Krishna's Virgin Birth

[Ayodhya]

Was Krishna's birth virgin like that of Jesus and his mother?

[Guest guest]

Hear This Great Secret

Germany - Feb 24 2003

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

You should all come with me to Vraja.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam it has been clearly written that Krsna appeared in the jail of Kamsa, from the womb of Mother Devaki, by Vasudeva Maharaja. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami and Srila Vyasadeva both knew, however, that Krsna was only partly the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, whereas He was fully the son of Yasoda and Nanda Baba. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami knew that fact, but he concealed it, and he has said instead that Krsna came from the womb of Devaki. Later on, however, the truth came from his mouth.

There is a reason that Sri Sukadeva Gosvami did not reveal this truth clearly at first. Many problems may have come for ordinary people, and especially for the Vedic Smarta brahmanas. They would not have read the Srimad-Bhagavatam; or, they would have spoken against it. It was only very secretly, therefore, that Srila Sukadeva Gosvami told Maharaja Pariksit that Krsna took birth from the womb of Yasoda and Nanda Baba. If he had clearly explained this, from the point of view of the Smartas would Krsna have been able to act as the most beloved of all the gopis in Nandagaon, Vraja? It would have been impossible. If Krsna was born of Vraja, the gopis will have had a blood relationship with Him. It must be this way. They will either be like aunties, or like elder or younger cousin-sisters. In those cases, how would Krsna be able to perform the rasa dance with them, and how would He be able to embrace them?

In India, the Smarta-samaja (those caste brahmanas who are attached only to the external, ritualistic rules and regulations of Vedic culture) do not except this behavior, and that is why Srila Sukadeva Gosvami told the real fact secretly. Such Smartas do not know the secret tattva of the gopis and Krsna, so they may have raised this aforementioned question out of ignorance.

Why is their question based on ignorance? The gopis are not different from Krsna. They are themselves Krsna, or manifestations of Krsna. Srimati Radhika came from His left side:

ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis

tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih

goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

["I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord. He resides in His own realm, Goloka, with Radha, who resembles His own spiritual figure and who embodies the ecstatic potency [hladini]. Their companions are Her confidantes, who embody extensions of Her bodily form and who are imbued and permeated with ever-blissful spiritual rasa." (Sri Brahma-samhita 5.37)]

Nija-rupataya kalabhih. "Kala" means Krsna’s kala (plenary portion), or in other words, the kala of Radhika. Srimati Radhika is the hladini-sakti of Krsna, and all the gopis have come from hladini-sakti Srimati Radhika as Her kaya-vyuha rupa (bodily expansions). Krsna can play with His power, as one plays with his own shadow, and there is no harm in that. Similarly, the gopis dance and play with Krsna, embracing and kissing Him, and there is no harm in that. If I wrap my arms around each other, there is no harm in that. In the same way, Krsna plays with the gopis as one plays with His own shadow or His own body, in the form of the gopis. The gopis are like Krsna’s own body and atma; they are His everything. Ordinary persons – those who are not associating with Sri Narada Rsi, Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, Radha and Krsna, and especially with the associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu – cannot understand these facts.

In India, the arya-samaja* [see Endnote] and other groups say, "We accept Krsna on the battlefield of Kuruksetra, but we do not accept Vraja-raja Krsna because He was a wretched and lusty person." And they also write against Krsna. We want to help them understand, but they cannot understand. They are not qualified to understand at all. They have no samskara for this, and therefore Srila Sukadeva Gosvami tried to conceal all these facts.

Still, he could not conceal them. The truth is compared to the sun, which will automatically manifest itself at the appropriate time. If you secretly perform nonsense activities, one day the truth of this will manifest like the sun, and all will see that you are guilty. You cannot conceal any bad activities – so be careful. Cancer will come, leprosy will come, or other embarrassing diseases and situations will come, and you will always be restless. The reaction will surely come; so do not secretly engage in sinful activities.

Krsna took birth in Kamsa’s jail, and simultaneously from the womb of Mother Yasoda in Gokula. It is prominently written, however, that He took birth from Devaki and Vasudeva, and that is why Vasudeva took Him across the river. This has been written in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Vasudeva went to Gokula and secretly placed his son on Yasoda Maiyi’s bed, and then he returned to Mathura with the newborn baby daughter of Nanda Baba. Sri Sukadeva Gosvami never revealed that while Vasudeva was taking Krsna across the river, Krsna fell in the river waters, and it was Vrajendra-nandana Krsna who emerged, not Vasudeva-Krsna. Still, our highly realized acaryas like Srila Sanatana Gosvami, Srila Jiva Gosvami, and many others have explained that He who appeared in Mathura and crossed the Yamuna River was Devaki-suta and, returning from Vraja years later with Akrura was Nanda-nandana Krsna. When Akrura and Krsna and Balarama came to Yamuna Ghat, Akrura Ghat, Krsna and Baladeva disappeared and then remained in Vraja – and they who came to Mathura with Akrura were Devaki-suta Krsna and Baladeva.

Vasudeva Krsna is somewhat different from Nanda-nandana Krsna. The symptoms of Krsna when He is in Vraja are that He plays His flute and wears a peacock feather in His hair or turban. Even when Mother Yasoda binds His hair, she places a peacock feather there. From His childhood, Krsna went out in the forest to graze calves, and after that, cows. This is the symptom of Vrajendra-nandana Krsna. The son of Devaki and Vasudeva cannot, on the other hand, wear a peacock feather in His hair. He cannot play a flute, or carry a stick, and He cannot wear the dress and turban of a gopa – as these behaviors would be against social etiquette. In Dvaraka, Krsna wears a mukut (crown), He lives in palatial buildings, and He wears the dress of royalty. In Vraja He will not wear royal ornaments; He will only wear necklaces of gunja mala and flowers.

After Krsna went to Mathura, He lamented grievously. During His stay there He first took diksa and upanayana samskara (sacred thread), then He went to a Gurukula that was very far away from Mathura, and after 64 days He returned to Mathura. Then one day, sitting on the top of one of the palatial buildings in Mathura, He saw that the Yamuna was flowing very sweetly and gently. He saw it coming from Vrndavana and, very near, just to the north of Mathura, He saw Vrndavana. He remembered that all the gopis and all the cows were dying, as He had previously heard that from Lalita’s messenger and other messengers coming from Vrndavana. The calves were not grazing grass, the cows were not giving milk, the peacocks were not dancing, the cuckoos were not singing, and all of Vraja was lamenting for Krsna. Krsna was meditating on this, and also seeing this directly with His eyes of emotion (bhava-netra). He began to weep loudly, "Mother, Mother! Father, Father! Where are My friends like Subala-sakha, Madhumangala, and others? O Radhike, Lalite, Visakhe! O Mother Yasode!" Weeping for them, His many tears fell like a stream.

In the meantime, Uddhava Prabhu had been searching for Krsna here and there. He could not find Him, and finally he arrived at the top of the building where Krsna was sitting. Seeing that Krsna was weeping bitterly, he approached Him and, putting his hands on His back he said, "My dear friend, why are You weeping and lamenting?" Hearing Uddhava’s voice, Krsna began to weep even louder, and, with His voice choked, He told him, "I am remembering My mother and father, who are about to die. They have been fasting for so many days and not cooking. For whom would they cook? If I am here, they will not cook there. Their cooking vessels remain standing upside down and unclean atop the chulha (old-fashioned stove), and there are cobwebs all over the kitchen." In this way Krsna greatly lamented.

Who was Uddhava?

sri-suka uvaca

vrsninam pravaro mantri

krsnasya dayitah sakha

sisyo brhaspateh saksad

uddhavo buddhi-sattamah

["Sukadeva Gosvami said: The supremely intelligent Uddhava was the best counsellor of the Vrsni dynasty, a beloved friend of Lord Sri Krsna, and a direct disciple of Brihaspati."

(Srimad Bhagavatam 10.46.1)]

He was the prime minister of Krsna, and extremely near and dear to Him. He was a sakha, a friend of Krsna, he was His sisya, disciple, His dasa, servant, and he was also the disciple of Brihaspati. From his boyhood He used to worship Krsna like a Deity because he understood that Krsna, who had come from the womb of Mother Devaki, was there in Vrndavana. He knew this, and that is why he would continually lament and weep for Him – waiting for Him to return to Mathura. From boyhood he would chant Krsna’s name, thinking Him his very near and dear one.

Now Krsna took Uddhava’s hands in His own, and began to tell him, "Uddhava, please go at once to Vraja, where My mother and father are lamenting for Me.Pitremavaha" – all the elderly gopas and gopis in Vraja are like Krsna’s mothers and fathers, so Krsna said, "Please go and pacify them.Gopinam" – He had a great desire to tell Uddhava to go to the young gopis, but He wanted to observe the proper etiquette and not immediately that the gopis are His most beloved. He wanted to conceal this, and that is why He first told Uddhava about His mother and father.

gacchoddhava vrajam saumya

pitror nau pritim avaha

gopinam mad-viyogadhim

mat-sandesair vimocaya

["Lord Krsna said: 'Dear gentle Uddhava, go to Vraja and give pleasure to Our parents. And also relieve the gopis, suffering in separation from Me, by giving them My message.'" (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.46.3)]

Krsna told Uddhava, "Please go at once and pacify them; but do not use your intelligence or your own words to do so. I am giving you so many messages, one after the other, that you should tell the gopis. If they will be pacified by the first message, very good; otherwise tell them the next message, and if that is not effective then tell them the next, and then the next."

ta man-manaska trst-prana

mad-arthe tyakta-daihikah

mam eva dayitam prestham

atmanam manasa gatah

ye tyakta-loka-dharmas ca

mad-arthe tan bibharmy aham

["The minds of those gopis are always absorbed in Me, and their very lives are ever devoted to Me. For My sake they have abandoned everything related to their bodies, renouncing ordinary happiness in this life, as well as religious duties necessary for such happiness in the next life. I alone am their dearmost beloved and, indeed, their very Self. Therefore I take it upon Myself to sustain them in all circumstances." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.46.4)]

Krsna has explained the most confidential knowledge in the Bhagavad-gita:

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yaji mam namaskuru

mam evaisyasi satyam te

pratijane priyo 'si me

["Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend." (Bhagavad-gita 18.65)]

"Man mana bhava" means "man manaska." The gopis are man manaska, and there is no example of this other than them. Man mana bhava also refers only to the gopis, because their hearts, minds, and senses are totally absorbed in Krsna. Krsna continued, "They have given their souls, their minds and their everything to Me, and now they are about to die – but they are not dying. Why? Because they have given their souls to Me. Otherwise, if their souls were with them, they would have died at once. Mat prana – I am the life and soul of all the gopis, and all My most beloved gopis are My soul."

"Daihikah" – the gopis gave up everything in relation to their bodies. One gopi was cooking for her husband and others, and she left that. One gopi was decorating herself, one was sweeping, one was distributing prasadam to her children, husband and others; and they all stopped their activities and ran away to Krsna. They never returned back to their homes; but Yogamaya very secretly made duplicate gopi forms and she made it seem as though they were still with their families. But the real gopis never returned, especially when Krsna went to Mathura.

"Mam eva dayitam" – I am the most beloved of the gopis, and they are My most beloved. Prestham atmanam manasa – now they are as though lifeless. Ye tyakta-loka-dharmas ca mad-arthe tan bibharmy aham – they have given up all worldly activities, including even bathing and decorating themselves, and they gave up all relationships with their mothers, fathers, husbands, and others. They have given up all this for Me, so I will have to support them; but how will I be able to support them from Mathura? It is impossible. I therefore go to them in dreams, and sometimes I go personally; but they think My presence is merely a sphurti (momentary vision). When they see me they consider, "Perhaps we are mad, and that is why we think Krsna is here."

mayi tah preyasam presthe

dura-sthe gokula-striyah

smarantyo 'nga vimuhyanti

virahautkanthya-vihvalah

["My dear Uddhava, for those women of Gokula I am the most cherished object of love. Thus, when they remember Me, who am so far away, they are overwhelmed by the anxiety of separation." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.46.5)]

"The gopis are so far away from here. Smarantyo – but they remember Me. Vimuhyanti – sometimes they become faint and roll on the earth, calling, 'Krsna, Krsna.'"

dharayanty ati-krcchrena

prayah pranan kathancana

pratyagamana-sandesair

ballavyo me mad-atmikah

["Simply because I have promised to return to them, My fully devoted cowherd girlfriends struggle to maintain their lives somehow or other." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.46.6)]

Somehow they are maintaining their lives. How? Krsna has promised that He will come, "tomorrow or the next day", and this is their only hope. It is only because of this hope that they are not dying – otherwise they would have surely died. That hope, that Krsna will return, is possible because Krsna never tells a lie, and He promised He would return. The gopis were thinking, "He may be late, but He must come; so we should not die. If we die, then our fathers, mothers, and others may also die, and then Krsna will come here and see that we have all died. He will lament and weep, and He may also die. So we should not die. It may be that He will die, so we should not die."

Krsna had told the gopis, "I am coming; do not be upset. Very soon – the day after tomorrow – or after killing Kamsa – I am coming." Krsna had been with the gopis for many years, after that He went to Mathura, and from Mathura He went to Dvaraka – and He never returned. What suffering the gopis were experiencing! But still they thought, "One day Krsna will come, because He has told us so." Krsna did return to Vraja, toward the end of His manifest stay in this world, and this secret has been told in our acaryas’ commentaries to the Srimad-Bhagavatam. It has been especially described by Srila Rupa Gosvami. He did not want the gopis to be separated from Krsna and lamenting forever. None of our Gosvamis, including Sri Kavi Karnapura who is an associate of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, has written that the gopis felt perpetual separation from Krsna. Sri Kavi Karnapura described Radha-Krsna’s pastimes only up to rasa-lila and Holi, and after that he stopped the writing of his Sri Ananda Vrndavana Campu – because he was not able to tolerate Srimati Radhika’s suffering of separation.

So Krsna told Uddhava, "You must go to Vrndavana."

[*Endnote – "Those who are Aryans strictly follow the Vedic principles, but in this age of Kali a community has sprung up known as the arya-samaja, which is ignorant of the import of the Vedas in the parampara system. Their leaders decry all bona fide acaryas, and they pose themselves as the real followers of the Vedic principles." SB5.15.1 purport

Editor: Syamarani dasi

Transcriber, typist, and assistant editor: Vasanti dasi

[Sephiroth]

 

Was Krishna's birth virgin like that of Jesus and his mother?

 

Nope, there are some differences which I have noticed. Those are :

 

1. Sri Krishna have both Mother AND a Father in Worldly plains. While He maybe Vishnu Incarnated, He still have human parents. Jesus didn't have a Father, and didn't consider this adopted father (forgot his name) to be his, even when he had grown up.

 

2. Sri Krishna accepted His Worldly parents (both those who gave birth to Him as well as those who raised Him). Jesus did not - matter a fact, the Bible stated that he have rejected them as his parents and consider his god as his sole father.

 

3. Sri Krishna had 7 brothers who were born before Him. In a book on Sri Krishna's Life (forgot the title, it was long time ago), He even went to Yama Loka and brought them back so His parents could see them temporarily. Jesus have rejected James, his half-brother who was born to Mary later.

 

So, no ... Sri Krishna's birth is not similar to Jesus's.

[Kulapavana]

 

Was Krishna's birth virgin like that of Jesus and his mother?

 

the advent of any legitimate manifestations of the Supreme Lord in this world is miraculous and special in itself. you do not need to pile up any manmade "miracle stories" on top of that to make it even more special. all you need is to properly understand that such advents are an incredible mercy of the Lord.

[Avinash]

 

the advent of any legitimate manifestations of the Supreme Lord in this world is miraculous and special in itself. you do not need to pile up any manmade "miracle stories" on top of that to make it even more special. all you need is to properly understand that such advents are an incredible mercy of the Lord.

 

If Jesus's story is manmade, how can we be sure that Krsna's story is not man-made? Other way round, if Krsna's story is real, how can we claim that jesus's story is not real?

 

Or, did you mean something else by manmade?

[Kulapavana]

 

If Jesus's story is manmade, how can we be sure that Krsna's story is not man-made? Other way round, if Krsna's story is real, how can we claim that jesus's story is not real?

 

Or, did you mean something else by manmade?

 

both are believable. but that is not the point I was trying to make.

 

I'm not sure which parts of the Jesus story are true. I have studied the early history of Christianity and some parts of the Bible do seem man-made to me. made to impress simple people eager for "miracles".

 

As to the Vedas - there is a lot more discipline there and the overall quality is very impressive. Is it possible that some parts of Krsna's story have changed and evolved over the years? yes. but ancient yogis did not need miracles.

[theist]

What "miracle" is there to virgin birth? Krsna is the original person. What question is there concerning who his father and mother is? He has no father or mother. He is the source of everything including this material world and it's controller. He can appear here and disappear in any manner He likes and He does so to please and protect His devotees.

 

We run into problems when we forget that Krsna-lila is conducted under a certain flavor of yoga-maya and ordinary rules of things simply do not apply. Nor can we artifically enter into such yoga-maya.First we should admit we are on the outside looking in and from our vision of things we understand that Krsna is God.

[Guest guest]

Virgin implies virginity, while Krishna's mother had already had so many children.

[theist]

 

Virgin implies virginity, while Krishna's mother had already had so many children.

I appreciate your point. Is the question not rather Krsna entered through the seminal discharge of Vausdeva or not? I mean I don't think a virgin birth must mean that the mother had always been a virgin but rather was this particular birth the result of sexual union or independent of it. Although I could be wrong concerning how the term is used.

 

Tha Bhagavatam says Krsna went from the heart of Devaki and appeared from her womb. He appeared in His four armed form and later took the form of two handed baby Krsna.

 

So was Devaki showing the signs of a progressive pregnacy? I don't know. Would it matter? I don't think so because the Lord fullfills the desire of the materialist as well as the spiritualist. Just as He left supposedly because of a hunter's arrow when we know that He left due to His own will but in a way the atheist could point to and remain an atheist according to his desire.

 

Hmmmm... never thought about this from this angle before. It remains a mystery to me as I am in ignorance but it's not a "miracle" that much I know.

[Ayodhya]

Thank you for the responses, but I believe I confused people by not elaborating on what I meant.

 

In the Bhagavatam, it is clear that Devaki and Vasudeva had sex and Devaki did go through progressive stages of pregnancy until a few weeks before her delivery. However, as theist stated, it is not clear if Krishna specifically came from Vasudeva's sperm. It is said that Devaki was pregnant with Ananta (it starts to get confusing here, who apparently is Balarama incarnate) and Vishnu moved her embryo to Yashodas to make room for Him.

 

In addition, it also states that the baby born (as all of us) are but planery expansions of Him, which makes sense, but then why would Vishnu need to move the embryo?

 

Here is the version of Bhagavatam I am reading:

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto10/chapter2.html

 

If anyone can provide other links, it would be much appreciated.

[Guest guest]

 

In the Srimad Bhagavatam it has been clearly written that Krsna appeared in the jail of Kamsa, from the womb of Mother Devaki, by Vasudeva Maharaja. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami and Srila Vyasadeva both knew, however, that Krsna was only partly the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, whereas He was fully the son of Yasoda and Nanda Baba. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami knew that fact, but he concealed it, and he has said instead that Krsna came from the womb of Devaki. Later on, however, the truth came from his mouth.

There is a reason that Sri Sukadeva Gosvami did not reveal this truth clearly at first. Many problems may have come for ordinary people, and especially for the Vedic Smarta brahmanas. They would not have read the Srimad-Bhagavatam; or, they would have spoken against it. It was only very secretly, therefore, that Srila Sukadeva Gosvami told Maharaja Pariksit that Krsna took birth from the womb of Yasoda and Nanda Baba.

 

...that Krsna was only partly the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, whereas He was fully the son of Yasoda and Nanda Baba.

[Guest guest]

 

...that Krsna was only partly the son of Vasudeva and Devaki, whereas He was fully the son of Yasoda and Nanda Baba.

When you start inquiring about this kind of subject matter, you'll be on the right "question" track.

[Guruvani]

 

Virgin implies virginity, while Krishna's mother had already had so many children.

 

But Krishna restored her virginity before he took birth.

Many "virgins" have sinned in their heart, while many mothers are free from lust.

 

Trying to impose a mundane conception of virginity upon pure devotees of Krishna is always a very flawed mentality.

 

Physical virginity is not real virginity in the spiritual sense.

Spiritual virginity can only be had by pure devotees of Krishna.

 

Virginity of the physical body means almost nothing from a true spiritual consideration.

There must be virginity of the heart in spiritual virginity.

[Guest guest]

 

But Krishna restored her virginity before he took birth.

Many "virgins" have sinned in their heart, while many mothers are free from lust.

 

Trying to impose a mundane conception of virginity upon pure devotees of Krishna is always a very flawed mentality.

 

Physical virginity is not real virginity in the spiritual sense.

Spiritual virginity can only be had by pure devotees of Krishna.

 

Virginity of the physical body means almost nothing from a true spiritual consideration.

There must be virginity of the heart in spiritual virginity.

......

 

 

i speak under correction here -- I WAS EXPLAINED BY SOMEONE THAT IT IS SAID IN THE SCRIPTURES THAT KRISHNA "MANIFESTED" HIMSELF THE WORD USED IN SANSKRIT IS SOMETHING LIKE "PRAGATIYA"

 

HE WAS NOT "BORN" IN THE NORMAL SENSE - - THE WORD USED FOR THE OTHER KIDS OF DEVKIJI IS "JANAMIYA"

[Guest guest]

What NM said about Nanda and Yasoda being the real parents of Krsna is confirmed in C.C. in BV Purport (I'm lazy, look it up). It is also talked about by Sridhar M., Puri M. and others. How could Nanda and Yasoda have lust? What is their real position? Think like a Vrajavasi. Give up this Mathuravaada.

[Guruvani]

 

What NM said about Nanda and Yasoda being the real parents of Krsna is confirmed in C.C. in BV Purport (I'm lazy, look it up). It is also talked about by Sridhar M., Puri M. and others. How could Nanda and Yasoda have lust? What is their real position? Think like a Vrajavasi. Give up this Mathuravaada.

 

CAn ANYONE please show me ANYWHERE in the Gaudiya shastra that this word "MATHURAVAADA" has been used by one of the great authorities such as the Six Goswamis or any great acharya since then?

Where does this terminology "mathuravaada" exist in the Gaudiya texts?

 

I am not so sure that sadhaka devotees are really on such a platform as to be blaspheming the devotion of mathura bhaktas.

[Guruvani]

 

CAn ANYONE please show me ANYWHERE in the Gaudiya shastra that this word "MATHURAVAADA" has been used by one of the great authorities such as the Six Goswamis or any great acharya since then?

Where does this terminology "mathuravaada" exist in the Gaudiya texts?

 

I am not so sure that sadhaka devotees are really on such a platform as to be blaspheming the devotion of mathura bhaktas.

Expressing such exotic sentiments like Brajabasis, while actually responsible to present a sadhaka profile is tending towards sahajiya mentality.

 

Let's, not imitate the lovers of Krishna.

We aren't quite there yet.

[Guest guest]

Maybe Sahaj-Vaad not such bad thing. Better that dry-dirt-vaad. Vaad yu think AmeriKan? It my kantry we no like Mathuravaadis so much. No git me rong. They OK. But no best.