hindu12

For one of the few times hindu12, I find myself agreeing with you.

 

I don't think the Puranas are entirely fake. I think some contain allegorical and metaphorical language that we interpret literally. The puranas as we know them today were believed to be compiled and edited from ancient stories, histories and traditions that the people already knew. However, I do find stories like that of Ganesh and how he got his elephant head a little hard to take literally. There are also a number of contradicting stories about how he broke his tusk. It doesn't bother me too much.

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.

There's nothing to get over. This discussion is not going to get anywhere. At the end of the day, you're still going to have your views and I'm still going to have mine. You're free to pursue your research, but you can't convince everyone.

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.

I have no argument with that and would agree. But you don't seem to think so. I can only blame your paranoia. Anyone you disagree with you see as your enemy.

 

 

 

I do care when people promote nonsense about Hinduism, which you seem happy in doing. Some of what you say is true, but some is pure paranoid nonsense created by your pathetic grade-D "research".

 

Why not reply to quotes seperately? It's easy. Just because you are incapable of doing so, since you haven't worked out how. Here's a clue, copy-and-paste.

 

 

 

Actually if you look at my older posts you will find that I get along with many other posters here and we have proper discussions. But you don't like to see anything that makes you look wrong.

Rant and rave? Funny to see you use words that you yourself put in action. I don't think you have much of a vocabulary for the reason you use my description of you. And if you want to see a ranting and raving kid, go look in the mirror and you'll see one staring right back at you.

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.

It's amazing, I'm having a discussion with someone else on this thread and you have to jump in and pollute it.

 

Actually here is what I was responding to what shvu said. Pay attention..

 

 

 

As for pushing the Puranas, nobody has asked me further about that apart from you. Brahmins do push the puranas alot. Alot of the stories they tell are from the Puranas, not the Vedas. They keep the Vedas exclusively for themselves. Pushing the Puranas means promoting the teachings, stories, etc from the Puranas. The main gods we worship today (Shiva, Ganesh, Vishnu, Shakti) are from the puranas.

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.

I don't need to make you look dumb, you already doing a good job at that! With every post you give, it makes you looks worse than before. There's not much else to say when it comes to you changing names (aka realhindu50-51).

 

 

 

I've been here on this site much longer than you and most of the posters here are mature enough not to jump in and take sides. If they disagree they will put forward their arguments in a sensible manner. Everyone else on this thread I can have a decent discussion with, it's just you who is a problem.

 

Knocked out? You really are a child! Is that the language you use? Let me remind you this is a message board where we discuss Hinduism in a decent manner. If you disagree with someone, kindly agree to disagree. You seem to have got this confused with a boxing match. I can't take you seriously, since it's clear by your character that you do not practice the Gita and since you use language like knocked out, there's no telling what your mental-age is. That's why you view this as a confrontation, when it's really an open discussion.

 

 

 

I do care about people spreading silly conspiracy theories. Hinduism has had enough bashing from westerners, marxists, anti-hindu groups, christians and muslims now we don't need your paranoid immature rantings to damage it's study further.

 

 

 

Yeah, but nothing of any substance. What's the point? You're incapable of having a proper discussion. You don't want to discuss why YOU think Mohammed was an incarnation of the lord? you do not want to discuss further than according to YOU the Gita was tampered with by brahmins, so therefore what we have today is a tampered version? You are quiet on these things because you know you look stupid. Niranjan asked you (under your guise of realhindu51) where it was that Vivekananda and Aurobindo have said that the Gita is not the same today as it was. You said you will find the source and quote it for him. I'm interested in seeing the source too. We're still waiting?

 

 

 

Like I've said I didn't say I didn't believe in Krishna's historicity, I've said I've come across Hindus who don't. That does not mean it is my opinion. I've said most of them are impersonalists. You still don't seem to get that. I'm happy to be an open-minded person, it doesn't affect my faith.

 

 

 

That was a funny one! You're the most ego-centric person on this site. You are nothing but your ego. You tell people who disagree with you that they need to do serious research, yet your own research as you have demonstarted seems to be flawed. At the end of the day, you can carry on your ranting and raving until you're on your death-bed, you would not have made any spiritual progress in life as you don't even practice the basics of Sri Krishna's teachings.

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.

You need to ask hindu12 about what he means about "pushing the vedas". The guy has formed opinions and allegations about me which I know are completely off mark. But I'll let him continue his fantasy.

 

I agree, most Brahmins I meet today are like other Hindus and are very materialistic and less spiritual. But they still like to hold on to the title of Brahmin. I think it's wrong to call yourself a Brahmin if you don't have the qualities and character required of a Brahmin as given in the Gita.

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.

Conspiracy theories because you are the only one pushing them. You can back up all your sources as much as you want but you're the only one who believes them as well as your make-believe friends like 'warriorboy'. It is truly sad that you need to make up friends in order to support your views because you know you're a loser in real life. I don't agree with you because some of what you say is pure nonsense. I don't agree with pure nonsense, deal with it.

 

 

 

TKO'd? Is that the language you use? You really are a little boy, or have the mentality of one. You are too immature to even be on this site. Stop proving your immaturity, you've done so already.

I've been on this board long before you've come and polluted it. I will not leave at your request, so dream on little boy.

 

 

 

That was so funny warriorboy! So now you admit you don't read properly? You seem to think everything I write is directed at you. That's your ego talking again, understand other posters on this site are far more decent and respectable than you. Please start practicing Sri Krishna's teaching if you really care.

 

 

 

Ha-ha! You find it comical and enjoyable? You do not deserve to be called a Hindu, because if you are familiar with Hindu teachings you will know that the sort of attitude you display is not in line with being a good Hindu. You're a joke to say the least. But I know you will want to reply being a confrontational nut and slave to your damaged ego.

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.

I am inclined to agree with you. What does pushing the Vedas mean exactly?

 

Brahmins are made out to be villains for things they are not really interested in or have any knowledge of, in my opinion. This is the 21st century and Brahmins - just like other Indians - are more interested in upgrading their mobile phones to the latest models and buying Santro cars.

 

The majority of them have no clue on the teachings of their respective affiliations and more importantly they do not care. They have more interesting things to spend their time on and there is nothing wrong in that. It is a very different world that we live in today compared to just 300 years ago.

 

"Pushing the Vedas" is a complaint that may have been valid a few centuries back, but is totally out of place in today's world. When dealing with topics such as Brahman oppression, we need to be aware that a lot of them originated when times were very different and are no longer applicable. Let us not lose sight of reality.

 

Cheers

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.

Thanks for the long reply, again full of pure paranoia. I can see from your

extra long post, you've really let yourself loose on me.

 

Who said I'm departing from this debate? I just said I can't talk with people like you, who are nothing but confrontational. I see this as a discussion to understand more, not an argument. And you take it bad that I don't believe in your conspiracy theory's, I really couldn't care less. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other stuff.

 

 

 

Dream on buddy, fanning your own ego as usual. I'm not trying to get you down, if you get yourself down, then it's your own fault. You certainly haven't learn't some of Sri Krishna's most basic teachings about the ego. You haven't once stood stong since you came onto this site. You have some of the weirdest ideas that I just cannot take you seriously. At least with some of the other posters here we can have an intellectual debate, but you are just a slave to your ego.

 

 

 

The thing is you are jumping to conclusions again. I said some Hindus do not believe in Lord Krishna but follow the Gita and from talking with them I've given their reasons why. If you must know they are usually Impersonalists who follow advaita or neo-advaita. I never said I didn't believe in Lord Krishna. Some Hindu's, does not mean me, it means some Hindu's who I have come across. But since you're the paranoid type, dream on.

 

 

 

Well good for you. But it's a shame you can't put his teachings into practice as you have clearly demonstrated.

 

 

 

Why not discuss it? Why avoid it? If Brahmins did really tamper with it as you say, is the Gita we have today the exact same words (100%) that Sri Krishna gave to Arjuna all those years ago?

 

 

 

Well then you are admitting you really are warriorboy, because it was to him I told to do unbiased research. It's quite sad that you need to come under another name to show support for yourself. Actually I do unbiased research taking in what makes sense from a variety of different sources and things that are hard to believe with a pinch of salt. And I find too many groups of researchers have their own agenda so it's hard to trust many of them. I tend to believe in the historical Krishna and when it comes to all aspects of life, I'm a seeker of truth.

 

 

 

Well I share your views on Brahmins. But like all people in all groups, you've got good and bad. What I don't like is Brahmins who do not live the life or have the character of a brahmin as given in the Gita, but still go around demanding others respect them just because they are born into a Brahmin family.

 

 

 

Well I do think that you're incapable of having a decent discussion, as I've already tried with you. It's as simple as that. If someone brings up another point you disagree with, you jump down their throats! This does not display maturity, but rather insecurity and fanaticism. I can't talk with people like that because most of them are a waste of time.

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.

I am not saying that vedas is must.

 

I am not saying it is important like a oxygen.

 

I am just stating that it is just a any other book of todays generation.

 

As per today's generation there are many books of Chemistry, Geographic, Mathematics. I am just refering to the Vedic Mathematics and other substance contained in those Vedas, I am not at all interested in the authority of Brahmin mentioned in the vedas.

 

Veda in those days were just a bunch of pages which contained all the information that were available in those days documented into it.

 

I am not refering to any vedic religion.

 

Now suppose a person has a book of Mathematics, Socialogy etc. of some author and now if that peson belong to a higher caste then he will add a clause into that books asking people to respect him and hate others. This clause has got nothing to do with other contents of the same book but still he will add it if he has the authority or control over Vedas, Just like how a Pope of vatican has a control over Bible he can add any nonense to it whether it makes sense or no.

 

Treat Vedas just like any other book. Discard that nonsense mentioned in vedas about caste system and other unwanted things. Preseve the information like how to calculate effectively using Vedic Mathematics etc..

 

About the Religion of Indus Valley.

 

It is very clearly that earlier there were many tribes in India who used to pratice different culture and religion. In earlier times they did not gave any specific name for an religion. I agree that Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism existend since ancient times but they were not called as Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

Earlier there was intensive trading going on through Spice route and silk route. Many of our Indian Traders settled in Arabian Peninsula. Goods used to be deposited over there like a hub and later on transfered to different parts of the European. Our Traders used to dump all the gold into Indian Subcontinent they were rich enough to take decisions but still they did not interefered into the internal matters because they were alwasy outdoor in touring. At the same time the were Pirates and Dacoits who used to robe these Caravan of trade. It all started after Brahmins when Brahmins claimed themselves to be of higher caste due to the (Capitalist) Traders who rejected the authority of Brahmins adopted principles of Jains and hence Jainism developed. The Brahmins gave Janivar to those Kshatriyas who accepted Brahmins as first and accepted themselves to be second to Brahmin just like how the Traders rejected the authority of Brahmins so did other Kshtrayias hence they were called as Degraded Kshtrayias. These Kshtrayias accepted doctrine of Buddha and hence Buddhism devloped.

 

In earlier times Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism did exists but they were just called as Dharma.

 

Sri Ram himself told about Dharma. Sri Krishna told about Dharma. Swami Vardhman himself told about Dharma and even Gautam Buddha told about Dharma. In ancient times even in Indus valley civilization as well as Ayodhya it was Dharma and not just Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

Guru Nanak himself broke the Janivar and he is still considered as the great teacher. This shows that there is no need to practices unnecessary rituals. People are borthered about the rituals but they are not following any Dharmic principles. Guru Nanak himself broke traditions and see the gurus who came later on created and imposed new tradition like mandating Turban wearing etc. If Guru Nanak would have come again then he will definitely ridicule such meaningless tradition and ritual.

 

Swami Vardhman Mahaveera never made nakedness and mandatory principle. Even he used to wear a piece of cloth but when he found another person who needed the cloth more than him hence he gave that cloth to that person and he did not had any money to purchase another so he was not at all bothered about it. In our country there were many ascetics who used to penance either naked or used to wear a Langoti(underwear like thing) so that does not means all of them are Digamabara sect of Jains. Take for e.g. Swami Nityanand he used to wear just a Langot but he was nto a Jain. Also if a person walks on a street wearing a langot or an underwear he is still considered or teased as naked so there can be possible that Swami Vardhman Mahaveera might be wearing a Langoti or just convered himself with leaves but still public of those days used to tease him calling him to be naked.

 

Public remains the same whether it is this generation or earlier generation. If we feel pleasure in teasing on another person's clothing, way of speaking, his cultural background, his racial background then it was same even in those days nothing difference. People who don't have any work they do all these things like insulting others without any logical reasoning. What was the use of abusing Sri Ram, Sri Krishna, Swami Vardhman and Gautam Buddha when they were the only one in recent era to attain nirvana whereas those who abused are gone back to ground today the condition of Brahmin is getting deterioted day by day. They are reaping what they sowed they corrupted and spoiled our Dharmic culture for their selfish needs just like what Pope did to Jews. Gods sees even one with one eyes. But at the same time even though it is the fault of the Brahmin of ancient times not all Brahmins are to be blamed, there were many of them who followed the rules and regulations laid by their ancestors without logically reasoning. Some Brahmins unknowingly followed the selfish rules and regulations made by selfish ones. There are selfish people in all caste there are many selfish people even among the Dalits as well as Brahmins. If there were really good people among the Dalits then their conditions would have improved by now but these selfish people are using Dalits for their personal benifit and not for the welfare of the Dalits in general. The head of Dalits have made huge properties for themselves but are unnecessary initiating poor Dalits into violence at the cost of the life of those innocent Dalits and poor policeman they are ruling. All are same blaming one and another is of no use.

 

The reason why magical things were added to the religion was that in those days and even today people do believe in Chamatkar hence it is called "Chamatkar ko Namaskar". If you explain them logically they are not going to belive hence they added magical things into the religion inorder to attract people and trick them to follow some rules and regulations may be for the good cause or for a bad cause. But now things are changing people are excepting things only when it is logically justified. So if you want to explain Dharmic religion and want to work for it's benefit then explain it logically.

 

No one came from the Head of God and no one came from the Foot of God. Every one came from the heart of God whether it is a brahmin or a dalit.

 

If you consider a Dalit as a person who cleans dirt then consider Brahmin as a person who cleans idols. Brahmins did not developed the economy of our country. Brahmins did not invent anything it was all done by shramans(Indian ascetics who can be of any caste) and intellectual of that era. Brahmins just sat on all those research book and added few nonsense and claimed it to be theirs.

 

True Soldiers, Good Teachers, Decent Social Activist and the people who help in developing the economy of our country should be given respect whether they are Brahmin or a Dalit.

 

Bhakti should be from heart to the God.

Woe, I love your post!

Twisting your words around? Don't think you're so important! You appear rather arrogant or paranoid whenever someone questions your posts. And if you are really a follower of Krishna you will know arrogance is not a good thing. You seem to take everything as a confrontation.

 

 

 

You can revere the lord no problem, but if you read what I've said I said that the Gita as we have today may not be what Sri Krishna actually said word for word. You yourself believed Brahmins have tampered with it. So therefore it's a corrupted Gita we have today. As for Buddhists text being written after Buddha, so what? I'm not concerned about them. I'm focusing on the Gita and Sri Krishna.

 

 

 

I don't make any sense, or you maybe you're not bright enough to understand. Now I've said about your jumping to conclusions before and here you go and demonstrate it again. You don't come across as very bright, just some joker with weird ideas who liked to force his version of Hinduism to others. I'm not even going to say anything else about Brahmins and putting my faith in them? You really don't know a thing about me. I've been here on this board for a long time, while you haven't seen the many posts where I've criticised them. Yet you form a totally inaccurate picture in your head that I'm a defender of Brahmins. There is nothing more to say to people like you. You can live in your world of paranoia forever, for all that I care.

 

 

 

Actually YOU have no idea what you're talking about. You need to do some research and I mean un-biased research. When did Krishna live? some say 5000 years ago, Some say 900-600 BC. But the Gita came later around 600-300BC or as some say later. So there can be no proof that it was entirely his words, maybe some of it was, but some could've been added. Hindu12 has even said that Brahmins have tampered with it, so how can it be the pure words of Krishna? I wonder if you really are hindu12 coming on under another name. I wouldn't be surprised.

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.

That's why Brahmins are always pushing the puranic stories as fact and associated rituals/festivals which may not be needed.

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.

Maybe that is true, it makes sense. That's why Brahmins are always pushing the puranic stories as fact and associated rituals/festivals which may not be needed. But it is true that the 'myths' within Hinduism are driving away many young Hindus. I spoke to a Hindu girl who is now an agnostic, who said "Hinduism...I don't want to follow that fairy-tale religion, it's for stupid people with no sense".

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.

Alot of it is really because of the stories of the puranas. Some of the stories do appear far-fetched, so when a scholar says it's mythology, the Hindus agree because it's the easy way out of having to explain something like the story of Ganesh. In your opinion how do you prove the existence of the 'REAL gods and goddesses'?

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.

Alot of it is really because of the stories of the puranas. Some of the stories do appear far-fetched, so when a scholar says it's mythology, the Hindus agree because it's the easy way out of having to explain something like the story of Ganesh. In your opinion how do you prove the existence of the 'REAL gods and goddesses'?

 

 

 

But you said that Hinduism is a modern word used to describe all the different religions in India. But not all Hindus follow or believe in the Gita, for example the schools of Shaiva Siddhanta and Tantra do not follow the Gita. So are they doing a great dishonour, since the Gita was never accepted in their canon of scriptures?

 

Speaking to those who do faithfully follow Gita but do not believe in Krishna, it's because of Krishna supposedly living in an earlier age than when the Gita was written, so therefore it cannot be his actual words, but of someone else who wrote it later. They get their inspiration from the Sage that wrote the Gita. There is quite alot of Hindus I've come across who share this view. They follow it because all the teachings in it is consistent with the Upanishads and makes the Vedanta philosophy practical to everyday life. They view Krishna as being symbolic of Brahman.

 

 

 

Mohammad an incarnation of the Lord? What's wrong with you! The fact that you would include him there cheapens the whole idea of divine incarnations. And I'm sure muslims would want to kill you for saying that.

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.

Quite interesting indeed. You are right. It seems as if though Hindus have

more faith is varna dharma then they do with the existence of their own Gods. If you ask a Hindu whether Krishna spoke the Gita or whether any of their Gods exist, they will freely tell you that it's probably a myth not reality. However, if you ask Hindus whether they think Varna Dharam was an interpolation within the Gita or whether it is needed to be followed, they will do everything to tell people how varna dharam is in the scriptures and it is a vital part of Hinduism. They will do everything to stick up for their varna dharam. It cannot be a bad element within Hinduism, the Brahmins could not have screwed with the scriptutes, but the Gods, oh their probably not real. Amazing.

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

Yes, I'm aware of those verses. There are also verses in favour of women, despite the fact that manu smriti is also seen as sexist. Groups like the Arya Samaj try to bring out positive teachings in the Vedas and manu smriti, but you will still get a backlash from people like 'hindu12', who can't seem to tolerate anything from the Vedas.

 

 

 

OK so I read from your previous posts that you believe Krishna was historical and those dates you provided is what I would agree on if a historical Krishna ever did live at all. Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (900BC) with his guru being Ghora Angirasa. This could be a reference to the real historical Krishna. Sometimes I wonder if the puranic Krishna is all the Krishna's in one person including Sage Vyasa whose name was also Krishna. Maybe he started the school of Vedanta as the Gita is largely a Vedantic text and Krishna says "I am the author of the Vedanta".

I want to know if you believe the Gita is the world of the historical Krishna or not. I say this as those dates you gave for the historical Krishna indicates that the Gita is not from his mouth as it came a few hundred years later. I've come across Hindus who don't believe in Krishna but take the Gita as their scripture as they see it as a true scripture for god-realisation written by Vyasa as a diologue between God and man. It it Vyasa they honour, not Krishna. Although they don't believe it came from Lord Krishna's mouth , they believe the information it contains is true for any seeker of God.

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.

The Gita only describes the traits of the Brahmana, which is contemplation of God, straightforwardness,control of the senses, purity of mind and body, and adherence to truth, and anyone who practices this can be a Brahmana.

 

Nowhere in the Gita is it found to be supporting a hereditary caste system.

 

 

Sree Narayana Guru, an enlightened master hailing from Kerala and from the Shudra caste , rebelled successfully against the Brahmins, and opened temples for the shudras and dalits and worked for their welfare and upliftment. He also established an order of monks or sannyasins whom he trained in meditation and yoga.

And from the testimony of one of his sannyasins , it was a rule in his time to chant verses from the Gita before taking lunch. From this it can be understood that he revered the Gita.

 

And it is a common sight to see the statues of Krishna alongside the statues of Sree Narayana Guru , in his institutions in south India.

 

The fact that a shudra spiritual master like him, who have staunchly challenged the Brahmins, still revered the Gita shows that there is no discriminatory verses whatsoever in the Gita,which upholds a birth based caste system.

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.

Why are there clear references to Shankara by name and his demonic school in some Vaishnava Puranas which were never noticed for several centuries even after the time of Shankara?

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.

Exactly so. The Gita does not support caste discrimination and says even a shudra can attain the supreme. It seems rather odd that it could've been tampered with by Brahmins and not boost their importance. I do find the idea of Brahmins tampering all those numerous scriptures quite silly and what were all the other Hindus doing when this supposedly happened. I find these other Hindus must've been incredibly stupid, weak and not worthy of any respect if they just sat down and let this happen. Their's own scriptures being tampered with by Brahmins and them not even preserving the original message!

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.

Please do so immediately. Only after that will I accept your saying that Vivekananda and Aurobinda had said that the Gita had been tampered.

 

And I don't think there is any proof to show that the Brahmins have tampered the Gita.

Krishna himself in the Gita criticizes the flowery words of the Vedas, and opens the way to salvation to vaishyas, shudras and women.

 

If the Brahmins have tampered with it, they would have immediately removed these verses from the Gita, but we do not find it to be so.

 

Similarly in the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharatha, we find Krishna rebelling successfully against the worship of Indra by the Brahmins and humbling Indra.

Again if the Brahmins have tampered with these texts, we would not have found these episodes in Krishna's life.

 

We should understand that the Vaishnavas themselves, who worship Krishna as the Lord himself, would have found it a great blasphemy to tamper with the Gita or the Mahabharatha or the Bhagavatam, and hence for this reason I must say the Gita at the present moment is what it is 5000 years back.

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 think we are almost alike in our thinking here - except for the avatar part.

 

I am not saying Krishna and Rama are fake Gods. It is clear that Krishna and Rama are not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas, but are big names in the Purana literature. So either they came after the Vedas or were already well established as divine personalities in non-Brahmana religions. Eventually they all came together in some fashion to form the new evolved religion which we now call Hinduism. I say Krishna and Rama were turned into avatars at this point by the Brahmanas just like they tried the same with the Buddha and other local Gods too. I think you will disagree with this one, but this is my theory. We have seen this happen in more recent times too where every Guru (Shankara, Madhva, Chaitanya, Sai Baba...) is avatarized by their followers. It is also of interest that the ISKCON position that Krishna is *not* an avatar of Vishnu, but everything including Vishnu come from Krishna existed even before the formation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In other words, there was at least one group that rejected the popular list of Vishnu's avatars.

 

The chief objective of the Gita is to motivate Arjuna to work. That way the Gita is primarily a Karma yoga text. This is why I say it is very likely that it was not a full blown religious text originally. The Puranas were primarily history and folklore - unlike the heavy religious bodies that they are today. The Brahmanas used the Puranas as a medium to disseminate the new form of their religion. Purana research is an intriguing topic and like I said earlier you can consult Pargiter, RC Hazra, Dasgupta, et al., for a critical view of their development into the present state.

 

Cheers

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.