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 10th, 2016, 10:10 AM   #41

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
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.
It also means that the damage was not extensive and the Rakshasas with their ample resources and expertise could repair the damage. After all, the were the builders of the gold city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
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.
Well, that is your view and not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
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.
Even a loose dhoti reveals quite some information. And the mind also checks the physique of a person by his face and arms - that can tell one if the lady is fat or thin, strong or weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
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?
If your mother or sister is beautiful, does that sexually excite you? A controlled mind knows what is permissible and what is not. You say that you have some Indian blood, was your mother a Hindu or your grandmother? I we go by the description of Megasthenes, then it will mean that they prostituted themselves after their marriage. That is why I request you not to be so sex-fixated.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 10th, 2016, 10:50 AM   #42
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
It also means that the damage was not extensive and the Rakshasas with their ample resources and expertise could repair the damage. After all, the were the builders of the gold city.
No it doesn't. In Sundara Kanda, Hanumana describes burning the ENTIRE Lanka to ASHES. If it was that badly damaged it would take decades to repair and recover it to its former glory. This many decades of time was not available to Ravana due to Rama's arrival and attack on Lanka.

Quote:
Well, that is your view and not mine.
Ok. Next time you see a girl (stranger), describe her ass to her and see her reaction. If it is normal, then you are right. If she gets disgusted or disturbed by what you say, you should rethink your view...

Quote:
Even a loose dhoti reveals quite some information. And the mind also checks the physique of a person by his face and arms - that can tell one if the lady is fat or thin, strong or weak.
A dhoti will not reveal the shape of the the butts or the loins. It is just too loose to reveal such details. You need something skin tight, like this, to see the features of those body parts:

Click the image to open in full size.

You can see the persons face and arms to see if they are fat/thin, but how does that relate to loin/buttock size/appearance. Even thin people can have big butts.

Quote:
If your mother or sister is beautiful, does that sexually excite you? A controlled mind knows what is permissible and what is not. You say that you have some Indian blood, was your mother a Hindu or your grandmother? I we go by the description of Megasthenes, then it will mean that they prostituted themselves after their marriage. That is why I request you not to be so sex-fixated.
If my mother or sister is beautiful it would definitely sexually excite me. But after seeing the sexual excitement, I would control it, as mother-son or sister-brother sexual relationships are not common and looked down upon.

My mother and father were both born in India. What is wrong in the ancients prostituting themselves after marriage? I don't see anything wrong...
Milin is offline  
Old December 10th, 2016, 11:14 AM   #43

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,192
Blog Entries: 2

Have you guys considered you may be overthinking some of this? Even assuming the literature was meant to be taken literally, there's no reason to assume god level omniscience in the acts of the authors. Take any modern novel. Often there are minor issues of how the author describes things in certain contexts (like characters in clothes) which in reality wouldn't necessarily be possible. I'm all for analyzing and reading into texts, but dissecting it to such a high level of minutiae... I'm not sure how sustainable it is. We're talking about an organic text here. The sort of analysis you're doing isn't sustainable even for texts completely fictional and fixed in time (like Harry Potter for instance). Nor for texts describing completely real events and fixed in time (like biographies or autobiographies). At what point does this go from interpretation to fan-fiction? I'll be honest, I'm fairly awed by the specific and extensive attention to chapter and verse here, but I'm getting confused about the issue at hand.

Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
No it doesn't. In Sundara Kanda, Hanumana describes burning the ENTIRE Lanka to ASHES. If it was that badly damaged it would take decades to repair and recover it to its former glory. This many decades of time was not available to Ravana due to Rama's arrival and attack on Lanka.
Milin, I gotta ask - once you've entered the realm of subjective analysis, wherein you dismiss some verses and statements as being falsely placed to achieve certain objectives - why cannot you do the same here? If you can argue that Valmiki exaggerated Surphanaka's ugliness, why not place exaggerated statements in Hanuman's mouth? Or Why can't Hanuman be exaggerating? Maybe he did burn down a small part of Lanka. Maybe he was showing off? I'm not questioning your logic, just curious as to why you're so forcefully assertive about your interpretation.
tornada is offline  
Old December 10th, 2016, 01:08 PM   #44
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Milin, I gotta ask - once you've entered the realm of subjective analysis, wherein you dismiss some verses and statements as being falsely placed to achieve certain objectives - why cannot you do the same here? If you can argue that Valmiki exaggerated Surphanaka's ugliness, why not place exaggerated statements in Hanuman's mouth? Or Why can't Hanuman be exaggerating? Maybe he did burn down a small part of Lanka. Maybe he was showing off? I'm not questioning your logic, just curious as to why you're so forcefully assertive about your interpretation.
I never claimed that Valmiki exaggerated Shurpanakha's ugliness. I claim that he outright lied that she was ugly. In my opinion, she was a beautiful woman, as Rama describes her initially as having an enthralling body. So there is no exaggeration here on Valmiki's part.

Sure Hanumana could have exaggerated the extent to which he burned down Lanka. But it is a fact that after he left Seetha (who was in south Lanka), he proceeded north. There his tail was put on fire and he burned north Lanka. He found the damage so extensive that he was worried if Seetha, who was in South Lanka had died from it. That indicates that the burning was so extensive and happened at least from North Lanka, all the way down to South Lanka. That is some serious damage that would take long to repair. Ravana did not have that kind of time.
Milin is offline  
Old December 10th, 2016, 02:42 PM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,733

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
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.



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.



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?
So in Valmiki Ramayana, it is Hanuman that says Sushroni, but not Valmiki....

Now I get it. Keep these gems coming!
Aatreya is offline  
Old December 11th, 2016, 06:08 AM   #46

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

Let me also point out that five/six or nine yard 'saree' is perhaps a recent dress. In olden times, it was a petticoat (antariya) on the waist, blouse (kanchuki) and an odhani to cover the upper part of the body (uttariya). Some times the kanchuki too was not required and just the upper garment would do.

"In the Rig Veda, mainly three terms were described like Adhivastra, Kurira and Andpratidhi for garments which correspondingly denotes the outer cover (veil), a head-ornament or head-dress (turban) and part of woman's dress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...a#Vedic_period

Also "A series of experiments by Princeton psychologists Janine Willis and Alexander Todorov reveal that all it takes is a tenth of a second to form an impression of a stranger from their face, and that longer exposures don’t significantly alter those impressions (although they might boost your confidence in your judgments). Their research is presented in their article “First Impressions,” in the July issue of Psychological Science." http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...n#.WE1vF_l96M8

Further https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourc...t+first+glance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
I never claimed that Valmiki exaggerated Shurpanakha's ugliness. I claim that he outright lied that she was ugly.
By her own admission and by the belief of that time, Shupanakha was a form-changing Rakshasi. She could be apsara-like or hideous at her will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
What is wrong in the ancients prostituting themselves after marriage? I don't see anything wrong...
It is generally considered against the rules of society in India (the seventh vow) but it may be OK in your culture.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; December 11th, 2016 at 06:53 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 11th, 2016, 07:33 AM   #47
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Let me also point out that five/six or nine yard 'saree' is perhaps a recent dress. In olden times, it was a petticoat (antariya) on the waist, blouse (kanchuki) and an odhani to cover the upper part of the body (uttariya). Some times the kanchuki too was not required and just the upper garment would do.
Actually that is incorrect. Only the bottom part of the body was covered. The upper body remained uncovered for the most part. The only exception is royalty, who sometimes wore an uttariya. Take a look at this description of Kunti. In the rangbhoomi, she cries, and her tears fall on her breasts and mix with her breastmilk. Now if one had their breasts covered, this would not be possible, right?:

"On seeing Arjuna, the whole assembly were delighted and conchs began to be blown all around with other musical instruments. And there arose a great uproar in consequence of the spectators' exclaiming,--'This is the graceful son of Kunti!'--'This is the middle (third) Pandava!'--'This is the son of the mighty Indra!'--'This is the protector of the Kurus'--'This is the foremost of those versed in arms!'--'This is the foremost of all cherishers of virtue!'--'This is the foremost of the persons of correct behaviour, the great repository of the knowledge of manners!' At those exclamations, the tears of Kunti, mixing with the milk of her breast, wetted her bosom.
The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Sambhava Parva: Section CXXXVII

Quote:
By her own admission and by the belief of that time, Shupanakha was a form-changing Rakshasi. She could be apsara-like or hideous at her will.
The exact word used was kama ruupina, which could mean guise changer, but could also means a very beautiful woman. Her description by Rama shows she was beautiful at the time.

Quote:
It is generally considered against the rules of society in India (the seventh vow) but it may be OK in your culture.
Rules in society change with time... And anyways, marriage is quite a useless concept anyways.
Milin is offline  
Old December 11th, 2016, 09:28 AM   #48

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
Now if one had their breasts covered, this would not be possible, right?:
I do not know. Perhaps they fell in the cleavage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
The exact word used was kama ruupina, which could mean guise changer, but could also means a very beautiful woman. Her description by Rama shows she was beautiful at the time.
Quite possiible. But she told Rama that she could take any form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
Rules in society change with time... And anyways, marriage is quite a useless concept anyways.
Yes, Milin, rules change. However, you are giving your views to a person who is soon going to celebrate the golden jubilee of his marriage. We have a saying in Hindi that marriage is a fruit, one who eats it suffers, one who does not eat it also suffers. (Jo khaye so pachhtaye, jo na khaye vo bhi pachhtaye). No escape.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 11th, 2016, 09:51 AM   #49
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: Canada
Posts: 120
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
I do not know. Perhaps they fell in the cleavage.
Maybe, but I doubt it. The clevage would have to have been great for that to happen. It should have also happened at the exact moment she was crying, making it highly unlikely. Also, see the way Ravana described Seetha when he first saw her. It becomes clear that she was not covering her upper body:

"Your teeth are evenly, smooth and their tips are like jasmine buds, and your whitish broad eyes are spotless, reddish at ends, and pupils are black. [3-46-18]. "Your hips are beamy, thighs burly akin to elephant's trunks, and these two breasts of yours that are ornamented with best jewellery are rotund, rubbing and bumping each other, and they are swinging up and up, their nipples are brawny and jutting out, and they are smoothish like palm-fruits, thus they are covetable for they are beautiful. [3-46-19, 20]. "Oh, allurer, your smile is alluring, teeth are alluring, and your eyes allure, oh, beauty, your waist is palmful, your hair velvety, your breasts are jostling, and you rob my soul as a spate robs riverbank. [3-46-21, 22a]

Valmiki Ramayana - Aranya Kanda - Sarga 46 

Furthermore, when Kichaka describes Draupadi's beauty, he describes her saying there is no space between her two breasts. That can only be said if he could clearly see her breasts, suggesting they were not covered. When Indrajit injures Rama/Lakshmana, Ravana sends Seetha to see their unconscious bodies. Then Seetha says that she has all auspicious marks on her body. Then how could her husband be killed? She goes on to describe her breasts and nipples, which would not be normal if her breasts were covered:

"My breasts are close to each other, fully developed and have depressed nipples. My navel is deeply idented. My flanks and bossom are well-formed." "My complexion has the sheen of a pearl. The hair on my skin are soft. It is said of me as endowed with auspicious signs, in that I touched the ground with my twelve limbs (viz. the ten toes and two soles).

Valmiki Ramayana - Yuddha Kanda - Sarga 48 

There are many more references to people being topless in these epics.

Quote:
Quite possiible. But she told Rama that she could take any form.
Well, Kama rupina was the word used when she described herself as a guise changer that could take any form. But if that word means beautiful, then she was not a guise changer. Kama rupina could have only one intended meaning...

Quote:
Yes, Milin, rules change. However, you are giving your views to a person who is soon going to celebrate the golden jubilee of his marriage. We have a saying in Hindi that marriage is a fruit, one who eats it suffers, one who does not eat it also suffers. (Jo khaye so pachhtaye, jo na khaye vo bhi pachhtaye). No escape.
I guess that only applies if one is eager for marriage and then refuses marriage. But I am not eager for marriage
Milin is offline  
Old December 11th, 2016, 05:55 PM   #50

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milin View Post
Maybe, but I doubt it. The clevage would have to have been great for that to happen.
Kunti had mothered four children, was past menopause age when there are harmonal changes. Many women put on weight by that age. Yes, perhaps the cleavage was great.
Aupmanyav 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.