hinduwoman

Since the other Alexander and Jesus threads had been taken over by whether the census happened, I thought a new thread appropriate.

There are stronger proofs about Alexander than only Greek legends. Alexander came to India; he conquered a considerable portion of northern frontier of India; he retreated before the forces of Magadha; he left behind his generals as subkings and one of these subkings' daughter by a formal treaty married into the contemporary Imperial Maurya dynasty. There are coins and inscriptions and records about all this in India. Alexander as a real person and conquering leader of Greeks is definitely mentioned.
The Indians had no interest in creating a mythical founder for a Greek empire which simply did not exist in India.
Note: India does NOT have any legends of Alexander being a god. On the other hand Indian sources focus mostly on how Chandragupta Maurya, then an unimportant rebel, boldly defied him etc. etc: Chandragupta is the hero.

On the other hand, what evidence is about Jesus except outside the gospels?

As for creation of myth, god bless you my dear Christians, myths are created all the time in a backward way by poets and deliberate mythographers.
Take the example of moongod in Hindu mythology. According to legend he is very definitely male, and he has the stars as his wives. The problem is in Vedas there is no moongod. There are only the Goddess of New Moon and Goddess of Full Moon. So how did the more popular version of the moongod came about. Well in the vedas there is a metaphor used in a nature hymn where the moon is said to shine in the sky as a husband with his wives --- viola! Some poet picks it up and gets to work.

Or take the case of Krishna's wives. In the epic he starts out with a measly one. As more and more puranas (myth anthologies ) were written, he seems to gain more and more wives. Finally in one later legend he ends up by marrying sixeen thousand daughters of a demon all at once! Fascinating example of how legends get inflated.
In fact, marrying 16000 women has a higher probability than rising from the dead.

Toto

Thank you.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Peter Kirby

Are there any stages in the Krishna tradition in which Krishna is treated as though He never had a physical incarnation?

I ask because I am curious.

best,
Peter Kirby

Nightwalker

I'm not an expert on Hindu mythology, but that would seem to violate the concept that Vishnu (AKA Krishna/son of Brahma)incarnates whenever piety falls off in the world.... I seem to recall reading something in which he said that was one of his missions.

lpetrich

And Chandragupta himself is mentioned by Greek historians! Though as "Sandracottus".

hinduwoman

Kirby: The stories have been edited so many times, it is a bit difficult, even to know whether Krishna actually existed. But it is generally accepted (among sensible people that is) that in the original authentic portions of Mahabharata, Krishna is simply a king. He does things in a human manner rather than simply settling the whole thing with a wave of his hand. In the epic itself the Kauravas, the antagonists are scornful of his claim to be god. Even after Krishna shows them miracles, they refuse to believe him. I would say this is pretty strong evidence. Similarly the Pandavas, who should know after all, treat him like ordinary human being mostly--- in Gita which is a later interpolation Arjuna apologizes for this.
The cult of Vishnu became a big thing long after the core events of the epic. Somehow or other Krishna became identified with Vishnu and then a tribal deity (the cowherd) was added to the mix.

nightwalker,
Sure, but that does not have anything to do with his having so many wives. The mythographers simply expanded the stories surrounding him as Krishna and added more from other sources --- for example the entire image and story of Krishna as the charming adolescent flirting with so many shepherdesses is absent from the older sources.

Ipetrich: and in Hindi Alexander is called Sikander!

Maybe a joint conspiracy by ancient Greeks and Indians, since these are obviously two different names?

Seraphim

"Finally in one later legend he ends up by marrying sixeen thousand daughters of a demon all at once! Fascinating example of how legends get inflated.
In fact, marrying 16000 women has a higher probability than rising from the dead. "

Get your facts straight when you are posting something, Hinduwoman - whether it is a myth or a legand or a fact.

Krisha didn't marry any demon's daughters, for one. It was Narakasuran (the demon's name, maybe mistake in the name) and he (the demon) and his followers kept human princesses as captives (probably as insurance to make sure that their families do not attack them). Krishna went in, kill the demon (thus giving Hindus Deepavalli celebration) and freed the women.

The princesses, knowing well that their families will never accept them (since they were with demons for a while, thus their families will take it that they are not pure/virgin/whatever) and pleaded with Krishna to accept them or they will die. Krishna (being Vishnu incarnated) accepted them as his wife.

It is written in Bhagavad Gita that Krishna said that he will accept any devotees in WHATEVER relationship his devotees accept him as - a mother and son (Krishna being the Son), Husband, Father, or even just as an enemy.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Seraphim ]</p>

Seraphim

"Are there any stages in the Krishna tradition in which Krishna is treated as though He never had a physical incarnation?
I ask because I am curious."

My reply : If you asking whether Krishna was real or someone's imagination, then I like to point out at the excavations of a sunken city (of Dwaraka, which said to be built by Krishna some 5,000 year ago) off the coast of Goa (if not mistaken).

Once the excavation complete (I believe it was started around early 1990s), we could get some clearer picture of Krishna.

"In the epic itself the Kauravas, the antagonists are scornful of his claim to be god. "

My reply : Antagonists? ... oh well ...
Kauravas didn't scorn Krishna because of his claim that he was God (or in this case, Vishnu), they scorn him because he came as a messanger of peace for Pandavas in attempt to divert a war among the cousins.

Matter a fact, Krishna didn't reveal his Cosmic Appearance (forgot the proper name) till AFTER the Kauravas attempted to kill him by dumping him onto a pit, carefully built on top of the chair he (Krishna) was invited to sit. So Krishna didn't force anyone to accept him as God.

"Somehow or other Krishna became identified with Vishnu and then a tribal deity (the cowherd) was added to the mix. "

My reply : And WHO/WHICH diety were they worship till then? Indra (Rain Giver), Yama, Surya and other elemental dieties.
Vishnu is still worship as Rama before, and the whole picture is just like Abrahamic religion where it all become part of ONE God concept in the end.

"The mythographers simply expanded the stories surrounding him as Krishna and added more from other sources --- for example the entire image and story of Krishna as the charming adolescent flirting with so many shepherdesses is absent from the older sources. "

My reply : What older sources? Can you show me some or at least point the direction where I could get a copy of this older version?

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.

lpetrich

It depends on which Hindu one asks

I did a websearch for (Krishna Vishnu) and I found some sites stating that Krishna is usually considered the 8th avatar of Vishnu.