• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Contemporary painting and Indian politics
A comment at the Rajeev2004 blog:

Quote:witan said...

OT: Philippine Art Exhibit, Offensive to the country’s Christian majority, Is Closed

The New York Times [Tuesday] August 9, 2011


“Critics called it an affront to Christianity in a country whose population of 94 million is predominantly Roman Catholic. Among the works on display was a wooden cross with a protruding penis. ... ...

“In one part of the installation, a used condom was draped on a cross.”

Compare with Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust's "Sahmat" exhibition, and a certain MF's obscene splotches, both in our country.

The above comment links to:


Quote:Criticized Philippine Art Exhibit Is Closed


Published: August 9, 2011

[photo caption:](Photo: Romeo Ranoco/Reuters)

Mideo Cruz's art mixes images from religion and popular culture. Imelda Marcos is not a fan.

MANILA — Officials shut down a controversial art exhibition on Tuesday after a storm of public protest that included criticism from President Benigno S. Aquino III, who called the artwork offensive to the country’s Christian majority.

One of the artists whose work was on display at the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Mideo Cruz, criticized the action, saying in an interview that it would “become a freedom of expression issue” with far-reaching implications for artists and government-financed venues like the cultural center.

The exhibit, which opened in June, had been scheduled to close Aug. 21. Critics called it an affront to Christianity in a country whose population of 94 million is predominantly Roman Catholic. Among the works on display was a wooden cross with a protruding penis.

Although the cultural center’s board cited vandalism and threats as the reasons for the closing, Mr. Aquino said on Tuesday that he had told board members that the exhibition was inappropriate for a center that relies on public financing.

While he respected freedom of expression, the president said, that freedom is not absolute.

The center’s board said in a statement on Tuesday that it would “continue to act as catalyst for free expression of Filipino artists” but that it had “reviewed its policies” and that it was “taking steps to enable its officers and staff to make more informed decisions in the future.”

The board did not give details about the threats, apart from pointing out that Mr. Cruz’s installation was vandalized on Aug. 4 and that a couple tried to set it on fire. “Subsequent hate mails and threats to members of the board intensified following this incident,” it said.

Karen Flores, head of the center’s visual arts department, which organized the exhibit, said in a text message to artists and colleagues that the threats had come via text messages and e-mails. She warned Mr. Cruz “to be extra careful.”

On Monday, Imelda Marcos, the country’s former first lady, visited the exhibition and expressed her disgust at Mr. Cruz’s work, which featured religious images and icons mixed with images of pop culture figures. In one part of the installation, a used condom was draped on a cross.

Mrs. Marcos, who oversaw construction of the center during the rule of her husband, Ferdinand Marcos, said she had persuaded the board to close the exhibit.

“It was a shameful exhibit, especially since it was placed in the Cultural Center of the Philippines,” Mrs. Marcos told reporters on Monday. “We built that to be the sanctuary of the Filipino soul and a monument to the Filipino spirit.”

Mr. Cruz is known for his irreverent installations, which he says are meant to raise questions about the “culture of idolatry” in the Philippines. He began work on the installation, “Poleteismo,” in 2002, and it has been exhibited in various venues, including a Jesuit university.

The controversy erupted several days ago when a television network broadcast a report that focused on the male genitals protruding out of the cross and on the condom.

A version of this article appeared in print on August 10, 2011, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Criticized Philippine Art Exhibit Is Closed.
[size="3"]Painfully boring piece on Mayawati's parks and statues by Jerry Rao:[/size]


[url="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/elites-dont-get-it/861197/0"]Elites don’t get it[/url]

Jaithirth Rao
What is objective art?

Is creativity somehow related with meditation?


Art can be divided into two parts. Ninety-nine percent of art is subjective art. Only one percent is objective art. The ninety-nine percent subjective art has no relationship with meditation. Only one percent objective art is based on meditation.

The subjective art means you are pouring your subjectivity onto the canvas, your dreams, your imaginations, your fantasies. It is a projection of your psychology. The same happens in poetry, in music, in all dimensions of creativity - you are not concerned with the person who is going to see your painting, not concerned what will happen to him when he looks at it; that is not your concern at all. Your art is simply a kind of vomiting. It will help you, just the way vomiting helps. It takes the nausea away, it makes you cleaner, makes you feel healthier. But you have not considered what is going to happen to the person who is going to see your vomit. He will become nauseous. He may start feeling sick.

Look at the paintings of Picasso. He is a great painter, but just a subjective artist. Looking at his paintings, you will start feeling sick, dizzy, something going berserk in your mind. You cannot go on looking at Picasso's painting for long. You would like to get away, because the painting has not come from a silent being. It has come from a chaos. It is a byproduct of a nightmare. But ninety-nine percent of art belongs to that category.

Objective art is just the opposite. The man has nothing to throw out, he is utterly empty, absolutely clean. Out of this silence, out of this emptiness arises love, compassion. And out of this silence arises a possibility for creativity. This silence, this love, this compassion - these are the qualities of meditation.

Meditation brings you to your very center. And your center is not only your center, it is the center of the whole existence. Only on the periphery we are different. As we start moving toward the center, we are one. We are part of eternity, a tremendously luminous experience of ecstasy that is beyond words. Something that you can be... but very difficult to express it. But a great desire arises in you to share it, because all other people around you are groping for exactly such experiences. And you have it, you know the path.

And these people are searching everywhere except within themselves - where it is! You would like to shout in their ears. You would like to shake them and tell them, "Open your eyes! Where are you going? Wherever you go, you go away from yourself. Come back home, and come as deep into yourself as possible."

This desire to share becomes creativity. Somebody can dance. There have been mystics - for example, Jalaluddin Rumi - whose teaching was not in words, whose teaching was in dance. He will dance. His disciples will be sitting by his side, and he will tell them, "Anybody who feels like joining me can join. It is a question of feeling. If you don't feel like, it is up to you. You can simply sit and watch."

But when you see a man like Jalaluddin Rumi dancing, something dormant in you becomes active. In spite of yourself you find you have joined the dance. You are already dancing before you become aware that you have joined it.

Even this experience is of tremendous value, that you have been pulled like a magnetic force. It has not been your mind decision, you have not weighed for pro and for against, to join or not to join, no. Just the beauty of Rumi's dance, his spreading energy, has taken possession of you. You are being touched. This dance is objective art.

And if you can continue - and slowly you will become more and more unembarrassed, more and more capable - soon you will forget the whole world. A moment comes, the dancer disappears and only the dance remains.

There are in India statues, which you have just to sit silently and meditate upon. Just look at those statues. They have been made by meditators in such a way, in such a proportion, that just looking at the statue, the figure, the proportion, the beauty... Everything is very calculated to create a similar kind of state within you. And just sitting silently with a statue of Buddha or Mahavira, you will come across a strange feeling, which you cannot find in sitting by the side of any Western sculpture.

All Western sculpture is sexual. You see the Roman sculpture: beautiful, but something creates sexuality in you. It hits your sexual center. It does not give you an uplift. In the East the situation is totally different. Statutes are carved, but before a sculptor starts carving statues he learns meditation. Before he starts playing on the flute he learns meditation. Before he starts writing poetry he learns meditation. Meditation is absolute necessity for any art; then the art will be objective.

Then, just reading few lines of a haiku, a Japanese form of a small poem - only three lines, perhaps three words - if you silently read it, you will be surprised. It is far more explosive that any dynamite. It simply opens up doors in your being.

Basho's small haiku I have beside the pond near my house. I love it so much, I wanted it to be there. So every time, coming and going.... Basho is one of the persons I have loved. Nothing much in it: An ancient pond.... It is not an ordinary poetry. It is very pictorial. Just visualize: An ancient pond. A frog jumps in.... You almost see the ancient pond! You almost hear the frog, the sound of its jump: Plop.

And then everything is silent. The ancient pond is there, the frog has jumped in, the sound of his jumping in has created more silence than before. Just reading it is not like any other poetry that you go on reading - one poem, another poem... No, you just read it and sit silently. Visualize it. Close your eyes. See the ancient pond. See the frog. See it jumping in. See the ripples on the water. Hear the sound. And hear the silence that follows.

This is objective art.

Basho must have written it in a very meditative mood, sitting by the side of an ancient pond, watching a frog. And the frog jumps in. And suddenly Basho becomes aware of the miracle that sound is deepening the silence. The silence is more than it was before. This is objective art.

Unless you are a creator, you will never find real blissfulness. It is only by creating that you become part of the great creativity of the universe. But to be a creator, meditation is a basic necessity. Without it you can paint, but that painting has to be burned, it has not to be shown to others. It was good, it helped you unburden, but please, don't burden anybody else. Don't present it to your friends, they are not your enemies.

Objective art is meditative art, subjective art is mind art.

- from The Last Testament, Volume 3, #24
Whatsoever you see creates its echo within you

Someone asked a great French artist why he painted. He said, "I draw pictures only to find what form a certain emotion, a certain feeling of my heart, can take on a canvas. In my efforts to express that feeling, a picture emerges." If someone meditates on that picture, he can experience the same emotion as was present in the painter’s heart.

When you see a painting you just see a form; you don’t realize that the soul of the artist is entering you. Those crisscross lines on the canvas are not just the lines of that form. If you concentrate on them, a picture with crisscross lines will emerge within you too... because it is the nature of the mind that it vibrates in you with a similar resonance to that which it sees outside it.

You probably do not know that the joy which you feel when you see a flower is not so much because of the flower itself but because of the symmetry of its petals, which is also induced in you. When you are attracted to a beautiful face of someone, it is not because of that person’s beauty but because it corresponds to your inner image of beauty. It produces a resonance of beauty in you which makes you feel that something within you is also beautified. In a similar way, the presence of an ugly face makes you feel uncomfortable. The experience of joy in the presence of someone who is beautiful is because of the flow of beauty which it brings about in you, making you also more beautiful. Ugliness means that something is disproportionate, crude, non-symmetrical and crooked; and this evokes in us a feeling of disharmony, repulsion, disorder and discomfort.

Nijinsky, the famous Russian ballet dancer, committed suicide. When people went to his house to investigate, they came out within ten or fifteen minutes feeling a sort of discomfort. They said that it did not feel good to go into his house, that if anyone stayed in it as long as Nijinsky had, they too would commit suicide. What was it about his house which was so unpleasant? He had painted all the walls and ceilings red and black – for two years it had been like this. It was not surprising that he went mad and that he committed suicide. Those who went inside his house said that if anyone were to stay in that house for two years they would also go mad and commit suicide. Nijinsky must have been a very courageous man – he had created around himself a very anarchic situation.

Whatsoever you see creates its echo within you, and in some deep sense you become like that which you see.

Hidden Mysteries, Chapter #4

Objective art: a code language

Gurdjieff used to call Eastern art "objective art" and Western art "subjective art." He means by objective art, art which has some intrinsic quality which can be imparted for thousands of years. The work of art is a code word. After experiencing meditation for thousands of years, meditators have come to recognize that a certain posture, a certain way of sitting, a certain way of the eyes, can create in anybody a synchronicity, a sympathy; some sympathetic note can be stirred by the statue.

In the East a statue is not made for its own sake. It is made as a code language for centuries to follow. Scriptures may disappear, languages may change, words may be interpreted. Doctrines can be wrongly interpreted, commented upon. There may be dispute about theories – and there has been – so they thought there must be a different way than language.

Now what dispute can there be about the statue of a Buddha or Mahavira? There is no question of dispute, there is no need of any commentary. Anybody who is capable of sitting silently by the side of this statue will have a certain thing stirred in his heart. This is objective art.

From Darkness to Light, Chapter #27

The original function of statues

Just watching Mahavira’s statue you may fall into a meditative state. That was their original function. They were not made to be worshipped, they were made to make you aware of a certain state. The statue is of a certain state, not of a certain man; that man is irrelevant.

It happened that some photographer took a picture of Ramakrishna. That was his first picture and the photographer was very happy. He brought the large framed picture to present to Ramakrishna who was sitting with his disciples. He took the picture in his hand and kissed the feet in the picture. The photographer could not believe it! Is this man sane or insane? His own picture, and he is kissing the feet!

Vivekananda, his chief disciple, was sitting by the side. He said, "Paramahansadeva, what are you doing? This is your own picture. Have you seen it or not?" He thought he had not looked at the picture – Just that the man had given it to him, and he must have thought it was some god’s picture, so he had kissed it.

Ramakrishna said, "Is it so? Let me look." He looked and he said, "Yes, it is my picture," and he kissed the feet again!

Vivekananda said, "Now this is too much."

Ramakrishna said, "I am not kissing my own feet. This is a picture of a state, it has nothing to do with me. Just look at the picture," he said, "It is a picture of a certain state. The body is just the outer lines, but look into the eyes, look into the face. And I remember perfectly where I was when this picture was taken: I was in samadhi, so it is a picture of samadhi. And I say to you that only this picture should be distributed, no other picture."

So only that picture hangs in the houses of people who worship Ramakrishna, because that picture was worshipped by Ramakrishna himself. It is absurd logically, but just a little bit of patience and you can see the point. It is a picture of a state. It is immaterial whether Ramakrishna was in that state or Mahavira was in that state or Buddha was in that state. It is immaterial – what matters is that consciousness.

Good music, good poetry, can raise your consciousness. They can create the situation for the entry into the third. Very few musicians have been there very few poets, very few painters, and very few sculptors are capable of creating such artifacts that can give you a resonance inside you.

From Misery to Enlightenment, Chapter #5

Experiencing objective art

Question: While in an art museum I entered one room with statues and carvings of Buddha. I was surprised to feel a very strong energy current, similar to what I feel here in the lecture. Was I imagining things?

The first thing to be understood: you will be surprised to know that the Buddha statues have nothing to do with Gautam Buddha. They are all false, they don’t resemble Buddha at all, but they have something to do with buddhahood. Not with Gautam Buddha, the person – they have something to do with buddhahood.

You can go into a Jain temple and you will see twenty-four statues of twenty-four teerthankaras, the founders of Jainism, and you will be unable to make out any difference between them; they are all alike. To make a distinction, Jains make small symbols on them to know who is who, because they are all alike. If those symbols were hidden, not even a Jain could make any demarcation. Whose statue is this? Mahavir’s? Parswanatha’s? Adinatha’s? And you will also be surprised to know that they are exactly like Buddha – no difference.

In the beginning, when the West became acquainted with Mahavir, they thought it was nothing but the same story of Buddha, because the statue is the same, the philosophy is the same, the understanding is the same, the teaching is the same – so it was just the same thing; it was nothing different from Buddha. They thought Mahavir was another name for Buddha. And of course both were called Buddhas – ‘Buddha’ means ‘the awakened one’ so Buddha was called Buddha and Mahavir was also called Buddha, so they thought that they were just the same person.

And the statues were a great proof: they look absolutely alike. They are not photographic, they don’t represent a person, they represent a certain state. You will have to understand it, then the thing will be explained.

In India, three words are very important: one is tantra, which we are talking about, another is mantra, and the third is yantra.

Tantra means techniques for expanding your consciousness. Mantra means finding your inner sound, your inner rhythm, your inner vibration. Once you have found your mantra, it is of tremendous help: just one utterance of the mantra and you are in a totally different world. That becomes the key, the passage, because once uttering that mantra, you fall into your natural vibe. And the third is yantra. These statues are yantras. Yantra means a certain figure which can create a certain state in you. A certain figure, if you look at it, is bound to create a certain state in you.

When you watch something, it is not only that the figure is outside – when you watch something, the figure creates a certain situation in you. Gurdjieff used to call this ‘objective art’. And you know it: listening to modern pop music, something happens in you – you become more excited sexually. There is nothing but sound outside, but the sound hits inside – creates something in you. Listening to classical music, you become less sexual, less excited. In fact, with great classical music you almost forget sex, you are in a tranquility, a silence, a totally different dimension of your being. You exist on another place.

Watching a Buddha statue is watching a yantra. The figure of the statue, the geometry of the statue, creates a figure inside you. And that inside figure creates a certain vibe. It was not just imagination that happened to you, those Buddha statues created a certain vibe in you.

Watch the state of Buddha sitting so silently, in a certain yoga posture. If you go on watching the statue, you will find something like that is happening within you too.

The outer is not the outer, and the inner is not just the inner; they are joined together. So beware of what you see, beware of what you listen to, beware of what you read, beware of where you go – because all that creates you.

Those Buddha statues you saw in the museum are the states of inner silence. When a person is absolutely silent, he will be in that state. When everything is still and quiet and calm inside – not a thought moves, not a small breeze blows; when everything has stopped, time has stopped – then you will also feel to sit like a Buddha. Something of the same geometry will happen to you. It is objective art – less concerned with the reality of Buddha, more concerned with those people who will be coming and will be seeking Buddhahood. The emphasis is different: what will happen to those who watch these statues, and will kneel down before these statues, and will meditate on these statues.

It was not imagination, it was objective art which you stumbled upon unknowingly.

The Tantra Vision, Vol 2, Chapter #6
All great art is born out of meditation

The seers of the ancient East have been very emphatic about the point that all the great arts – music, poetry, dance, painting, sculpture – are all born out of meditation. They are an effort to in some way bring the unknowable into the world of the known for those who are not ready for the pilgrimage – just gifts for those who are not ready to go on the pilgrimage. Perhaps a song may trigger a desire to go in search of the source, perhaps a statue.

The next time you enter a temple of Gautam Buddha or Mahavira just sit silently, watch the statue. Because the statue has been made in such a way, in such proportions that if you watch it you will fall silent. It is a statue of meditation; it is not concerned with Gautam Buddha or Mahavira.

That’s why all those statues look alike -Mahavira, Gautam Buddha, Neminatha, Adinatha.... Twenty-four tirthankaras of Jainas... in the same temple you will find twenty-four statues all alike, exactly alike.

In my childhood I used to ask my father, "Can you explain to me how it is possible that twenty-four persons are exactly alike? – the same size, the same nose, the same face, the same body..."

And he used to say, "I don’t know. I am always puzzled myself that there is not a bit of difference. And it is almost unheard of – there are not even two persons in the whole world who are alike, what to say about twenty-four?"

But as my meditation blossomed I found the answer – not from anybody else, I found the answer: that these statues have nothing to do with the people. These statues have something to do with what was happening inside those twenty-four people, and that was exactly the same.

And we have not bothered about the outside; we have insisted that only the inner should be paid attention to. The outer is unimportant. Somebody is young, somebody is old, somebody is black, somebody is white, somebody is man, somebody is woman – it does not matter; what matters is that inside there is an ocean of silence. In that oceanic state, the body takes a certain posture.

You have observed it yourself, but you have not been alert. When you are angry, have you observed? – your body takes a certain posture. In anger you cannot keep your hands open; in anger – the fist. In anger you cannot smile – or can you? With a certain emotion, the body has to follow a certain posture. Just small things are deeply related inside.

So those statues are made in such a way that if you simply sit silently and watch, and then close your eyes, a negative shadow image enters into your body and you start feeling something you have not felt before.

Those statues and temples were not built for worshipping; they were built for experiencing. They are scientific laboratories. They have nothing to do with religion. A certain secret science has been used for centuries so the coming generations could come in contact with the experiences of the older generations – not through books, not through words, but through something which goes deeper – through silence, through meditation, through peace.

As your silence grows; your friendliness, your love grows; your life becomes a moment-to-moment dance, a joy, a celebration.

Osho, Beyond Enlightenment, chapter 28

Objective art

Gurdjieff means by objective art, art which has some intrinsic quality which can be imparted for thousands of years. The work of art is a code word. After experiencing meditation for thousands of years, meditators have come to recognise that a certain posture, a certain way of sitting, a certain way of the eyes, can create in anybody a synchronicity, a sympathy. Some sympathetic note can be stirred by the statue.

In the East a statue is not made for its own sake. It is made as a code language for centuries to follow. Scriptures may disappear, languages may change, words may be interpreted. There may be disputes about theories...

But anybody who is capable of sitting silently by the side of this statue will have a certain thing stirred in the heart. This is objective art.

Osho, From Darkness to Light, Chapter 27

Resonance of Form

Whatsoever you see creates its echo within you, and in some deep sense you become like that which you see.

Osho, Hidden Mysteries, Chapter 4
More spam.


Forgot about the "creativity" section of Elst's article that I also wanted to spam about on IF. Especially as it's one of the topics that was always close to my heart as well: long thought it had a part to play in rejuvenating and generally breathing life back into Hindus and that it can even be used to naturally advance the cause of their religion (among their own kind of course).

Hindoos are a vastly creative bunch. There is No Limit to what they can do. I know: I have seen their work and - since I can't do *such* things - have been green with jealousy (actually, red with infatuation - but close enough).


Elst writes that:

Quote:Sita Ram Goel diagnosed the Hindu activists among his fellow students ca. 1940 as the most mediocre of the lot.
Don't know what SRG was complaining about: mediocrity is at least far more than the visible output seen from the vocalists of today, which is nihil.

But that may be unfair:

+ Hindu activism is by nature constructive and defensive: it seeks to protect their civilisation and patch up the incessant holes that christoislamicommunist lying and terrorism creates. And I suspect that as a result, this constructive/defensive activity against the terrorist assault takes up a lot of intellectual and physical energy as well as time, so that little is left over for art. At least the starting phase of any artistic work is very energy-intensive (after which the success tasted fuels itself).

+ Christoislamicommunist activism/terrorism is destructive, which is very easy to do and requires little enough effort (and gets free foreign funding besides). So they have energy left over in spades to terrorise via their pseudo-"art" and further get free advertising by foreign and local subversives for their un-"skills" too.

Still, I think Hindu activists should devote some time to whatever form(s) of creative expression comes naturally to them, which is something regular Hindus already do. Being creative is energising in itself after some time, once you settle into it. Do what comes easy rather than pushing yourself into something unknown straight-away, because learning curves take extra energy. Thereafter you can work your way into new and exciting territory as you grow more confident and energised by previous success.

On MF Husain again - not quite dead, I see, what with his ghost still being resurrected (it's the nosferatu!):


Quote:Creativity was to be found in the late M.F. Husain, hated by the Hindus and disliked by a great many Muslims too. He was driven by hate, old and uninspired hate, but undeniably he created things in painting.

You know the world is about to end when "MFH" and "creativity" are said in the same breath without a negation thrown in there...

Perhaps Elst only meant that "MFH created things in painting" <- therefore-> "'creativity' was to be found in MFH"?

But, isn't such logic dangerous, in that the precedent it sets can open the floodgates for similar equivalences? I mean, what's next, "MFH can add 2 one-digit numbers" (this is only an assumption) <-> "therefore MFH is a mathematical genius". (See the problem???)

And if MFH is "creative", then what's the word for the many actually creative Hindoos out there?

Quote:No Hindu came forward to be the anti-Husain, let alone some original way to silence him

I disagree. Emphatically. Now why would any Hindu waste their creative energy on a back-and-forth with the likes of christoislamics like Husain? And if the suggestion means attacking husain's islamania with art in return, then I doubt any heathen or other free person wants to paint christoislamania: because christoislamania is not conducive to art, only to depression.

Creative people want to create owing to natural inspiration, not for reasons of vendetta. It is ideologies that make a hateful end out of "art" as a means to it. The latter's energy - which some also dub "creativity" - is channelled to deliberate mischief-making. Whereas heathens and other non-ideological persons use their energy - which is creative, as opposed to destructive like christoislamania/communism's is - for expressing an idea inside them that they wish to put down in tangible form for further and repeated enjoyment. Perhaps even for sharing with others. Or merely for the need to express the idea, to be free of it. Or for constructive and reinforcing purposes. Not all "art" has a purpose beyond expression or beauty (for the sake of beauty), but some certainly does.

The difference really is between an untampered human's drive for being creative versus an infected entity's drive to be destructive and hateful. MFH merely expressed the impulses of his christoislamania.

Whereas Hindoo artists to this day are inspired to make beautiful works of art. And they also continue to make sacred Hindoo imagery. Neither of which ouput gives a thought to the dire existence of christoislamania/communism.

But rather, both avenues for creative output for the Hindoos are born of a sense of being alive and being happy to be alive and to be themselves: left to themselves to make what they want.


On cinema

Quote:Hindus ought to feel jealous, if at all they have the ambition to do as well as Bollywood.
Hindus *owned* Indian cinema until some decades back. It was the best and most creative cinema coming from India to date. Still excellently executed so that the gems of old hold up to this day and stand their ground in any comparison.

But Indian cinema - like Indian media - was systematically stolen out of the hands of Hindus by christoislamania and communism. Since then, the medium has consciously been turned into a vehicle for christoislamic dawaganda, while Hindus have been silenced and censured. Fortunately, the rest of the world - which briefly took an interest in bollywho for about a decade - has lost interest in it already (one-trick-pony). Not surprising. In contrast, SE and E Asian cinema still holds general interest for international audiences, because there's less christoislamoronism there and hence more creativity (owing to all the unsaved kaffirs). How many people know christian Philippines' cinema (well, I don't), versus how many know Japanese/Chinese/HK/TW/Thai/Vietnamese cinema (which is everyone). Korea is half-half: one part of their cinematic output is made by non-religious Koreans, Buddhists, Confucians and even native heathens, and is very good, the other part is made by christians (who tried to usurp the field - as christoislamism and sickularism have done in India - but didn't quite succeed in S Korea).

On Chinese and Japanese music etc

Quote:Whereas Chinese and Japanese classical music are museum pieces next to omnipresent Western classical music (at performing which the East-Asians excel), Indian classical music remains as the only rival.

E-Asians excel at music and instruments generally. And the world's best composers of modern - that is, experimental, synthesized - music and a combination of synthesized and traditional music, are famously in one nation of the far east. And they're musical *geniuses* there: with the greatest range in themes and styles, and excelling at each.

Of course, there's innumerable geniuses in traditional Hindu classical composition in India: it's what they do. So many composers still writing songs as well as musical pieces for different instruments, and also music particularly for Hindu dances. (Plus I've noticed there's definitely one very capable composer of futuristic yet Hindu-based music in India. His best pieces are incredibly innovative and hold their own well alongside the best in futuristic-traditional combines from the East.)

But Chinese and Japanese are still good at their classical music too. The Japanese even fuse their traditional music with cinematic styles and achieve great results. The Chinese especially hold strongly to their traditional classical, and their young are exposed to it and encouraged by their community to pursue it. Their classical music hasn't at all become a "museum piece", in that it remains as popular as ever among the natives, who at a minimum appreciate it as listeners to collect CDs of it, and among whom it is as much a sign of cultured tradition and expression as Hindu classical is among Hindus. What does it matter that their music doesn't have as much visibility in the *international* scene in order to "rival" western music? It's not aiming to be "international", its existence is just to please the natives - same as Hindoo music.

Quote:Western classical music (at performing which the East-Asians excel)

It's not just music that E Asians are excellent at. The modern creative areas/media where the E Asians excel (topping the charts):
  • photorealistic painting - check,

  • fantasy and sci-fi paintings - check, (west is not bad at all - still, E Europe is far better, but neither can compare to the meticulous excellence and greater depth of feeling and imagination in E Asian output, plus it's innovative rather than cliche. And it makes a lot of use of their own native "fantasy" backgrounds from folktales and other parts of their religions).

  • Graphic novels and illustrations - check,

  • all animation styles and genres - check (and they make it look effortless),

  • CGI animation - check,

  • all genres of storytelling (traditional to sci-fi and local legends/fantasy) - check,

  • cinematic sci-fi and action (special mention) check.

  • music listed for completion again: all genres, all styles, local and world, ancient to futuristic - CHECK.

Plus on the side some even play western musical instruments really well, as Elst says.

And yet they keep up traditional calligraphy, traditional painting, traditional instrumentation, performing traditional pieces, traditional story telling devices, etc. (Also used in many of the above modern media.) They remain excellent performers of various traditional E Asian instruments, especially in China. Not to mention that Daoists in particular keep up their sacred Daoist instruments, which are used for religious purposes as Hindus have also been doing with their own.

On Hindu classical music


Quote:Indian classical music [...] More individualistic yet more complex, it differs from European classical music the way adult music differs from children’s songs.

Hmmm. I think I know what he's trying to say, and if I'm right:

I was long in need of a word to explain why I liked Jazz music so much and felt it was similar in a way to our music, until the word in English was supplied by others who had consciously noted the difference. The word is "improvisation". European classical music doesn't know anywhere near the same "degree of improvisation".

As another explained to me, the older European classical music compositions were (and are still, ideally) to be played as written down to even the "stress" marks, not to mention that you always need to hit the same notes (same melody) - except for little flourishes perhaps. Even though the later, more sentimental strains of western classical (I think Chopin onwards etc) allowed people to play "more sentimentally" and thus not needing to be perfectly accurate to the exact markings for "hit hard now, play softly now" etc, it still allows considerably less leeway for the individual performer to develop the song and embellish it with their own touch.

Whereas Hindu, E Asian heathen and Jazz music (the latter owing to its very African origins) have great amounts of improvisation, naturally, built-in. In fact, this appears to be a key defining feature of such traditional music.

And I quite suspect that *that* difference is what makes Elst describe traditional Hindu music "as more individualistic and more complex" than European classical music and which thence leads to the perception of the former differing "from European classical music the way adult music differs from children’s songs".

Wish we could know what ancient traditional Hellenistic music sounded like: in his writings, the Emperor Julian impressed on the reader that it was *music* that was the pinnacle of Hellenes' accomplishment in maths and everything. So one naturally wishes one could have the pleasure of hearing it... Sigh, christianism murdered that too. Some sacred instruments remain, but that's not the same...

I have a sneaking suspicion that all heathen music - including the Hellenistic kind - had a significant component of "improvisation" and that perhaps this (the developing on a melody but sticking to the scale/raga) could at least be part of the mathematical element that Julian was alluding to.* And I further think that the modern change in popular music to a novel-like format for songs and music (a beginning, middle, end/couplet-refrain even climax) was a musical memetic revolution and has consequently started acting as a Replacement.

(Just to make it clear: while some modern western musicians try to incorporate evolving grooves and rhythms, and even evolving melodies or instrumentation in their pieces to keep the song "developing" instead of descending into excessive repetitiveness, that's not at all the same as improvisation. Neither is polyphonics or specific countermelody, nor sudden breakaway interludes in the middle of an otherwise generic song. And live remixing of trance etc songs is not what people mean under the term "improvisation" for the phenomenon either.)

* Alternatively, it could be polyphonics too (?)

2D Hindu imagery - still going strong, still jaw-droppingly magnificent, still Hindoo


Quote:Except for calendar artists, no artist wants to be known as a Hindu, so by doing Hindu art you automatically stand out.

Elst cannot make that statement. He does not appear to be aware of full-time Hindu artists. Many of whom create work other than for calendars - but it's still very Hindoo work (sacred Hindoo imagery!) - although skilled Hindus working on calendar imagery are no less awesome.

What's this about such artists not wanting to be known as Hindu? My list of favourite artists in sacred Hindu 2D imagery is over 20 - and that's just counting people mostly from my own regions in Bharatam.** Of these, about 10 are among my favourite "artists" of all time, competing with and several even topping my favourite artists in Nippon. They all make sacred Hindoo imagery and far more than half of them are still alive and going strong. (One of whom is not merely youngish but also - I noticed - extremely kallai. They are all kallai of course, but this face is a particular picture...) Anyway, in their photos these Hindooos can be seen wearing their daily kungumam/veeboothi/chandanam, and there are even photos of some of them standing in front of their pooja rooms, filled with their pooja pictures and moorties of their Gods. So who said that "artists" don't want to be known as Hindu? The most capable in all of India are recognisably Hindoo onlee. Hindoo-ism is what they do best. It's their life, them being heathens. And that explains why their images of the Gods are so expert. And so perfectly beautiful. They care sufficiently about what they do that they do it Right and with finesse and in their personal style.

My topmost favourites make the kind of images that I - literally - sit for an undisclosably long time to stare at.

I'm not going to pretend I know what other Hindus would think is beautiful - others clearly have very different (possibly even non-overlapping and irreconcilable) tastes and I obviously think my opinion when it comes to beauty is the only one that counts <= one of the things I'm unapologetically conceited about. But leaving that aside for now, what I do know is that what these skilled people make is *exactly* what I always wanted in Hindu 2D imagery: Sublime Perfection in Beauty and Accuracy. Its attraction never tires. I don't generally approve of plagiarism, but can't have too much of a truly good thing, so More Like This Please, Hindoos, x infinity. Honestly, I find the imagery they produce intoxicating, sort of like a varaaha that has caught the whiff of truffles...

** Have seen and consequently really like Nepali Hindu t_ _ k_ imagery (by ethnic Hindoos) too, since it's also very accurate and traditional (shastraic) in depiction and is hence the same as traditional southern imagery of the Gods.* (The only difference is that the appearance of the Gods naturally tends to be more regional in both places - Nepal/northeast and southern regions - but all the core elements are the same, present and accounted for: down to the presence of yazhis.) Especially love the Nepali Hindu SY images that my dad has stored, as these are large depictions containing various Divine Hindu God-Couples. Wonderfully intricate (plus colours are excellent and correct to scriptures) and transfixing. But as I don't know the names of the individual Nepali creators of my preferred works emanating from this region, their names are obviously not in my shortlist. Also I don't have many of their images, as such painstaking sacred work must take a *lot* of time to make.

* Only have calendar-style and book-cover style Hindu paintings from the remaining parts of the subcontinent. Since that naturally does not employ the same style of Hindu imagery as discussed above, I can't tell how different or similar these regions' output may be to the aforementioned southern Indian and Nepali/NE imagery *were* these to also be done in a shastraic/traditional style. (Probably would be the same, but I don't *know* that and so it remains an assumption.)

As for the phrase "Hindu art": for various reasons, I choose to define that as any art made by a Hindu individual.

This means that the subject matter need not be

- Hindu characters (e.g. can be extraterrestrial species)

- nor Hindu religion (e.g. can be science fiction novel set on an alien planet where no one will ever hear of planet Earth let alone Hindus and their religion)

and yet, if the creator is Hindu, it should get classed as Hindu. (Well, only if it's a good piece of art.) This is owing to the well-spring of the creator being Hindu inspiration, plus the skills being built on top of the capabilities of Hindus who came before.
([color="#0000FF"]Edit:[/color] added better videos, straight from Thailand)


Elephant Painting Self Portrait





But see, that's what I've been missing all this time: the omnipotent limb of my cousins the pachyderms, to give me that extra edge which I need to rout all my competitors among the 4-limbed... Oh life's just not fair. :tantrum:

The video I originally posted is of another elephant making an elephant portrait (carrying flowers): youtube.com/watch?v=He7Ge7Sogrk

The comment in this following para started with that video:

While I don't know how authentic these videos are, when I mentioned the subject to my father, he recalled that during his visits to Thailand he had come across advertising for live shows/events where the same species of unsaved kaffirs were to exhibit their painting skills for the onlooking public. Though my father never attended such an event himself, it does go to show that such things are not unheard of at all. (Plus a famous ad for a Samsung device shows one of just this very species of unconverted infidel easily scribbling on the screen with its magic limb, underlining what precise control they have over it...)

But methought 'twould make a nice answer to the numerous christoislamic MFHs - since Elst seemed to think a heathen response was necessary...

In fact, some domesticated Hindoo elephant can have its innate abilities honed in similar manner, so that it and its Hindoo human can go to wherever these christoislamic anti-Hindu "artists" and their entourage congegrate. And then, for every idiot "painting" the terrorists make and exhibit attempting to denigrate the Hindoo elephant's religion/Gods, the Hindoo pachyderm can be requested to please use its obviously far-superior skills to respond by depicting the character jeebus/mohammed doing something typically christoislamic (like blowing up heathens). In fact, a jeebus depiction can be an empty sheet with the word "jeebus/christ" inked by the elephant at the bottom, to indicate that he's non-existent <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

"My elephant can draw better than you. (And unlike you, it's drawn the truth...)"

And then the elephant can conclude the session by subsequently drawing Ganapati - several utoob videos indicate that elephants can draw their own likenesses rather well.

And if the foreseeable happens and the islamaniacs call for the infidel elephant to be beheaded for depicting mohammedm or if the christos feign persecution once more and call for its fifth limb to be amputated in order to silence its heathen "attack" on their non-existent jeebus - isn't that what christoislamics always do? - Hindu humans should organise Animal Rights activists to support Freedom Of Expression and protect the 5 limbed one.

(While my father knew many elephants when he was a pup, I sadly don't have access to a single one... Besides, it's becoming clear to me that I'd need to be trained by an elephant rather than my training it.)



TRIPLE TREE --Real Painting by Thailand Elephant Artist---Three Season



3rd day Amazing Original Elephant Painting(39" x 59") by Elephant Artist


Man, they aren't just ridiculously cuddly (a bit intimidating qua size), helpful to humans in a lot of heavy work, and apparently quite daring and heroic during war, but wow are they *goooood* at this. :fan:

No wonder that according to IIRC GSK Menon or someone at HK the Hindoo temple elephants in full alankaaram represent the tridasha (koTi) themselves. I mean, if they can paint like this...
I *never* learn: like an utter Fool, I looked up the hinduhumanrights website that Elst mentioned in a footnote as having written his "Hindu survival" article for.

I clicked on two articles there, and the topmost images on both pages scared (scarred?) me permanently. I didn't even dare to scroll onward to find out what was written on either page...

1. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hindu-self-defence-some-steps-to-survive/

Top image is of Some Blue Scare. It's like the Hulk discoloured.

2. www.hinduhumanrights.info/hinduism-not-simply-a-monotheistic-religion/

The top image: Looks like the X-men - e.g. I see Gambit or Pyro, Storm - dressed up in some Indian gear, one even carrying a Veenaa.

Apparently it is supposed to represent some Hindu Gods.

Wanting to know if some alien made the picture (would make me feel better if it was, but I suspect it's some Indians of Hindu origin), I clicked on the top picture which produced a URL that is called "prettyPhoto". :eek:

Let's get this clear first:

a. I have NO problem with Hindus making comics or comic book heroes - good for you, just don't invent stuff about the Gods. (Although WHY Indian plagiarism would go the western route when the unchallenged examples for this medium of visual sci-fi etc are in the far east is beyond me....)

b. Plus I too am a fan of the X-men - special mention for the cartoon from the *early* 90s (not the later one), though I suppose the movies weren't too bad either, especially compared to the stream of silly superhero movie dross that the US keeps churning out.

But why would anyone do this to the Hindu Gods? And if it was Hindus behind this (angelsk-speaking Hindus, I'm willing to bet: I think there is an inverse correlation there, which really needs to be investigated), it's worse than anything.

It reminds me of that debile "baby Hanuman" cartoon which doesn't really teach children the story of Hanuman, but imprints a subverted version a la what Disney always does: Disney is well-known for taking famous (fictive or historical) characters and inventing their own, entirely *different* (totally unrelated) stories, and then this becomes fixed in the popular imagination as the "true" version of the famous characters' stories.

(E.g. no one remembers that the Little Mermaid is supposed to die at the end - duh - or that there is no "Gaston" in Beauty and the Beast, etc. And the so-called 'Hercules' nightmare - UGH.)

Disney, and much of the modern revisionist storytelling in the west (remember the movie Troy etc?) are only versed in butchering iconic stories and religious narratives. And Hindus seem determined in following in those footsteps, but as they apply the revisionism to *Hindu* materials, they are essentially subverting Hindu religious stuffs. This is a crime, why does no one else ever complain? Surely people have noticed? Why is everyone okay with this? Are there any Hindus who would actually let their kids watch the silly "baby monkey" cartoon (purported to be Hanuman) crap? Wouldn't people rather their kids grow up watching *heathenism-instilling* stuff (rather than the stuff that sucks out all heathenism): e.g. Nezha and the numerous other such works among Daoists and Shinto?

At least Amar Chitra Katha offered up the original stories - albeit summarised - often with very attractive images. So I had nothing to complain about there. That era of Indian illustration and retelling of Hindu narratives was novel but authentic: still Hindu in perception and deriving its illustrations from traditional Hindu depictions. (E.g. how they depicted the female form is very Hindu.)

It's a different thing that the current owner of ACK - a typically de-heathenised entity - is reputed to peddle the archives of the franchise he bought as alleged "mythology".

But back to the opening images at the above 2 Hindu Human Rights links:

This is possibly The Most Offensive stuff to me.

MFH and others don't offend me, can't offend me (they offended others: after all, I didn't create this thread). The reason is because MFH and other christoislamics like him are of terrorist ideologies and hence *expected* to act as terrorists: one knows beforehand they'll be making ugly sick things given half a chance and trying to pin that on Hindus and Hindus Gods. It's what christoislamaniacs *do*, after all. And it only says something about them.

But when Hindus subvert the imagery of their Gods into unHinduness - and imagine/project this as the 'future' of 'hinduism' ("Hindu reconstructionism"? our own brand of "neopaganism" but before Hindus' actual religion is even dead?) ... I find it terrifying. I'm not going to go over it again: I'd already clumsily explained in length why this is such a truly terrifying prospect in post 64 of the "Hindu/Indian Culture Outside India" thread. The same underlying issues mentioned there apply here also. It applies to so many Hindoo things.

And while I'm complaining, I may as well add:

If you're *going* to make futuristic versions of the Hindu Gods and ancient Hindu heroes, at least have an honest vision that is true to the original, the way the Japanese long long ago submitted exceptionally magnificent visuals for Ulysses. That one was a collaboration between 1. the Japanese who provided the visuals - and Ulysses there is the Definition of all-round righteous Hero, plus he and the others are a Vision for the eyes) - and 2. the French who provided the storytelling, which sort of followed the Odyssey but was instead set in the distant, space-faring (rather than sea-faring) future. There's even a crossover in a later episode, where this future Ulysses and his cub Telemachus are thrown into the past, where they then meet the original Homeric Ulysses and even the original Penelope (who momentarily is gladdened upon seeing the future Ulysses, thinking it is her husband, but then instinctively realises it is another's Ulysses instead). I won't say the Olympic Gods got a fair turn in the programme, since the French were writing it and not the Japanese and it was really more a sci-fi than anything, but still, they're presented more as a force of nature avenging the opening death of the Cyclops, rather than being projected as the stereotypical christolie of "the vengeful pagan Gods" that you feel bitter about.

For a long time in my childhood, the image of that Ulysses was *the* Ulysses my mind would conjure up on hearing of his adventures. It was *that* beautiful, complete with great Opening and Closing Credits.

But perhaps all that is down to the difference between the Japanese and the Indians ("the future of hinduism")?

One is *actually* heathen, the other is headed for neopagan but will predictably claims this is heathen.

Oh and, by the way, What is Up with the overly-buff (inflated by any chance?) male characters in these Indian comic-book style drawings who are supposed to present the "Hindu Gods"? It's *not* attractive, it just isn't.

a. Make them well-built but lanky like the best issues of Amar Chitra Katha did: that was very attractive, plus recognisable as Hindu Gods.

b. Or else stick to the authentic Hindu visuals of the male Gods: they're still far more built than the Goddesses, even if neither look quite "human" qua proportions, plus the male Gods are usually overall projected as being bigger than their consorts.

But b. is a very complex and exacting... science, that only traditional Hindus are good at and can do naturally.
I complained all through the previous post, but this one is on a different matter. It has nothing to do with the thread actually, but I can't be bothered trying to locate an appropriate one if it exists.

If anyone here has kids of that age where they like to colour (but won't tear up/eat the paper, etc), or if you like to colour stuff yourself - not judging ya - then the following 2 images seem appropriate, even if amateurish, and are stolen from some Hindu girl's site.

Note: I'm the one who superimposed the disclaimer text/the Rules on both (but the site where the images were nabbed from had a page dedicated to something ~like it anyway).

Personally, I'd make the usual exception for Ishwar Sharan because he's a well-meaning heathen, but that wasn't there in the site's own disclaimer.

The disclaimers are moreover necessary since Way too many drawings by native Hindoos are regularly stolen by alien dabbling thieves including "converts" who then host stolen native Hindoo-made images on their sites as if the aliens have something to do with it. Furthermore, many "converts" (often of the ISKCON variety) then peddle "jeebus colouring-images" side by side with those of the Hindoo Gods too, making things *even* worse - if that is even possible - than what the forever-uninvited Dabblers do.

Anyway, the images. The fullsize versions are much bigger, for which links are provided.

(Obviously these images are not for those Hindus who don't think the Hindu Gods are real. Etc. <- Also part of the original's disclaimer.)

[Image: mini1.png]

[Image: mini2.png]

1. The full size version of the first is at img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Stuff/a-b.gif

2. The full size version of the second is at img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Stuff/s-a-s.gif

The God in the first image seems to be identified by name in the image itself.

I think a relevant portion of the dhyaana shloka to the *male* God in the second image is as follows. It should indicate the name of the God (and hence the names of his wives, the Devis with him) - in case this is not apparent from the image.

Note: the dhyana shloka below is transcribed by ear and hence probably horribly wrong in multiple places - don't sue - but it's typed out in Skt here only because not every alien dabbler can read Devanagari yet and it certainly does not concern them. The Roman transliteration of the translated Tamizh next to each Skt line is probably even worse, but I'm not good at applying Roman letters to Indian languages (or actually any kind of spelling, for that matter).


चत्वारि शृङ्गाः (tzh: 4 x kombu) Confusedweet:

त्रयो अस्य पादाः [त्रयोऽस्य पादाः?] (tzh: 3 x kaal)

द्वे शीर्षे (tzh: 2 x thalai/mugam)

सप्त हस्ता सो अस्य [ सप्त हस्ताः सोऽस्य ?] (tzh: 7 x kai)

Then other shlokas to this God mention stuff like:

- "रुद्र नेत्रे" oder etwas, don't remember the exact wording/grammatical construct used, but I once heard something like that (in tzh: I think this must be 6 x kannu),

- शक्ति in hand (tzh: vel),

- 7 x जिह्व (tzh: naaku) - though this doesn't seem to be depicted in the above image

I think you'll be okay if he's made a darker shade of the Dinakara.

The मेष वाहनम् is apparently not meant to be just any kind of typical attukuti here, but rather more like the variety known in Kannada as "tagaru". Although, I'm not sure I can see the connection between a tagaru and that very round looking thing in the image...

Despite most of the above list of items being ticked off, the image is still not quite right: the measurements are clearly off (something real Hindoos - who aren't amateurs - are pedantic about and won't get wrong).


Photobucket shrunk the full-size images to something small. Oh well, too bad.
Related to previous post.

Only for native Hindoos (i.e. not for alien dabblers):

Download link * for the actual full size versions of the above-mentioned 2 images of Hindus' Gods meant for colouring. (Download size is 2.4Mb total. Dimensions are 2280x2270 and 1290x1850 pixels. I'm guessing this should be okay for Hindoo kids to colour.) The zip file includes an example coloured version of one of the images, also grabbed from the original site. Such things are only for giving an idea, as images can surely be coloured in innumerable ways and styles. Extract in reduced size and merged closer together:

[Image: sas.jpg]

* Note: There's several links deceptively marked "download" on the page. The real one says "Click here to start download from sendspace".
[color="#0000FF"]For ethnic Hindoos only. (Not for "converts" and other alien dabblers)[/color]

For the cubs to colour. Same source and so same disclaimer stuffs as in #213.

[Image: small_zpsac6bdd07.png]

[color="#0000FF"]The full-size version is 2100 x 1600 pixels and can be downloaded from www.sendspace.com/file/r8urrg

(< 400 kB).

Note that the download link is labelled "Click here to start download from Sendspace".[/color]

Can be identified based on a combination of the 2 aayudhas in the outermost hands AND the 2 most obvious vaahanas (there's a 3rd in the image).


- U: shweta

- I: pItarakta*

- S: pIta (closer to chandanam)*

- Ai: shweta

* Nepalese SY depicts these as pItarakta and pIta, respectively. Confirmed by another source who told me: I=pItarakta, and S="chandanam" like colour. (The coloured version of this image - elsewhere - does seem to stick to these approximate colours.)

Note that in TN, his body is often depicted in paintings as gloriously glowing like thangam (suvarNa/hema/hiraNya <- hopefully one of these words means what I imagine/wish it to mean here).


Sorry for the long notes/lectures to follow, but I've thought about it and consider at least some of it important:

* It's not some "demi-god" or such nonsense depicted above.

This is the God famously praised as the trilokanAtha. Consequently, his Shakti is the TrilokanAyakI in this case. (Not to mention the Vedas praises him repeatedly. I thought I heard "<something something> shreShTha" and a lot more superlatives and devoted appeals, plus I imagine I heard "bhuvanasya gopaa(H?)" oder etwas about a two-in-one form involving him, etc etc.)

Also, I understand the mantram "yashChandasAmR^ishabho vishvarUpaH" [<- edit: corrected the guess by looking up the actual text, although the spelling may still be off] refers to him: apparently he (Ulooka) is the vR^iShabha among the Chandas, he IS the very praNava mantram of the Chandas, etc.

* His khaDga has not been depicted. Nor his chakra - apparently he is also well-known as bearer/wielder of a chakra, although I could be wrong about this last.

But then, really, he is "sarvapraharaNAyudha" (sp?) - as is famously said of Vishnu and is also true of all the protector Hindu Gods who are seen bearing numerous arms for protecting the Kosmos (including especially the friendless) and upholding the R^ita with them. So essentially, you could give him an infinite number of arms and plonk the vast array of magnificent Hindu weaponry on there.

* Initially I didn't understand the height differential between the Bhagavaan and the Ambaa. But then I remembered I'd seen such a differential in various older family members too. Cute.

* Note that this God - and consequently even such a simplistic drawing of him - has nothing to do with Buddhism/Buddhists. Buddhism certainly created a clone of him too, as it has created clones of a great many Hindu Gods as well as the Gods of others. And as usual, in the cloning process, Buddhism:

- cloned his names/titles and the basic description of him (but elsewhere donated his centrality and famous aayudham to some other invented Bodhisattva/Buddha),

- but, again as usual, Buddhism changed the very character/nature of the clone from the original. The Buddhist shadow-copy of the Hindu original is an upholder of Buddhism. I.e. the late Buddhist copy is part of Buddhist cosmology.

These original Hindu Gods have as much in common with the Buddhist pseudo-copies made from them, as the original Hindu God Manmatha has to do with his Buddhist cloned "counterpart" - who also retains the name Maara and who is also still described as puShpabaaNa (e.g. in the Dhammapada, IIRC), but who has been dubbed Da Evil One of Buddhism. <- Buddhism doesn't just mean this theoretically/symbolically (though even dubbing him "evil one" for symbolic reasons just because his work/ways were then seen as an impediment to [Buddhist] nirvaNa is still going too far IMO), but it also additionally promotes a literal view on the matter.

In contrast, the Hindu Maara is of course not remotely evil, but is in fact praised in various stotras as a great good God (in fact, I think/imagine that in some audio recording I heard a dhyAna mantra to him taken from a pooja rite referring to him as "Jagannaatha", which of course he is, being such an important Hindu God to the world).

Anyway, the image above is specifically not of any Buddhist clone of the Hindu God depicted therein, but is an image of a very real Hindu God who is in fact a very ...uh "core" Vedic God. He is the upholder of The -i.e. the Vedic- Dharma. Indeed you could say he IS Vedic Dharma. (<- E.g. the "yasChanda..." mantra mentioned above - when seen from an acceptably literal angle - rather lends itself to that interpretation quite easily I imagine, the praNava mantram being a rather core Veda mantram.)

Oh and specifically refusing to "share" is not mean. Especially considering that IIRC HK reported on how Buddhism - Indian and international - has finally succeeded/initiated success in officially telling the Hindus and their Shivalingam to get out of the Mahabodhi Temple, a temple which *Hindus* (not to be confused with Buddhists) had built for Buddhism, which Buddhism chose to abandon under islamic duress, which Hindus had subsequently adopted and preserved despite raging islamania and which Hindus had yet been willing to share with Buddhism when Buddhism lately remembered the temple and decided it wanted back in (now that the coast was clear of islamania, of course). But Buddhism doesn't want to share what Hindus had made for it and had safeguarded despite of it.


14/10/2012 13:21:28

"Bodh Gaya: A Hindu Response"

So why should/would Hindus still "share"?

[In any case, even in a charitable mood, Hindus certainly needn't be sharing *Hindu* stuffs like *Hindu* Gods and religion (which are not for sharing). Besides, Buddhism is surely content with its own (unrelated) cloned copies?]
Again, only for HindOOs (i.e. ethnic Hindu heathens).

Actually, also for other followers of their own ethnic ancestral heathenisms such as Taoists, Shintoists - to whom the following also belongs - Hellenes, etc.

Specifically not for dabblers (those who dabble in others' heathenisms, such as western "converts" to Hinduism) or any other unheathens/subverted, regardless of what they're called.

1. पशुपति / பஶுபதி

Full-size version: misc.iblogger.org/images/pashupati.png

Not the same as the real thing. But can mentally throw one's arms around it - like Markandeya hugged his Shivalingam - and kiss its nosey, or hang a garland from its antlers. Or something.

"But but... blabla horn, blabla head, blabla antelope"

Sure, technically an antelope is not a deer:


Quote:The most prominent difference between antelopes and deer is that male deer have antlers which they shed and grow every year while antelopes have horns that are permanent. Another difference is that deer antlers are branched and antelope horns are not. Antelopes belong to family Bovidae (as do sheep, goat and cattle), while deer belong to family Cervidae. Both are even-toed ungulates (hoofed animals) and ruminant mammals.



Quote:There are numerous legends, connected with the construction of the temple. The most famous one claims, that the temple was built on the site where Shiva lost one of his antlers, while he was in the guise of a deer. He and his wife arrived to the bank of Bagmati and amazed by the beauty of the site decided to change themselves into deers and walk in the surrounding forests.

After a while gods and humans decided to return them to their duties, but Shiva rejected to return and they had to use force. In the fight Shiva lost one of his antlers, which later became the first lingam worshipped by Hinduists in Pashupatinath. Later this relic was lost, and according to another legend, found again by a herdsman, whose cow showed the location of lingam by irrigating the place it was buried with her milk.

Therefore, as seen in the above,

- a full-deer form is also valid. (Note: a full-elephant form for Ganapati is also valid, since he literally manifested as a full elephant to help Murugan's suit when Kumaara wooed Valli Amman.)

- I'm thinking that, just like mR^iga can mean deer or antelope (among other, more general cases), Hindoos regularly just translate Pashupati's full-'deer' form with deer too, not just antelope, as seen above.

- The 2 antlers in the image is then readily explained by how the other one grew back :-)

[Besides, the Pashupati seal while showing antelope-like horns has 2, which means the image represented the case before the horn was removed - the general case - or the after case: when it simply grew back, since Shiva would be a special antelope and can easily grow back anything. He's no mere pashu but Pashupati.]

- Also, in K.R.'s famous sacred traditional painting of G-SN, the mR^iga in Shiva's hand has a branching "horn" i.e. antler and is therefore a deer, not an antelope. The mR^iga in his hand means pashu, and the fact that he holds it in his hand means he controls it: it clearly identifies him as the Pashupati. So once again, deer is as valid as antelope.

- Also, this next type of Hindoo is what lives in huge numbers near the famous abode associated with the very name of Pashupati itself - it looks like a deer to me:

sobralske.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/csc_3288.jpg :love:

Captioned on the original tourists' page (at sobralske.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/pujas-before-losar-and-pashpati-temple-hindu-sadhus/) with

"Deer in Wildlife Refuge Outside of Pashpati Temple"

(I've never seen anything more beautiful in my life either. Pashupati's relatives everywhere. And when deer run, it's really like thunder: the ground reverberates with their auspicious sound.) And apparently, Mrigasthali - the name of "the jungle in Pashupati Nath" - is filled with mRuga. Their rAja dwelling among them may be the Pashupati himself still. You'll never know. Probably is too, considering Chidambaranatha is still the chief of his human community.

But I'm not surprised that Umachi was happy to dwell as deer in the beautiful forests of their Hindoo homeland.

Ever since I first watched Mononoke Hime, I always thought the Shishigamisama~Nightwalker - who is described there as the God of Life and Death - was Shiva (Pashupati). Both day and night forms of the Shishigami Sama seemed to fit with how I always imagined it too: Rudra, Uma and ganas wandering about taking delight in the beautiful forests, and up to mysterious cosmicly divine things.

But either way, whether the Shinto and Hindu versions are distinct or not, it just means the above Hindoo-made painting is Shishigami Sama too, and therefore equally for ethnic Shintoists.

"But the one in the painting is not an Indian deer"

Nitpicking. The Shishigami-sama is the God of life and death and is ueberall.

It looks cuddly and regal, and beautiful like only Pashupati can be, and that's all that matters: Hindoos see their Gods everywhere. And all animals are heathens. Whether it is Nezha's deer vahanam or Vayu Bhagavan's deer vahanam, or the Shishigami sama or Pashupati, or some Hindoo deer or some other deer. All are heathens.

Of course, one could make a special study of different types of antelope and deer and find out which specific species of either or each it was, and then make an image of that, but that's for professionals like moorti makers whose business it is to know everything accurately.

2. कूर्मावतारम् / கூர்மாவதாரம்

Full-size version: misc.iblogger.org/images/koormaavataaram.png

From the Beyond, it descended into this universe. Cosmic in size.

(But if you stretch out your arms to embrace it, I imagine it will shrink to the perfect size for hugging. A useful feature.)

Note: theoretically, if you were to place the Koorma on its back, then in its heart area would be the Lakshmi Amman. Just like the Pashupati implicitly includes Uma in one half, despite the double antlers/horns.

"But that's not a tortoise! It's a turtle!"

Note how people only remember such differences when nitpicking.

True enough.


Can pretend that when it's flying down from the Beyond -- where he has taken beautiful, manifest shape at the interface (i.e. when he assumes one of his Own forms) -- that it is a turtle, for "flying/floating" purposes. And when it lands for the Samudra Manthana it will be a tortoise.

(Like a transforming hybrid that covers both turtles and tortoises... It can become the water-optimised version when sea or space faring, and a tortoise when it lands on land and treks through it.)


- koorma is translated as both turtle and tortoise.

- Samudra Manthana involves water as per the name. So it can theoretically be a turtle too.

- contrary to what's mentioned at the Tortoise vs Turtle link, there are turtles in Asia including India, not just tortoises.

If overseas or in 'secular' Indian spaces, can keep such images without people ever finding out you're heathen: can pretend they're animal fan-art - well, they ARE of animals and I suppose it is 'fan' 'art' - since Hindoos of course admire animals and see their Gods reflected in all the natural world (and since the Gods are factually manifest in all the natural world). But if such a perception betrays one's heathenism too, as it usually does - as seen also in stotras likening the Gods to different animals (e.g. the Adi Shankaracharya's SAL) - one can play at being utilitarian, and claim to view the first as an image of an aesthetically-pleasing mobile coat-hanger and the second as that of an attractive mobile paperweight. And privately, one can continue to be heathen and remember and adore the Gods in all that is beautiful and endearing.

Short version of this post. For ethnic HindOOs only:

- misc.iblogger.org/images/pashupati.png

- misc.iblogger.org/images/koormaavataaram.png

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)