Search for the Historical Krishna
As we go on to celebrate another Sri Krishna-Janmashthami, here is a question of interest to all of us: was Krishna a historical figure, or is he just a myth created to fill a void in the Hindu soul? As the most admired and adored figure in the Hindu pantheon, Krishna occupies a unique place in Indian history and tradition.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Dear Dr. Rajaram
NAMASTE
This is a wonderful topic nad need to go out every corner of the world. Please kindly let me know how could I obtain this book ’sword of Truth’.
Pranam
July 24th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Hi
As a Hindu I am very much disapointed in this article - this article did little to show any proof for Krishna actually exisiting. How can qouting his appearance in the scriptures be proof when the whole point of this article was to show that the Krishna in the scriptures actually once lived.
Mr H
July 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Very nice article. For very specific details about the entire chronology of India from 4000 BCE to today, please download and view my Royal Chronology of India timeline at:
http://www.newdharma.org/India_Chron.zip
Thank you,
- Niraj
July 24th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
It is unfortunate that we are debating over the historicity of Krsna without first accepting a few ground rules of the game. First of all, what is considered as a substantive proof? What is a shastra (divine books codifying civic principles and the goal of human life)? Are Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavatam accepted as shastra? If you and I write a book on dharma, should it be considered a shastra?
Once we agree on the answers to all these and several other questions which I will leave for want of time, space, and scope, can there be a meaningful discussion on who Krsna is. Is there any other book than Bhagavad Gita (Krsna spoke) that is used and referred to for more than 5000 years?
July 26th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Hi I found this a very interesting read.
The many Purans and Epics such as Mahabharat and Ramayan unfortunately are not even accepted by so called academics as containing even some historical facts. Look in contrast to how the academics approach the stories in the Bible - most of it is taken as being of some historical relevance i.e. the characters, events and places. However when it comes to Hindu texts they are usually brushed off by these same academics as “oh these are all just myths and stories”.
Unfortunately it is the continuation of same policy of writing off Pagan traditions and history as has been practiced by the Abrahamic faiths for hundreds of years - but now carried on professionally by these so called academics.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Dear Sirs,
I am very much disappointed to see that the editors of an esteemed
web magazine like yours have published an article questioning the
historicity of Lord Krishna. In spite of their best efforts, the early
orientalists like Sir William Jones and Max Muller could not disprove
the historicity of Lord Krishna. Under their inspiration, the later
historians chose to ignore the question rather than discuss it.
They have also tried, very successfully, to distort the chronology
of Indian history to propagate the myth that the battle of Kurukshtra
took place around the fifteenth century BC. And all this in spite of
the Indian calendar having been in wide use since the coronation of
King Parikshit, 36 years after the battle. As you know, this year (2006
- 2007) is the 5108th year of Kali Yuga. From this the exact dates of
all the events related to Mahabharat and later can be calculated in the
Christian era.
Errors of a few decades in the aforesaid calculation, due to the
successive corrections to the Julian and Gregorian calendars, have been
worked out by Bharathiya Itihas Sankalan Samithi with the help of the
modern Planetarium Software, which have given the exact date of the
stellar configuration and planetary positions given in the epic.
I earnestly request that your editors should read these literature
before permitting some author, either inadvartently or deliberately, to
misguide your readers.
Yours faithfully,
Prof.D.D.Misra
July 27th, 2006 at 8:00 am
H. - this is in response to your comment:
There are different parts of Indian literature around that era, some that are philosophical, and some that are part of the Mahabharata narrative, some that are part of non-Vedic traditions such as Buddhism.
To get consistency between different parts of the literature is ONE important factor in getting an idea as to their collective historicity. That is one of the main methods that was used in assessing the historicity of Biblical and Hellenic stories.
Anyway, I’d reserve my judgement on the merits / demerits of tihis article until the second part.
July 30th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
It is rather unfortunate this topic had arisen in the first place. We Hindus consider one of our greatest strengths is one’s own beleif and faith. No matter what evidence for or against about our religion or its personalities were manifactured by our own people or anybody else has no meaning to our strong beleif and faith. Please let us not talk or read these ego boosting articles any more in the future.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Dear Pakirareddy. It is true what you say that Hindus in the past have had such a strong faith and belief that they weren’t too bothered about historical questions. HOWEVER, times have changed, and we live in a different world. Take it from me, many Hindus who have grown up in a Westernised environment or affluent India are interested in historical questions. The old mentality has changed, there is now a tital change in psyche.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I agree that there is a different focus in modern-day society, not just in Hinduism but generally in society - hence the countless attempts to ‘prove’ the historicity of Christ. However, it should be remembered that whilst theology deals necessarily in many abstracts, history too is far from precise or concrete.
One of the few things that VHP et al did right in the whole Ramjanmabhoomi fiasco (leaving aside the fact that they probably should never have gotten involved in the first place as it turned a delicate issue into a political football and therefore almost by definition unsolveable) is that they shifted the focus of the debate. Questions such as ‘did Ram exist?’ and ‘was he born on that spot?’ were quite rightly and appropriately shunted aside in favour of the far more crucial and relevant question: ‘Is there a significant body of Hindu belief that holds that Ram existed and was born on that spot?’, to which the answer is clearly yes.
I recall a large conference on Islam some years ago at a very prestigious British University at which one young speaker launched into an Islamist (as distinct from Islamic) tirade; amongst the various issues he spoke about was the apparent proof that God exists, which actually amounted to a simplistic stating of the teleological argument, which one might describe as controversial at best. Needless to say, in such a gathering, such flimsy arguments weaken the overall case considerably.
I agree that there is a significant shift from accepting things on faith to wanting, or even demanding, proof. However, rather than getting into ultimately insoluble arguments, I feel it is ultimately far more effective, and makes considerably more sense, to explain why the actual existence or non-existence of whatever is being questioned is actually a non-issue, or at very best, is worth exploring only as an intellectual exercise. Ultimately, any religion relies on faith; this is not necessarily a bad thing.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:53 pm
truth, not faith, is the goal.
faith, inquest, action are but means to Truth.
To question is a greatest relgious act if questioning is done as a quest for truth.
To have faith is wonderful, to have good actions is wonderful, but know if our faith or actions are good we begin with the question of Truth - the Gita begins with Sankhya then moves to karma…
Hariaum
July 31st, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Satya, Hinduism is quite diverse, and does not necessarily require faith as a starting point. Some schools of Hindu thought even verge or atheist/agnostic without being unspiritual. In some senses, Hinduism requires a willingness to seek rather than faith, and experience is the goal.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I have just re-read my comment and have not anywhere stated that faith is either a starting point or a goal; I maintain what I actually said, however, that at some point, religion necessitates a level of faith.
It is interesting that in these discussions, it often happens that people reply to what they presume (want?) to have read, and not what they actually read.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:55 pm
It is equally interesting to see that you display indignation when others do to your comments what you several times have done to the comments of other posters.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I certainly did not intend to appear indignant and apologise if I came across this way. As for the assertion that I do the same, I hope I don’t and I certainly make efforts not to, but if I have, I’d be grateful if you could point it out to me so that I can apologise and learn, as I’m sure we are all here to do. Many thanks.
August 14th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Interesting Article. Would like to read his books.
How and where can I obtain a copy of “Politics of History” and “Sword of Truth?”
Please send me an e-mail with detail information for buying these books -new or used. Thank you.
August 16th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
“Sword of Truth” is not the title of a book but was a website maintained by Arvind Ghosh, on which this essay was originally published in 1999; the website has since ceased to operate. However, as I understand it, Dr Rajaram planned at one time to publish a book entitled “Search For The Historical Krishna” (as far as I am aware, he has not yet done this; I do not know whether or not he still intends to do so). As for his book “The Politics Of History: Aryan Invasion Theory And The Subversion Of Scholarship”, I assume a reasonable place to begin looking would be Voice Of India - they have published a number of Dr Rajaram’s books, though I don’t know whether this is one of them.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
www.geocities.com/vshirvaikar
Regarding the dating of Mahabharata War, there are many datings mostly based on the astronomical info given in Mahabharata. But when one sees the history of development of Mahabharata one notes that that Suta, his son Sauti (450BC), harivanshakara and Parvasangrahakara have made lots of additions to the original Bharata of Maharshi Vyasa. The astronomical information is not original and any deductions of dating cannot be reliable. instead, the dynasty proof is more reliable. Mazumdar has arived at the date 1378 BC from the dynasties in Vishnupurana. Vaidya, using the information used by Dr Rajaram from Greek diaries have arrived at the date around 3100Bc. I would rely more on archeological data because it is unbiased and/or practical purposes use 1450 BC plus minus 50 years as the date of MB war. Shri Krishna lived for 36 years more. See extract from an article (revision of PROLOGUE at my website)
August 25th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Personally I think astronomical data is the way to go. Sure, astronomical references can be written in later, but that could only be done if there were compicated computers with advanced programmes that can back compute exactly how the stars and planets would have looked thousands of years ago. Such technology did NOT exist back then. Therefore, it is much more likely that astronomical references in ancient texts are described as seen.
Obviously there are bits added to the original Jaya (previous name for Mahabharata) of Vyasa, but there are also contemporary writings in it.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Hi,
It is an interesting discussion. The ‘Panchanga’ or the Telugu Calendar, says, this is 1st Quadrant of Kaliyuga, and the year is 5107. This calendar is in use for over milleniums. It more likely the war took place even earlier than 3100BC. There have always been efforts to portray Indian heritage younger than Egytian.
The biggest challenge the Indian history faces is inscriptions, like the pyramids. It is very much doubtful whether the Indian Government had put enough emphasis to establish its history, than any country do today.
India needs a conscious effort to dig its roots, establish a program to study deep into the archeological and ecological transformations. Let us hope the modern day satellite imagery would one day help to locate the strains of the war, like newer successes in establishing the river ‘Saraswathi.’
Realise, even for an arguement sake, we agree Krishna lived 5100 years ago, it would imply that Lord Rama lived milleniums ahead of him, thus dating our history to even older!
August 29th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I wonder if Dr Shirvaikar could explain to me why archeology is any more or less “biased” (whatever that may mean) than astrology?
August 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Sorry, correction - I meant astronomy, not astrology!
August 31st, 2006 at 8:21 am
It would be better for the Editor just to translate the essay of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, “Is Krishna Historical” in his book Krishna Charita, written in Bengali. Bankim Chandra has calculated that the war described in The Mahabharata took place in about 3700BC. His calculation is based on the astronomical descriptions given in The Mahabharata for the duration of that war in Kuru-Khstera. Bankim Chandra had assumed a fixed sky. However, as the sky is changing continuously due to the changes of the position of the earth in relation to the Sun, a revision of that calculation is needed to find out exact year.
The discoveries at Gulf of Cambay by the National Institute of Ocean Technology established, using carbon-14 date of 7,500 years for the wood samples excavated from under the sea, the existence of a civilization dating to that period.
Krishna’s Dwarka existed some 4,000 years ago. There was a rise in the sea level about 30 metres in 7,500 years, approximately at the rate of 10 metres in 3,500-3,800 years. Eroded debris and pottery provided evidence of a port town destroyed by sea about 3,500 years ago.
Rajaram’s essay, like most of his writing, is a total disappointment. He has discredited himself by claiming too much, quoting falsely and abusing his critics rather than arguing logically. There is nothing much in this essay except for self-advertisement, much of those are false.
August 31st, 2006 at 7:25 pm
I think the bible also begins at about the same time as the battle at Kurushetra.
History is important in its own way but we must also see that the Gita is far beyond history.
1) no matter how much data you have the Christians and Muslims won’t believe that Krishna was real.
2) no matter how much data implies otherwise I will be hard pressed to think Krishna was not real.
3) even if Krishna is imaginary, the composer of the Gita (who I believe is the supreme being as Krishna) is so far ahead in ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, psychology, sociology… than any other person in history mythologically or otherwise that it is useful for people to argue myth v reality rather than the meaning and existence of such a profound scripture that really puts all judeochristianislamic scriptures to shame.
4) yes it would be great to be able to give to the whole world the objective proof Krishna’s existence
hariaum
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:32 pm
history has become important nowadays since chrisitianity and islam stresee and chanllange hinduism on histricity. it is rather interesting to note that this article has tried to resolve two issues, first histrocity of krishna and the aryan invasion theory. most hindus were brainwashed by introduction of this theroy by max muller and compnay and to get rid of this theory from our mind takes strong faith and understanding of our culture and its values.
debate should always be welcome as long as it is not attacking a person.
I am searching an article by Lokmanya Tilak about date of Bhagavatam. if any one has an article please post it here or email me at gauranga8@hotmail.com
dhanyavada
September 6th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
A question to all of you - would the historicity of Sri Krishna have any bearing on your faith in the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita?
March 17th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Manish Solanki-
No, it would not. To argue the historicity of Krishna with Muslims and Christians is to admit that the existence of Krishna as a historical figure is important to Santana Dharma as a whole.
It has been proven time and again that Santana Dharma is NOT a HISTORY-CENTRIC religion, that is, it does not rely on historical fact for its philosophy to be true.
Santana Dharma is based on the spiritual experience and a well lived life, not the existence of a particular prophet or what not.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Professor interprets Harappan seals in Sanskrit, that’s a very delicate issue, back and forth many have interpreted them using proto-Tamil and Sanskrit, no consensus has been found…(either ideographic or logographic characters)