Kangana says sanskrit should be our national language. - Page 12

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

Well i suppose cow rearing must have been very common at that time... And out of those number of years (before lord krishna was born) atleast few if not many people may have had the name krishn who were living near Yamuna. Waise bhi krishn means black / dark as well as attractive. And dark complexion is not uncommon...

Indra-Krishna antagonism is well documented in all 3 Krishna texts.

But yeah, Krishna could be a description also.

There were already 2 people in Krishna texts actually named Krishna.

Krishna Govinda Shauri, the grandson of Shura and son of Vasudeva.

Krishna Panchali Draupadi, adopted by Drupad and given the name Krishna by Vyasa himself.

Don't know if this is related to the topic discussed here(Not sure what the topic is about now)

But religions seemed to have copied(Is it the right word?) from each other

They overlap, share some common traits

For ex there are many similarities between Indian and Greek mytholog

Which came first?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Indra-Krishna antagonism is well documented in all 3 Krishna texts.

But yeah, Krishna could be a description also.

There were already 2 people in Krishna texts actually named Krishna.

Krishna Govinda Shauri, the grandson of Shura and son of Vasudeva.

Krishna Panchali Draupadi, adopted by Drupad and given the name Krishna by Vyasa himself.

Yes Indra Krishna antagonism is well documented but in Rigveda krishn was defeated by Indra while in other story of govardhan parvat Indra's EGO was broken by Lord krishna. There wasn't an actual war if I'm not wrong.

Also I'm not talking about just description. There could have been many krishns before lord krishna was born. Its not like krishn name was invented for lord krishna. Krishn already meant attractive that's why that name was given to lord krishna...

Originally posted by: Medha_Sree

Even in Ramayana , it is said lord hanuman learned all d vedas , tat means vedas are before this epics .

But there was no Vyas in Ramayan time to have compiled Rigveda was there?

Also puranas have stories about vedas being stolen by two demons (dont remember their names) but the timeline was much before lord krishna's birth...

Originally posted by: NathuPyare

But there was no Vyas in Ramayan time to have compiled Rigveda was there?

Also puranas have stories about vedas being stolen by two demons (dont remember their names) but the timeline was much before lord krishna's birth...

4 vedas I.e rig Veda ,Yajur Veda , Sama Veda ,Atharva Veda are ancient . Upanishads , puranas etc are simple versions of vedas to common man .

Originally posted by: Medha_Sree

4 vedas I.e rig Veda ,Yajur Veda , Sama Veda ,Atharva Veda are ancient . Upanishads , puranas etc are simple versions of vedas to common man .

No. They talk about different things.

Some of the texts are available on sacred-texts.com

Take a look if you're interested.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

No. They talk about different things.

Some of the texts are available on sacred-texts.com

Take a look if you're interested.

Veda’s are divided again into four sub-categories, or major text-types, namely Samithas (Benedictions and Mantras), Aranyakas (Texts on ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals), Brahmanas (Commentaries on ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals), and Upanishads (Texts on spiritual knowledge, meditation, and philosophy).

Originally posted by: Medha_Sree

Veda’s are divided again into four sub-categories, or major text-types, namely Samithas (Benedictions and Mantras), Aranyakas (Texts on ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals), Brahmanas (Commentaries on ceremonies, sacrifices, and rituals), and Upanishads (Texts on spiritual knowledge, meditation, and philosophy).

No, they are not.

Vedas are different from upanishads and puranas. Some of the matter covered may be the same, but they're not simplified versions or complicated versions of each other.

Different rishi clans are given credit for authoring the different texts, too.

Why don't you actually take a look before making claims?

I should remember I'm on IF.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

No, they are not.

Vedas are different from upanishads and puranas. Some of the matter covered may be the same, but they're not simplified versions or complicated versions of each other.

Different rishi clans are given credit for authoring the different texts, too.

Why don't you actually take a look before making claims?

Y don’t u keep calm n stop going personal . end of discussion , ok .