Neil's Website | Ajit's Website


Chapter Five
Is Jesus and Krishna one?

Will the true Krist please stand up?

Krishna was the eighth Avatar or incarnation of the god Vishnu, one of the Hindu Trinity. In this incarnation Vishnu, it is said, "appeared in all the fullness of his power and glory." His mother was Devaki. He is believed to be a historical character, but his real history, is entirely obscured by myths. He is claimed to have been lived from 900 to 1,200 years before the Christian era.  But there is no historical evidence to any such historical person.   The only evidence are the stories found in the "Bhagavat," one of the "Puranas," while his religious teachings are given in the "Bhagavad-Gita," a poem belonging to the "Mahabarata."  - none of which were written earlier than at the best estimate 600 AD.  As I have discussed in the earlier chapter, there is no evidence either historically, linguistically or archeologically that Krishna ever lived.  The best we can guess is that he was a petty King somewhere in the 6th centaury AD.  However in the later Indian ethos (especially around 600 AD and later) Krishna loomed heavily with the teachings of Love and salvation by faiths, which are typical contributions of Christianity.  In no religion this aspect is seen prior to Jesus.  It came to India definitely in AD 52 when St.Thomas came to India. Is this just a coincidence?


“Bhagvad Gita . Many eminent scholars have given various times to Gita and its author.

Edgerton and Zachner have said, "we must tentatively date the Gita to 150 B.C without much evidence.

Indian scholars like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan and Prof. D.S. Sharma date the Bhagavad Gita around the fifth B.C. (a little after Buddha) and around 900 A.D. respectively.

Dr. Baskara Dawson an eminent Tamil scholar says that the Epic Gita was written around 300 A.D.

Dr. Kala another Tamil scholar who has spent her time in research of Indian Temples points out that Gita would have been written around AD 300. Vyasa is the author. It must be understood that Vyasa’s name is not found in the ancient Vedas. He must be a saint who lived in A.D.

No Vedic scriptures were written during B.C. They were usually from mouth to ear. During the early centuries in AD Vedhas like Rig, Yazur and Sama were written. The Sanskrit which we find in them (Vedic Language) are not the same as we find in Bhagavad Gita. Bhagavad Gita was written in high grammatic order and so it must have been written in the later centuries of the Christian era.”

 Sadhu Chellappa http://www.agniministries.com/ministry.htm


Vedavyasa lived around 600 AD according to the time scale given by Dr. Devakala and Dr. Phillip Harris.  (See the time line)

Broad similarities in the story of Krishna and Christ

The following is a quote from the Hindu site, which will give some insight into the problem as seen by the Hindu

“The points of resemblance between Krishna and Christ that have been printed would fill a volume. Some of these are apocryphal, and not confirmed by the canonical scriptures of India. The limits of this chapter preclude an extended list even of the undoubtedly genuine. I shall confine myself chiefly to a presentation of the most important ones relating to their births. These, according to the Christian translator of the "Bhagavat Purana," Rev. Thomas Maurice, are as follows:

1. Both were miraculously conceived.
2. Both were divine incarnations.
3. Both were of royal descent.
4. Devatas or angels sang songs of praise at the birth of each.
5. Both were visited by neighboring shepherds.
6. In both cases the reigning monarch, fearing that he would be supplanted in his kingdom by the divine child, sought to destroy him.
7. Both were saved by friends who fled with them in the night to distant countries.
8. Foiled in their attempts to discover the babes both kings issued decrees that all the infants should be put to death. 

Both are believed to be sons of God, since they were divinely conceived
The birth of both Jesus of Nazareth and Krishna of Dwarka and their God-designed missions were foretold
Both were born at unusual places - Christ in a lowly manger and Krishna in a prison cell
Both were divinely saved from death pronouncements
Evil forces pursued both Christ and Krishna in vain
Christ is often depicted as a shepherd; Krishna was a cowherd
Both appeared at a critical time when their respective countries were in a torpid state
Both died of wounds caused by sharp weapons - Christ by nails and Krishna by an arrow
The teachings of both are very similar - both emphasize love and peace
Krishna was often shown as having a dark blue complexion - a color close to that of Christ Consciousness.
Subhamoy Das









Icon Of Rachel Weeping



               Flight to Egypt                         Flight from Tyrants              Flight to exchange babies    Killing of Babies





Icône de la Transfiguration (Novgorod, Russie)





                                                  Divine Forms









The Shepherd and the Cowherd


In the Gnostic gospels there are mythical stories about Jesus which are very much parallel to the Krishna myths which is also quoted by the Krishnites to support their thesis.  But these were written well after 300 AD.  If we look close we will see that Buddha also had very close similarity in many of the above factors.   

jesus-washing.bmp (388074 bytes)







Washing the feet

The subsequent careers of these deities are analogous in many respects. Their missions were the same - The salvation of mankind. Both performed miracles, healed the sick and raised the dead. Both died for man by man. There is a tradition, though not to be found in the Hindu scriptures, that Krishna, like Christ, was crucified.

Various incidents recorded in the life of Christ were doubtless suggested by similar incidents in the life of Krishna He washed the feet of his disciples because Krishna had washed the feet of the Brahmins. He taught his disciples the possibility of removing a mountain, because Krishna, to protect his worshipers from the wrath of Indra, raised Mount Goverdhen above them. His parents in their flight with him, as related in the Gospel of the Infancy, stopped at a place called Matured Krishna was born at Mathura

The earliest followers of each were from the lower classes of society, those of Krishna being herdsman and milkmaids. Christ's most ardent worshipers have from the first been women: "Chrishna," to quote the authority last mentioned, "continues to this hour the darling god of, the women of India" “

Then he concludes “The parallels between Krishna and Christ to be found in the Hindoo scriptures and the Christian Gospels are too numerous and too exact to be accidental. The legends of the one were borrowed from the other. It is admitted by Christian scholars that Krishna lived many centuries before Christ. To admit the priority of the Krishna legends is to deny, to this extent, the originality of the Gospels. To break the force of the logical conclusion to be drawn from this some argue that while Krishna himself antedated Christ, the legends concerning him are of later origin and borrowed from the Evangelists. Regarding this contention Judge Waite, in his History of the Christian Religion, says: "Here then, we have the older religion and the older god. This, in the absence of any evidence on the other side, ought to settle the question. To assume without evidence that the older religion has been interpolated from the later, and that the legends of the older hero have been made to conform to the history of a later character, is worse than illogical- it is absurd."

Sir William Jones, one of the best Christian authorities on Sanskrit literature, and the translator of the "Bhagavad-Gita," says: "That the name of Krishna, and the general outline of his history were long anterior to the birth of our Savior, and probably to the time of Homer [950 B.C.], we know very certainly" (Asiatic Researches, Vol. I. p. 254).

This is from the book "THE CHRIST" by John Remsberg. The book is great. It shows how Christ is just a copycat god of KRISHNA, BUDDA, and many other gods that existed thousands of years before Christ, and even a few copycat gods that were invented AFTER Christ. “


Are these similarities really too numerous and exact?   .

Here is what Hare Krishna Prabhupada has to say:

When an Indian person calls on Krishna, he often says, Krsta. Krsta is a Sanskrit word meaning attraction. So when we address God as Christ, Krsta, or Krishna we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name, the name of God was Krsta or Krishna.
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

” Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word meaning the object of attraction." So when we address God as "Christ," "Krsta," or "Krsna," we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name," that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. "Christ" is simply another way of saying "Krsta," and "Krsta" is another way of pronouncing Krsna.” http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/christ-krshna.html
Christ, Christians, & Krishna    
Srila Prabhupada

From the above dissertation of the leaders of Hinduism we can see that there is a large number of rough parallelism between the life of Christ and that of Krishna.  In recent years additional parallelism have been brought out indicating that Krishna himself was crucified on a tree and also that he will come back to take his believers with him.  There is still an ongoing process of assimilation of Christ in the Krishna myth.  Krishna has abosrbed many other personalites into himself and  the process is still continuing.  This evidently fits the multiple avatar hypothesis.  They were all the same person so why not?

Krishna Crucified

Krishna, Crucified?
by Acharya S


Though the story enumerated is far from crucifixion it is interesting to note that Acharya unearths several crucifix icons and art, which are strikingly Christian.

Fig. 61

Is this really a picture of Krishna or of Christ?

“Nor does the mystery end there. In his comments concerning the various enigmatic images of an Indian god crucified, Rev. Lundy also acknowledges other striking assertions, regarding purported Irish crucifix images:

image of Christ on the CrossWas Krishna ever crucified? Look at  fig. 61 and see. It is indeed an ancient Irish bronze relic, originally brought to the island from the East by some of the Phoenicians. It is unlike any Christian crucifix ever made. It has no nail marks in the hands or feet; there is no wood; no inscription; no crown of thorns, but the turreted coronet of the Ephesian Diana; no attendants; the ankles are tied together by a cord; and the dress about the loins is like Krishna's. It is simply a modification of Krishna as crucified. Henry O'Brien thinks it is meant for Buddha. But another most accomplished Oriental scholar says it is Krishna crucified: "One remarkable tradition avers the fact of Krishna dying on the fatal cross (a tree), to which he was pierced by the stroke of an arrow, and from the top of which he foretold the evils that were coming on the earth, which came to pass from thirty to forty years afterwards, when the age of crimes and miseries began; or about the same length of time as intervened between our Lord's crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem, an age of bitter calamities and crimes…."

Acharya is probably right in that these pictures are indeed truly Indian. But these are of recent origin and cannot be earlier than 60 AD.  The question is how did these came to be in India and well inside the Hindu sacred relics?  This latter teaching was a surprise for me because I have never heard it in my life before and because it does not fit with the theology of avatar nor reincarnation.  At any rate the Krishna cult certainly identifies Krishna with Christ.  There is no doubt that there is an attempt to copy.  

Jagannatha Tirtha das  (VINA) May 21st 1999 of NZs Hare Krishna Network goes one step further and identifies the name Krishna as the same as Christ by searching through “The Etymological Derivation Of The Name "Christ"”

Even the similarity of crucifix of Jesus with the death of Krishna is a far cry.  Krishna was killed by arrows and his dead body was hung on a tree by the murderer. (I could not find the tree part in any purana so far.)  The death of Krishna is said to be a direct consequence of his Karma and of the curse of a woman.

“Gandhari  understood that the whole battle of Kurusehtra was the will of Krishna and because she lost all of her sons in that battle she cursed Krishna to die by the arrow of a hunter. During a chaotic Yadava tribal feud in Dvaraka, Krishna's son Pradyumna and brother Balarama were killed. The sorrowful Krishna wandered in the forest outside the city .  Krishna sat behind a bush and kept his hand above his head like horns.  A hunter who was passing by saw this and thought that it was a deer in the bush and fired an arrow in that direction.  The arrow killed Krishna.”


“In the most famous brawl known to Indian Mythology, a seashore party turned into an acrimonious dispute over past actions and soon weapons were being brought into the debate for that keen edge. The Yadavas were the only major warrior group left after the catastrophe of the Mahabharatha war but they went to their fate, heedless to the remonstrance of Balarama and egged on by the curious silence of Krishna. Balarama gave up his ghost in disgust and Krishna withdrew to a copse near the shore and waited for the drama to play itself out. His constant headgear of peacock feather plumes stuck out over the edge of the concealing shrub he was sitting behind, and a hunter let fly a fatal arrow mistaking it for a prize catch of a peacock. The arrow stuck him in the heel, like Achilles his only vulnerable spot, and the end had come. His last act of compassion was to reassure the aghast hunter that he had committed no sin. He was one hundred and sixteen years old, the mandatory fullness of years as specified in the Vedas. The hunter's name was Jara. It means Old Age.”


What they did in life is not important -  Preaching is the essence?

Krishna claimed many things, but never demonstrated them.  Here is the heaviest stumbling block – the resurrection factor.  “While the circumstances of Jesus' disappearance are by no means clear, they are indeed for us less important, even irrelevant.”  As Srila Prabhupada pointed out: "preaching is the essence."   The whole cosmos is under decay and there is no way out of it in the Krishnite culture, even Krisha himself is subject to birth and death – the only difference is that Krishna knew his past births and poor us do not.

Life, Objective realities, evidence or truthfulness is not the important factor to Hinduism.  Only the preaching is the essence.  If one can build fantasy - that is enough.

Redemption through faith

                         sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja
                        aham tvam sarva-papebhyo moksayisyami ma sucah

"Abandon all varieties of dharma and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all.” While the binding of Karma cannot be broken – even by Krishna – how he can do this without the violation of cosmic justice is still inexplicable   But that is exactly the Bhakthi margam.  This is certainly counter to the basic Hindu tenants of Karma and blind cosmic justice.

One legitimately asks the following question:

“If we hold that the supreme Lord is bound by karma 
then how can we explain His ability to absolve us from our sins and grant us mOksham? 
 Further, if He himslef is bound by karma, how would He get out of the cycle of birth-death-rebirth?”

Life of Krishna and Jesus

Even though there is an outward resemblance in certain events in the life of Krishna and Christ,  the resemblance is far fetched and that ends there. (Such similarities can be traced between many other personalities like  Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Bahulla, Mani etc.)  The life styles of the two were totally different. 

Krishna's opulence against Jesus’ Servant hood is obvious. The so-called teachings of Krishna are found only in the Bhagawat Gita and not anywhere else, not even in his life.  His life was totally at divergence with the teachings of Gita.  At least the Saivites question the authorship of Gita in this respect.  Gita itself is not positive about it.  Instead of Krishna uvacha (Krishna Said) it speaks of Bhagavan uvacha (The Lord Said)    At any rate the placement of the Gita in the context of War is highly misplaced.  Instead of teaching nonviolence and peace it condones killing on the ground that death is not the end.   If we try to transfer the learning into the modern society, evidently it will be a disaster.  Even though Krishna is presented as a proponent of love, he himself was a killer.  He killed his own uncle Kamsa as well as several other demon kings.  Unless we interpret all these stories as spiritual symbolism we have a situation of historical absurdity. At least in Gita he actively advocated and encouraged Arjuna into killing his own brethren. (And he did follow the advise.)  Were these real people or were they only spiritual allegories?  Thus if Krishna is a real historical person he is far remote in character and behavior from the merciful and kind Jesus.  Their response to evil were totally different.  Jesus’ response was totally non-violent and his remedies were not directed to the evil doer but were directed to the eradication of the cause of evil.

“The venerable scholars and philosophers like Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (Bhagavath Gita page 28) Swamy Vivekananda (The complete work of Swamy Vivekananda vol.1 page 438) Mahatma Gandhi (Gita- My mother. page 38) Vinoba Bhave (Talk on the Gita page 11) have emphatically confirmed that it is very difficult to see Sreekrishna, the hero of Mahabharatha as the ethereal and saintly Sreekrishna of Gita.”
Geetha Rahasyam and Christ:  Aravindaksha Menon: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/6265/chap5.html


Love Games of Radha and Krishna

Krishna was a playboy involved in indiscriminate sex.   Krishna’s mistress was Radha the wife of Ayana.  Unless we are prepared to explain these stories in allegorical terms we cannot justify his life style.  Then was Krishna himself an allegory or a historical reality?

“Even a cursory reading of the textual material available on Krishna's life leaves one in no doubt that he sported with and made love to the gopis.” “Bhagavata, written around the tenth century AD, reflects the cumulative legacy of several centuries”
The historical development of this allegorical myth of Krishna as lover can be read at:

“Radha … She was the wife of Ayana and the daughter of the cowherd Vrishabhanu and his wife, Kamalavati. Radha was the mistress of Krishna during that period of his life when he lived among the cowherds of Vrindavan

As is clear we cannot take Krishna’s life except as a myth or as an allegory evolving through many centuaries from characters of many historical persons.

I would not like to expand on this.  But these are myths to be explained away in some manner. 

 Does Krishna parallel King Solomon in this respect.?

1Ki 11:3  He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.

This was typical of the Kings of that period.  Adultery, violation of women etc were common among the Kings.  

t's shown in the Bhagavata Purana (the primary history of Krishna's pastimes) that Krishna did indeed have 16,108 wives , with separate households for each of them. Narada Muni is said to have visited them in Dvaraka and saw that Krishna was simultaneously with each of his wives, and gawked in amazement when he saw this sight. Furthermore, Krishna had children with each of his wives, so they weren't just wives in name only”.

See the gopi stories in:
O'Flaherty, Wendy D.  The Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology.  Pub.: University of California Press.  ISBN 0-520-04098-8.
For a full story of the life of Krishna:
Krsna - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

 If Gita was Krishna’s teaching,  was he simply justifying his life, as  Nicolaitans who taught that what happens in body does not matter at all?  I am sure you will be arrested if you try to emulate a life similar to Krishna in any country.  There will be a hue and cry of moral anger.  However the claims of the Bhagavan of Gita and the claims of Godhead and the way of salvation through faith  are very much that of Christ.  Evidently there is a mixing of characters in here.

For a set of antichristian sites that tries to show that Christ was a copy of Krishna,   Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance gives the following:
"Examining the Crucifixion of Jesus and parallels to crucified sun-G-ds #3," at: http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/
"Pagan Christs," at:  http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/
"Jesus Christ and Bhagavan Krishna: Original Christianity as taught by Jesus and Original Yoga as taught by Krishna; both are for the upliftment of mankind," at: http://ompage.net/ChristKrishna/christkrishna.htm
Stephen Eck, "Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage," Skeptical Review, 1994, #3. Online at: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/
"Krishna and Jesus: Will The Real Savior Please Stand Up?," at: http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/
Prithu das Adhikary, "Jesus and Krishna," at: http://www.omjesus.com/
Fred Nojd, "Jesus - By No Means Unique," at:

The question is simply this - which was the copy and what areas?  What was the socio-political reason for such mixing up?  Was it a carbon copy of one person or a mix up of a collection people?  How did this come about?

Swamy Vivekananda asks:"First, was Bhagavat Gita part of Mahabharatham and was the author of Gita really Veda Vyasa?" 
(pages from 506 to 509 of Volume IV of complete works of the Swamy Vivekananda

“A great many people do not believe that he ever existed. Some believe that [the worship of Krishna grew out of] the old sun worship. There seem to have been several Krishnas; one was mentioned in the Upanishads, another was a king, another a general. All have lumped into one Krishna.”.  CW, Vol.1: Krishna, p.438.

Before Sankara Acharya mentions about Gita in 8th century A.D, the book Bhagavat Gita was not known anywhere. Some people believe that Sankaracharya was the real author of Bhagavat Gita and he simply inserted it in the Bharatham epic.


We know for sure that the scriptures that speak of Krishna came into existence well after 600 AD.  A local astrologer tells me that the astronomical data for the date of birth of Krishna would place his birth in 600 AD. 

If the horoscope given to us is correct Krishna was born in the month of Sravana on the 23rd day on the night of full moon in Lagnam Edavam at midnight and if Guru (Mars), Kujan (Mercury), Ravi (Sun) and Sukran (Venus) were at their own home, Budan, Chandran (moon) and Sani (Saturn) were in their highest time, then Krishna was born in AD 600.


(Hence I have seen vehement denunciation of the horoscopic determination of Janmashatami on the basis that no body could have known his birthday, because he was born in a prison.)  It certainly could not have been earlier than 150 AD.  There are no historical records of such a King anywhere and there is no evidence of such a person.  Major Vedas do not speak of these Gods at all.  Archeologically the evidence is that if Krishna ever lived it was later than 300 AD.  The search for similar planetary position before the Christian Era will have to go very very long back.  Because of the cyclic nature of the planetary motion, we can certainly find several dates that will fit the given positions.  One only have to estimate the LCM of the orbital periods of the Navagraha.  This cycle is indeed around 3000 to 3500 years.  Thus in the “Determination of the Date of Mahabharatha War”,  Srinivasa Raghavan calculate the birth of Krishna as  27th July, 3112 BC.  Using the position of planets mentioned in Mahabharat, dates have been calculated for the great war. The great Aryabhatta calculated 3100 BC. Dr. Patnaik calculated October 16, 3138 BC. while Dr. P.V. Vartak proves this date to be October 16, 5561 B. C. (http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/when.htm).  The Date for the Advent of Krishna by Egyptology Calculation  is given as May 7th, 1213 B.C (http://www.greatpyramid.net/Date_for_Krishna/date_for_krishna.htm )

Solar Astrology was not really adopted in its entirety in India until the time of Alexander the Great. Alexander began an exchange of ideas between the Hindus and Greeks which eventually culminated in Hindu Astrology’s adoption of the twelve Zodiacal signs, the Sun signs the Greeks had inherited from the ancient Babylonians. After Alexander’s death Bactria, a Greek country founded to the west of India, continued an exchange of ideas between the Hindus and Greeks that lasted many years. One development which precipitated out of the Hindu-Greek relationship was that Hindu Astrologers began drawing up star charts for specific individuals. 



With all these evidences what is the logical conclusion?

Most objective conjecture would be that Krishna as presented today is a result of mythologizing of conjunction of several historical persons, both Political and Spiritual including several Tribal King from  the Vedic Period to recent times along with  Christ and Buddha, and mixing up the Aryan Persian Gnostic and Semitic Kabalistic spirituality.   Those of us who had the taste of living under a King know that they like to be pampered as God.  Every king in the ancient world did it, and India was no exception.  Krishna is a growth from very ancient times to very recent times.  I am even told by an American Hare Krishna guru a few years ago at the Republic Day celebrations in California that Krishna is going to come back to take his devotees to heaven.  I have never heard of it before.  It will become scripture in the next edition.

Under this situation how do we interpret Krishna in terms of Christ?

Ekam santam bahudha kalpayanti
One Being is contemplated by the sages in many forms:
(Rg-Veda, X-114-5).
This quote is again from the tenth Mandala of Rg Veda

” Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, and Christos is the Greek version of the word Krsna. When an Indian person calls on Krsna, he often says "Krsta." Krsna is a Sanskrit word meaning the object of attraction." So when we address God as "Christ," "Krsta," or "Krsna," we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. When Jesus said, "Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name," that name of God was Krsta or Krsna. "Christ" is simply another way of saying "Krsta," and "Krsta" is another way of pronouncing Krsna.”

The only change we need to make in Srila Prabhupada as quoted above is the last word

“Krishna is another way of pronouncing Christ”

The question is how did the Indian religions come to know of this “Krishna”? 

Some proponents have proved theexistence of  Krishna worshippers in Pre-Christian period through the reference to indica where Megasthenes refers to Heracles who is then identified as Krishna!!  But anyone with a keen sense can see through such a devious route of identification as in the case person quoted below:

Krishna and Megathenes


Megasthenes the Greek historian was ambassador (306–298 BC) at the Indian court of Sandrakottos or Chandragupta, where he gathered materials for Indica, from which Arrian, Strabo, and others borrowed. “Megasthenes wrote of Krishna under the pseudonym of Heracles” The assertion about Megasthenes "The Greek ambassador definitely states that Krsna was regarded as an incarnation of Visnu" is evidently baseless. All that Megasthenes is reported to have said is "This Herakles is held in especial honour by Sourasenoi, an Indian tribe who possess two large cities Mathora and Cleisobora and through whose country flows a navigable river called Iobares."

“Megasthenes never talked about Krishna. Anyone who has basic knowledge of Krishna and who has bothered to read the extant portions of the Indica will not even by a wide stretch of imagination, equate Heracles to Krishna. I wonder who this Sarvajna was who came up with this ridiculous idea. Let us see what Megasthenes said about Heracles. Heracles was a Indian hero king who was getting old at 40. He was worried about finding a suitable match for his daughter. He searched high and low, and found no one. So finally he married her himself!

Now I have never heard of such a story attributed to Krishna in any literature. One wonders if Megasthenes did come to India at all. To my knowledge there is no Indian God who married his own daughter, although it is possible that there may have been a Greek God who did so. This being the situation, to connect Heracles and Krishna is absurd.”



What are we up against in academic research?

Finding Yudhisthira unwilling to tell a lie, Krishna overcame his reluctance by a long exhortation, in the course of which he announced his ethics of untruth in the following edifying text from Vasishtha's Smriti.

"In marriage, in amorous dealings, when one's life is in danger, when the whole of one's possession is going to be lost, and when a Brahman's interest is at stake, untruth should be told. The wise have said that speaking untruth on these five occasions is not a sin."


The whole story of Dharma Yuddha is based on this teaching.  In order to kill the indomitable Bhiskma, Sikhandi the ennuch was used as a ploy.  Dronacharya was killed by telling a lie about his son Aswadhamav.  Karna the brave was killed while he was unarmed and trying lift his chariot out of the mud.  Duryodhana was killed by hitting him below the belt.  Other opponents were actually burnt to death while they were sleeping in the tents.

Does this sound like Christ?  There lies the difference between Krishna and Christ.


If we find resemblance of Jesus in certain points of the story and teaching of Jesus it is because the very concept of Vishnu and Krishna were derived through centuaries of syncretisation. Jesus figure was  just one factor. This can be explained only if we can asssume that during the period of writing of the puranas and the upanishads and also RigVeda Mandalam X  there existed a powerful presence of Christians all over India and particuarly in the areas where rigorus religious studies existed

Horoscope of Shri Krishana

The chart has been prepared from a poem by Soordas, a fifteenth century poet of Bhakti Marg. 

Ascendent Tauras (Vrishbha) Moon, Saturn and Mars are in
exalted positions, sun, mercury, Jupiter and Venus are in their own houses.

[From Essence of Hindu Sidereal Astrology by Mrs. Dorothy Robertson.]


Some scholars rely on the horoscope of Lord Krishna to  calculate  his birth-date  so  as to establish the period of Mahabharat.  But they do not realise that the horoscope is a forged one, prepared many thousand years after Krishna's death. Mahabharat Bhagvat and Vishnu purana have not given the planet positions at the time of Krishna's birth.  It  is well-known and is recorded in many scriptures that Krishna was born in a jail,then who could have casted his horoscope? Moreover Krishna was not  a  prince so nobody would have casted his horoscope.  Hence it is not wise to rely on the horoscope.  It is prepared recently by considering  the  charateristics  of  Krishna  and  so is useless to fix the birth-date