More about: LORD KRISHNA's historicity

[Guest guest]

>"indologia2000" <indologia

>"Vrn Davan" <vaidika1008

>More about: LORD KRISHNA's historicity

>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:40:30 -0000

>

>---

>Lord Krishna was recognised by scholar's time ago.

>Time to time, there are attempts of looking for more evidences to

>support our understanding about the historical means of our spiritual

>knowledge. But in the eagerness of get out our doubts, some time we

>are contributing with news founds. Nevertheless, is necessary

>maintain in mind, don't be offensive and unethic or bioethical in the

>name of to be ourselves so called racionalistics or cientifics and

>used hypercritical language for Lord Krishna and vedic history. For

>example is very used in the Indological books, even from hindus

>authors, words like mythology that means- mitos- untruth, int the

>greek root of the spanish word men-ti-ra, falsity, Sanskrit- mithya.

>Other example is when some traditional believers said, "In this work

>I will be probing that Lord Krishna was a historical personality",

>etc.. Because, Lord had been recognised for time ago like historical

>fact:

>Dr. Bimabihari Majumdar 1968: "The westerns scholars at first treated

>Krishna as a myth... But many of the orietalist in the present

>century have arrived at the conclusion that Krishna was a ksatrya

>warrior who fought at Kuruksetra,..." (1).

>Dr. R. C. Majumdar 1958: "There is now a general consensus of

>opinion in favour of the historicity of Krishna. Many also hold the

>view that Vâsudeva the Yadava hero, the cowherd boy Krishna in

>Gokula..were one and the same person." (2)

>

> Horace H. Wilson, 1870: "Rama and Krishna, who appear to have been

>originally real and historical characters,.." (3)

>

>Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, 1978: "From a strictly scholarly, historical

>standpoint, the KRISNA WHO APPEARS in the Bhagavad-Gita is the

>princely Krishna of the Mahabharata... Krishna the historical prince

>and charioteer of Arjuna." (4)

>

>The New British Encyclopaedia: "Vasudeva-Krisna, a Vrisni prince who

>was presumably also a religious leader levitated to the godhead by

>the 5th century B C." (5)

>

>Rodolf Otto, 1933: "That Krishna himself was a historical figure is

>indeed quite indubitable." (6).

>

>1.-Majundar, Bimabihari. Krishna in the History and Legend.

>University of Calcutta. 1969 pp. 5

>2.-Majundar, R. C. The History and Culture of the Indian people, vol.

>i pp. 303.

>3.-Wilson, Horace H. The Visnu Purana. Nag publisher's 1989 pp.ii

>4.- Hopkins, Thomas j. et al. Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna. Five

>destined Scholars on the Krishna movement in the West. Grooves Press,

>N.Y. l983, pp.144.

>5.-The New Encyclopaedia Britannic, 1984 vol. 7 micropedia, pp.7

>6.- Otto, Rodolfo.The Original Gita, cit for Majumdar Bimabihari, ot.

>cit. pp.5

>

>

>Preciado in the Sophistic Cycle.

>Contracritique to: Firsts historical evidences of Krishna.

>Primeras Evidencias Históricas Sobre Krishna"

>Estudios de Asia y África, Vol. XV; #4

>Benjamín Preciado Solís

>

>By Hare Krishna Das, Who is graduade student in the Education

>sciences and Humanities faculty in the U A de C, Round Campus and

>Priest of Radha Govinda Mandir of ISKCON in Saltillo City, Northeast

>in Mexico

>

>One indologist, Benjamin Preciado Solis, published a lectured in

>l980, where try of dazzle the first historical evidences about Sri

>Krishna Vâsudeva

>( c. 3200-•3175 B. C.), the magnanimous Yadava prince, identified

>like Godhead incarnate in the Indian culture. Like a good expert,

>tentatively drives puzzle concepts, supported in the Christian

>borrowinist like Lessen, Weber, E. Hopkins, etc. He, besides bowdown

>before other British imperialist scholar, passed away a little while

>ago; obsessed with the same thought, A. L. Bhasam.

>Preciado was so honest in recognising his inability to arrived to a

>conclusion on the topic, creating a trinket hypothesis. Where He

>adulteres the age of Ghata jataka and the Puranas where He transfers

>them to the Christian era. This has been a bogus thing, because the

>Ghata jataka date of the III century B.C., and the Puranas are

>mentioned in the old Upanishads like Chandogya 7.1.14, Brhat-

>Aranyaka 2.4.10 and others archaic texts.

>Although he said many incongrouences, the worst was, when he referred

>to the evidences: "We can count those evidences with the fingers of

>our hands". And after he stated: "The evidence is obtained from

>fourteen sources—eight literary and six archeological". At this

>moment we should point out, that any child in the kindergarden

>(unless he has learning problems) can count that in every hand He has

>five fingers or ten as a total. Also we can denote how nowadays, the

>deaf-mute language is thought to the simians like chimpanzee and

>gorillas and they know very well how to count up to five in each

>hand, or ten on total. Therefore it's amazing, how in this sense, Dr.

>Preciado asserts such thing.

> However, a close study of his own evidences, that he mentions, shows

>us that they are more than fourteen:

>1.-Chandogya 3.17: Krishna Devakiputra.

>2.-Astadyayi de Panini. Mentions of Krishna .

>3.- Niruty of Yaska: Krishna and his wives Jambavati and Satyabhama.

>4.-Bhaudayana-dharma-Sutra, where tree names of Krishna are

>mentioned: "Kesava, Govinda and Damodara".But in this quote there

>are more than that: "Madhva, Madhusudana, Hrsikesha, Padmanabha and

>Vishnu", usually mentioned to describe Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita

>as well as Srimad Bhagavatam; and the book makes reference to "the

>servants of Vishnu".

>5.-Preciado quoted the Indica of Megastenes, where we can see:

>Surasena, the Yadus's King, Mathura,the birth city of Krishna,

>Krishnapura o Kampura, Yamuna river, Krishna like Hari.

>6.-Quinto Curcio, who mentioned the "Poros" (Purus), with a deity of

>Krishna Hari, in front of the battle with Alexander the great.

>7.-Artha-sastra of Chanakya, gives the following references: Krishna

>and Kamsa, the birth history of Krishna, the Vrishnis, Dvaipayana or

>Vyasa, Balarama and devotees of Krishna, shave which braid (sika).

>8.-Mahanarayana Upanisad, that mentions Krishna Vasudeva, recognised

>as Vishnu-Narayana.

>9.-Mahabharata, where Krishna is mentioned everywhere.

>10.-Bhagavad-gita, Krishna teachings.

>11.-Grammatical Patanjali where he explains: Krishna is not an

>ordinary king; but the supreme, Krishna the enemy of Kamsa, Balarama,

>Janardana (Krishna), one temple of Balarama and Kesava (Krishna),

>Akrura the uncle, Svapalka the granduncle, Ugrasena his grandfather,

>Vasudeva, Balarama, Andhakas, Vrishnis, Kurus.

>12.-Maitreniya samhita of Yajur Veda, makes allusions to Krishna in

>the Narayana gayatri similar to Mahanarayana Upanisad quoted before,

>but according to him, without the name Vasudeva.

>13.- Nidesa, a Buddhist book, shows Krishna and Balaram.

>14.-Ghata jataka, refering to Krishna as Vâsudeva.

>

>

>Among archaeological:

>15.-Heliodoro column, mentions Vâsudeva, God of gods.

>16.- Ghosundi inscription about Bhagavan Sankarshan and Vâsudeva.

>17.- Hathibada inscription, about Bhagavan Sankarshan and Vâsudeva

>too.

>18.-Other column of Garuda in Besnegar, of such a king Bhagavata,

>dedicated to Bhagavata (Vasudeva).

>19.-The cave of queen Nagnika in Decan, it has inscriptions of

>Sankarshan and Vâsudeva.

>20.-Mora inscription makes reference to Krishna and Balarama, also to

>Krishna's sons: Pradyumna, Samba, Aniruddha.

>21.-The inscription of Sodasa in Mathura, makes references to Krishna

>Vâsudeva.

>

>In the foot page notes:

>22.-One stamp of Gopal, gopalasya from Kumrahar.

>23.-The coins ofAghatocles indo-greek king with Krishna and Balarama,

>(6 pieces).

>.

>As we can see, he gives the impression that simians know how to count

>better. Then Dr. Preciado states that there were fourteen sources,

>but he points

>out 21, and two more in his note 43 pp.782. In other words, 23 with

>at least 40 historical references about Krishna. And the Mahabharata

>with 100,000-verses, that talk about Krishna in his majority also.

>Therefore, his study is incompatible and it would be good that he

>take an elemental garden-arimetical course.

> On the next step, he shows a puzzle tactic to confuse the

>validity of the proofs. In the epistemology of Dviatavedanta

>philosophy, it is called anvaradhana-jñana, doubt or uncertainty of

>knowledge. how is this created? A cause is called vipratipatt,

>conflictive testimony by jati-futils objections. Because, he puts the

>distorted concoctions from the borrowinists, who had as a motive the

>conversion of the Hindus into Christians, imposing them that Krishna

>was a hinduized Christ. The problem, like he admitted—pp.796—is that

>such thesis resulted bogus, and accepted as such by the Christian

>themselves. Therefore, his fallacies don't come to the case. It's

>like if we want to demonstrate the hypothesis of Dr. Bill

>kissing, "They Never Went to the Moon", creating doubts about the

>Apollo travels, beginning by the skeptical claims of Ticinelli

>against the airship of Da Vinci. Later, to quote the Astronomer that

>opined about the impossibility that heavy machines could fly. Or

>Bicker, who considered the stupidity of space travel, also Wooley and

>Wulton, with his skeptical claims against the astronauts, etc; up to

>Kissing. What happened? All this presuppositions demonstrated to be

>the falsest, because they defended a mistake, an illusion

>corroborated. Therefore, his arguments has resulted a fallacy,

>consequently they are equal in value. For example: x+y+d+b=O/

>O=x+y+d+b. In other words, Preciado's so called objections are

>worthless, as well as, whoever takes support on them (pure

>sophistry). Besides how Dr. Vogel, one borrwinist, attempted to

>distort Mora's ephigraphical inscription, to don't change his

>paradigm (AV. pp. 28).

> He sustains his thesis with opinions of others like Müeller,

>etc.. When all the British indologists, had been probed, they were

>arbitrary and had political and gospel purposes by part of English

>Empire, many specialists had been speaking about that. Concerning

>this, some authors wrote: "The Max Müeller thesis evidently endure of

>systematisation excess that carried him to fix some arbitrary periods

>without fundament. The unsupportedness of his presupposition is so

>obvious that many orietalists had already appointed it". (RV pp 46).

> About the culture approach: "His preoccupation was not the

>knowledge of a culture and his literature, but the desire to spoil

>and refute whatever they considered superstition, to annullate the

>Hindu believes or to find concordances in those texts with the

>exigencies in the Christian dogma" (Idem). And the Hindu scholars

>that he quotes like Raychaduri, Pulsaker, Majumdar, etc.; Were

>programmed people by the English influence, as Dr. Thomas Hopkins

>spoke, that the Britishs with his systematic degrination

>(INODOFISTIC), gave up an inferiority cultural complex (HK, pp.

>111). Therefore, suchs Sirs adopted, in great part; the British

>indosophistic paradigm. Some of them, like Mr. S.K. De, deride his

>own culture. But, the majority can not be so deviated, because, even

>though they didn't defend the Krishna's divinity; but the

>historicity, from there the paradox arises: "A deified Vrishni prince

>called Vasudeva; and a tribal hero Krishna, religious lider of the

>Yadavas". (pp.795.) We could extend this topic; but let us leave this

>nonsense for some other time.

>.

>. We can sintetize in this paper, all of this as an strategy to

>artificially cloud the proofs in the most virulent, acid, ambiguous

>way, in such a way, that my words appear like praises compared to

>his. The good thing about his work, is the affirmation that Krishna's

>name is as ancient as Rig-Veda, pp.811; but He didn't show any direct

>quote. As Sanatan Goswami quote in the Krishna Upanisad or

>Nilakantha, in the Rig 1.21.154.6, 8.96.13-15 etc. Or at least, other

>Upanisads, direct parts of the Vedas, like Vâsudeva, Narayana,

>Gopala; besides of Mahanaraniya in his small booklet.

> In very dignus and accurate way to be laureate, he discovers

>that the idea of a separation of personalities is: "Speculations that

>are condemned to remain without proofs", (pp. 814.) Eventhough

>brilliantly affirmed: "In the VI BC century, the histories of the

>Krishna's facts were already known, as the recount of Syamantaka

>jewel,... a record of Krishna's life unified with other features of

>the life of the hero (Krishna) trough this epoch already existed",

>pp.815. However, he tries of use the same criterion of improbability

>for the historical proof about Krishna's legends( ?) ; which is

>absurd. Because if we apply the strictness of verification of

>mathematical theorem to his postulate, it should be truth in some

>cases like a possibility, in many cases as a probability and in all

>cases like an approbation. When it is said an asseveration so

>emphatic like his, it means a demonstration. Therefore, it cannot

>exist any case or opposed evidence. At that time, if he states that

>the historicity of Krishna's legends is condemned to remain without

>proofs or evidences that are synonymous (SA. pp. 285), and in his

>same book he shows 23 evidences, with at least 40 historical

>references about Krishna and his history, automatically his

>concoction is discarded.

> In other words, with only one existing evidence, his

>postulated is demolished. Furthermore, the evidence has more

>validity than the proof. Just as it is defined: "Evidence is a clear

>manifestation of something, that no one would rationally doubt.

>(Idem.)

> Also, we can add, how some prestigious archaeologists have

>found more historical proofs about Krishna: Dr.. S.R. Rao, Emeritus

>scientist, with a commission of specialists, using the Mahabharata as

>a map, rediscovered the City of Dwarka where Krishna lived, in the

>harbour of Gujarata, and confirmed the existing cities in the area

>mentioned in the biographies of Krishna, even the Janma-bhumi in

>Mathura U.P. (AV pp. 31). In the sixties, Dr. Gancully discovered

>artefacts that corroborate the Kuruksetra battle in the place (VE

>pp.86). Dr. Alan Entwistle who worked with the International

>Association of Vrindavanan Research Institute, Professor of

>Washington University in this area, in his research, together with

>others scholars, confirmed the historicity of Krishna in Mathura and

>Vrindavana (V pp. 189). Dr. Mohan Gautam, Chairman of South Asian

>Research Centre and member of the International Union of

>Antrophological Sciences, since l960 started his investigation in

>Vrindavan grounds, specifically Radha-kundha demonstrating the

>genuinity of this place. (Idem. pp.199).

> Other very important point, the proofs that Preciado

>maltreated for disapproving; go on quite accepted by the specialists,

>and a caution reading at the end of his paper; he accepts them also(

>pp. 811-8113.)

> Actually, he said many incongruences and falses claims, for

>instance: Megastenes mentions to Heracles, but he isn't Krishna

>(pp.796.) However the Eminent Andrew Rosanen of Harvard,

>stated: "Meghastenes mentions the god "Heracles" (Hari-kul-eesh), who

>was worshiped as the Supreme Lord in the district around Mathura

>where Krishna originated and whose name (Hari) is one commonly used

>for Krishna".( AVp.x.) Even though in posterior lines, in very tacit

>way, Preciado accepts it. In fact, one of the more right critics in

>his work, consists in the cover out of Mr. Dahlquist pp.796. But we

>appointed like false, his asseverations like; "In the VI century BC

>or before, some compilators, felt the necessity of inserting the

>Devakiputra Krishna", pp. 815. Here, the question is, ¿how did he

>travel to the past for know the literary necessities (inside of the

>mind) of unidentified authors that he never observed?__ Like the

>farce of unknown genius author of Gita___. May be, he can give us the

>secret formula of past travels to verify his claims.

> More nonsense like this exells his ponency, let us end saying

>that he edited a booklet and was printed in India. however, when I

>asked to the Dr. Ram-Krishna Rao, a friend of Preciado, about this in

>l994, he said to me, " I have never heard or known any work of Him,

>in the scholarly circles of India called, "Krishna in the Puranic

>cycle", (after ten years of editions). Other scholar, the Dr. Rajiv

>Bihari, teacher in the same College, who performed archaeological

>studies in Java, was questioned for me, what is his opinion of the

>Preciado work, and he showed a face of dislike and nausea

>claiming: "So called Indology".

> In l989 Rosanen wrote: "A compilation of archaeological and

>textual data that summarizes the earliest record history of Vâsudeva

>Krishna. Although much of this historical information is available

>elsewhere in widely scattered form, it has no to my knowledge been

>brought together in so comprehensive and carefully researched a

>manner at it is here." (AV. pp. ix) Referring to the Steven Rosen

>book, who is a Vaisnava. Therefore, this shows that the Preciado'

>booklet is no considered in the academical community of Harvard,

>because he edited this in l984 and till to day (1986), never we had

>looked any quotation among American scholars, only Rosen quotes him

>in two tiny notes.

> Furthermore, in the beginning he

>asseverates: ".........the Krishna problem has already confused many

>generations of indologists". (pp.771.) ¿Would this be conceit?

>Because, after deeply dennying and condemning the idea of two

>separate personalities of Krishna, he finishes with the following

>words: "Perhaps this fact was due to the similitude in the Krishna

>heroic figure with other popular god, may be tribal, in that such

>features pose with special significance",( pp.815.) It is one sophism

>of tautology, then he repeated the same fallacy that condemned; but

>with other words.

> Dr. Thomas Hopkins said: "Krishna the historical prince and

>charioteer of Arjuna." (HK pp.144). "Krishna had been reveled as the

>Supreme Lord, identified with vedic Brahman and Purusa and with the

>universal form of Visnu. He is the culmination of the all religious

>forms of the Vedas." (HT pp. 94)

> For finish, as this analysis shows, Preciado prevails limited

>in the Indosophistic Cycle of the Colonial-British, whose laberint

>overcome that of the Minotaurus.

>

>

>(VE) Dasa, Hare Krishna, Vaisnavismo, estudio histórico y

>confrontación de la doctrina esencial del Hinduismo. Libros

>Bhaktivedanta S.A.. Mexico 1998.

>(HK), Hompkins, Thomas Ph D, interview with in Hare Krishna Hare

>Krishna, Five distingue scholars on Krishna movement, Groves Prees,

>N:Y: 1983.

> (HT) Hopkins, Thomas, The Hindu Religious Tradition. Dickenson

>Publish Company, 1952.

>(AV) Rosen, Steven, Archeology and Vaisnava Tradition, Firma KLM

>Private.1989.

> (V) Rosen, Steven, Vaisnavism, Folks Books, 1992.

>(RV) Mora, De, Juan Miguel y Jarocka, Ludwika, El Rig Veda, Editorial

>Diana, 1974.

>(SA) OCEANO CONCISO, Diccionario de Sinónimos y Antónimos, Ediciones

>Océano, España, l994.

>

> >

> > _______________

> > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from

>McAfee®

> > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

>

 

_______________

MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE

download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/