Do we have any proof of Krishna's existence as a person like we do with figures like Buddha and Jesus or is he purely fictitious?
>>18176361Mythology
>>18176431The myth argument is pure cope from people who think history only counts if some white archaeologist digs it up.>Literary Cross-CorruptionMahabharata isa sprawling epic that got edited and added to for centuries. If Krishna was just some random mythical insert, why does his story, family (Yadava clan), and political role weave so perfectly into the core narrative that removing him makes the whole thing collapse? It's not a simple plug-and-play myth.>He's a Cringe Politician, not a Perfect God.A lot of his key actions in the Mahabharata are morally and politically ambiguous. The guy is a charioteer and a back-room dealer. If he was a pure, later mythological invention by Bhakti cults, why invent a divine figure with so much political baggage and questionable tactics? It points to an original, complex historical figure that later devotion smoothed over.>Archaeology PillWe have hard evidence for the Kuru kingdom and the city of Hastinapur from the Iron Age (roughly 1000-900 BCE), the exact period the Mahabharata is set in. We have evidence of a sophisticated society capable of the warfare described. The setting is NOT mythical. So the main political and military figure of its central story likely existed in some form.He was probably a tribal chieftain and a skilled politician whose legend got massively amplified over time. But to say he's 100% pure myth like a cartoon character is just historical illiteracy.
>>18176445>We have hard evidence for the Kuru kingdom and the city of Hastinapur from the Iron Age (roughly 1000-900 BCE), the exact period the Mahabharata is set in. We have evidence of a sophisticated society capable of the warfare described. The setting is NOT mythical. So the main political and military figure of its central story likely existed in some form.Interesting. That's actually a lot newer than I expected too.
>>18176445Saying Krishna came to India is like how the Greeks say Hercules came to Greece. In both cases it means the people who collectively form the living body of the god, animated by the spirit of the god.
>>18176361He is a historical figure, but from Divine History, the History that really mattersHe gave us the Song of the Lord (in English)https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvctceCTQG8LMSWNsKx1otfLUw0N_Jysxin the second Chapter, Krishna start giving his reply to Arjuna
>>18176679Was Krishna already a concept well before the texts compiled or something introduced after?
>>18176445You see this all throughout history though. You’ve got a ruler/leader who is fairly exceptional, he does a bunch of stuff that impresses his contemporaries, and the people who come along later end up worshipping the historical figure and applying various elements of their concepts about divinity. This doesn’t even take that long since many cultures often times ascribe divine mandates to their successful leaders. It makes a lot less sense to have Krishna be pure myth, much like claiming Jesus or Sargon were myths.
>>18177311I'm starting to be more convinced of this. The mythology of Vishnu and the concept of avatars seems to predate Krishna which implies he's an addition.
>>18176361y blu tho? I get the euhemerization, but why make him so physically distinct and inhuman in appearance?"Black" and "Blue" are often conflated in many languages, including Old Norse and other IE forms. Could he have been a Dravidian, that they changed into a "magical blueman" out of shame?
>>18176361May be a reflection of some real figures but as he's described he wasn't real. When it comes to historicity of mythological or legendary figures I always point to Theodoric the Great because we know who he was and have reasonably good biography of him, but he has also became a legendary figure as Dietrich von Bern, so you can read his biography and then let's say Thidreksaga and compare it. Tl dr some generalities match, but he interacts with Etzel - Attila and that hints that as the time progressed the legends about Theodoric and his father have merged, instead of being a king of Italy he's a vassal of Ermanrik, a 4th century Gothic warlord from the black sea region(in legend he's the king of Italy) and I think most importantly he is exiled from Italy to only conquer it back instead of, you know, not being from there. Again interaction with other characters show how stretched in time the life of Theodoric has became in the legends. We suspect that the parts of the Germanic legends concerning Gunther, Hagen and so forth is probably based on reality and while the Siegfried part of it may be inspired by 7th century Frankish dynastic struggles, the whole feast at the hunnic court is definitely based off a real event from the 430's, but that's before Attila and yet, our Dietrich shows up there as a grown man already. This was a legend that spread in at least somewhat literate society with a tradition of writing history down and we know it must have started spreading around 530 AD(at least some years after he was dead), with the first written evidence dating to 9th century and complete cycles being written down in the 12th. Meanwhile Krishna is meant to have been born in like 3300 B.C. knowing Hindu excessiveness when it comes to numbers I'd cut it in 3, but that's still a lot of time before any of it was written down for Krishna to evolve from some far, far less impressive figure to what you know him as
