[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]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/indiaforum/Stuff/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).
Colours:
- 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).
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
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.
haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=16488&SKIN=B
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?]
For the cubs to colour. Same source and so same disclaimer stuffs as in #213.
[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).
Colours:
- 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).
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
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.
haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx?PAGEID=16488&SKIN=B
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?]