Need Help: Question on Indian Art
Dear Friends, last week Owen, a young student (in Edinburgh, UK) came across my blog and sent me the email below.
*** Email Extracts (emphasis mine) ***
I am a second year art student based in Edinburgh, UK.I have just come across your webiste. What a joy it is to look at.
I was wondering if you could be so kind to help me with a question.
I have read with interest the paper “Treatise on Indian Painting and Image-Making -The VIishnunudharmottara” (part III) by Stella Kramrisch. I was wondering if you could be so kind to help me with a question. I have been unsure why higher caste, saintly people and gods/goddesses were predominantly painted using bright colours in Indian art.
.
I have read in the above paper the following
The different tribes and castes of India are thus distinguished as dark, when belonging to the Pulindas and people of the South, to Panchalas, Surasenas and Magadhas, to Angus, Vaftgas and Kalingas, to Sudras, to sick men and to family men engaged in toilsome work. Sakas, Yavanas, Pallavas and the Valhikas should be predominantly white, and so are the twice- born and the Ksatriyas, kings and prosperous people. Those who are oppressed by evil stars are of dark colour.
And it is also clear that evil-doers ought to be of a dark complexion. The colour thus has partly descriptive and partly suggestive significance.
Could this not be possibly be seen nowadays as prejudiced and insensitive? In the description of the gunas why is Tamas described as black? I understand from Feng Shui black can be an auspicious colour.
On another note I am reading the “Ramayana- A Critical Edition” by Robert & Sally Goldman. I was reading about Kaikeyi and Manthara. In the commentary on this scene it said that in Eastern literature held a common narrative of the evil stepmother and showing deformed unattractive people as sinful. They though this may have been inluenced by Western fairytales where the stepmothers and deformed people are similarly depicted.
I thought about this and asked asked someone who was familiar with Eastern writing about this. He said he was not sure that the cruel stepmother is that frequently referred to in Indian literature. A particularly significant scenario is the young husband who finds out that his beautiful wife is conducting an affair with a hunchback, often of low caste or menial status .
This is invariably put in the context of moralising about the futility of sexual passion. I dont know if his reply answered my question of deformity=evil but maybe I found this out by reading further into the Ramayana.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think the Ramayana espouses this idea. As far as I can see the Rakashas are portrayed as demonic beings. Whilse there are are many deformed eg the ogresses that watch over Sita but there are others who are descibed as handsomesuch as Ravana himself who is their King. There is a mix.In mentioning the ogresses that watch over Sita in some editions they are described (besides being deformed) as “black and ugly” but in other editions simply as either of a dark or tawny complexion without the perjorative term.
I guess it depends on the translation and the script used. I look forward to hearing from you. I do appreciate your thoughts.
*** End of Email Extracts ***
.
I replied suggesting that the queries may be more easily resolved if I post them on my blog…since there are many readers far better-read and well-versed in Indian sacred literature and art history than me….Owen agreed to the suggestion…hence the post.
I have already suggested to Owen that he start with this article – in particular the paragraphs referring to “The Racial Interpretations of Vedas” and “Aryan and Dravidian Races”.
I now need your help in answering the queries raised by Owen…Pl. do share your thoughts via the comments section (below) or send me an email at jai.dharma @ gmail.com
Dhanywaad.
Somewhat Related Posts:
The Aryan-Dravidian Controversy
The Curious Case of the “Kidipede Ramayanaâ€
Of “Sacred Bullsâ€, Divinity & Development
Caste, Varna and Jatis: The need for clarity in intellectual debate
Namaskara Shantanu,
My thoughts below may not be very coherent but hopefully I end up typing something useful in this discussion.
Firstly with regard to art, I think one of the goals of our art is to ensure that the portraits of saints etc conveys in some way the brightness and radiation in terms of vibration and energy that the holy people emitted. All of us perceive white as more ‘bright’ than black. I think the goal of the art is to easily convey certain impressions about the subject of the art and therefore sticking to popular beliefs is a compulsion on artists. I would be surprised if such trends don’t exist in other religions.
I don’t think there is a direct correlation between the choice of colors in paintings and the social prejudice. According to Agama shastra, the preferred material for building temple idols is the ‘black’ Saligrama stone. Most old temples in India still have these idols. If choice of color was an indicator, then our ancient civilization showed greater inclination towards dark people and black color.
Again, the issue of using deformity to portray evil is also not universally true in our literature. There are numerous examples to prove that this was a not a standard “technique” used.
– Lord Krishna and Krishnaa (Draupadi) are both very revered. By their very names, we know that they were of dark complexion.
– Pandu and Devapi (the older brother of Shantanu) both had deformities but were extremely pious and Satvic.
– In the Bhagavatha, we hear the story of how a Kubja (deformed lady) approached Lord Krishna and how Krishna cured her. The lady is considered as an avatar of an Apsara and is certainly not portrayed as evil.
– Shishupala was born very malformed but is cured by Lord Krishna. He grows up to be a very handsome man but is very evil by nature.
– Duryodhana is repeatedly described as having an extremely well built physique but he is the epitome of evil.
– Our epics are filled with more tales of great stepmothers (Kunti, Kausalya, etc) than evil ones (even Kaikeyi repents instantly).
What I am trying to convey with the above examples is that there is no “typecasting” of certain physical features or relations as depicting certain characteristics.
Unfortunately, the stories that have got popular have some of these depictions. Arriving at conclusions based only on a few popular stories is not correct.
In addition to reading about the take of Westerners (Indologists), the study of the original Indian literature and art would also be very essential, IMHO. Otherwise, we may not always get the whole, rather the correct, picture.
Regards, Hari
Shantanu, here are my inputs to Owen’s quieries.
I would like to quote some examples from Ramayana itself:
Example 1: Mareecha
Mareecha is the servant of Ravana. He is also one of the dark and ugly demons. He is approached by Ravana for help to kidnap Seeta.
These Sargas explain:
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga35/aranya_35_frame.htm
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga36/aranya_36_frame.htm
Mareecha first tries to put some sense into Ravana:
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga37/aranya_37_frame.htm
Ravana dis-agrees. Mareecha tries again:
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga38/aranya_38_frame.htm
Still, Ravana doesnt understand. Even then Mareecha gives it another try
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga39/aranya_39_frame.htm
At one point Mareecha says “the moment I see Rama, I am going to die”
Mareecha then turns into a Golden Deer. Lures Seeta. Seeta asks Rama to get her the Golden Deer. Subsequently Seeta asks Lakshmana to go and help Rama as he might be in trouble. Then Ravana comes and kidnaps Seeta. In one of the discourses of Ramayana, pujyasri Chaganti Koteswara Rao explained that Mareecha was so much in devotion of Rama that he used to see Rama in everything. This devotion was the result of extreme fear he experienced when he faced Rama in his prev encounters. Mareecha is thus referred to as Mahatma in Ramayana.
Example 2: Kumbhakarna
Kumbhakarna is one of the brothers of Ravana. He is woken up by demons on Ravana’s orders to fight against Rama. In Yuddha kanda, these sargas describe how the events took place
Rama enquired abt Kumbakarna
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga61/yuddha_61_frame.htm
Converstaion between Ravana and Kumbhakarna
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga62/yuddha_62_frame.htm
Kumbhakarna’s reassurance to Ravana
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga63/yuddha_63_frame.htm
Kumbhakarna in the above sarga, explains Ravana that he is taking wrong route. He tries to put some sense into Ravana. For example, this Sarga
prathamam vai mahaaraaja kR^ityametadachintitam |
kevalam viiryadarpeNanaanubandho vichintitaH || 6-63-4
“O emperor! This course of action was not excepted by you at first. You did not conceive this consequence, only because of your sheer arrogance of power.”
Ravana disagrees. After a lot of introspection, Kumbhakarna decides to help Ravana. The only reason he helps Ravana is that Ravana is his elder brother and since it is a-dharmic (meaning not dharmic) to dis-obey elder brother’s orders, he helps him. Kumbhakarna is also dark skinned, ugly demon. The kind of infighting Kumbhakarna had is a legend in itself. It is a part of folklore. In many mono-action dramas across the State of Andhra Pradesh in India, the actors depict what went through in Kumbhakarna’s mind when he was trying to decide about helping Ravana. To arrive at an answer, he simply tries to figure out what is dharmic and what is not dharmic or a-dharmic. No body seems to highlight this brilliance in Kumbhakarna – a dark skinned, ugly demon!
Example 3: Trijata
Trijata is one of the orges who held guard of Seeta in Asoka Vana (Asoka Vana => Asoka Garden, meaning a garden where there is no sorrow. It is largely taken as sarcastic that Seeta sits there in Asoka Vana for 1 year in sorrow and unhappy moments). When Hanuma wanders into Asoka Vana in search of Seeta, it is explained in Sundara Kanda that he sat, hiding on Simsupa Tree Branches and heard to what Ravana told Seeta. After Seeta annoys Ravana by rejecting him, Ravana orders the Orges to make Seeta come to him all by herself. If she doesnt budge, eat her. After Ravana leaves, Orges start scaring Seeta by speaking ill of her.
At this point I would like to add a little about Neena Paley’s Seeta Sings The Blues and other interpretations of Ramayana. These mis-interpretations fail to notice that Ravana had a curse from Brahma that if he touches any woman without her willingness to be touched by him, he would burst in thousand pieces immediately. It is due to this bane that he doesnt touch Seeta. Some mis-representations deliberately try to make Ravana a noble man. Ravan was learned but he was arrogant of all the boons he got from Brahma and Shiva after long meditation and prayers to them. Ravana was basically getting carried away due to his arrogance. Neena Paley’s innovative yet unfortunate mis-interpretation of Ramayana and many other works like hers need to look at Ramayana without wearning this dark is bad attitude!!
After Ravana leaves, one of the orges Trijata tells them of a scary nightmare she dreamt about Ravana’s ill fate. Trijata is also ugly, dark skinned demon. Still, she tries to stop otehr orges out of respect and love for her master Ravana. She simply acts Dharmic.
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/sundara/sarga27/sundara_27_frame.htm
These are three examples but there are scores and scores of examples like this in Ramayana itself. Some interpretations even take it that Vibheeshana helped Rama only to get the kingdom of Lanka into his hands. But Vibheeshana warns Ravana many times of dire straits due to adharmic activities he had done.
Even in Mahabharata, there are many examples of characters showing sparks of dharmic brilliance. For example, Vidura. I quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81rata)
When Vichitravirya dies young without any heirs, Satyavati asks her first son Vyasa to father children on the widows. The elder, Ambika, shuts her eyes when she sees him and her son Dhritarashtra is born blind. Ambalika turns pale and bloodless, and her son Pandu is born pale (the term Pandu may also mean ‘jaundiced’ [1]). Vyasa fathers a third son Vidura, by a serving maid.
Vidrua is dark skinned and ugly but he is dharmic. His knowledge of Rajaneethi (laws for rulers) is so great that many times in Mahabharata, Bheeshma, Yudhistir and others go to him for advice on strange and very very dificult problems. He is a servant’s son but his briliance demands the respect and he gets it – all because he is dharmic.
In Hindu culture, dark, ugly and demon is nothing wrong. What is wrong is being a-dharmic. The colour dark is associated only to the physical being but not to the character. Characters can only be dharmic or a-dharmic. Even Lord Shri Krishna was dark skinned. He is refered to as “Megha Shayama” – meaning dark as cloud.
I cant say of much how much help these comments would be to Owen but I would ask him to pick one epic, may be Ramayana itself and go through it once to understand. Dark and ugly are as much parts of life as bright and beautiful in hinduism. Our ancestors told us that it is strength of character that matters, not physical beauty and also that such strength of character can come only by following dharmic way of life.
I would request Owen to please go through the description of Lanka – city of demons to understand how well Hanuma, explains. Hanuma, even though is Rama’s devotee talks about Lanka as it is. He doesnt distort it because of his allegiance to Rama. Such is the strength of the character. Infact, as an artist, he might need to take a lot of time to imagine how Lanka might have looked like. Contrary to the Dark and Ugly are bad omens, the description given by Hanuma is
shaila agre racitaa durgaa saa puur deva pura upamaa |
vaaji vaaraNa sampuurNaa la.nkaa parama durjayaa || 6-3-22
“That city of Lanka, resembling the city of Gods, is built on a mountain peak and is inaccessible. That Lanka is abound with horses and elephants and is extremely difficult to conquer.â€
I can go and on like this about Ramayana. In all the puranas of Hinduism, there are depictions similar to this one. Asura is not bad. Similarly Devas is not always good. Only the one who is dhamric (be it human, deva or asura) is an ideal person. Asuras and Devas are not exclusive entities. World cant exist with only one group.
Interesting post Shantanu. I would like to read the article to find out the author i.e. Stella Kramrisch’s opinions.
But from another source (It would be helpful if you could publish this link as well) http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/the-art-of-painting-in-ancient-india-chitrasutra-1.htm
I found this quote,
“There was, in addition, a class of pictures called rasa-chitra, the pictures of emotions, also called varna-lekhya meaning interpretations through color. These were different from realistic paintings and sought deliberately to represent various emotions through distinct colors. In this school, idioms of color visualized a range of emotions; and, each rasa had to be portrayed in its uniquely expressive color. For instance, Srinagar (erotic) was of shyama hue(light sky blue) ; hasya (that which evokes laughter) in white; karuna (pathos) in gray; raudra , (the furious) in red;vira (the heroic) in yellowish-white; bhayanaka ( the fearsome) in black; adbhuta (supernatural and amazing) in yellow ; and bhibathsa (the repulsive ) in blue color.”
From this one can infer the challenges and vision the olden masters had to depict the actual scenario. They wanted to depict the actual event, but also to provide emotions to the characters in the paintings. Ergo taking the color representation in the photo to judge character of people using actual skin tones is very judgmental and naive.
Hari, Vivek and DD: Thanks for the very thoughtful and well-referenced comments…I have learnt a lot of new things, thanks to you all.
I will pass these on to Owen.
I am deeply grateful to you and proud that scholars and well-versed readers like you frequent this blog…
***
DD: I will ask Owen about the original article or if he could point us in the direction of any links. Thanks
May be I will come back with more detailed quotes from scriptures etc.
But as of now : consider the fact that heroes in even western movies have been traditionally better looking than villains. How often do we come across a Hollywood movie with a deformed hero? We even have beauty pageants that award ( supposedly ) beautiful women, by definition discriminating against those that aren’t considered beautiful. Does that mean that western society discriminates against the bad looking? No, it doesn’t. There are “literary/aesthetic” stereotypes, which may not reflect in society as entrenched discriminatory stereotypes.
If we observe carefully around, we will find that we are almost inextricably mired in the midst of stereotypes.
Of these, the western society pays special emphasis to color, and color alone. Why is color alone so special?
I don’t blame western society for this, because there is a specific historical reason for this – all kinds of inhuman acts used to be perpetrated on black people, on the basis of skin color, and that is vividly active in peoples’ memory. It is irrational to demand that influence of recent history on culture be totally ignored. But, that should not color our understanding of other cultures that are located far away in time and space.
India did not have institutionalized discrimination on the basis of skin color. Lord Shri Krishna was dark ( and handsome ). Bhagavan Veda Vyasa was dark, not good looking ( remember Dhritarashtra’s birth ), but yet extremely wise. Draupadi aka kRShNA was dark and beautiful. Hanuman, when he went to one of Ravana’s chambers in search of Sita, saw several beautiful women, both fair and dark ( it is there somewhere in valmikiramayan.net – a very wonderful resource indeed ).
While Brahmins are on an average fairer than Dalits, you will find dark Brahmins all over India.
It would be interesting to see how South Indian classics (written originally in Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam or Telegu or orally passed on in South Indian languages Tulu, Konkani, Coorgi….) physically describe evil characters..Any expert comments?
froginthewell- “While Brahmins are on an average fairer than Dalits, you will find dark Brahmins all over India.”
How we internalise british constructed caste system and divide ourselves.
@ froginthewell: You said:
That is truly an extraordinary comment to make..Anything to back it up? Otherwise I will merely see this as a poor attempt to stir things up.
***
@ Sanjay: Good point…I hope someone responds…I would be keen to hear about it too.
***
@ Incognito: Well spotted!
No Shantanu, I am only stating my observation of the man on the street which is by no means a rigorous proof. If you believe Swami Vivekananda, or rather a certain Travancore Diwan’s memoirs of interacting with him – he makes a statement that the variation in skin color is indicative of caste admixture. This is mentioned in Life of Swami Vivekananda by his eastern and western disciples.
And how does it matter who is fairer or darker, that too on an average? I have already said that I don’t subscribe to there having been any discrimination in ancient India based on skin color?
I have no problem if you disagree with me. But ascribing ulterior motives was the last thing I expected you to do. FOR YOUR KIND INFORMATION I NEVER TRY TO STIR ANYTHING UP. I was only honestly expressing my opinion, however ill informed or skewed.
@froginthewell: Sorry…perhaps I over-reacted.
I am very sensitive about this particular issue – i.e. the obsession of Indians – in general (I don’t mean you) – with skin colour.
Would you have a more specific reference to the conversation that you mention between Swami Vivekananda and the Diwan of Travancore?
Thanks.
@Shantanu,
Which one do you see as ‘mere stir up’..is it ‘brahmins on an average fairer than dalits’ or is it ‘find dark brahmins all over india’ ?
Shantanu, I understand. I have read, though not seen, that there are places in India where dark skinned girls, for instance, are made to feel because of their skin color and that this is related to the rather recent popularity of fair and lovely etc.
I am sorry I wrote in my blog somewhat uncharitably about you. I will put up a correction.
The quote you are asking about can be found here – I won’t reproduce it here for issues of sensitivity.
In any case, my main point is that whether or not there is statistical skin color differences across castes doesn’t matter. Patterns that appear in art don’t necessarily reflect societal attitudes. In India we have so many dark skinned historical/mythological characters who were venerated.
But more importantly, we should be careful not to apply the western connotations attached to skin color when dealing with India. An act of discrimination doesn’t become better or worse depending on whether skin color was a factor or not.
There is a very specific reason why skin color is a big deal in the west – the recent history of most cruel oppression that was practiced in the west on the basis of skin color.
That doesn’t apply to India at all. Many of us have read amar chitra kathas that featured fair skinned devas and dark skinned asuras. Did that ever cause us to correlate skin color with bad behavior? No, not at all. But that doesn’t mean western media or literature or entertainment can afford to do the same – they don’t want to rekindle or re-energize biases that linger from a relatively recent, ugly past.
This is an important distinction gentlemen like this guy, as well as the sundry leftists who criticize Amar Chitra Kathas for the deva-asura depictions etc. fail to understand. As well as those who make a big deal about how Indians smother white tourists with affection and not pay so much attention to black tourists – not that this is the ideal thing to do, but we shouldn’t blindly apply western historico-cultural setting to our country.
Thanks for the link to the quote…fascinating…I had a hurried look. Will revisit later.
I can see where you are coming from…it is always helpful (and educative) to have a different perspective…so thanks for that.
More on your specific comment later,
froginthewell,
My point about the sentance “ While Brahmins are on an average fairer than Dalits, you will find dark Brahmins all over India ” is not about skin color.
It is about the internalisation of caste that we indians seems to have made.
Brahmins, as per ancient indian scriptures is one who has realised Brahma or one who aspires to realise Brahma and engages in that activity.
The british created caste system mis-represented Varna concept from activity based to birth based, according to which a person is Brahmin based on his parentage.
Today a lot of indians identify with this british created incorrect caste system.
Also the term Dalit has been introduced which really has no meaning.
What is common between the so-called Dalit Mayawati and a manual laborer ? How can both be classed as Dalit, which is what is being done nowadays.
We appear to have internalised this incorrect concept which actually prevents us from appreciating the truth, because the original Varna system is based on truth- the correct path to spiritual realisation for every individual based on his inclination and aspirations while supporting a sustaining and evolving society that also preserves nature.
So the statement “you will find dark Brahmins all over India” seems unsupportable.
Because people who are really Brahmins, in its correct meaning- realised persons, are so few, whatever be their color.
Two people who might be called ‘realised ones’ in the present age are Paramahamsa Nithyananda and Mata Amritanandamayi.
Their skin color proves your point although they may not be the Brahmins that you meant.
Thank you
Incognito : I guess you are referring to Yajnavalkya’s statement to Maitreyi to the effect that a brAhmaNa is one who leaves this world after knowing the truth. Or, perhaps, the fact that the Buddha too said something similar ( and wasn’t “fighting against the caste system”, as leftist historians would want us to believe ).
However, the word, in later centuries, even before British came, had started being used in a hereditary sense – dharmashAstras such as manu smRti have strict injunctions on who can marry whom, effectively making occupation birth based. Ancient Greek historians too have recorded that marriage outside caste was not permitted. Great saints like Kanchi Periyavar ( Chandrashekhara Saraswati Swamigal ) have supported birth based caste system
BTW I am not criticizing this great saint at all. From an objective perspective, I am not even sure the birth based system was bad.
If one looks at “core scriptures” like Gita, both interpretations can be claimed to be compatible with it – one that favors birth based caste system, and one that doesn’t. After all Kanchi Periyavar was a great person, not a fool to contradict the gIta. There are also great saints who are against birth based caste system, as you are well aware of.
This is not to say that the Britishers didn’t do any damage. They increased the division between jAtis in various ways :
(i) When the Britishers’ manipulation of economy – dumping finished products of industrial revolution etc. – people of many jAtis lost their job. On the other hand, that helped many brAhmaNas since they started taking to British education and taking up clerical-type posts with the British. So brAhmaNas ended up being richer for the wrong reasons, so-called-lower-castes lost their jobs, and thought that brAhmaNas somehow became rich at their expense. This sowed seeds of division.
(ii) Malhandling history. For instance, while Manu Smrti prescribes certain legal concessions for brAhmaNas, it also recommends a very austere life for them. You will see that it is very, very difficult ( impossible for most ) to live that way. Why would those in power, if they were merely looking for goodies, choose a system that made life difficult for them? The British phrased things in terms of the language of color, because that was the notion they were familiar with.
froginthewell>>>>> I guess you are referring to Yajnavalkya’s statement to Maitreyi to the effect ……
Apart from the fact that no-birth based qualification is attributed to Varna system in Vedas, I am basing my conclusion on more obvious examples such as Vyasa, son of an unwed fisherwoman, who compiled Vedas, being considered Brahmana.
But his children, Dhritarashtra and Pandu are not considered Brahmana.
Valmiki, retired robber is considered a Brahmana.
Satyakama Jabala, whose mother did not know who the father was, being considered Brahmana based on his interest in finding out the truth about life.
>>>>>>dharmashAstras such as manu smRti have strict injunctions on who can marry whom, effectively making occupation birth based
Is smriti superior to sruti ?
It may be in order to analyse the smriti more carefully to ascertain whether manu did mean something contrary to Sruti or is it misinterpretation.
>>>>Ancient Greek historians too have recorded that marriage outside caste was not permitted.
Greek historians’ records may not be as dependable as indian spiritual texts in this matter.
>>>>>Great saints like …… have supported birth based caste system
Are those words in the link actually of Shankaracharya or of the webmaster?
Adi Shankara himself accepted a Chandala as Brahmana and called him Guru based on the truth spoken by that person.
The linked article refers to Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita to support its agruments but seems to be oblivious to the glaring fact that both were written by Veda Vyasa whose parentage and whose children’s caste is contradictory to those very arguments.
The link also says- “Instead of speaking about the subject myself, I will cite the views of Gandhiji who is much respected by the reformists: “The Gita does talk of varna being according to guna and karma, but guna and karma are inherited by birth.” So the fact that Krsna Paramatman’s practice is not at variance with his doctrine is confirmed by Gandhiji. ”
Gandhi was not a realised person.
His actions are more in conformity with what Christ and Buddha are supposed to have taught, the pacifist’s path, rather than what Krishna advocated in Gita.
To consider Gandhi as authority on Krishna’s sayings is not reasonable.
That Gandhi is being brought in in this manner to substantiate the article’s position leads to a question whether this article is indeed written by Sankaracharya or someone else.
What is common between the so-called Dalit Mayawati and a manual laborer ? How can both be classed as Dalit, which is what is being done nowadays
Maybe, this.
I have also been impressed by Incognito’s ability to decide who is a “realised” person and who is not.
Note to myself: Learn new skill set to define realisation and realised person.
Incognito : See this article :
http://gangp.sulekha.com/blog/post/2005/07/the-story-of-janasruti.htm
about a letter written by Swami Vivekananda asking questions about Adi Shankaracharya’s position on the Shudrapavada question. I don’t quite remember what Adi Shankaracharya wrote in his bhAShyam in the context of Satyakama’s story, but remember reading that he said that shUdras should take to mahAbhArata, rAmAyaNa etc. to educate themselves.
As to whether this is contradictory to vEda-vyAsa being born of a fisher woman etc. – frankly, I don’t know. If one has to form a comprehensive contradiction-free view of Hindu spirituality one will have to read a lot ( even then I am not sure if such a thing will be possible ). I am going by the fact that there are saints who supported both the birth based and non-birth-based systems. I don’t consider myself smart enough to question the saints.
Secondly, I don’t care a flying hoot for western notions of egalitarianism. Those guys slaughter millions of animals every day, and talk big about equality of human beings!
The words in the link I gave was indeed from the Periyavar, Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal. They are excerpts from this book titled “Hindu Dharma”. That website is the official website of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham; it can’t get more authentic than that.
@ froginthewell, Incognito: As an aside, both of you may find this post interesting:
Re-examining “Manusmriti”
Hi Shantanu,
Thanks for reminding me of that Arvind Sharma post. I need to get back to it, but it will take me quite some time to read through it and correlate it to my own readings of ( a translation of ) Manusmriti.
froginthewell,
In the story linked –
1. King Janasruti, a Kshatriya, had increase in tamasic quality of insecurity which is associated with Sudra character, when he heard about a spiritually more evolved person.
2. So when he approached Raikva the first time, it was this tamasic quality associated with Sudra characterstic that predominated him. With such a mindset Janasruti was not ready to acquire spiritual knowledge. So Raikva turned him away calling him a Sudra.
3. However, the earnest desire for spiritual knowledge, a Brahmana characterstic, caused Janasruti to approach Raikva the second time. So Raikva gave him the knowledge.
The story reveals the following-
1. Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic qualities are present in each of us in different proportions which vary at different times.
2. The varying proportions determine our Varna at that time. One with Satva predominating would be Brahmana, One with Rajas predominating with presence of some amount of Satva would be Kshatriya. One with Rajas predominating with presence of some amount of Tamas would be Vyshya. One with Tamas predominating over other two would be Sudra.
3. When Satva predominates us, we are ready for acquiring spiritual knowledge. Morning time supposedly nurtures Satva qualities. During day time Rajas dominates and at night, it is the turn of Tamas.
Dear Shantanu,
Many thanks for your mail and putting my questions on your blog. I have to thank all those who gave such thoughtful responses.
My questions arose from two sources.
Firstly from the commentaries in the Ramayana- A Critical Edition by Robert&Sally Goldman. I see now the authors took it that as deformity, stepmothers and dark skin tone are/were associated in Western literature with evil, the same must automatically apply to Hindu or Indian literature. I see now that they have limited knowledge or overview of Hindu texts.
And secondly from the common depiction of the Christian devil as dark skinned. The latter may have contributed to the demonisation of coloured people by White caucasians. I also see that the quote from the Treatise on Indian Painting and Image-Making -The VIishnunudharmottara (part 111) by Stella Kramrisch was not referenced in full where I read in an evangelical Christian site. The full article can be read in the following
http://www.archive.org/stream/vishnudharmottar031493mbp/vishnudharmottar031493mbp_djvu.txt
The quote missed the following important point
In other words I take this to mean there is artistic licence here. This both Dirtdigger and Hariprasad spoke of. It is simply an artistic technique to show the predominant guna or emotion of the person being depicted. It is not that dark skin colour is correlated in Hinu religious texts with an evil dispostion (as insinuated by the above mentioned Ramayana commentaries.
Your bolg is most interesting. I have just joined. I have interested in Hindu culture and would like to learn more. I thank you again.
Best wishes,
Owen
I forgot to additionally ask about the blackness of Mother Kali.In the West we would regard this blackness as frightening(correspondingly white people often fear coloured people). But I believe in Hinduism this darkness of Kali is seen as a symbol of The Infinite and the seed stage of all color. That it shows Her all-embracing, comprehensive nature, because black is the color in which all the colors merge;black absorbs and dissolves them. I take this as again a differeing view of blackness in India as opposed to the West. Again any comments on this are most appreciated. Many thanks.
Incognito : there are many arguments from either side. Perhaps your side is more convincing. But as long as people like Kanchi Periyavar on the other, I am not willing to dismiss it as nonsense. However much you may adduce arguments favoring your side. After all it isn’t even clear to me if there is one single “correct” Hindu way of looking at it.
I am not making a case in favor of the historical/theological validity either interpretation.
It is not easy to understand great epics.
They survived thousands of years and all social upheavals.
In Mahabharata for example you have the best example of KUNTI mother
of Pandavas.
She was not mother of FIVE sons ,though most readers will get an impression that she had five sons.
Nakula and Sahadeva were not her sons but the sons of her co-wife, Pandu’s second wife Madri.
Madri committed Sati that is, she sat on the burning funeral pyre of her husband Emperor Pandu, telling Kunti , to take of her sons.
And Kunti’s love for Nakula and also Sahadeva is well known.
When Arjuna won Droupadi, Kunti argued that Nakula and Sahadeva were also equally eligible to be her husbands.
Deformity was not equated with evil but surely associated with inferiority feelings and extreme jealousy.
The incidence of Manthara (hunch backed,dwarf , aya or nursing maid) of Kaikeyi, young wife of Dasaratha and step-mother of Sri Rama.
Ravana was extremely handsome so much so that a devout,desciplined bachelor like Sri Hanuman was astonished to see his radiance and beauty. But Ravana was evil.
Duryodhana who had a grear physique was evil.
Aswaththama , the brahmin and son of the great guru Dronacharya was a handsome,romatically beautiful , young man of sweet words who turned out be a child killer. He even used Brahmastra to kill the the foetus inside the womb of Abhimanyu’s wife !!