shvu

Hi Dasha, All the above assertions are true. Anyone can pick up any of the books mentioned above to verify that for themselves. Any book talking about Radha and Krishna's romance is no older than 700 ad. If they were around, they were a well kept secret, because they have no known references. While all the abover mentioned books are older than 700 ad [except the Bhagvatam, which was from around that time]. Of course, the other Puranas were existing in some form, but they evolved to their final form, much later. Also note that Radha is not worshipped among the other Vaishnavas. She was not Krishna's wife anyway. The Bhagavatam too talks only about Rukmini and equates her to Shri Laxmi, who is Vishnu's consort. Romance does attract people, as we see in daily life Cheers

Hi, I see what you mean. The Mahabharata was not focussed on Krishna. It was more on the Kuru clans and Krishna's assistance to them. So one cannot go only by that. But the verse from the Gita does contradict Krishna's romance as described in later books. Since the Puranas did not appear until much later, they must have relied on the Mahabharata for any information on Krishna. That would mean that any extra information was added by the Author and is fiction. Anyway by now, I think it is known to most people that Radha and most of the romance of Krishna is all fiction. They came much later. More than frustrating, it is amazing that people paid so much of importance to Radha, even after knowing that there is no mention of her in the Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana, Hari Vamsha and the Bhagavatam. That is amazing. Cheers

Clarification: When I said 'currently accepted date for the sinking of dwaraka' I mean the Puranical Date going by the Kaliyuga calendar.

About Dr Rao and the discovery of Dwaraka : This news is of Nov 1999. Since then no excavation work has been undertaken due to lack of funds. 1. No evidence has been obtained to say that the ruins are that of Dwaraka. 2. According to Dr Rao, the ruins found near the Rann of Kutch date to 1600 bc. That is nowhere close to the currently accepted date for the sinking of Dwaraka. 3. According to Dr Rao, the whole coastline sunk during that time, due to a rise in sea-level. So it was not just one but several settlements that went underwater during that time. Since Hastinapura and Kurukshetra are real places, the existence of Dwaraka shoould not be surprising. The discovery of Dwaraka will not be of any significance, unless they also find some evidence to show that the city was only 100 years old when it sank and dates back to 3000 bc. Cheers

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

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

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

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

Hi, Yeah, you are right. Whatever I said before does not answer your question. I think your question goes like 'Since there is a supreme power, one can directly worship that. Why introuduce a Indra, etc in between ?' The early Vedic religion based on the Vedas had a lot of importance to sacrifices. They worshipped the forces of nature and paid homage to them. While it is understood that the President is the head of all, we still have to goto the police for help. Perhaps it was such an attitude that bought about all that various Gods, each specific to one function. Again this is guess work. Like you said, a person who has studied philo and theology may know exactly why. Cheers

Hi, Worshipping dieties like Indra, etc went out of fashion long back. They were replaced by other Gods like Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna and others. I still maintain that no one knows why. If you find someone giving you a satisfactory answer, perhaps you would like to pass it on to me. Cheers

Hello, You did not get an answer because no one knows why. Perhaps the ancients came up with the idea of worshipping all the different forces of nature, and gave them human forms and names. But again this is all guess work. No one knows. To answer your question, there is no need for any diety or worship of any kind. People do it to play safe or to ask for something or simply to get kicks. Cheers

Congrats Gauracandra, You beat me to it. Cheers,

Hi Animesh, Hershey's sundae pie goes on. I have it as often as possible. I remember reading Alexander's story in school, where he defeats Porus. That history was written by the British guys and was supposedly false. Read the following article. It is titled "Alexander the ordinary", and is a good one. http://www.itihaas.com/ancient/1.html Cheers

I am suprised because there is no record in India about Alexander. Unless it was mentioned in one of the records maintained by his generals. By the time Chanakya met Chandragupta, Alexander was out of India and was probably dead. There is a good article that I have read written by a Professor in PA. It is titled "Alexander the ordinary". Apparently he was not as great as projected by some people. He was a cruel person, who tortured all the kings who chose to fight with him, after defeating them. It did not work in India, as he could not defeat Porus, the king of Punjab. He was just another ordinary person who was obsessed with expanding his empire. I can provide a link to this article, if you are interested. Cheers

I would give a lot to know what really happend in Indian religion during 3000 bc-1000 ad. The Vedas have their own Gods, especially the Rig-veda which is considered the oldest. Most of those Gods are not worshipped today. They then evolve to the Upanishads, which focuses on the formless Brahman. By this time the Egyptians were advanced enough to build the Great Pyramid. And there was Stonehenge in France. Since stone cannot be carbon dated, no one knows just how old Stonehenge is. Then suddenly (or maybe gradually) Gods like Shiva, Vishnu, the Linga, Mother Goddess, the Bull, Krishna, Rama, etc gathered prominence. It is the Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharatha which claim that the Vedic Dharma is ancient. The Vedas themselves do not talk about their time period. The Upansishads themselves were written by Rishis and talk about living people. Yet they were considered as Sruti and were not to be edited. That is very odd. Possibly there was a mingling of South (Dravidian) and North (Aryan), and all the stuff that came from the North was considered as Sruti. The Puranas and the present day Gods may have come from the South. This mixing work may have been done by Veda Vyasa. Some scholars say that this mingling may have happened with the threat of spreading Buddhism. It makes more sense to connect North Indians to Europeans than to connect them to South Indians. They (North Indians and Whites) have this amazing language similarity and also the phsyical structure. The Greek Historians who visited India all had to say that the Dravidians were like the people in Africa, except for the hair and the snub nose. Dravidians had straight hair, while the Africans had wooly hair. They all agreed that the North Indians looked more like the Egyptians. But this still does not clear away the mystery of all the contradictions. oh ! For a time machine... Cheers

To add..... Another reason why there may be no Buddhism and any known Indian Gods in Indica is because the it may have been in the lost portions. Will look for more details on that.

It is quite interesting to note that there is no Indian record of Alexander's campaign. Whatever information we have about Alexander is from the west. Trained by Aristotle, Alexander started his conquests at an young age and began to advance Eastwards. He had a large army and defeated everyone on the way. All these defeated armies were added to his own. However his luck changed in India. Many reasons are given here. Some say that his army was weary from constant battle and travel and they had no heart to fight further. Some others say tht he could not conquer any Indian kingdom, and so retreated. He started his journey back hime, but died on the way. He was wounded badly. He died at the young age of 33. This was around 327 bc. His generals maintained dairies of the campaign and they mention India. They also mention Alexander's meeting with a young Indian prince Chandragupta. Chandragupta conquered Seleucus Nicator's empire (Afghanisthan/Iran) around 325 bc. Seleucus was Alexander's general. They had a treaty and Seleucus sent Megasthenes as an ambassador to Chandragupta. Around 300 bc, Megasthenes wrote Indica which described India, it's social, economical, political condition and religious beleifs as well. Unfortunately this record is lost, and is available in pieces thru other works. He describes the Indian Gods worshipped during that time, none of which we know. He does not talk about the Buddha, as far as I know. Buddhism may not have been a big religion yet. Chandragupta became a Jain before his death. Jainism perhaps, was more popular at that time. By the time of Ashoka (50+ years later) Buddhism was spreading and Ashoka played a major role in promoting Buddhism. The Cleopatra part is interesting. I did not know that. Cheers

Hello All, This being a Spiritual forum, it is not right on my part to raise doubts and questions that cannot be answered, that go against general beliefs. It also irks the devotees. It is a wonder that the adminsitrator did not kick me out long ago. With this, I stop posting on this forum. It was nice conversing with you all. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, --- Chanting may be sensual activity, but Chanting the name of Lord goes beyond the ordinary sensation. (Talking from experience) ---- I don't believe that anything goes beyond ordinary sensation, but then this is coming from a person who hasn't actually tried chanting anything. So I am in no position to comment on your personal experience. ---- The Bengali saint claimed that it is the Lord’s name that gave him bliss. From this how did you conclude that it is chanting itself that gave him bliss. ---- Chanting the Lord's name is what I meant too. All experiences come out of what we know, our own projections. Which means there is no transcendental bliss or experience that is possible by the mind. We cannot experience something that we do not know. That is why I always say that a devotee of Krishna will only get a vision of Krishna, and a devotee of Jesus will only see Jesus. We basically see what we want to see, and experience what we want to experience. Some people get all excited by seeing flashing colors, after a period of meditation. Such things can happen when the mind relaxes. There is nothing transcendental about it. But since it happened during meditation they attach extra importance to it. They were expecting some new sensation, a new vision and they immediately connect that to spiritual progress. An example : A dog chewing on a dry bone, hurts it's gums in the process and they start bleeding. It tastes the blood, and mistakes it to be from the bone. It gets excited and tries to chew further, while all the time it has been tasting it's own blood. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, ---- I do not believe compassion to be a socially taught value. Society is more likely to teach you to look out for yourself and be greedy. ---- In my opinion, it is the other way around. Man is basically selfish and greedy. With such an attitude, it would be near impossible for people to live together. Realising this, the early people came out with a set of values, which would enable us to live together [live and let live]. Moses came out with the Ten commandments whoch are all basically social values. While no one teaches anyone to be selfish and greedy, you will find these qualities in every person [atleast traces of it]. Which proves that they come without being taught. Of course, compassion and pity may also be natural qualities, and may have been stressed further in the books realising the importance of their role in society. ---- The creator wanted us to be happy (our natural state) and he showed us the way, henceforth the purpose of life. ---- My immmediate response is, "what is the purpose of creating humans and wanting them to be happy? Why create people in the first place ?" If we know why we were created [if we were], then the purpose would be clear. --- Why do you assume that if their was a common purpose to life then everyone would necessarily following it. --- If there was a common ourpose behind our creation, then I don't think it would be a matter of choice left to us. Every human would have been working towards that, without exceptions. Another important thing is the purpose cannot be for our bebefit, but will be for the benefit of the creator. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, Although you have addressed the aove posting to Animesh, I would like to comment on that. Not causing misery to anyone is a social value in the interests of society trying to maintain itself. it is a taught/learnt value. A group of people who were never taught this or who never understood this would not practice this. So it is not common to all people of the world. Keeping our self extremely happy [seeking pleasure] is more a characterestic than a purpose. It is an instinct like the instinct to Survive, to Reproduce. A purpose typically would be something, that the creator would have. That is the intent with which the creator creates. Like if man came up with computers, he knows why. He had a reason. So a universal purpose of life, would be something like that. And we don't know of any such thing. As Animesh pointed out, we also don't seem to be having the means to find out if there is such a thing. So we can safely assume that there is no common purpose. Cheers

Sorry for the mistake, I meant to write Greed for Pleasure, and the fear of pain. Take these away and there would be no reason to worship God. About Chanting Chanting is a Sensual activity too, although many people who are into chanting will deny that. They are using words which they have heard and an image of Krishna which they have seen with their eyes sometime. How is it not sensual ? People initially begin to chant, because the Gurus promise certain benefits that will come out of regular chanting. Otherwise no one will begin chanting in the first place. It also takes people away from the mainstream issues of life, giving them a temporary feeling of peace and relief. Like sone other schools advocate meditation, self-inquiry, etc. Over a period of time, it becomes a routine. If a person like Chaitanya [the Bengali saint] says Chanting by itself is bliss, then he has answered the question in that statement. He is chanting because it is giving him pleasure. Otherwise he wouldn't. There is a BECAUSE all the time. Again devotees, don't get mad. Just another view. Greed is always there in us at all points of time. That is why the holy books always talk about not being greedy. But that will not work. So they came up with the idea of turning the greed towards a hidden God, which is working fine. It is harmless, and will not disappoint you as long as you don't expect anything out of the relationship. Expecting things will not work. Ask God for a Rasmalai, CD player, high scores in an exam, and you will see that it does not work. Don't believe someone if he tells you that you did not ask with a 'pure heart' and that is why it is not working, or any such nonsense. The ancients knew that too. That is why they said one should have unconditional love, where you do not ask for anything. Cheers

Somebody was wondering if I had some 'hidden motives' in doubting the existence of Krishna. Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no hidden or open motives. Whatever I had to say has all been said there, and I have no alternate Idol to promote by putting down Krishna. I mentioned above that Greed is the reason for worshipping God. I left out fear. Lots of christians believe that people like me will goto eternal hell, where we will be tortured in boiling water, burnt and whipped for doubting their all-loving and merciful God. Their statements contradict one another, but they will never doubt them for a moment. And the hindus believe that such people will be reborn as street dogs, pigs, etc. The faith in their book is that strong. Greed for a heaven or fear of a hell. Take out these two and there would be no reason to worship God. Cheers

Which makes sense, because the Puranas were originally chanted during intervals while performing a Yagna [sacrifice]. It was to glorify the cosmic Lord. Of course, the Puranas then would have been in a different form and more smaller. Later Vyasa out of compassion for the Non-Brahmins who were not allowed to read the Vedas, came up with Puranas for the common man in the form of stories. An easy way to inspire awe to the Lord, devotion and renunciation. Similar to the Pancha tantra for morals. And since then, these Puranas have evolved into their present form to reflect the current devotional beliefs of all the people who added to it later on. Cheers

Here is an interesting verse from the Bhagavatam. 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 cannot take it as a historical authority. Cheers