The virgin birth – Theosophy’s view

[Nick the Pilot]

Christianity teaches of the virgin birth of Jesus. I thought I would explain where such a concept comes from, as seen from a theosophical perspective.

The entire universe is made up of atoms. The universe is composed of more than mere physical atoms. There are astral atoms, mental atoms, buddhic atoms, etc. A large number of astral atoms combine to make up a single physical atom, a large number of mental atoms combine to make up a single astral atom, etc. Each atom is a finer gradation of matter than the next lower, densest type of matter.

In this way, there is a hierarchy of atoms, each one being nothing more than a combination of atoms at the next higher level. But there is a limit to this hierarchy. There is a point at which we reach a core "matter" or pre-matter, from which all other types of matter are composed. This pre-cosmic pre-matter is the "substance" from which universes are created, and is called Mulaprakriti.

Mulaprakriti is said to be a virgin matter. By itself it is pure, and is not affected nor "damaged" by the process by which Mulaprakriti is used to create various types of atoms from which universes are created.

It from these ideas that the idea of virginity has been transferred to the Christian idea of the virgin birth. According to Theosophy, Mary symbolizes Mulaprakriti and the Baby Jesus symbolizes our present universe. (Mary’s name even begins with the same letter, M, as the word Mulaprakriti. M is actually from a hieroglyphic, a wavy hieroglyphic symbolizing water. Water has always been a symbol for Mulaprakriti. The word "water" in Genesis 1:1 actually refers to Mulaprakriti, not physical water, and refers to the first differentiation of Mulaprakriti into "super-physical" atoms.)

The symbolical Mary has had many symbolical children – many universes have been created from the "virgin" matter called Mulaprakriti.

In a fascinating example of cross-religious similarity, Buddhism has a similar Mulaprakriti/universe symbology. A central (and very Mary-like) diety exists in Buddhism called Gwan Yin. Gwan Yin is just as popular among Buddhists as Mary is among Christians (especially Catholics.) There are thousands of Buddhists temples dedicated to Gwan Yin, and millions of Buddhists pray to Gwan Yin everyday.

Take a look at Mary and Jesus.

Now, take a look at Gwan Yin.

Gwan Yin is usually represented as hold a small vase from which she is pouring water. (Water symbolizes Mulaprakriti, the stuff from which universes are created. Gwan Yin is also sometimes shown holding a baby, symbolizing our present universe, which was created from Mulaprakriti.)

In this way, both Mary and Gwan Yin symbolize a "virgin" material called Mulaprakriti, from which we get the concept of Jesus’ virgin birth.

Here are some Gwan Yin (Kwan Yin, Kannon Bosatsu, Avalokiteshvara) websites

http://www.circle-of-light.com/Mantras/KuanYin.html
http://www.lksf.org/eng/other/eventall/cn/culture/temple/page01.shtml
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3001.html
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/kannon.shtml

 

[Nick the Pilot]

The picture of Mary does not seem to be loading. Here is the same picture from another source.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi Sneha123, and welcome to the Forum.

Yes, This theory explains the use of the terms "virgin" and "son." It is nice to know that there is a reason why these terms are used (and an explanation of them that makes sense).

It is too bad that these terms have been manipulated over the centuries to now mean something entirely different.

 

[chakraman]

hi, i am not a theosophist but do appreciate some/much of their contribution to understanding the world/life/death etc etc et al...

this was a post i did on the virgin birth, not sure if it's saying the same thing or whether it ties in with yours or if it's correct but i thought i'd re-post it, some similarities i think::

some believe that mary did not have physical procreative union. steiner says that this is not true and he distinguishes between body and mind/spirit and points out that it is the spirit of an advanced soul that is celibate regardless of the body which is of the earth and therefore governed by physical laws.

there is also a story in the Puranas about the God incarnate Krishna,(i'm not a follower here either so no propaganda) who lived with his consort Rhada. one day a well known sage Durvasa was camped with his followers on the other side of the river. Krishna and Rhada, as good householders, prepared food for the mendicants (dharma- order). Rhada was about to deliver the food when she realised tha river was in full spate and couldnt cross it. Krishna said "go to the river and say 'if Krishna is eternally celibate, O River subside!'" Rhada new well the power of uttering the true word, but she above all knew of his amorous delights. she went to the river and asked the question, and to her surprise, the river subsided. she proceeded to take the food to Durvasa, who was pleased and ate heartily along with his disciples. when it was time to return Rhada seeing the river was again in full spate asked Durvasa for help. he said "go to the river and say 'if Durvasa is eternally fasting, O River, subside!'" she did this although she had just seen the sage eat, and the river subsided and she returned home.

it was then she realised the truth of what Krishna taught Arjuna, all action is done by Prakriti [nature] and the self is not the doer.......he who is above the gunas [constituents of Prakriti] does not abhor illumination nor impulsion to action nor delusion when they occur, nor longs for them when they cease (Bhagavad Gita 13:29, 14:22).
two birds on one tree, one eats the sweet fruit and the other looks on without eating (i.164.20).

 

[Bhaktajan II]

This is the same Krishna as known as the speaker of The Bhagvad-gita, wherein, Krishna, as an adult, advises his cousin Arjuna about Duty (Dharma); Jiv-Atma (Spirit-Soul); Isvara (God, the Controller); karma (Actions); Kala (Time); Prakriti (Material-Energy) . . . but here is Krishna as a baby with His mother while living on the dairy farm in central India 5,000 BCE.

Below is baby Krishna being chasticed by his mom.

Once Krishna's Mum found him eating dirt ---and when she looked in his mouth . . . she saw the cosmos . . . this caused her to be stunned . . . etc etc etc

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Btw, my entire "primary school years career as a kid" was spent at a catholic School named, "St Mary's School" where BTW I had been slapped by nuns several times!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Chakraman,

The idea that the mind is separate from spirit is a core Theosophical teaching. (Steiner started out as a Theosophist, but later branched out on his own because in my opinion he tried to bring Jesus into Theosophy but Theosophists wouldn’t have it.)

I see these dualities as the same thing just referred to by different names:

Mulaprakriti/Prakriti
Mother/Son
Waters/Light (in Genesis 1:2-3)

Same idea, different names.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Bhaktajan,

What was Krishna's mother's name? Is Krishna's mother/Krishna the same as Mulaprakriti/Prakriti? Is Krishna the same as Ishtara (the Ishtara from which we get the name Easter)?

 

[chakraman]

yeah i remember reading that steiner and theosophy parted company for various reasons. i like some of steiner, more his practical stuff like agriculture and natural sciences, not so much his esoteric christianity.

i was gonna start a thread on this question but i'll ask you here directly if that's ok. how does theosophy view evolution of the human form? i.e. does it think it evolved from a monkey? my research and feeling says no. more along the lines that there has always been a level of perfection, just that it goes through various stages like fire, water, matter etc...

 

[Bhaktajan II]

CORRECTION: "but here is Krishna as a baby with His mother while living on the dairy farm in central India 5,000 BCE." ---Should read: 5,000 years ago [3,000 BCE]

What was Krishna's mother's name?

His mother's name was Devaki.
His Father's name was Vasudeva.
Both were arrested and imprisoned by the mother's brother and held until the birth of Krishna, so that the Uncle could commit infanticide. The new Born was smuggled out and replaced with a niece ---who very soon later revealed herself to the Murderous Uncle to be Durga-devi ---thus momentarily stunning the Uncles plans.

Meanwhile the smuggled baby Krishna was transferred to a cousin's dairy Farm, famously known as Vrindavan ---where Krishna grew-up with his brother Bala and sister Subhadra et al [& other Bros & Sisters] ---there Krishna grew up into his late teens in his anut Yashoda & His Uncle Nanda's homestead.
The childhood "pastimes" of Krishna are famous and beloved and are also the subject matter of the highest esoteric Yogic rasas attainable.

Is Krishna's mother/Krishna the same as Mulaprakriti/Prakriti?

Krishna's mother is considered to be his eternal mother as incarnated along with the entire entourage that accompanies the Godhead whenever such pastimes are deigned to occur [ie, as it did recently: 3,000 BCE or IOW 5,000 years ago].

Mother Durga [aka, Kali] is considered to be Prakriti [manifest material energy] ---Godhead (Purusha) is male and his external-energy (Prakriti) is feminine.

MahaVishnu is accompanied by his eternal consort Lakshmi-devi ---later, prakriti/Durga emerges from MahaVishnu to do his bidding inregards to manifesting the cosmic creation.

Mula = root, base.

Is Krishna the same as Ishtara (the Ishtara from which we get the name Easter)?

"Ishvara" in sanskrit is a generic title for god ---"isha" or "Ishvara" means, Controller.

The word "Ishvara" is usually defined in Sanskrit dictionaries as “lord, master, ruler,” and also as “capable, potent to perform.”

The name David (Dey-vid) surely has its roots in the name Deva (Dey-vah).

Similarly, Yudisthira (pronuonced: Judisthira --just as in Indian Today, "Yoga" is pronounced "Joga") was the winning emperor to take the Royal-thrown after the very same civil-war that prompted the Bhagavad-Gita to be spoken at it onset. What to speak of the very comparison of sanskrit to Hebrew alphabeth. And What to speak of the very comparison of sanskrit numerals to so-called Arabic numerals.

What to speak of the very comparison of the terms/words "Brahminical" rules compared to "Rabinical" rules.

"I am spirit soul" (or, "I am in full knowledge") in sanskrit = "Aham brahmasi"




What was Krishna's mother's name? Is Krishna's mother/Krishna the same as Mulaprakriti/Prakriti? Is Krishna the same as Ishtara (the Ishtara from which we get the name Easter)?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

There is the chief "Theist" Upanishad called "Isha-Upanishad" [in contrast to the usually topics in the many Upanishads of India's Classical Scriptures which, as a group, are dedicated to discertations of impersonal aspect of the Craetions workings without regard to a personal God as the primodial Motivating factor], in that "Isha-Upanishad" of only 18 verses long, there is a concise revelation of Godhead's Status as Ishvara.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Chakraman,

According to Theosophy, we are going through three evolutions simultaneously — a physical, intellectual, and spiritual evolution. And, according to Theosophy, the three types of evolution are quite different.

We may have ‘borrowed’ monkey-like bodies to use for our human incarnations, but that is only one small part of a much larger picture. It can be said that our intellectual and spiritual evolution began before our present physical evolution in these human bodies began (but that is an oversimplification of a very complicated story).

Therefore, if we have evolved from monkey-like bodies, it only refers to our physical bodies and not our intellect or spirit.

 

[chakraman]

hi nick, yeah appreciate the difference you make between vehicle and driver/ horse and rider....

i have read that monkeys actually evolved from us...or de-evoved..lol...

it asks a few questions though on the nature of intelligence of the "monkeys" we may have evolved from or did we occupy them once they were ready like the spirit of a child connrecting with it's body in the womb.

i think theosophy has some appreciation of atlantis and the fact that we were more rarefied at that time...it would seem possible to me that we have densified into human fdorm and have always looked thus'ish....but then it also seems that we are presently evolving at a rather speeded up rate physically which would give credence to physical evolution....they had bigger ears and noises 100 years ago, shorter etc....blah, blah etc cheers for reply....

i read that at the beginning of the earth we were fire beings...like that idea...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Chakraman,

I want to distinguish humans as they were at the beginning of the world vs. monkeys. Monkeys are animals and as such are not humans. Theosophy makes a clear distinction between animals and humans.

You are probably referring to the Theosophical idea that the first humans were of a very low intelligence -- they were. It took millions of years for the human intellect to fully develop in the first humans. Humanity did not suddenly appear on earth in the form they are now, each intellectual, spiritual, etc., aspect of humanity had to be groomed and cultivated, and it took millions of years for these things to happen. (Just look around you, and see how most of still have a long way to go to develop even basic intelligence!)

But these prehistoric, low-intellect humans were humans, not animals nor monkeys. According to Theosophy, the day will come when today's animals are "promoted" to being human, but this will not happen on this earth.

Yes, as you say, the first human physical incarnation was a matter of human "souls" being born into physical "animal" bodies. But we existed as "souls" before we began our first physical incarnations. (This is actually taught in Genesis, but it is taught there in an intentionally confusing way. Our "souls" were created on "day six," and our "souls" were later connected to physical bodies in the story of Adam and Eve, which is the real meaning behind the story of Adam and Eve.)

Yes, according to Theosophy, Atlantis was a very advanced society, with electricity, airplanes, atomic power, etc. It is also said that our present society will eventually disappear just as thoroughly, with another society yet to be created on a continent that will rise out of the Pacific Ocean many centuries from now.

Yes, the earth was originally nothing more than "fire," which really means that it was originally composed of atoms finer than astal atoms or mental atoms. It has taken many billions of years for earth to evolve from higher-than-mental atoms to mental atoms to astral atoms to physical atoms (in a top-down direction).

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Chakraman,

I wanted to add that your analogy of a baby soul waiting to enter a fetus is a good one to apply to human "souls" waiting to enter into their first physical incarnation. I also wanted to add that we existed on earth for millions of years as "bodiless souls" before we ever had our first physical incarnation -- everything in evolution seems to take millions of years.

 

[chakraman]

thanks chap, things to ponder...

 

[taijasi]

Yes, according to Theosophy, Atlantis was a very advanced society, with electricity, airplanes, atomic power, etc. It is also said that our present society will eventually disappear just as thoroughly, with another society yet to be created on a continent that will rise out of the Pacific Ocean many centuries from now.

Yes, the earth was originally nothing more than "fire," which really means that it was originally composed of atoms finer than astal atoms or mental atoms. It has taken many billions of years for earth to evolve from higher-than-mental atoms to mental atoms to astral atoms to physical atoms (in a top-down direction).

And just to build on these last ideas ...

Each phase of our evolution seems to meet with cataclysms of alternating fire, then flood, fire, then flood again. This time around ... FIRE!

Meanwhile, in terms of the bigger picture, now that we've reached the `densest' stage - of physical matter - we are approximately at the midway point of Earth's evolutionary scheme {vide this page, toward the bottom, the footnote and onto the next}.

Theosophy, as per the teachings of the Vedas (and other ancient sources) indicates that now we begin our ascent *back* to the spiritual planes whence we originated and descended. We do this with the gains of consciousness + experience within and of the lower worlds, yet again and again the {Spiritual} lessons we must now face have to do with Sacrifice and Renunciation!

The `rich' man cannot enter Heaven ... as indeed, we must all become "as little children" ~ yet I don't think this means naïve or *unawares*! Else the Christ's words to His Disciples ~ "Be ye wise, as Serpents and Harmless, as doves" ~ mean naught. Nor did He give them the option either/or!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Taijasi,

I think the admonition to be as children means we must be in touch with all of our emotions and our emotional baggage. A great psychic once told me that we cannot achieve enlightenment until we take care of all of our emotional baggage. (It sure makes sense to me.)

"...the {Spiritual} lessons we must now face have to do with Sacrifice and Renunciation!"

--> But we must also remember to always take the Middle Path. There is such a thing as too much sacrifice. Buddha himself was a severe ascetic for years, but finally renounced it as being to extreme. Buddha was right -- we must always follow the middle path -- not too extreme, not too "good," etc.

 

[Dharmaatmaa]

Chakraman,
I see these dualities as the same thing just referred to by different names:

Mulaprakriti/Prakriti
Mother/Son
Waters/Light (in Genesis 1:2-3)

Same idea, different names.

I don't think it's completely truly, Nick the Pilot. You say that Mulaprakriti/Prakriti correspond with Waters/Light. Is it so?
In Waters/Light we see the waters signifying a matter, and the light standing for a spirit.
But if we even imagine that the real Mulaprakriti is a matter (that is wrong, of cause - and you know that), then we have to say that the light (=spirit) is Prakriti. But the direct translation of the Sanskrit word is "the nature".
So, it is obvious that Waters/Light symbol has very much wide meaning than the Mulaprakriti/Prakriti one.
Besides, in the Cosmogony Mulaprakriti/Prakriti describe only the manifested side of the Reality.Right? But the Waters/Light mean both unmanifested and manifested sides of it.
I'd say that it's Mother/Son that does perfectly correspond with Mulaprakriti/Prakriti. Not Waters/Light.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Dharmaatmaa,

I think it is fascinating for me to see Mulaprakriti as being unmanifested while you see it as manifested. I see it as being 'differentiated.' That is, Mulaprakriti goes from a state of undifferentiation to differentiation at the first moment of the awakening of a new universe. I would say that only the Third Logos/Prakriti/Son/Mahat/the universe achieves true manifestation.

Then there is the confusion of the word Light. Light can be used to describe the First Logos/Father/Spirit/Purusha, but can also be used to describe the Third Logos/Prakriti/Son/Mahat.

We also must deal with the confusing and intentionally-changed symbology in Genesis (which is what I was actually referring to). In Genesis we are told that spirit (First Logos/Father/Spirit/Purusha) moved cross the waters (Second Logos/differentiated Mulaprakriti/Mother/matter) which is correct. We also have God (First Logos) saying "Let there be light" (Third Logos) which is also correct. The mistake in Genesis is that the events have been purposely and intentionally listed out of order. (God is spirit, and God observes spirit -- Himself -- moving across the waters. This mistake was intentionally inserted into Genesis to incorrectly glorify God.)

I would say the term Light correctly refers to Son/Third Logos/Mahat not Father/First Logos/Purusha. Would you say Light more correctly refers to Purusha than Mahat? In your belief system, who says, "Let there be light" and who is then 'created'?

You said,

"In Waters/Light we see the waters signifying a matter, and the light standing for a spirit."

--> I see it differently. I see Light not standing for spirit, but rather for Prakriti/Son/the universe. Spirit moves across the waters and creates Light.