^
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am at loss to understand Sandhya Jain's response. When I read SJ's response to KE's article, I see a high degree of convergence between the two atleast on this issue. KE is saying (like many of us have said earlier) that:
a) Nudity is not celebrated in Indian civilization.
b) The digambar type of "clothing" is way much different that the regular nudity that abounds in West. The former reflects spritual upliftment, while the latter is rooted in one's primordial desires (kaama).
c) MF Hussain was committing an act of violence when he depicted Hindu Devis and Devas in nude.
d) THe argument that it is ok to do nude paintings of Hindu Devis/Devas because similar stuff exists in Khajuraho is misleading and distorted. It is rooted in dishonesty.
e) Many Indian champions of "freedom of art" would baulk at the idea of depiction of their own near and dear ones in nude forms. Thus they are being hypocritical.
So, what is the problem here. The only thing KE did not mention (which SJ would have liked him to) is that many Muslim orgs denounced MFH's paintings. Frankly, the denouncement of these orgs is the least of my worries. As SJ correctly pointed out, that here the challenge is not from Muslim orgs, but from the "secular" Hindus who consistently portray crap as bhagvat-prasaad, and vice-versa.
She accuses KE of supporting MFH subtly. I would request her to kindly explain her position.
Nachiketa
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a typical sanctimonious attitude by a person who lives outside his bhumi and thinks he can look down upon India and Indians because he is âinâ with the whites.
To begin with (and I really donât have the time for these kind of sterile exchanges) â the very paradigm invoked by Koenraad - are these nude depictions of deities justifiable under modern principles of artistic freedom? â is false and illegitimate. When a dharmic tradition is being discussed, the intellectual titillation of the white man cannot be the standard by which the dharma, its depiction in art, and its perception by living bhaktas will be understood, much less accepted.
If that is the case, then â 1] Begin with artistic depictions of Jehovah and show me how far you can go with it. 2] Islam will come next, NOT before the Jews (because that is the hierarchy) and that is where the whites start sweating profusely.
Coming to Elst:-
1] Nudity is NOT observed by Jaina saints as part of their ascetic discipline. First of all, there is no nudity in dharma. The Digambara Jaina Muni becomes Digambara (clothed in air) when he attains the pinnacle of his dharmic consciousness; the clothes fall with the loss of false consciousness, and it is not as if there is training in living naked like in a nudist camp in America. There is naturally no sensuality here, and there is no need for Elst to even raise this here.
2] Meghnad Desai is a British Lord, and of no relevance to me.
3] What does Koenraad mean when he calls Krishna a âdeified hero.â I do hope you realise that he is saying that the Mahabharata is not Itihasa, but mythology! And when he says that at the âvery least that the epic story (abt Draupadiâs disrobing attempt) teaches is that ancient Hindus were not so carefree about nudity after allâ â he IS being offensive, and he must explain WHO said that Hindus were carefree about nudity.
Hindus who are awed by the white skin must also explain why they do not take offence to such puerile writing that passes as a discourse on Indian culture.
4] The issue is NOT if âThose supporting the nude paintings of Hindu goddesses by Husain also accept a nude painting of their beloved ones.â HOW can Divinity be equated with a perverse human being who may love to go around naked? That Scarlett Keeling who was murdered in Goa was abandoned by her mother who went off to be naked in Karnataka â does that justify insulting the Hindu divinities?
5] Who is Koenraad to decide that there is no valid reason to arrest Husain?
6] He thinks he is smart when he says that âCompanies depicting Hindu deities on shoes or
underwear have indeed agreed to withdraw these products after friendly negotiations with Hindu protestors. The people concerned are usually outsiders to Hindu culture and South-Asian politics, and precisely because there is a silly innocence about their improper gimmicks, they don't insist on their "right to artistic expression" when properly informed.â
Koenraad should not try to pull that on me. This be innocent once, not every time!
7] What does it mean:- âI believe Hindus should muster the self-control to maintain respect for ancient Hindu and modern international norms regarding freedom of expression. This is very precious and benefits everyone in the long run...â
THIS is the same as demanding that Hindus shut up when Husain insults their gods, when the white sh1t put gods on toilet seats and shoes.
Nachiketa, who wanted to give SHOES to the Indian Prime Minister but wonât DARE nurture the thought for the American President, wants me to prove that Koenraad is trying to support the Denigration of Indian gods in the name of freedom of expression.
It sounds like Free Trade â that is what was used to justify the Opium Trade in China. Today, the trade is called evil, but continues with western patronage, and to the benefit of Western banks, and everyone knows it.
So I conclude â I donât suffer this kind of duplicity lightly, and I am not so easy to fool either.
Warm regards
Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am at loss to understand Sandhya Jain's response. When I read SJ's response to KE's article, I see a high degree of convergence between the two atleast on this issue. KE is saying (like many of us have said earlier) that:
a) Nudity is not celebrated in Indian civilization.
b) The digambar type of "clothing" is way much different that the regular nudity that abounds in West. The former reflects spritual upliftment, while the latter is rooted in one's primordial desires (kaama).
c) MF Hussain was committing an act of violence when he depicted Hindu Devis and Devas in nude.
d) THe argument that it is ok to do nude paintings of Hindu Devis/Devas because similar stuff exists in Khajuraho is misleading and distorted. It is rooted in dishonesty.
e) Many Indian champions of "freedom of art" would baulk at the idea of depiction of their own near and dear ones in nude forms. Thus they are being hypocritical.
So, what is the problem here. The only thing KE did not mention (which SJ would have liked him to) is that many Muslim orgs denounced MFH's paintings. Frankly, the denouncement of these orgs is the least of my worries. As SJ correctly pointed out, that here the challenge is not from Muslim orgs, but from the "secular" Hindus who consistently portray crap as bhagvat-prasaad, and vice-versa.
She accuses KE of supporting MFH subtly. I would request her to kindly explain her position.
Nachiketa
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a typical sanctimonious attitude by a person who lives outside his bhumi and thinks he can look down upon India and Indians because he is âinâ with the whites.
To begin with (and I really donât have the time for these kind of sterile exchanges) â the very paradigm invoked by Koenraad - are these nude depictions of deities justifiable under modern principles of artistic freedom? â is false and illegitimate. When a dharmic tradition is being discussed, the intellectual titillation of the white man cannot be the standard by which the dharma, its depiction in art, and its perception by living bhaktas will be understood, much less accepted.
If that is the case, then â 1] Begin with artistic depictions of Jehovah and show me how far you can go with it. 2] Islam will come next, NOT before the Jews (because that is the hierarchy) and that is where the whites start sweating profusely.
Coming to Elst:-
1] Nudity is NOT observed by Jaina saints as part of their ascetic discipline. First of all, there is no nudity in dharma. The Digambara Jaina Muni becomes Digambara (clothed in air) when he attains the pinnacle of his dharmic consciousness; the clothes fall with the loss of false consciousness, and it is not as if there is training in living naked like in a nudist camp in America. There is naturally no sensuality here, and there is no need for Elst to even raise this here.
2] Meghnad Desai is a British Lord, and of no relevance to me.
3] What does Koenraad mean when he calls Krishna a âdeified hero.â I do hope you realise that he is saying that the Mahabharata is not Itihasa, but mythology! And when he says that at the âvery least that the epic story (abt Draupadiâs disrobing attempt) teaches is that ancient Hindus were not so carefree about nudity after allâ â he IS being offensive, and he must explain WHO said that Hindus were carefree about nudity.
Hindus who are awed by the white skin must also explain why they do not take offence to such puerile writing that passes as a discourse on Indian culture.
4] The issue is NOT if âThose supporting the nude paintings of Hindu goddesses by Husain also accept a nude painting of their beloved ones.â HOW can Divinity be equated with a perverse human being who may love to go around naked? That Scarlett Keeling who was murdered in Goa was abandoned by her mother who went off to be naked in Karnataka â does that justify insulting the Hindu divinities?
5] Who is Koenraad to decide that there is no valid reason to arrest Husain?
6] He thinks he is smart when he says that âCompanies depicting Hindu deities on shoes or
underwear have indeed agreed to withdraw these products after friendly negotiations with Hindu protestors. The people concerned are usually outsiders to Hindu culture and South-Asian politics, and precisely because there is a silly innocence about their improper gimmicks, they don't insist on their "right to artistic expression" when properly informed.â
Koenraad should not try to pull that on me. This be innocent once, not every time!
7] What does it mean:- âI believe Hindus should muster the self-control to maintain respect for ancient Hindu and modern international norms regarding freedom of expression. This is very precious and benefits everyone in the long run...â
THIS is the same as demanding that Hindus shut up when Husain insults their gods, when the white sh1t put gods on toilet seats and shoes.
Nachiketa, who wanted to give SHOES to the Indian Prime Minister but wonât DARE nurture the thought for the American President, wants me to prove that Koenraad is trying to support the Denigration of Indian gods in the name of freedom of expression.
It sounds like Free Trade â that is what was used to justify the Opium Trade in China. Today, the trade is called evil, but continues with western patronage, and to the benefit of Western banks, and everyone knows it.
So I conclude â I donât suffer this kind of duplicity lightly, and I am not so easy to fool either.
Warm regards
Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->