Historical evidence

[Guest guest]

Just wondering what historical evidence there is of the existence of Krishna. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this question. I mean, many Hindus claim that Krishna existed at some time on this earth (there of course are many different ideas out there of when that exactly was), but what historical evidence is there that he really did exist? Surely many will point to the ancient Indian books like Mahabharata etc, but the are varying ideas about when these were written. Is there any extra-literary proof? Like archeology etc?

[Kulapavana 0]

there is no historical evidence for his existence either

[Guest guest]

where you said this guy was an undercover christian preacher, I thought you were joking because this guy had asked a seemingly innocuous question on part and parcel thread. Now I realize you're right. After posing as a devotee, he now asks a typically 'christian' question to show his colors. well, well, you seem to have a lot of experience spotting these undercover dudes. Maybe, we should have a contest like 'spot the undercover dude' at this forum. lol.

[Kulapavana 0]

they all smell the same /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[som 0]

For queries from individuals like you Krishna has left His city of Dwaraka:

 

---

 

See this news:

 

NEW DELHI, JULY 13: Old shipwrecks -- like that of the Titanic -- which have been lying buried under the sea with their precious treasure along with the submerged city of Dwarka off the Gujarat coast, for centuries, could soon vie for the status of an underwater world cultural heritage site.

...

...

The submerged city of Dwarka is believed to be an important site having both historical and cultural value for India. Legend has it that the remains -- the wall of a city is clearly visible while the rest is yet to be discovered -- are in fact, that of the ancient city of Dwarka mentioned in stories of Lord Krishna.

 

The Gujarat government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) are currently toying with the idea of creating a museum and an underwater viewing gallery once the structures have been protected. After that,Dwarka could also stake the claim for the coveted underwater world heritage status, UNESCO's South-East Asia office here said.

 

Taken from http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/20000714/ina14051.html

 

---

 

See on more proof of Dwaraka:

 

---

 

Discovery of Dwaraka

The search for the lost city was going on since 1930's. Marine Archaeology Unit (MAU) of the National Institute of Oceanography, took part in this search in 1983. This search was carried out in the coastal waters of Dwaraka in Gujarat.

 

Between 1983 to 1990 was discovered, the well-fortified township of Dwaraka, that extended more than half a mile from the shore. The township was built in six sectors along the banks of a river. The foundation of boulders on which the city's walls were erected proves that the land was reclaimed from the sea.

 

Dwaraka extended upto Bet Dwaraka (Sankhodhara) in the north and Okhamadhi in the south. Eastward it extended upto Pindara. The general layout of the city of Dwaraka described in ancient texts agrees with that of the submerged city discovered by MAU.

 

( Taken from http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/city.htm )

 

--

 

 

 

At least now believe this. May be you might find some excuse to say that this is not Dwaraka and not Krishna's city?

 

Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

 

[Kulapavana 0]

is looking at posting patterns (from latest):

Historical evidence Spiritual Discussions 11_7

more confusing Spiritual Discussions 11_7

perfect example Spiritual Discussions 11_7

to J.S. das Spiritual Discussions 11_7

part and parcel? Spiritual Discussions 11_7

still seems like a contradiction Spiritual Discussions 11_7

missed my point Spiritual Discussions 11_7 I'm not surprised Spiritual Discussions 11_7

still illogical Spiritual Discussions 11_7

Is reincarnation a contradiction? Spiritual Discussions 11_7

 

 

they often come back under a new user name. but if they broadcast from the same IP address it is quite easy. On our site Vrinda they are quite sophisticated... sad but true...

[Guest guest]

Why are you so defensive? I never claimed to be anything or anybody. I never faked anything. I only raise the doubts I have about Hinduism and Vaishnavism and hope to generate some intelligent conversation and discussion. Can't you take anyone disagreeing with you?

 

It's interesting to me how defensive the hardcore iskconites become so quickly. It has always been my experience through the years talking with iskcon devotees, that if you raise any doubts for too long and if you don't just simply swallow their first response, they take it personal and go on the attack. Do you feel threatened? Why can't we discuss doubts? Just because someone has some doubts about your religion or even problems with your teachings, doesn't mean there is some big conspiracy going on! Are you paranoid or something? It is very telling indeed.

[Guest guest]

As if every question put to Srila Prabhupada was evaluated for it's level of sincerity before he would answer.

 

If someone asks us a question and we know the answer just give it to them. If we don't know the answer we say, "sorry I don't know." That is honesty. Devotees feel they have to bluff their way through sometimes. But Krsna consciousness is not a bluff in any sense.

 

By saying "I don't know" when in fact we do not know that honesty will be appreciated by the sincere and they are likely to give me weight to an answer we claim we do know.

 

On the question asked by 11 7 I can say "I do not know". Where I depart from many is that I also do not care. I lean to accepting The whole advent of Krsna on Earth as a literary incarnation. I accept that Krsna appeared through the mind of His devotees who then wrote the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata etc. I don't believe a literal 3D battle took place at Kurukshetra.

 

That said I do believe it is literal in the real sense. Which means I believe that Krsna the Supreme Personality of Godhead is actually present in the sastra which means all that is associated with Him as His lila ( having appeared through the mind of His devotees) is literal in the Absolute sense.

 

I do not believe that the figure Krsna is a representation of the great formless speaking through Krsna. I accept the form of Shyamasundara as the summum bonum of realization.

 

I also do not believe the sastra is open to mental speculation. It is revealed knowledge.

 

I am trying to cut off the ordinary objections before they are made.

 

I don't rely on archealogical findings for my faith. The whole issue is immaterial to me.

 

Hare Krsna

 

[Guest guest]

 

The Buddha is considered the first clear well known historical person in India (about 600 BC).

 

Although it is clear that there were people before his time who authored the veda, etc., the line between reality & mythology is blurred and so there is no definitive evidence to draw any clear conclusions.

 

Note that apart from the basic sesctions of the veda, all other hindu scripture is dated as post-buddha, from a history perspective. Although it is admitted that some of it may be earlier, there just isn't enough evidence for justification.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

I would only have doubts about something I am serious about accepting. If I don't care about something (Buddhism, Bahai, whatever) I really just don't care. There are no doubts - only indifference.

 

I guess some people don't see 11/7 as a sincere seeker of the vaisnava school.

 

Which is it, Eleven? Y'all just pulling our chains or are you actually searching for God?

 

Anyway, truth is: you follow the teaching of the Gita, follow the procedure to get free from the mundane life, and you will have no doubts and all the proof you could ever want. And that is the bottom line. Accept nothing on faith; prove it to yourself. Krsna is there. The soul is there. The senses are there. Your devotion is there to rediscover. Run the experiments prescribed by Lord Krishna. It is not that difficult for the sincere seeker.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello, and thanks for the past few posts. I appreciate that someone here refrained from knee jerk reactions and defensiveness, and put up some straight forward discussion.

[Guest guest]

>>>>"On the question asked by 11 7 I can say "I do not know". Where I depart from many is that I also do not care. I lean to accepting The whole advent of Krsna on Earth as a literary incarnation. I accept that Krsna appeared through the mind of His devotees who then wrote the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata etc. I don't believe a literal 3D battle took place at Kurukshetra."

 

This is an interesting and broad minded approach to engagement with Hindu mythology, and I think many Indians hold a similar view. The allegorical or semi-allegorical interpretation of "Krsna-lila" is more accessible and practicle. I think it is more valid than the absolutely literal interpretation.

 

But still iskcon's version of Hinduism insists heavily on a historic validity to the existence of Krsna. Iskcon's philosophy expresses extreme literalism towards the ancient Indian writtings.

 

Therefore, since iskcon employs the historical dimension as part of their desire to legitimize their brand of Hinduism, I feel that it would be helpful and more convincing to many people if there were some more tangible extra-literary data to support their claims.

 

Simply finding a ruined city and claiming it is Dvaraka is most definately exciting and fascinating, but it is far from "proof" of the literal existence of the events described in the Purana's, Mahabharata, etc.

 

[Guest guest]

do you?

[Guest guest]

so what is your point?

[Guest guest]

 

This is an interesting and broad minded approach to engagement with Hindu mythology, and I think many Indians hold a similar view. The allegorical or semi-allegorical interpretation of "Krsna-lila" is more accessible and practicle. I think it is more valid than the absolutely literal interpretation.

 

 

This is the thing. I have a hard time trying to explain what I mean. I don't accept Krishna-lila as an allegory or mythology in the classic sense of the word. I accept Krishna-lila as being literal Absolute fact as opposed to everything else in this universal phantasmagoria which is illusory and only seeming of substance or real.

 

Here is an example. We have sound evidence of the Pyramids being built sometime in the past. And for conversation sake let's say there is no "tangible" (archeological) evidence for Krishna-lila.

 

Even while staring at one of the Pyramids I would say that Krishna-lila is Absolute Reality and the pyramid is only a mirage in the dessert.

 

I hold the same opinion even if all of Krishna-lila was born in the mind of a self-realized devotee and never "physically" took place on Earth at all.

 

BTW I don't speak for anyone but myself and most everyone else here would disagree with me.

 

 

But still iskcon's version of Hinduism insists heavily on a historic validity to the existence of Krsna. Iskcon's philosophy expresses extreme literalism towards the ancient Indian writtings.

 

Therefore, since iskcon employs the historical dimension as part of their desire to legitimize their brand of Hinduism, I feel that it would be helpful and more convincing to many people if there were some more tangible extra-literary data to support their claims.

 

 

I agree. I believe they trap themselves into a corner when they do that. Take the huge battle of Kurukshetra where supposed 18 million people died. I believe that is the correct number. Now with all those carriots, elephants, armamnets like clubs bows and arrows swords etc. wouldn't it stand to reason that some artifacts would have been found.? I haven't heard of any. I assume if they were found we would have heard about it a thousand times over.

 

I find the lack of archealogical evidence more convincing that no battle took place in the "literal" 3d way myself.

 

So in agreeing with your point I find the case they try to make from that angle not only unconvincing but actually damning to their position.

 

I prefer my position of not caring one way or another. Krishna exists in His devotees descriptions of Him and that is way way more than I can deal with s it is. It's fun trying though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

Simply finding a ruined city and claiming it is Dvaraka is most definately exciting and fascinating, but it is far from "proof" of the literal existence of the events described in the Purana's, Mahabharata, etc.

 

 

True enough.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

there is no historical proof of his existence. Why do you believe in such myths?

[Guest guest]

11 7 are you an athiest or do you have a religious belief?

 

J.S das

[Guest guest]

11 7 believes in the myth of cheessssus, the skinny dude on the cross. that says a lot about his religious beliefs. I am sure iskcnite freaks will feel at home with this guy, after isknite freaks also believe in cheeeeeesus myth.

[Guest guest]

cheeesus, even if he were real, was a bastard son of mary and some roman soldier who screwed her. So isckonite freaks can stop eulogizing this bastard. If iskcnotes want to worship cheeesus, let them become christians. They cannot be vaishnavs and be cheeeesus-worshippers.

[Avinash 0]

Why are you writing "cheesus" instead of "Jesus"? Why so much hate against him? You have abused him, his mother Mary and some roman soldier (about whom I am hearing first time and from you). Do you have any evidence for what you have written? I have seen no such evidence in Bible.

[Guest guest]

JNdas please block this fool.

[Guest guest]

you believe in the bible because the bible says it's true! lol. Why do you people convert to Vaishnavism at all? WHy can't yuo just remain a cheeeesus-lover? BTW, why can't I say cheeeeesus, eh? I can show plenty of posts on this forum itself where your iskcnoite freak-friends have abused hindus by calling them hindooos and so on.

 

Two people can play this game, sonny. If you want respect, then your iskcnite freak-friends should learn to give it first. As long as iskconite freaks abuse hindus, i will continue to abuse iskconite freaks and their fav. cheeeeesus! In the kali yuga, only danda (stick approach) will work against cheeesus-lovers and hindu-haters like iskcnites. Bye bye!

[Guest guest]

but it seems you have some serious mental issues and no class or philosophy, instead of ranting and raving like a mad man say something intelligent or atleast debate with logic and reason.

 

go see a psychiatrist then come back!!!!!!!!

 

J.S das

[Guest guest]

.

[Avinash 0]

you believe in the bible because the bible says it's true! lol.

 

When did I say that I believe in Bible? I believe in many things written in Bible though I have doubts on lots of historical info given in that. You mentioned that Jesus was born of Mary and a Roman soldier. Usually when people talk about Jesus, then they refer to Bible. I did not find anything written in Bible, which shows that Jesus was an illegitimate child. If you have find any such thing, then please post. I am not claiming that Bible should be the only source of info for Jesus, though this is primarily used. If you have some other source for your claim, please post that. When you are saying something bad about somebody, then the onus of proof lies on you.

 

Why do you people convert to Vaishnavism at all? WHy can't yuo just remain a cheeeesus-lover?

Suppose I ask the same question to you. What will be your answer? You will say that you were never Jesus ('cheeeesus') lover. Likewise, let me tell you that I was never a Christian. So the question of conversion does not arise.

 

BTW, why can't I say cheeeeesus, eh? I can show plenty of posts on this forum itself where your iskcnoite freak-friends have abused hindus by calling them hindooos and so on.

 

If you go through posts in this forum, you will find that many times people have made scathing remarks against Hinduism scriptures and I have protested against those remarks. Abusing Hinduism is bad. Abusing Christianity is bad.

 

Two people can play this game, sonny.

Stop your stupid ways of using words like 'sonny' and all that. Talk properly.

 

If you want respect, then your iskcnite freak-friends should learn to give it first.

How is me getting respect dependent on what some other posters are doing?

 

Don't confuse between my posts with those of 11_7.