The discussion in this section represents only the personal views of the author with the sole purpose to activate thinking minds. Srimad Bhagwad Gita answers all the problems, provided one can apply messages of Gita conceptually using  Sankhya or logic-led conclusion. Discovering truths prevents societies from delusions. Often, we do not think much about traditional dictions and consider them as culture, history or respect them unquestionably as religious notions. In doing so we neither discover factual knowledge hidden in there nor draw any lessons from it. Let us test some of the prevalent notions on logical grounds.

Kritsna means perfect and holistic ensemble of all. Krishna means black or cyan. The question is whether His name was Krishna, the Black or Kritsna, the ‘Holistic ensemble or Beholder of All’. So what is the actual name? Many words have gone through etymological and phonetic malapropism over the eon. In due course, they were distorted. Linguistics semantics may be applied to seek the truth and discover phonological aberrations. Let us try a brief onomastic review on the name of Bhagwan Sri Krishna (or Kritsna). Kritsna means complete, perfect, holistic, omnipresent and omniscient. He is the beholder of all, as he says, and demonstrates to Arjuna the entire Brahm in himself, as well as portrays Brahm during the discourse. Thus he signifies attributes of Brahm in himself. Holistic Brahm is what Lord Kritsna represented during the discourse. On the other hand Kritsna did not utter a single word for his Cyan colour. So what is the right name of the Lord?
Bhagwan Rama was Cyan or dark complexioned too, why he was not assigned any names on his colour of skin! But Bhagwan Kritsna has two names: Krishna: Black - Shyam, cyan. Although Shyam (cyan) is not Krishna (the black) - they are different colours.
Why should he have two names for the same physical attribute and none for his divinely perfect attribute? Remember those times names were given based on one’s qualities and actions. Lord Kritsna describes himself as holistic ensemble of all and even used the word Kritsna for himself. See in Shloke 11.7, he says:

“Right here you can see the entire universe including movable and unmovable, right in my body, O Gudakesh (Arjun); this is what you wanted to see.”

Even in Shloke 11.13, Bhagwan himself says:

“Tatraikastham jagatKritsnam pravibhaktamanekadhaa |
Apashyad devadevasya shareere paandavastadaa ||

“There exists a holistic universe, including its division into many worlds (galaxies or universes) right in the body of the Lord of the Lords, (Kritsna) as seen by Arjun, a Pandav, there and then.”
In both the Shloke, Bhagwan Kritsna directly indicates entire Brahm in Himself, and demonstrated the entire universe in his body. During the discourse of Srimad Bhagwad Gita, he has presented through him the forms of Brahm- creating, preserving and beholding both the physical and metaphysical worlds and its laws. In chapter ten and eleven, he illustrated that men with the best of the actions, skills, qualities represent Him only, and that makes his entity the perfect beholder of all. His knowledge was nearly omniscient even in his human forms. This is why, he is also said to be ‘purnavatar’ i.e. ‘the complete Incarnation’. He was perfect in so many arts, skills and knowledge and seemed to be omniscient through the power of Yog. He was a perfect combination of physical might and mental genius.
Factually, in all the following Shloke or mentions, Kritsnam, the perfection, is attributed to Krishna’s works or persona, even by Himself, as he uses words like “Aham” (I) or Idam (right here) …
7.6: Bhagwan Kritsna uses “… Aham Kritsnasya” i.e. I, for entire universe… my actions and so on.
3.29: Taan Kritsna vido… (know him as perfect in knowledge of holistic Brahm)
4.17: Kritsna Karma Krit (Perfect actions…)
7.6: Aham Kritsna jagat… (I for this whole universe…)
11.7: Ihaikastham jagat Kritsnam… (right here in my body see the whole universe…)
11.13: Taraikastham jagat kritsnam (right there in my body, you can see the entire universe …)
13.33: Kritsnam lokamimam… (in this entire world…)

In the above mentions, ‘perfect’ or ‘complete’ or ‘entire’ word is important and they directly refer to Bhagwan Kritsna himself as he plays the role of Brahm.

Therefore, it is possible that Bhagwan Kritsna’s actual name was not Krishna, the Black, but Kritsna, the perfect and complete. Five thousand years is a long time for malapropism where Kritsna, the Perfect, is changed to Krishna, the Black. In those times, names represented important attributes, Arjun based on his achievements, King Janak got the name as he took care of his people like a father, Ved Vyas ji got his name because he had good knowledge of ved and also created a part of it, and so on. He is also said to be Purnavatar (the complete incarnation). He has been given names for his actions and qualities but none for his being a perfect incarnation. The following are the names of Krishna for his actions and qualities:

• Madhusudan – the slayer of Demon Madhu

• Nandlal – Son of Nand

• Gopal – the caretaker of Cows

• Makhanchor- the stealer of butter

• Devaki Nanadan – son of Devaki,

• Hrishikesh – the controller of the demon Kesh

• Kanhaiya or Kanha – means “where are you?”

• Yashoda Nandan – beloved son of mother Yashoda

• Shyam – for being cyan skinned AND ALSO, Krishna – the Black

In those days, it was very common for people to have multiple names based on their qualities, activities and achievements. Each of his names specifically indicates to his one and only quality, skill or achievement, without duplication, except the one for the color of his skin. Yet, there is big vacuum for his most important attribute, the ‘perfect and Purnavatar’. This error is not possible in those times when people were honoured by the name signifying their qualities. The error has occurred during the time, the malapropism couple dwith lost knowledge.
Kritsna’s mother Yashoda saw the entire cosmos in his mouth during his childhood. Later, during discourse of SBG on the battlefield, Arjun gets a divine vision to see his ‘Virat Swaroop’. It is possible that he was named ‘Kritsna at around 3100 BC, which was later mistaken to be Krishna, as during ‘Sruti’periods knowledge was preserved using verbal means. Krtsna and Krishna sounds similar, and hence the possible malapropism may have occurred. During Shruti periods, transcontinental movement of stories and culture was happening. Sanyasis (Hermits) who had no homes, travelled to far off places and preached Dharma.
According to Arrian, Diodorus and Strabo, Megasthenes described an Indian tribe called Sourasenoi, which especially worshipped Herakles (Hare Krishna) in their land and this land had two cities, Methora (Mathura) and Kleisobora (Krishnapura) and a navigable river, the Jobares (possibly Yamuna). Phonetic aberrations are evident here.
The pre-Christian era had a God named ‘Christos’, which was later used for Jesus as well. In fact, some believe that Christos was also black. Considering that the source of origin of Christos was from Krishna, it is difficult to explain where from the ‘t’ got introduced. So the most plausible case is that original God was Kritsna (and not Krishna), who was pronounced as Christos or Krestos in greek.
Last, but not the least, Krishna, the Black, is rather a derogatory name, instead Kritsna, the Perfect, is more honouring. In view of this, why should the then generation who considered Kritsna as God, or at least as a great messiah during his life time, confer a derogatory name to Him. It is strange. Hence, ‘Kritsna’ the perfect, is most likely to be his true name and not Krishna, the Black.