hindu12

Yes I do agree that myth was added to them. One cannot take every single piece of story of explanation within the Puranas as fact and history but I still think there is a lot of truth to them. I do think most of it is true and if you are one that follows a particular diety then I think it is essential for you to read their puranas.

I never TRIED to convince anyone. No one can convince anyone of anything. This is a forum and no one is putting a gun to your head. I think maybe out of your own insecurity felt the pressure of me trying to convince you. Either way, we all have our views.

Grade D research? Wow. That's about the best one i''ve heard from you. It's about time you get over it Number 2.

Asking questions is not jumping in and "polluting". You said yourself that this is a discussion board for one to debate and ask questions. Yet, you accuse of doing the same thing that you are doing and attacking me for asking you a logical question. Before I state my opinion, let me first start off by stating that I am not bieng anti-Brahmin incase you get senstive about this, I don't know. You had stated earlier that "Brahmins are always pushing the puranas as fact" My answer: Brahmins only push the puranas because they have to. If you study the formation of Hinduism and it's development throughout the ages then it makes sense. This does not make the Puranas fake. Can you ellaborate on why do you think they are not fact? I do understand that the puranas as we know today are an exagarated form of what really happened. Further, Brahmins added Mythology to it to attract people. In addition, another reason why I believe in the historicity of the Puranas is for example the Harivamsa are said to have been written sometime between 100-300 AD and added as an appendix into the Mahabharata. However, the grammer Panini in his writings which date back to 300bc had stated that he remembers the story of Vasudev Krishna killing kamsa and others as an ancient story. This is why I believe there is truth to them. Brahmins generally keep the Vedas to themselves yet they push the fact that all knowledge comes from there and that one should accept it as authority. In this sense I was using the same logic. The general theory as to why the Brahmins pushed the Puranas and why the Hinduism that we follow today is drastically different from the religion of the Brahmin and Vedas of early times is that Brahmins went around and took the best of the best of philosophies-Upanishad, Bhagavatas, Pancharatras, etc... they took all the Vaishnava/Shaiva literature, Mahabharata, stories from Puranas and added mythology to it to attract people and gain populatiry among the general masses (many say this was to fight off the threat of Buddhism and Jainism). They created a pantheon consisting of Local God's and Goddess's and added Lord Krishna (who was a historical divine person) and raised him to the level of gohhead and used his Gita as a medium. And obviously they succeeded among the masses. After they succeeded some of them tried to do the same with Buddha but failed. Not carefully, I am not saying the above is true but it is highly probable. You are correct, in ancient times the Brahmins always kept the Vedas to themselves and within their communities. They were always restrictive (as evident even in later times with Manu Smirti where Sudras were not allowed to read the Vedas). The Brahminical relgion of the Vedas was never popular and failed to appeal to the masses (maybe because they were too restricitve). It was Jainism and Buddhism and many other spiritual paths that all derived from Upanishadic thought (Sankya) and they consisted of teachings and were open to all classes that gained mass popularity. To gain popularity and hold their position intact, it makes a lot of sense how Brahmins have to push the puranas, the avatars, the Gods and Goddess's and Bhakti.

Well look at here the senstive little kid thinks I am attacking Hinduism. I am the one that posted a thread about how Hindus need to accept their historicity and have faith and you accuse me of attacking Hinduism. Typical paranoid senstive guy who accuses one of bieng a marxist. Nice try little one. I have yet to see you post anything of importance other then rant at me like a little kid. Yes you are correct, I did come under realhindu51-52 BEFORE i made an account. I was a guest and I had to make those names to post. If you read my post I TOLD EVERYONE that I had finally made an account. I have been posting as HINDU12 ever since. However, nice try again to attack me. I think you're too ignorant and you have nothing better to do now. You reply to all my posts and I find it funny how you take each oy my quotes and reply to them seperately. Like I said, you care a LOT about what I have to say. I don't care how long you have been posting here. You're posts are of little value when you rant and rave all day and whine like a kid. I have respect for many posters here but you get none.

No someone needs to ask YOU about what it means by "pushing the puranas" YOU made that statement. Don't try and escape from your own battle. I just used your logic and compared your reasoning with the Vedas. Shvu, I suggest you go back and read why I said that. Number 2 always make unreliable and ignorant statements and then he turns it around on me.

Now you want to accuse me of bieng warriorboy to make me look dumb. That's the only way you can attack me because you know you're ignorant about Hinduism. You don't need to be upset that you got proven wrong. Just take it with a smile. Stop bieng so insecure. I hope warriorboy will come back and ramsack you like I did. I don't need other people to come here and support my views. In fact warriorboy is not the only one that came and backed me up. There are a few others that agreed with me that all of Hinduism is not Vedic so I don't care if you don't agree with me. Like I said, you're just mad because you got knocked out. No one has came to support you. You might think what I say is non sense but it's ok because you come and respond to all my posts time after time after time. You really do care about what I have to say. In addition, at least I have something to say. In all of your posts you did nothing but whine like a little girl because you couldn't prove nothing. I hope you're not married. I feel sorry for your wife she has to deal with a little girl and not a man. Hek, you don't even have faith in the historicity of your own religion. Like I said you need to toughen up and be a man. I don't care about my ego. I think you should worry about yours. You're the one that cries and whines.

My argument was a response to Number 2 claiming that Brahmins are always "pushing the Puranas". He was the first one to make that statement.I was simply demonstrating that the same can be said about the Vedas. I mean, it was the Brahmin class that always try and say that ""everything" we know it Hinduism comes from the Vedas and that all Hindus "must" revere the Vedas. Isn't that a form of authority? The very definition of a Hindu is one who accepts the Vedas as authority! How did this come about? Have you looked into it? You should. I agree that Brahmins are an easy target in todays world. However, I am not talking about your everyday "Brahmin" but rather the so called "religious minded" Brahmin. I have spoken with many and they believe the Vedas more then any other scripture and further they completely support caste sstem and believe themselves to be the highest. Also if Number 2 had any idea or at least some kind of knowledge as to why Brahmins pushed the Puranas in the first place he wouldn't be making that comment. Brahmins may have very well pushed the Puranas as a medium to gain popularity among the masses. They took stories and history and used it. As evident that the early religion of the Vedas is completely different from what we know as Hinduism today.

Here you go again with your insecutiry and emotions. Please stop whining like a kid. You came here and got proven wrong and now you're just upset. You say I believe in conspiracy theories, obviously you call this a conspiracy theory because you do not agree with me. Nice and clever "attack" little one. Yet again I have backed up all my sources and as usual, you have none. You said I am paranoid but yet you come and respond to my post day after day only to get TKO'd every single time. You lost this argument a long time ago. Just leave your whining and crying at home and off this board. You accuse me of bieng Warrior boy but when I responded I didn't realize that it was his quote you were talking about. I only read what you wrote and I thuoght that was directed to me. I never come on anyones name. I have this name signed in as always. But nice way to accuse me and try and degrade me personally. At this point I have nothing to prove to you as the proving has been done a long time ago. I do find it rather comical and quite enjoyable to just simply respond to your non sense only to see you get worked up and whine. Maybe this experi will make you into a man.

Woe, I love your post!

Well it's sad to see you depart from this debate. I do understand that you cannot post any longer because your emotions are running a little too high. I don't think I ever said I am important. However, you seem to think I am very important as you seem to be very concerned with my posts and you seem to be quite intimidated by my knowledge about Hinduism and you try so graciously to get me down at every chance. Unfortunately, you fail to do so and I stand strong everytime. With that said, I wish you the the best. Do come back and respond sometime. If you would like some reading material, I wouldn't mind providing you a list. You said I can revere the Lord, I do and I have stated that and made it quite obvious that I surrender to Lord Krishna and HIS gospel-THE GITA. I think it was you who questioned his historicity and his linkage to the Gita. When I provided dates and research which proves that there are more possiblities leading towards a historical Krishna and that there are more possibilities that he spoke MOST of the Gita, you came with your usual non sense by claiming Lord Krishna may not have been real. If you believe that fine but you failed to back up any claims in doing so. I have faith in Lord Krishna! What do you have? Doubt? Well you can live your life in doubts and sink in the pool of illusion while I do away with my research on Hinduism and search for the truth in it. In addition, first you said that Lord Krishna may not be real but then after I provided my point of view, you switched your view and then began promoting the fact that if he was real then not all of the Gita could have been spoken by him given the dates. Do you actually read any of my posts? Or do you just come here and mouth out non sense for fun? If you read my EARLIER post then you would know that I have ALREADY stated that things have been added to Lord Krishna's Gita possibly due to tampering by the Brahmin class. So why do you wish to repeat something that I already touched upon? Either you don't care to read what I write because you don't care about this thread and are basically just coming here to boast your ego by trying to prove me wrong or you are just plain ignorant. I would go with the former. As I do not think you are an ignorant person. I am just indirectly hinting to you that you have a lot of learning to do. Why do you tell me to do "unbiased" research? Maybe you should tell yourself that. When I do research, I read from Pro-Hindu, Neutral and Anti-Hindu sites as I have ALREADY stated in an earlier post when I touched on the topic of Hinduism and historicity. Did you not read that as well? Wow, what are you responding to? Maybe you think I am biased due to my blatant criticism of the Brahmin class but that's only because from all the research I have done, my view leansthat way. I do not believe all Brahmins are bad BUT I do believe many are oppresive and they have tampered with Hinduism. I will never hesitate to criticize them either. There are millions suffering under their regime and I think you should think about those millions then thinking about the 4 percent of Brahmins that exist. Further, you ask me why I bring up Buddha and that you are not concerned with Buddha because we are focusing on Krishna. Again, maybe you should look OUTSIDE the box when you do research. As I have stated, when studying the hostoricity of Lord Krishna, it is vital to study the historicity of other religions and religious figures and how their life has been molded by scholars and historians. Just like it is essental to study any subject which are co-related to your particular subject as this gives you a better understanding and helps you gain perspective on topics. You obviously do not use this method and seem to stick to a one shot study of a person. That is fine but you still have not proven much to display how Lord Krishna did not speak the Gita or may not be real. You seem to be in doubt. I don't know what kind of Hindu you are. Maybe you believe in Brahman and formless creator, therefore you don't believe in the dieties and puranas. Maybe you follow only the Vedas as you do seem to display their superiority by stating that everything comes from it. If this is the case then you should state your beliefs then one can understand why you feel the way you do. Either way, I do not think a Hindu who does not revere the teacher is not strong. Lastly, you attack me by telling me that I am not bright. Maybe this was done as a come back since you failed to attack me with knowledge. Maybe you think I am not bright. I do not care. I have read many books and I know why I post what I post. Maybe you should stop posting with so much emotion. Maybe you don't like that fact. Whatever it is, you need to look within yourself because sometimes, that very feeling you accuse others of (paranoia) lies within yourself.

Number 2 Brahmins are also always pushing the Vedas on everyone and claiming that everything comes fron the Vedas. But you seem to be a promoter of the Vedas. Under your logic, the Vedas isn't needed either.

Number 2 Brahmins are only pushing puranic sotries as fact because they used it as a medium to gain popularity among majority of Hindus. Reading Puranic stories are a vital element if you have faith in a certain diety. Puranic stories are history and folklore and they have a lot of truth to them. Like I stated earlier, they have been rewritten and exagarated with far fetched stories. But Puranic stories are definitely fact. It has a lot of tradition and they have been recited and sung in poetry. For example if you are a devotee of Lord Krishna and if you are a faithful follower of HIS Gita, then you must read the Mahabharata as well as Harivamsa which contain his biography.

How do you prove the existence of Jesus? Buddha? Or any other historical figure? Like I have stated earlier, there is no way to prove the existence any God besides what has been written in stories, writing and scriptures. Like I have stated earlier, the puranas have a lot of history in them. But they have been rewritten with exagaration. All other religions have faith. Buddhists have faith in a Buddha, Christians have faith in Jesus and Muslims have faith Mohhamad but Hindus (LIKE YOU) do not have faith in your God's and Goddess's, you have faith in Brahmins.

Actually you are wrong on that point. But nice try. the Jataka tales of Buddhism has mythology, The bible stories have mythology and the Koran has mythology. Hindus are a weak people. They have more faith in the Brahmin that created the varna and wrote the Vedas then Lord Krishna that spoke the Gita. That is the truth and you very well demonstrated that. When I made the statement that Hindus who follow the Gita but do not believe in Lord Krishna are doing great dishonor. I meant THOSE HINDUS WHO DO FOLLOW THE GITA. As we know that not all do, many follow the Ramayana, Vedas and Upanishads. Please reread carefully because coming here and twisting my words around. Yes you must believe in Lord Krishna if you follow the Gita. The Gita was actually written only a few hundreds years after his suggested date-the most 400 hundred. Buddhists tests were also written a few hundred years after his death and same goes for many other ancient saints and sages. So given this logic no one should revere the the Lord that spoke the word in many religions. You don't make any sense. I do find it funny though how you reply to my posts by trying to stick up for the fact that Hindus should not be able to have to believe in the existence of their Lord. But when the issue of Brahmins scrweing around with Hinduism, you do everything to stick up for them and put your very faith in them. It is a known fact that Brahmins wanted everyone to pray to them not to the God's or Goddess's and you my friend are a great example of a person who has more faith in Brahmins then you do for Lord Krishna, Rama Shiva or Durga. I arrest my case.

Yes that is somwhat true. Hindus need to gain back their faith in the REAL Gods and Goddess's. If you do not believe your Lord exists then there why do arti to them? Why follow their teachings? You know the Puranas are stories about these Gods and Goddess's. Harivamsa Puranas depict the life and past times of Krishna. Puranas are history, stories, folklore and they have a lot of truth in them. I just believe certain things have been changed around and exagarated.

I believe all divine personalities such as Jesus, Krishna, Heru, Vishnu, Mohammad, and Buddha-Siddharta are all incarnations of the Lord. They all came in some form or another and did something for people and or showed them a path. However, I believe in ancient times it was a lot easier for one to accept a King or a philosopher as a form of God then it is in todays world-with the exception of some such as Sai Baba and certain Gurus who are seen as incarnations even today. My whole point here is the fact that there is a belief among some people that Hinduism is a mythical religion based on non historical characters while Buddhism and Jainism which also flourished on the same soil are seen as real historical truths. Further, this is freely accepted by many Hindus- to see their religion as a myth. This is nothing but weakness on the part of Hindus and this is the very reason why Hindus convert easily and lose faith because they are told so by Christian missionaries as well as some biased scholars. The fact is, while Hindus today thoroughly read the scriptures, they fail to read any history and thus believing what they are told by outsiders about their own religion. There are three types of scholars- those who are vedic, those who study Hinduism with a bias motive and those who are neutral. Now in my opinion, I do not trust the Vedic scholars as they often come up with ellaborate dates on scriptures and divine figures within Hinduism and you also have people like NS Rajaram who are a laughing stock among communities as he has been proved to be a fruad. This is not only among Hindus, pro Christian scholars and pro Islamic scholars are wacked in the head as well. The bias scholars or historians like Romila Thapar, AL Basham (in some cases) generally enter the field with their own motives. Romila Thapar teaches that Krishna and Rama never existed and that Hinduism is the worst religion in the world. Further, she constantly ties in Hindu nationalism and RSS in her books and writings which further shows that she is promoting lies about Hinduism in order to attack the RSS and nationalism. In addtion, her book hasn't been updated in decades and not to mention how she changed her theory around a few times with first promoting the Aryan invasion theory and then switching to migration theory. Communists have their own political agenda and in my eyes they are no different than any religious regime such as those Brahmins, Christian Churches and Islamic states that have casually murdered thousands and manipulated innocent people in the name of religion-the only difference is, communists do not do it in the name of religion. Further, why are Hindu Gods seen to be fake, while Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad are seen to be real? Have you thoroughly researched these characters? Do you know that there is just as good as possibility that all of these divine figures may as well be myths? Do you know that the story of Jesus is identical to an earlier Egyptian God named Heru? Do you know that there are 28 different Buddha's and there is no such way to tell which teachings contained in the Dhammapada belonged to which Buddha? Do you know that the Chinese dates for the birth of Buddha are 11 century BC, while Hindu dates are 1793 or 1807 BC, while Tibet gives 835 BC, while Sri Lankan dates give 483 B.C, but most western scholars go by the Sri Lankan date of 563-483BC. But why doesn't anyone care to question if he was real or not since there are so many supposed dates, not to mention a series of Buddhas? I am not trying to attack Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity or Islam here but rather trying to show people here that there you must research carefully and not listen to what anyone tells you. So why so some scholars pick of the historicity of Hinduism while not other religions? Simple, due to Brahmin supremacy and the disgusting and inhumane caste system they have imposed on India which many of them freely support and due to their violent history- there are a LOT of biased information against Hinduism. In addition, there is a myth bieng promoted by these biased scholars that Buddhism and Jainism were heroes and champions of the people because they gave India the doctrine of non-violence and peace while Hinduism gave them inequality through caste opression. In addtion, Hinduism is always seen as synonymous with Brahminism when actually majority of Hinduism contributors were people of non Brahmin class and only due to Brahmin power they are seen as the so called "inventors" of Hinduism. In short, Hinduism is a beautiful religion and many great saints, sages and divine personalities have contributed to it, but needs to be fixed. Buddhism and Jainism did refute the priestly class but they were neither a reform nor a protest to Hinduism because there was no such thing as Hinduism back then. There were many beliefs and honestly, the majority of those who are considered Hindu lived very peacefully with Buddhists and Jains.

Actually I wanted to say one more thing incase there may be that one person that will come back and try and refute the historicity if Krishna and the "Krishna cult" mentioned above on the basis that if they indeed were an ancient cult dating back to 600 BC or before and based on Upanishadic tradition then why were they not mentioned in Jaina and Buddha literature? Well simple as this- India has always had many spiritual traditions and the Buddha and Mahavir clearly lived sometime between 600-500 BC and bieng that India was a HUGE place, their teachings would have remained within their communities they preached and would have taken considerable amount of time to reach to all parts of India. On another note, Lord Krishna is mentioned in the Jataka tales of Buddhism as an ancient King along with his brother Balarama and Lord Krishna is obviously mentioned in Jaina literatures as the cousin of Neminath as well as other accounts based on their version of the Mahabharata and other stories. Here is a good link with information about Krishna and Buddha.... members.rediff.com/kmg/bk.htm

Well any Hindu or person that faithfully follows the Gita and does not believe in Lord Krishna is doing a great dishonor. At least this is my opinion. The Gita and Anu Gita are clearly spoken in a dialogue form and Lord Krishna is clearly the giver of the message. Therefore, you must honor thy deliverer and not they writer. In addition, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Lord Krishna was a historical person-a legendary non-aryan King (conquerer) and at least a savior or a divine hero in his community as the worship or "cult" of Krishna dates well back to 600 BC or even before. There is not much known about this cult but what is known is that they rejected fire sacrifices and penances and believed in simple rites of worship and followed the upanishadic approach to life. As per the Gita, the Mahabharata and his puranic stories, I believe there are historical truths in them. However, I also believe they are different from the original or how it may have happened originally as they have been re-written. The references to Krishna in the Chadogya Upanishad are anywhere from 900-700 BC and Sage Kapila lived sometime during 700 BC. It is often stated that the original teaching Lord Krishna gives Arjuna is based on the philosophy of Samkhya and karma yoga as well as the act of courage, action and bravery which is also originally have said to be teachings of Krishna.The rest are generally believed to be additions. But again this is based on mere faith. It is also important to note that the teachings that are stated in the Chandogya Upanishad which are imparted to Lord Krishna are said to match the teachings in the Gita.So this is evidence that the teachings within the Gita, at least a good portion of it are directly from Krishna. The fact that Vasya wrote the Gita doesn't mean we should worship him.In fact, in reality we do not know who the author of the Gita was. In addition, the discourse in the Gita was not written during the time of the battle field. It was Sanjaya who went back and directed the conversation to Vyasa and then he wrote it.Anyway, By this logic, Christians should worship the author of the bible and not Jesus, Buddhists should acknowledge the authors of the Dhammapada and not Buddha, Muslims should acknowledge the Angels that authored the Koran and not Mohhamad. I mean technically speaking, all of these authors that wrote the various teachings of all of these religions could have been anyone and could have written anything. In other words, the only reason why Lord Krishna's historicity is somewhat confusing is because there is not a good chronology of his life as all accounts of him are rather scattered and a bit confusing. The same goes for many Jain Gurus and early Buddhas. All ancient persons accounts are rather distorted somewhat. In addtion, If Lord Krishna was not a real person then the Jain Thirtankara Neminath would also not be a real person as they were both cousins, and I don't think that would go over well with the Jains. In addition, how do we know the Buddha was real? I mean we all know there was a historical person named Siddharta that was reffered to as the Buddha but there are a list of 28 different Buddhas! Why do Buddhists still have so much faith? And why doesn't anyone question the historicity of "the Buddha"? Same thing with Jesus and Mohhamad and Mahavir. There is no evidence these people ever existed other then evidence from scriptures, stories and writings and MAINLY, because these 4 have a better chronolical record depicting their life in a neat and timely manner. I arrest my case.

Out of the 700 hundred verses in the Gita, varna is mentioned twice.First is when Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that he has "created the 4 varnas according to qualities and energies", then a little later when Krishna mentions that "women and sudras can also attain Godhood" through him.Many scholars believe that the mention of varna has nothing to do with Lord Krishna's teachings in the Gita. It seems rather odd to them that caste references popped up out of no where. Some scholars are of the fact these were later interpolations.

Well, is anyone going to try and answer this question for our special guest here? There are other inquiring minds that want to know the answer to this question.

Really? Is this Adi Shankara? I know Adi Shankara was opposed to the Baghavata (Vaishnava) religion. But he did claim to be a follow of "Krishna" and he did write a commentary on the Gita. Althuogh he did not believe in the principle of action and only focused to knowledge. If you have any more information then please let me know.

Are you kidding me? Have you read the Manu Smriti? It was created by Brahmins and was IMPOSED on the entire soceity when they gained power with those Rajputs that supported them. It is said that the Brahmins gained power sometime after or during the Gupta Era, and this was exactly when the Manu Smirti was written (200BC-200AD). It was one of the most inhumane Law codes ever written. This is even been proven by Historians and Human Rights Organizations. And you are saying how can the Brahmins tamper with those texts while Hindus just sat there> Easy, look at the laws that were created to support and favor the Brahmins. Infact, one could not even harm a Brahmin he would have to be put to death or fined. Yea, I am sure the Hindus became really weak and innocent after that. Look at India now, everyone looks up to Brahmins, even though Brahmins continiously shut the doors on low castes and when a non-Brahmin wants to become a priest they are condemned by Brahmins for doing so. If it is that bad now, I can only imagine how bad it was a thousand years ago.The Dalits and Sudras do not even have the power to speak up. They say that God has made them this way-because they are told so by Brahmins. They are so weak-very weak.

Well that is your opinion. You shouldn't be reading ths thread if you do not wish to discuss historical context of Lord Krishna, Mahabharata(Gita) or Hinduism for that matter. The Srimad Bhagavatam was written hundreds and hundreds of years after Mahabharata and the Gita. As I have stated earlier, they are nothing but stories taken from an earlier volume called "Harivamsa" with Brahminical Ideologies added on to it. It is a text made for Brahmins by Brahmins. I have no problem if Brahmins wish to follow it to satisfy their own ego but I do not believe Lord Krishna who lived long long ago was so pro Brahmin that he lived only for the dire sake of Brahmins. Brahmins were always a minority so it is highly unlikely that Lord Krishna was sooo supportive of them. In addition, Lord Krishna did some things which were directly anti-Brahmin. However, I do not believe he hated all Brahmins. The Brahmins on the other hand did a good job of making Lord Kirishna their slave in Srimad Bhagavatam. The difference between the Bhagavatam and Gita (Mahabharata) is like the difference between the old and new testament of the Bible.

I finally made an account! Well that's a better explanation. Although, I have to say that I cannot fathom the concept of Avatars as a Brahminical one since it was completely absent in early Vedic tradition. So are you Hindu? Well if you are then I must say I don't meet too many Hindus who see most things on the same plane. I have always been curious to research Hinduism as we know it today due to many things that didn't make sense to me.Most people I talk to often turn away from Hinduism because they find it rather confusing or unorganized. I cant blame them as I was in the same boat and I grew up a Hindu! I am a true seeker and learner in that sense and I believe the highest truth and spirituality is one that not only lies in the past but remains hidden in this age of Kali Yug. You must search for it. With that said, bieng a devotee of Lord Krishna I decided to do extensive research on Lord Krishna's character. So far I have learned a lot, although I am sure I have a lot more to do and any reference would help. I have ordered the three volume set of Harivamsa and will be reading those thoroughly. This is my intake so far atleast in dealing with Lord Krishna's character, I can go into details with Hinduism in general but that would take up a lot of time as Hinduism is a vast majority of traditions. In my opinion, and I am not writing for the sake of bieng a believer in Krishna but I have read a few scholars who claim Krishna was not historical, but I believe that Lord Krishna was without a doubt a real historical person that lived as a king, a saviour of his community, and a philosopher. As to when he lived in in the air and I can only speculate somewhere between 900BC-600BC. I do not agree with the Vedic dates such as 3102BC. What I know of Lord Krishna is from his Puranic stories which are historical accounts and folktales. I do not believe Lord Krishna had 16,008 wives. I believe that was either a methaphor or a cunning attempt by Brahmins to ridicule his character which is not unusual as they did that with Buddha in the Puranas as well. As far as Radha, I do not believe she was historically the wife of Krishna. Krishna had other wives namely Rukmini. Again, Radha is either an imaginery character cooked up by Brahmin poets or MAYBE a historical woman who was devoted to Krishna sometime WAY later down on the line.Something like Meera Bai. This is the reason why it is said through Radha one can attain Krishna's love. This is a methaphor. I believe Lord Krishna was the son of Devaki. Lord Krishna is also named Kesava, Kanha, and namely Vasudeva. Vasudeva means "Snake God" and it was nothing but another name for Krishna. As far as Vasudev bieng Krishna's father is questionable. I think Krishna, Vasudeva, Kesava, Kanha were the same person-Krishna. Just as Buddha goes by Buddha, Siddharta, Sakyamuni etc... I do not believe Vasudeva was different from Krishna as a few scholars have stated. I believe they are the same person. With that said, there are many references to Krishna (Vasudeva) in greek writings. It is also a well attested fact that Krishna, arjuna and Balarama were bieng worshipped as saints in earlier times.In addition, Lord Krishna is historically the cousin of the 22nd Jain thirankara Neminath. Neminath is said to have lived during the age of the early Upanishads. Howeever, since these are all ancient persons and therem hasn't been an accurate chronology of their life their history is somewhat obscured. But suffice to say, if Neminath is Lord Krishna's cousin and if he lived during the early period of the Upanishads then it makes sense as to Lord Krishna's teachings in the Gita which is also contained in the Upanidhads. Also, according to many Jains, Lord Krishna was Jain and Gora Angirasa of Chandogya Upanishad is none other then Jain saint Neminath. There are some scholars that also support this fact. I do not rely on Srimad Bhagavatam. They were written much later then The Gita and the Mahabharata. They are nothing but stories taken from the earlier volume Harivamsa with Brahminical ideologies added on to it. I only follow the Gita and Mahabharata. However, I do believe The Gita has been changed here and there due to Brahminical interpolation. It is obvious because the early religion of the Bhagavatas, whom worshipped Krishna did not believe in sacrifices and penances and these occur in the Gita. How so? Weird. Anyhow, thanks for the book references, I will be sure to check them out.