Tattoos

[revati9]

Namaste
A rather random question of mine but I was wondering, what is the general attitude within Sanatana Dharma towards tattoos? I know of course that mehndi is a long tradition but what about permanent tattoos, especially of sacred text or imagery? For example the actress Esha Deol has tattoos on her shoulder blades of Om and the Gayatri Mantra. I am not sure how I personally feel about such tattoos...on the one hand I could see the significance of having sacred syllables placed on one's body (provided it is not done on the feet or any other place of disrespect) and on the other hand I could also see it as being taken to mean the mantras are being used as mere decoration for the body. (The issue of non-Hindus getting such tattoos as purely a fashion statement is another issue entirely.)

Now, I don't have or plan to get any such tattoos. But I am curious what the position of HDF members is on them. I also hope I don't offend anyone...as I said before, I don't know anything about the historical background & current views towards such tattoos and could just be over-analyzing them.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Now, I don't have or plan to get any such tattoos.

Then don't even think about them.

Pranam.

[revati9]

Then don't even think about them.

Good point

[realdemigod]

Namaste
A rather random question of mine but I was wondering, what is the general attitude within Sanatana Dharma towards tattoos? I know of course that mehndi is a long tradition but what about permanent tattoos, especially of sacred text or imagery? For example the actress Esha Deol has tattoos on her shoulder blades of Om and the Gayatri Mantra. I am not sure how I personally feel about such tattoos...on the one hand I could see the significance of having sacred syllables placed on one's body (provided it is not done on the feet or any other place of disrespect) and on the other hand I could also see it as being taken to mean the mantras are being used as mere decoration for the body. (The issue of non-Hindus getting such tattoos as purely a fashion statement is another issue entirely.)

Now, I don't have or plan to get any such tattoos. But I am curious what the position of HDF members is on them. I also hope I don't offend anyone...as I said before, I don't know anything about the historical background & current views towards such tattoos and could just be over-analyzing them.

According to Tantra body is a temple of the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) and in general across Hinduism so the onus is on people to keep the body clean. But it's not clear that whether people should get tattoos however I'm against the idea of having sacred and powerful mantras like Gayatri Mantra or any other on body as I believe it's inappropriate. I have a very big tattoo and I don't regret having it and still I feel I'm spiritual.

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

Two years ago, my 75yr old mother and myself went on a trip to Bali, Indonesia.

One day we were out shopping, then out of the blue, she's like "I am going to get a tattoo" (neither of us had one).

I said something along the lines of: "you go ahead and do that, but don't look at me to follow you....because I want to keep my body clean and pure....once you get one of those things, it's there for good, so you have to really like what you get and live with it for life".

Then, she accused me of being a 'chicken' and a 'coward' and kept it up...and up...and up.

In the end, she got a tattoo of a hibiscus flower on her calf, and to show her I was not a 'chicken', I got a tattoo of a Pentagram on my right shoulder...a very tiny one, in black ink only.

As well as being Hindu, I will always be Wiccan. A pentagram is something I could/would always be able to live with.

I doubt I'd be able to live with an 'Om' or a Mantra tattooed on my body anywhere, I also feel it is highly inappropriate...although a small Mandala or Yantra would look nice.

I may get another tattoo one of these days, but I am not rushing out anytime soon to get it done. It's not an issue nor a priority.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Let me offer my position on this and any other type of tattoo. I came into this world unmarked, I will leave it as such.

The body comes and goes, that is why it is called śarīra�.
IMHO to spend time on marking the body with something that will be gone, and the symbol on the skin that will shrivel with age, where one will not even be able to make out what the mark was to begin with seems to me precious time lost. I would much rather spend the effort doing ajapa-gāyatrī which brings the supreme closer to me. I would much rather take the money that would be used for the tattoo and offer it to some one in need.

These are my thoughts , others may differ.


praṇām

1. śarīra - 'that which is easily destroyed or dissolved'; the body , bodily frame

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: There isn't a whole lot in scripture to go on, and it is a fashion trend. Personally I see no harm in it, and in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty surface stuff. There are greater things to consider than whether of not to place permanent marks on your body ... like kindness for instance.

Aum Namasivaya

[Viraja]

Vaishnavas (orthodox) get some kind of permanent markings on the body - on either upper arms, they get the markings of the Conch and discus of the Lord - this procedure is known as 'Pancha Samskara' and many duties of the Vaishnavas are permitted only to those who have these markings.

[revati9]

There are greater things to consider than whether of not to place permanent marks on your body ... like kindness for instance.

I agree

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

Vannakkam: There isn't a whole lot in scripture to go on, and it is a fashion trend. Personally I see no harm in it, and in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty surface stuff. There are greater things to consider than whether of not to place permanent marks on your body ... like kindness for instance.
Aum Namasivaya

EM makes a point... if you are looking for our śāstra-s or our agama-s to say ' tattoos are fine' , one will never find these words.
Yet if one reads (again and again) that the real you is not the body� then the message is there. What does this infer ? Let me offer an example.

Let's say you make a trip and go to a neighbor's home. You begin to paint the home. You paint the outside, inside, etc. People walk by and say why is he doing this, that is not his home, how does this make sense ? it is not his.

Like that, the body that you reside in is not you (Self). Why spend too much time painting it and fixing it up ? It is not yours.

But yajvan, is not the residence of where the Self resides ? Yes, this is true and we tend to it ( keep it healthy and fit so it works accordingly). But this house (the body) will soon decay with time. Of what value will there be to paint (tattoo) a house that will wither with time before one even knows who the real occupant is ?
Just like a carpenter has tools e.g. a hammer, a saw. He knows these are his tools and not him. He keeps them sharp, clean, but me thinks he does not add too many decals , colors, and stamps on them as d�cor.

iti śivaṁ

1. Kaṭha upaniṣad 1.3.3 - know the Self as the lord of the chariot and the body as the chariot. Know the intellect as the charioteer and the mind as its reins. The senses are the horses and the sense objects ( the world) which they range over.