Post 1/2
Watched a chunk of that video from a few posts back. Two things:
1. The speaker describes the Chozha-era moorty of Parvaty as using exaggeration of the feminine form in order to showcase Parvaty as the epitomy of all femininity. Such a view may perhaps appeal to fancy, but it is incorrect.
The Hindoo artisan who fashioned the moorty was not using the principle of exaggeration to present Parvaty's outline. He (as other Hindoo painters, sculptors, and other artisans) was trying to be accurate to the authentic descriptions given of her in the Hindu religious texts and in her names including those of moolamoorties: her form is described as a very particular Figure-8. And that's what the Hindoo artisans tried to capture. Indeed, instead of being an exaggeration of the general female form, the moorty is an (inevitable) understatement of what the Hindoo artisan was trying to capture: Uma's own well-described and well-known form. Still, despite being an understatement, within the realm of human capabilities* it is accurate.
The very features that the speaker would attribute to the "genius for aesthetics" in the Hindu artist - who supposedly "conceived" of such an outline to her form - is actually entirely the credit of the Uma Devi herself: the Hindoos have but chosen to literally depict her well-described form.
[* "Accurate rendering within human capabilities/limits of presentation" - analogies: the way we project images of 3D objects onto 2D paper using techniques like perspectives or the multi-angle views in engineering -> "an accurate 2D version of 3D"; or the way humans represent accurate data concerning the multiple dimensions - including those that exist beyond our 3D (or 4D world) - with matrices.]
Traditional Hindoo sculptors, painters and other Hindoo artisans are *trained* in depicting the Gods shastraically, they don't deviate from accuracy in the essential features. Just like, say, the particular item in the Umamoorty's hand is no ordinary flower - not placed there at "random" by the Hindu sculptor at all, nor to make her appear more daintily feminine or some such - but it is *meant* to be in her hand (the same is also there in many an Ardhanaareeshvara depiction): Uma is described as holding it in her 2-armed form, and Hindus know it to have most particular meaning and significance.
The purpose of accurate (i.e. Shastraic) depiction is Hindu religion. Facilitating the practice of Hindoo religion by Hindoos is the first and foremost purpose of traditional Hindoo artisans in making the sacred images: to produce imagery of the Hindoo Gods that, being accurate, is immediately recognised by Hindoos (including the sculptor himself) as correct presentations of the Gods themselves - even full embodiments in the case of moolamoorties etc - such that the Hindoo viewer is reminded of his Divine Parents. E.g. In this case, the Hindoo sees the moorty, instantly recognises Uma, remembers her and falls into an automatic and natural contemplation of his Mother Uma. <- As explained, the Hindoo viewer thereby ends up Practising Its Hindoo Religion.
Like I said: Hindoo-made imagery of the Hindoo Gods is Hindoo religion. Not art or mere aesthetics at all. To reduce Hindoo imagery to the latter is to view Hindoo imagery=religion as an alien. E.g. The Hindoo knows well that Uma's form is Identical to her: Identical to her Identity, her Divine Nature. The Hindoo's recognition of her form is no less than automatic worship of her. <- That is what the *Hindoo* sees (who is the only legitimate viewer of Hindoo imagery). And what Hindoos see/how they view the images of their Gods (and Temples, which are likewise the very embodiments of the Hindoo Gods - literally) versus what aliens and alienated/deheathenised see are entirely different not to mention unrelated. Actually, this is exemplified in the speaker IIRC at one point expanding on his claim - that the Uma-moorty is a supposedly aesthetically-pleasing exaggeration of the general feminine form - by saying that Parvaty's form as depicted in the moorty (i.e. your Mother's own form) *would* have been that of a mere pin-up were it not for the artist coupling it with poise.
Stating the obvious:
To view your "idols" correctly (as your ancestors did) is the prime ingredient in "idolatry" - it is what makes heathens the Ueber-kafirs. When gradual subversion (self-inflicted or externally-instilled, makes no difference) takes that "idolatry" away from you, you have lost your heathenness. I.e. you've lost absolutely everything. Because it's a one way street: there Is no way back. In heathenisms, the Right (heathen) view of - which is therefore coupled with the understanding of - the Gods is everything: because it is the very practice of heathenism. And the loss of it is the loss of heathenism.
Christianism knows this. The de-heathenising never seem to know.
Heathens have what the aliens don't have and can never acquire, despite all the thievery. It begins with retaining a heathen (in our case: Hindoo) mind/view.
Watched a chunk of that video from a few posts back. Two things:
1. The speaker describes the Chozha-era moorty of Parvaty as using exaggeration of the feminine form in order to showcase Parvaty as the epitomy of all femininity. Such a view may perhaps appeal to fancy, but it is incorrect.
The Hindoo artisan who fashioned the moorty was not using the principle of exaggeration to present Parvaty's outline. He (as other Hindoo painters, sculptors, and other artisans) was trying to be accurate to the authentic descriptions given of her in the Hindu religious texts and in her names including those of moolamoorties: her form is described as a very particular Figure-8. And that's what the Hindoo artisans tried to capture. Indeed, instead of being an exaggeration of the general female form, the moorty is an (inevitable) understatement of what the Hindoo artisan was trying to capture: Uma's own well-described and well-known form. Still, despite being an understatement, within the realm of human capabilities* it is accurate.
The very features that the speaker would attribute to the "genius for aesthetics" in the Hindu artist - who supposedly "conceived" of such an outline to her form - is actually entirely the credit of the Uma Devi herself: the Hindoos have but chosen to literally depict her well-described form.
[* "Accurate rendering within human capabilities/limits of presentation" - analogies: the way we project images of 3D objects onto 2D paper using techniques like perspectives or the multi-angle views in engineering -> "an accurate 2D version of 3D"; or the way humans represent accurate data concerning the multiple dimensions - including those that exist beyond our 3D (or 4D world) - with matrices.]
Traditional Hindoo sculptors, painters and other Hindoo artisans are *trained* in depicting the Gods shastraically, they don't deviate from accuracy in the essential features. Just like, say, the particular item in the Umamoorty's hand is no ordinary flower - not placed there at "random" by the Hindu sculptor at all, nor to make her appear more daintily feminine or some such - but it is *meant* to be in her hand (the same is also there in many an Ardhanaareeshvara depiction): Uma is described as holding it in her 2-armed form, and Hindus know it to have most particular meaning and significance.
The purpose of accurate (i.e. Shastraic) depiction is Hindu religion. Facilitating the practice of Hindoo religion by Hindoos is the first and foremost purpose of traditional Hindoo artisans in making the sacred images: to produce imagery of the Hindoo Gods that, being accurate, is immediately recognised by Hindoos (including the sculptor himself) as correct presentations of the Gods themselves - even full embodiments in the case of moolamoorties etc - such that the Hindoo viewer is reminded of his Divine Parents. E.g. In this case, the Hindoo sees the moorty, instantly recognises Uma, remembers her and falls into an automatic and natural contemplation of his Mother Uma. <- As explained, the Hindoo viewer thereby ends up Practising Its Hindoo Religion.
Like I said: Hindoo-made imagery of the Hindoo Gods is Hindoo religion. Not art or mere aesthetics at all. To reduce Hindoo imagery to the latter is to view Hindoo imagery=religion as an alien. E.g. The Hindoo knows well that Uma's form is Identical to her: Identical to her Identity, her Divine Nature. The Hindoo's recognition of her form is no less than automatic worship of her. <- That is what the *Hindoo* sees (who is the only legitimate viewer of Hindoo imagery). And what Hindoos see/how they view the images of their Gods (and Temples, which are likewise the very embodiments of the Hindoo Gods - literally) versus what aliens and alienated/deheathenised see are entirely different not to mention unrelated. Actually, this is exemplified in the speaker IIRC at one point expanding on his claim - that the Uma-moorty is a supposedly aesthetically-pleasing exaggeration of the general feminine form - by saying that Parvaty's form as depicted in the moorty (i.e. your Mother's own form) *would* have been that of a mere pin-up were it not for the artist coupling it with poise.
Stating the obvious:
To view your "idols" correctly (as your ancestors did) is the prime ingredient in "idolatry" - it is what makes heathens the Ueber-kafirs. When gradual subversion (self-inflicted or externally-instilled, makes no difference) takes that "idolatry" away from you, you have lost your heathenness. I.e. you've lost absolutely everything. Because it's a one way street: there Is no way back. In heathenisms, the Right (heathen) view of - which is therefore coupled with the understanding of - the Gods is everything: because it is the very practice of heathenism. And the loss of it is the loss of heathenism.
Christianism knows this. The de-heathenising never seem to know.
Heathens have what the aliens don't have and can never acquire, despite all the thievery. It begins with retaining a heathen (in our case: Hindoo) mind/view.