Depiction of Krishna Denigrating?

[Kismet]

A while ago (I'm not sure how long) there was a controversy surrounding a depiction of Krishna as a snail in the form of a tattoo:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_liX2F7QWCiE/TAHfPXJCiGI/AAAAAAAAAa4/FOBMDeevs14/s320/krishna+snail+tattoo+for+body.jpg

This raised quite a bit of ire among Hindus who found the image very offensive, to say the least.

Personally, I am not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, my opinion is that this tattoo is not offensive per se. As a passionate defender of art and the right of the individual to construe his own meanings of all kinds of images, depictions, and so forth, I find nothing objectionable, personally, in this work. The artist himself, as far as I recall, said he put a lot of effort into the picture and did it out of love for the deity, not ridicule.

Now, that said, I can, on the other hand, sympathize with those who truly could be offended by this depiction. It *also* makes sense to me that there could be persons who are outraged, personally, and would feel very strongly that they are right that this image is denigrating, based on their personal experience with their religious convictions. What me and others would take to be a playful, sprightly depiction of the Lord-in-all-things, others would regard as presumption, or ridicule, or some other notion that is antithetical to truly regarding the divine with respect.

Right now I take a more liberal approach, but, who knows? Y'all might change my thinking on this issue, it is certainly possible.

[TatTvamAsi]

A while ago (I'm not sure how long) there was a controversy surrounding a depiction of Krishna as a snail in the form of a tattoo:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_liX2F7QWCiE/TAHfPXJCiGI/AAAAAAAAAa4/FOBMDeevs14/s320/krishna+snail+tattoo+for+body.jpg

This raised quite a bit of ire among Hindus who found the image very offensive, to say the least.

And, you find it surprising that Hindus didn't find it amusing that one of their most revered deities was depicted as a critter? :rolleyes:

Would it surprise you if Christians were upset that a toilet-paper with the words "JESUS SAVES" printed on it was created and sold?


Personally, I am not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, my opinion is that this tattoo is not offensive per se. As a passionate defender of art and the right of the individual to construe his own meanings of all kinds of images, depictions, and so forth, I find nothing objectionable, personally, in this work. The artist himself, as far as I recall, said he put a lot of effort into the picture and did it out of love for the deity, not ridicule.

Your opinion is useless in this matter as you're not a Hindu. It is the Hindus' right to determine whether depiction of their deities is offensive or not.

Personally, I have no qualms about putting a nice Swastika flag in front of a synagogue. I suppose you'd be okay with that too? Or what about tattoos or pictures of Jesus and Muhammad fornicating? Hey! Don't be homophobic now!


Now, that said, I can, on the other hand, sympathize with those who truly could be offended by this depiction. It *also* makes sense to me that there could be persons who are outraged, personally, and would feel very strongly that they are right that this image is denigrating, based on their personal experience with their religious convictions. What me and others would take to be a playful, sprightly depiction of the Lord-in-all-things, others would regard as presumption, or ridicule, or some other notion that is antithetical to truly regarding the divine with respect.

An untouchable does not and should not be "drawing" or making images of the divine. In India, sculptors whose lifelong vocation is sculpting and/or painting are sanctioned to make images and mUrtIs (idols) of the divine. They have been doing it for generations (jAtI - caste) and that is their profession. Not everyone has the sanction to create depictions of the divine. If they do, these pictures are NOT of the divine and are some childish trash. This tattoo "artist" or whatever should learn some trade and get a proper vocation that contributes to society; not 10 minutes of fame by denigrating other people's religious sentiments.

I really encourage people like you, who readily take a "liberal" (read indifferent) stand towards issues that affect Hindus and India adversely and apply the same to the abrahamic filth (jews/christians/muslims). Perhaps Muhammad as a snail would be more fitting? Tell this artist to do that and publish his name and address. Would love to see his business "explode"! :D

[Mana]

not 10 minutes of fame by denigrating other people's religious sentiments.

I really encourage people like you, who readily take a "liberal" (read indifferent) stand towards issues that affect Hindus and India adversely and apply the same to the abrahamic filth (jews/christians/muslims). Perhaps Muhammad as a snail would be more fitting? Tell this artist to do that and publish his name and address. Would love to see his business "explode"!


So many words of such hatred!!!

Aum Shanti Shanti SHANTI ...


Namasté All.



I can see why this depiction may have been chosen, The Fibonacci series is about as close to creation as you can get, one can find her tell tail signs most every where in prakRti.

Any who fail to notice these aspects of of Shakti, have much contemplation still left to do.

In the mean time, the humble may withdraw all of their senses into their shells; whilst others become aggressive and fight.

The question is what to fight for? vRtti mathita?


...



http://scienceblogs.com/chaoticutopia/upload/2006/11/spiral.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EZWNQhIJDqs/SwJLJbbd61I/AAAAAAAAChs/oWiEIygF-cM/s400/Fibonacci+Spiral+galaxy+1.jpg



http://fabulousfibonacci.com/portal/images/related/galaxy1
http://fabulousfibonacci.com/portal/images/related/galaxy4

Abrahamic filth? ... I am shocked.

Who was it that said our mouth's are the dirtiest of all our orifices?

Happy Equinox.

praNAma

mana


Aum Shanti Shanti SHANTI ...

[Kismet]

And, you find it surprising that Hindus didn't find it amusing that one of their most revered deities was depicted as a critter? :rolleyes:

Not at all. Why would I find it surprising?


Would it surprise you if Christians were upset that a toilet-paper with the words "JESUS SAVES" printed on it was created and sold?

That would surprise me even less. But, there is a crucial difference here. In the instance of the toilet-paper the intention behind the representation is clear as daylight. Here it is not so clear, so you can't draw a well-definable line and say "YES, this is Hindu HATE!."

Christians are, by the way, all about finding Jesus and depictions of Mary in all sorts of sundry places. I bet you have heard of the many grilled-cheese appearances:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_acBLGsAWG08/TIRhskNSv9I/AAAAAAAAANQ/r9v8JQlJ4fE/s1600/abc_jesus_toast1_090423_ssh.jpg

Somehow I don't think Christians find this oh-so-offensive. Some might think it trivializes the faith (and I think it does), but it is hardly on par with "Jesus Saves" on toilet paper.


Your opinion is useless in this matter as you're not a Hindu.

Who gets to define Hindu? Is it only Indian culture that can be considered "Hindu"? Or is it a universal phenomenon? With all due respect, I do not really care whether you think I am a "Hindu" or not as that is just another label. I follow Dharma, which is eternal, irrespective of a given culture and its assumptions.



It is the Hindus' right to determine whether depiction of their deities is offensive or not.

That is fine, but realize that the assumptions you hold are culture-specific, not universal. Or at best they are tied to a single interpretation of your religion, and cannot apply to any and and all interpretations.


Personally, I have no qualms about putting a nice Swastika flag in front of a synagogue.

I would ask: ..why? If all you mean by that is that the Swastika is a symbol of auspiciousness, then in my judgement that would be fine. If you are referring to something else in the extension of the symbol, namely Hitler and the Third Reich, then we have a problem...

As I said, this is all a matter of interpretation.


I suppose you'd be okay with that too? Or what about tattoos or pictures of Jesus and Muhammad fornicating? Hey! Don't be homophobic now!

I do not see how Krishna being lovingly depicted as a snail is anywhere near on par with something as idiotic and absurd as Jesus and Muhammad in bed together. With all due respect, I think you are going way overboard.


An untouchable does not and should not be "drawing" or making images of the divine. In India, sculptors whose lifelong vocation is sculpting and/or painting are sanctioned to make images and mUrtIs (idols) of the divine. They have been doing it for generations (jAtI - caste) and that is their profession.

Huh? The word "caste" does not even appear in Hinduism. It is a Portuguese word. But, that's a whole other topic...

If you mean that some people are more qualified to make images, or even the only ones qualified to make images, then that is your presupposition, not mine. And I hardly think it is universal. Who made the art depicting Krishna in Iskcon? ISKCONITES! VIDESHIS!

Again though, it seems to me you are conflating culture and religion/spirituality. But that is my view, and I respect yours, albeit grudgingly. Or, not quite grudgingly...


Not everyone has the sanction to create depictions of the divine. If they do, these pictures are NOT of the divine and are some childish trash. This tattoo "artist" or whatever should learn some trade and get a proper vocation that contributes to society; not 10 minutes of fame by denigrating other people's religious sentiments.

As I said, he didn't intend to denigrate them. As a matter of fact, I find it ironic you speak of denigration, as you are denigrating this entire discussion with your rough language and tone of utter disrespect.


I really encourage people like you, who readily take a "liberal" (read indifferent) stand towards issues that affect Hindus and India adversely and apply the same to the abrahamic filth (jews/christians/muslims). Perhaps Muhammad as a snail would be more fitting? Tell this artist to do that and publish his name and address. Would love to see his business "explode"! :D

Why should I take you seriously? You have just shown me by your comments you are not interested in exploring the issues, only name-calling.

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

I support TTA in his protest. Yes, it is venemous, depicting shrI KRShNa as a snail. For that matter having a tattoo of Hindu gods on body parts even if they are depicted traditioinally is a religious offence, IMO. We have discussed this before. Sometimes we need to use strong language to drive the message.

The Artist does not seem to have the intentions of any fibonacci series of creation for the picture. If anything, his message sounds arrogant at his website:
http://zhippo.com/MonstersInkHOSTED/tattoos/tattoos_21940.html

HJS is already protesting the issue. I request our HDF members to participate in the campaign by signing the protest form:
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/7431.html

To speak about an artist's liberty when he can hurt religious sentiments is hogwash. If the artist has guts, and has no qualms about using religious subjects, he should have dared to find them in the Abrahamic religious as well, as TTA rightly says.

[Kismet]

I support TTA in his protest. Yes, it is venemous, depicting shrI KRShNa as a snail. For that matter having a tattoo of Hindu gods on body parts even if they are depicted traditioinally is a religious offence, IMO. We have discussed this before. Sometimes we need to use strong language to drive the message.

I respect your point of view. However, does "strong language" have to mean the same thing as cursing out your opponent?

No..


The Artist does not seem to have the intentions of any fibonacci series of creation for the picture. If anything, his message sounds arrogant at his website:
http://zhippo.com/MonstersInkHOSTED/tattoos/tattoos_21940.html

If anything he is arrogant for not taking down the image. If the overriding sentiment I got from some people was that the image was offensive, I would probably comply because I happen to respect people's religious sentiments (well, most of the time, at least, unless they are completely absurd and unreasonable). In that, I think the artist is indulging his pride, but I don't think he has ever meant any disrespect other than that.


To speak about an artist's liberty when he can hurt religious sentiments is hogwash. If the artist has guts, and has no qualms about using religious subjects, he should have dared to find them in the Abrahamic religious as well, as TTA rightly says.

I don't understand. Are you saying Abrahamic religions are more open to scorn than Dharmic ones? In a sense I agree, but it's more for the fact that the former bring it upon themselves to a large extent.

[saidevo]

namaste Kismet.

This is in response to your post #6. You have wrongly quoted TTA's name against my statements.

I did not mean using strong language against a member is right. What I meant was using strong language against the Abrahamic religions in defence of the aggressive action either by their followers or by their vested interests.

When it comes to matters divine, religious sentiments are the dharma of the religious followers. When we invoke our gods to protect us, why should we not protect their images from being sullied? dharmo rakShataH rakShati--only if you save dharma, dharma will save you. The artist is adamant and that is disrepect enough. Whether it is his pride or business, Hindus don't care.

Finally, I did not imply that 'Abrahamic religions are more open to scorn than Dharmic ones' as you said. What I meant was that those religious when they protest won't listen to the hogwash of artist liberty, freedom of personal expression or such hypocritical stuff as 'I love Hinduism, its mythology and gods' when the personal expression clearly betrays how the artist sees them.

[Sahasranama]

It's saddens me to see that more and more people pretend to be Hindus, but show that they can never understand what it is to be Hindu. For many Hinduism is just a fashion or a hobby that helps them deal with stress, but showing some respect to the Gods of Hinduism is too much to ask. Some might find it too abrahamic to show respect to a higher being and abrahamism is certainly not in fashion. Others will mindlessly use advaita as an excuse for anything, but forget that the greatest advaitins like Shankaracharya were also devotees. A while ago someone came up to me and denigrated Krishna, not by insulting his image, but by telling me that he had reached the same level of Krishna though meditating on his chakras and rising his kundalini. (This is an asuric mentality, BG: ishvaro'ham aham bhogi, siddho'ham balavan sukhi.) He also had the idea that Krishna was nothing more than a samrat (emperor) who was later glorified as an avatar and that there was nothing special about being an avatar, that even Jesus Christ had awakened his kundalini and had become an avatar. It is refreshing to read messages like that of TTA, he holds nothing back telling people they are full of it. I have been too polite in the past myself with people like this trying to explain to them nicely that they are wrong, but people who come up and pretend to be Hindu and then make up their own Hinduism should be dealt with TTA-style.

[sm78]

Nope. I am not getting into this. post deleted.

[saidevo]

namaste Kismet.

You said in post #4:
Who gets to define Hindu? Is it only Indian culture that can be considered "Hindu"? Or is it a universal phenomenon? With all due respect, I do not really care whether you think I am a "Hindu" or not as that is just another label. I follow Dharma, which is eternal, irrespective of a given culture and its assumptions.

That is fine, but realize that the assumptions you hold are culture-specific, not universal. Or at best they are tied to a single interpretation of your religion, and cannot apply to any and and all interpretations.
Again though, it seems to me you are conflating culture and religion/spirituality. But that is my view, and I respect yours, albeit grudgingly. Or, not quite grudgingly...

• You must understand that Hindu religion has two distinct aspects: Hindu culture and Hindu spirituality. The latter is universal, the former cannot be, because no culture can be universal unless it is the modern culture of money-driven corporate social life.

• Don't confuse Hindu Dharma with Hindu culture. Hindu dharma has again two distinct aspects: sAmAnya dharma--common/universal dharma, and visheSha dharma--dharma specific to a cultural group. As a Western Hindu you can follow the sAmAnya dharma.

• The Hindu culture is most evident in the bhakti yoga path. As a Western Hindu you woudn't want images of our Gods to be dressed in Western attire, wear Western hairstyle, forgo the tilak on their forehead, wear no jewelry and so on. You accept them as they come.

• This is not to say that you should follow Hindu customs of attire, food or living style in your private life. Some WH like EM who has travelled a lot in India, specially South India and understood the cultural customs and habits would be happy to wear a dhoti when going to a temple, even in the extreme cold conditions of the Canadian climate. Since most native Hindus, specially men have taken to the Western style of dressing in public, there is no need to conform to culture at home or in public at religious places. Compared to native Hindu men, native Hindu women prefer to wear the salwar kameez at home and in public, which dress, although of Persian origin, has merged in the Hindu culture.

• Hinduism gives you the freedom to follow your spiritual path. Most WH don't understand the implications of this freedom. They read a lot of translated works of Hindu scriptures, specially the GItA and the upaniShads and think that they are ready to start meditating straight away and realize the Self in set time. Some read a lot about Hindu gods, take a fancy to them and come up telling they had dreams of Shiva talking to them or some such thing. In either situation, they only end up with lingering doubts.

• This is not how it happens. Every seeker should first go through the pravRtti mArga, which is to lead a life of dharma to minimize karma, and then graduate into the nivRtti mArga, the path of knowledge involving renunciation. The bhakti mArga is the bridge that connects these two and prepares the seeker by purifying his/her mind.

Hope this helps you to understand it better, when some native Hindus take exception in situations like the one in this thread.

[Kismet]

• The Hindu culture is most evident in the bhakti yoga path. As a Western Hindu you woudn't want images of our Gods to be dressed in Western attire, wear Western hairstyle, forgo the tilak on their forehead, wear no jewelry and so on. You accept them as they come.


Very true. There you have an excellent point. Culture and religion must, at some point, intersect, and bhakti is a perfect example of it.

As a "devotee" (or someone attempting to be a devotee) of Krsna myself, I have to say that the more I think about it the depiction here is offensive insofar that it eschews the greater context of bhakti in which Krsna is a Lordly and not just a childish figure. In that, I now see why this depiction of Krsna is offensive.

That said, I can still admire it on its own less-evolved plane of consciousness. I still think that what the artist attempted here was a sincere attempt to get to the heart of what Krsna means for him, and there is *some* truth to it which I can readily discern. I can look at this picture and ascertain what he was "going for."

But, my view has changed. Now I no longer think that this depiction is worthy of the divine.

[Divine Kala]

I'm probably going to be yelled at for this but I thought I would offer my 2 cents.

I find the image to be quite beautiful - I am a highly visual person. Just as the snail moves slowly and occasionally even 'stops' to hibernate (for up to 3 years!) so the progress of devotion to the Deity is often a slow but sure path that may, in some cases, take the back seat for a time before again comin to the fore. God is, above all things, patient and never begrudges us our follies.

Do not let anger rule your heart - instead be loving and assertive. This person, if he offends you, is but a silly child in need of the firm, loving advice of his older siblings.

Just as the Christian and the Muslim must be led gently into truth - lest they be frightened off - so too must the naughty child. By raising our voices and yelling angrily we simply give him the attention he craves - we are not teaching him anything but that naughty actions gain him attention.

[saidevo]

namaste Divine Kala.

If a devotee moves like a snail towards his God, and if this is what the artist wanted to convey, then we should see the face of the devotee in the snail, not the face of the God! God cannot have a snail-face unless he took an avatar as a snail. Every form of sentient and insentient life are only the different phases of his sport, not his faces or his stunted personality. If God can have any face, then someone might try to fix the face of Hitler for him, and find an excuse to have done it.

[TatTvamAsi]

I can see why this depiction may have been chosen, The Fibonacci series is about as close to creation as you can get, one can find her tell tail signs most every where in prakRti.

While you're at your childish balderdash, you may want to pick up hints on spelling.

It takes a special type of idiot to think that that disgusting mockery of Sri Krishna was "derived" from the Fibonacci sequence or some such nonsense. I suppose as an untouchable you can find an excuse for even the most banal of things! No surprise there!

[TatTvamAsi]

Not at all. Why would I find it surprising?

You would find it surprising because your thread was a "Hindu-baiting" thread to begin with. When you have nothing vested in Hinduism, what's a mockery of a deity that is revered by, oh, say a billion Hindus?


That would surprise me even less. But, there is a crucial difference here. In the instance of the toilet-paper the intention behind the representation is clear as daylight. Here it is not so clear, so you can't draw a well-definable line and say "YES, this is Hindu HATE!."

This is why you and other wannabe Hindus have no idea of what Hinduism is about. There is no "difference" here. The general rule of thumb is that that which is revered by a group of people, however big or small, should not be up for "interpretation" or "depiction" by those out of that group; in other words, when in doubt, shut your pie-hole. This tattoo "artist" (my foot) wouldn't dare draw the same of jeebus or muhammad. He takes undue freedom with Hindus knowing well that Hindus don't react like the vermin in the ME or west.


Christians are, by the way, all about finding Jesus and depictions of Mary in all sorts of sundry places. I bet you have heard of the many grilled-cheese appearances:

Finding that rotting jewish corpse on a grilled-cheese sandwich is nothing like depicting the same as a snail or a critter. If someone found a likeness of Sri Krishna or any other deity in the clouds or whatever, that would be a news story. Depicting the divine as a lower life form (non-Indian/non-Hindu) is nothing but insulting and instigating.


Somehow I don't think Christians find this oh-so-offensive. Some might think it trivializes the faith (and I think it does), but it is hardly on par with "Jesus Saves" on toilet paper.

when christians are not busy murdering and converting non-christians, they are busy trying to manipulate governments to exert their idiotic notions on civilians in their own countries and around the world. I could care less what those asuras find "offensive". In fact, I would bet these filth find a mUrtI of Sri Krishna "offensive". I suppose you lose sleep over that too.


Who gets to define Hindu? Is it only Indian culture that can be considered "Hindu"? Or is it a universal phenomenon? With all due respect, I do not really care whether you think I am a "Hindu" or not as that is just another label. I follow Dharma, which is eternal, irrespective of a given culture and its assumptions.

Well, the SastrAs define who a Hindu is; and by that definition, you are no Hindu. Hinduism is not a "phenomenon" either. Although the Vedas are timeless, the knowledge contained within was brought forth in this planet ONLY by Indians/Hindus. It is something that has arisen over millenia due to the supreme intuition, discipline, and intellect of the Indian mind. In other words, when your ancestors were swinging on trees, Indians (Hindus) were meditating on the nature of reality. Especially given the fact that you are not a Hindu, you have no business telling Hindus not to feel slighted at denigration of their deities. As I said before, it is for Hindus to determine whether that tattoo/image is offensive or not. Not an outsider like you.

And, Dharma doesn't exist in a vacuum; it is brought forth by a supreme intellect and high culture that was possible only in India. That is why India is a Hindu country. No other country or culture can claim it.


I would ask: ..why? If all you mean by that is that the Swastika is a symbol of auspiciousness, then in my judgement that would be fine. If you are referring to something else in the extension of the symbol, namely Hitler and the Third Reich, then we have a problem...

Why is that a "problem"? We don't have a problem with the Swastika at all. It was westerners who stole that symbol and made it stand for something hateful. It is up to westerners to purge themselves of their hateful interpretation of Hindu symbols.


I do not see how Krishna being lovingly depicted as a snail is anywhere near on par with something as idiotic and absurd as Jesus and Muhammad in bed together. With all due respect, I think you are going way overboard.

I would ask: ...why? Why is jeebus and muhammad in bed "idiotic"? I'm sure it can be depicted 'lovingly' :rolleyes:. See the double standard there? This guy who has drawn this tattoo is assumed to have done it "lovingly" by idiots but showing two madmen express their affection for each other is deemed "idiotic"! Oh, the irony!


Huh? The word "caste" does not even appear in Hinduism. It is a Portuguese word. But, that's a whole other topic...

Really? Tell me all about it! I have heard so many things! :)

You should not speak of things you have no clue about. Remember my earlier advice to you; when in doubt, ....!


If you mean that some people are more qualified to make images, or even the only ones qualified to make images, then that is your presupposition, not mine.

It is not my "presupposition". Golly, you have a lot to learn. Images of the divine are SANCTIONED by those who have authority in Hinduism. Anything outside of that is not considered authentic and is thus unadulterated trash; meaning, it will never be taken seriously as a depiction of the divine, but only as a denigrating one.


Again though, it seems to me you are conflating culture and religion/spirituality. But that is my view, and I respect yours, albeit grudgingly. Or, not quite grudgingly...

Indian culture, for the umpteenth time, is suffused with Hinduism. Again, something you have no idea about. Advice; heed it!



As I said, he didn't intend to denigrate them. As a matter of fact, I find it ironic you speak of denigration, as you are denigrating this entire discussion with your rough language and tone of utter disrespect.

What are you? His lawyer? How do you know what he intended? christian terrorists (missionaries) "intend", in their demented, self-deluded minds, to "help" non-christians by destroying their culture, religion, and coercing them to convert to that barbaric desert cult of voyeuristic human sacrifice! One's declaration of "intent" cannot be taken as sacrosanct. You, again, have proven that you not only are not a Hindu, but don't care about Hindu sentiments at all. Why the hell should I respect someone who denigrates my culture? Why the hell should I tolerate those who spew hate under the guise of "freedom" and other euphemisms like freedom of expression? Not all Hindus take abuse lying down. That is the response vapid Hindu-baiters deserve.


Why should I take you seriously? You have just shown me by your comments you are not interested in exploring the issues, only name-calling.

I don't need to "explore" any issue of some untouchables parading their ignorance and denigrating Hindus/Indians. They all deserve the same treatment and that is one of scorn and public disdain.

If at all someone wants to paint or draw images of the divine, they must study under the tutelage of a proper guru and then set upon the task with utmost bhaktI (devotion) and reverence; that will yield a sattvic depiction of the divine worthy of being worshiped:

http://www.mantraonnet.com/shopping/frames/Krishna4.jpg

[Mana]

Namasté TatTvamAsi,

I thank you dearly, I take your words to be of the highest compliment; To be likened to a child, is to my mind; to be likened to a God. I see God in everything; for that I am lucky.

As for my spelling, I do apologise. I am a visual thinker, and have little aptitude for such linear things. Words grow and change, in the river of time.

My comparison was not to Krishna, but to his immortal self. BG:11,5 (http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-11-05.html) :

I am suggesting that this mockery exists here, only in your citta, it disturbs only your reality.

Your very highlighting of "tell tail" gives me more than enough hints, as to the Dharma involved in this conundrum.

I pray that Krishna can calm your heart. That you may realise that Gods nature lays in subtitle variation and change by growth, not in the strict rigidity that you so desire.

Dharma that is to rigid becomes brittle.

praNAma

mana

[Sahasranama]

The irony is that something like MF Hussein can only happen in India. No Islamic country and no european country would allow such denigrating portayals IF they were about abrahamic religious figures. But the sickular government of India gives awards to people who denigrate Hinduism in the most despicable paintings and the west thinks it's artistic when the Hindu gods are turned into a joke.

[Mana]

The irony is that something like MF Hussein can only happen in India. No Islamic country and no european country would allow such denigrating portayals IF they were about abrahamic religious figures. But the sickular government of India gives awards to people who denigrate Hinduism in the most despicable paintings and the west thinks it's artistic when the Hindu gods are turned into a joke.

Namasté Sahasranama,

Do you not think that, this is exactly what makes Sanatana Dharma so beautiful, its fluidity?

For me it is that.

The irony for me is that you seem to want Sanatana Dharma to be as rigid and smothering as the Abrahamic faiths.

I mean no offence by this, and speak to you from my heart.

praNAma

mana

[Sahasranama]

No, I do not see the beauty in it. I see a lack of cahones, the Gandhian submissive mentality. The reason why Hindu politics is weak, is because Hindus cannot stand together and defend their own religion. The west has created this caricature of Hinduism. The problem is that many Hindus have started to believe in this.

We have to remember that Krishna cut of Shishupala's head, because he insulted him a 100 times. There is a wise lesson in this.

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Ever since of the British rule in India, Hindus have been gradually deprived of the chances of following their religion in daily life, education and occupations. The Christian Missionary aggression that destroyed the ancient Greek and Roman religions started to invade into Hindu Dharma and Hindu religious and cultural practices ever since the British days, with increasing vigour due to our inept politicians after independence.

This has lead to a situation that today's Hindus cannot afford to choose their traditional life of dharma, but only live as the world lives; and such westernized worldly life over decades have blunted their religious perceptions and weakened their defence of dharma, so much so that, today if anyone seeks to defend the Hindu Dharma, religiona and culture even by speech or writing (let alone action), he/she is branded as a fanatic, on par with the Christian aggressionists or Islamic terrorists.

The clarion call of dharma for all the Hindus--native and non-native--is dharmo rakShita rakShataH--only if you protect your religion and dharma, they will/can protect you.

[Mana]

Namasté saidevo,

I am in total agreement with you, in your spiritual concern; the worlds balance of ida to pingala, is to my mind; dangerously tipped to one side. Blind materialism and their rational is eating away the very substance of reality, humanity is starting to resemble a termite mound.

We can only have faith that the overwhelming force that is karma will readdress this balance in a peaceful and loving way. That the current state of Adharma will be addressed.

The British can also lament the invasion by the Germanic and Latin peoples, and The American empire today is clearly trying to dominate the worlds dwindling oil reserves by provoking others Dharma.

In fact since the 1800's private family's and their multinational cooperation have had more wealth than any royalties or Countries, Dharma has looped back onto its self and we no longer see the boundaries.
Yes there is defiantly wisdom in keeping quiet. The multiplicity that is this reality is ever more complex. The boundaries on maps are no longer what they used to be.

I believe that the Celts before today's Brits, had a tradition which resembled closely the Hindu tradition, (all be it much less refined). But there is never proof of the past other than that which is drawn intuitively. The dominant controlling types will always write their lists of what was and why. And the intuitive imaginative types will always hide messages within.

The truly wise write the Vedas, it is time alone that decides this.

To dwell on history for any other reason than to gain wisdom is counter-intuitive. We must forget the notion of liner time and allow the future to unfold; as she opens like a lotus.

In the here and now, there is only Karma and Dharma, we have to try to guide this to a better future. By creating good karma in the present.

So who is to blame? Does it matter?

What bothers me is that we don't seem to conduct our selves with any regard to our future generations. It is ALWAYS about us and our past. When it should be about our children and the future.

The Karma that our Grand children will inherit is appalling.

Our Dharma must be flexible, to withstand all weather.

I am sorry that I am not better versed in your tradition and the literature of your tradition, yet it is strange that I feel so connected to it, I can only hope that you hear me when I say that I am in love with your Sanatana Dharma. I have every intention to learn Sanskrit in Devanagari. So that I might become better versed, better equipped to converses on these essential matters.

My sanity depends upon it.

praNAma

mana

[TatTvamAsi]

Mana,

With due respect, you came on this thread and instead of addressing the topic on hand, merely criticized me of being "hateful". This typical reaction by westerners supporting others who look to do mischief (tattoo artist/Kismet by posting this thread) towards Hindus is what makes me and other Hindus furious.

The sad thing is, your facile comments towards me still don't show that you understand where my point comes from. Instead of using buzz words like "karma", "dharma", and "citta", it would do you some good to study what those terms actually mean in Hinduism, not some New-Age gobble-de-gook.

And the rigidity you and other New-Agers eschew is actually the only reason Hinduism, in its practical form, has survived today. It is the strict discipline of religious observance, penance, and practice that makes Hinduism what it is. Merely reading some books written by unauthentic sources that make you "feel good" is most definitely NOT the point of religion and/or philosophy. We must rise above "feelings" and set to the task of self-inquiry; an arduous journey filled with pitfalls and obstacles. Those who are either incapable or disinterested in that should not only stay away from it but refrain from telling those who practice what they should think of it or how they should interpret it. The rigidity is what gives Sanatana Dharma its structure.

I am also willing to bet that you will not dare say the same in person about the atrocities suffered by the jews in WWII to a jew; that their concern and sorrow arising from it only is in their "citta" and that there is no real pain or sorrow associated with it. Or, how about telling the 2001 WTC bombing victims' families that their sorrow is only in their mind? There was no real suffering! They all went to a "better" place! Is that why the US is still bombing Afghanistan 10 years later? Is that why the US invaded Iraq although it had nothing to do with that incident? It is easy for you to write off the suffering of Hindus since you are not one. All I'm saying is, be equitable in your (and other westerners') readiness of giving "sage" advice to Hindus. The exact same tactic was used by that tramp Nina Paley who denigrated Sri Rama in her so-called "play". The offense exists alright; it is just that these vermin hide behind the terms and concepts from Hinduism itself to ward off any criticism.

This thread, although somewhat heated, can be a cathartic experience for newcomers, especially like Kismet. It must be made unequivocally clear that such denigration of the divine in Hinduism is met only with opprobrium.

Both Saidevo and Sahasranama have made excellent points; it is strange that you and others like Kismet still don't understand how or why this type of denigration of the divine can hurt Hindus' sentiments.


Namasté TatTvamAsi,

I thank you dearly, I take your words to be of the highest compliment; To be likened to a child, is to my mind; to be likened to a God. I see God in everything; for that I am lucky.

As for my spelling, I do apologise. I am a visual thinker, and have little aptitude for such linear things. Words grow and change, in the river of time.

My comparison was not to Krishna, but to his immortal self. BG:11,5 (http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-11-05.html) :

I am suggesting that this mockery exists here, only in your citta, it disturbs only your reality.

Your very highlighting of "tell tail" gives me more than enough hints, as to the Dharma involved in this conundrum.

I pray that Krishna can calm your heart. That you may realise that Gods nature lays in subtitle variation and change by growth, not in the strict rigidity that you so desire.

Dharma that is to rigid becomes brittle.

praNAma

mana

[Kismet]

http://www.mantraonnet.com/shopping/frames/Krishna4.jpg

Alright TTA, you win. Looks to me your ..arguments, are quite irrefutable.

Take Care :)

P.S. Thank you for this handsome depiction of Sri Krsna, it is quite beautiful.

[Mana]

Namasté Kismet, TTA

You are quite right, about both TTA and this beautiful depiction of Sri Krsna.

Have a lovely evening, or morning, where ever you are in the world.

praNAma

mana

[TatTvamAsi]

Alright TTA, you win. Looks to me your ..arguments, are quite irrefutable.

Take Care :)

P.S. Thank you for this handsome depiction of Sri Krsna, it is quite beautiful.

Kismet,

You have made some good points on other threads and seem to be interested in the philosophical underpinnings of esoteric Hinduism.

My suggestion to you is when you come across something that is quite possibly objectionable towards SD/Hinduism, just understand that it in no way represents the divine authentically. It is important that we, as humans, separate the wheat from the chaff.

We native Hindus do not ask you newcomers to picket outside these people's houses or threaten them in anyway. The least you can do is to make note of it and acknowledge its disrespect (like in this case) and make the point known. I highly recommend reading some of Bryon Morrigan's posts on this forum; he is also a western Hindu but has made it clear he is committed to the authentic representation of Hinduism.

Keep an eye out for my next thread and it would be interesting to see how you view that as well!

Good luck!

TTA

[Kismet]

My suggestion to you is when you come across something that is quite possibly objectionable towards SD/Hinduism, just understand that it in no way represents the divine authentically. It is important that we, as humans, separate the wheat from the chaff.

TTA

Fair enough. I actually no longer think this image is appropriate, as I said later in the thread. However, I just want to make clear that I wish in no way possible to condemn such artists outright. They may me mistaken, as we all can be, at various times. We should go in and try to persuade, not behave rashly and name-call.

But, as I said, I'm done arguing here.

Shanti & Namaste.

[charitra]

TTA, is that what you gained from the sacred scriptures youquote, calling people names? Like ‘ wannabies’, ‘untouchables’, mlecchas’ etc. Don’tyou ever realize the untouchables is the ugly scar on hindus’ face which cantbe ever erased so easily. As I see it you do live in Carolinas, you can learnfrom Americans how to participate in a debate, no? Let me cite an anecdotehere. A popular senator (Allen) seeking a 2008 presidential nomination, during one of his meetings, pointed out at an Indian origin intern (Siddarth) andcalled him a macaca. That’s it, no one ever heard from this Allen gentleman ever, his political life ended then and there. For starters stop calling peoplenames, you made your point very clear over and over that the image isn’t right,that done why don’t you stop and let the thread take a natural course and lapse.

A kind hindu will sympathize with your feelings but not with your attitudes. ..yourtone and tenor aren’t helping Hinduism a bit. Don’t drive away a few miniscule non-born hindus who have developed some genuine respect for this faith, it is clear these select few are on a self realization path by their own choosing. I believe the forum’s core objectives, among others, presumably are to spread the magnanimity and inclusivity of SD. Namaste.

[satay]

Admin Note

Thread closed for review.