Greek deities in India. Hercules worshipped in India!

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
When we don't know the details, the normal prevalence is considered, not the exception cases. Normal cases show that the overwhelming majority of immigrants over time are assimilated, especially when they come from comapratively similar cultures (such as ancient Greek and Vedic, modern day French or German, etc).

Unless you can provide eviendce, the precedence is, born to immigrants settled in a land = identity of the land. Born to settlers in India = Indian. Period.

The word hari itself means something in Sanskrit, Hera means nothing in Greek. It is that what gives it precedence over Greek etymology.

Ira or Hera or whatever. Point is, it is a noun, with no meaning established, thus most likely an import. Hari means something, therefore, its etymology takes precedence.

The task of Herakles has close resemblance to the 'feats of Krishna', both are associated with masculinity, virility and extensive feats of power and machismo.
Significant attributes that correlate

I never denied that. What i said is, the same source you are quoting, states that Herakles was born in India to Indian settlers, thus making him Indian.

You can bury your head in the sand as much as you wish, but it makes far more sense than Iraklis. Ira has no meaning in Greek, Hari has meaning in Sanskrit. When seen as a whole. Hari-kula means 'descendants of the theif', Irakles means 'glory to ira', when it is established that 'glory to Ira' makes no sense for the character being identified with it, who openly defies Ira and Ira has every reason to be displeased.

Since Hari means something and Ira/Hera does not, the etymology of Hari-kulas has a stronger basis (both the cognates and the whole makes sense) than Ira-kles(where one of the cognates does not mean anything).

1) Dionysius came from the West, Anatolia-Greece. He was not Indian. His descendants are primarily Greek, so Hercules was NOT of Indian origin. Period. anything else is your speculations.

2) Hercules is a well known name. Haricula is not. No results in google.
The case is lost for you. Hercules was not a flute player, his image was very very very much different from your Haricula. Your Haricula was something between Apollo and Hercules, to be more precise. No relation.

3) Etymologically speaking, Hercules makes perfect sense because of the myth of Hera trying to kill him. There is no grey zone here. You have to prove that haricula was really Krishna, I don't have to prove anything.
Find me sources about Haricula. I can give you thousands of sources regarding Hercules.

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Does not change the fact that Krishna shares quite a few major traits with Irakles, and has a stronger claim to the basis of the word, through 'hari-kulas' than Irakles, since hari and kulas mean something in sanskrit that is completely consistent with the picture, while Hera/Ira means nothing in Greek and the consistency of the word applied to the protagonist (Irakles), is dubious.

A few traits are similar, but again all gods have similar traits!!! The differences are more important!

Krishna is often described as an infant or young boy playing a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venu"]flute[/ame] as in the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana"]Bhagavata Purana[/ame],[2] or as a youthful prince giving direction and guidance as in the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita"]Bhagavad Gita[/ame].[3] The stories of Krishna appear across a broad spectrum of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy"]Hindu philosophical[/ame] and theological traditions.[4] They portray him in various perspectives: a god-child, a prankster, a model lover, a divine hero and the Supreme Being. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna]Krishna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I don't see much in common...

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) Dionysius came from the West, Anatolia-Greece. He was not Indian. His descendants are primarily Greek, so Hercules was NOT of Indian origin. Period. anything else is your speculations.

No, this speculates that herakles spoke Greek, kept Greek customs, etc.
Mine is not a speculation, mine is the standard methodology applicable to everyone: without any supportive proof or comments, someone born in India to people living in India = Indian. That applies to everyone.

2) Hercules is a well known name. Haricula is not. No results in google.
The case is lost for you. Hercules was not a flute player, his image was very very very much different from your Haricula. Your Haricula was something between Apollo and Hercules, to be more precise. No relation.

Prevalence of a name has nothing to do with this topic, origin is of issue. Hari is a far more popular name than Hera/Ira is- today or in antiquity.
The case is lost for you, since Hari is of Sanskrit etymology, Hera/Ira is of questionable/ambiguous etymology. Therefore, Hari-kulas rests on firmer etymological grounds than Ira-kles/Hera-kles, since Hera/Ira has no etymology in Greek.

Since Hariculas has traits of Apollo and Hercules, its possible that Apollo and Hercules are derived from him- or that Greeks simply picked two deities to Indians picking one for the set of traits described.

3) Etymologically speaking, Hercules makes perfect sense because of the myth of Hera trying to kill him. There is no grey zone here. You have to prove that haricula was really Krishna, I don't have to prove anything.
Find me sources about Haricula. I can give you thousands of sources regarding Hercules.

Hari is krishna- it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, since Krishna is called hari in the mahabharata and every single piece of hindu literature. That Harikulas was worshipped by Surasenis, the descendant tribe of Krishna, puts the matter firmly at rest. I have already provided you with sources about Hari and the word Kula. Its of no coincidence that the people worshipping Hari is from the same clan as Hari(Krishna) - the Surasenoi.

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
No, this speculates that herakles spoke Greek, kept Greek customs, etc.
Mine is not a speculation, mine is the standard methodology applicable to everyone: without any supportive proof or comments, someone born in India to people living in India = Indian. That applies to everyone.

Prevalence of a name has nothing to do with this topic, origin is of issue. Hari is a far more popular name than Hera/Ira is- today or in antiquity.
The case is lost for you, since Hari is of Sanskrit etymology, Hera/Ira is of questionable/ambiguous etymology. Therefore, Hari-kulas rests on firmer etymological grounds than Ira-kles/Hera-kles, since Hera/Ira has no etymology in Greek.

Since Hariculas has traits of Apollo and Hercules, its possible that Apollo and Hercules are derived from him- or that Greeks simply picked two deities to Indians picking one for the set of traits described.

Hari is krishna- it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt, since Krishna is called hari in the mahabharata and every single piece of hindu literature. That Harikulas was worshipped by Surasenis, the descendant tribe of Krishna, puts the matter firmly at rest. I have already provided you with sources about Hari and the word Kula. Its of no coincidence that the people worshipping Hari is from the same clan as Hari(Krishna) - the Surasenoi.

1) Your methodology means nothing. That's because it takes for granted that Hercules was not son of Dionysius. In that case, Hercules was as Greek as Dionysius and your methodology goes down the toilet.

2) Hera was a known deity in the Greco-Roman world. The etymology means nothing. Same goes for Hercules... who became a TV series unlike your beloved but unknown Hari Krishna. Obviously there is no reason for Apollo and Hercules to derive from Krishna who was never mentioned by the Greeks, before Megasthenes. There are reasons for the opposite to have happened, since the Indians mentioned that Dionysus (also a god) came EARLIER from the West!

You trap yourself...

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) Your methodology means nothing. That's because it takes for granted that Hercules was not son of Dionysius. In that case, Hercules was as Greek as Dionysius and your methodology goes down the toilet.

It takes nothing for granted. My methodology assumes nothing. Your methodology assumes that Harikulas was Dionysus's son or he spoke Greek or kept Greek customs. Mine is simply based on the fact that if someone is born to settlers in a land, without any other supportive information, the identity of that someone is to the land he is born in. If you are born in India to settlers in India, without any other information (as to how long ago your ancestors settled there, what you spoke, etc), the default position is, you are an Indian.
That applies to every single case and no matter how many times you make me repeat this axiom, it won't change the fact that I make the least amount of assumptions and go by conventional methodology, while you are trying desperately to prove that Herakles was Greek.

2) Hera was a known deity in the Greco-Roman world. The etymology means nothing. Same goes for Hercules... who became a TV series unlike your beloved but unknown Hari Krishna.

Your ignorance is showing: The Mahabharata has been made into a Tv series, garnering bigger audience base than your Hercules thing.

Obviously there is no reason for Apollo and Hercules to derive from Krishna who was never mentioned by the Greeks, before Megasthenes. There are reasons for the opposite to have happened, since the Indians mentioned that Dionysus (also a god) came EARLIER from the West! You trap yourself...

The issue is not dionysus, it is Hari-kulas, which is proven that etymologically, rests on sounder grounds in Indic souces, not Greek sources.
Etymology proves the origin of the word- here, the Indian claim is stronger than Greek claim, because both Hari and Kulas mean something, while Ira/Hera means nothing.

Also, the source you quote claims that Dionysus came to India- it does not say whether he came from the west or north or east.

Akritas · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
Akritas, if we presume that there was a Proto-Indo-European origin then it could explain why Sanskrit and Greek (and Latin) have some similar/common words. It couldn't tell which one was older though.... That's because ancient texts are gone. What we have now is Linear B texts from 1400-1500 BC and various texts from India that date back to 1000 BC. The oldest surviving

Thessalonian said:
READABLE deciphered texts from India date back to around 1000-1200 BC. So, there is no way to draw concusions without deciphered texts from 3000 BC from both Helladic and IVC regions.

Anything else is pure speculation!

It's true.
But….. we speak for a language, and not for a script.
The viability of a proposed etymology within a family of related languages, then, depends not on whether the forms being compared "look alike" in an impressionistic sense, but whether they can be referred back to a common prototype via independently motivated sound laws.
Just remember the Bernal case and his claim that to have uncovered "hundreds" of viable Greek-Egyptian and Greek-Semitic etymologies was simply false as the linguistics Jay H. Jasanoff & Alan Nussbaum proved.
As I remarked, only a Etymological Dictionary, can give us the right meaning of a word. In “Hercules” case, the word “Hari-kulas” is unknown word, as “A Classical Dictionary of India” marked. As a matter of fact, the word “Hari” according the dictionary is a “name of Vishnu and unknown origin”(page 242).

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Akritas said:
It's true.
But….. we speak for a language, and not for a script.
The viability of a proposed etymology within a family of related languages, then, depends not on whether the forms being compared "look alike" in an impressionistic sense, but whether they can be referred back to a common prototype via independently motivated sound laws.
Just remember the Bernal case and his claim that to have uncovered "hundreds" of viable Greek-Egyptian and Greek-Semitic etymologies was simply false as the linguistics Jay H. Jasanoff & Alan Nussbaum proved.
As I remarked, only a Etymological Dictionary, can give us the right meaning of a word. In “Hercules” case, the word “Hari-kulas” is unknown word, as “A Classical Dictionary of India” marked. As a matter of fact, the word “Hari” according the dictionary is a “name of Vishnu and unknown origin”(page 242).

Well then the source is completely wrong.
'Har' is to steal/kidnap. This is sourced in Sanskrit (Sita-haran by Ravana- the abduction of Sita by Ravana, Draupadi Vastra-haran: stealing of Draupadi's clothes).
Haran is 'to steal', 'hari' is the stealer/theif.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari"]Hari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

This link categorically proves that Hari means theif and applies to Krishna due to his thevery of butter/cows/etc.:

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/MWScan/tamil/index.html

Type in 'hari' and see for yourself.

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
It takes nothing for granted. My methodology assumes nothing. Your methodology assumes that Harikulas was Dionysus's son or he spoke Greek or kept Greek customs. Mine is simply based on the fact that if someone is born to settlers in a land, without any other supportive information, the identity of that someone is to the land he is born in. If you are born in India to settlers in India, without any other information (as to how long ago your ancestors settled there, what you spoke, etc), the default position is, you are an Indian.
That applies to every single case and no matter how many times you make me repeat this axiom, it won't change the fact that I make the least amount of assumptions and go by conventional methodology, while you are trying desperately to prove that Herakles was Greek.

Your ignorance is showing: The Mahabharata has been made into a Tv series, garnering bigger audience base than your Hercules thing.

The issue is not dionysus, it is Hari-kulas, which is proven that etymologically, rests on sounder grounds in Indic souces, not Greek sources.
Etymology proves the origin of the word- here, the Indian claim is stronger than Greek claim, because both Hari and Kulas mean something, while Ira/Hera means nothing.

Also, the source you quote claims that Dionysus came to India- it does not say whether he came from the west or north or east.

You have no methodology, only speculations.... If, if and if. That's not called methodology. It is called common sense. If one stays in a land for generations, he will be absorbed by its culture. Big deal, you say nothing new. However, you still assume... You don't become Indian because you move to India. You only become Indian if you adopt indian culture and you lose your previous identity. The Greeks are known to remain Greek, wherever they go. Pytheas was born in France, in a Greek colony. He remained Greek though. His language and name suggest that. So, your methodology means nothing.....

Mahabharata TV series was shown where? Who watched that? Because Hercules was shown in 33 countries!!! And your TV series attracted a bigger audience? Like 34 countries? You are kidding me. It was only broadcasted in the UK only, as far as I know. Not even close.

Dionysus was a Greek figure so he had to come from Greece. He couldn't have come from Japan....

Etymologically you prove nothing other than Hercules being a Greek name.
ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ, ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΑ+ ΚΛΕΩΣ (IRA + KLEOS).

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
You have no methodology, only speculations.... If, if and if. That's not called methodology. It is called common sense. If one stays in a land for generations, he will be absorbed by its culture. Big deal, you say nothing new. However, you still assume... You don't become Indian because you move to India. You only become Indian if you adopt indian culture and you lose your previous identity.

No, the Ifs and buts are from your side: if Harikulas was the direct descendant of Dionysus, if he kept his culture, etc. Mine is simply catering to the facts: he was born in India, to Indian settlers. Without any extra facts, it makes him Indian.
Just as someone born in Canada to settlers in Canada are Canadians.

The Greeks are known to remain Greek, wherever they go. Pytheas was born in France, in a Greek colony. He remained Greek though. His language and name suggest that. So, your methodology means nothing.....

Greeks in Bactria and Punjab assimilated into Indian culture: they adopted Indic religion, mostly Buddhism, and Indian philosophies, as evidenced by Milindapanha.

Mahabharata TV series was shown where? Who watched that? Because Hercules was shown in 33 countries!!! And your TV series attracted a bigger audience? Like 34 countries? You are kidding me. It was only broadcasted in the UK only, as far as I know. Not even close.

Broadcast in UK, Canada, Austalia and India, to a consumer base far bigger than the Tv series Hercules. Point is, you made a false claim- you claimed that Mahabharata was not televized, fact is, it was and that too, before the Tv series Hercules.

Dionysus was a Greek figure so he had to come from Greece. He couldn't have come from Japan....

Sorry, doesn't follow. Jesus Christ is a western figure, depicted in western norms but he came from the middle east. You can be culturally popular in somewhere you were not born in. Dionysus, if he ever existed, could've come from any number of Indo-European regions/tribes. Greeks simply happen to've the most attachment to him.

Etymologically you prove nothing other than Hercules being a Greek name.
ΗΡΑΚΛΗΣ, ΗΡΑΚΛΕΩΣ ΗΡΑ+ ΚΛΕΩΣ (IRA + KLEOS).

Etymologically i categorically prove that Hercules is an Indian origin name, since both Hari and Kulas have meaning in Sanskrit, while Hera/Ira has no meaning in Greek, therefore, of inferior etymology and likely, imported.

markdienekes · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
Mahabharata TV series was shown where? Who watched that? Because Hercules was shown in 33 countries!!! And your TV series attracted a bigger audience? Like 34 countries? You are kidding me. It was only broadcasted in the UK only, as far as I know. Not even close.

Hercules was a terrible tv show - possibly one of the worst I've ever seen, and not even the kind that you can actually enjoy for being so bad.

Akritas · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Well then the source is completely wrong.
'Har' is to steal/kidnap. This is sourced in Sanskrit (Sita-haran by Ravana- the abduction of Sita by Ravana, Draupadi Vastra-haran: stealing of Draupadi's clothes).
Haran is 'to steal', 'hari' is the stealer/theif.

Hari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This link categorically proves that Hari means theif and applies to Krishna due to his thevery of butter/cows/etc.:

Sanskrit and Tamil Dictionaries

Type in 'hari' and see for yourself.

I typed the word "Hercules" in the box "English word...." and the result was..."No entries found"

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Akritas said:
I typed the word "Hercules" in the box "English word...." and the result was..."No entries found"

Type in Hari and Kula : it categorically makes sense and relates to a theif and lineage- which is categorically evidenced as Krishna in the mahabharata.

Zeno · Mar 31, 2011

markdienekes said:
Hercules was a terrible tv show - possibly one of the worst I've ever seen, and not even the kind that you can actually enjoy for being so bad.

Hercules? Wasn't he the guy that was married to Xena, warrior princess?

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
No, the Ifs and buts are from your side: if Harikulas was the direct descendant of Dionysus, if he kept his culture, etc. Mine is simply catering to the facts: he was born in India, to Indian settlers. Without any extra facts, it makes him Indian.
Just as someone born in Canada to settlers in Canada are Canadians.

Greeks in Bactria and Punjab assimilated into Indian culture: they adopted Indic religion, mostly Buddhism, and Indian philosophies, as evidenced by Milindapanha.

Broadcast in UK, Canada, Austalia and India, to a consumer base far bigger than the Tv series Hercules. Point is, you made a false claim- you claimed that Mahabharata was not televized, fact is, it was and that too, before the Tv series Hercules.

Sorry, doesn't follow. Jesus Christ is a western figure, depicted in western norms but he came from the middle east. You can be culturally popular in somewhere you were not born in. Dionysus, if he ever existed, could've come from any number of Indo-European regions/tribes. Greeks simply happen to've the most attachment to him.

Etymologically i categorically prove that Hercules is an Indian origin name, since both Hari and Kulas have meaning in Sanskrit, while Hera/Ira has no meaning in Greek, therefore, of inferior etymology and likely, imported.

1) I insist. IF Hercules was a distant descendant of Dionysus, he could have been Indian. There is no other case. Passports did not exist in that period, and nationalities did not change, otherwise. Modern Canada has nothing to do with ancient India.

2) Nonsense. Greeks in Bactria for 300 years remained Greek, Greek names, Greek language and artefacts with Greek inscriptions prove that. They could only have adopted religion, just for political reasons.

3) UK, Canada, Australia and India vs 33 countries, including Australia, UK, USA, Russia, Brazil, Germany, France, Turkey, South Africa etc.? You are kidding me, period. The non natives (excluding Greeks and Indians) who watched those series were overwhelmingly exposed to the Homeric epics, not the Indian!

4) Your senario of imported etymology is irrational. Hera is a very specific name. The same goes for Hari(Krishna). You make no sense at all.

Akritas · Mar 31, 2011

Zeno said:
Hercules? Wasn't he the guy that was married to Xena, warrior princess?

This Hercules was the "Jim Beam"....

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) I insist. IF Hercules was a distant descendant of Dionysus, he could have been Indian. There is no other case. Passports did not exist in that period, and nationalities did not change, otherwise. Modern Canada has nothing to do with ancient India.

Exactly. Therefore,someone born in India of people living in India is India, without any other supporting information.

2) Nonsense. Greeks in Bactria for 300 years remained Greek, Greek names, Greek language and artefacts with Greek inscriptions prove that. They could only have adopted religion, just for political reasons.

Point is, Greek identity became absorbed in Indian identity- there are no Greek communities existing in Punjab or Gujarat, they are Indian. Depending on how long ago this supposed immigration occured, Herakles could've been Greek or could've been absorbed.
We don't know.
What we do know, is that the source claims he was born in India to people settled in India, making him Indian.

3) UK, Canada, Australia and India vs 33 countries, including Australia, UK, USA, Russia, Brazil, Germany, France, Turkey, South Africa etc.? You are kidding me, period. The non natives (excluding Greeks and Indians) who watched those series were overwhelmingly exposed to the Homeric epics, not the Indian!

I don't care if 33 countries aired it or 2, its about sheer number of people exposed to it- there are far more people exposed to Krishna and the Mahabharata than herakles

4) Your senario of imported etymology is irrational. Hera is a very specific name. The same goes for Hari(Krishna). You make no sense at all.

Hari has a meaning behind it- the theif/stealer, which was applied to Krishna in the mahabharata for stealing butter. Hera/Ira has no etymology and is a name only. Therefore, hari is on sounder etymology.

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Exactly. Therefore,someone born in India of people living in India is India, without any other supporting information.

Point is, Greek identity became absorbed in Indian identity- there are no Greek communities existing in Punjab or Gujarat, they are Indian. Depending on how long ago this supposed immigration occured, Herakles could've been Greek or could've been absorbed.
We don't know.
What we do know, is that the source claims he was born in India to people settled in India, making him Indian.

I don't care if 33 countries aired it or 2, its about sheer number of people exposed to it- there are far more people exposed to Krishna and the Mahabharata than herakles

Hari has a meaning behind it- the theif/stealer, which was applied to Krishna in the mahabharata for stealing butter. Hera/Ira has no etymology and is a name only. Therefore, hari is on sounder etymology.

1) Exactly, so unless you can prove that Heracles was a distant offspring of Dionysus, he was Greek to the bone. Place of birth means nothing. Pytheas was born in ancient France.... He was Greek to the bone. That's what evidence suggests.

2) Wrong, if you add the populations of those 33 countries, you get more people than in the 4 countries that you mentioned. By the way, not all Indians have TV in their houses... There are too many dramatically poor areas, and you know it.

3) It is not just Hari though, it is Hari-Krishna! It's a name, just like Hera.
Names are proven to derive from a place because they are used, not because they have an actual known meaning. The name Hera does not exist in India. There was never a goddess Hera there. So, Heracles is etymologically associated with the Greek pantheon because of Hera. There is no etymological issue. You make it up!

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) Exactly, so unless you can prove that Heracles was a distant offspring of Dionysus, he was Greek to the bone. Place of birth means nothing. Pytheas was born in ancient France.... He was Greek to the bone. That's what evidence suggests.

We know Pytheas was Greek because he wrote in Greek. Herakles did no such thing. You need to prove that he was a close descandant of Dionysus, that Dionysus came from Greece and that Herakles spoke Greek. Otherwise, all we have is, Herakles, an Indian born in India to people living in India

2) Wrong, if you add the populations of those 33 countries, you get more people than in the 4 countries that you mentioned. By the way, not all Indians have TV in their houses... There are too many dramatically poor areas, and you know it.

Completely irrelevant. Everyone in India is familiar with Krishna, since he is one of the most high profile Gods and his name 'hari' is commonly known.
The population of India is significantly greater than entire Europe put together and throw in South-East asia, where people have good knowledge of Hindu deities like Krishna, Krishna's outreach is most certainly comparable, if not greater than Hercules.
And yet again, you take the conversation off topic- this is not a popularity contest, we don't care if one was more popular than another. What we are talking about is the origin point of mythological characters and so far, Hari-kulas has more etymological basis than Irakles.

3) It is not just Hari though, it is Hari-Krishna! It's a name, just like Hera.

No, it is not Hari-Krishna. Its Hari or Krishna. Now you are using illogical obfuscation: nobody calls people by their nickname and given name at once. You don't hear 'billy-Willaims' or '.... Richard'. That is absurd, illogical and without precedence.
The name is Krishna, Hari and several others.

Names are proven to derive from a place because they are used, not because they have an actual known meaning. The name Hera does not exist in India. There was never a goddess Hera there. So, Heracles is etymologically associated with the Greek pantheon because of Hera. There is no etymological issue. You make it up!

Names are also proven to've meant something in places of their origin. Almost all names that are proven to've originated in the given culture has a meaning- Esther, Samuel, Jesus, Joshua, Alcibiades, Pythagoras, all have meaning in their original language.
The name Hera has no meaning in Greece because it was probably imported.
Hari has a meaning in Sanskrit and is perfectly applicable to Krishna, therefore, the etymology of Hari-kulas takes precedence over Hera-kles, since Hera has no meaning in Greek but Hari has in Sanskrit.
You cannot dodge this simple fact of etymology.

Thessalonian · Mar 31, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
We know Pytheas was Greek because he wrote in Greek. Herakles did no such thing. You need to prove that he was a close descandant of Dionysus, that Dionysus came from Greece and that Herakles spoke Greek. Otherwise, all we have is, Herakles, an Indian born in India to people living in India

Completely irrelevant. Everyone in India is familiar with Krishna, since he is one of the most high profile Gods and his name 'hari' is commonly known.
The population of India is significantly greater than entire Europe put together and throw in South-East asia, where people have good knowledge of Hindu deities like Krishna, Krishna's outreach is most certainly comparable, if not greater than Hercules.
And yet again, you take the conversation off topic- this is not a popularity contest, we don't care if one was more popular than another. What we are talking about is the origin point of mythological characters and so far, Hari-kulas has more etymological basis than Irakles.

No, it is not Hari-Krishna. Its Hari or Krishna. Now you are using illogical obfuscation: nobody calls people by their nickname and given name at once. You don't hear 'billy-Willaims' or '.... Richard'. That is absurd, illogical and without precedence.
The name is Krishna, Hari and several others.

Names are also proven to've meant something in places of their origin. Almost all names that are proven to've originated in the given culture has a meaning- Esther, Samuel, Jesus, Joshua, Alcibiades, Pythagoras, all have meaning in their original language.
The name Hera has no meaning in Greece because it was probably imported.
Hari has a meaning in Sanskrit and is perfectly applicable to Krishna, therefore, the etymology of Hari-kulas takes precedence over Hera-kles, since Hera has no meaning in Greek but Hari has in Sanskrit.
You cannot dodge this simple fact of etymology.

1) The Theban Heracles is a Greek Heracles. Period. He came to India as the older Indians say. Period. How can a Theban be Indian?

Did you read the texts? They said Heracles looked like the known Greek Theban Hercules.... Go back and read again. You are not a good reader.

2) You have to prove that Hera was imported. I told you that the most likely senario is that Hera was the female for hero. Hari and Hera are irrelevant unless namaste (hello in Hindi) and namaste (we are here in Greek) are also related. Do you realise that you make no sense at all with such arguments? Hera exists ONLY in Greek mythology as a name and with those charactestics. period. Hera was used only in Greek, therefore is de facto a Greek name possible related to hero... Thus, Iraklis makes sense in Greek.

Lord_of_Gauda · Mar 31, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) The Theban Heracles is a Greek Heracles. Period. He came to India as the older Indians say. Period. How can a Theban be Indian? Did you read the texts? They said Heracles looked like the known Greek Theban Hercules.... Go back and read again. You are not a good reader.

You've posted previously saying that Herakles was born amongst the Indians. He did not come from Thebes or any such Greek place, he was born amongst the Indians.

2) You have to prove that Hera was imported. I told you that the most likely senario is that Hera was the female for hero. Hari and Hera are irrelevant unless namaste (hello in Hindi) and namaste (we are here in Greek) are also related. Do you realise that you make no sense at all with such arguments? Hera exists ONLY in Greek mythology as a name and with those charactestics. period. Hera was used only in Greek, therefore is de facto a Greek name possible related to hero... Thus, Iraklis makes sense in Greek.

Origin names have etymological meaning in the origin culture. I tire of your avalanche of innane posts repeating the same thing because you cannot accept reality- reality that the name 'Hari-kulas' has a sounder basis, linguistically, in Sanskrit, than 'Herakles' has in Greek because Hera means nothing in Greek. When a name means nothing to the culture, it is most likely imported from elsewhere. Joshua, Mark, Paul, Peter are found in Irish names, but they mean nothing in Irish. They are imported from Hebrew because all these names mean something in Hebrew. Kelly, William, are Irish origin names because they mean something in Irish.

If a name has no meaning in a given language, it is imported is the commonly held default position in linguistics.

We have two names here:
a)
Hera-kles/Ira-kles. Kles means something in Greek, Hera/Ira means nothing.
Together, when applied to the protagonist, it also has speculative & dubious meaning.

b)
Hari-kula. Hari= theif/abductor. Kula: from the clan/tribe of. They mean something individually in Sanskrit and when Hari is applied to Krishna, makes complete sense and has documented evidence to've been applied to Krishna.

Therefore, b) rests on sounder evidence etymologically and linguistically than a).

question is, how did the Greeks come to worship an Indian God ?

Perhaps through this ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_BCE_Near_East_mass_migration"]1900 BCE Near East mass migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]) process, where in antiquity, the people who became Greeks resided in anatolia and thus, had been influenced by the general 'east-to-west/ north to south-west' population movements in the Iranian plateau.

Search

Search

Greek deities in India. Hercules worshipped in India!

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

Akritas

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

markdienekes

Akritas

Lord_of_Gauda

Zeno

Thessalonian

Akritas

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions