From a critical-historical perspective: is there sufficient evidence that Krishna ever existed as a historical person, or is he primarily a mythological or symbolic figure?
If Krishna is understood more metaphorically (rather than literally), what does that do to the core of bhakti (devotion)?
How do ISKCON (or Gaudiya Vaishnava) theologians defend the “realness” of Krishna against skeptics who argue for myth-making or later literary invention?
Replies
Are these all your own brain question or just random questions thrown just to make IDt members active
.. ofcourse if we are not good at framing the sentences we can use chat gpt but then.. are these your real questions which are ariasing in you head?
is there sufficient evidence that Krishna ever existed as a historical person:-
Bhagwad gita, Srimad Bhagawatam are not simply story books of some fictional hero called Krishna they are real. It is upto you to believe it or not. .. The people who have faith believe it. For skeptics it remains a myth.. They are surely in maya. Until time comes for them to know Lord also wont give them rememberance. Even if we present Really Krishna to stand before them. .. they will say.. he looks like a human like you and me.
Krishna was know to Gopis. Krishna was known as Bhagwana by Bhishma, Drona everybody believed that Krishna was Bhagwan. Duryodhana unfortunately even if Krishna was sitting beside him he never could recognise HIM as Bhagawan. It is because Lord wanted to keep Him in maya. Rememberance and forgetfulness of Lord comes from Lord. If you are cruel person and doing all sinful activities.. Lord will remove the rememberance of HIM and you will be in maya.
If Krishna is understood more metaphorically (rather than literally), what does that do to the core of bhakti (devotion)?
If you don't believe in deity form of Krishna and think to develop the qualities of Krishna ( like becoming Joyful person, Becoming a caring person... becoming a person with lots of patience... Becoming all giving person...compassionate ) you would do good karma.. you will get good results.. maybe you can ascend to even heaven for being and doing all good to others.
but without God realization you are sent back to earth again and again until you realize Lord Sri Krishna and appreciate HIM in true sense.
You know what... Udhhava had great knowledge of the parabrahman.. he was having all divine qualities as well. But he didn't couldn't realize that the Body of Krishna is divine in itself .. He was sent to Gopi's to get training .. Udhhava tried to explain to Gopis' .. --you are thinking that Krishna has this form and getting attracted to his body his divine form.. But actually you are seeing a nashwar shareera.. But the Supersoul Parabrhaman has no form it is just jyothi.. Gopis taught him a nice lesson .. that even the form of Krishna is divine. .. they finally made Udhhava fall in love with Krishna's swaroopa also. HHAH
So, until you realize Krishna with his tribhanga aakara form you are going no where from this earth. You keep coming again and again even if you do innumerable good karmas.
How do ISKCON (or Gaudiya Vaishnava) theologians defend the “realness” of Krishna against skeptics who argue for myth-making or later literarary invention?
Who cares what other think. Diwano ko kya farak padega jo diwangi mein rame hue hai.
One who has tasted the nectar of the Lotus feet of Krishna have lost interest in defending and arguing.. It is waste of time.
Hare Krishna
ry invention?
Hare Krsna
Is Sri Krsna just a mythological or symbolic figure?
No
From a critical-historical perspective: is there sufficient evidence that Krishna ever existed as a historical person
That is for those critical histoirans to find out about such evidences.
If Krishna is understood more metaphorically (rather than literally), what does that do to the core of bhakti (devotion)?
If Krishna is understood more metaphoricallythen that understanding is maya or illusion.
ṛte ’rthaṁ yat pratīyeta
na pratīyeta cātmani
tad vidyād ātmano māyāṁ
yathābhāso yathā tamaḥ
O Brahmā, whatever appears to be of any value, if it is without relation to Me, has no reality. Know it as My illusory energy, that reflection which appears to be in darkness.( SB 2.9.34)
Illusion is compared to darkness.
kṛṣṇa — sūrya-sama; māyā haya andhakāra
yāhāṅ kṛṣṇa, tāhāṅ nāhi māyāra adhikāra
Kṛṣṇa is compared to sunshine, and māyā is compared to darkness. Wherever there is sunshine, there cannot be darkness. As soon as one takes to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the darkness of illusion (the influence of the external energy) will immediately vanish. (CC Adi 22.31)
vilajjamānayā yasya
sthātum īkṣā-pathe ’muyā
vimohitā vikatthante
mamāham iti durdhiyaḥ
The external illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa, known as māyā, is always ashamed to stand in front of Kṛṣṇa, just as darkness is ashamed to remain before the sunshine. However, that māyā bewilders unfortunate people who have no intelligence. Thus they simply boast that this material world is theirs and that they are its enjoyers.( SB 2.5.13)
Hence maya or illusion has no influence over Sri Krsna.
One (out of six) of the characteristics of Bhakti or devotional service as mentioned in Bhaktirasamrita SIndhu authored by Rupa Goswami is as follows
śrī-kṛṣṇākarṣiṇī ca sā ( BRS 1.1.17)
Pure devotional service is the only means to attract Kṛṣṇa. (Nectar of Devotion Chapter 1 )
God is great, but devotional service is greater than God because it attracts Him.(Nectar of Devotion Chapter 1 )
In summary
Understanding Krsna only metaphorically = illusion (Darkness) << Sri Krsna < Bhakti
Hence such understanding can do NOTHING to core of bhakti.
How do ISKCON (or Gaudiya Vaishnava) devotees defend the “realness” of Krishna against skeptics who argue for myth-making or later literary invention?
They don't need to defend. They don't need to argue. They lovingly serve Sri Krsna.
Hae Krsna