Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 8th, 2016, 12:20 PM   #31
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
LOL. Then what does the fire represent. I gave reasons why we should not take the fire literally. It is symbolic. The fire represents Hanumana's sexual passion. After his conversation with Seetha, he unleases his fire (sexual passion) on Seetha and has rough sex with her. Then he proceeds to leave Lanka via the north. While proceeding to Northern Lanka, he is unable to control his passion, and has sex with other Rakshasiis. When Ravana finds that out he gets pissed off and captures Hanumana. He decides to burn Hanumana's penis for this disgusting act, but Hanumana somehow manages to escape and has sex with more Rakshasiis in the area. He soon realizes the effect that unleasing his fire (sexual passion) had on the Rakshasiis in Lanka, and feels bad. He also realizes that Seetha might have died due to his rough sex with her and so he returns to see Seetha. After seeing that she is in a good condition, he leaves Lanka.
LOL LOL LOL

In the same sarga is a clear indication of what happened. If you see sex in everything, that is your view. It is not Valmiki's problem.

This is news to me that penis is in the back!
Aatreya is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2016, 12:25 PM   #32
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
LOL LOL LOL

In the same sarga is a clear indication of what happened. If you see sex in everything, that is your view. It is not Valmiki's problem.

This is news to me that penis is in the back!
And, by the way, fire is symbolic of ascetic power, anger, hunger among other things. Get over your obsession with sex. In this episode of Ramayana, there is nothing related to Hanuman and his sexual urge.
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 8th, 2016, 12:56 PM   #33
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
In the same sarga is a clear indication of what happened. If you see sex in everything, that is your view. It is not Valmiki's problem.
LMAO! I provided reasons to not take what Valmiki is saying very literally. But you have ignored that. Anyways, stay in your lala land where one person burns an entire city with fire on his tail.

Quote:
This is news to me that penis is in the back!
When did I say the penis is at the back? LOL.

Quote:
And, by the way, fire is symbolic of ascetic power, anger, hunger among other things. Get over your obsession with sex. In this episode of Ramayana, there is nothing related to Hanuman and his sexual urge.
Fire is a symbol of sex (at least in these epics it is). Take a look at how the fire birth of Draupadi is the story of how Yaja had sex with Drupada's wife (Yajna). Fire in these epics represents the yajna where one person pours the libation of his sperm into the other person's vagina:

History of Ancient Bharatvarsha: Was Draupadi Really Fire Born?

Also, you said that fire can symbolize many other things such as hunger, anger, and asceticism. That is true but in this case, Hanumana's penis is on fire. So the symbolism definitely refers to sex. The Vanaras were a tribe of humans living in the forests. They were not monkeys and therefore did not have tails. In the translations, the word लान्गूलेन which is translated incorrectly) by the translators as tail, is derived from the root word लाङ्गुल, meaning penis. So Hanumana's penis is on fire. That is beautiful symbolism for sexual desire.

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?t...on=SE&link=yes

You also claimed that there is no evidence of Hanumana's attraction to Seetha. That claim has no basis and I have countered it earlier as well. I will repeat what I said. When Hanumana returns to his Vanaras from Lanka, he addresses her as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks. That is clear sexual attraction. He also initially moves towards Seetha with a sexual desire and Seetha realizes this and backs off:

तयोः समागमे तस्मिन् प्रीतिः उत्पादिता अद्भुता |
परस्परेण च आलापम् विश्वस्तौ तौ प्रचक्रतुः || ५-३४-७
तस्याः तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा हनूमान् हरि यूथपः |
सीतायाः शोक दीनायाः समीपम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३४-८
यथा यथा समीपम् स हनूमान् उपसर्पति |
तथा तथा रावणम् सा तम् सीता परिशन्कते || ५-३४-९
अहो धिग् धिग् कृतम् इदम् कथितम् हि यत् अस्य मे |
रूप अन्तरम् उपागम्य स एव अयम् हि रावणः || ५-३४-१०
ताम् अशोकस्य शाखाम् सा विमुक्त्वा शोक कर्शिता |
तस्याम् एव अनवद्य अन्गी धरण्याम् समुपाविशत् || ५-३४-११

Seetha showed wonderful friendly disposition towards Hanuma who approached her. Both of them also conversed with each other in full confidence. Hearing that reply of Seetha who was afflicted with grief, Hanuma the army-chief of monkeys endeavoured to draw nearer to her. In as much as that Hanuma drew nearer to her, in the same way, that Seetha suspected him as Ravana. "O shame! It was my guilt to tell him all this to him. He is indeed that Ravana, who obtained another guise." That Seetha, having faultless limbs, leaving that branch of Ashoka tree and as emaciated with grief, sat down on that ground itself.

I seriously don't get it. Are you ashamed of sex? You seem to be able to accept all types of symbolism for fire other than sex, when the most prominent form of symbolism for fire in our epics is sex. What do you think the yajna performed by brahmins in which a child is born, actually is? It is obviously sex.

Last edited by Milin; December 8th, 2016 at 01:05 PM.
Milin is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 09:34 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
LMAO! I provided reasons to not take what Valmiki is saying very literally. But you have ignored that. Anyways, stay in your lala land where one person burns an entire city with fire on his tail.



When did I say the penis is at the back? LOL.



Fire is a symbol of sex (at least in these epics it is). Take a look at how the fire birth of Draupadi is the story of how Yaja had sex with Drupada's wife (Yajna). Fire in these epics represents the yajna where one person pours the libation of his sperm into the other person's vagina:

History of Ancient Bharatvarsha: Was Draupadi Really Fire Born?

Also, you said that fire can symbolize many other things such as hunger, anger, and asceticism. That is true but in this case, Hanumana's penis is on fire. So the symbolism definitely refers to sex. The Vanaras were a tribe of humans living in the forests. They were not monkeys and therefore did not have tails. In the translations, the word लान्गूलेन which is translated incorrectly) by the translators as tail, is derived from the root word लाङ्गुल, meaning penis. So Hanumana's penis is on fire. That is beautiful symbolism for sexual desire.

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

You also claimed that there is no evidence of Hanumana's attraction to Seetha. That claim has no basis and I have countered it earlier as well. I will repeat what I said. When Hanumana returns to his Vanaras from Lanka, he addresses her as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks. That is clear sexual attraction. He also initially moves towards Seetha with a sexual desire and Seetha realizes this and backs off:

तयोः समागमे तस्मिन् प्रीतिः उत्पादिता अद्भुता |
परस्परेण च आलापम् विश्वस्तौ तौ प्रचक्रतुः || ५-३४-७
तस्याः तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा हनूमान् हरि यूथपः |
सीतायाः शोक दीनायाः समीपम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३४-८
यथा यथा समीपम् स हनूमान् उपसर्पति |
तथा तथा रावणम् सा तम् सीता परिशन्कते || ५-३४-९
अहो धिग् धिग् कृतम् इदम् कथितम् हि यत् अस्य मे |
रूप अन्तरम् उपागम्य स एव अयम् हि रावणः || ५-३४-१०
ताम् अशोकस्य शाखाम् सा विमुक्त्वा शोक कर्शिता |
तस्याम् एव अनवद्य अन्गी धरण्याम् समुपाविशत् || ५-३४-११

Seetha showed wonderful friendly disposition towards Hanuma who approached her. Both of them also conversed with each other in full confidence. Hearing that reply of Seetha who was afflicted with grief, Hanuma the army-chief of monkeys endeavoured to draw nearer to her. In as much as that Hanuma drew nearer to her, in the same way, that Seetha suspected him as Ravana. "O shame! It was my guilt to tell him all this to him. He is indeed that Ravana, who obtained another guise." That Seetha, having faultless limbs, leaving that branch of Ashoka tree and as emaciated with grief, sat down on that ground itself.

I seriously don't get it. Are you ashamed of sex? You seem to be able to accept all types of symbolism for fire other than sex, when the most prominent form of symbolism for fire in our epics is sex. What do you think the yajna performed by brahmins in which a child is born, actually is? It is obviously sex.
I am not ashamed of sex. But I am ashamed of seeing sex in every possible thing. You should probably look at yourself and see how much you are obsessed with the idea of seeing sex in every thing. Sorry, the most important symbolism for fire is not sex, either in Vedic literature or in epic literature.

Let's see the details now:

First, I am well aware of one possible interpretation of "Vanara", where it meant a forest dwelling tribe that probably had some monkey sign. Even if we assume that they were humans, and not monkeys at all, what is the role of "penis" in this whole drama? Do you think, whenever Valmiki mentions about the tail, he is actually referring to penis? So when Hanuman comes to the court of Ravana, and sits on his tail, he was actually sitting on his penis? Are you out of your mind? For sure, this is your la la land. Enjoy.

I am well aware of the fact that the sexual intercourse is likened to a Yajna (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad), but in this context fire is not sex. Further, you claim that Draupadi was born because of sex between Yaja and Drupada's wife, and that sex is fire. What is so special about Draupadi being born of sex (fire)? Aren't we all born that way? Why do the shastras emphasize the fire part in case of Draupadi. Why is she called Yajnaseni?

The word "LangUla" is tail as well as penis. See here: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Where is the mistaken translation that you are talking about? Further, the word "Langulin" means "tailed" or "monkey". See here:
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

The root word for all these is not "Langula" but is a more basic root "Lang" or "Langh" The above words are all derived words.

Let's take a look at the actual verses and their meanings:

तयोः समागमे तस्मिन् प्रीतिः उत्पादिता अद्भुता |
परस्परेण च आलापम् विश्वस्तौ तौ प्रचक्रतुः || ५-३४-७
तस्याः तत् वचनम् श्रुत्वा हनूमान् हरि यूथपः |
सीतायाः शोक दीनायाः समीपम् उपचक्रमे || ५-३४-८
यथा यथा समीपम् स हनूमान् उपसर्पति |
तथा तथा रावणम् सा तम् सीता परिशन्कते || ५-३४-९
अहो धिग् धिग् कृतम् इदम् कथितम् हि यत् अस्य मे |
रूप अन्तरम् उपागम्य स एव अयम् हि रावणः || ५-३४-१०
ताम् अशोकस्य शाखाम् सा विमुक्त्वा शोक कर्शिता |
तस्याम् एव अनवद्य अन्गी धरण्याम् समुपाविशत् || ५-३४-११

The translation you posted is right too:

Seetha showed wonderful friendly disposition towards Hanuma who approached her. Both of them also conversed with each other in full confidence. Hearing that reply of Seetha who was afflicted with grief, Hanuma the army-chief of monkeys endeavoured to draw nearer to her. In as much as that Hanuma drew nearer to her, in the same way, that Seetha suspected him as Ravana. "O shame! It was my guilt to tell him all this to him. He is indeed that Ravana, who obtained another guise." That Seetha, having faultless limbs, leaving that branch of Ashoka tree and as emaciated with grief, sat down on that ground itself.

What you did not mention are 5-34-1 through 5-34-6, where the message of Hanuma instills confidence in Seeta, and that leads to 5-34-7 through 5-34-11.

Source: Valmiki Ramayana - Sundara Kanda - Sarga 34

5-34-1: Hearing those words of Seetha who was overthrown from one grief to another, Hanuma the best of monkeys gave the following reply in a kindly and affectionate manner.
5-34-2: "O Seetha the daughter of the king of Videha Kingdom! I have come here as your messenger on Rama's directions. The virtuous Rama enquired about your welfare too."
5-34-3: "O Divine Lady! Rama the son of Dasaratha, who is excellent among the knowers of Veda and who knows Brahma's missile (a mythical weapon which deals infallible destruction) and Vedas the sacred knowledge, enquired about your welfare."
5-34-4: "Also the greatly splendorous Lakshmana, the favorite brother and the follower of your husband, himself tormented with grief, performed salutation to you by bowing his head."
5-34-5: Hearing that news of welfare of Rama and Lakshmana the excellent of men, the divine lady, with all her limbs thrilled with joy, spoke to Hanuma (as follows):
5-34-6:" 'Joy rushes to surviving man even though (it be) as the end of a hundred years' - this popular adage appears true and auspicious for me."

And that leads to the paragraph you posted. I am not an ascetic, and am a married man with a son. I cannot see a hint of sexual attraction depicted in the above paragraphs. I can clearly see a messenger communicating to a woman, trying to make her comfortable. Respect for Sita by Hanuman is seen in the whole of Ramayana. Do you wear special glasses to see sexual attraction in the above paragraphs?

Some more verses in the Sarga that depict the mood:

5-34-27: Understanding the contemplation of Seetha, Hanuma the son of wind-god then brought about a great joy in her with his words most favorable to her ears (as follows):
5-34-28: "Rama has a great splendour like that of the sun. He is pleasing to all like the moon. As Kubera the Lord of wealth, he is a lord to the entire world. Like Vishnu, he is greatly renowned and endowed with valor."
5-34-29: "Rama is a speaker of truth. Like Lord Brihaspati, he has a sweet voice. He is a handsome man, possessing good fortune and a royal dignity. He is a personified Manmatha, the lord of love."

So the above verses depict the increase of sexual urge in Hanuman, right? If drawing nearer only means sexual attraction, you probably haven't seen much of life.

And to bust your claims about penis, the above mentioned verses consistently describe Hanuma as Harii yuthapam, meaning chief of monkeys. Whether they were real monkeys or not, poetically, tail is also depicted.

I can spend hours countering your silly interpretation, but alas I am busy right now.

I ask you a final question. Do you know what Yajna means?
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 12:57 PM   #35
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
I am not ashamed of sex. But I am ashamed of seeing sex in every possible thing. You should probably look at yourself and see how much you are obsessed with the idea of seeing sex in every thing. Sorry, the most important symbolism for fire is not sex, either in Vedic literature or in epic literature.
I am not obsessed with sex, but it seems like you cant see sex where it is present. In mahabharatha and ramayana fire is often symbolism for sex. Remember the yajna's from which Draupadi and Rama was born?

Quote:
Let's see the details now:

First, I am well aware of one possible interpretation of "Vanara", where it meant a forest dwelling tribe that probably had some monkey sign. Even if we assume that they were humans, and not monkeys at all, what is the role of "penis" in this whole drama? Do you think, whenever Valmiki mentions about the tail, he is actually referring to penis? So when Hanuman comes to the court of Ravana, and sits on his tail, he was actually sitting on his penis? Are you out of your mind? For sure, this is your la la land. Enjoy.
I am not going to accept the interpretation that some monkeys came and talked with humans and they built an army and killed a human king. That is illogical by any stretch of imagination. So I will consider them human tribes living in forests that were more connected with nature and were not ashamed of their natural instincts like sex.

Hanumana does not sit on his tail in front of Ravana. That is not present in Valmiki Ramayana. Don't believe me? Then read Sundara Kanda sections 49-55.

Quote:
I am well aware of the fact that the sexual intercourse is likened to a Yajna (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad), but in this context fire is not sex. Further, you claim that Draupadi was born because of sex between Yaja and Drupada's wife, and that sex is fire. What is so special about Draupadi being born of sex (fire)? Aren't we all born that way? Why do the shastras emphasize the fire part in case of Draupadi. Why is she called Yajnaseni?

The word "LangUla" is tail as well as penis. See here: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Where is the mistaken translation that you are talking about? Further, the word "Langulin" means "tailed" or "monkey". See here:
Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

The root word for all these is not "Langula" but is a more basic root "Lang" or "Langh" The above words are all derived words.
Ok. Mistake accepted. The word also refers to tail. But I will consider it penis, as humans don't have tails. Penis is more suited in the context of Vanaras of Ramayana. Do we see any instances of female Vanaras with these tails/penis? I have not come across such cases...

First of all mahabharatha is history recorded as a poem. It is not a scripture, so don't call it a shastra. Did you read that link about Draupadi's birth that I posted? I clearly explained how Draupadi's birth from fire (yajna) was propaganda created by Drupada and the Panchala royalty to elevate his son and daughter to divinity. This creation would have had political benefits. Namely, everyone was eager to have an alliance with Drupada via Draupadi (her beauty and divine birth). Due to this propaganda,Drupada was called Yajnasena, and his daughter was called Yajnaseni...

In this context, since we have the penis, and it is associated with fire, the fire symbolizes sex and sexual desire. I wouldn't consider that a burning penis symbolizes hunger or anger or asceticism.

Quote:
And that leads to the paragraph you posted. I am not an ascetic, and am a married man with a son. I cannot see a hint of sexual attraction depicted in the above paragraphs. I can clearly see a messenger communicating to a woman, trying to make her comfortable. Respect for Sita by Hanuman is seen in the whole of Ramayana. Do you wear special glasses to see sexual attraction in the above paragraphs?
Ok. So let me explain to you what is happening here. In this section, only the bottom part of Seetha's body is covered. Her breasts are exposed, and she is holding a branch with one arm. This was kind of like the position that Draupadi employed to seduce Jayadratha... Hanumana sees her and no doubt is attracted to her when she is in such a position. Her tears and grief evoke sympathy in Hanumana for Seetha, and that along with her beauty in that position gets Hanumana attracted to her and desirous of "consoling" her. He goes close to her with a desire to console her and a subconscious desire for sex due to attraction for her.

Think about a beautiful girl crying and in tears. One would definitely go to console the person, but the main factor that attracts the person to this beautiful girl is her tears that enhance her beauty and evoke sympathy in the person for that beautiful girl. Thats exactly what happened to Hanumana.

As he goes closer and closer to her, Seetha reads his feelings of sexual desire for her by observing his body language and backs off. She removes her hand from the branch of the tree and sits down.

But here is the catch. She actually knows Hanumana's attraction for her (through his body language) but does not want to have sex with him yet, as her sexual drive is not stimulated. She needs to find a way to stimulate her sexual drive. So she pretends to be angry with Hanumana. We know that she is pretending because she does not behave like one that is angry. She speaks in a sweet sounding voice to Hanumana (see verse 13), and says that she would be consoled (and will believe that he is not Ravana) if he praises Rama by narrating his qualities. She is not angry at all and is looking to be aroused. She goes on to say that when she saw him (Hanumana), a feeling of love arose in her mind for him (verse 17):

athavaa naitadevaM hi yanmayaa parishaN^kitam || 5-34-17
manaso hi mama priitirutpannaa tava darshanaat |

"Otherwise, whatever is suspected by me is not indeed true because in my mind, a feeling of love indeed occurred by reason of your audience."

Now the translators translated priiti as a sensation of pleasure. But priiti means pleasure/friendliness/happiness in the context of love or affection. So a more appropriate translation would be "a feeling or love" or "a feeling of affection". Translating priiti as pleasure is a very broad type of translation, and can be interpreted in many different ways. So I think affection/love is more appropriate.

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

So she is not really angry but just wants to feel aroused by hearing a bit of Rama's praises. Towards the end of section 34, Hanumana praises Rama, but it seems like it is not enough for Seetha, and so she wants to increase her sexual drive by hearing the physical appearance of Rama and Lakshmana (which was not described by Hanumana in section 34). She specifically asks for the appearance of their arms and thighs, which would be muscular areas, and an attractive area in the body of men, for women:

"O Hanuma! What are the characteristics of Rama and Lakshmana? Narrate them to me, so that sorrow will not take possession of me again." "Of what kind was the appearance of that Rama and of Lakshmana? Of what kind was their form? How were the thighs? How were the arms? Tell me."

Valmiki Ramayana - Sundara Kanda - Sarga 35 

As you can see, she wants to get sexually aroused by imagining the attractive bodies of Rama and Lakshmana, specifically, their thighs and arms. She adds the aspect of being in sorrow to further evoke sympathy in Hanumana for her, and convince him to describe their physical appearance.

Hanumana realizes her desire to evoke pleasure in herself by hearing the description of their physical appearance, and therefore comments:

Hearing the words of Seetha, Hanuma, the son of wind-god, then started to describe Rama according to his actual state (as follows): "O Seetha having eyes resembling lotus leaves! By my fortune, you are enquiring about the appearance of Rama your husband and Lakshmana, eventhough you know about them. Alas! what a pleasure!"

Valmiki Ramayana - Sundara Kanda - Sarga 35 

He understands her desire, and even goes on to comment about the physical appearance of Rama's testicles and penis:

त्रिस्थिरः त्रिप्रलम्बः च त्रिसमः त्रिषु च उन्नतः |
त्रिवलीवान् त्र्यवनतः चतुः व्यन्गः त्रिशीर्षवान् || ५-३५-१७

"He is ever firm in three limbs (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the breast, waist and fist), long in three (viz. the eyebrows, arms and soles), uniform in three (viz. his locks, testical and knees, elevated in three (viz. his breast, rim of his navel and lower abdomen), coppery in three of the navel and the lower abdomen), coppery in three (viz. the rims of his eyes, nails, palms and soles), soft in three (viz. the lines on his soles, hair and the end of the membrane virile) and always deep in three (viz. the voice, gait and the navel)."

चतुष् कलः चतुः लेखः चतुष् किष्कुः चतुः समः |
चतुर्दश सम द्वन्द्वः चतुः दष्टः चतुः गतिः || ५-३५-१९

"He has fourteen other pairs of limbs (viz. the eye brows, nostrils, eyes, ears, lips, nipples, elbows, wrists, knees testicles, loins, hands, feet and thighs) equally matched. The four large teeth at both the ends of his upper and lower jaws are very sharp. He walks in four gaits (resembling the walks of a lion, a tiger, an elephant and a bull). He is endowed with excellent lips, chin and nose. He has five glossy limbs (viz. the hair, eyes, teeth, skin and soles). He has eight long limbs (viz. the arms, fingers and toes, eyes and ears, thighs and shanks).

Valmiki Ramayana - Sundara Kanda - Sarga 35 

So this description would have sexually aroused her, and they likely had sex after that. When Hanumana returns to his Vanara's he describes Seetha by using the word sushroni (su+shroni), meaning one with good (su) hips, loin, and buttocks (shroni)

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

पति व्रता च सुश्रोणी अवष्टब्धा च जानकी || ५-५९-२७
अनुरक्ता हि वैदेही रामम् सर्व आत्मना शुभा |
अनन्य चित्ता रामे च पौलोमी इव पुरम् दरे || ५-५९-२८

"Seetha, a devoted and virtuous wife, having charming hips, loin, and buttocks, has been placed under restraint. The auspicious Seetha is devoted to Rama in all ways, giving her undivided thought to Rama like Shachi the goddess, giving her concern to Indra the destroyer of strong holds."

The translator incorrectly translated सुश्रोणी as hips, but it actually refers to the part of the regions covered by the buttocks, hips, and loin. Now Hanumana could have only commented on that region if he had seen it. We don't have any evidence that she was naked, so logically, it would mean that he had seen those regions when having sex with her...

Quote:
So the above verses depict the increase of sexual urge in Hanuman, right? If drawing nearer only means sexual attraction, you probably haven't seen much of life.

And to bust your claims about penis, the above mentioned verses consistently describe Hanuma as Harii yuthapam, meaning chief of monkeys. Whether they were real monkeys or not, poetically, tail is also depicted.

I can spend hours countering your silly interpretation, but alas I am busy right now.
No. Those verses don't. But Seetha seeing Hanumana's desire, and backing off by saying that he is Ravana definitely show that she read his body language that showed desire towards herself. A woman can definitely pick up attraction from a male's body language. And we are talking about Seetha, here, who was an expert at reading body language of men. That has been showed to us, time and time again. For example, refer to how she reads the body language of Viraadha, Rama and Lakshmana, and manipulates them (when Viraadha overpowers Seetha and tries to carry her away). She reads Ravana's body lanuage when he comes to see her for the first time, and instantly realizes that he is a pseudo brahmin...

In my opinion, when they describe Hanumana as Harii yuthapam or kapii, they are referring to his monkey-like qualities of no restraint in natural instincts that he acquired by living amongst tribals in forests, all his life. I don't really consider that they believe him to be a real monkey...

Quote:
I ask you a final question. Do you know what Yajna means?
Yes I do. In general, it refers to a sacrifice, or offering, where any sort of libation is offered to produce some sort of effect or outcome. It does not always refer to sex, but the yajna's that involve a libation of sperm, and result in the production of offspring definitely refer to sex.
Milin is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 05:43 PM   #36
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Very imaginative interpretation, I must say, from the OP...I am 100% sure that none of it is remotely true..but he/she has really let his/her imagination run wild here
I'm just trying to see the most likely possibility, considering that Lanka was never burned down by Hanumana... Anyways, we do have evidence of Hanumana's attraction for Seetha. When he comes back to his Vanaras after visiting Seetha, he addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks (Sundara Kanda Section 59). This shows clear attraction towards Seetha, on Hanumana's part. Furthermore, Hanumana could not have described these body parts unless he had seen them, which is not possible unless he was having sex with Seetha...
Milin is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 06:53 PM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
I'm just trying to see the most likely possibility, considering that Lanka was never burned down by Hanumana... Anyways, we do have evidence of Hanumana's attraction for Seetha. When he comes back to his Vanaras after visiting Seetha, he addresses Seetha as sushroni, meaning one with nice hips, loin, and buttocks (Sundara Kanda Section 59). This shows clear attraction towards Seetha, on Hanumana's part. Furthermore, Hanumana could not have described these body parts unless he had seen them, which is not possible unless he was having sex with Seetha...
I will reply to you in detail later, but for now hold off on your fascination for Hanuman and Seeta. Shroni is buttocks, and anybody's butt (the shape) can be seen without having to perform sex. What a crazy conclusion!

Moreover, in the ancient poems, when someone's physique was described, care was taken to eulogize body parts in right proportion, and I do not see anything out of the world about sushroni.

Keep adding whatever body parts you want to the meaning of shroni.
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 9th, 2016, 09:27 PM   #38
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
I will reply to you in detail later, but for now hold off on your fascination for Hanuman and Seeta. Shroni is buttocks, and anybody's butt (the shape) can be seen without having to perform sex. What a crazy conclusion!

Moreover, in the ancient poems, when someone's physique was described, care was taken to eulogize body parts in right proportion, and I do not see anything out of the world about sushroni.

Keep adding whatever body parts you want to the meaning of shroni.
There is no indication that Seetha's clothes were tight at the bottom.Most likely she was wearing a dhoti type cloth at the bottom which would be loose. So the shape of her butts would not be evident. And Hanumana describes them using "su", which the translators have translated as meaning charming. It can also be translated as "great". So he could also be describing her buttocks as being large. That is a quality that one cannot see through a dhoti (which is usually tied very loosely).

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Furthermore, shroni refers to hips and loins as well. Take a look at the translation:

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Also, don't you find any sexual attraction in one describing another person's buttocks? I definitely do.
Milin is offline  
Old December 10th, 2016, 08:27 AM   #39

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,676

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
The city of Lanka looked beautiful with its towering City-gates resembling white clouds as well as with golden and silver ramparts.
You mean if I visit Lahore or Islamabad or Swat, I should not like it because it is enemy territory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
And Hanumana describes them using "su", which the translators have translated as meaning charming. It can also be translated as "great". So he could also be describing her buttocks as being large. That is a quality that one cannot see through a dhoti (which is usually tied very loosely).

Furthermore, shroni refers to hips and loins as well.

Also, don't you find any sexual attraction in one describing another person's buttocks? I definitely do.
Only one who is blind cannot guess the body of a woman clad in dhoti. Sanskrit poets were not victorian. From Valmiki to Jayadeva, they tried to make their story interesting. And the readers too understand to differentiate pornography from a poet's fancy.

You are in Canada and you may a Hindu. Please do not be so fixated on sex. Keep away from molesting children. Views such as yours are psychopathic, perhaps you need to see a psychiatrist. Such views can bring misfortune to you and disrepute to India.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; December 10th, 2016 at 09:34 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 10th, 2016, 09:50 AM   #40
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
You mean if I visit Lahore or Islamabad or Swat, I should not like it because it is enemy territory?
No, you can like it if you want. But if the place is burnt down to ashes, you definitely won't praise its beauty as it would be in ruins. The point I was trying to make is that Hanumana never physically burnt down Lanka.

Quote:
Only one who is blind cannot guess the body of a woman clad in dhoti. Sanskrit poets were not victorian. From Valmiki to Jayadeva, they tried to make their story interesting. And the readers too understand to differentiate pornography from a poet's fancy.
That is a really silly comment. If a poet describes a female's beauty by describing her hips, buttocks, and loins, he definitely feels some sort of sexual attraction to her. After all, he too is a man.

In this case, you have to learn to differentiate between when the poet is writing his own opinion, and when the poet is just re-stating another character's opinion. In this case, Valmiki does not call her sushroni. It is Hanumana that does. Subtle hints like these should be picked up to describe the inner state of mind of a character. If someone describes a female's butt, loin, and hips, they are definitely sexually attracted to the female.

Also, dhoti's are not tied tightly. They are often tied very loosely. When tied in such a manner, it is not possible to see the shape of the buttocks to describe them as big, or fascinating. Seetha was not wearing skin tight pants... LOL. Also, from such a dhoti, the shape of the loin will not be visible.

Quote:
You are perhaps in a foreign country and you may an Indian. Please do not be so fixated on sex. Keep away from molesting children. Views such as yours are psychopathic, perhaps you need to see a psychiatrist.
I do have Indian ancestry and I stay in Canada. From where did you come up with the idea that I want to molest children? LOL. There are some instances where sex is not present in the epic. But there are other instances where sex and sexual desire is presented. If describing a female's loin is not sexual desire to you, then I wonder what would be sexual desire to you? Your aversion to sex and sexuality can be explained by the fact that you are currently staying in India, a nation still possessing Victorian views on sex and sexuality...

Instead of saying I need to see a psychiatrist, why don't you try to be a bit more open minded?
Milin is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
hate, ramayana, shurpanakha



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hate against non-american people in USA sharly55 Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 9 June 30th, 2014 06:32 AM
Do people of India hate Ghandi? Commander Asian History 62 March 20th, 2011 04:17 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.