<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Aug 12 2009, 06:12 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Aug 12 2009, 06:12 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shri Parthasarathy looks to have a moustache. Some drawings in the South have Shiva with moustache (one of Bhairava particularly comes to mind). Am doubting my recollection of whether I saw him depicted with beard :not sure:
The representations of an older-looking Brahma often have a beard + moustache.
I think I've seen some representations of an older-looking Agni also have a beard + moustache.
[right][snapback]100346[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur with HH's explanation of the matter.
sUrya is always shown with mustaches
so also indra and kubera and varuNa, in general
rudra sports both mustaches and beard, especially in the North East, particularly in the authentic nepAla imagery
However, we can not deny the obvious feminization that took place in the later representation of the devatA-s, especially post-nAstika imagery. If I posted some images of how the face of even shiva is depicted, you can not say it is not a devI's face, he is depicted so femininely. Likewise especially for kR^iShNa and also for rAmachandra. The later depictions make their appearance quite feminine. Indded it is well known that kR^iShNa and rAdhA are depicted even as identical at many places.
Bharatvarsh, I recall having read Osho's take on the specific question you raised. While I dont agree to all of what he says, thought you might be interested, so reproducing some part for your interest:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You will be surprised to know that we have depicted Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna and Rama without a beard or mustache. It is not that they did not have mustaches and beards, but by the time we made their pictures their personalities had become filled with feminine qualities; thus, the beard and mustache would have looked out of place. We dropped them because they no longer suited their effeminate manner.
Such an incident had taken place in the case of Ramakrishna. His condition could have become a unique case for scientists. It was a very strange happening. Later on his followers tried to hide the facts -- because how were they to talk about it? He developed breasts and began to menstruate. This was such a strange happening -- a miracle we might say. His individuality became so effeminate that he walked like a woman and talked like a woman, and in such an exceptional case many other changes can occur. For instance, in such circumstances one cannot perform shaktipat on anyone. His personality had become completely feminine.
With the help of the meditation techniques of Buddha and Mahavira, hundreds of thousands of people attained to the fourth body. As soon as they reached the fourth plane their personalities became feminine. By this I mean that the passive side of their nature developed. Violence and anger vanished as aggression left them; affection, love, compassion and nonviolence increased.
Femininity took hold as the inherent nature of this whole country, and my feeling is that this was the cause of the great amount of aggression that occurred here. All the neighboring masculine countries succeeded in subduing the feminine personality of India.
In one way a very valuable thing took place -- that we experienced wonderful things on the fourth plane. But on the plane of the first body we found ourselves in difficulty.
Everything has to be compensated for.
Those who were prepared to leave the treasures of the fourth plane attained the wealth and kingdoms of the first plane. Those who were not prepared to leave the pleasures of the fourth plane had to give up many things on the first.
After Buddha and Mahavira, India lost its aggressive instinct and became receptive. So with whoever came we made it a point to be-come receptive; whoever came we absorbed them within us. The question of segregating them never occurred to us, let alone attacking them. That question was lost forever because our personality had become feminine. India became one large womb that harbored all who came to her. We denied no one; we never tried to remove any of these aggressors from among us, because the warlike quality that was required in order to fight was no longer within us. With the great men it became lost, and the ordinary masses followed the great men. And the masses had to remain dominated by them.
The ordinary man heard the great men talk on nonviolence, compassion, and saw them living accordingly, so he accepted their word and remained silent.
He could have fought but he had no leader.
If the history of the world is ever written from a spiritual point of view -- when we no longer will consider only physical happenings as history but instead will begin to consider the happenings on the plane of consciousness as history, that is the real history -- then we shall understand that whenever a country turns spiritual it becomes feminine.
And whenever it becomes feminine, lesser cultures, most ordinary cultures, will defeat it. It is a surprising fact that those who conquered India belonged to very backward cultures. In many ways they were wild barbarians, whether they were Turks or Mongols or the Moguls. They had no culture, but in a sense they were men -- though barbarious -- and we were feminine, passive.
www.geocities.com/kundalini48/kundalini7_bioelectrical_difference_between.html
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The representations of an older-looking Brahma often have a beard + moustache.
I think I've seen some representations of an older-looking Agni also have a beard + moustache.
[right][snapback]100346[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur with HH's explanation of the matter.
sUrya is always shown with mustaches
so also indra and kubera and varuNa, in general
rudra sports both mustaches and beard, especially in the North East, particularly in the authentic nepAla imagery
However, we can not deny the obvious feminization that took place in the later representation of the devatA-s, especially post-nAstika imagery. If I posted some images of how the face of even shiva is depicted, you can not say it is not a devI's face, he is depicted so femininely. Likewise especially for kR^iShNa and also for rAmachandra. The later depictions make their appearance quite feminine. Indded it is well known that kR^iShNa and rAdhA are depicted even as identical at many places.
Bharatvarsh, I recall having read Osho's take on the specific question you raised. While I dont agree to all of what he says, thought you might be interested, so reproducing some part for your interest:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You will be surprised to know that we have depicted Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna and Rama without a beard or mustache. It is not that they did not have mustaches and beards, but by the time we made their pictures their personalities had become filled with feminine qualities; thus, the beard and mustache would have looked out of place. We dropped them because they no longer suited their effeminate manner.
Such an incident had taken place in the case of Ramakrishna. His condition could have become a unique case for scientists. It was a very strange happening. Later on his followers tried to hide the facts -- because how were they to talk about it? He developed breasts and began to menstruate. This was such a strange happening -- a miracle we might say. His individuality became so effeminate that he walked like a woman and talked like a woman, and in such an exceptional case many other changes can occur. For instance, in such circumstances one cannot perform shaktipat on anyone. His personality had become completely feminine.
With the help of the meditation techniques of Buddha and Mahavira, hundreds of thousands of people attained to the fourth body. As soon as they reached the fourth plane their personalities became feminine. By this I mean that the passive side of their nature developed. Violence and anger vanished as aggression left them; affection, love, compassion and nonviolence increased.
Femininity took hold as the inherent nature of this whole country, and my feeling is that this was the cause of the great amount of aggression that occurred here. All the neighboring masculine countries succeeded in subduing the feminine personality of India.
In one way a very valuable thing took place -- that we experienced wonderful things on the fourth plane. But on the plane of the first body we found ourselves in difficulty.
Everything has to be compensated for.
Those who were prepared to leave the treasures of the fourth plane attained the wealth and kingdoms of the first plane. Those who were not prepared to leave the pleasures of the fourth plane had to give up many things on the first.
After Buddha and Mahavira, India lost its aggressive instinct and became receptive. So with whoever came we made it a point to be-come receptive; whoever came we absorbed them within us. The question of segregating them never occurred to us, let alone attacking them. That question was lost forever because our personality had become feminine. India became one large womb that harbored all who came to her. We denied no one; we never tried to remove any of these aggressors from among us, because the warlike quality that was required in order to fight was no longer within us. With the great men it became lost, and the ordinary masses followed the great men. And the masses had to remain dominated by them.
The ordinary man heard the great men talk on nonviolence, compassion, and saw them living accordingly, so he accepted their word and remained silent.
He could have fought but he had no leader.
If the history of the world is ever written from a spiritual point of view -- when we no longer will consider only physical happenings as history but instead will begin to consider the happenings on the plane of consciousness as history, that is the real history -- then we shall understand that whenever a country turns spiritual it becomes feminine.
And whenever it becomes feminine, lesser cultures, most ordinary cultures, will defeat it. It is a surprising fact that those who conquered India belonged to very backward cultures. In many ways they were wild barbarians, whether they were Turks or Mongols or the Moguls. They had no culture, but in a sense they were men -- though barbarious -- and we were feminine, passive.
www.geocities.com/kundalini48/kundalini7_bioelectrical_difference_between.html
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->