It is currently Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Was Krishna's Mother a Virgin?

Because of the Zeitgeist movie, many questions have come up regarding this issue. I have therefore been inspired to create this post. The following constitutes a summary of the case for the Indian god Krishna to have been born of a virgin mother. Each of these points can be expounded upon at length.

Let me preface this analysis by saying that I am well aware of the orthodox Krishna myth that claims the god's mother, Devaki, had previously given birth to seven other children. The thesis upon which I am operating - and which I myself did not make up but have come to conclude through logical assessment - is that in the Krishna tale we are not talking about real people but about myths. In the world of mythology, gods and goddesses can have a number of children and still be considered "chaste" or "virginal." It is this thesis that I am demonstrating here. Indian Hindu scholars themselves cite primary sources such as the Mahabharata, Bahvricha Upanishad and Srimad Bhagavatam making the case.

1. In Indo-European myth the dawn goddess is an inviolable virgin. Citations: Here, here and here.

2. The dawn goddess gives birth to the sun. Citations: Here, here and here.

3. Aditi is an ancient name for the dawn goddess in Indian mythology. Citations: Here, here and here.

4. Aditi is a mythical character, not a real person. Citations: Here, here and here.

5. Aditi is the "eternal virgin" or the "celestial virgin." Citations: Here, here, here and here.

6. Aditi is the mother of eight children. Citations: Here, here and here.

7. Krishna's mother, Devaki, is the mother of eight children. Citations: Here, here and here.

8. Devaki is an incarnation of Aditi. Citations: Here, here, here and here.

9. Vishnu is one of the sons of Aditi. Citations: Here, here and here.

10. Vishnu is a sun god. Citations: Here, here and here.

11. Krishna is an avatar or incarnation of Vishnu. Citations: Here, here, here and here.

12. Krishna is a mythical character, not a real person. Citations: Here, here, here.

13. Devaki is a mythical character, not a real person. Citations: Here, here and here.

14. Devaki, once as a newlywed teenager whose marriage was evidently unconsummated but who becomes impregnated by eating fruit. Citation: Here.

15. Devaki is the chaste mother of Krishna. In the Srimad Bhagavatam (10.3.43), Devaki is specifically called "chaste" : "O supremely chaste mother ..... " Citations: Here, here and here. Chaste can be defined as "virgin" as it's often used as a synonym.

16. Krishna was conceived via an immaculate, miraculous or sexless conception. The Srimad Bhagavatam (10.3.17) also says: "You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already." Citations: Here, here and here.

Logical conclusion based on these facts and suppositions:

Krishna is a mythical personification of Vishnu, who is a sun god. Devaki is a mythical personification of Aditi, who is the "Eternal Virgin" dawn goddess. Devaki is a virgin mother dawn goddess who gives birth to Krishna the sun god.

That's the whole case made in Suns of God regarding this issue.

Further conclusions:

1. We did not make up this contention that Krishna's mother was a chaste virgin. 2. There is good reason for this conclusion.

Notes: "Suppositions" refer to our contention that Devaki and Krishna are myths and not real people, the latter being believed by many people. The rest are facts regarding their myths.

Although most of these sources cited are Indian scholars, we do not possess irrational prejudice against Western scholars by assuming that they are not intelligent enough to understand Indian religion and mythology.

Disclaimer: We understand that there are many fervent believers in the religion of Krishna. This exploration of the meaning behind various aspects of Indian mythology should not be construed as an attack on believers. However, we have come to these conclusions based on sound evidence and facts. Therefore, we do not deserve to be abused, insulted, disparaged and disrespected for coming to this logical, reasonable and rational conclusion. The reader, of course, is free to believe whatever he or she wishes.

If you are interested in a forthcoming ebook on the subject, please join my mailing list for future updates.



The Hidden Story of Jesus by Robert Beckford

Zeitgeist part 1 is merely a 25 minute basic introduction into the world of comparative religion, mythology and astrotheology. Read the Sourcebook for more information.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:56 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Who Says Krishna's Mother was a Virgin?

There have been many references to Krishna's mother as a "virgin" over the centuries, some of which I provide here. Whenever I read these types of remarks, I do not immediately dismiss them and their authors, derogatorily and haughtily presuming that they are wrong, fabricated or mendacious, but I investigate further in order to see from where precisely this information may have come.

From studies of comparative religion and mythology, we can conclude the virgin-birth motif was evidently viewed at least at certain times as a "mystery," even within Christianity. (See here, here and here.) Thus, we would not necessarily expect outright proclamations of this motif within various exoteric religious teachings. There are, however, hints of it even in exoteric Hinduism, for example, and, on top of that, various writers over the ages who reported Krishna's mother as a "virgin" may have been members of secret societies and mystery schools that transcend nationality and allow secret doctrines to be shared. An indication of this esoteric knowledge within Hinduism may be seen in the following fascinating quote by an Indian Hindu initiate.

In his book Sree Krishna: The Lord of Love, Baba Premanand Bharati remarks:

Quote:
...During the Golden Age and the greater portion of the Silver Age all men and women are, what Christians call, virgin-born. The fuss that is made about this immaculate conception succeeds only to excite a smile of pity in the Shastra-enlightened Hindoo - a smile of pity for the ignorance of the facts in the past history of the human race of which they seem to know so little and care less to know more. This fact about the Golden and Silver Ages, this generally prevailing immaculate conception, ought to open their eyes. If they require any authority for this statement, I refer them to the study of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata.

As we can see, this Indian initiate states outright that all individuals born during the entire Golden Age and most of the Silver Age are the result of immaculate conceptions and virgin births! According to Bharati, the Golden Age or Satya Yuga lasted some 1,728,000 years - such an immense period, of course, would have produced many virgin-born individuals. He further indicates that this knowledge is available to the "Shastra-enlightened Hindu" (but perhaps not to anyone else) and that it is indicated in the Mahabharata, a pre-Christian Indian text. Whether or not we believe in such ages is immaterial to this discussion. These remarks are extremely important and must be kept in mind when studying any religion but especially Hinduism as discussed here, so that we may understand there are mysteries not widely available to the masses through mainstream texts and teachings.

Indeed, that "the mysteries" in general have existed and continue to exist is a fact, as is the existence of brotherhoods and mystery schools. In the past, divulgence of mysteries was considered a capital offense, and not a few people have been killed because of supposedly committing just such an offense. (And, we can see from the rabid and deranged manner in which my work and I are treated that this nasty business of censorship continues to this day.)

These facts must be recalled when discussing any religious idea or doctrine that is not necessarily well known to the public. In any event, the following quotes regarding Krishna's mother are provided here in order to demonstrate that neither I nor any other single individual to my knowledge has simply "fabricated" this notion of virginity. Where there is smoke, there may well be fire, and I have given reasons in the post above to conclude that the fire appears real but may have been extinguished at some point in an ongoing effort to make the characters of Hindu mythology appear to be "real people," as well as to bury a mystery.

One source of much smoke is another Indian writer who, in his remarks regarding Krishna, may have known the information discussed by Swami Bharati. In his book Bhagavad Gita: The Divine Message, an Indian disciple of the Indian guru Ramakrishna, Swami Abhedananda, states:

Quote:
The Hindus have worshipped from ancient times the baby Krishna in the arms of Virgin Devaki just as the Roman catholics [sic] worship Madona [sic] with baby Christ.

Was Abhedananda privy to information kept from the public at large but transmitted to him from his master Ramakrishna? Or was this Indian mystic simply deluded by clever Westerners who nonetheless had absolutely no knowledge of the Hindu "Shastra enlightenment" that described the long Golden Age of virgin births?

If what Swami Bharati says is common knowledge among initiates - and his comment about "the Shastra-enlightened Hindoo" indicates that it is - we can imagine that the virgin-birth mystery was shared not only among Indian members of the brotherhood and mystery schools but also with outsiders who nonetheless were likewise members of a secret society, fraternity or mystery school. Indeed, such exchange of mysteries is not only hinted at but spelled out by various writers who were Freemasons. As Mason Godfrey Higgins remarks in his Anacalypsis:

Quote:
I was also told by a gentleman who was in the strictest intimacy with the late -----Ellis, Esq., of the Madras establishment; that Mr. Ellis told him, that the pass-word and forms used by the Master Masons in their lodge, would pass a person into the sanctum sanctorum of an Indian temple; that he, Mr. Ellis, had, by means of his knowledge as a Master Mason, actually passed himself into the sacred part or adytum of one of them. Soon after Mr. Ellis told this to my informant he was taken suddenly ill, and died, and my informant stated, that he had no doubt, notwithstanding the mistake which his friends call it in giving some medicine, that he was poisoned by his servants for having done this very act, or for being known to possess this knowledge.

It is thus possible that some of the individuals who related the virgin birth of Krishna were in possession of this mystery out of India. It is further possible that this information was subsequently censored, as in the case of Sir William Jones, a judge of the Supreme Court in Calcutta and probable Mason, who removed the virgin-birth motif regarding Krishna from his original Asiatic Researches, volume 1, possibly for the reason given by Godfrey Higgins above. As concerns the India-Masonic connection, after mentioning that the composer Beethoven had been reading India-related writings by Sir William Jones, the author of Beethoven Forum remarks:

Quote:
This attention to Eastern ways of thought is strongly suggestive of Masonic preoccupations, for intellectuals of the period came to Eastern thought in all its manifestations through the Masonic literature and by way of the "oriental" rites that were practiced by the Freemasons in their exotic temples.... Eastern religion and literature was a special preserve of the Freemasons...

In 1784, Sir Jones published the first volume of his series called Asiatic Researches, which would become very popular with the European elite. Four years later, in 1788, the first volume was reissued, this time gutted of pertinent information regarding Krishna, including his virgin birth. It appears that copies of the original edition of 1784 were destroyed where they were found; however, some must have survived, such that we can reproduce what was originally found there and then removed.

Most important were two quotes in the original first volume of Asiatic Researches by Sir Jones stating that Krishna's mother was a "virgin," one of which claimed this contention could be found in "the Sanskrit Dictionary" purportedly compiled 2,000 years previously. Fortunately these quotes and others were preserved by the "heretic" Rev. Robert Taylor, who for his efforts at spreading the message about the patent unoriginality of the gospel story of Jesus Christ was imprisoned twice in Great Britain in the 1820s on charges of blasphemy. To my knowledge, Jones's commentary from 1784 regarding Krishna's virgin birth is the first in any English publication. It is possible, however, that the motif was written about elsewhere in the previous lingua franca, Latin, or in another language such as German. The virgin-birth motif discussed by Swami Bharati may, in fact, be found in some esoteric Indian text as well, as there are purportedly some 10,000 texts in a variety of Indian dialects that remain untranslated into any other language.

According to Rev. Robert Taylor, the remarks by Sir William Jones originally found in Asiatic Researches, vol. 1, p. 259, are as follows:

Quote:
[Krishna] was born from the left intercostal rib of a Virgin, of the royal line of Devaci, and after his manifestation on earth, returned again to his heavenly seat in Vaicontha.

Further on in Asiatic Researches, volume 1, on p. 273, according to Rev. Taylor in his Syntagma, appeared the following quote from Sir Jones:

Quote:
"In the Sanscrit Dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole story of the incarnate deity born of a virgin..."

Concerning Jones's statements, the much-maligned Kersey Graves also reports:

Quote:
Sir William Jones says:

"The Indian incarnate God Chrishna, the Hindoos believe, had a virgin mother of the royal race, who was sought to be destroyed in his infancy about nine hundred years before Christ...."

Writing prior to Graves was Logan Mitchell, author of Christian Mythology Unveiled, who likewise reproduced a quote purportedly from Sir Jones:

Quote:
Sir William Jones...confesses that, "the name of Chrishna, and the general outline of his story, was long anterior to the birth of our Saviour... In the Sanskrit Dictionary, compiled more than two thousand years ago, we have the whole story of the incarnate Deity, BORN OF A VIRGIN, and miraculously escaping in his infancy from the reigning tyrant of his country."

In my book Suns of God, I go into a long investigation of what allegedly appeared in the original volume 1 of Asiatic Researches and what happened to it afterwards. It is quite clear that the reissued text had been expurgated, with the pertinent part and others removed. It is also evident from the quotes I provide there and my analysis thereof that these individuals, Taylor, Graves and Logan, provided three independent sources verifying that the contentions about Krishna's virgin mother were in fact in the original volume 1 of Asiatic Researches, apparently on pp. 259 and 273. When we go to edition reissued in 1788, of course, they are no longer there.

The question is was this highly germane virgin-birth mention removed because it was in error--a hoax played by Jones or upon him?--or because it constituted a mystery that was not to be known by the "vulgar masses?" The remarks from Swami Bharati would indicate the latter to be true: To wit, the virgin-birth motif is (or was) found in the mysteries of India but is not widely known outside of the esoteric circle of fraternities and mystery schools.

It should be reminded that the point of providing these quotes is not to hold up their authors or originators as ultimate authorities on the virginal status of Krishna's mother but to demonstrate: a) that this contention did not originate with me or anyone else in the past century; b) that various shenanigans have taken place surrounding this issue that pique one's curiosity; and c) that these quotes and mystery provide a jumping off point worthy of further inquiry.

Another person who refers to Devaki as the "virgin mother of Krishna" is Dr. Meg McGavran Murray, a professor at Missippi State University, in Face to Face: Fathers, Mothers, Masters, Monsters--Essays for a Nonsexist Future.

Lending further credence to this idea, in Mother goddess in Indian art, archaeology & literature, Mahesh Chandra Prasad Srivastava raises Devaki and then relates, "In her character of Great Mother, the Feminine is a virgin..." (p. 98 ) He also states that the "virgin mother was worshipped in [the] Indus valley." (p. 26)

Others who have followed suit with commenting upon the virginal status of Devaki include the ex-priest Joseph McCabe and those whose remarks may be found here, here, here, here, here and here. All of these texts, it should be noted, long predate the publications of my works, which therefore had no influence on them. Again, they are provided here not as authorities proving that the mythical Devaki was at any point considered not only chaste but also virginal but in order to demonstrate that the concept was in people's minds long before I myself wrote anything on the subject.

For more information on this mystery of the mysteries, please see my book Suns of God.

Disclaimer: We understand that there are many fervent believers in the religion of Krishna. This exploration of the meaning behind various aspects of Indian mythology should not be construed as an attack on believers. However, we have come to these conclusions based on sound evidence and facts. Therefore, we do not deserve to be abused, insulted, disparaged and disrespected for coming to this logical, reasonable and rational conclusion. The reader, of course, is free to believe whatever he or she wishes.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Some Words about Mainstream Sources

One thing I note about the academics and experts on the subject of Krishna, for example, is that they almost exclusively rely on mainstream texts that are readily available in their libraries and have been on curricula for decades or centuries. They seldom seem to know about the more esoteric texts, such as those that spurred the Asiatic Researches volumes compiled by Sir William Jones; or the travel accounts of Abbe Huc, who was excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of his discoveries regarding the startling similarities between the religion and story of Jesus and those of gods in the East; or the work of Edward Moor, who likewise discovered some parallels hidden from vulgar view between Krishna or other Indian gods and Jesus Christ; or that of Godfrey Higgins, who was a magistrate in India and who was allowed into the inner workings of the Hindu priesthood.

I am not particularly impressed by the mainstream scholars who merely parrot the approved texts, many of which were handed to the Western world by the Hindu priesthood expressly in order to prevent outsiders from knowing about more esoteric traditions, which are unknown to the rank-and-file Hindu believers as well. When academic experts on the Krishna material expound upon various characteristics attributed to him, they give the impression that we are discussing a monolithic entity who really and truly walked the earth and has a strict and factual biography. In my studied opinion, Krishna was not a real person with a factual biography set in stone.

I realize I risk the wrath here of both scholars and Hindu fanatics, but I am not about to go on record stating that I believe that an Indian incarnation of the god Vishnu with blue skin, as fantastically depicted in the Mahabharata and elsewhere, was a "real person." It must be constantly kept in mind that the stories about Krishna were not written down all at once, shortly after he purportedly existed. The Mahabharata, for instance, is a composite text passed along orally for centuries and written down in sections much later by a wide variety of hands separated by hundreds of years and well into the common era. Nor are the story and character of "Krishna" considered to be exactly the same in various parts and eras of India; indeed, while Krishna is a god and hero in many parts of India, he is considered an "impious wretch" in others. When the subject is studied in depth, it becomes evident that we are talking about a mythical, composite character much the same as I aver Jesus to be. Hence, it is quite misleading to state definitively what exactly Krishna's story and characteristics have been - they have changed and mutated from era to era and place to place, precisely as happened with the tales of Christ, as related in not only the gospels but also the apocrypha such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. When all the exoteric (New Testament) and esoteric (apocryphal) texts about Jesus are factored together, do we have a uniform, set-in-stone story of Christ, with no discrepancies and all voices about him concurring in every detail? The answer to that question is NO. The same can and should be said of Krishna, as well as Buddha.

Hence, the point about this expert or that making definitive statements about Krishna, as if he and he alone possesses the entire truth about the subject, is moot. In addition to the arguments already provided, I submit that much data about Krishna is not only held back by the current and past authorities of Hinduism, but is also LOST and unknown to them, comprising both written material and numerous oral traditions passed by countless priesthoods around the populous Indian subcontinent for centuries to millennia. As another point, there are purportedly some 10,000 ancient texts in a variety of Indian languages that have not even been translated - what could these texts contain, characteristics and doctrines of the Indian religions previously unknown to experts and authorities? The chance is quite likely.

For more on this fascinating subject, including responses to the criticisms of Christ Conspiracy that evangelists and scholars alike rehash, please see my book Suns of God.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Born-Again Virginity in the Mahabharata

The status of a holy woman becoming a "born-again virgin" is discussed as a mystery by Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexander, before Christianity was in currency or even existed, in actuality.

Lo and behold, as indicated by Swami Bharati, there turn out to be a number of instances of such "born-again virginity" in the famous Indian epic, the Mahabharata, much of which predates the common era by at least six centuries, by conservative dating.

Quote:
...Draupadi is stated to have become virgin (kanya) afresh even after her union with any of the five brothers whom she was married with... Madhavi is said to have become virgin after several issues... Satyavati and Kunti became kanya after giving birth to Vyasa and Karna respectively.

Tribes in the Mahabharata

The same is recounted in "Bheel Mahabharata: Kunti and the Birth of the Sun-God's Child":

Quote:
The Mahabharata here mentions clearly that Soorya [Surya] did not have sex with [Kunti], but impregnated her through his yogic power so that her maidenhood remained undamaged....

Thus in the first narration of the story Karna is the result of actual sex between Kunti and Soorya, in the second Kunti and Soorya do not have sex and the consummation of the invocation is through a yogic process, leaving Kunti's virginity intact, making Karna's birth an 'immaculate' one and Kunti a virgin mother in the most inclusive meaning of the term.

Yet another summary of the same part of the Mahabharata:

Quote:
To test her power, [Kunti] invoked Surya, the sun deva, and Karna was born to her--yet she remained a virgin.

-- Paramahansa Yogananda, The Bhagavad Gita, xxxiii

With such a fact in mind, it is difficult to see why Hindus take offense at the suggestion that Krishna's mother likewise may have been one of these "born-again virgins," especially when it is apparent after close scrutiny that we are not discussing a "real person" but a mythical character.

It is interesting to note that one of these born-again virgins, Kunti, who is likely also a mythical character, is graced with the epithet "Devi," meaning "divine." While Devi gives birth to Karna, Krsna's mother is Devaki. Meanwhile another Krishna, the legendary Mahabharata composer himself, was likewise said to be the offspring of the born-again virgin Satyavati.

Regarding this character Draupadi, in The Cult of Draupadi, Dr. Alf Hiltebeitel, a professor of Hinduism at George Washington University, states (pp. 8-9):

Quote:
The Mahabharata does, to be sure, convey the impression that Draupadi abstains from sexual relations with her husbands during the period of forest exile... But beyond that interval, she is a normal wife and mother. In the Draupadi cult, however, she is a virgin. This is only hinted at in the dramatists' song's references to her "chastity." A pattini (verses 11, 17 and 18; Sanskrit patni) is a wife, but with the connotation of one who remains faithful to her husband... But it can also refer to a virgin. The chapbook pucari songs leave no doubt that Draupadi is the latter:

You are a virgin lady [kumariyare], my mother...

(NM, 16, II. 10-11)

Hiltebeitel also states of Draupadi (pp. 75-76):

Quote:
And though she is ever a virgin, she usually shares her garbhagrha ["womb house"] with one or more of her husbands...Draupadi...whose cult requires that she be a virgin with the paradoxical complement of husbands and sons who have always shared her story in the Mahabharata.

As the Mahabharata itself states: "Without doubt, through the grace of that god, I once more became a virgin."

Quote:
Karna is a hero...in the Indian epic the Mahabharata... He is the son of...Kunti...and the Sun... Karna was the firstborn of Kunti while she was still a virgin (see Virgin Birth). By invoking a spell taught her by the sage Durvasa, Kunti became impregnated by the "light of the Universe."

David Leeming, A Dictionary of Asian Mythology, 97.

Quote:
Kordabbu--This epic of the Tulu-speaking people of southern India tells the story of the magical and apparently virgin-born (see Virgin Birth) hero...Kordabbu...

A Dictionary of Asian Mythology, 99.

If these mere mortals were granted such a status, why would not Krishna's mother be as well?

It seems that many of the individuals who have objected to this notion of Krishna's mother being just such a born-again virgin are not aware of the presence of this mystery theme in the Mahabharata.

Further evidence which contradicts the claim that Hindu tradition is "unconcerned with virginity" appears in the use of the word "virgin" in several instances throughout the Mahabharata--indeed the fact that some of the major characters in the MHb are concerned with their virginity or the products of virgin birth attests to the importance of virginity within ancient Hindu thought.

Image

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Another Krishna Born of a Virgin!

Quote:
The accounts of Vyasa's birth in the MBh [Mahabharata] prefigure the greatness of his career... Immediately before Vyasa was summoned to perform his first great deed..., Satyavati told the patriarch Bhisma how she had given birth to this sage.

Quote:
...the ascetic said to me that upon delivering my child on an island in the river, "you will still be a virgin." Thus, Parasarya, the great yogi and great rsi [rishi], the son I had as a virgin, was born to me at that time, the one who is known as Dvaipayana--the blessed lord and rsi who, by the power of ascesticism, divided the Vedas into four, and hence became in the world Vyasa, and because of his darkness, Krsna.

Bruce M. Sullivan, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa and the Mahābhārata, 28.

This Krishna--whose mother gave birth while "still a virgin"--is the legendary author of the Mahabharata itself.

Dr. Sullivan--a Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University who specializes in Hinduism and Sanskrit literature--continues:

Quote:
The bard Vaisampayana tells a very similar story about the birth of Vyasa... A brahmin rsi named Parasara, struck by the beauty of the young woman ferrying him across the Yamuna River, made advances toward her. When she protested that holy men on either bank could see them, he created a fog that hid them, and when she said that losing her virginity would make going back home unendurable, the sage...promised her that after their love-making, she would still be virgin...

Bruce M. Sullivan, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa and the Mahābhārata, 28.

And again, Sullivan states:

Quote:
The reciter Sauti also gives an account of Vyasa's birth, in which he describes the rsi Krsna Dvaipayana as follows:

Quote:
...he whom Kali bore from Parasara, the son of Sakti, even as a virgin...

Bruce M. Sullivan, Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa and the Mahābhārata, 29.

See also this rendition of the "sage" Krishna's birth in the MHb.

The bottom line is this: Whether or not "the" Krishna's mother, Devaki - a term simply meaning "Divine One" and reflecting her mythical status - was a virgin, there was a Krishna predating the Christian era by centuries who was allegedly born of a virgin. Indeed, this virgin-born Krishna was the supposed composer of one of India's most fabulous literary works and greatest epics. It would be just a tad difficult for people educated in the other cultures of the known world to ignore this conspicuous story attached to some of the most popular Hindu holy scriptures. In my opinion, it is more than likely there was at least one copy of the Mahabharata at the Library of Alexandria. And the students there undoubtedly included those with priestly inclinations and a fascination for religion and religious competition. The various priesthoods loved to regale each other with their fabulous tales, and visiting Hindu priests, Brahmins, Gymnosophists, etc., would surely have related some of their most beloved and long-lived stories, especially as contained in the Mahabharata.

In the end, Jewish priests and others engaged in the endeavor to create a new religion that would amalgamate Judaism and Paganism, while turning the major deities of other religions into Jewish figures, would have plenty of material to draw from, especially with the Hindu sacred scriptures and their VIRGIN BIRTH at their disposal.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Vishnu Incarnated as Rama via a Virgin Womb!

As further demonstration of the very prominent motif of the virgin birth within Hinduism, one of Vishnu's other incarnations--the famed demigod/hero Rama, Krishna's "brother"--is likewise "born of a virgin."

In The Cult of the Goddess Pattini, a word that means "young woman" as well as "virgin," professor emeritus of Anthropology at Princeton University, Dr. Gananth Obeyesekere relates a chant or "plaint" that addresses Vishnu and says, "In addition listen reverend sir who was born as the offspring of King Dasaratha [as Rama] born from the virgin womb of your divine mother..."

--Gananath Obeyesekere, The Cult of the Goddess Pattini, 93.

The goddess Pattini, Dr. Obeyesekere explains, is "virgin and wife and mother." He then seeks to address the following question: "How is it that men perceive Pattini as ideal wife, who is at the same time virgin and mother?" (Obeyesekere, 451.)

If you are interested in more information on the Virgin Birth, be sure to check out my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.

Image

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Indian Virgin-Mother of Antiquity

In working on my Christ Con revision, I'm digging up realms of fascinating material on the Krishna myth, including much information regarding the concept of a virgin-mother goddess in India. I've written about this notion many times previously, including in my book Suns of God, as well as in this very thread.

As an important adjunct, one should be familiar with the work of Dr. Marguerite Rigoglioso, who meticulously details a "cult of divine birth" and numerous "virgin mother goddesses of antiquity," which are the titles of her two books on the subject. Although she has not (yet) covered Indian mythology, she sets the milieu in which this concept of the Indian virgin-mother goddess must be understood.

The Indian virgin-mother motif makes itself brilliantly clear in the Bahvricha Upanishad, a devotional to the Goddess in which appears the following:

Quote:
...The Goddess was indeed one in the beginning. Alone she emitted the world-egg...
Of Her was Brahma born; was Vishnu born...
She, here, is the Power Supreme....
She alone is Atman... She is the Science of Consciousness...
She who is contemplated as "That which I am' or "I am He"... the Virgin, the Mother...

This text reveals the very ancient concept of the parthenogenetic female creator or creatrix of the cosmos, who needs no male to produce, bringing forth as a "virgin." Virgin and mother, alone she produces the "world-egg."

A splendid example, indeed. Now I need a scientifically devised date for this text.

With this understanding - as well as the fact that in the Mahabharata there are a number of "born-again virgins," so to speak, who continue to be deemed kanyā even after having given birth several times - we can fathom why Krishna's mother, herself viewed as a goddess, would likewise be placed in the category of parthenogenetic creatrix.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 12:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Framing the Debate

Someone on my Supercon Yahoo group made the following comment:

Quote:
I am not as erudite as many people on this list with reference to comparative mythology but my only critique of Acharya's hypothesis is that she has stated in many articles that Krishna is said to have been born of a virgin - this is completely untrue as most Indian literature on Krishna from the BC's through the AD's state that he is the 8th child of Devaki- so this could not be true

My response was as follows:

Thank you.

You say I make this claim that "Krishna's mother is a virgin" in "many articles." Actually, I've written extensively about the subject of whether or not there is the concept of virgin birth within Indian religion in general, including in my book Suns of God and elsewhere. There most assuredly is. A number of characters in the Mahabharata, for example, are said to be "virgin born," and their mothers are claimed to have their virginity renewed. One of these virgin-born figures is the legendary composer of the Mahabharata, whose name is Krishna. Thus, in pre-Christian Indian tradition there is at least one Krishna who is virgin-born.

http://freethoughtnation.com/component/ ... f-god.html

In fact, rather than just dropping the claim in everywhere without any kind of discussion, I have written extensively about the subject of whether or not "the" Krishna could be considered among these virgin-born figures as well. In Suns of God, I included a lengthy chapter specifically to address this subject, "Krishna Born of A Virgin?" In this chapter - an excerpt of which which has been online for many years - I addresses in detail the issue of Devaki's other children, a motif not much different from the Virgin Mary likewise depicted as having eight children; yet, she is perpetually a virgin. Since SOG was published in 2004, I have continually written about this subject to show that we are dealing with a MYTH, and with myths not all things are set in stone.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin.htm

So, it's not just that I'm running around dropping sentences like "Krishna was born of a virgin" in a bunch of articles. My analysis of this issue is quite specific and addresses the virgin-mother concept from remotest times, including in India. When one follows the development of the Krishna MYTH there is reason to suggest that his mother, Devaki, is another of this very ancient virgin-mother-goddess class.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/virgin-moth ... esses.html

Indeed, in one myth, the newlywed teenager Devaki - presumably a virgin before her marriage - complains that her new husband is too old and subsequently becomes pregnant from eating half a fruit. Again, such tales demonstrate that we are dealing with a MYTHICAL figure, and within mythology many different and contradicting motifs occur.

Moreover, an analysis of Devaki as a mythical figure reveals that she is quite likely the fictional personification of the dawn goddess Aditi. Aditi most assuredly is depicted as parthenogenetically giving birth to numerous other entities. "Parthenogenesis" is the technical term for "virgin birth" - so common are they in antiquity that there is a scholarly genre by this name. Aditi is, in reality, autogenetic, giving birth from herself, like the original divine-mother concept.

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributi ... ddess.html

So, as we can see, there is much more to this issue than meets the eye. As I say, I've written extensively about the subject, some of which you can also read here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1597

Cheers.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Wasting Time Arguing About the Indian Virgin Birth

I'm hearing reports of what is evidently a concerted effort to troll forums, Youtube and social networks to harp on this one motif, in order to discredit my work and by extension Jesus mythicism as a whole. This particular attribute is not something that I spend much time on, after dedicating an entire chapter about it in my book Suns of God. It comprises a tiny percentage of my work or the massive body of mythicist literature overall.

As is demonstrated from this thread alone, there is plenty of reason to suggest - as others have done long before me - that Krishna's mother was a "chaste virgin." I will not rehash the arguments here, as one can read through this fairly lengthy thread. Suffice it to say that we are talking about MYTHS, which frequently change, and that MYTHICAL figures do not possess genitals.

Distraction Fallacy

In any event, what we are seeing here is a distraction fallacy, harping and carping on one purported "error" in order to discredit an entire body of work. As fellow mythicist Herb Cutner pointed out so eloquently:

Quote:
Long ago the celebrated Dr. Bentley, in trying to dispose of Anthony Collins, had found one very fine method: convict your Freethinking opponent of fraud, ignorance, and bad scholarship, and his thesis falls to the ground. I should say rather, try to convict your opponent by this method, for some of the mud thrown is sure to stick.... By thus concentrating on mistakes of grammar or Greek, the reader is unwarily led away from the main issue which is exactly what the critic wants. Over and over again Christian controversialists have pursued this method, as if it always mattered greatly that a present tense of Greek should be the imperfect, or that a date should be conjectured as, let us say, 1702 when it ought to be 1712 in the opinion of somebody else. (27-28)

Do not be drawn into this time-wasting trolling. While the examination of this "chaste mother" motif may yield some interesting textual discoveries, in the long run it is completely irrelevant to the Christ-myth thesis overall.

Even if we were to pretend that Devaki was a real person with genitalia, and that she was truly the sexually active yet "chaste" mother of eight real children, we do not need this particular story in order to demonstrate that the virgin-mother motif existed for eons before the common era, long before a purportedly historical Jesus Christ allegedly was born miraculously of a virgin mother.

Parthenogenetic Mythical Motif

In this regard, then, Christ's allegedly miraculous virgin birth is not original or unique, and we can ignore it as much as we disregard the supposedly miraculous births of hundreds more deities, heroes, kings and so on. Or we can choose to learn what the virgin-mother motif is all about. It is quite simple: The "virgin genesis" or parthenogenetic creation of the cosmos out of one divine being. The original being - logically believed in antiquity to be a female, since it is females who bring forth offspring - had no partner and thus produced parthenogenetically, without congress with any other being.

This notion is traceable through Egyptian mythology, possibly 7,000 years ago, with the goddess Neith. In order to become hung up on this Indian virgin birth - and I have demonstrated above that the Indians assuredly did possess the notion of a virgin birth, as can be found in the Mahabharata - one must either forget or remain ignorant of the parthenogenetic goddess motif from thousands of years ago.

Those who argue out of ignorance that there is no pre-Christian virgin-birth motif are either Christian apologists, who believe in only one virgin birth that actually happened historically; or skeptics evidently claiming that the Christians made up the motif ex nihilo. Both beliefs are unscientific. A historical Jesus of Nazareth was not born of a young Jewish virgin; nor did the writers of the gospel simply make up the story without precedent.

Testimony of Justin

The fact is that the motif is not unique and that the gospel writers did not make it up. We have early Church father Justin Martyr's testimony alone to prove that fact, when he refers to the virgin birth of the Greek hero Perseus by Danae:

Quote:
[First Apology] Chapter 21. Analogies to the history of Christ.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

In his Dialogue with Trypho (66), in defense of Christ's virgin birth, Justin also says:

Quote:
...in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower.

In chapter 22 of his First Apology, Justin reiterates the comparison between Christ's birth and that of Perseus:

Quote:
And if we affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.

But that is just one Greek virgin birth; there are many other such virgin births in Greece and elsewhere, and I've discussed them in depth.

Again, do not be pulled into this foolish strawman and red herring fallacy designed to get you hung up on this silly motif. The world is falling apart, and wasting time on such subjects is not something we should be doing.

Always keep the real issue in mind when it comes to this discussion, which is that human minds many thousands of years ago perceived creation to have been devised by a single entity, reproducing "virginally," parthenogenetically or autogenetically. It's really that simple. The Christian virgin birth is a very impoverished remake of this very ancient mythical motif.

Further Reading

The Virgin Birth
The Virgin-Born Son of the Sun God
Virgin Mother Goddesses of Antiquity
Neith, Virgin Mother of the World
ISIS IS A VIRGIN MOTHER!!!

Image

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:00 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2142
Here is an example of how the historical record is continually scrubbed in order to remove the pre-Christian virgin-birth motif. While searching for the connection between Akkadian and Vedic, I came across this website:

http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/ ... ia-part-1/

In the article "The Indus Colony in Mesopotamia" appears a reference to the birth story of the Akkadian king Sargon:

Quote:
Sargon’s birth story is an interesting one, especially to Indians. His mother, a priestess, conceived him in secret with an unknown father. She then set him adrift in a basket sealed with bitumen in the Euphrates. The river then took him to Akki the gardener who bought him up as his own son. Sounds familiar?

At the "Sounds familiar?" phrase, the writer had linked to the Wiki page on Karna, the Indian virgin-born son of the goddess Kunti. The link specifically refers to a hotlinked subsection called "Virgin Birth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karna#Virgin_birth

When one follows the link, however, the "Virgin birth" section has been removed, and there is no mention of the word "virgin" anywhere on the page, despite the fact that it is part of the myth. The "talk" section shows one attempt to discuss this subject, but that's it.

So, this sort of censorship is how the fiction of the uniqueness of Christ's birth continues to be upheld.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 5198
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
A recap:

Indian Hindu scholars themselves cite primary sources like the Mahabharata, Bahvricha Upanishad & Srimad Bhagavatam proving the case backing up ZG1.

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 7979#p7979

Here's one example:

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.3.17 "You never entered the womb of Devaki; rather, You existed there already."

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.3.32 "best of the chaste"

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.3.43 "O supremely chaste mother..."

Srimad Bhagavatam 10.3.46 "He then transformed Himself into a small human child."

Chaste: "1. not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal "
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaste?s=t

"The Hindus have worshipped from ancient times the baby Krishna in the arms of Virgin Devaki just as the Roman Catholics worship Madonna with baby Christ."
- Indian guru Ramakrishna, Swami Abhedananda

"...During the Golden Age and the greater portion of the Silver Age all men and women are, what Christians call, virgin-born. The fuss that is made about this immaculate conception succeeds only to excite a smile of pity in the Shastra-enlightened Hindoo - a smile of pity for the ignorance of the facts in the past history of the human race of which they seem to know so little and care less to know more. This fact about the Golden and Silver Ages, this generally prevailing immaculate conception, ought to open their eyes. If they require any authority for this statement, I refer them to the study of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata."
- Baba Premanand Bharati, Sree Krishna: The Lord of Love, p. 136

Those who attempt to argue that Devaki could not have been a virgin because Krishna was the 8th child of Devaki's fails because they are trying to apply mortal human qualities to an immortal supernatural goddess who never existed except in myth. Plus the fact, pointed out by Philo of Alexandria, that the ancients believed a female could re-gain her virginity & purity via sacred union with god regardless of being married &/or already having children - a type of 'BORN-AGAIN VIRGINITY' popular in ancient times.

Born-Again Virginity in the Mahabharata
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 238#p11238

Scholars Prove Zeitgeist Correct
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NklvMAxCis

_________________
Astrotheology.Net
Mythicists United
Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
2015 Astrotheology Calendar
Astrotheology Calendar Special
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube
The Mythicist Position


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Truth Be Known | Stellar House Publishing
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Live Support