Talk:Krishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Krishna article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Krishna was the Hinduism Collaboration of the week for the week starting on 8 May 2006.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
WikiProject_Hindu_Mythology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hindu mythology, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hindu mythology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] New contents header

Added on 2 May 02005 to make a ToC by Imc 15:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early references

It's impossible for the occurance of Krishna to come in Chandogya, due to anachronistic effects. According to the Hindu timeline Krishna postdates Chandogya Upanishad. The Devaki putra in Chandogya is different. Like we have many Krishnas today, in ancient times the name was just as common.


Krishna is not the narrator of the Bhagavad Gita. It is Sanjeya, who reports the words Krishna addresses to Arjuna (and Arjuna's responses) back to Dhritarashtra. Imc 22:35, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)


SANJAYA LISTENS TO THE WORDS OF VED VYASA AND VED VYASA ACTUALLY HEARD THE ORIGINAL CONVERSATION BETWEEN KRISHNA AND ARJUNA....GET IT!!

Major revision of 10 Nov 03. I have removed much of the previously existing material for this revision. This is essentially in an effort to create a structured encyclopaedic entry that tries to cover a broad range of the Krishna legends, references, and literature, and not focus on any particular traditions. Some of the previous material may be better placed in different linked articles, such as under an account of some the modern Vaishnava traditions. Imc 23:28, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And it's beginning to lose structure and focus now. It should now be split into separate articles, especially to take account of differing views and traditions. Imc 18:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the adding again of Krishna meaning 'all attractive'; I would like a reference for this. I cannot find any.

The reference I have for Arjuna being called Krishna, meaning attractive, actually says (Arjuna speaking) 'my father gave me the tenth name of Krishna because I was very attractive' Quoted from Vettam Mani's Puranic encyclopaedia.

My Sanskrit dictionary gives no other meaning for Krishna than black. Imc 18:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just about every single source I've read about Krsna states that the Sanskrit word means "all-attractive". http://www.google.com/search?q=krsna+all-attractive returns 793 hits; http://www.google.com/search?q=krishna+all-attractive another 1,250. AFAIK, painting murtis of Krsna black is only done in the South-Indian tradition (which with I am not so familiar.) Mkweise 19:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I've read a lot about Krishna as well from earliest childhood, and 'all attractive' was new to me. The number of google hits is not exactly a proof of the meaning, especially since a search on Krishna and black - http://www.google.com/search?q=krishna+black - returned about 147000 results. Since I haven't seen an older origin for this than ISKCON websites (and I have not looked too deep), it may be reasonable to suppose it a interpretation that was originated by Swami Prabhupada and that has spread with ISKCON? Imc 17:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Krishna has been said to mean black and has been represented as blue for centuries. The internet is a horrible way of finding out about Krishna. Most Krishna worshippers in India have no truck with ISCKON. ISKCON is one small group of Krishna worshippers and don't in any way represent most Hindus.
Krishna means all-attractive : sir you dont have to find a sanskrit dictionary to know that as most of those dictionaries give a objective meaning of a word. You will find the meaning of Krishna as all attractive when you go thru some good Vedic books. Which i am sure you wont fine time for. DONT TRY TO FIND THE MEANING OF GOD IN DICTIONARIS , IF YOU EVEN HAVE A LITTLE COMMON SENSE


I have heard that this all-attractive comes from sanskrit verb root kRs or karsati meaning to pull or to attract someone. Sankrit words often can be explained in many different ways. Lonehermit 23:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see that both possibilities are now mentioned, and I have no wish to re-open the debate on the derivation of Kṛṣṇa. However, I wanted to make the probably irrelevant observation that a black body is all-attractive to the electromagnetic spectrum.
--Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna

is there somewhere online where there is a good, detailed, outsider's explanation of the beliefs and principles of the Hare Krishna faith? I am trying to see if they believe in the Christian God, and anything else. What I don't want is a bunch of words that take me ten minutes to pronounce. I just want to know what they stand for, and do not stand for. thanks P.R.

Try looking at the Hare Krishna article at International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness

thank you, i'll check it out P.R.

THe Christian God? Dude... they believe in Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As Hindus, they believe everyone prays to the same God, though they feel that God is ultimately Krishna. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:10, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, the Hare Krishnas are not Hindu--they're followers of the Vaisnava philosophy. The devotees are only interested in satisfying Krishna's (God's) senses. They will only accept food which has first been offered to the Lord. Similarly they are always chanting the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. Ultimately, they are following the teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who started the Hare Krishna movement. -D.

Vaishnavism is a VEDIC philosophy and hinduism is psudo name for vedic religion. Vedic religion is very old and is brought forward by aryans.  :)

[edit] Some inconsistencies and outdated material in the article.

The article states "Krishna was born in a prison cell at Mathura, in modern day Uttar Pradesh in about 3206 BC.". Subsequently it states "A paper presented recently at a convention in Prabhas Patan near Somnath, concludes that Krishna died at the ripe old age of 125 on February 18, 3102 BC at 14:27:30 hours on the banks of river Hiran in Prabhas Patan. As the report goes, he was 125 years, 7 months and 6 days when he died."

3206 - 3102 != 125. The numbers don't add up.

Also "The year 2004 is the year 5105 of the Kali Yuga (which began with a year 0)." seems outdated, maybe it should be replaced by 2005, 5106?

[edit] added in "Birth"

Added that Krishna was born in Mathura, and linked it to the page with a picture of teh temple at Krishnajanmabhoomi

[edit] Major rewrite 2 May 2005

A number of revisions. Included quite a number of removals of redundancies in the encyclopaedia, such as the redundant explanation of where Vidharba is. Also removed a number of other items or paragraphs.

[edit] Smaller removals

Removed the section on dating from the first paragraph; the information in it is duplicated at the end.

Removed from the Govinda section. Only specific to Vaishna traditions, and implied in the mention of Gaudiya. "He is the Supreme Lord of Hinduism (internally known as Sanatana-dharma, or eternal dharma), and all incarnations of God are said to emanate from him."

Removed from the Major aspects section, as irrelevant given the later item on the same topic. "* Childhood of Krishna is easily identified with Indian country life; concentrating mainly on cattle rearing and cultivation."

Removed from the cowherd section as being a specific Vaishna telling. "Balarama is his primary svamsa emination, or expansion. "

Removed the following from the last item of Major aspects. This would be better placed in the Bhagavad Gita article. "He teaches Arjuna several topics, such as jnana, dharma, yoga, kala (time), prakriti (nature), karma (action), moksa (release), tattva (haecceity), bhakti (devotion), and guna (qualities) in the Bhagavad Gita, and is known as the greatest Yogin, or Yogesvara. The Bhagavad Gita is the first true Yoga text in the Yoga tradition. It is also one of the oldest primary texts for Devotional Krishna-bhakti traditions, and is the most widely read Vedic/Hindu text in print."

Removed most of the last paragraph in the Texts and literature section. Same reasons as the preceding item. "Before the great battle of Kurukshetra (in present day Haryana) starts, Arjuna loses heart with the prospect of fighting his cousins and other relatives for the kingdom. Krishna reminds him that he has done everything he could possibly do to avoid the battle, and that his duty (dharma) is serve Him by fighting . Krishna goes on to show why the Gita is known as the first Yoga Scripture, and gives a lengthy exegesis on the means of fulfilling life's goals through the systems of yoga. In it, he describes in detail the philosophies of Bhakti (devotional), Karma (selfless action), Jnana (self-transcending knowledge), Astanga (meditational) Yoga and all in the ends connect one to Krishna whose personal form is the highest realization of Absolute Truth (as compared to Brahman and Paramatma). He shows Arjuna how to reconcile his misapprehension about the war with the eternal truths that underlie life through the Vedic doctrine of Yoga. These form the basis of the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita."

Imc 15:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Larger article chunks removed

Removed most of the content of the sections “The birth of Krishna” and all of “The Appearance of Krishna. “ and replaced these with a short section called Birth and childhood.

Reason; This is a selected retelling of the story, and the origin is not given. It does not appear to be a standard text. Also, if continued would cause the article to become too large. I suggest the removed text could be incorporated in new articles on the life of Krishna.

The text removed was;

"“Krishna was born in Mathura, and the place of his birth is now known as Krishnajanmabhoomi, where a temple is raised in his memory. Krishna was born in a tense historical period preceding a devastating war. The warring factions built up so many weapons that the burden on the earth became unbearable. Finally the goddess of Earth took the form of a cow and prayed to Lord Brahma for relief. Lord Brahma called all the demigods to the shore of the Milk Ocean to hear Mother Earth and to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vishnu. Lord Brahma fell into trance reciting the Vedic hymns known as the Purusa-sukta and heard the voice of Lord Vishnu. Then he announced, "O demigods, hear from me the words of God. He is aware of the distress on Earth and wants you demigods to incarnate as sons and daughters in the Yadu dynasty. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna, will personally appear as the son of Vasudeva. Therefore you will all have the benediction of joining the eternal pastimes of Lord Krishna."

Lord Brahma consoled the cow and sent her home, then returned to his planet, Brahmaloka. The demigods then began to take birth in the Yadu dynasty, awaiting the appearance of Lord Krishna. The members of the Yadu dynasty, headed by Vasudeva and Devaki, along with their friends, relatives and well- wishers were all demigods. The residents of Vrindavana, headed by King Nanda, Queen Yasoda and Queen Rohini, were also demigods.

King Kansa was another relative in the family, however he was not a demigod. He usurped the throne of his father, Ugrasena, and put him in prison. When Devaki, a member of Ugrasena's family, married Vasudeva, she received a large dowry of elephants, horses, chariots and servants. After the wedding, Kansa took the reins of the wedding chariot and started to escort the couple home. Along the way, a voice from the sky addressed him: "You foolish king, the eighth son of Devaki will kill you!"

Kansa pulled Devaki down by her hair, drew his sword and prepared to kill her on the spot, but Vausdeva begged for his bride's life and promised to let him kill the eighth child, so that the oracle would not be fulfilled. Kansa agreed to spare her life, but locked Vasudeva and Devaki in a stone prison. Thereafter, he mercilessly killed the first six sons of Devaki. Devaki's seventh son miscarried but mystically transferred to the womb of Queen Rohini in Vrindavana. This became Krishna's older brother, Balarama. Soon thereafter, Devaki became pregnant with her eighth child.

[edit] The Appearance of Krishna

Krishna was born at the stroke of midnight in His four-armed Vishnu form, dressed in silk and jewels, carrying the four weapons: the conch, disc, club and lotus. His parents prayed for Him to turn Himself into an ordinary baby so they could hide Him from Kansa. The Lord advised Vasudeva to take him to Vrindavana and exchange him with a girl that had just been born there. Then he turned Himself into a baby.

Magically, the guards in Kansa's prison fell asleep, and all the iron shackles, chains and locks automatically opened. Without questioning this, Vasudeva took the child and departed for Vrindavana. Like the story of Moses, the story of Krishna also includes a parting of the waters, allowing Vasudeva to carry Krishna across the Jamuna River to Vrindavana. When Vasudeva reached the house of Nanda, all the cowherds were asleep. Thus he placed his own son on the bed of Yasoda, picked up her newborn girl and returned to the prison of Kansa.

There was a chance Kansa would spare the child because the omen said it would be the eighth son that would kill him. Devaki pleaded with him, but Kansa pulled the baby girl from her arms and dashed her against a stone. The girl slipped from his hands and rose above his head as the eight-armed form of Goddess Durga, dressed in fine garments and jewels. She said, "The enemy you contemplate is living somewhere else. You are a fool to hurt innocent children. Krishna will kill you."

Kansa became remorseful and begged Devaki and Vasudeva to forgive him for his sins. He released them from their shackles and fell down on their feet, crying tears of regret. The next day, however, Kansa's ministers advised him to give up his sentimental attitude and take action to kill all newborn children in the region. They also advised him to disturb the demigods and saintly people.”


Imc 15:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Other changes

Removed reference to dark blue being the colour of the night sky. To most of us the night sky is black and starry? Some more evidence of this being an original meaning would be useful.

Moved the following text as being out of context in this section, to a new section on other meanings of the name. Deleted the following sentence to this as being out of context. "According to Vishnu sahasranama, Krishna, the 57th name, also means the Existence of Knowledge and Bliss. "

Removed the following texts about the name / colour as questionable and not evidenced. Added a brief note instead on other meanings of the name.

"This is understood as having come into existence from scriptural allusions to his deep hue. Indeed, he is divine, and being dark-skinned, it deepens so much that it takes on a rich blue tone.

Krishna's body is the colour of an enchantingly beautiful dark raincloud. The philosophical backdrop for Krishna's dark blue skin is that Vishnu, who is ultimately incarnated as Krishna, is also known as Narayana. Narayana means "born of water." This is because water, seen as the base principle for life as we know it on earth, the nourisher of plants and animals alike, the very substance of cyclic existence, is essential to preservation. Vishnu, who in avatar form comes down to earth to help preserve dharma, is epitomised by the principle of water, being himself the God of Preservation. As water is commonly seen as being blue, and Vishnu is said to sleep in Yoga Nidra, floating on cosmic waters on Shesha (a snake-god), it is only natural that Vishnu's representations are all blue. By syllogism, it transferred to his great avatar, Krishna.

Sometimes the term Krishna has been explained as meaning 'attractive'. This is eminently understandable with his mythic allure to women of all kinds (i.e. the gopis). Moreover, he is viewed by his devotees, from ancient times till the present day, as reflecting the intense beauty of God in his physical aspect."

From the names of Krishna. I've removed Padmanabha. This is as far as I can see, a name of Vishnu rather than Krishna, and there is very little material or explanation about it.

Imc 15:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] announcing a policy proposal of general interest

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 108 names of Krishna

I've replaced this with the previous list. Mainly because this list was incomplete, and the descriptions given of these names seem to specific to a particular Gaudiya interpretation. e.g. Vishnu is a name of Krishna, (only in Gaudiya Vaishna traditions). Also other translations / interpretations are non-standard, e.g. that for Mayur, and they seem to be an odd mix of Sanskrit and Hindi forms. List does not agree with other lists of the 108 names. Complete text follows:-

Krishna is said to have 108 names.

NAMES-MEANING

  • Achaia - Still Lord
  • Achyuta - Infallible Lord
  • Adbhutah - Wonderful God
  • Adidev - The Lord Of The Lords
  • Aditya - The Son Of Aditi
  • Ajanma - One Who Is Limitless And Endless
  • Ajaya - The Conqueror Of Life And Death
  • Akshara - Indestructible Lord
  • Amrut - One Who Is Sweet As Nectar
  • Anaadih - One Who Is The First Cause
  • Anandsagar - Compassionate Lord
  • Ananta - The Endless Lord
  • Anantajit - Ever Victorious Lord
  • Anaya - One Who Has No Leader
  • Aniruddha - One Who Cannot Be Obstructed
  • Aparajeet - The Lord Who Cannot Be Defeated
  • Avyukta - One Who Is As Clear As Crystal
  • Balgopal - The Child Krishna, The All Attractive
  • Bali - The Lord Of Strength
  • Chaturbhuj - Four-Armed Lord
  • Danavendra - Granter Of Boons
  • Dayalu - Repositiory Of Compassion
  • Dayanidhi - The Compassionate Lord
  • Devadidev - The God Of The Gods
  • Devakinandan - Son Of Mother Devaki
  • Devesh - Lord Of The Lords
  • Dharmadhyaksha - The Lord OF Dharma
  • Dwarkapati - Lord Of Dwarka
  • Gopal - One Who Plays With The Cowherds, The Gopas
  • Gopalpriya - Lover Of Cowherds
  • Govinda - One Who Pleases The Cows, The Land And The Entire Nature
  • Gyaneshwar - The Lord Of Knowledge
  • Hari - The Lord Of Nature
  • Hiranyagarbha - The All Powerful Creator
  • Hrishikesh - The Lord Of All Senses
  • Jagadguru - Preceptor Of The Universe
  • Jagadisha - Protector Of All
  • Jagannath - Lord Of The Universe
  • Janardhana - One Who Bestows Boons On One And All
  • Jayantah - Conqueror Of All Enemies
  • Jyotiraaditya - The Resplendence Of The Sun
  • Kamalnath - The Lord Of Goddess Lakshmi
  • Kamalnayan - The Lord With Lotus Shaped Eyes
  • Kamsantak - Slayer Of Kamsa
  • Kanjalochana - The Lotus-Eyed God
  • Keshava - One Who Has Long, Black Matted Locks
  • Krishna - Dark-Complexioned Lord
  • Lakshmikantam - The Lord Of Goddess Lakshmi
  • Lokadhyaksha - Lord Of All The Three Lokas (Worlds)
  • Madan - The Lord Of Love
  • Madhava - Knowledge Filled God
  • Madhusudan - Slayer Of Demon Madhu
  • Mahendra - Lord Of Indra
  • Manmohan - All Pleasing Lord
  • Manohar - Beautiful Lord
  • Mayur - The Lord Who Has A Peacock Feathered-Crest
  • Mohan - All Attractive God
  • Murali - The Flute Playing Lord
  • Murlidhar - One Who Holds The Flute
  • Murlimanohar - The Flute Playing God
  • Nandgopala - The Son Of Nand
  • Narayana - The Refuge Of Everyone
  • Niranjana - The Unblemished Lord
  • Nirguna - Without Any Properties
  • Padmahasta - One Who Has Hands Like Lotus
  • Padmanabha - The Lord Who Has A Lotus Shaped Navel
  • Parabrahmana - The Supreme Absolute Truth
  • Paramatma - Lord Of All Beings
  • Parampurush - Supreme Personality
  • Parthasarthi - Charioteer Of Partha - Arjuna
  • Prajapati - Lord Of All Creatures
  • Punyah - Supremely Pure
  • Purshottam - The Supreme Soul
  • Ravilochana - One Who Eye Is The Sun
  • Sahasraakash - Thousand-Eyed Lord
  • Sahasrajit - One Who Vanquishes Thousands
  • Sahasrapaat - Thousand-Footed Lord
  • Sakshi - All Witnessing Lord
  • Sanatana - The Eternal Lord
  • Sarvajana - Omniscient Lord
  • Sarvapalaka - Protector Of All
  • Sarveshwar - Lord Of All Gods
  • Satyavachana - One Who Speaks Only The Truth
  • Satyavrata - The Truth Dedicated Lord
  • Shantah - Peaceful Lord
  • Shreshta - The Most Glorious Lord
  • Shrikanta - Beautiful Lord
  • Shyam - Dark-Complexioned Lord
  • Shyamsundara - Lord Of The Beautiful Evenings
  • Sudarshana - Handsome Lord
  • Sumedha - Intelligent Lord
  • Suresham - Lord Of All Demi-Gods
  • Swargapati - Lord Of Heavens
  • Trivikrama - Conqueror Of All The Three Worlds
  • Upendra - Brother Of Indra
  • Vaikunthanatha - Lord Of Vaikuntha, The Heavenly Abode
  • Vardhamaanah - The Formless Lord
  • Vasudev - All Prevailing Lord
  • Vishnu-All Prevailing Lord
  • Vishwadakshinah - Skilfull And Efficient Lord
  • Vishwakarma - Creator Of The Universe
  • Vishwamurti - Of The Form Of The Entire Universe
  • Vishwarupa - One Who Displays The Universal Form
  • Vishwatma - Soul Of The Universe
  • Vrishaparvaa - Lord Of Dharma
  • Yadavendra - King Of The Yadav Clan
  • Yogi - The Supreme Master
  • Yoginampati - Lord Of The Yogis"


change - removed this link The Johnny (Straws) Experience Y2k05 why is this appearing in this article

[edit] Krishna a Scythian

I think Krishna was among indo scythian (Ahir,Abhir or Aver)who overthrew Kamsa and the story about being swapped with a girl child when Yasoda was asleep and Kamsa trying to kill that and all the divine play are mere subterfuge implanted by brahmanas of which we have many in our scriptures.Another one is the story of YAyati,Progenetor of all the vedic Kshatriya tribes like puru ,Yadu etc in which it is said Puru the youngest son offered his youth to his father for 1000years in lieu of succession to the throne and yadu was cursed along with his sons not being able to rule.This seem to be a legend rather than true story.It tries to justify why Yadavs should not rule who were facing stiff opposition during that time.Yadavs were next to come in india after purus and were called lunar dynasty on the pretext of purus being called solar.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yadav"

We need this link he is one of our biggest supporters.

The Johnny (Straws) ExperienceThe Johnny (Straws) Experience

[edit] Krishn not son of devaki

It seems like the baby swapping story is fabricated one by brahmanas.Locks opened on their own all guards laid asleep,Vasudeva not only swapped the child without Yashoda noticing it (How can't a mother know sex of her child)he returns too and the story breaks after he Kills Kamsa and snatches the royal throne of mathura .Great story a similar subterfuge was implanted by Shivaji during coronation,of having traced his root to sishodia Rajputs to cool the dirty heads of brahmanas.Karnas recognition as Kshatriya after his death is well known to all of us.It seems our society had a culture of lying to masses through all the ages to protect the myth that kshatriya alone could rule.Another subterfuge story in medieval era is the story of Kabirdas who was traced to brahmin mother to protect the myth that brahmin alone could learn.What is wrong with these celebrities was that they never challenged these beliefs rather they succumbed to it.Great was Chandragupta Maurya who never vied for these titles and ruled whole of south asia and changed the conception of people through Buddhism

"It seems"? This is speculation. It clearly states in the Bhagavatam that Devaki is the mother of Krishna. You question why Mother Yasoda doesn't notice the sex change - you forget this this is an arrangement of the supreme will. Dwayne Kirkwood

Although concern shown by anonumous may not be fully correct.But even I am Skceptical if these two people called deviki and Vasudeva ever existed.Because same Krishna has been shown to be fighting for the title of Vasudeva against King Paundrak.What for the battle took pacle??????Holywarrior 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion 'proving' the existence of anyone is beyond the scope of any Wikipedia article. It should give an overview of the subject matter only - any POV regarding the factual nature (or not) of events that are said to have happened 5000 years ago should not be included (unless both sides are shown). However, the above story concerning Devaki is described in Srimad Bhagavatam and is thus essential to the Krishna article as Dwayne has described. GourangaUK 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Vaasudeva

Vasudeva is derived from two words vasumeaning snake and deva meaning god.To become bhoj(Head of Kings) one needed to be son of this mythical character.Yadavas(gwals) who identified themselves with snakes gave this title to their bhoj,thats why Krishna was called vaasudeva meaning son of vasudeva and her mythical wife deviki.The story of child swapping has many flaws just as the story of yayati.Krishna's clash with another king who himself had declared vaasudeva is recorded in puranas itself.It proves beyond doubt that this title was merely honorary and had nothing to do with the birth of Krisna as a human being.Kshatriya used to give this title to their king like son of sun, moon etc which was all honorary.The story of child swapping seems to be added later on,by brahmanas, with a motive to alienate Krishna from gwals and create distinction between the two terms but has been poorly done.Brahmans wrote some books(in modern age) later on trying to declare krishna as brahman and the fabricated story tries to prove that Krishna who was acatually the son of vasudeva(the story takes refuge in same child swapping theory) was a brahmin .

Yadvas lost their glory many times and regained it.Both the great dynasties Maurya and Gupta belongs to yadava . Gupta is synonym of gope both words mean same in fact gupta in egyptian indeed mean cowherd.People who say why yadvas don't write gupta as their surname they should look at the development in recent past the surnames mahato and mandal too belonged to yadvas but they gave up writing this surname when many kurmis and other castes adopted it.(would Late Shri B P Mandal of Mandal Comission be considered a Kurmi?)

Kshatriyas were supposed to be preserver and owner of cows.In ancient times Cows(a divine creature should we call it animal?) were the wealth of people and yadavas have the distiction of bringing the concept of cow worship in the land of cow eaters aryans.Royal family of Nepal still call themselves Gurkha meaning preserver of cows.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yadav"

[edit] Krishna was not chandravanshi

Against the popular belief generally due to ignorance,Krishna has never been called Chandravanshi.Actually Chandravanshis were purus(kauravs and pandavas),Yadus and krishna were Nagvamshi and hence he held the title Vaasudeva or Devikiputra(meaning son of God vasuki and deviki)this title has nothing to do with his physical birth.Nagvamshis and chandravamshis were together referred to as somvamshis.Symbol sun or suryavamshi had been ascribed to raghukul (of lord Rama) Because Krishna held the title vaasudeva a story of child swapping had been deliberately fabricated.Actually these two people vasudeva and deviki does not find any reference anywhere thereafter.However same Krishna has been found to be challenged for this title by another king who too claimed to be vaasudeva and humbled by krishna (recorded in the same puranas).This makes mockery of child swapping story

Lets stick to facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no place for speculative stuffs here. Its the job historians and religious scholars to figure out whether Krishna was a Chandravanshi or not. --Deepak|वार्ता 00:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

LET US STICK TO lOGIC

Mr Gupta I don't know whether You have the ability of arriving at conclusions or not.You wilfuly deleted the material added perhaps without much thinking because people like you lack courage to accept facts.It is a fact known to every Hindu that our scriptures has been doctored to suit some sections of the society.And you call it speculations.One must answer these illogical insertions and if you don't have answers you should accept these are errors which need to be rectified .People like you i think better not come on encyclopidea because it is not merely for accumulation of facts(as known to you )but also forum to discuss anamolies and sort them out.I had inserted it in main article because these anamolies need to be answered .I hope some logic will pass through your brain and if it fails you better leave this forum and stick to whatever orthodox believes are.

To the anonymous editor at 210.214.82.22 who inserted the above comment.
* Please refrain from personal attacks.
* Please obtain a log in, and sign your entries.
* Please do not insert preformatted text (enclosed in pre tags) into talk pages, or anywhere else here for that matter, it makes it difficult or impossible to read.
* User Deepak Gupta's point could be put another way; that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, which is what you seem to be proposing. As an alternative, perhaps you could write your points in a separate article. The Krishna article is already moderately long, and it will probably need breaking up further in time. Some material, such as List of titles and names of Krishna is already separate. It will often be material that is not of mainstream interest that will go into separate pages.
Imc 10:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Formatting page, images, and boxes

I've rearranged the large uppermost image, and the Indic text box. Together in their original position they occupied the width of the page and either pushed the text off the bottom of the screen, or into a very narrow column. (on low res browsers (800 x 600 px), of which there are still a few about. ) The large image may be more suited to the Gita page.

Also teh Indic text box may be better replaced by help link after each instance of Indic text. This would stop it being intrusive, and many users will have no idea what 'Indic script' means. Imc 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy...

This article says at the very top that it is about the Hindu deity, rather than a possible historical figure on whom he was based. Sinced the bulk of the historical evidence indicates that he did not in fact exist, should the article not focus on the way he is described in the sacred texts? I mean, I approve wholeheartedly of reverting POV vandals and not simply changing "dies there" to "returns to brindavan in the heavens" (for one think, that should be a wikilink with a capital "B"), but the article seems to be treating him more in the section entitled "Summary of the story of Krishna" as a rational historical figure, rather than as an incarnation of Brahman supreme. Anyone else agree? elvenscout742 12:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's actually no mention of a possible historical figure at the start of the article. The summary of the story of Krishna in the article now is explicitly that story that is told in the Mahabharata. This makes perfect sense when looking at the place of Krishna in Hinduism as a whole. There is a problem here; should descriptions attempt to be 'scholarly' and impersonal, or should the descriptions be of the deity, as seen by devotees, when these views may not be universal? It is particularly a problem with Krishna and associated figures such as Radha, Balarama, because of a preponderance (or so it seems to me anyway) of ISKCON and other Vaishnava devotees in Wikipedia. The language for instance of these devotees contains such terms as appearance for birth, disappearance for death, pastimes for activities. These terms are not generally used or understood by those who have not read that specific literature, and it is probably in English only. These terms were, I imagine (and stand to be corrected), introduced by Swami Prabhupada, in his relatively recent works.
Imc 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Elvenscout - How about 'leaves this world' as a compromise between the two views? I agree with you changing of the picture, it is much more appropriate. 86.136.7.74 13:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a question of points of view, and your solution does not solve anything. My suggestion would be to say he "died", and is viewed by Vaishnavas as having returned to his abode in the heavens.

[edit] External links

There has been a lot of outside links collecting at the base of this article, some duplicated within the list. I've removed superflous ones again in line with Wikipedia policy on External links.

Some websites have little to do with Krishna; for instance the ISKCON website , which is better linked in the ISKCON article. No doubt there is content on this website that is specifically about Krishna, and is relevant to this article. This should be provided as a direct link. Similarly http://www.wva-vvrs.org/ http://www.sreecgmath.org/ http://www.vina.cc/ http://www.jkp.org/ http://veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/index.htm#8 are about the movements, not about Krishna.

Krishna temples (e.g. http://www.parthasaradhi.org/ ) are numerous across the world and again it does not make sense for them to be listed here, unless again there is useful content.

Krishna's teachings in the Gita http://www.harekrishna.com/~ara/col/books/BG/tsem1.html http://bhagavadgita.swami-center.org/page_21.shtml http://www.gitamrta.org/ would be better in the Bhagavad Gita article.

ISKCON and related movements are already heavily represented in Wikipedia (and on the internet)., with their own articles. Having multiple websites of it may be justifiable in the ISKCON article, but probably not necessarily here, unless they add to the article. See, among others. http://www.krishna.com/ http://www.iskcon.com/ http://veda.harekrsna.cz

Imc 14:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See WikiProjectSpam for many good recommendations on how to fight the excessive number of external links, which is a growing problem. Personally I have begun chipping away at these things by trying to remove a link or two on some page or other whenever I see overlong lists. I also discovered the template for giving a "cease and desist" order regarding linkspam, which I have added to the external links section.

[edit] Chronology section

The chronology section contains doubtful and vague statements e.g.

"The finding was based on clues in the Vedic literatures. "

What findings? Krishna is not mentioned in the Vedas. Andries 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be removed until it can be actually backed up. Dwayne Kirkwood

I also agree that this sentance should be removed, it is a bit vague. 'The date of 3102 BC is generally taken as the date of Krishna's birth by followers of Hinduism.' Or something along those lines may be more appropriate?

"The Vishnu Purana (Book Four, Chapter Twenty-four) establishes that the age of Kali-yuga began when Lord Krishna left this world in 3102 BC" http://www.stephen-knapp.com/sri_krishna.htm

On another note regarding the Vedas, Krishna Himself says in Bhagavad-Gita: BG 2.46: 'All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.' GourangaUK 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute - intro

The intro states "Krishna appears in a number of stories in different cultures and traditions. Sometimes these contradict each other, though there is a common core story that is central to most people's knowledge of Krishna - a pastoral childhood and youth, a celebrated warrior and as the divine incarnation."

Perhaps "it is argued that Krisha appears in a number of stories" would be a more non-exclusive approach?

He does appear in a number of stories however. It's not really 'arguable'. 203.109.146.19

I don't really see the intro as being non NPOV - it may not be worded very well and could be improved, but isn't really saying anything out of place. There are a lot of stories regarding Krishna, and they do sometimes conflict with each other - but within them there will be a number of certain elements of common ground. GourangaUK 08:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, despite the what the tag on the article says, this is not a claim of non - NPOV but of questioning Factual accuracy? Imc 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}! "it is argued that Krisha appears in a number of stories" is really horrible. "Krishna appeared in the Kali Yuga" would conceivably be POV. Krishna appearing in stories is about as factual a statement as it can be. dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested it instead of replaced it. "Krishna appearing in stories is about as factual a statement as it can be." is stated from a non-NPOV. You might as well be saying, "the reincarnation of Buddha appears in all stories". The point I'm trying to make is that term "Krishna" in and of itself is non-neutral. ays 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed: "The immense popularity of Krishna in India also meant that various non-Hindu religions that originated in India had their own versions of him." Badly worded and clearly written with biased intent. ays talk 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

albert.so - it was neither badly worded, nor written with biased intent as far I can see. Please explain. Meanwhile I'll reinstate it. Imc 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Lord" = POV

Again, I removed "Lord" from the first image caption. I believe the title "Lord" is not to be used in this article, because it expresses a point of view. In the intro it is clearly stated that Krishna is considered the Supreme Being, that should in my opinion be sufficient. Jesus is not called "Lord" on Wikipedia, so why would Vedic deities be? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop bringing Jesus into this: he is not the same as Krishna. I do not want to make any anti-Christian remarks that might offend anyone, which is why I stay away from that topic on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate not having to discuss Jesus while debating an entirely unrelated issue. "Lord Jesus" is nowhere near as common in Christian circles as "Sri Krishna" is in Vaishnava circles. The article only refer to Krishna by the noun "Lord" (which would indeed be totally unacceptable) when it has been vandalised. elvenscout742 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure Jesus is not the same as Krishna, but that's not my point. They're both considered God, and addressed as "Lord", be it in different circles. However, Wikipedia belongs to neither Christian, nor Vaishnava circles, but is supposed to be a neutral source of information, and not a place of veneration. Therefore, general usage in Vaishnava literature does not apply to this encyclopaedia. I don't see the difference between calling Krishna "Lord Krishna", or referring to him plainly as "Lord", it's the same to me. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Divine' Mushrooms

The new addition to Krishna's names makes a lot of sweeping generalisations about the blue colour in addition to other things. Krishna's blueness is due to his association with Vishnu. It has nothing to do with cows. Vishnu association with the sky for its all encompassing nature is also well-known. Arjuna did not have his vison in a dark room and Soma's asccociation with the mushroom is not the most favoured one. The plant ephedra is more commanly accepted. As for the psychedleic origins of all world religions it is mere speculation and must hence go from this site. There are no 'strong indications' on any of aspect of this theory.

I agree this is unfounded, and without precise citation should be removed as OR. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
cut from the article:
Recently experts in the field of [ethnomycology] like Terence McKenna have suggested that the bluish color refers to the Psilocybe mushroom, which turns blue when bruised or dried in the Sun. Like the divine cowherdboy Krishna, the Psilocybe mushrooms can always be found in the presence of cows, because this particular mushroom grows on cow dung. Ingestion of 4 to 7 grams of dried Psilocybe mushrooms in silence and darkness generates an intense mystical experience, described as being entheogenic ("that which generates the experience of God within"), which can be similar to Arjuna's vision of Krishna's Universal Form (see painting below). Like the Vedic Soma beverage, which was made from another mushroom, most probably the Fly Agaric, the Psilocybe mushroom has been used by shamans throughout the world and throughout history for religious purposes. Although at present followers of Krishna or the Vedas in general do not use psychoactive substances (although some sects smoke marihuana) there are strong indications that these religions (including those of the Middle East) have a psychedelic origin.
Image:Giridhari1.jpg
The above picture shows Krishna as Giridhari, lifter of the Govardhana Hill. One day Krishna, still a child, discouraged his father and the village elders from worshiping the raingod Indra, who is ritually offered the Soma beverage, and instead worship the Godvardhana Hill, from which the villagers derived all they needed. They agreed to this proposal, but Indra became angry and flooded the cowherd community with continuous torrents of rain. To save the cows and his community, Krishna lifted the hill with His little finger, and all his friends and family members took shelter underneath this giant umbrella. One can clearly see the mushroom symbolism here. Mushrooms appear especially after the soil has been moistened by rain. As said before, the stem of the Psilocybe mushroom tends to turn blue when picked, and its favorite place is cow dung. On the above painting all these elements are present, with the hill being the cap of the mushroom. This story actually suggests that the use of the Fly Agaric (Soma, which was first offered to Indra, then taken by the priests) was historically replaced by the use of the Psilocybe Cubensis, which unlike the Fly Agaric prefers open grasslands, just like Krishna's Vrajabhumi.
If this can all be precisely attributed to McKenna, there can be a "mycological hypothesis" section. This stuff certainly doesn't belong in the "name" section, however. dab (ᛏ) 11:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments and have removed the recent re-addition, for further discussion and comment. Also, I would say that IMO this possible connection to psilocybe and Amanita is probably better placed in a separate article. Imc 12:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
yes, move the detailed discussion to e.g. ethnomycology. I would then support a reference to that discussion from here in a short phrase. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temples

I removed the following section from the article. As a very partial list of the numerous temples of Krishna, and without adequate links, it seems to be of minimal value as it is. A more thorough list with links could however perhaps form a linked page .

==Temples Devoted to Krishna ==
  • Udupi Sri Krishna
  • Guruvayur
  • Parthasarathy, Chennai
  • Jagannatha Puri, Orissa
  • Shrinathji, Nathdwara Rajasthan

Imc 09:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: Historicity

This article makes assumptions about Krishna's historicity. I haven't yet seen any acceptable evidence that Krishna was in fact a real person. Quoting from the article:

  1. Astrological evidence suggests Krishna was born earlier than 3102 BCE. - implicit assumption here
  2. In the absence of any historical biography, this summary is based on the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana - another implicit assumption - you can't expect a biography for a myth.
  3. The place of his birth is now known as Krishnajanmabhoomi - again, mistakes a claim for a fact

Kingsleyj 00:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He is just a real as christ is to christian! There is no evidence for his existence, just the fact that xians believe in him, it's the same thing.

Hello Kingsley - There is much evidence to suggest Krishna historicity, (as much as you can ever prove the reality of a person who lived 5000 years ago) although maybe it is not all included in this article. To take your points:
  • Astrological evidence is always just that, astrological. It's not a proof of any factual history from a standard perspective. But I would argue it's still relevant to the article.
  • That the scriptures you quote are 'mythical' is as POV as saying they are 'factual', rather the article should show clearly they are from scriptural references, and let the reader decide for themselves on their validity as such (or not).
  • I agree this statement is incorrect and will amend it.
Best Wishes, GourangaUK 10:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gouranga,

  1. If there is much evidence I don't see it cited or referenced. The page should at least make it clear that there are differing opinions on the historicity of Krishna - that most Hindus believe Krishna to be a historic figure, but most historians do not. See the page on Jesus and the Historicity of Jesus for the kind of treatment that I think is relevant here. It also has similar statements about *astronomical* events mentioned in the bible texts, but does it without calling it evidence or proof.
  2. How about rephrasing that to "This summary is based on the Mahabharata, the Harivamsa, the Bhagavata Purana and the Vishnu Purana" and let's drop the assumption about the historicity ?

Kingsleyj 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kingsley - You are correct that there are many differing opinions over Krishna and statements should not be offered as factual it they cannot be proved as such. I have amended the article where I could see any statements of this type - including the one you mention above. If there's any I have missed then please point them out. If you are genuinely interested in finding more about the evidence of Krishna's existence I would personally recommend the following book:
Regards, GourangaUK 10:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gouranga! - Kingsley2.com 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't yet seen any acceptable evidence that Jesus was in fact a real person.--Dangerous-Boy 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ME NEITHER!


Who said Jesus was historical? There is a huge debate surrounding this, vide Historicity of Jesus. That Jesus is as real to X-ians as Krishna to V-ites is beside the point, that's a matter of faith and beyond debate. However, I don't see anything resembling a Historicity of Krishna debate here. That the scriptures are mythical is a fact, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that they may be based on a historical character. Such a character, viz. a Mathura prince turned hermit after a life of heroic warfare, could have lived anytime between 1200 and 600 BC, but most certainly not in 3100 BC (when the area of what was to become Mathura was still well in the Neolithic). Quite apart from all that, the point is purely and simply that this article is making claims without citing its sources. I have no doubt you can find a host of authors hyping the 3102 BC date, but you have to cite them, you can't just say "it is so". dab (ᛏ) 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab - That the scriptures are mythical is a fact. You can't say that isn't a POV. But I agree with you that statements should cite their sources - especially when it comes to dates. GourangaUK 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
you seem to be labouring under the common misapprehension that "mythological" entails "non-factual". A myth is rather a story that is of vital importance to a certain community (regardless of its factuality), which is certainly the case here (unless you want to argue that Vaishnavites are a neglegible and disparate quantity, or that most Vaishnavites dismiss the Krishna story as an irrelevant fable). It is certainly a POV that the Krishna story is central to Vaishnavism, but I assume one that you share, and one for which it would be difficult to cite dissent. See also mythology. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In that sense of the word 'myth' I would agree with you it is not POV, but not in the common usage. I'm a commoner at heart. GourangaUK 15:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
be that as it may :) the upshot is that we agree that we need citations for things like 3102 BC, and that was really my whole point. cheers, dab (ᛏ) 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed link to pirate site

The external link for "Srimad Bhagavatam - The Story of the Fortunate One" led to a site, bhagavata.org, that knowingly and persistently bootlegs copyrighted artwork and book-length copyrighted text.

Once you get into the actual content of the site (at www.bhagavata.org/contents.html), virtually every chapter features a large painting bootlegged from the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. And, as the site says, also included is "the original translation of Swami Prabhupada and other pupils" (which the site does not have permission to use).

Further information is available from the rights and permissions department of the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, www.bbt.info.

The relevant Wikipedia policy appears in Wikipedia:Copyrights, in Section 4.3, "Linking to copyrighted works."

O Govinda 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Krisna--Mahabharata Vs Purana

This article says Krshna's birth account in Purana Matches with that in Mahabharata.I don't know who has written this but Mahabharata has not given any account of his birth.Lately in his revelations in Bhagwad Gita ,He says--I am born from water or I arise from water.The dubious sounding statement should be removed.08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Holywarrior 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In Bhagavad Gita Krishna says "I am the taste in Water", but He does not refer to his 'birth' from water in any of the versions I've ever read? The story of Krishna's birth is given in detail in the Bhagavata Purana, whereas the Mahabharata deals mostly with His pastimes in later life. I'm not sure if Krishna's appearance is dealt with in any detail in the earlier chapters of full versions of Mahabharata (some concise versions miss parts out)- I would advise that it would have to be checked upon before deleting anything. GourangaUK 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Gouranga Bhagwad Gita does not have many versions,yes analysis and translations do come in many ways.I challenge you to come up with Krishna says "I am the taste in Water", in any version you have read(or even plan to read).Mahabharata does not deal with his pastimes,rather it deals with very serious aspect of life.Puranas are nothing but storytelling pastimes of Brahmanas(mostly illiterate).Most ancient and authentic source is Mahabharata which has not given any account of his birth.All the sources you are quoting had been created much later,many during mediaval era .Scholars have toiled to find references of Krishna in Mahabharata and you say --Many concise version miss out-- does not sound credible.In Bhagwad Gita Krishna categoricaly says--They are the Fools who think I am born like other human beings,infact I am born of water.verse and chapter no I will quote very soon.Meanwhile I want citation from your side about taste in water.Holywarrior 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Holywarrior, I will happily supply the quotation I mentioned, which I must add is by no means restricted to this one translation - it is in many versions.
  • "O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man." (Chapter 7, Text 8) Ref 7.8
I will also happily supply the full quotation of the verse you gave:
  • "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." (Chapter 9, Text 11) Ref 9.11
Your heavily opinionated views on the Puranas are certainly not welcomed in this encyclopedic article. Krishna is mentioned in detail on a large number occassions in the Mahabharata, and is essential to the storyline. To say otherwise seem to me to be ridiculous. His childhood pastimes may not be there in detail, but Krishna's later life most certainly is. GourangaUK 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Gouranga .The Translation you have supplied is faulty .I don't want to contest the analysis but at one place I have found in the same link Gayatri Mantra mistaken for month.Rasoham is a single word in sanskrit which may be broken in many ways one of the way is what you supplied.The material fact here is that it comes before Kaunteya.One other interpretation is ra+soham+apsu.Ra and Apsu are two places in the human body.Soham is the integrating string of kriya yoga.It also means to connect Mooladhara with sashrara with soham.Of course apsu means water but there are many connotations of the term.Rasoham Apsu means I dwell in water too.However the verse I have cited is different from these two and comes in the exact way I have quoted.I make no claim till i furnish you the exact citation.But You have misappropriated what you percieve as your victory to conclude that I have opinionated against Puranas. Puranas are full of anomalies and are not regarded as reliable source.Besides Article does try to give the false impression that accounts are same in Purana and Mahabharata.Holywarrior 07:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I see little point in any further debate as you are already so certain you are right. This is a discussion page, not a battle ground for our egos, so why speak of 'victory'?. Both the Bhagavad Gita translations quoted and the Puranans are more than strong enough to withstand such trivial arguments. I will however re-word the sentance regarding the Puranas as I agree it is not technically correct GourangaUK 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3100 BC

working on Mahabharata, I came across the claim that the 3100 BC date was calculated by Aryabhata in the 5th century. I suppose that this information needs to be sourced in turn, but I think that's a highly credible origin of the 3100 figure. dab (ᛏ) 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have come across this statement which gives a very similar figure
  • Mr. G.S. Sampath Iyengar and Mr. G.S. Sheshagiri have fixed the birth-date of Krishna as 27th July 3112 BC. 'The horoscope shows Lagna and Moon 52 deg. 15' Rohini, Jupiter 91 deg. 16' Punarvasu, Sun 148 deg. 15' Uttara Phalguni, Mercury 172 deg. 35' Hasta, Venus 180 deg. 15' Chitra, Saturn 209 deg. .57' Vishakha, Mars 270 deg. 1' Uttara Ashadha Rahu, 160 deg. 1'.
It's from hindunet.org. Is this good enough to add in as a reference? GourangaUK 12:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. G.S. Sampath Iyengar and Mr. G.S. Sheshagiri" seems to refer to some publication, which it should be possible to find with google. Then at least we'll have a source. Apparently, the whole thing is based on Krishna's horoscope, I assume as given in the Harivamsha? Our final statement would then read something like "based on the horoscope as given in Harivamsha X.Y.Z, Iyengar and Sheshagiri (19xx) have calculated a birth date of Krishna of 27th July 3112 BC". We just need to fill in the X.Y.Z and the 19xx now. Of course, your own link contains the claim that the horoscope is "forged" (others would simply say "fictional"), apparently trying to argue for a 6th millennium date (what's three millennia between friends? It's "Neolithic Krishna" either way :) dab (ᛏ) 17:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems this date (3112 BC) occurs quite commonly in connection with Krishna's horoscope and calculations concerning the lunar eclipse during the Mahabharat war. I still havn't found a primary reference, but the below is another related link (the best I came across). The 6th millennium date appears mostly in identical versions of the same article already given.
Best Wishes, GourangaUK 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Krishna, the All-Attractive

The translation of the name Krishna as "The-All-Attractive" can be found in the most translations of the Bhagavad-Gita and also many other books belonging to god Krishna.

The name Krishna comes from the sanskrit word krish, in the meaning of "attract". A word can have different meanings in the different sciences. If the definition of a word ist used many times in literature it will be accepted in the dictionaries after some time. The dictionaries contain the definitions of spoken words in life or written words in literature. In the most common literature Krishna is translated as "The All Attractive Krishna". Planetreal 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

there is a root kRS "to drag, to tear". Connection of kRSNa "black" with this root is 100% popular etymology. We can mention that AC Prabhupada or whoever forwarded this "translation", but it is not, in any sense, a literal translation of the term. kRSNa means "black, dark" etc., period. dab (ᛏ) 23:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Guest: Is it simply the nature of the name KRSNa that this particular name is the most powerful? PrabhupAda: Yes. God... God's name is according to His action, God's name. Just like KRSNa. This "KRSNa" name is given... That is explained also.

kRSir bhU-vAcakaH zabdo Naz ca nirvRti-vAcakaH tayor aikyaM paraM brahma kRSNa ity abhidhIyate

KRSNa's name... KRS means to become, to appear. BhU-vAcakaH. Or attraction. We have got attraction for material enjoying, and Naz ca nirvRti-vAcakaH. Na means Ananda. Another meaning is negation. So "the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who, by His attractive features, by attraction of His bodily beauty, by attraction of His opulence, by attraction of His pastimes, so many things..." KRSNa is all-attractive. And one who is all-attractive, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is the meaning of "KRSNa."
Found this on the web, apparently it's from a lecture, can someone check Vedabase to see if it's valid? Dwayne Kirkwood 23:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
These words are in Vedabase, and are from the Chaitanya Charitamrita. It is already quoted in the article, and is presumably the interpretation of Kaviraja it (e.g. see http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/30/en ). It says, as a footnote to the passage, that it is from the Udyogaparva 71-4, Other translations of the Mahabharata have different interpretations of this passage. Try this one, Kisan Mohan Ganguli's translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05070.htm (which numbers it Udyogaparva 70)
he is called Krishna because he uniteth in himself what are implied by the two words Krishi which signifieth 'what existeth' and na which signifieth 'eternal peace'.
Imc 09:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
citing this should be unproblematical. These medieval texts are very fond of etymological speculation, and they are of course perfecly notable, so it is alright to report them. They should just be reported for what they are, etymological musings of specific authors, and not for 'actual' translations. There is a difference between a translation and an interpretation. We are well within the realm of interpretation here. dab (ᛏ) 13:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Hey, I've taken a shot at cleaning the article up a bit, because realistically compared to other pages of this length, it's a bit of a mess and really needs some organisation. I have setup a sandbox enviroment for cleaning-up, please check out the changes and if you feel that you can help revise and clean-up more, please do so. I plan to move this new version across within a few days provided there is no reason given not to. Dwayne Kirkwood 10:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I have a little cavil, this rewritten passage
The lilas of Krishna, with their expressions of personal love that transcend the boundaries of formal reverence, serve as a counterpoint to the lilas of another avatar of Vishnu: Rama,
with the idea that Rama has "lilas". I suspect that only in a Gaudiya tradition would it be considered that the word lila could be applied to the serious and formal personage of Rama. I prefer the former text.
Imc 10:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


The idea of "Rama-lila" is extremely common in India and transcends Hindu sectarian affiliations. To illustrate:
"NEW DELHI, OCT. 15. The script and storyline remain the same; only, the staging has gone hi-tech. The ten-day-long Ramlilas that began across the Capital on Thursday not only tell the story of Ram and Sita from the epic Ramcharitmanas but also give a glimpse of the country's emerging position in the field of computer software and information technology." --The Hindu (a mainline newspaper), October 16, 2004
In fact, a major place for mass gatherings in New Delhi is known as the "Ram Lila grounds":
"In June, 2001 AICSSO leaders announced that 1 million Dalits would quit Hinduism for Buddhism with a rally to be held on Oct. 14th, 2001. When that date for New Delhi’s Ram Lila grounds was unavailable, the rally was rescheduled for Nov. 4th." Hindu Rally in India
It's really okay.
Respectfully, O Govinda 18:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the term is obviously in use. But it does not mean the play of Rama, as it does in the corresponding context for Krishna. It means a play about Rama, a completely different thing. For instance, Ram Lila, the enactment of the story of Lord Rama is believed to have been started by great Saint Tulsidas. (this copied from [1]) Imc 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


The term can certainly mean "a play about Rama." But it can also most definitely mean "Rama's lila"--that is, "the activities of Rama's life." As shown by the following examples (none of them Gaudiya):
Sri Rama Lila : The Story of the Lord's incarnation as Sri Rama/Vanamali. New Delhi, 2000, xxviii, 275 p., photos, ISBN 81-7305-180-1. [2]
"Although very busy at the ashram, Vanamali makes time to write. Sri Devi Lila — The Play of The Divine Mother [--] is the fourth in the Lila (Play of God) series. The first three were entitled Sri Krishna Lila, Sri Rama Lila and Sri Shiva Lila." [3]
Although Sri Rama & Parashurama are different incarnation of same Sri Hari, at that time Sri Rama has shown his play (lila) by winning the war. [4]
He achieved a childlike ecstasy, a divine innocence in which the whole of life became the lila (play) of Lord Rama. [5]
Tulsidas describes the lila play of Rama as a child. [6] ("Play" here is intended to be parenthetical.)
Sri Ramakrishna continued: "It is also true that after the vision of God the devotee desires to witness His lila. After the destruction of Ravana at Rama's hands, Nikasha, Ravana's mother, began to run away for fear of her life. . . . Nikasha answered: 'O Rama, I am able to witness all this lila of Yours because I am still alive.' [7]
Enough?
Respectfully, O Govinda 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
In light of such strong evidences I have amended the paragraph regarding Lilas. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a little wrong

I believe in Krishn...But its unfair to say that he was the "highest god"....Hinduism doesnt believe in more then one power, or god if you will....They believe in a supreme energy, power, god, that has no true from that can be understood by man....and so u cant say one god is higher or better then the other...Krishna was the human form of god coming down to earth.....THis article sounds like it was made from somebody out of the Hari Krishn temple....I dont mean to be disrespectful...But its technically wrong 71.107.54.199 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your point of view. The article says that in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, he is the origin of all other incarnations, and that in the Bhagavad-gita (e.g., 10.15 and 15.19), he is seen as the Supreme Person and the highest God. In relation to Hinduism, well, you'll only find that word used once in the entire article. If you want to add your point of view, go ahead, but make sure you cite sources so that your statements are verifiable. Chopper Dave 10:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to removal of my link

I object to the removal of the link to my Universalist Church of Radha Krishna when you have links to ISKCON and Gaudiya Math. Why the discrimination? Subal Das 05:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology Section (2)

I think this section is too speculative and, irrespective of the factual correctness of its claims, is based on sources that do not seem reliable to me (by sources, I mean the talk presented by Swami Gyananand Saraswati, not IANS or Yahoo news) and hence detracts from the credibility of the overall article. Here are my reasons for proposing that the section should be removed:

  • The talk given the Swami Gyananand Saraswati is AFAIK not peer reviewed and as such represents the opinions of just one person which has not been tested, accepted or even acknowledged by the wider religious/academic research community. Even the Yahoo news item is written in the News of the Weird tone. Sentences such as "He fed the data into a computer and used a special software" (unless they are backed up by a substantively detailed scholarly article) do not inspire confidence.
  • Wikipedia guidelines do state that, "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs". However the claim being made in the section are not religious claims, but claims about "Historic Krishna". As such, they need to be supported by peer-reviewed academic citations, and given the claimed exactitude of the estimates the sources need to be gold-plated!

Therefore I think everything between "A paper presented ... horoscope charts)." should be simply deleted. I am not sure whether the remaining sentences are based on primary sources, secondary sources or extrapolated from the Yahoo article. If they are to be retained, these sentences can be moved to the "The life of Krishna" section where they are a better fit anyway. Abecedare 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Abecedare, I agree with your clearly given arguments and have moved the text into the "Later Life" section where it seems more appropriate. I did not want to loose all of the text, even if it is a bit shakey because nothing else in the article gave any detail concerning the timeline of Krishna's leaving. What's left still requires citations and clean-up. With a bit of time we could probably find much better references concerning the dates etc... Thank you for your patience. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not studied this question much and so please take my observations as those of a curious bystander to this interesting question. I have noticed that on other Wikipedia articles a similar debate take places in which one perspective presents a religious view based on certain sources and another perspective presents an academic view based on different sources. A similar difference in views could arise here. The deep feeling which the personage of Lord Krishna evokes is the issue. In Western academic study, an example of a more detatched view is given by A. L. Basham in The Wonder That Was India (Grove Press: New York, 1954). Basham's book is not very current, but it used to be a standard text for the archaeological protohistory issues. I am sure that more recent work has improved on his summary of the historicity of the Krishna stories, which he covers on pp. 303-306. In Basham's line of thinking the best question is not "When was Krishna born?" but "How did the figure of Krishna as given in Hindu scripture develop?" (not direct quotes by the way) He points out that the figure as we see him in Hindu scripture may be a composite which contains a number of themes, each of which can be traced independently. He notes parallels between some elements that are seen elsewhere in cross-cultural comparisons of Indo-European myth. He suggests that the pastoral and erotic aspects (such as interactions with the Gopi girls) may represent a confluence of a separate mythic line entirely, not stemming from the same roots as the heroic myths. A third element of the Krishna stories is the myth of the child god, which Bashham believes was the last line to be assimilated to the composite. (I have summarized all of this to such a degree that perhaps Basham would fail me in his class.) I do not know if any of this is true, and do not seek to challenge those who hold other beliefs. I am just noting that there is a very different perspective taken by academics who apply these types of comparative analysis. For a parallel debate that is going on now see the talk pages for Asvamedha. In matters of faith it is essential that we show respect for all views. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna himself tells us "Neither the hosts of Devas nor the great Rishis know my origin". (BG 10.2) In matters of living faith we must always show respect for both bhakta and jnani approaches. Buddhipriya 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

At risk of offending some, I am moving this statement here pending more editorial discussion on how to re-incorporate the issues into the main article.

According to recent calculations, Krishna's birth date has been approximately calculated to be 3228 B.C.E.[8].

Buddhipriya 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Here is another section which some would dispute.

According to references in the Bhagavata Purana and Bhagavad Gita it has been interpreted that Krishna left the earth around 3100 BCE [1].This is based on the desecription of Krishna's leaving Dwarka thirty-six years after the Battle of the Mahabharata. The Matsya Purana says that Krishna was eighty-nine years old when the battle was fought. Thereafter Pandavas ruled for a period of thirty-six years, their rule was in the beginning of the Kali Yuga. It further says that the Kali Yuga began on the day Duryodhana was felled to ground by Bhima meaning that the year 2007 would equate to the year 5108 (or similar) of the current Kali Yuga [2]

Buddhipriya 17:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem in including a number of viewpoints in the article as long as they are significant and referenced. The above dating is obviously significant, as a large number of people ascribe to it, especially those who worship Krishna as the Supreme Person, or as an avatar of Vishnu. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think there is no problem presenting both the religious scholar view and the historian/academic's view; as long as we can cite and ascribe the view to a reliable source (Note: By reliable, here, I don't mean that the source is correct). Here are two suggestions I have:
  • Academic/historic views should be given more weightage if we relate an event in Krishna's life to a specific calendar year (e.g. Krishna was born in 3102 BCE). The source Gournaga dug up should be useful for this [9] along with Basham's text.
  • Scriptural and religious scholars are more relevant when the article talks about the timeline within Krishna's life (e.g. Krishna was 36 year old when ...).
  • We should be very careful that we don't synthesize information from the above two sources/paradigms.
  • If a particular claim is possibly arguable, we should be ascribe it to the particular source, i.e. phrase it as "X says that Krishna was born in Tokyo" rather than "Recent research says that ..." or "Hindu scriptures have been interpreted to show that ..." so that the reader knows and can decide the credibility of the source. Of course, outright marginal views, need not should not even be included.
I realize that we won't get the sections to the desired level of content and sourcing overnight. But with multiple editors paying attention to the article, it is certain to improve ! In the meantime, as Gouranaga pointed out, we should make sure that we don't lose content, which we may find to be needed later - so for now it may be better to rephrase disputed content or move it here, rather than delete it outright.
An aside: I don't think the Ashvamedha dispute is the correct comparison here; in that case the varying interpretations differ so widely that people at one end of the spectrum find the other interpretations insulting; while those at the other end think the "modern" interpretations are fanciful. Here, on the other hand, the editors basically all agree on the existence and validity of the different viewpoints and the discussion is only with regards to the best way to present and source the information. That should make editing the Krishna article more productive and less stressful ! :-) Abecedare 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with all of the points which Abecedare and Gouranga make above. It is essential that we be respectful of matters of living faith, while at the same time presenting the academic viewpoint. Similar problems arise for Jesus and I have been reading that article with interest as a possible model on how to organize differing views in a respectful and balanced approach. For statements that can be debated I personally like the style of citing sources in text, with dropped footnotes, such as: "John Doe, in his book on Area 51, says that dozens of alien bodies were recovered."<noowiki>[3]</nowiki> I am currently sorting out conflicting references on the date of Ganesha's birthday, by the way. He has two different dates that are used (I think he has done this just because he likes cake so much). Let me check on what I moved and I will self-revert the changes pending more work on this by you both. Buddhipriya 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few more alterations today - thanks to all for your comments and help. Gouranga(UK) 12:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krishna being removed from Category:Bahá'í prophets

why was he removed from this category krishna is considered in the Bahá'í religion--Jesusmyth 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was removed by an anon who appeared to be a Hindu Zealot. Probably just trying to keep Krishna from being shared by other religions. Nothing to worry about. Zazaban 03:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the category (check the edits) because I felt (and still feel) that to categorise Krishna as a 'Bahai Prophet' is innacurate, and potentially against WP:NPOV. Surely a Bahai Prophet would be someone who promoted the Bahai faith specifically, otherwise it becomes a universal tag without any actual meaning? To categorise Krishna as a person venerated in the Bahai Faith would be more accurate in this instance in my opinion. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you're right. Baha'is consider Krishna a Manifestation of God, not a prophet. I have put the category up for deletion. Regards -- Jeff3000 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeff3000 he is considered a prophet a manifestation of god is a title pretty much meaning a major prophet--Java7837 22:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just deity??

Krishna isn't just a deity like Shiva or Zeus. Many people believe he was also a man that the myths are based off. Isn't it hypocritical to say he didn't exist and say Jesus existed? Both Jesus and Krishna are mythical figures, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist. This whole article seems somewhat bias toward the Krishna as only fictional? Zachorious 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is particular positioned to have a NPOV. Though I agree the old title was better, it could be seen as bias by the eyes of most of the western world. Chopper Dave 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that saying Krishna is a Deity disqualified him from also being an historical or 'actual' personality? 'Deity' covers both gods and God angles and is a factual statement in regards to how Krishna is treated within Hinduism. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 11:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earliest sources

The statement that

However there are many references to his names in the most ancient of Indian texts such as the Rig-Veda and other Vedas

is somewhat contradicted by the later statement that the first clear reference is in the Chandyoga. (under Early Historical References). Since names can be reused, and krishna also means black, if the vedic references don't clearly refer to him, they are arguably irrelevant. Sometimes works such as the Chandyoga are included with the Vedas, but in this context just adds to confusion. Imc 10:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Imc, I have removed the sentence, based on your logic above. A knowledgable source tells me that there is one verse in the Rig Veda describing a special cow-herd boy which according to some schools, alludes to Krishna, but there is no direct reference:
"I saw a boy who appeared in the dynasty of cowherds. He is infallible and is never annihilated. He wanders on various paths, sometimes near and sometimes very far. Sometimes He is beautifully adorned with varieties of garments, and sometimes He wears cloth of only one color. In this way, He repeatedly exhibits His manifest and unmanifest pastimes." (1.164.31)
There are direct quotes from the Krishna Upanishad listed here, that might be useful in the article.
"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss and cognizance. He is the original and supreme person. He is the origin of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the worshipful Lord of the best of demigods, the controller of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning. Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the devotee obtains in Krishna alone" (Krishna Upanishad)
Regards, Gouranga(UK) 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gouranga. First, I'll state my understanding of the distinction between the Vedas and the Upanishads. The Vedas proper are the original and oldest texts. Many of the upanishads are commentaries on, or otherwise associated with the Vedas, and all can be assumed to be later than the Vedas. Because they are related to the vedas, they are often appended to them, and some people then treat them as part of the vedas. However, it should not be assumed from this that they are part of the original text.
I don't know anything about Krishna upanishad, except that it is not one of the 11 upanishads of Sankara. Is there any information on its dating? Note that Stephen Knapp (at your reference, given above) seems to treat it as an associated with the Rigveda, and Wikipedia's Upanishad article lists it as associated with the Atharvaveda. Are they talking about the same work? There might be more confusion to resolve before it can used here.
For the verse 1.164.31 from the Rigveda, here is another translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01164.htm
I saw the Herdsman, him who never stumbles, approaching by his pathways and departing.
He, clothed with gathered and diffusive splendour, within the worlds continually travels.
The preceding and later verses of this also do not make any possible connection to Krishna any clearer. I think that all you could reasonably say from this is that in ancient India, since it was to a large extent a pastoral society, herdsmen would have been important. Thanks. Imc 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/r/i/Talk%7EKrishna_0a2d.html"