No One Has it Aright - It's all Inter-connected! The New Way.

Krishna existed before Christ, and the parallels between the two give strong evidence that Christianity borrowed Krishna's story and made it their own. To complicate matters further, Buddha and Christ also share similarities. Then to further complicate matters other archetypes mesh well with Christ. There is nothing wrong in this. NONE. I just wish to expound upon the similarities to show fundamentalists that perhaps God, has got it all figured out - for everybody. No one is excluded from the grand design. Thus, no converting methods are really all that necessary, except to appease one's own sense of importance. (Which is what quite honestly ticks most people off).

Hindu mythology states that Krishna was born on earth so that the balance of good in the world could be restored. This is very important to consider, because Christianity makes a claim that their way is the only way. Christ's purpose isn't new, in fact many came before him, in seeking to fix that which is continuously being fixed. They make the claim that only Christ came to "save" mankind. However, it's not true. There was several messiah's before Christ, and nothing of Christ's story is new or belongs solely to the Christ Mythos. In fact, I think that Krishna and Christ and Buddha for that matter, were the same. They say that God has a million names and the parallels between the many say more to the existence of a God that is consistent, rather than mankind making up fairy-tale stories and wishful thinking.

Krishna of Dwarka was born of the virgin Devaki, just as Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary. Buddha also had a virgin mother named Maya who was impregnated by the "Holy Spirit" and then was informed that she would give birth to the messiah. Both mothers of Krishna and Christ were visited by angels and told they were to carry the divine child.(Zoroaster, Dionysus, and Horus are other examples of virgin births.) Christ and Krishna were both called God and the Son of God. Each are attributed with the nativity of a star. In fact, both were born in places of low-birth, while both being descendants of Kings. Each of their step-father's were carpenters. After the birth, both step-fathers (Nanda and Joseph) were told by angels to flee. Mary flee's from King Herod into Egypt. Devaki flees King Kansa by crossing the Jumna River. The reason they needed to flee was because both births were foretold. Both of these King's feared the prophecy of these children's birth and killed children born in their lands in an attempt to murder the divine child when he was only a baby. Much like Hercules had to fight for his survival as a baby against the assassination plots of Hera. Even the names of the cities they fled to were amazingly similar. Mary and Joseph went to Muturea, while Nanda and Devaki stayed in Mathura.

Krishna and Jesus are both said to be the second in a Holy Trinity. Holy trinities don't just exist in these two religions. This concept is a theme found through-out the world. At it's simplest, it illustrates the union of two to make one in completion of a trinity. This is a very rudimentary pagan form of thought, of course. Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu which is the second in the Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Jesus is also the second person in the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki". Christ was called "the lion of tribe of Judah". Buddha was called "the lion of the Tribe of Sakya". As you can see, already the striking similarities show a connection between not only two mythical archetypes but three!!!

Krishna also claimed that he was the "Resurrection". Krishna also was said to be without "sin". Krishna performed miracles by healing. Notably a leper, just like Christ. They were both said to cast out demons and raise the dead. Krishna was crucified, and when he died by an "arrow" the sky darkened. Christ was crucified, and when he died by a "spear" the sky darkened. Both descended into the realms of Hell. Both raised from the dead. Both were said to be meek and merciful. In fact, the teachings of both are very similar - emphasizing love and peace. Both were criticized for associating with the undesirable sinners. Both taught to forgive. Both were called the Savior. Both promised to return again.

It should be noted that Buddha was also called the great physician, God among Gods, the Only Begotten, the Way, the Truth, the Word, the Life, Prince of Peace, Good Shepard, Light of the World, Anointed, Messiah, and Savior of the world. Do you see what it is I am trying to illustrate? It's all connected, inter-related, the same through-out all societies. We all have the same thought processes. We all have been hard-wired already to understand. There is no need for solicitation. Did you know he was said to walk on water? First. Before Christ. Buddha walked on water first, and then helped another to walk on water too! The concept wasn't original to Christ, but ancient to all messiahs!

950 BCE: "The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart."
562 BCE: The first colony of Jews settled in India. 528 BCE. The Buddha became enlightened.
30 CE: Jesus Christ began his public ministry.

This is only to show how everything is inter-connected. It is meant to show how our perceived ideas of separatism are simply misconceptions. All religions are trying to tell us the same thing! All religions and even myths are simply trying to tie us all together in this great pongee scheme of everything

Krishna says this about His relationship with God: "I am the way, come to Me…Neither the multitude of gods, nor great sages know my origin, for I am the source of all the gods and great sages." In the Holy Bible, Jesus says the same thing: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well".

Here are many different religions revealing to us the creator of all things who, is also the way to achieve eternal life. Either one or two is a fraud or all are the same holy manifestation recorded at different times from many different cultural and historical viewpoints. The logic is clear and simple. God exists in all things, nothing is apart from It. Stop thinking you have it all figured out for everyone else. You are wrong. Deluded. Sadistic really. Just stop and move from this point into a new realm of higher expectation and realization. EVOLVE!

Ahhh man! You completely beat me to the punch, for I have been compiling the very same similarities for some time now(not even close to complete) in hopes to create the very same thread!

I will give you this, your style in which you presented this was in a completely different tone and angle than I was going to take... and I'm not gonna lie, I like yours better. Mine was abrasive and maybe even demoralizing, which is never conducive to anything good.

There's much much much more to the parallels and obviously adopted characteristics between these characters, but I realize that outlining them in the greatest of details is only to beat a dead horse. It's either believe me, or deny it... In the end of the day, all that matters is people realize that to recognize and focus on the differences only creates division and thickens the lines between us. It takes deeper thought aka critical thinking to truly see in between them these days.

S&F's!

I will probably still present my thread down the road, but after reading yours... I will be changing the tone of voice. Thank you for the inspiration... I will beat that dead horse, but out of love! jk

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


Sorry; but, if nobody has it right, then how can you. Doesn't that mean at least one person has it right? If not then which part of your statement might be wrong?

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


BEWARE!!!

Incomming Christians!

Hope you have your sword & shield handy... You'll need it with this thread

Best have a fire extinguisher close too. Lol

Good luck

reply to post by Akragon


Dearest Akragon,

I thought we were friends and had no disagreement. Did you think my questions were unfair? I always enjoy your posts and hope you are well. Peace.

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth


I gotta be awake in 7 hours, so I don't have time to sit and respond to everything you said, but after scanning through your post, I noticed SEVERAL mistakes -

You said:

Krishna of Dwarka was born of the virgin Devaki, just as Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary.

Incorrect - Krishna was the EIGHT incarnation of the god Vishnu. Obviously, this means his mother was not a virgin. Not only that, but Jesus is the ONLY incarnation of God, where as Krishna would have been the, again, EIGHTH.

Another thing you should keep in mind - Jesus' birth was prophesied thousands of years prior to his birth, in Isaiah 7:14 - or, one could even say since just after the fall of man. In Genesis.

Each of their step-father's were carpenters.

Krishna's step-father was Vasudeva. His occupation is NOT mentioned in any known source. If you have one, please do share. Neither is their any documentation of Angels visiting them at all - however, his birth was celebrated. Don't know how that's meaningful in any way, though.

Both of these King's feared the prophecy of these children's birth and killed children born in their lands in an attempt to murder the divine child when he was only a baby.

Seriously? Kamsa (or Kansa), Devaki's brother, decided to kill all the children (not infants, interestingly) in the region who were rather unusual, not because Krishna was thought to be the promised Messiah as Herod did. Actually, as the story goes, this slaughter was done out of fear for Kamsa's own life, as an oracle prophesied to him before that one of Devaki's nephews wanted to kill him.

I can already tell so many other things are wrong, and plain out mis-information. Krishna was never crucified. Krishna never healed lepers, rose the dead, etc. Krishna was never even Resurrected. All of these myths about Krishna were invented decades ago.

And I'll be sure to respond tomorrow. I apologize for not having sources for my claims.. but, technically speaking, it's the OP who needs to provide the sources. I can't provide sources that say "Krishna never Resurrected", because they themselves would need to provide sources. Go ahead and provide some sources OP.. I'm sure you could. Unless, of course, nothing of the story Krishna ever actually happened.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except by him. All it takes is believing.

God Bless, brothers.

reply to post by CirqueDeTruth
"Buddha also had a virgin mother named Maya who was impregnated by the "Holy Spirit" and then was informed that she would give birth to the messiah" could you give me the source you use for this statement..


and while you are at it "Krishna of Dwarka was born of the virgin Devaki," source please


It sounds that you may have got your info from Dan Brown ..if so you should go take the 1000 dollar challenge to prove what he said in his book ..

But I could be wrong and you have a reliable sorce for your statments ..we shall see....peace

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by CirqueDeTruth

 

Sorry; but, if nobody has it right, then how can you. Doesn't that mean at least one person has it right? If not then which part of your statement might be wrong?

I think that you might be digging a little deeper than need be here friend.

It's not necessarily about who is wrong or right, for those are doctrines and dogmas that are attached due to individual interpretations of the various texts. What is to be noted, is the fact that the symbolic nature of these texts and words of wisdom follow a premise that supports a common means and/or philosophy. The characters, or individuals of the texts are obviously not 'carbon' copies.

Yes, you can nit pick, and find yourself focusing on what contrasts, but it is what compares that should be the focus.

We've had conversations before, and I think I have a somewhat general idea as to what/who you pay homage to. I would suggest that you not take offense as to any of the claims made, and keep the conversation open minded.

The intent of this thread is obviously a non-abrasive approach to pointing out the similarities, there will always be time to see the differences. Another time, another place maybe...

But then again, feel free to do what you like... you have always presented yourself in a respectable manner, so yeah...

---------------------------------------------
as far as the OP, granted their may be inconsistencies... not all assertions made are 100% in their claims, and it is important to understand the idea of a literary concept and artistic renditions.

debate away!

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


I kinda feel obligated to back him up. Obviously someone has to be right. There can't be NO right answers. There also can't be multiple right answers. There can only be ONE way.

And what similarities ?
The OP simply spewed out a bunch of false information. Information, I might add, that is found nowhere except word of mouth or other people claiming it happened. There's literally no documentation on any of this information. Not to mention, straight out contradiction - Krishna, in either story, is a virgin-birth. One, he's born from the Earth. Rocks. The other, he's the 8th child. They are different cultures and beliefs, but which is it? Either or, not a virgin-birth.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Dear MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS,

Yes, you can nit pick, and find yourself focusing on what contrasts, but it is what compares that should be the focus. We've had conversations before, and I think I have a somewhat general idea as to what/who you pay homage to. I would suggest that you not take offense as to any of the claims made, and keep the conversation open minded. The intent of this thread is obviously a non-abrasive approach to pointing out the similarities, there will always be time to see the differences. Another time, another place maybe... But then again, feel free to do what you like... you have always presented yourself in a respectable manner, so yeah...

Thank you for characterizing what I asked as "nit picking". I have read your words before also. Do you like threads that begin with the fact that theirs is the only truth? As for what I believe, I am quite open about it as we all should be. You state that the thread is non-abrasive thereby implying that what I am asking is. Please correct me further and tell me how I was abrasive to the OP, they have not accused me of such and the moderators have not removed words because there was nothing offensive said by me. If someone asks a question and I am not offensive, am I not allowed to answer them as a Christian or a Jew or a Satanist? Did I say that God is the only way or even remotely attempt to bring God up? I assumed the OP understood that Christians might respond, he said so in his OP. Show me where my posts were removed because I was offensive to anyone.

If someone is sincere and asks a sincere question, as I believe the OP did, then they should be allowed to have a conversation, test their beliefs and not just be given someone else's answer, not even mine. How do we learn, not know, learn, if we are never tested? I don't fear for Christians who are untested and need to lose because I believe in the end, some of us discover the truth and that means all of us can if we keep testing our beliefs.

OP ..I take offence to your last statment ....You do not know me and have no right to call me those things ...I think all you have done with this thread is looked to single out one group of people ...You see you call what you call god a it ....My God is a person who loves me ....

I also belive that all Gods are the same regardless of what name one tries to give them, and frankly if everyone understood this, maybe we could get rid of the my God is better than your God thing and the world could have at least some chance of peace?

But you have some of your details wrong.

First of Devaki was not virgin, Rohini was (more on this later), Krishna was the eight son, Wasudev (Krishnas father) was in the prison with Devaki and was bound by his oath to give all their children to Kans on the birth.

Nand was not a carpenter but a gwala (a keeper of cows) and also the leader of gokul.

Nand is never told to flee, neither is Devaki (not by an angel anyways) Devaki and wasudev are advised to flee by family and friends but they do because doing so would cause Wasudevs vow to be broken. Only Krishna is delivered to Nand by Wasudev after crossing Jamuna river. after that he takes the girl from Nands place and comes back to the prison.

Wasudev's other wife Rohini flees Kans and stays with Nands family in Gokul (not in mathura). Kans was in mathura. Devaki's seventh child was moved by devine powers from Devakis womb into Rohinis, Rohini was a virgin at that time. That child was the reincarnation of Sheshnaag.

To the best of my knowledge Krishna was not crucified, if you can provide some details to this would be appreciated.

Krishna did go to Yampuri "hell" to get the soul of a friend who had been killed.

I think all are the same and that God exists in everything.

And the connections continue further back, looking at Rams time the killing of Lawnasur in Madura was part of the setup for the Kans and Krishan thing.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dearest Akragon,

I thought we were friends and had no disagreement. Did you think my questions were unfair? I always enjoy your posts and hope you are well. Peace.

No issues here... Im simply expecting a rash of attacks against the OP, but hey i could be wrong.

Which questions are you refering to my friend? I answer a lot of questions here, sometimes its hard to keep track of who says what

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Dear MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS,

Yes, you can nit pick, and find yourself focusing on what contrasts, but it is what compares that should be the focus. We've had conversations before, and I think I have a somewhat general idea as to what/who you pay homage to. I would suggest that you not take offense as to any of the claims made, and keep the conversation open minded. The intent of this thread is obviously a non-abrasive approach to pointing out the similarities, there will always be time to see the differences. Another time, another place maybe... But then again, feel free to do what you like... you have always presented yourself in a respectable manner, so yeah...

Thank you for characterizing what I asked as "nit picking". I have read your words before also. Do you like threads that begin with the fact that theirs is the only truth? As for what I believe, I am quite open about it as we all should be. You state that the thread is non-abrasive thereby implying that what I am asking is. Please correct me further and tell me how I was abrasive to the OP, they have not accused me of such and the moderators have not removed words because there was nothing offensive said by me. If someone asks a question and I am not offensive, am I not allowed to answer them as a Christian or a Jew or a Satanist? Did I say that God is the only way or even remotely attempt to bring God up? I assumed the OP understood that Christians might respond, he said so in his OP. Show me where my posts were removed because I was offensive to anyone.

If someone is sincere and asks a sincere question, as I believe the OP did, then they should be allowed to have a conversation, test their beliefs and not just be given someone else's answer, not even mine. How do we learn, not know, learn, if we are never tested? I don't fear for Christians who are untested and need to lose because I believe in the end, some of us discover the truth and that means all of us can if we keep testing our beliefs.

I'm not here to perform any synopsis of an individual(although it seemingly what I did towards you, and I apologize). But if you are to press the issue, I have noticed a condescending, patronizing, and almost passive-aggressive undertone when addressing what does not fit your opinions or self truths. Either way, I wasn't making a big deal out of it, and admittedly probably said too much.

BTW, I was not referencing(abrasive comment) to your questioning of the OP. Rather your quick reaction to another comment...

No, I have not witnessed you directly make an offensive comment that would by any means warrant the removal of any of your posts. I will not recant my statement, rather suggest that we digress and turn our focus back onto the topic at hand, as outlined in the OP. There is no fruit that shall bear from continuing with such folly, we are who we are, and people usually never see us for who we are. I don't know you(obviously), so for me to continue would be ignorant on my behalf.

anyways....

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

I kinda feel obligated to back him up. Obviously someone has to be right. There can't be NO right answers. There also can't be multiple right answers. There can only be ONE way.

And what similarities ?
The OP simply spewed out a bunch of false information. Information, I might add, that is found nowhere except word of mouth or other people claiming it happened. There's literally no documentation on any of this information. Not to mention, straight out contradiction - Krishna, in either story, is a virgin-birth. One, he's born from the Earth. Rocks. The other, he's the 8th child. They are different cultures and beliefs, but which is it? Either or, not a virgin-birth.

What? I think I understand the reasoning behind your statement... maybe.

I do agree, that much of the comments made in the OP lacked a true undertaking of research that is warranted when addressing such a topic, ESPECIALLY here on ATS! I am yet to really focus on that aspect of the OP, rather I agree with the notion in which it implies.

Obviously someone has to be right???
Ummm... no.
What if no one has been right so far? Is this not possible. Unless you want to stick to the notion that the bible HAS TO BE the word of God, it should be obvious that NO ONE HAS IT ALL RIGHT. EXACTLY what the title of the thread is!

If not the 'word of god' and actually the 'word of man', would you dare to suggest that the author(s) are/were 'ALL KNOWING'? I scoff at such a notion, and suggest that maybe a little critical thinking on ones behalf would bring forth this understanding.

There can't be NO right answers...
Hmm... obviously, but does that go to suggest that any of the covered myths, stories, religious texts, and so forth contain any of these right answers!?!

There can only be ONE way...
Yup, still, "but does that go to suggest that any of the covered myths, stories, religious texts, and so forth contain any of these right answers!?!"

I will part with the wisest things ever said...

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing

edit: As to the validity of the OP, this is a common theme amongst those who attempt to take on the subject of relating themes and philosophies in religious texts and such... they are often wrong in their assumptions, and often recite what others claim to be the case.

This is exactly why, as I stated in my response, I have been taking on the same undertakings that went into constructing the OP. I have not presented my work yet, for I recognize the due diligence required in order to make such claims. Not taking a shot at the OP, but yeah... If you are under the assumption that the claims made thus far are incorrect, by all means, point them out! The truth will only help others... But if you disagree with the underlying premise of the OP, I would suggest that you are false in this assumption.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Dear MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS,

I'm not here to perform any synopsis of an individual(although it seemingly what I did towards you, and I apologize). But if you are to press the issue, I have noticed a condescending, patronizing, and almost passive-aggressive undertone when addressing what does not fit your opinions or self truths. Either way, I wasn't making a big deal out of it, and admittedly probably said too much. BTW, I was not referencing(abrasive comment) to your questioning of the OP. Rather your quick reaction to another comment...

You state that you are not here to characterize others and then say that I am condescending, in the same breath? As for "passive aggressive". I say what I mean and I mean what I say, there is nothing passive in me. As for your last comment, I gave up mind reading years ago, which comment are your referencing, please provide the link and let all see. If I say that the truth shall set you free then I should not fear any question. Why do you fear questions?

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Dear MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS,

I'm not here to perform any synopsis of an individual(although it seemingly what I did towards you, and I apologize). But if you are to press the issue, I have noticed a condescending, patronizing, and almost passive-aggressive undertone when addressing what does not fit your opinions or self truths. Either way, I wasn't making a big deal out of it, and admittedly probably said too much. BTW, I was not referencing(abrasive comment) to your questioning of the OP. Rather your quick reaction to another comment...

You state that you are not here to characterize others and then say that I am condescending, in the same breath? As for "passive aggressive". I say what I mean and I mean what I say, there is nothing passive in me. As for your last comment, I gave up mind reading years ago, which comment are your referencing, please provide the link and let all see. If I say that the truth shall set you free then I should not fear any question. Why do you fear questions?

Wow, you are truly going to beat this drum until all can hear it...

Dearest Akragon, I thought we were friends and had no disagreement. Did you think my questions were unfair? I always enjoy your posts and hope you are well. Peace.

To say... 'I thought we were friends and had no disagreement'

1. Implies an abrasive sentiment, as to the notion that you two are no longer friends. Is it is harsh and a rather rash(Characterized by or resulting from ill-considered haste or boldness) statement.
2. Implies that if there was a disagreement, that you two are no longer friends. Think long and hard as to why this is a faulty reasoning.
a. In addressing the very notion of that in which you imply, the approach was passive-aggressive
I.

Passive-aggressive behavior is dealing with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations in an obstructionist or hostile manner that indicates aggression, or, in more general terms, expressing aggression in non-assertive (i.e. passive or indirect) ways

en.wikipedia.org...
II. The fact that you started with the notion of friendship, and then followed it with a negative attribute such as the said 'disagreement' shows a indirect means, and passivity(deference) as you are yielding or giving to submission of denoting 'friendship' to a comment THAT WAS ORIGINALLY NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE
for further understanding see definition of 'Deference'
III. Passivity, does not suggest that you don't say what you mean.
3. Your wise crack at mind reading, only goes to defend the very 'Passive-Aggressive Behavior' in which you displayed
4.You want to know why I am hesitant towards answering all questions?
Like you claim, and I practice... I mean what I say and I say what I mean. That is to say, often times I field questions that are only to further define or reiterate something that I have already said. I find it tedious, and monotonous of a task, and do not find it being conducive towards my own happiness. Simply put, it gets old! Another reason, is because those who then receive my answers, which are most often correct, tend to persecute... Here's an analogy that you will understand... think about what happened to Jesus. NO I AM NOT TAKING CLAIM TO BE ANYTHING LIKE THE MAN, although I strive to every day.
5. Condescending: If you do not recognize a 'righteous' tone in many of your posts, and an 'superior attitude' in regards to authority of knowledge and dogma... then, I've truly have nothing to say in regards to the matter. There is nothing that I can say to make you see this anyways. I'm not going to sit here and further label or define who, or what I think you are.
To be frank, it's not something I currently want to spend time on doing. Nor will be conducive towards any good, in my opinion.

I told you that I wished to digress, and address the OP... this is something in which you asked for, LITERALLY!

Now tell me that you disagree, or did the truth set you free.
For the fruit of knowledge exposed the evils of trees.(lol) Evil Trees!!

MODS: I sincerely apologize for the directness of this post, I by no means expected, nor wished for this conversation to transpire, but I felt obligated to answer AQuestion's inquiry, for it was said... the truth shall set your free.

Lets try this again.... back to addressing the OP! LOL!

Krishna doesn't answer prayers nor does he have any powers, he is an inanimate idol

Only Jesus Christ can and will answer prayers.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


There is no "literary concepts or artistic renditions" or lessons to be learned or mythology in the Gospels,

It is the God-breathed written testimony of the Godhood of the Lord Jesus Christ,

I apologize for being passive-aggressive, but this subject is really not up for debate with me anymore,

The time is drawing nearer, and the days of denying Truth or beating around the bush are over,

It's either all Christ, 100% Bible, God is everything, or it's nothing at all, no gods exist period,no spiritual side to life exists period, no supernatural entity has ever existed, period.

There is no in between....

Originally posted by Iason321
Krishna doesn't answer prayers nor does he have any powers, he is an inanimate idol

Only Jesus Christ can and will answer prayers.

Wrong?

What is a prayer?

Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity or object of worship through deliberate communication. Prayer can be a form of religious practice, may be either individual or communal and take place in public or in private. It may involve the use of words or song.

en.wikipedia.org...

Does not have to be a question...

om krishno vai sac-cid-ananda-ghanaha krishna adi-purushaha krishnaha purushottamaha krishno ha u karnadi-mulam krishnaha sa ha sarvaih karyaha krishnaha kasham-krid-adisha-mukha-prabhu pujyaha krishno 'nadis tasminn ajandantar-bahye yan mangalam tal labhate kriti

"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss and cognizance. He is the original and supreme person. He is the origin of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the worshipful Lord of the best of demigods, the controller of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning. Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the devotee obtains in Krishna alone" (Rig Veda, Krishna Upanishad)

found with in:
Atharva Vediya Gopala-tapani Upanishad, Purva Vibhaga,

verses 36-47

shri-krishna rukmini-kanta gopi-jana-manohara samsara-sagare magnam mam uddhara jagad-guro

"O Lord Krishna, O lover of Rukmini, O attractor of the minds of the gopis, please uplift me, for I am immersed in the ocean of birth and death, O spiritual preceptor of the universe."

Why would a prayer contain a notion of 'answering' when it says "please uplift me"...
Maybe it's because Krishna does answer prayers...

www.stephen-knapp.com...

=====================
Morning prayer to Krishna

Vasu deva sutham devam Kamsa Chanura mardhanam, Devaki pramanandam Krishnam vande jagat gurum,

My salutations to Lord Krishna, Who is the teacher of all the world, Who is the son of Vasu deva, Who killed Kamsa and Chanura, And who is the darling of Devaki