KRISHNA AND MATHURA
Venum kvanantam aravinda-dalayataksam
barhavatamsam asitambudha-sundarangam
kandarpa-koti-kamaniya-visesa-sobham
govindam adi purusam tam aham bhajami
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is adept at playing on His flute, whose eyes are like petals of a blooming lotus, whose head is bedecked with a peacock's feather, whose figure of beauty is tinged with the hue of blue clouds, and whose unique loveliness charms millions of cupids." - Brahma-samhita 5.30
Mathura has since time immemorial been the spindle around the Krishna story. The theologists and scholars have constructed an image of multiple Krishna. Krishna's name and adjectives unaccountable too. Two Krishnas are never quite identical. Born in the prison of Mathura, he was raised in Braj as a cowherd. He is adored and worshipped by billions as the `pastoral demigod' or `folk deity' He spent most of his childhood and adolescence in Braj humbling several demons and demonesses and the same time entertaining Brajvaasis through his lilas and kridas. Surprisingly, there has been a paucity of iconic representation of Krishna in and around Mathura prior to the Gupta period of ancient history. Even some scholars say that a strong identification of Mathura and its surroundings with Krishna is b a recent 16th century phenomenon.
We have got the vivid stories of Krishna's life through Mahabharata and Harivansh Purana. 0 traditions may be far older than the times of these texts. These stories are deeply rooted in theology; Krishna is an avatara of Vishnu. The epic Krishna and his brother Balram have association with cow cowherds and ploughs. When Krishna is addressed by devotees as Govinda, there is a cow element in it As per Mahabharata accounts Krishna gave away cows from Mathura to Pandavas at the time of Subhadra's wedding with Arjuna. As per Harivansh, Krishna is gopavesa Vishnu (Vishnu in t guise of cowherd). When Krishna lifts mount Govardhana on his finger's tip to save Brajvaasis from deluge let loose by Indra, the latter acknowledged: `You have attained lordship of cows, thus people w extol you as Govinda' (tvam gavam Indra gatah govinda' iti lokas twam stosyanti). `Lordship of cows here denotes a divine title. Indra indicates that he ranks Krishna as lord paramount. The bhakti traditions of 16th century have favoured and further elaborated the cowherd dimension of Krishna. Devotees hay followed the pastoral `folk' tradition of Krishna for ages. In Mahabharata, Krishna recalls the happiness of his people at Mathura, his having to `abandon Mathura for fear of Jarasandha, an his people's remembrance of the Middle Country, incontestably an allusion to their experience at Mathura In the Harivansh Purana, even more explicitly, it is asked by Janamejaya, the Kuru heir:
"To what end did the slayer of Madhu abandon Mathura, that (Zebu's) hump of the Middle Country the sole abode of Laxmi, easily perceived as the horn of the earth, rich in money and grain, abounding in water, rich in Aryas, the choicest of residences?"
The symbolism is clear. If the middle country is a cow or bull, Mathura where the "Lord o cows" was born is its hump. The horn of the earth refers to Mathura as the midpoint of the earth Through Mahabharata war Krishna is supposed to have rescued the earth from sinking into the ocean. The combination of the name Mahabharata with Mathura points to a connection between the stories o Mathura being founded in the forest of the asura Madhu; Vishnu slaying another asura by that name after awaking from his yoganidra, his cosmic yoga sleep. Hence another name of Krishna, Madhava also means drink (mead, honey, soma etc) and Mathura has all along been associated with this adjective also.
According to Harivansh Purana, when Krishna revisited Mathura, the city personified came down (avatarita) from Heaven to honour him in the words of the citizens of Mathura as they welcome Krishna's last return, just prior to his settling at Dwarka. `He is Narayana, the abode of Sri, living in the milk ocean; leaving his serpent conch, he has come to Mathura city!'
Krishna—A Mythological or a Historical Figure?
Mythology, it is said, often has its roots in reality. Take the great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, for instance. The tantalizing question that crops up time and again is whether the events mentioned in these epics actually happened. Did the characters described in them actually exist? How much of the epic is fiction and how much history? There is no easy answer to these questions. Some hardcore historians hold that although Krishna played an important role in the Mahabharata, inscriptions and sculptural pieces found in Mathura dating back to BC 200 and AD 300 do not attest to his presence. Some historians believe that this epic character was a real historical figure. These historians claim that on the basis of sufficient evidence available now one can say that Krishna was indeed a historical figure, who lived about BC 3000. This evidence is not just literary but also archaeological, geographical as well as astronomical, as per their claim. The ancient authors took enormous pains to preserve accounts of Krishna's life, times and philosophy, even though they did embellish it with some details like the presence of Radha, who was probably never a historical figure. There are numerous works belonging to the tradition of Itihaas-puraan or religious texts, which when viewed objectively, reveal several other facts about the Man which have to be sifted from later mythological additions to his personality. If we look beyond the myths accumulated over the millennia, we can get a clear picture of who Krishna actually was. He emerges as a human figure—a practical philosopher par excellence—who moved away from the ritualistic practices of the Vedic religion of his time to the action-oriented Sankhya philosophy, embodied in his philosophy of Karma yoga—of the Bhagavad Gita, which till date remains his transcendent legacy. Contrary to popular imagination, which portrays him as a romantic hero, the image of Krishna that we get from ancient sources is that of an impeccable statesman. He was an austere and studious man, whose main concerns were political stability and ethical and religious reform and spiritual upliftment of the masses.
There are a number of non-sectarian, secular works like Panini's grammar and the Chandogya Upanishad which mention Krishna and provide independent support for his historicity. There is the reference to Krishna as an asura in contemporary Buddhist works like Sutrapitaka and Lalitavistara. The very fact that Buddhists of the time —who viewed Krishna's teachings of nishkama karma (detached action) as inimical to their own teachings, emphasizing renunciation—found it necessary to try to discredit him by referring him as an asura shows that he was recognized as a historical figure even by them.
Geographical evidence for the epics is also abundant. There still exist many places like Kurukshetra, Hastinapur, Govardhan, Gokul and Vrindavan where the visits of Krishna are part of local folklore.
If the epics are indeed true, which period of history can they be placed? In all probability, the society described in the Mahabharata corresponds to the early Harappan period, before 3000 BC, since this period was a rich one with numerous urban centres. Most scholars today place the Mahabharata war around BC 3100. But, why is there not much archaeological evidence that points towards their existence? Because such an effort has not been made in India and systematic excavations have never been carried out. Nobody believed that Homer's Iliad was a true story till Troy was discovered after extensive archaeological studies. Unfortunately, the sites of the Mahabharata have now been built over many times and it may never be possible to excavate extensively at Mathura.