Krishna - Historical or mythological?

[shivsomashekhar]

No, yes.

However, Hindi has lost most of the extensive inflectional system of Sanskrit. This is not unlike Colloquial Latin and the modern Romance languages having lost the extensive grammatical inflections of Classical Latin.

Sanskrit is largely a liturgical language nowadays used in temples, home/personal worship, and such. Most people do not speak or understand it. Even when chanting prayers, hymns, mantras, most people do not know what the meanings are. So yeah, the question is why do it? Because it's less the meaning than the sound energy of the prayers, hymns, mantras.

That said, there is a town or two in India where Sanskrit is being revived as a spoken language, much as what happened with Hebrew. No one really knows how Biblical Hebrew sounded, likewise no one really knows how Vedic and Classical Sanskrit actually sounded, but enough linguistic work has been done to get a really super close approximation.

I hope that helps.

Unlike Egyptian, etc, we do know how Vedic Sanskrit sounds. The ancient Vedic priests developed pada patha or fidelity models to preserve the chants. The tradition of chanting has survived to this day through an unbroken chain. They were so effective that when European scholars took interest in Indian literature, they were astonished that the chanting of the Rig Veda in different parts of the country was almost identical, though they have been apart for long periods of time.

However, the meanings of several of these words are lost. The archaic form of Sanskrit (closer ties to ancient Persian) used in the Rig Veda is different from Vedic Sanskrit used in later Vedas, which again is different from classical post-Panian sanskrit.

As early as in ~800 BC, Yaska, the author of the Nirukta observed that people were chanting the Veda without understanding the meaning. There was more emphasis on chanting correctly vs. understanding. Not unlike, classical Indian singers who are very focused on getting the Raga right when singing the Bhaja Govindam, but have little to no interest in the meaning.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

No comparison whatsoever between Krishna and Moses

That is why Vaishnava are declining, don't u see?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Is it common for people who know Hindi to also know Sanskrit, or do many people who know Hindi not know Sanskrit?

This reminded me of a funny scene from a movie where someone who didn't know the language had a speech in Hindi:

 

[Muffled]

I'm going to jump in and again step on @SalixIncendium's toes to answer. The answer to all your questions is summed up thus, from the pov of a Vaishnava Hindu (devotee of Vishnu of whom Krishna is an incarnation).:

There is no comparison whatsoever between Krishna and Moses.

• Krishna: God. Incarnation of Vishnu, Lord of the Universe. That's it... He's God. He's what Abrahamics believe Yahweh is. He is not a prophet or messenger as the Baha'i propose. In fact, to Hindus that's offensive.
• Moses: Not God, a prophet, a messenger. A mortal.

I believe Krishna only qualifies as a religious philosopher as does the Baháʼu'lláh.

 

[Riders]

Did not Krishna have a lot in common with Jesus?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Did not Krishna have a lot in common with Jesus?

No.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This reminded me of a funny scene from a movie where someone who didn't know the language had a speech in Hindi:

Hindi and skt have same alphabets, nouns etc. Only grammar is different

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

You are looking at it from the Baha’i and “New Age” pov that relegates Krishna to a messenger or prophet. Krishna has a mortal form but he is God who deliberately and consciously took birth. He took that form as a mortal human. Moses, is not svayam bhagavan. He is not Jagannatha. Moses didn’t consciously incarnate any more than I did, he was born just like you and I, and he and she, and they, our dogs and cats, bees, ie all living beings. Krishna says “I am the Ātman who is seated in the hearts of all beings …”. Moses nor any other being can say that, though Christians say that about Jesus. No comparison whatsoever between Krishna and Moses. My pov as a Vaishnava.

Krishna and Moses were both born physically. God connected with them. Rest neither u know nor me.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The OP was asking if Krishna was historical or mythical. I think the same can be asked about Moses. Too many things in the Bible story make Moses sound very much mythical. But even in the Bible stories, nothing makes him out to be more than a human. Krishna is made out to be an incarnation, isn't he? So, if by chance they were both real, historical people, Krishna would be an incarnation of a God, and Moses would still be a human who was used by a God. If they were both mythical, then it doesn't matter. They were both fictional.

But then what's also important here is what the Baha'is say about them. And that is both were what Baha'is call "manifestations" of God. To do that, they make Moses more than just a human but also divine. And with Krishna, they take him from being a God to being a perfect reflection of the Abrahamic God but not God.

Don't know about bahai. The Spirit descended into a human. Whether before incarnation, or whether 100 percent, neither matters nor can be known.

 

[River Sea]

@SalixIncendium @Jainarayan @Bharat Jhunjhunwala

This video has given me a better understanding of Sanskrit.

Watch This Before You Start Learning Sanskrit!

 

[CG Didymus]

Don't know about bahai. The Spirit descended into a human. Whether before incarnation, or whether 100 percent, neither matters nor can be known.

It kind of does matter. The Baha'i Faith claims its founder was sent by God to teach the things necessary to create a peaceful and unified world. Moses and Krishna are tied into their claims because they say they too were sent by God as part of the progressive of divine teachers that have led us to where we are now. If what Baha'is say is not true, then none of it matters. However, if it is true, then the Baha'i Faith and its teachings matter more than anything else we could learn.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It kind of does matter. The Baha'i Faith claims its founder was sent by God to teach the things necessary to create a peaceful and unified world. Moses and Krishna are tied into their claims because they say they too were sent by God as part of the progressive of divine teachers that have led us to where we are now. If what Baha'is say is not true, then none of it matters. However, if it is true, then the Baha'i Faith and its teachings matter more than anything else we could learn.

Moses and krishna both say One God. The politics got degenerated. Bahai, it seems, didn't do politics. So they are sidelined.

 

[Vinayaka]

Moses and krishna both say One God. The politics got degenerated. Bahai, it seems, didn't do politics. So they are sidelined.

Which God did Krishna speak about?

 

[sayak83]

Moses and krishna both say One God. The politics got degenerated. Bahai, it seems, didn't do politics. So they are sidelined.

Correction. Krishna said he himself was God.

 

[ajay0]

Krishna had also talked about the Self and Brahman which is but pure consciousness.

BG 4.24: For those who are completely absorbed in God-consciousness, the oblation is Brahman, the ladle with which it is offered is Brahman, the act of offering is Brahman, and the sacrificial fire is also Brahman. Such persons, who view everything as God, easily attain Him.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Which God did Krishna speak about?

Brahmam

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Correction. Krishna said he himself was God

अहम ब्रह्मास्मि। all of us are God. So also krishna

 

[Vinayaka]

Brahmam

Which indicates you are a Vedantin, perhaps Advaita Vedanta. What do you think of the more bhakti style sects like Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

 

[River Sea]

अहम ब्रह्मास्मि। all of us are God. So also krishna

अहम ब्रह्मास्मि Aham Brahmasmi, meaning, I am Brahman

 

[joelr]

Krishna is regarded by many Hindus as one of the most important deities in Hinduism. He is worshiped as the eighth avatar of the God Vishnu and also as the supreme God in his own right. He is the God of compassion, tenderness, love and is one of the most popular and widely revered among Indian divinities.

Was He a real historic character or are the accounts of His life in Hindu sacred scriptures wholly mythical?

According to Wikipedia:

According to Guy Beck, "most scholars of Hinduism and Indian history accept the historicity of Krishna—that he was a real male person, whether human or divine, who lived on Indian soil by at least 1000 BCE and interacted with many other historical persons within the cycles of the epic and puranic histories." Yet, Beck also notes that there is an "enormous number of contradictions and discrepancies surrounding the chronology of Krishna's life as depicted in the Sanskrit canon."[140]

Lanvanya Vemsani states that Krishna can be inferred to have lived between 3227 BCE – 3102 BCE from the Puranas.[141] A number of scholars, such as A. K. Bansal, B. V. Raman places Krishna's birth year as 3228 BCE.[142][143] A paper[which?] presented in a conference in 2004 by a group of archaeologists, religious scholars and astronomers from Somnath Trust of Gujarat, which was organised at Prabhas Patan, the supposed location of the where Krishna spent his last moments, fixes the death of Sri Krishna on 18 February 3102 BC at the age of 125 years and 7 months.

Krishna - Wikipedia

Is there reasonable evidence to conclude Krishna was a real person or merely wishful thinking on the part of some Hindu scholars?

There are 5 main schools of Hinduism. Brahman is supreme in some, Vishnu or Krishna in others and one is an atheist philosophy. He seems to be a combination of older deities. In one of the popular versions of Hinduism, Advaita Vedanta where Brahman is the supreme thing, Krishna is a personal deity somewhat like Jesus. Probably not historical.