took help of vanars, and did many other things that were simple and common. So first of all the fact is that Lord Krishna has nothing to do or know, yet he does action and takes knowledge. So this very action of Lord taking knowledge from anyone is a part of His pastime that He performs. So even His thirst is only a display of His pastime, and has no real existence otherwise[it’s not an eternal attribute of His person]. So to speak that Lord’s thirst has been quenched should be understood from that point of view, it is yet another bewildering pastime of Supreme Lord. See this also:

“ Of course it is bewildering, O soul of the universe, that You work, though You are inactive, and that You take birth, though You are the vital force and the unborn. You Yourself descend amongst animals, men, sages and aquatics. Verily, this is bewildering. ”

SB 1.8.30

Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed)

>>> Actually I didn’t stated clearly what I wanted to convey. The mayavadis accept that when Lord incarnates He is born like a simple human being and assumes a material body. But the Vaishnava schools set up by Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Nimbarkacarya, Vishnuswami ji goes against it arguing that Lord is eternal and doesn’t assumes a material body as the conditioned soul does. There is no vaishnava who will support the Mayavadi view. Furthermore Lord Krishna says that He Himself is the compiler of Vedanta. BG 15.15. Lord Krishna is known by many names in Vedas- Narayana who is He Himself. Brahman and the purusa mentioned in svetastvatara upanisad and other upanisads.

We will talk about the transcendental person of Narayana, Krishna, Rama etc. later on. That’s not the focus right now.

itihasah puranam ca

pancamo veda ucyate

vedan adhyapayam asa

mahabhrata-pancaman

 

"The histories and Puranas are said to be the fifth Veda. Vyasadeva

instructed this literature known as Veda, which has the Mahabharata as its

fifth part."

(from the Moksa-dharma)

 

Actually they are manifested at the time of Vedic revelation as also indicated in Bhagavatam.

[Look for 1.4.20] which also calls it fifth veda.

I don’t have tattva sandarbha of Srila Jiva Goswami so that I can explain you about the truth. There is a beautiful explanation given by Him over there. You know even if you see the upanisads they are in a form of dialog between sages although they are said to be eternal and unauthored. Then why are they like that. Srila Jiva Goswami with full scriptural reference explains that. I don’t remember the correct explanantion as I had read it long time ago. Perhaps if JN Das or some one else can get a hand on tattva sandarbha then he might explain the issue. But believe me all the puranas are eternal just like veda. I believe when you hear that explanation you shall be extremely pleased to know it.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

In service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga

Sumeet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[viji_53]

Dear sumeet,

Shvu is not denying the fact that Krishna is God. He does not like the idea of ISKCON making only Krishna as Supreme God & making the real Supreme Lord Narayana unknown. All the members in this forum are devotees of Krishna. We want you to understand that Naarayana is the Supreme & Ultimate God. Krishna is an avatar of Narayana the Paramodevata.

HariBhol!

[shvu]

Hi Sumeet,

 

We are actually going out of the topic here. I have already explained before, and will do so again.

 

If you want to discuss the existence of Krishna as a historic person who lived during 3000 bc, then you must understand that you cannot bring in the Transcendental Krishna into the discussion. I am not denying the existence of a Transcendental Krishna.

 

You must also note that Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. Let me repeat that. Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. The names were Narayana, Vishnu sometimes and Vaasudeva. Krishna was the name given to the person by his parents. He was recognized as an Avatar AND THEN his name came to be associated with the Supreme. The same goes for Rama too.

 

If I understand correctly, I think your perception of history is something like this. Krishna was always the name for the Supreme. Then he was born, and his parents coincidentally named his as Krishna. I am sorry to say that is incorrect, as anyone else will.

 

btw there is another view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead indirectly refers to the Brahman, which is the opposite of your view.

 

Cheers

 

[animesh]

Dear Sumeet,

If we use the same name to mean two different persons, then there is bound to be confusion. When we use the word "Krishna", then sometimes we mean the one who was born as son of Devaki, brought up by Yashhoda etc. etc. But sometimes we mean the Supreme God who is eternal. You have to agree that if we use the same word to refer to both then we will get many apparent contradictions. As an example, consider the statement "Krishna was the son of Devaki." I am sure everyone in this forum will agree to that. But how can Supreme God who is eternal be ever born? If he is not born, then how can he be somebody's son? This is just one example. You will find many more such "apparent" contradictions. When one person says that Narayana is supreme God and another that Krishna is supreme God, then both are talking about the same but they are using different names. When one person says that Krishna was an awataar and another says that he is the supreme God himself and not an awataar, then they are talking about two different persons but using the same name. (I understand that the use of word "person" here is not appropriate because it indicates as if I am talking about just any ordinary human being, but I can not think of any more appropriate English word). To avoid such kind of confusions, we have two distinguish between the two. By distinguishing I do not mean that we should start thinking that Krishna is not Supreme God. All I mean to say is that for the purpose of discussion, we have to distinguish. There will not be any such confusion if we call Narayana as Supreme God because, as far as my knowledge goes, there is no avataar of the name "Narayana".

[animesh]

Hi shvu,

What a coincidence? We both have written more or less similar things. When I started typing my comments, I did not see yours. But the moment I clicked on "Submit Reply" and the page refreshed, I saw yours. I find that my comment is redundant because you have talked about that. So, please do not think that I have violated any copyright laws by posting my comment. :-)

[shvu]

Hi Animesh,

 

Actually there were 2 brothers named Nara and Narayana who were considered as Avatars. The Bhagavatam in one place says that Arjuna and Krishna are Avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively.

 

But this Narayana is relatively unkown and so Narayana seems to be the right name to use to describe the Supreme while discussing history. However while discussing from a devotional perspective, Krishna is fine too. That will avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

 

btw do you know that there is a Krishna in the Rig-Veda who is considered a villain? Indra[the main God of the Rig-veda] finally kills this guy. I sometimes wonder if this character was the origin of the later Krishna who became a hero post-Buddhism. I will get more details soon.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

Hi Dasha,

 

btw - By the way

kit - Keep in touch

jam - Just a moment

 

btw I had to find out what they meant the same way as you did now :-)

 

Cheers

[animesh]

Hi shvu,

Thanks for the information. Actually, I knew that Krishna was an avataar of Narayan. But I was under impression that this Narayan was the Supreme God himself.

[Dasha]

Hi shvu

 

Excuse me for my ignorance, but what does mean your repetitive "btw"?

 

In whatever sens I am turning it in my mind I cannot find the clue.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

Hi Animesh,

 

That is right. Narayana is the name of the Supreme in the Vedas. According to the Puranas there was also a human Narayana who was an avatar of the Supreme Narayana.

 

Perhaps Hari or Maha-Vishnu would be better names to avoid confusion. There were no avatars by those names as far as I know.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The only problem with trying to specify a name such as Maha Vishnu or Hari is that each name has a technical definition that refers to a particular activity or form. Maha Vishnu refers to the Karanadakashayi Vishnu, the first of the Purusha Avataras, form whom the universes emanate, like bubbles, from his poors. He glances over the prakriti pradhana and infuses it with the time factor, putting into motion cause and effect. Hari refers to one who takes away (either karmic reactions, material desires, etc., based on the particular context). Thus it is a name that refers to numerous forms of the Lord, including Krishna (or perhaps primarily Krishna).

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There are two spelling mistakes above. The word poors should be pores, and "form whom" should read "from whom".

[ggohil]

I do not know how true the following is? But it is taken from a Video I watched on Sri Krsna.

 

Krsna was named by a Guru. During the naming ceremony, the Guru said he saw an image of

Krsna in the Child hence he named him Krsna. The Guru also said that one must accept Krsna and

his qualities to be same as Narayan.