The Significance of Krishna

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
ANON-From the Girls's sch

The Significance of Krishna

Postby ANON-From the Girls's sch » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:58 pm

Since I did not want to steer away from the actual topic from the "Experiences at St Vedast", I decided to make a new post.

This is in reply to Alban (words in red):

Anon- from the girls' sch wrote:
Tom Grubb wrote: I would point out that some of the people the SES promote are long-dead BROWN males! I remember Krishna and Arjuna being quite important to them!


It's a shame how you decribe them in such an awful way. IF i didn't know any better I would probably find it slightly insulting. Krishna and Arjuna largely take part in the 'Gita', a book which I find quite interesting!


I don't suppose they would mind very much being as they are FICTIONAL characters!


Krishna by far is not a 'FICTIONAL' character. Infact the historacy of Krishna is of little spiritual importance, and to me it is not very significant, however I feel it is important for others who put down Krishna as a mere fictional character to know a little more.

There is no doubt that Krishna was not a legend or a poetical invention, but actually existed on this earth and did play a part in the history of India. Although there has been some debate whether it was some 3000 years ago or 5000 years ago. There are two clear facts that have emerged: HE was definately regared as an important spiritual figure, one whose spiritual illumination was recorded in one of the Upanishads; also that he was TRADITIONALY regarded as a divine man, one who was worhshipped after his death as a diety.

Yes, the Mahabharata is a poem and NOT history, however it is clearly a poem founded on a great historical event which has been traditionally preserved in memory. Figures in the poem certainly existed (for instance Dhritarashtra), the part played by Krishna as a leader, warrior, and a statesman can be looked upon as probable in itself, and to all appearance founded on a tradition which can be given an historical value.

This is as far as I can go in the theoretical point of view as to the historic man Krishna, however in my view I feel there is much more to it. Many people have always regared the incarnation as a fact and have accepted the history of Krishna, just like those who accept the history of Christ.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:59 pm

ANON -from the Girls' school ( typing error!)

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Mar 06, 2004 5:10 pm

Again I HAVE TAKEN WHAT I HAD FOUND FROM THE 'EXPERIENCENS OF ST VEDAST' INTO THIS THREAD, AS I DID NOT WANT TO STEER OF THE TOPIC IN THERE....

Tom Grubb wrote: I was merely pointing out (in response to ?a different guest?'s interesting post, and in what I thought was quite a humorous manner) that it isn't only dead WHITE people who are studied by the SES ? although I am aware that the historical evidence for the existence of Krishna and Arjuna is, to say the least, inconclusive, and that Alban is very possibly right when he says that these characters are fictional.


When Alban stated that the characters were fictional, he left out the words "it is INCONCLUSIVE that..."

Ofcourse ALL religions are inconclusive! It wouldn't be a faith if it could be proved and if it wasn't questionable.


However by calling Krishna a fictional character, you are making it sound as thought it has no important significance. It is just as bad as calling Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed fictional characters!

Please be careful with words.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:47 pm

Hi Guest,

Thanks for starting this new thread.

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject and I understand how controversial it can be, but I restate my opinion that, as I understand it, the evidence for the historical existence of Krishna is far from conclusive. I am very aware of how important characters such as Krishna and Arjuna are to many people but that in itself is not evidence that they are not fictional! Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are hugely important to many children but I would personally doubt their existence.

As for Jesus: I know a little bit more about this subject and understand that there is also surprisingly little historical evidence for Jesus's existence. There is a good case to be made that he never in fact existed. In the case of Mohammed, of course, we are on much firmer historical ground.

You are quite right that all religions are inconclusive. I wish that their adherents would consider this more often! Personally, I am happy not to follow any religion.

I try to be very careful with words, thank you.

Tom

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:58 pm

WHat my point is, is that it is quite an INSULT to many hindus to call someone who HINDUS belive is real, as a FICTIONAL character!

In other words YOU are putting down their belief! It's fair enough you dont belive that Krishna was real, but do NOT shove him off as if it was mere fictional character, for the signaficance of Krishna in today's Hindu society is far more greater to, say another fictional character, as HArry Potter
!

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Re: The Significance of Krishna

Postby Alban » Tue Mar 09, 2004 1:55 am

ANON-From the Girls's sch wrote:There is no doubt that Krishna was not a legend or a poetical invention, ...


No Doubt Huh!....well maybe not in your mind....But there again, who am I to argue with someone who has such historical knowledge that they can't even place this "non-fictional character" within 2000 years of his supposed birthdate!

Oh and BTW, a little point on etiquet here. When you use capitals in these places, it indicates that you are shouting. Now I would hate to think that someone who has been to such a fine school is losing their rag over a healthy debate...so I will assume that it is ignorance!
:painting:

Guest

Re: The Significance of Krishna

Postby Guest » Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:25 pm

Alban wrote:
ANON-From the Girls's sch wrote:There is no doubt that Krishna was not a legend or a poetical invention, ...


No Doubt Huh!....well maybe not in your mind....But there again, who am I to argue with someone who has such historical knowledge that they can't even place this "non-fictional character" within 2000 years of his supposed birthdate!


That historical knowlegde was found with much reasearch. As there are two sets of historinas that agrue when he was born. One set agrues that is was 3000 years ago, while the other set argues it was 5000 years ago.

It is a fact that Krishna was a real person. THe Mahabharata is based on a Historical event. However I give up repeating myself, as someone with so much ignorance will never be able to accept facts.

Oh and BTW, a little point on etiquet here. When you use capitals in these places, it indicates that you are shouting. Now I would hate to think that someone who has been to such a fine school is losing their rag over a healthy debate...so I will assume that it is ignorance!


Thankyou for pointing out my rude behaviour, as I only saw using the caps lock as a way of stressing words, however I will resort to using bold or italic fonts instead.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Mar 09, 2004 9:51 pm

Guest wrote:

WHat my point is, is that it is quite an INSULT to many hindus to call someone who HINDUS belive is real, as a FICTIONAL character!

In other words YOU are putting down their belief!


Hindus may or may not choose to regard it as an insult. I believe in free enquiry regardless of whether that enquiry happens to offend someone's religious convictions.

It is a fact that Krishna was a real person.


Er...you may wish to believe that it's a fact but a lot of people who have researched this would disagree with you, which is why I would argue that the case for Krishna's historical existence is inconclusive.

Tom

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:22 am

Would it not be so much more useful to discuss "The Significance of Krishna" - as stated in the title of this thread - rather than "The Existence of Krishna"? The reasoning behind this is that, whilst one will hardly give up his convictions about whether or not Krishna existed, one will more likely gain some insight into the relevance of Krishna by dicussing his significance, fictitious or not.

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 pm

Why would his significance matter.... if people are not admitting that to say he is a fictional character is wrong.

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:55 pm

Why would his significance matter.... if people are not admitting that to say he is a fictional character is wrong.

I would venture to say that discussing the significance of Krishna, regardless of whether you believe he existed, is perfectly valid. Many people take comfort and find wisdom in the purported words of figures from the past - whether or not you agree they existed in a particular place at a particular time is sort of irrelevant to whether or not you find value in the words they are reported to have spoken. I don't particularly care if Plato existed or not, yet I find much of the writings attributed to him to be interesting tools for reflection.

I don't think there's any need to become angry or defensive about people referring to Krishna as fictional. To me, this indicates real instability in the beliefs being expressed - in short, if you would like any sort of useful discourse, play nice.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:05 am

Im not angered. This is a massage board and it is hard to show ur true feelings in the world of cyber space.

However my argument lies in other areas, which will be pointless to bring up...

However, i must acknowledge you say some wise words.

the annoyed -pacified4now

The Bhagavad Gita

Postby the annoyed -pacified4now » Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:29 pm

ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Lets make this forum of a better use.

The Bhagavad Gita is said to have been spoken by Lord Krishna. The Bhagava-Gita id an epitone of the Mahabharata -the longest and greast epics ever written. For me, it is a philosophy for which a religion can blossom.

These are some of the best-loved quotes from a story which is loved by many:

For certain is death for the born
And certain is birth for the dead;
Therefore over the inevitable
Thou shouldst not grieve.


- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2

On action alone be thy interest,
Never on its fruits.
Let not the fruits of action be thy motive,
Nor be thy attachment to inaction.


- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2

Just as a reservoir is of little use when the whole countryside is flooded, scriptures are of little use to the illumined man or woman who sees the Lord everywhere.
(BG 2:46, p. 66)


(BG 7:19, p. 117)

(Those who follow the path of spiritual wisdom) see that where there is One, that One is me (God); where there are many, all are me; they see After many births the wise seek refuge in me, seeing me everywhere and in everything. Such great souls are very rare. my face everywhere.
(BG 9:15, p. 133)

The process of offering is Brahman; that which is offered is Brahman. Brahman offers the sacrifice in the fire of Brahman. Brahman is attained by those who see Brahman in every action.
(BG 4:24, pp. 87-88)

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:19 pm

I have had no reply to this post so i assume that you all like those quotes. So after all the SES may teach something that even you, yourselves like?

Misty

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:45 pm

hmmm i like this one

"The impermanent has no reality; reality lies in the eternal. Those who have seen the boundary between these two have attained the end of all knowledge. Realize that which pervades the universe and is indestructable; no power can affect this unchanging, imperishable reality. The body is mortal, but he who dwells in the body is immortal and immeasurable. Therefore, Arjuna, fight in this battle."


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests