Studies in the Epics and Puranas c12.38

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.