This week episodes

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

JAYASHREE

@jayvenk

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#11

To put it simple words, skanda was a child through sperm donation and surrogacy.

Think about it. You will get your answers.

Don't want anyone to get offended.

We have very rich ancient history. It clearly shows us they were well versed in understanding the human body.

Ganesha is cloning. Parvati creates him from herself.

Quote

1123225

Hibernated

Posted: 8 years ago

#12

Originally posted by: jayvenk
To put it simple words, skanda was a child through sperm donation and surrogacy.
Think about it. You will get your answers.
Don't want anyone to get offended.
We have very rich ancient history. It clearly shows us they were well versed in understanding the human body.
Ganesha is cloning. Parvati creates him from herself.

Wasn't that the point I was making? Agni and Swaha were surrogates for Rudra and Uma?

I do believe the rich ancient history, but cloning would produce a being biologically a copy of the original. Ganesh could not have been a clone because he was of a different gender. Am still mulling over it.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

JAYASHREE

@jayvenk

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#13

True cloning means creating a copy.

But may be our ancestors explored gender change cloning.

Anything is possible.

Quote

Maleficarum

@Maleficarum

Beginner

Posted: 8 years ago

#14

It is functionally impossible to produce a clone of the opposite sex. Primates are characterized by a sex binary; some non-mammalian animals demonstrate wider sex permutations in parthenogenesis (cloning), but male offspring are extremely rare and sterile. The definition of cloning fundamentally precludes Ganesh as Parvati's clone. Furthermore, his genesis isn't a rigid story -- for example, in one variation Parvati menstruates while bathing and her menstrual blood is consumed by an elephant, producing Ganesh.

The point is: it's difficult to arbitrarily choose one rendition of a myth as canon. Even if the variations are minor, the inconsistencies are frequent. That does not detract from the mythology in any way -- it just highlights how malleable it is. Skanda was originally the slayer of Mahishasura, for example. When goddesses became exponentially prominent in Puranic Hinduism, Durga was Mahishasura Mardini. Hinduism isn't a streamlined or linear system. I wager if the scribes 4000 years ago were still alive today and we asked them what they thought of Mahakali's creative liberties, they likely wouldn't care (too much).

After all, Mahakali was "sanitized" by 13th century BCE. How is it even possible to prescribe her canon and mythology when her current worship is completely disparate to her original/initial reverence?

Edited by Maleficarum - 8 years ago

Quote

1 2

This week episodes - Page 2

Related Topics

Explore Topics