Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Epics and Puranas c12: Chapter V: Historicity of Kṛṣṇa

Studies in the Epics and Purāṇas c12

Language
English

Chapter V: Historicity of Kṛṣṇa

c12.2

The Kṛṣṇa problem is one of the most interesting, important, fascinating and elusive topics in the domain of Indian Literature and History, and there is hardly an orientalist of note who has not contributed something on the subject. To an orthodox Hindu, Kṛṣṇa is a reality, and His mere name has been the saviour of innumerable distressed souls during the last two thousand years. An ordinary Hindu is never concerned with the historicity of Kṛṣṇa: to investigate the problem is a sacrilege according to him. It was only during the last century when the Western canons of criticism were applied to the problem that scholars doubted the historicity of Kṛṣṇa and maintained that Kṛṣṇa represented a syncretism of more than one person, and a steady influx of papers and monographs began to gather round the problem. It is indeed curious that the same set of facts has led to such diverse conclusions.

c12.3

A detailed and comprehensive treatment of the whole problem will require a full-fledged monograph. Though there are innumerable books,—both old and new, in Sanskrit, in medieval and modern Indian languages as also in English and continental languages—and articles, there is not a single book dealing exhaustively with all aspects and connotations of the problem.¹ This chapter aims at the study of the important aspects of the problem in brief in the light of the available material.

c12.4

¹ For important books and papers on the Kṛṣṇa Problem, see S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Early History of Vaiṣṇavism in South India*; A. S. P. Ayyar, *Śrī Kṛṣṇa, The Darling of Humanity*; Barth, *Religions of India*; Bhagwan Das, *Kṛṣṇa*; R. G. Bhandarkar, *Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism, etc.*; R. Chanda, *Archaeology and Vaiṣṇava Tradition*; Bankimchandra Chatterjee, *Kṛṣṇa-carita* (Gujarati trans. by K. M. Jhaveri); N. M. Chaudhury, *JBORS*, 1952; Collins, *Kṛṣṇa and Solar Myths*; S. Datta, *Kṛṣṇa and Purāṇas*; S. K. De, *BSOS*, VI; *IHQ*, XVIII; M. M. Dhar, *Kṛṣṇa, the Cowherd*; A. B. Dhruva,

c12.5

According to traditional history as represented by the Purāṇas, Kṛṣṇa belonged to the Sātvata sect of the Yādavas, who formed the Lunar dynasty, and was 94th in descent from Manu.² Some Purāṇas however represent Kṛṣṇa as coming from the Solar dynasty.³ Both the Lunar and Solar dynasties thus claimed Kṛṣṇa as their own. The name Kṛṣṇa occurs at many places in Brahmanical literature including Vedic, post-Vedic, epic and Puranic, as also in Buddhistic and Jaina literature.

c12.6

² Cf. Pargiter, AIHT, pp. 102-17; 144 ff; Vedic Age, Genealogical Table.

c12.7

³ Cf. Hari, II. 38. 35: एवमीदवाकुवंशात्तु यदुवंशो विनिःसृतः ।

c12.8

Before coming to the consideration of the various problems connected with the historicity of Kṛṣṇa, it is necessary to deal with the evidence, its chronology and critical evaluation. The evidence can be classified into (i) literary and (ii) epigraphic and sculptural. Literary evidence divides itself into Brahmanic, Buddhistic, Jaina and Greek references. Brahmanical evidence can be chronologically placed as follows: Ṛgveda, Upaniṣads, Pāṇini, Patañjali, the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas. This covers a very long

c12.9

Apano Dharma (in Gujarati); J. N. Farquhar, Outline of the Religious Literature of India; R. Garbe, ERE, II, pp. 535-38; G. Grierson, ERE, II, pp. 538-51; D. Hill, Bhagavadgītā; E. W. Hopkins, Religions of India; H. Jacobi, ERE, VII, pp. 193-97; A. B. Keith, JRAS, 1908; 1915; Kennedy, JRAS, 1907; W. Kirfel, Festgabe Jacobi; Mohan Singh, New Light on Sri Krsna and Gītā; B. R. Mullik, Krsna and Krsnaism; D. N. Pal, Sri Krsna; A. S. Ramayya, Śrī Kṛṣṇa; M. Ray, Śrī Kṛṣṇa; H. C. Raychaudhuri, Materials for the Study of the Early History of the Vaisnava Sect; W. Ruben, Kṛṣṇa; JAOS, LXI; JRAS, 1941; Festschrift Thomas; Sampatkumar, Śrī Kṛṣṇa; S. N. Tadpatrikar, Kṛṣṇa Problem; B. G. Tilak, Gītārahasya (in Marathi; Eng. trans. by B. S. Sukthankar); S. Tattvabhushan, Kṛṣṇa and the Gītā; Kṛṣṇa and the Purāṇas; C. V. Vaidya, Sri-Krsna-caritra (in Marathi).

c12.10

period, beginning at a modest estimate from the third millennium B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Later Purāṇas and Brahmanic evidence subsequent to the fifth century A.D. are practically valueless for the purposes of our investigation. The Jātakas constitute the Buddhistic evidence embracing the period from the early centuries before Christ and the Jain references also relate to the same period. The records of Megasthenes and Arrian have been placed in the fourth century B.C. Epigraphic and sculptural data relate not only to records of the Christian era, but also to monuments pertaining to the early centuries before Christ.

c12.11

To turn to the Brahmanic evidence relating to Kṛṣṇa, it is seen that the Ṛgveda (VIII. 85. 3, 4) refers to one Kṛṣṇa whom the Anukramaṇī styles Kṛṣṇa Āṅgirasa. Kṛṣṇa Āṅgirasa is alluded to also in the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa (XXX. 9). Kṛṣṇa Hārita is mentioned as a teacher in the Aitareya Āraṇyaka (III. 2.6). The Vedic Index makes no reference to any other Kṛṣṇa in Vedic literature besides these.⁴ Sitanath Tattvabhushan, D. R. Bhandarkar and others see in RV. VIII. 96.13-15, a reference to Kṛṣṇa, a non-Aryan chief, who was waiting with 10,000 soldiers on the banks of the Aṃśumatī (Yamunā) and was vanquished by Indra.⁵ The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (III. 17.6) mentions Kṛṣṇa Devakīputra as a Vedic seer and pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa. The earliest parts of the Mahābhārata represent Kṛṣṇa as a human hero, a religious teacher, and a counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas. Later on, however, he is raised gradually to divinity as a semi-divine, a partial incarnation of Viṣṇu. The latest parts of the epic treat him as the Supreme God, full incarnation of Viṣṇu, finally identifying him with Brahman.⁶ The Purāṇas speak of Kṛṣṇa as a Yādava hero, who spent his early life in Gokula and later migrated to Dvārakā; he was later deified as the incarnation of Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa. It may be noted that with the exception of the Ṛgveda passage, Kṛṣṇa is mentioned as Devakīputra in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas, and the last two sources call him also Vāsudeva, i.e. son of Vasudeva. Pāṇini refers to Vāsudeva and Arjuna as objects of worship, and there is a difference of opinion among scholars as to the degree of worship implied by Pāṇini.⁷ It appears that Pāṇini regarded them as Kṣatriya heroes raised to divinity. The relation of Vāsudeva with Arjuna and Kaṃsa is also indicated. The references in Patañjali clearly show that the deification of Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa was complete before his time, and definitely establish the unity of the person designated as Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa.⁸

c12.12

⁴ Ved. Ind., I, p. 184.

c12.13

⁵ Kṛṣṇa and the Gītā, p. 37; Some Aspects of Anc. Ind. Cult., pp. 82-3.

c12.14

⁶ Cf. Garbe, ERE, II, p. 535; Farquhar, ORLI, pp. 49 f, 78, 87; Hopkins, GEI, p. 395 n. 3; also Sörensen's Index under "Kṛṣṇa."

c12.15

⁷ Pāṇini, IV, 3. 96; IV. 3.98; Jacobi, ERE, VII, p. 195; Bhandarkar, VS, p. 4; Raychaudhuri, EHVS, pp. 30-31.

c12.16

⁸ Mahābhāṣya on 2. 3. 36, 3. 1. 26 and 3. 2. 11.

c12.17

In the Ghaṭa Jātatka⁹ Vāsudeva is described as a scion of the royal family of "upper Madhurā," and receives the epithet Kaṇha (Kṛṣṇa).

c12.18

⁹ Jātakas, Cowell's Ed. IV, pp. 50 ff.

c12.19

The Jain Uttarādhyana Sūtra (Lecture XXII) states that Vāsudeva was a Kṣatriya prince, and the twelfth Upāṅga deals with Kaṇha (Kṛṣṇa) Vāsudeva and Baladeva of the Vṛṣṇi dynasty.

c12.20

The Greek ambassador shows that Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva was already deified in the fourth century B.C. among the people of Mathurā, and that he was connected with the Pāṇḍavas.¹⁰

c12.21

¹⁰ McCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 201.

c12.22

The epigraphic evidence shows the prevalence of the worship of Kṛṣṇa and of temples dedicated to him since the early centuries before the Christian era. The earliest sculptural representation of a scene from the life of Kṛṣṇa dates from the early Kuṣāṇa period (first-second century A.D.).¹¹ The earliest representation of any Brahmanical deity in the whole field of Hindu iconography is that of Balarāma, which cannot be placed later than the second century B.C.¹² Archaeology and the Vaiṣṇava Tradition describes epigraphic records pertaining to Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa.¹³ There are two inscribed Garuḍa columns found near Besnagar, which can be placed in the second century B.C. The earlier of these was erected by Heliodorus, and the second by Mahārāja Bhāgavata of the Śuṅga dynasty. Near the Garuḍa column of Heliodorus, and belonging to the same period, was discovered the remnant of Makaradhvaja, or "a column with crocodile symbol". Then come the inscriptions at Ghoṣuṇḍi and Nānāghāt, which refer to the worship of Saṅkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva. The Mora stone slab inscription of the time of Mahākṣatrapa Rājuvula indicates the Vṛṣṇi origin of Vāsudeva, and one early Mathurā inscription of the time of Mahākṣatrapa Śoḍaśa refers to the column in honour of Vāsudeva.

c12.23

¹¹ D. R. Sahni, ASR, 1925-26, pp. 183 f.

c12.24

¹² Agrawala, JISOA, 1937, p. 136.

c12.25

¹³ MASI, No. 5, Calcutta, 1920, pp. 151, 161-163, 166, 169, 171.

c12.26

Having thus summarized the evidence in brief, let us now turn to the various problems connected with the historicity of Kṛṣṇa. We shall state the problems here, and shall then consider them seriatim. (i) The first point is whether Kṛṣṇa was a human being or a divinity at the beginning. (ii) Next we shall deal with the problem whether there was one Kṛṣṇa or several Kṛṣṇas. (iii) Then will be given the life of Kṛṣṇa collated from all sources. (iv) We shall then fix his period. (v) Finally the various theories regarding the Kṛṣṇa problem will be briefly stated and examined.

c12.27

(i) Whether Kṛṣṇa was a human being or a divinity at the beginning: Regarding the original nature of Kṛṣṇa conflicting evidence is offered by literary records, epigraphy and sculpture. Brahmanic literary works lend support both to the human and divine character of Kṛṣṇa, whereas Buddhist and Jain allusions may be said to point to the human nature of Kṛṣṇa. The epigraphic records and sculptural pieces clearly show that Kṛṣṇa had attained divinity at least since the third century B.C.

c12.28

Sifting the different Brahmanical works it is found that the Ṛgveda, Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa and Chāndogya Upaniṣad refer to Kṛṣṇa as a Vedic seer, obviously a human personality.¹⁴ As already stated, Pāṇini indicates that Vāsudeva and Arjuna, originally Kṣatriya heroes, were raised to the rank of gods before his time and Patañjali shows that they had attained divinity by his time. The Mahābhārata clearly shows the human and divine character of Kṛṣṇa. Leaving aside the consideration of the point whether the Kṛṣṇa element formed part of the original epic or was a later addition as contended by Oldenberg and others,¹⁵ it is clear that in the oldest nucleus of the epic we find clear references to the human character of Kṛṣṇa. In this connection, it may be pointed out that even among his senior contemporaries who were specially gifted with divine insight such as Vyāsa, Nārada and Bhīṣma, Kṛṣṇa was regarded as representing an avatāra of the Supreme Being, though his human elements were not forgotten.¹⁶ As against these, Śiśupāla, Duryodhana and others disputed the divinity of Kṛṣṇa, and regarded him as a mere cowherd. Evidence of the different stages in the progress of deification of Kṛṣṇa will be found in the Mahābhārata itself.¹⁷ In contrast to the earliest portions which clearly bring out the human elements of Kṛṣṇa and portray him as a human hero, he is represented as a semi-divine being in the later portions; whereas the parts of the epic that come still later, regard Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme God. The Purāṇas also present similar strata belonging to different ages showing various stages in the deification of the human hero Kṛṣṇa. Megasthenes testifies to the worship of Kṛṣṇa by the Śūrasenas. The earliest inscriptional records of the second century B.C. refer to the deification of Kṛṣṇa, to the worship of his sculptural images and to the erection of temples in his honour. He is devadeva, and even foreigners ruling in India styled themselves as Paramabhāgavata.¹⁸ Subsequent inscriptions, as already stated, also show the divinity of Kṛṣṇa.

c12.29

¹⁴ See supra, p. 51. There were several "holy seers" bearing the name Kṛṣṇa in the Vedic literature (Ved. Ind. I. pp. 184 f); we have referred only to those among them who were identified with Kṛṣṇa of the Vṛṣṇi race, of the epic tradition.

c12.30

¹⁵ Cf. Winternitz, HIL, I, p. 456. Dr. Sukthankar in one of his lectures on the Mahābhārata delivered in January 1943 before the University of Bombay stated that to understand the Mahābhārata it was necessary to understand Kṛṣṇa.

c12.31

¹⁶ Mbh. (Cr. Ed.), II. 35. 22-29.

c12.32

¹⁷ Cf. Mbh, V. 79. 5-6.

c12.33

¹⁸ Arch. and Vaiṣṇava Trad., pp. 151 ff.

c12.34

Without considering the question of the identity or otherwise of the Vedic Kṛṣṇa, the epic Kṛṣṇa, the Puranic Kṛṣṇa, etc. (which will be dealt with later on) it may be stated that the Vedic Kṛṣṇa is a human being and that the earliest portions of the epic and the Purāṇas show the human character of Kṛṣṇa. Buddhist and Jain records also testify to his being a human hero. It is only in the late legends coloured with mythology that Kṛṣṇa is treated as a divine being, and the conclusions that Kṛṣṇa was not a human hero but a solar deity or a vegetation deity, etc., are based on late legends as the result of looking at the story from the wrong end.¹⁹

c12.35

¹⁹ Cf. Raychaudhury, EHVS, p. 39.

c12.36

Kṛṣṇa, therefore, was originally a real man as evidenced by the pre-epic literature and the earliest part of the Mahābhārata itself.

c12.37

(ii) The next point for consideration is whether there was one Kṛṣṇa or there were more than one persons bearing the same name, and as a result of syncretism legend has grown round the name. It should be made clear at the outset that our investigations concern the historicity and identity of Kṛṣṇa the Yādava (whom we may call the epic Kṛṣṇa), who was also Vāsudeva and Devakīputra, and whose patronymics were Śauri, Vārṣṇeya, Mādhava, Sātvata, Dāśārha, etc. Identification of this Kṛṣṇa with the Devakīputra Kṛṣṇa of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad or with the counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas or with the charioteer of Arjuna, the expounder of the Bhagavadgītā and the founder of Bhāgavatism, the cowherd boy of Gokula, and the incarnation of Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu, will also form part of our enquiry, although we shall deal with this aspect in brief.

c12.38

The identity of the Kṛṣṇa of the Ṛgveda with the epic Kṛṣṇa receives no support from Purāṇic tradition, as he is nowhere mentioned as a seer of Vedic hymns or is in no way connected with Aṅgiras. As regards the non-Aryan chief Kṛṣṇa stated to have been referred to in the Ṛgveda by S. Tattvabhushan, D. R. Bhandarkar and others, and in whom these scholars see the origin and associations of the later Kṛṣṇa of the Purāṇas, it may be observed that this interpretation of the Ṛgvedic passage, though given by Sāyaṇa, is not accepted by modern Vedic scholars, and Sāyaṇa himself has mentioned the different interpretations given by the *Bṛhaddevatā*.²⁰ Further, there is absolutely no connecting link to associate this so-called Ṛgvedic Kṛṣṇa, who was an Asura according to Sāyaṇa, with the Kṛṣṇa, of the Purāṇas. Many scholars, however, are inclined to identify Devakīputra of the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* with the epic Kṛṣṇa especially on account of the similarity of metronyms as also that of doctrines propounded in the *Chāndogya Upaniṣad* and the *Bhagavadgītā*.²¹ De has dealt with the problem in some detail and has proved that the two personalities are quite distinct.²² Ghora Āṅgirasa is never mentioned as the teacher of the epic Kṛṣṇa, whose teachers have been named as Sāndīpani and Garga in the epic and Purāṇic traditions. Much capital, again, has been made of the alleged similarities of doctrines. The so-called parallels do not form the cardinal doctrines of the *Bhagavadgītā*, and as the latter echoes most of the teachings of the Upaniṣads and forms its verses by tags from the Upaniṣads, parallelisms between the *Bhagavadgītā* and the Upaniṣads are not at all surprising. It may further be noted that the *Bhagavadgītā* which regards *jñāna-yajña* as superior to *dravyayajña* never mentions Ghora Āṅgirasa. The alleged identification, therefore, is not proved.

c12.39

²⁰ The important words in the RV (VIII. 96.13-15) passage are "kṛṣṇa", "drapsa", and "Aṃśumatī". According to the *Bṛhaddevatā* (VI. 109 ff), drapsa and kṛṣṇa is Soma itself. It had run away from the gods while they were coming to drapsa and kṛṣṇa thinking them to be demons. Sāyaṇa, however, says that the interpretation of the *Bṛhaddevatā* is to be neglected, and takes drapsa kṛṣṇa to mean "the swift-moving Kṛṣṇa", an Asura, who with 10,000, occupied the banks of Aṃśumatī or Yamunā. Grassmann takes this as the description of Soma. According to Oldenberg, drapsa and kṛṣṇa are identical, and not two inimical forces: kṛṣṇa drapsa was the sperm of Bṛhaspati, which remains hidden in the river; Indra with Bṛhaspati as his companion defended this kṛṣṇa drapsa against 10,000 attackers from whom it escapes. Geldner takes drapsa (Soma) as attacked by kṛṣṇa and saved by Indra. Griffith takes kṛṣṇa drapsa as the darkened moon, aṃśumatī as a mystical river of the air in which the moon dips to recover its vanished light, and 10,000 as probably demons of darkness.—I must record here my indebtedness to Prof. H. D. Velankar, my revered guru, in preparing this note.

c12.40

²¹ Raychaudhury, *EHVS*, pp. 78 ff, and footnote 80 later on.

c12.41

²² IHQ, XVIII, pp. 297-301.

c12.42

Some scholars believe that the Kṛṣṇa of the Purāṇas, the Kṛṣṇa of the *Mahābhārata* and the Kṛṣṇa of the *Bhagavadgītā* are different persons. For maintaining the diversity of the epic and Purāṇic Kṛṣṇas, it is argued that the *Mahābhārata* contains no reference to the childhood of Kṛṣṇa, and the older Purāṇas do not refer to the connection of the Purāṇic Kṛṣṇa with the Pāṇḍavas. It is true that Kṛṣṇa appears for the first time in the epic at the Svayaṃvara of Draupadī where he had come from Dvārakā, and the epic is silent as to his earlier life. It is again argued that the life of Kṛṣṇa in Gokula and also during the Bhārata war is contrary to his teachings in the *Bhagavadgītā*, and hence these different irreconcilable features belong to different cycles of legends.

c12.43

Now, the *Mahābhārata* principally concerns itself with the history of the Bhāratas and naturally Kṛṣṇa's doings and life subsequent to his contact with the Pāṇḍavas have been incorporated in the epic. Again, the *Harivaṃśa* which forms the supplement of the *Mahābhārata* deals exhaustively and exclusively with the life and history of Kṛṣṇa on which the *Mahābhārata* is silent; and it was on account of this that even in the subsequent redactions of the Great Epic nothing was added concerning the early life of Kṛṣṇa. The *Harivaṃśa* and the *Mahābhārata* thus together supply a complete life of Kṛṣṇa. It cannot, however, be said that the *Mahābhārata* is entirely silent as to the early life of Kṛṣṇa, as there are some references to his early life in Gokula.²³ In his tirade and calumny against Kṛṣṇa, the Cedi king Śiśupāla not only calls him a cowherd (*gopa*) and a cattle-tender (*vargapāla*), but refers derisively to his various childhood exploits (which have been mentioned in the Purāṇas) such as the killing to Pūtanā, Śakuni, Vṛṣabha etc. and the Govardhana incident.24 The celebrated prayer by Draupadī to Kṛṣṇa when Duḥśāsana was stripping off her garments (Mbh, B. II. 68.41-46) has been rightly excluded from the critical edition of the Sabhāparvan edited by F. Edgerton on strictly scientific grounds based on the conclusive evidence of MSS.25 It is interesting to note in this connection that the word *gopījanavallabha*, which shows Kṛṣṇa's association with the Gopīs, occurs in this passage which was claimed as an old part of the epic by Garbe.26 This once more proves how precarious are the conclusions based on the vulgate text of the Mahābhārata.27 The exclusion of the passage containing a reference to Kṛṣṇa as *gopījanavallabha* from the text of the Mahābhārata, however, does not affect our position, as there are various passages, already mentioned, referring to the early life of Kṛṣṇa in Gokula. One passage of the Mahābhārata clearly shows that the same Kṛṣṇa from Gokula who killed Kaṃsa was the friend and counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas and helped them to kill Jarāsandha.28 The silence of the early Purāṇas as to the part Kṛṣṇa played in the great Bhārata war is easily explained on the ground that as the Great Epic exhaustively dealt with it,

c12.44

²³ Cf. Mbh. (B). II. 33. 11; 39. 2; 41. 4; 68. 41; III. 14. 10; 263. 8; VI. 23. 7; XII. 47. 108; XIII. 149. 82; XIV. 68. 1; 87. 11; XVI. 2. 20. The references to the Critical Edition for the Sabhā,

c12.45

Aranya, Bhīṣma and Śānti passages are: II. 30. 10; 36. 2; 38. 4; 543* line 2 (p. 304); III. 15. 10; p. 1082, lines 72-7; VI, p. 710, line 14; XII. 47. 72. Cf. also Bhg, I. 28, 32, 42; VI. 41; XVIII. 1.
24. Mbh. (Cr. Ed.), II. 38 and 41.
25. Sabhāparvan, Intr., pp. XXVIII-XXIX.
26. Indien und das Christendum, p. 227; cf. Keith, JRAS, 1915, p. 549.
27. Cf. Sukthankar, Festachrift Kane, p. 474 n (=SME, I, p. 389 n).
28. Mbh. (B), XII. 339. 90-100; (Cr. Ed.), XII. 326. 82-92.

c12.46

the Purāṇas thought it unnecessary to refer to it. The Bhāgavata Purāṇa expressly states that the Harivaṃśa was written to fill up the gaps in the life of Kṛṣṇa as found in the Mahābhārata. Hence naturally, the Purāṇas deal with the early life of Kṛṣṇa and with other aspects not touched by the Mahābhārata. An account of the life of Kṛṣṇa from his birth to death based on a critical examination and collation of the details as given in the Mahābhārata and the older Purāṇas so as to present a connected and consistent story will be given later on. It may, however, be stated that the Mahābhārata presents Kṛṣṇa as a Yādava chief, a friend and counsellor of the Pāṇḍavas due to whose tactful guidance alone the latter came out successful in the Bhārata war. Some scholars are inclined to doubt the identity of this Kṛṣṇa, the chief of Dvārakā who often advocated tricky ways, with the propounder of the Bhagavadgītā who preaches dharma as the rule of life.²⁹ But it may be seen that there is really no such contradiction, inconsistency or incompatibility in the preachings and behaviour of the Vṛṣṇi hero as to justify the theory of two Kṛṣṇas. As the priests of Śiva were the last to retouch the Mahābhārata, and as there is as much Śaivism in the Mahābhārata as there is Vaiṣṇavism,³⁰ sectarian rancour may have been responsible for inventing some incidents and darkening the character of Vāsudeva. His actions, however, can be justified on the ground that they were necessitated by peculiar circumstances which may be excused as exceptions to the general rule. The activities of Kṛṣṇa before and during the Bhārata war as recorded in the Mahābhārata, no doubt, represent him as a human politician par excellence, though the Mahābhārata at places attempts to identify him with the god of gods.

c12.47

²⁹ Cf. Winternitz, HIL, I, p. 456; Garbe, ERE, II, pp. 535 ff.

c12.48

³⁰ Hopkins, RI, pp. 356n, 349n.

c12.49

The Harivaṃśa, Brahma, Viṣṇu, Bhāgavata and Brahmavaivarta among the Purāṇas deal exhaustively with the life of Kṛṣṇa, and the accounts in the different Purāṇas are not only inconsistent but mutually contradictory. Ruben has critically considered some incidents relating to the life of Kṛṣṇa from different Purāṇas and has come to the conclusion that the original supplement (Khila) of the Mahābhārata was much shorter than the Khila Harivaṃśa now current, that the original Harivaṃśa is the oldest Purāṇa and that the original archetype of the Harivaṃśa has been better preserved in the Brahma.³¹ The order of the Purāṇas has variously been placed as: Viṣṇu-Harivaṃśa-Bhāgavata-Brahmavaivarta,³² Harivaṃśa-Brahma-Viṣṇu-Bhāgavata-Brahmavaivarta,³³ Brahma-Viṣṇu-Bhāgavata-Brahmavaivarta,³⁴ etc. A critical evaluation of the different accounts of Kṛṣṇa given in the Purāṇas shows that only the Brahma and the Viṣṇu have a common text, and that the former has an account older than the Viṣṇu.³⁵ Besides these, the Padma, Agni, Bhāgavata and Brahmavaivarta deal at some length with the Kṛṣṇa story, and the Harivaṃśa, truly as the supplement of the Mahābhārata, goes over the entire Purāṇic story, carefully omitting all references to the Mahābhārata story. The Bhāgavata is the only Purāṇic account which combines both the epic and Purāṇic accounts setting them in proper context. The Brahmavaivarta is a late work, solely written to glorify Rādhā.

c12.50

³¹ JAOS, 61, pp. 115-127; JRAS, 1941, pp. 247-256.

c12.51

³² Cf. Tattvabhushan, Kṛṣṇa and the Gītā, p. 56.

c12.52

³³ Cf. Durgashankar Shastri, Purāṇa Vivecana, pp. 133-5.

c12.53

³⁴ Ruben, Festschrift Thomas, pp. 188-203.

c12.54

³⁵ Cf. Tadpatrikar, Kṛṣṇa Problem, pp. 276-277.

c12.55

It has been suggested that the Kṛṣṇa in the Purāṇas and the Kṛṣṇa in the Mahābhārata are distinct personages. Mutual exclusiveness of the two sources has been satisfactorily explained above. It is felt that the lascivious, lustful, immoral Kṛṣṇa of Gokula cannot be the same person as the friend of the Pāṇḍavas and the great teacher of the *Bhagavadgītā*. For one thing, it has not been definitely proved whether Kṛṣṇa had questionable relations with the Gopīs. On account of the absence of any reference in the *Jātaka* story and the *Mahābhārata* to the relations of Kṛṣṇa with the Gopīs, which is found in the *Harivaṃśa* and the Purāṇas, some scholars hold that there was no basis in fact for the Gopi stories.³⁶ The antiquity of the tradition about the Gopīs would be evident from the fact that Aśvaghoṣa (first century A.D.) refers to them in his *Buddhacarita* (IV. 14). Comparisons with later accounts show how each subsequent writer has added from his imagination to the story. Again, the age of Kṛṣṇa when he was in Gokula entirely speaks against any blot to his character,—he was a mere boy. This appears precisely to be the reason why Śiśupāla was silent regarding these incidents in the reviling scene in the Sabhāparvan of the *Mahābhārata*. Further, Kṛṣṇa never visited Gokula again after he left it once, which would be inexplicable if he had immoral connections with the cowherd maidens. At the most, all that we can say regarding Kṛṣṇa's life and doings in Gokula is that his youthful loves did not go beyond violent flirtations and a taste for group dancing and singing, and they were rather a precocious manifestation of his richly artistic and vital nature. It may be noted that even in the latest accounts, it is nowhere mentioned that Kṛṣṇa hankered after the Gopīs; it was they who went mad after him. No blot can be ascribed to his character in any case. Many of the stories associated with Kṛṣṇa's life in Gokula which have been added by later works are mere symbolizations. There is thus nothing inconsistent in identifying the Purāṇic Kṛṣṇa with the epic Kṛṣṇa. The various accounts in the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas show no such hopeless incompatibility as would, by itself, give a prima facie justification for the theory of two Kṛṣṇas—one, the warrior, statesman and teacher of the Bhagavadgītā at the time of the Bhārata war, and the other, the devotion-inspirer, the beloved of the Gopīs, of Vṛndāvana of a later time. There is indeed no inherent improbability in Kṛṣṇa's being a cowherd in his childhood as well as a warrior-teacher in his later life.

c12.56

³⁶ Cf. Raychaudhuri, EHVS, pp. 73 f.

c12.57

The Purāṇas indicate Kṛṣṇa's relationship with the Pāṇḍavas and the antiquity of this tradition is also clear from Pāṇini and the Greek records.³⁷ We have thus established the identity of the Kṛṣṇa of the Mahābhārata, of the Bhagavadgītā and of the Purāṇas.

c12.58

³⁷ Cf. Pāṇini IV. 3. 98, who mentions Vāsudeva and Arjuna together, and Megasthenes refers to Kṛṣṇa's connection with Pandia.

c12.59

Following the lead of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar it has been argued that Kṛṣṇa and Vāsudeva were originally different personages who were later merged into a single personality. There is absolutely no foundation in fact for this view. According to Bhandarkar,³⁸ the cowherd Kṛṣṇa of the Purāṇas is distinct from the Vṛṣṇi prince Vāsudeva of the Mahābhārata. Bhandarkar holds that Vāsudeva was not originally a patronymic but the name of a member of the Sātvata or Vṛṣṇi race, who was worshipped as a Supreme Being, and the tradition of Kṛṣṇa as a sage is seen from the time of the Ṛgveda and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. The conception of Vasudeva as father, according to Bhandarkar, arose afterwards, and Vāsudeva was identified with the Vedic sage Kṛṣṇa and a genealogy was given to him in the Vṛṣṇi race through Śūra and Vasudeva. Now, the name Vāsudeva occurs once in Vedic literature as a name of Viṣṇu.³⁹ The *Bhagavadgītā*, the *Jātakas*, the *Mahābhārata* and the Jain *Uttarādhyayana Sūtra* state that Vāsudeva was a scion of the Vṛṣṇi family. The *Mahābhārata* further states that true Vāsudeva was Kṛṣṇa of Yādava, Vṛṣṇi or Sātvata family of Mathurā.⁴⁰ The *Mahābhāṣya*, the *Jātakas* and the Greek records also point to the fact of Kṛṣṇa being the son of Vasudeva and Devaki (i.e. of his being Vāsudeva). The *Mahābhāṣya* passages असाधुर्मानुले कृष्णः, जघान कंसं किल वासुदेवः, and प्रहारा दृश्यन्ते कंसस्य च कृष्णस्य च clearly show that Kṛṣṇa and Vāsudeva were the names of one and the same individual.⁴¹ According to the *Ghaṭa Jātaka*, Vāsudeva receives the epithet Kaṇha (i.e. Kṛṣṇa).⁴² Megasthenes and Arrian refer to Herakles as one held in special honour by the Sourasenoi, an Indian tribe who possessed two large cities Methora and Kleisobora.⁴³ Herakles has been identified by Bhandarkar with Vāsudeva and Sourasenoi with Śūrasenas or Sātvatas.⁴⁴ Lassen, McCrindle and Hopkins state that Methora and Kleisobora are respectively Mathurā and Kṛṣṇapura.⁴⁵ The mention of Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa and Śūrasenas or Sātvatas together in one context is a certain indication of the early and inseparable connection between these. The fact seems to be that Vāsudeva and Kṛṣṇa were one and the same person, and the deification of Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa and his identification as an incarnation of Viṣṇu were complete before the period of the Mahābhāṣya. It has been contended that the mention of Kṛṣṇa as Devakīputra without mentioning the name of his father shows that his father's name has later been developed from his very name Vāsudeva.⁴⁶ But in old days, metronyms were used to distinguish between the sons of different wives, e.g. Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma, though both Vāsudeva (i.e. son of Vasudeva), were respectively Devakīputra and Rauhiṇeya. Keith is indeed right when he states that "the separation of Vāsudeva and Kṛṣṇa it is impossible to justify".⁴⁷

c12.60

³⁸ VS, pp. 13, 49.

c12.61

³⁹ Taitt. Ār. X. 1.6: नारायणाय विद्महे वासुदेवाय धीमहि। तन्नो विष्णुः प्रचोदयात् ॥

c12.62

⁴⁰ False Vāsudeva was king of Puṇḍra. Cf. Mbh. (B) I. 186. 12; II. 14. 20; etc. For true Vāsudeva, see Sörensen's Index.

c12.63

⁴¹ Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇini.

c12.64

⁴² Cowell's Jātakas, IV, p. 54.

c12.65

⁴³ McCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, p. 201.

c12.66

⁴⁴ VS, p. 13.

c12.67

⁴⁵ Mc Crindle, op. cit., p. 140 n; IA, 1876, p. 334; Hopkins, RI, p. 459.

c12.68

⁴⁶ Jacobi, ERE, VII, p. 195.

c12.69

⁴⁷ JRAS, 1915, p. 840.

c12.70

The problem of the deification of Vāsudeva Kṛṣṇa, the Yādava prince and preacher of the Bhagavadgītā, deserves to be briefly considered. It appears that the deification of Kṛṣṇa began not long after his age and even during his lifetime, some regarded him as superhuman; and regarding the period required for the process of deification we have to take into account the circumstances prevailing in the past. Buddha was raised to divinity in his own lifetime. Vāsudeva was not merely a Kṣatriya hero, but raised to divinity by the time of Pāṇini; subsequent references definitely show that long before the fourth century B.C., Kṛṣṇa was worshipped as the records of Megasthenes would have us believe. The Greek ambassador definitely states that Kṛṣṇa was regarded as an incarnation of Viṣṇu. The earliest inscriptional and sculptural data indicating the ascription of divinity to Kṛṣṇa date about second century B.C. The doctrine of avatāra shows a developed stage in the Bhagavadgītā. It may be seen that a doctrine of avatāra was the necessary corollary to the identification of Kṛṣṇa-Vāsudeva with the Supreme. Kṛṣṇa, in human form, was the Vṛṣṇi prince of Dvārakā and the charioteer of Arjuna at Kurukṣetra; if he were, at the same time, the highest god, the paradox could only be explained by the theory of *avatāra*.

c12.71

Allied with the question of the identification of Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa with the highest god is that of his identification with Nārāyaṇa. The exact period when Kṛṣṇa-Vāsudeva was first identified with Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu cannot be ascertained. The *Taittirīya Āraṇyaka* (X. 1. 6) identifies Vāsudeva with Nārāyaṇa-Viṣṇu, but the date of that work is not certain. Nārāyaṇa and Viṣṇu were originally names of distinct deities. Viṣṇu is a *Ṛgvedic* deity, but Nārāyaṇa occurs for the first time in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (XII. 3. 4. 1). Viṣṇu in the *Ṛgveda* is but a comparatively minor deity. He gradually rose into prominence in the epic period as the only Supreme god, Śiva being his only rival for the post of honour. One of the reasons why Kṛṣṇa after his deification was identified with Viṣṇu instead of any other godhead seems to be that the epithets of Viṣṇu such as Gopā (*RV.* I. 22. 18) could very well be applicable to Kṛṣṇa. Another reason appears to be that Viṣṇu, who was reputed to be the great benefactor of mankind, the preserver of Dharma since the earliest Vedic times, was the natural choice of the followers of Kṛṣṇa in preference to the malevolent Śiva, the dreadful, when Kṛṣṇa was deified, and Viṣṇu was made the centre of the *avatāra* theory propounded in the *Bhagavadgītā*.

c12.72

It has been suggested that in its early form Bhāgavatism was a development of sun-worship, and Viṣṇu being a solar deity, the identification of the principal figure in the Bhāgavata cult with Viṣṇu,⁴⁸ in preference to the Lord of Storm, was a natural course. But it has not yet been definitely proved that the Bhāgavatism was a form of Sun worship.

c12.73

⁴⁸ Cf. Raychaudhuri, EHVS, pp. 89 f; Grierson, IA, 1908, p. 253.

c12.74

The deification of Kṛṣṇa and his identification with Viṣṇu as his *avatāra* find full expression in the *Bhagavadgītā*, and hence may be taken to date at least since the pre-Buddhist period.

c12.75

(iii) Now, we shall deal with the life of Kṛṣṇa after collating the Purāṇic texts and the *Mahābhārata* accounts, giving the incidents in a chronological sequence. The complete life, combining the Purāṇic and epic accounts, as already stated, occurs only in the late *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. In reconstructing the life of Kṛṣṇa, only the old and authentic accounts have been taken into consideration, and we have left out the mythological, symbolical, metaphorical or religious embellishments and colourings that have gathered round the story. Only those facts that might have occurred historically have been included in the life.

c12.76

As the *Mahābhārata* and some earlier texts do not refer to Kṛṣṇa's life in Gokula, some scholars are inclined to omit these incidents from Kṛṣṇa's life, taking them to be later additions. Dhruva reads a mixture of poetic fancy and historical facts in the Purāṇic and *Mahābhārata* stories of Kṛṣṇa; and he seeks symbolical and philosophical explanations for most of the exploits of Kṛṣṇa in childhood.⁴⁹ There is, no doubt, some amount of truth in these observations. Some of the later stories are palpably apparent as unhistorical on the face of them, such as the approach of Earth to the gods and the promise of God to be born in Gokula, the prophecy of gods, exaggerated accounts of some of the miraculous feats of child Kṛṣṇa, etc. which were evidently added after the deification of Kṛṣṇa was complete. The accounts in the later Purāṇas constitute important landmarks for the development of the Kṛṣṇa myth and the evolution of the Vaiṣṇava religion, though they cannot be relied on as sources of information for the historical life of Kṛṣṇa.

c12.77

⁴⁹ *Apano Dharma*, pp. 752 ff.

c12.78

To turn now to a brief outline of the life of Kṛṣṇa, after eschewing incidents which appear to have no basis in historical facts, we find, as already stated, that Kṛṣṇa was the son of Vasudeva (of the Yādavas) and Devakī the daughter of Devaka, brother of king Ugrasena of Mathurā. Before the birth of Kṛṣṇa, Kaṃsa, the son of Ugrasena, had usurped the Mathurā throne and had imprisoned Ugrasena and his minister Vasudeva. Relying on the prophecy of his royal astrologers that Devakī's eighth child would kill him, Kaṃsa used to kill the children of Devakī. Kṛṣṇa was born in the prison cell at Mathurā, but immediately after birth, was removed to Gokula, to the other side of the Yamunā with the aid of the prison warders and others who were dissatisfied with the tyrant Kaṃsa. He was brought up in Gokula as the child of Nanda and Yaśodā, whose daughter was substituted for Kṛṣṇa, and the baby daughter was later killed by Kaṃsa.

c12.79

As a child, Kṛṣṇa appears to have been extraordinary, and he passed through many a crisis.⁵⁰ He was once attacked with a fatal disease named Pūtanā,⁵¹ but he miraculously escaped. Thereafter, while kept underneath a waggon by his mother, he struck his feet against the wheels of the waggon with the result that the waggon was overturned and the pots and pans were upset and broken. Then, a fearful bird suddenly pounced on Kṛṣṇa and carried him away in its talons. The bird fell down dead after a time and the child was found to be safe. Kṛṣṇa's initiatory rites were performed along with his elder brother Balarāma (son of Vasudeva by Rohiṇī) by Garga, the family priest of the Vṛṣṇi race, who arrived in Gokula in secret.

c12.80

⁵⁰ There is no settled order in the Purāṇas of the various incidents, which are of unequal length in the different Purāṇas.

c12.81

⁵¹ Pūtanā has variously been given as a female nurse, a fearful bird and a terrible giantess. Suśruta (Uttaratantra, Ch. 27, 37) mentions Pūtanā as a fatal children's disease. Dhruva interprets the Pūtanā story to mean that the benevolent power of the Almighty is superior to the power of the diseases harassing young children (Āpano Dharma, p. 758).

c12.82

As a boy Kṛṣṇa was extremely handsome and beautiful and endowed with profound physical strength and supernatural energy. He was the beloved of all boys and girls, and all men and women of Gokula loved him more than their own children. Once while tied to a mortar with a rope round his waist, Kṛṣṇa tried to extricate himself from the rope and began to drag the mortar after him. It fell on its side and rolled after him till it stuck fast amid two Arjuna trees, which eventually were uprooted and fell down.

c12.83

On account of evil omens and the onrush of hundreds of ferocious wolves, the cowherds in a body left Gokula for Vṛndāvana and soon settled there. In Vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa subjugated Kāliya, a Nāga chief, and ordered him to leave the place with his tribe.⁵² Kṛṣṇa used to gather his friends in the forest, and enjoyed many a game, during the course of which Balarāma killed Pralamba, an Asura, who joined them dressed as a cowherd boy. In Vṛndāvana, instead of the usual Indrayajña current among herdsmen, Kṛṣṇa established the practice of worshipping Nature, the visible manifestation of God, the Govardhana Hill. There was a heavy down-pour when the herdsmen were engaged in their new sacrifice, and through some extraordinary miraculous device, Kṛṣṇa saved them all.⁵³

c12.84

⁵² Bhagwan Das (Kṛṣṇa, p. 59) takes the subjugation of Kāliya to represent reign over five senses.

c12.85

⁵³ According to Dhruva (Apano Dharma, p. 759) the Govardhana story shows us the world surrounding us as superior to Indra in the sky and should be regarded as Īśvara.

c12.86

Vraja-lilā: Then came the great dance, the Rāsa, about which so much has been written. Among the Yādavas it was usual to engage in dance and song in which youths and maidens participated. The Harivaṃśa represents the Rāsa as a maddening love of youthful maidens for a young man; in the Bhāgavata, it is the deep sensual love of passionate and sprightly girls for a passionate youth; while the Brahmavaivarta describes it as a gross carnality. It may be observed in this connection that Kṛṣṇa was hardly a boy of eleven in Vṛndāvana. He had the usual Gopa taste for group dancing and singing, and these dances, as already stated, are rather a precocious manifestation of Kṛṣṇa's richly artistic and vital nature. Kṛṣṇa taught the herdsmen the principle of true Kātyāvanipūjā that without absolute surrender of self to Him, worship of Kātyāyanī was of no avail. The Rṣinatnyākhyāna teaches that God hankers after true love.⁵⁴

c12.87

⁵⁴ Cf. Dhruva, Apano Dharma, p. 759.

c12.88

Kṛṣṇa's First Deeds: Kṛṣṇa's extraordinary exploits, widespread popularity and great fame reached the ears of Kaṃsa, and he planned to kill the Vṛṣṇi princes Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma through his wrestlers. He sent Akrūra as an envoy to Vṛndāvana with an invitation to Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma to visit his court and attend the wrestling bouts. Accordingly they left Vṛndāvana and started for Mathurā. Soon after reaching Mathurā, Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma had an affray with Kaṃsa's men in the streets and bodyguards. In the main tournament (Dhanurmaha) the next day, Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma killed the prize-fighters. Kṛṣṇa also killed the tyrant Kaṃsa, and reinstated Ugrasena on the Mathurā throne.

c12.89

Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma then left for Avantipura near Kāśī for their education at the hermitage of Sāndipani. Their stay at the preceptor was, however, very short, for they were called back by the people of Mathurā on account of invasion. Enraged at Kaṃsa's death, Jarāsandha, his father-in-law and ruler of Magadha, invaded Mathurā with a large army a number of times, but Kṛṣṇa repelled the invasions. Kālayavana, a Yavana chief, was instigated by Jarāsandha to fight against Kṛṣṇa; but the latter got Kālayavana killed by Mucukunda. To avoid unnecessary bloodshed, Kṛṣṇa ultimately left Mathurā, and with his people migrated to Dvārakā on the extreme west coast and settled there. Kṛṣṇa then married Rukmiṇī, the daughter of Bhiṣmaka, the Vidarbha king, whom her brother intended to marry to Śiśupāla, the Cedi king.

c12.90

Kṛṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas: Kṛṣṇa appears for the first time in the Mahābhārata at the Svayaṃvara of Draupadī which he attended. After the marriage of the Pāṇḍavas with Draupadī, Kṛṣṇa sent them many presents. The Pāṇḍavas then re-established their sovereignty in Khāṇḍava, founded Indraprastha, and settled there, after which Kṛṣṇa returned to Dvārakā.

c12.91

In the course of his pilgrimage, Arjuna visited the holy Prabhāsa, where Kṛṣṇa came to see him and took him to Dvārakā. On Kṛṣṇa's advice, Arjuna captured and married his sister, Subhadrā. Kṛṣṇa got a magnificent Assembly Hall built for the Pāṇḍavas by Maya, the Dānava architect, whose life was saved by Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna in their burning of the Khāṇḍava forest. Kṛṣṇa then advised king Yudh'ṣṭhira to perform the Rājasūya, but as a preliminary to it, visited Girivraja, the capital of Magadha, along with Bhīma and Arjuna, where Bhīma slew Jarāsandha, the Magadha King, and the imprisoned kings were set free. At the Rājasūya, Kṛṣṇa washed the feet of the Brāhmaṇas. Bhisma declared Kṛṣṇa to be the Supreme God and the only person fit for Agraṇūjā (first worship), which shows that Kṛṣṇa was deified in his own lifetime. Śiśupāla, the late generalissimo of Jarāsandha, objected to the *Agrapūjā* being offered to Kṛṣṇa, censured Kṛṣṇa, Bhīṣma and the Pāṇḍavas, and was slain by Kṛṣṇa. After the successful conclusion of Yudhiṣṭhira’s Rājasūya, Kṛṣṇa returned to Dvārakā.

c12.92

The game of dice that finally led to the banishment of the Pāṇḍavas was played immediately after Kṛṣṇa left for Dvārakā. During the Pāṇḍavas’ exile, Kṛṣṇa visited them thrice in deep forest, and attended the marriage of Abhimanyu (son of Subhadrā and Arjuna) with Uttarā, daughter of king Virāṭa, at Virāṭanagara, after the period of exile was over. After returning to Hastināpura, the Pāṇḍavas demanded their share of the kingdom from Duryodhana, the Kuru prince, but the latter turned a deaf ear to all proposals from the Pāṇḍavas. Envoys were sent by each side to try to effect a compromise between the contending parties, but these proved futile. After it was found that war was inevitable, both parties tried to gather forces on their sides, and Arjuna and Duryodhana went to Dvārakā to seek the aid of Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna preferred the single-handed, non-combatant Kṛṣṇa as an ally who, later, became his charioteer; and Duryodhana selected the large army of veteran Nārāyaṇas. Balarāma preferred to remain neutral. As a last resort, Kṛṣṇa himself went as the envoy of the Pāṇḍavas to Hastināpura to see if any means could be found to avoid the disastrous war. His efforts were of no avail. He tried to win over Karṇa to the side of the Pāṇḍavas, but Karṇa desired to remain true and loyal to Duryodhana.

c12.93

During the Bhārata war, Kṛṣṇa helped the Pāṇḍavas in a number of ways. On the first day, when Arjuna was unnerved at the sight of his relatives in the opposite camp and was at a loss to know his duty, Kṛṣṇa preached him the “Song Celestial” which told him what his true work was. It is beyond the scope of the present chapter to say anything about the "Song Celestial". Kṛṣṇa strained every nerve, physically and spiritually, to bring forth victory for the Pāṇḍavas. Kṛṣṇa's efficiency as a charioteer helped Arjuna a good deal. He twice started to attack Bhīṣma, took charge of Bhagadatta's missile which was aimed against Arjuna and expressed a number of times his readiness to kill the enemies himself. Kṛṣṇa received numerous wounds and injuries in the war and sometimes was temporarily overwhelmed. In the matter of killing Bhūriśravā, Droṇa, Karṇa and Duryodhana (among others) Kṛṣṇa may be said to have forced the Pāṇḍavas to play frauds; but these were justifiable under the exigencies of circumstances. Many a time during the war, Kṛṣṇa not only tactfully guided the Pāṇḍavas as to the particular course to be taken, but encouraged and urged them to action as also gave them spiritual advice, consolations, etc. In fact, it was mainly and solely due to the important part played by Kṛṣṇa in the great war that the Pāṇḍavas emerged victorious.

c12.94

Yudhiṣṭhira was installed on the throne at Hastināpura, and Kṛṣṇa returned to Dvārakā, to come once more to Hastināpura to be present at the Aśvamedha of Yudhiṣṭhira. He revived the still-born child of Uttarā, which later was named Parikṣit. The Aśvamedha was solemnized in all pomp and glory, and Kṛṣṇa bade farewell to the Pāṇḍavas for the last time.

c12.95

Then for many years, Kṛṣṇa passed at Dvārakā a life of peace, pleasure and happiness, when at last there arose a fateful dissension amongst the various Yādava tribes. With life of peace and luxury, the Yādavas daily grew sensuous and vicious, and became addicted to drinking. Once they went to Prabhāsa to perform religious rites, leaving only women, children and old men at Dvārakā. There they enjoyed in various ways and drank heavily. From hot words they came to blows, and a great battle was fought on the holy shrine, brother fighting against brother, and kith against kin. The entire Yadu race was destroyed in the struggle, leaving only four, viz. Kṛṣṇa, Balarāma, Dāruka (Kṛṣṇa's charioteer) and Babhru. Balarāma thereafter went to the sea and gave up his life.

c12.96

Kṛṣṇa sent his charioteer to Hastināpura with the news and a message to Arjuna to come to Dvārakā to look after the women and children. He himself consoled the wailing women and children, and asked them to await Arjuna's arrival and then to accompany him to Hastināpura as Dvārakā was destined to be swallowed by the sea. Kṛṣṇa then left Dvārakā and retired into deep forest. Arjuna came to Dvārakā, took with him the remnants of the Yadu family, and installed Vajra, the only surviving grandson of Kṛṣṇa, on the throne of Mathurā. Kṛṣṇa, when in deep meditation, was hit by the arrow of a hunter who mistook him for deer, and passed away.⁵⁵

c12.97

⁵⁵ From the name of the hunter, viz. Jara, it may be reasonable to infer that Kṛṣṇa died of old age.

c12.98

(iv) The date of Kṛṣṇa need not detain us long. We have already seen that Kṛṣṇa was connected with the Pāṇḍavas, and lived during the period of the Bhārata war. Dhṛtarāṣṭra Vaicitravīrya, a prominent figure in the Mahābhārata story, is mentioned in the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā of the Yajurveda, so that Kṛṣṇa lived before the compilation of the Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā.⁵⁶ The great battle at Kurukṣetra is a historical fact; but there are conflicting traditions regarding the date of the battle.

c12.99

⁵⁶ Weber, HIL, p. 90 n.

c12.100

It is proposed to deal here in brief with the date of the Bhārata war after considering the important views on the point. According to the calculations in the Aihole inscription of Pulakeśin II, the date of the Bhārata war is 3102 B.C., which is the starting point of the Kaliyuga era according to the astronomical tradition represented by Āryabhaṭa.⁵⁷ C. V. Vaidya, Triveda and other historians lend their support to this view.⁵⁸ Fleet, however, has pointed out that the reckoning was not founded in Vedic times, but was first started after 3500 years after the time for purposes of calculations, and was not known to astronomers before Āryabhaṭa.⁵⁹

c12.101

⁵⁷ EI., VI, pp. 11, 12; Kālakriyāpāda, st. 10.

c12.102

⁵⁸ Mbh, a criticism, pp. 65-92; Festchrift Kane, pp. 515-25.

c12.103

⁵⁹ JRAS, 1911, pp. 479 ff; 675 ff.

c12.104

Another school of Hindu astronomers and historians represented by Vṛddhagarga, Varāhamihira and Kalhaṇa places the Bhārata war 653 years after the Kaliyuga era, i.e. in 2449 B.C.⁶⁰ These two schools thus present conflicting views, and as they are based on a hypothetical reckoning of a late date, we can hardly attach much importance to these views.

c12.105

⁶⁰ Bṛhatsaṃhitā, XIII. 3; Rājatarangiṇī, I. 48-56.

c12.106

Astronomical references in the *Mahābhārata* itself about the position of the Nakṣatras and planets have been utilised for determining the date of the war. But the same data have yielded such divergent results as 3140 B.C. (Rai), 3137 B.C. (Triveda), 3102 B.C., which confirms the traditional era of Kaliyuga (Vaidya, Abhyankar), 2449 B.C. (Sen Gupta), 1931 B.C. (Karandikar), 1400 B.C. (Deb), 1198 B.C. (Sankar), 1197 B.C. (Daftary), 1194 B.C. (V. G. Aiyer), 1151 B.C. (Pradhan), etc.⁶¹ As a matter of fact the statements in the epic are conflicting and self-contradictory, so that in order to arrive at some conclusion it is necessary to reject certain statements or their implications as later interpolations. No satisfactory and acceptable result can be arrived at from these data. After setting forth the astronomical passages of the *Mahābhārata*, MM Dr. Kane rightly observes "that they are hopelessly inconsistent and that no certain chronological conclusion can be drawn therefrom".⁶²

First 105 of 154 passages. Read on

Cites (28)