Starboy

Hi Hinduwoman:

The Mongolians have been telling stories of Xander long before they ever knew of Jesus. He has left ancient cities and monuments all through the Mediterranean. How anyone could think that the historicity of Jesus approaches the historicity of Alexander is beyond me. It is yet another fine example of deluded Christians grasping for any shred of verification of their beliefs. It also illustrates that we live in an age where faith is no longer enough, and superstitious folk such as Christians must find justification in reality if they do not want to be thought of as being irrational and reality challenged. Unfortunately for Christians, they do not have much in which to base their beliefs. The age of Christianity has come and gone. To all Christians, wake up and smell the coffee!

Starboy

Answerer

Well, if the christians could be so easily convinced, someone will had done so long ago.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</p>

hinduwoman

Hi seraphim,

You are right, I checked up vishnupurana. Narak had no daughters. He imprisoned 16000 daughters of humans, gods, gandharvas and demons, and he himself was the son of Vishnu and Earth.
It is not a matter of Krishna forcing anyone to accept him as God. If someone truly sees the miracles Krishna performs, from vastraharan to showing Vishwarupa , do you think that he would still refuse to listen to him? Call me a coward but one look at the terrible God with powers beyond my imagination, and I would certainly buckle under, particularly if all the gains I wanted were material and not a matter of principle.
Also in Mahabharata itself we have the story of Paundroraj Vasudev. He spread it about that he is the real Vasudev, the God of all and ordered Krishna to surrender his regalia to him. Krishna went to him and killed him. I am not sure exactly what this story signifies or it is just a pretty addition. Perhaps it hints that contemporaries did not willingly accept such claims, if indeed a historical Krishna ever made them in reality, and there were perhaps several kings who claimed to be gods in early history.

The telling point is 'in the end'. Though the concept of monism is in Upanishads, in real life it was not so easy. There were various gods from different sources, including non-Vedic ones which finally coalesced together. Monism made it easier to absob various deities. Scholars as yet have not found any date when the myth of Krishna and Vishnu merged together, but Vishnu himself was unimportant in the Vedas, and the Krishna mentioned there has definitely nothing to do with gods. The composite picture that we have today is necessarily different from the earliest past.

No problem.
Mention of Krishna Vasudeva, son of Devaki is in Chandyogya Upanishad,-- is this the same one? Not known, but definitely not godly.
Mahabharata itself does not say anything about Rasalila. All one verse says is that he was beloved of all Gopis which is very different.
The first description of Krishna flirting with girls is in Vishnupurana. It is in Bhagatavatpurana that we have the story of Krishna stealing clothes.
Similarly Radha do not turn up anywhere; she appears only in the very late Bramhabaiberta purana where it is also said that Krishna created Vishnu.

hinduwoman

Answerer, as Ipetrich says it all depends on which Hindu. Most think of him as an avatar of Vishnu because of the preserver aspect. However in traditional avatar cycle --- the one I remember --- it is actually Balarama, the older briother of Krishna who is an incarnation, not Krishna.

Answerer

Hmm, thats something new, so why and how the Hindi worship the younger brother instead?

leonarde

It is with a bit a trepidation that I enter this
thread as I know from experience that once one is
labelled a "theist" there is a tendency to have ascribed to one all the opinions of the OTHER theists who weigh in on a given subject. So before even making my point I would like to stipulate:

1) I AGREE that there is more historical proof of
the existence of Alexander the Great than there is
for Jesus.

2)I'm 100% certain Alexander (and BTW Jesus)lived.

That out of the way:

1)This whole discussion is one of ANALOGY (ie comparing one personage to another vis a vis history).

2)One (Alexander) was a famous conqueror; the other (Jesus) was an itinerant preacher/healer (okay: allegedly).

3)Because of 2)one would FULLY EXPECT far
more contemporaneous record of the former than the
latter; that indeed is what we see in the historical record.

4)In talking about the sub-kings and generals that
Alexander left behind in northern India and other
places, what is being left out is that the NEAREST
ANALOGUE in the Jesus story (as it has come down to us)is: the apostles and closest disciples of
Jesus. They are the equivalent of the heirs
and immediate subordinates of Alexander.

5)But the apostles, and the early Jerusalem church
leader/"brother" of Jesus, James, etc. are, in most non-theist calculations here, excluded on the grounds that such evidence is "religious" and "sectarian" etc.

6)Naturally 5)guarantees that there be a
lopsided preponderance of evidence in Alexander's
favor (ie far beyond even that which one expects
from 2) and 3) above).

It is in the manner of exclusion of evidence that one adumbrates and skews the outcome.

Cheers!

Seraphim

Damn ... must be getting old forgot about this thread altogether which is why I didn't answer it earlier.

By Answerer:
"Well, I always treated Krishna as an incarnation of Vishnu until a hindi friend of mine told me that Krishna actually is a combination of the trinity(Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu). I know that most hindi don't think the same way as he do but I'm curious to the origins of his beliefs. "

My reply : Krishna considered to be Vishnu incarnated, and Brahma is in charge of creating physical things (including microbes etc) and sats on a Lotus flower which Vishnu holds. Shiva is the destroyer (of all physical things). The whole concept of trinity works as one - Birth (Brahma), Life (Vishnu) and Death (Shiva).

By Hinduwoman :

"Hi seraphim,"
Hi Back.

"It is not a matter of Krishna forcing anyone to accept him as God. If someone truly sees the miracles Krishna performs, from vastraharan to showing Vishwarupa , do you think that he would still refuse to listen to him? Call me a coward but one look at the terrible God with powers beyond my imagination, and I would certainly buckle under, particularly if all the gains I wanted were material and not a matter of principle. "

My reply : Here you have the difference between Hindusm and Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Islam (and Judanism). In Bible (old or new Testament) and Quran, God is potratyed as someone who is quiet and too lazy to do anything, but when He do something, it is usually stomping someone, some group or couple of cities flat

In Mahabratha, even AFTER Krishna showed his cosmic form, the Kauravas only pray humbly but later didn't accept him as God nor was force to accept Krishna or his suggestions for peace with Pandavas. Either way, same with you, if you do (ever that lucky) see Vishnu's form, I doubt you will fall down and die, or change your opinion on anything. Otherwise the whole concept of God giving Free will to choose will be meaningless.

"Also in Mahabharata itself we have the story of Paundroraj Vasudev. He spread it about that he is the real Vasudev, the God of all and ordered Krishna to surrender his regalia to him. Krishna went to him and killed him. I am not sure exactly what this story signifies or it is just a pretty addition. Perhaps it hints that contemporaries did not willingly accept such claims, if indeed a historical Krishna ever made them in reality, and there were perhaps several kings who claimed to be gods in early history."

My reply : Remember me mentioning that Vishnu/Krishna accepting anyone as his followers no matter what the relationship by which they follow it, including as enemy. I believe Paundroraj Vasudev was like that. He is follower of Vishnu by stating he himself as Krishna/Vishnu incarnated. In Vishnupurana, Krishna not only killed him, but release his soul from circle of birth (moksha) where Paundroraj DID become part of Vishnu.

And yes, I do think there is some Kings or even Sages who consider themselves as God or should replay Gods since you will see plenty of example of such in Mahabratha and Vishnupurana.

"The telling point is 'in the end'. Though the concept of monism is in Upanishads, in real life it was not so easy. There were various gods from different sources, including non-Vedic ones which finally coalesced together. Monism made it easier to absob various deities. Scholars as yet have not found any date when the myth of Krishna and Vishnu merged together, but Vishnu himself was unimportant in the Vedas, and the Krishna mentioned there has definitely nothing to do with gods. The composite picture that we have today is necessarily different from the earliest past. "

My reply : I don't think finding a date could be that easy. But maybe those city (ruins of Dwarka) been excavated in Goa will show some historical data.

"No problem.
Mention of Krishna Vasudeva, son of Devaki is in Chandyogya Upanishad,-- is this the same one? Not known, but definitely not godly.
Mahabharata itself does not say anything about Rasalila. All one verse says is that he was beloved of all Gopis which is very different.
The first description of Krishna flirting with girls is in Vishnupurana. It is in Bhagatavatpurana that we have the story of Krishna stealing clothes.
Similarly Radha do not turn up anywhere; she appears only in the very late Bramhabaiberta purana where it is also said that Krishna created Vishnu. "

My reply : So various sources circle around the same figure - Krishna. Unfortunately I have no source as to study all this ... need to do more reading in my part.

All have same characteristics as well - Krishna being a man (blue skin and all), he born in captivity because his parents were imprisoned by his uncle, raised by foster parents then took over the clan when he got matured, whack his uncle and freed his real parents and become a king. I think if we scrap off all the mythogical part, we will come to this.

PS : Forgive me for not replying sooner, but my company had some Server problem.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

Seraphim

"Hmm, thats something new, so why and how the Hindi worship the younger brother instead? "

My reply : Actually Balarama is "Athishisan" (Atheist? Sound very near ...) or the Snake which Vishnu lies on. If you see Vishnu's form in any pictures, you will see one where Vishnu (in his human form) lies on the back of a large snake with several heads, acting as an umbrella.

In Mahabratha (or Vishnu Purana if not mistake, long time since I read it), it stated that Vishnu incarnated as Rama and Athishisan as Laksamana (did I get the name right?), his younger brother. When Rama was forced to go into 12 year exile by his step mother, Rama's wife and Laksamana went along with him.

So, for 12 long years, his brother were with him and fought by his side. When Rama won over Ravana and managed to save Sita (his wife), he return to his country and rule there. He gave the country to his one (of 3 including Laksamana) to one brother, and another to another brother but he didn't give anything to Laksamana. So to make things right, Rama accepted that he will born as younger brother in the next incarnation and serve Laksamana for the service he (Laksamana) rendered him in this.

So that is why, Krishna worshipped his elder brother. I believe he touch Balarama's feet every morning, at least that what I read in one of the books.

hinduwoman

Seraphim, that is certainly a new way of looking at free will in Krishna tradition, one I have not seen before. Oh well, your interpretation is as valid as anyone's I guess.
We are approaching Paundroraj from two different directions. Yours is based on belief in a certain doctrine, while I am trying to get at what is beneath the myth or if it is all there is.
All the krishna stories defive from one source. I am saying that it was embellished later.

It is Hindu. Hindi is a language.
I think Krishna cult was separate. Krishna merged with Visnu after the avatar cycle was settled. However some later books have 24 avatars. The swamynarayan sect also believes that their founder, who preached in 18th century was also an avatar of Krishna.

Seraphim

"Seraphim, that is certainly a new way of looking at free will in Krishna tradition, one I have not seen before. Oh well, your interpretation is as valid as anyone's I guess."

My reply : I read it in a small (2-1) book about Krishna (from the day he was born) till his "death" and sinking of Dwarka. Not very sure about the title of the book since it was over 9 years since I read it, but I remember almost ALL the story told there, including Jaya and Vijaya story (you may not heard about that one either).

However, do you mind explaining what you meant by "free will in Krishna tradition"?

"We are approaching Paundroraj from two different directions. Yours is based on belief in a certain doctrine, while I am trying to get at what is beneath the myth or if it is all there is."

My reply : Well, do tell.

"All the krishna stories defive from one source. I am saying that it was embellished later."

My reply : Which can be corrected by historical digs and recreation of historical datas.

"It is Hindu. Hindi is a language.
I think Krishna cult was separate. Krishna merged with Visnu after the avatar cycle was settled. However some later books have 24 avatars. The swamynarayan sect also believes that their founder, who preached in 18th century was also an avatar of Krishna. "

My reply : Well, I don't know about you, but for me, 9 is enough- from the Fish incarnation all the way to Buddha and the 10th (Kalki) is to be expected at end of times (at least Human's end of time).