[Footnote 370: Especially the Besnagar column. See Rapson, _Ancient India_, p. 156 and various articles in _J.R.A.S._ 1909-10.] [Footnote 371: X. i, vi.] [Footnote 372: III. i. 23, Ulâro so Kaṇho isi ahosi. But this may refer to the Rishi mentioned in _R.V._ VIII. 74 who has not necessarily anything to do with the god Kṛishṇa.] [Footnote 373: See Hemacandra Abhidhânacintâmani, Ed. Boehtlingk and Rien, p. 128, and Barnett's translation of the _Antagada Dasāo_, pp. 13-15 and 67-82.] [Footnote 374: Apparently the same as the Vṛishṇis.] [Footnote 375: III. XV.] [Footnote 376: It would seem that the temple of Dvârakâ was built between the composition of the narrative in the Mahâbhârata and of the Vishṇu Purâṇa, for while the former says the whole town was destroyed by the sea, the latter excepts the temple and says that whoever visits it is freed from all his sins. See Wilson, _Vishṇu Purâṇa_, V. p. 155.] [Footnote 377: A most curious chapter of the Vishṇu Purâṇa (IV. 13) contains a vindication of Kṛishṇa's character and a picture of old tribal life.] [Footnote 378: Neither can I agree with some scholars that Kṛishṇa is mainly and primarily a deity of vegetation. All Indian ideas about the Universe and God emphasize the interaction of life and death, growth and decay, spring and winter. Kṛishṇa is undoubtedly associated with life, growth and generation, but so is Śiva the destroyer, or rather the transmuter. The account in the Mahâbhâshya (on Pân. III. 1. 26) of the masque representing the slaughter of Kaṃsa by Kṛishṇa is surely a slight foundation for the theory that Kṛishṇa was a nature god. It might be easily argued that Christ is a vegetation spirit, for not only is Easter a spring festival but there are numerous allusions to sowing and harvest in the Gospels and Paul illustrates the resurrection by the germination of corn. It is a mistake to seek for uniformity in the history of religion. There were in ancient times different types of mind which invented different kinds of gods, just as now professors invent different theories about gods.] [Footnote 379: The Kṛishṇa of the Chândogya Upanishad _receives_ instruction but it is not said that he was himself a teacher.] [Footnote 380: Hopkins, _India Old and New_, p. 105.] [Footnote 381: Bhandarkar. Allusions to Kṛishṇa in Mahâbhâshya, _Ind. Ant._ 1874, p. 14. For the pastoral Kṛishṇa see Bhandarkar, _Vaishṇavism and Śaivism_, chap. IX.] [Footnote 382: The divinity of Râdhâ is taught specially in the Brahma-vaivarta Purâṇa and the Nârada pâncarâtra, also called Jñânâmṛitasâra. She is also described in the Gopâla-tâpanîya Upanishad of unknown date.] [Footnote 383: But Kaṃsa appears in both series of legends, _i.e._, in the Ghata-Jâtaka which contains no hint of the pastoral legends but is a variant of the story of the warlike Kṛishṇa.]