Durga Painting Vandalized -- by Hindu Fundamentalists!

[Guest guest]

MUMBAI (Jan. 31, 2004): On Thursday evening, a mob of Bajrang Dal

and Vishwa Hindu Parishad strongmen barged into the Garden Gallery

at Surat , shattered its glass panels and vandalised some of the

paintings on display to protect "Hindu culture".

 

The target of their wrath was a painting whose title and depiction

of Goddess Durga was found to be objectionable. VHP leader Vimal

Unarkad told TNN that goddess Durga had been depicted in very bad

taste.

 

A disturbing aspect of the vandalism was that the anger was

generated because the protesters thought that the work was the

creation of M.F. Husain [a famous Indian Muslim artist - DB] —

mistakenly, as it turned out. Husain's painting of Saraswati was

destroyed in 1996 by the Bajrang Dal.

 

The Durga painting was the handiwork of Kolkata-based Chittrovanu

Mazumdar, a young painter who has been extolled by Husain as

showing "great dynamism and promise."

 

According to Husain, when the protesters discovered that the

painting wasn't his, their wrath was dissipated. The Durga painting

is now in police custody.

 

In the confusion that followed, misinformation ruled the airwaves.

The electronic and print media went to town saying that the works of

India 's master painter had been attacked once again.

 

One TV channel, says a peeved Husain seated at the Pundole Gallery

at Fountain, even showed his paintings of Madhuri [i.e., Madhuri

Dixit; a very famous Bollywood film actress who has served as muse

and model in many of Husain's more recent works - DB] and called her

Durga.

 

"We live in an era of mediocrity," he says, referring not only to

the "midgets who attacked the gallery" but mediapersons who did not

bother to check back with him.

 

Husain, who inaugurated the Garden Gallery exhibition, did have a

massive painting on display, but he is quick to point out that it

did not have any gods or goddesses.

 

The painting had the human pantheon of the 20th century—Mahatma

Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung, Picasso, Charlie Chaplin and Einstein. The 88-

year-old artist mourns the fact that the media has created an

impression in the minds of the public that he only paints nudes.

 

Although most viewers unreservedly condemned the violent attack on

the Garden Gallery, many found the concept of the painting crude and

unnecessarily provocative.

 

Not everyone is ready to buy into an artist's right to "creative

licence". But Mazumdar, who was more than a little taken aback by

the trouble stirred by a four-year-old painting, told this paper

that there was no intention of desecrating an icon he regards

highly.

 

"I had no intention of maligning any icon or anybody for that

matter. It was a critique of an extreme kind of consumption,"

explains Mazumdar.

 

Adds collector and Garden Gallery owner Praful Shah, "All kinds of

things are sold in the name of the Goddess. Not everything is to be

discarded after one use." But Mr Shah doesn't want any more trouble.

 

"We are willing to dismantle anything they find objectionable," says

Mr Shah, "since we want to do what's good for Surat." Mazumdar is

ranked among the more talented Indian artists to have emerged in the

last 15 years.

 

Painter Paritosh Sen says that while many artists have fallen into

the trap of painting with one eye on the market, Chittrovanu does

exactly what he believes in.

 

In a 1997 exhibition at the Jehangir Art Gallery , he used tar as a

medium because he found it "sensual and exciting".

 

Criticising the attack, Sen said that such incidents were not

possible without the tacit assurance of the government.

 

He added that this was not the first time artists had faced

undemocratic protests, and that in 1955, senior artist Akbar

Padamsee was put behind bars and his exhibition stopped in Bombay by

the then chief minister Morarji Desai.

 

Husain, who has faced many such attacks in the last decade, says

that there is little to be achieved by filing police complaints,

seeking legal recourse or asking for committees of inquiry.

 

"When my Saraswati was vandalised, all this was done — par kya hua?

[Hindi for "and what did it accomplish?" - DB] he asks. "The only

way we can counter this is with our body of work. They can't stop

the giant force of culture which is forging ahead, the same force

that created Ajanta and Ellora and Konark."

 

Source: The Times of Indian

URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/456319.cms

[Guest guest]

I wonder who makes these misleading news reports?

 

The other day there was a misleading news report about violence

against muslims in Gujarat.

 

The Durga painting I heard portrays Durga as nude(which all hindus

find it it offending-not just fanatics) and added to that I heard

she is depicted along with a condom(which is even worse) with a

caption "single use only" or something similar.

 

Am personally happy to note that there is someone who prevented such

mindless glorification of such depictions in the name of art. And

presenting those artists as martyrs and victims of intolerance to

propel their career.

 

I wonder what reaction the artist would have if his Mom or Sis or

Wife is painted in the same manner and displayed in public.

 

For those who might say Kali is nude: First, I would not mind if

kali is painted nude becoz She is supposed to be that way according

to Shastra. Durga and Saraswati are a different matter. And the old

sculptures where some gods are shown in nude on temples have some

basis behind them for ex: like an incident in a certain purana where

that god may appear nude etc., Those sculptures had a sacred

background and are sculpted out of bhakti and reverence and are not

driven by motivations which present day artists have like publicity,

disregard for others feelings,and money and sponsorship(yes! a few

of them do so coz they wanna get some mileage out of the sensation

it creates)and I dont think even a present day artist will paint

Durga that way if he has the slightest reverence for her.

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> MUMBAI (Jan. 31, 2004): On Thursday evening, a mob of Bajrang Dal

> and Vishwa Hindu Parishad strongmen barged into the Garden Gallery

> at Surat , shattered its glass panels and vandalised some of the

> paintings on display to protect "Hindu culture".

>

> The target of their wrath was a painting whose title and depiction

> of Goddess Durga was found to be objectionable. VHP leader Vimal

> Unarkad told TNN that goddess Durga had been depicted in very bad

> taste.

>

> A disturbing aspect of the vandalism was that the anger was

> generated because the protesters thought that the work was the

> creation of M.F. Husain [a famous Indian Muslim artist - DB] —

> mistakenly, as it turned out. Husain's painting of Saraswati was

> destroyed in 1996 by the Bajrang Dal.

>

> The Durga painting was the handiwork of Kolkata-based Chittrovanu

> Mazumdar, a young painter who has been extolled by Husain as

> showing "great dynamism and promise."

>

> According to Husain, when the protesters discovered that the

> painting wasn't his, their wrath was dissipated. The Durga

painting

> is now in police custody.

>

> In the confusion that followed, misinformation ruled the airwaves.

> The electronic and print media went to town saying that the works

of

> India 's master painter had been attacked once again.

>

> One TV channel, says a peeved Husain seated at the Pundole Gallery

> at Fountain, even showed his paintings of Madhuri [i.e., Madhuri

> Dixit; a very famous Bollywood film actress who has served as muse

> and model in many of Husain's more recent works - DB] and called

her

> Durga.

>

> "We live in an era of mediocrity," he says, referring not only to

> the "midgets who attacked the gallery" but mediapersons who did

not

> bother to check back with him.

>

> Husain, who inaugurated the Garden Gallery exhibition, did have a

> massive painting on display, but he is quick to point out that it

> did not have any gods or goddesses.

>

> The painting had the human pantheon of the 20th century—Mahatma

> Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung, Picasso, Charlie Chaplin and Einstein. The

88-

> year-old artist mourns the fact that the media has created an

> impression in the minds of the public that he only paints nudes.

>

> Although most viewers unreservedly condemned the violent attack on

> the Garden Gallery, many found the concept of the painting crude

and

> unnecessarily provocative.

>

> Not everyone is ready to buy into an artist's right to "creative

> licence". But Mazumdar, who was more than a little taken aback by

> the trouble stirred by a four-year-old painting, told this paper

> that there was no intention of desecrating an icon he regards

> highly.

>

> "I had no intention of maligning any icon or anybody for that

> matter. It was a critique of an extreme kind of consumption,"

> explains Mazumdar.

>

> Adds collector and Garden Gallery owner Praful Shah, "All kinds of

> things are sold in the name of the Goddess. Not everything is to

be

> discarded after one use." But Mr Shah doesn't want any more

trouble.

>

> "We are willing to dismantle anything they find objectionable,"

says

> Mr Shah, "since we want to do what's good for Surat." Mazumdar is

> ranked among the more talented Indian artists to have emerged in

the

> last 15 years.

>

> Painter Paritosh Sen says that while many artists have fallen into

> the trap of painting with one eye on the market, Chittrovanu does

> exactly what he believes in.

>

> In a 1997 exhibition at the Jehangir Art Gallery , he used tar as

a

> medium because he found it "sensual and exciting".

>

> Criticising the attack, Sen said that such incidents were not

> possible without the tacit assurance of the government.

>

> He added that this was not the first time artists had faced

> undemocratic protests, and that in 1955, senior artist Akbar

> Padamsee was put behind bars and his exhibition stopped in Bombay

by

> the then chief minister Morarji Desai.

>

> Husain, who has faced many such attacks in the last decade, says

> that there is little to be achieved by filing police complaints,

> seeking legal recourse or asking for committees of inquiry.

>

> "When my Saraswati was vandalised, all this was done — par kya

hua?

> [Hindi for "and what did it accomplish?" - DB] he asks. "The only

> way we can counter this is with our body of work. They can't stop

> the giant force of culture which is forging ahead, the same force

> that created Ajanta and Ellora and Konark."

>

> Source: The Times of Indian

> URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/456319.cms

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satish:

 

Thanks as always for your comments. I think you make some valid

points that will resonate with many Hindus, but I'd respectfully

disagree on one or two of your statements. Specifically, you state:

 

*** The Durga painting I heard portrays Durga as nude (which all

hindus find offending - not just fanatics) ***

 

I disagree. I am hardly an authority on this, but in my limited

experience I have had occasion to speak at length and in depth with

two Srividya gurus, from two separate lineages, both based in

Southern India, both astonishingly astute scholars of Sanskrit and

deeply schooled in both Vedic and Hindu traditions; one in his 50's

and one in his 70's.

 

These gurus do not view portrayals of Devi in the literal manner

that tends to cause offense to more "mainstream" practitioners, and

teach their shishyas not to view them so. One of them (the more

conservative of the two, in fact) told me frankly that he felt

representations of Devi were, in general, most effective when they

portrayed Her nude (or "sky-clad" as the preferred term goes). The

other told me that clothing was important only to the extent that

the dhyana specifically required clothing for some specific ritual

or symbolic meaning and function. Nudity is powerful.

 

Neither of these men are leering lechers who don't respect their

Mother. On the contrary, I have rarely met any human being who are

as truly in pure and spiritual awe of the Feminine Divine.

 

In the words of Sri Amritananda Saraswati: "Why are some Goddesses

depicted nude? Nudity is an attitude: "I have nothing to hide, this

is how God made me. What if I am an adult?" It also implies purity

of Nature. It reflects the deep aspiration to live in truth, to

remove all masks; expressing what we feel without hiding it or

changing it in anyway. It is a rebellion against social pressures to

conform, indicating a creative spirit which does not accept any

authority except personal experience. It is a symbol of unity

between thought, word and deed. Some people ask, "How can I look at

a nude female statue and not feel lust? How can I associate

religious fever with lust?" That is precisely the message being

conveyed here. Lust separates; it makes a living person into an

object. If you can look at a beautiful person, and recognize the

divine hand of Goddess that molded it, then you have gotten beyond

lust and made it into love and worship. Only by converting lust into

love, can we overcome its degrading tendencies like neurotic anger

and violence and make it pure love. This is the basis of Tantra; the

alchemy of changing base metals into pure gold."

 

*** First, I would not mind if Kali is painted nude becoz She is

supposed to be that way according to Shastra. Durga and Saraswati

are a different matter. And the old sculptures where some gods are

shown in nude on temples have some basis behind them for ex: like an

incident in a certain purana where that god may appear nude etc.,

Those sculptures had a sacred background and are sculpted out of

bhakti and reverence ***

 

I agree with the broad meaning of your statement. However, it is

incorrect to say there is no precedent for nude depictions of Durga

and Saraswati. I am quite certain that the earlier known depiction

of Durga as Mahishasura Mardini (c. 200 CE; predating Devi Mahatmyam

by centuries) was very much nude, as were its most of successors for

the next millennium or so. For example, does this image convey

reverence or prurience?

http://shortwork.net/travels/1t3/i00-59-durga-temple-aihole-3.jpg

 

Now, I agree entirely that 9to quote your words) "those sculptures

had a sacred background and are sculpted out of bhakti and

reverence." But I add two thoughts: (1) Husain's "Goddess Saraswati"

also strikes me (just my subjective opinion) as deeply respectful

and reverent; (2) even if Husain did *not* have pure intentions

(though he has repeatedly insisted that he did, and the painting

seems to reflect that; but we are free to doubt him), does it really

matter if the BEHOLDER of the work receives it in a spirit of bhakti

and reverence?

 

*** [Ancient nude Devi sculptures] are not driven by motivations

which present day artists have like publicity, disregard for others

feelings,and money and sponsorship (yes! a few of them do so coz

they wanna get some mileage out of the sensation it creates) ... I

heard she is depicted along with a condom (which is even worse) with

a caption "single use only" or something similar. ***

 

I agree with this. It is very difficult to look at some of these

things, and sometimes modern artists will intentionally appropriate

an emotionally charged image simply for shock value. Famous recent

examples in the U.S. (where commercially driven artists are almost

desperate in trying to find something shocking to capture public

debate) are Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" (a plastic crucifix

immersed in a glass of the artist's urine); and Chris Ofili's "The

Holy Virgin Mary," painted in elephant dung, which caused a massive

wave of righteous Catholic protest led by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

 

But even in these cases, one has to be careful. While Serrano's

piece was pretty clearly an offensive attention-getting scheme (he's

not much of an artist, so he relies on shock and calls it social

commentary), Ofili's Virgin Mary was highly misunderstood. Ofili was

drawing on the holy fertility associations of elephant dung in his

native Africa -- similar to the traditions of Madhubani painting in

North India, where cow dung is used as a base wash for vegetable-dye

paintings of Devi and other deities. My point is, it's sometimes

worth talking to the artist before you decide what's disrespectful

and what's not.

 

In general, though, I agree that it is highly offensive to use

religious symbols holding deep meaning for untold millions as a

commercial shock scheme. But are all modern depictions, even the

nude ones, trash? No. Discernment (vichara) on the part of the

viewer is called for.

 

By the way, I know I'm sort of hiding behind the "experienced

Tantrics" I reference above. I do have my own opinions on the

subject as well. I wrote on this subject Deepavali, when a "nude

photo" of Durga (actually an unconsecrated statue being prepared by

an artist) caused a debate among Hindus who felt the nudity was

offensive, and those who though it was natural and beautiful and

evocative of Devi's power. If you're not convinced that I'm a

misguided fool, you find find some interest in my comments there:

 

/message/7531

 

Thanks again for some excellent talking points ...

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

>

> These gurus do not view portrayals of Devi in the literal manner

> that tends to cause offense to more "mainstream" practitioners,

and

> teach their shishyas not to view them so. One of them (the more

> conservative of the two, in fact) told me frankly that he felt

> representations of Devi were, in general, most effective when they

> portrayed Her nude (or "sky-clad" as the preferred term goes). The

> other told me that clothing was important only to the extent that

> the dhyana specifically required clothing for some specific ritual

> or symbolic meaning and function. Nudity is powerful.

>

> Neither of these men are leering lechers who don't respect their

> Mother. On the contrary, I have rarely met any human being who are

> as truly in pure and spiritual awe of the Feminine Divine.

>

> In the words of Sri Amritananda Saraswati: "Why are some Goddesses

> depicted nude? Nudity is an attitude: "I have nothing to hide,

this

> is how God made me. What if I am an adult?" It also implies purity

> of Nature. It reflects the deep aspiration to live in truth, to

> remove all masks; expressing what we feel without hiding it or

> changing it in anyway. It is a rebellion against social pressures

to

> conform, indicating a creative spirit which does not accept any

> authority except personal experience. It is a symbol of unity

> between thought, word and deed. Some people ask, "How can I look

at

> a nude female statue and not feel lust? How can I associate

> religious fever with lust?" That is precisely the message being

> conveyed here. Lust separates; it makes a living person into an

> object. If you can look at a beautiful person, and recognize the

> divine hand of Goddess that molded it, then you have gotten beyond

> lust and made it into love and worship. Only by converting lust

into

> love, can we overcome its degrading tendencies like neurotic anger

> and violence and make it pure love. This is the basis of Tantra;

the

> alchemy of changing base metals into pure gold."

 

Namaste

 

My personal collection of various pictures of Devi include some

which are sky-clad. I have no disagreement with what is stated

above. The only thing being the above advice, I feel, is relevant

only to practitioners of tantra.

 

But the painting in question is on public display of which more

95% of those seeing it might be ppl who have no idea of tantra nor

its concepts. As I said before, I find nothing objectionable in

meditating on Devi as sky-clad if the dhyana of that Devi prescribes

so.

 

> I agree with the broad meaning of your statement. However, it is

> incorrect to say there is no precedent for nude depictions of

Durga

> and Saraswati. I am quite certain that the earlier known depiction

> of Durga as Mahishasura Mardini (c. 200 CE; predating Devi

Mahatmyam

> by centuries) was very much nude, as were its most of successors

for

> the next millennium or so. For example, does this image convey

> reverence or prurience?

> http://shortwork.net/travels/1t3/i00-59-durga-temple-aihole-3.jpg

 

 

Reverence, Certainly. Even then She is covered with jewels of

course which is not important right now. It has also to do with the

location, as it is sculpted most probably on a temple panel. When a

normal hindu sees that in a temple he will not find it

objectionable, bcoz there is an underlying assumption(%% see below)

that it is certianly done with bhakti and reverence to show Devi as

being gorgeous, given that it is located in a temple which is a

place of worship and reverence, and that it is sculpted so that it

can serve as an aid to devotees in their meditation on the form of

Devi. A divine inspiration is tangible when one sees these

sculptures and sometimes it is even corroborated by history where a

king summons sculptors to build a temple under some divine

inspiration or with inspiration from saints or gods in dreams. The

sculptors name is not even carved anywhere,most of the time coz they

cared not for their name or fame while carving it, but were

concerned more with scriptural confirmation. I may also add that

there is something called shilpa shastra(science of sculpting) which

is followed by these ancients with rules and regulations on how a

Durga(or any other god/goddess) statue is to be carved and how it is

not to be sculpted etc..

 

 

With the current painting in question, it is neither intended to

be placed in a temple nor is any aspect of devotion(subjective)

visible in the painting, and I am sure it wasnt painted to help

tantrics(much less normal devotees) to visualise her as sky-

clad,while it is obviously painted with an intention to serve

themselves**(ofcourse a good number of them paint not to help others

but for their intellectual and psychological satisfaction or to just

express themselves), which I guess is the cause for the violent

reaction.

 

The underlying intentions(eventhough I agree that one has to

talk to artist to get a full understanding) are definitely poles

apart as seen above. So I personally think that the paintings in

question can never be comapared with the ancient sculptures for

reasons stated above.

 

** as opposed to sculpting to aid others.

 

%% Hindus who grow up in India assume so coz they hear stories of

temples built under divine inspiration from when they are kids.

 

 

>But I add two thoughts: (1) Husain's "Goddess Saraswati"

> also strikes me (just my subjective opinion) as deeply respectful

> and reverent; (2) even if Husain did *not* have pure intentions

> (though he has repeatedly insisted that he did, and the painting

> seems to reflect that; but we are free to doubt him), does it

really

> matter if the BEHOLDER of the work receives it in a spirit of

bhakti

> and reverence?

 

 

A very crude example but:

One can just sit and watch when their house being robbed

and "behold" good in it thinking he is providing livelihood for

robbers or can confront the robbers.

Not every one is a yogi.

 

 

Rgds

Satish.

[Guest guest]

dear loved ones of shakti,

 

 

no other relegion has explored sexuality as deeply as hindu

relegion.in tantric kriyas also there is a mudra which has to be

displayed with hands during some rituals which is called yoni mudra.a

picture of yoni(vagina) if formed with fingers and the mudra is

displayed by this sign.

 

the analogy of shiva & shakti,yin and yang,positive &

negative,aggressive & passive,movement & stillness,concious and

unconcious can be perfectly seen in the symbol of male and female

sexual desire and organ.the male organ grows outside his body

representing the conciousness which moves out into the world of maya

and as a result forgets his true nature as shiva(para bramhan).

 

the female organ grows into the body which represents "yoga" that is

conciousness turned inside and hence moving towards knowledge of

self ....that is moving away from maya(illusion).

 

 

 

yoni(vagina) is considered as a very sacred symbol in shaktism.and

all the dieties of shakti cult are female eg. the "Ten mahavidyas".

 

The Divine yoni(vagina) of shakti cult promises the lost ones to

reveal the source,the truth,and the perfect joy which is called as

sat-chit-ananada in sanskrit,it makes the shakta(Tantrik aspirant) to

find his blissful self.it is symbolised as a door which shows the

linga the way to return to his real identity---->the sat-chit-ananda.

 

the shiva linga worshipped by the hindus is the symbolic

representation of this truth.

 

 

but this ancient and ever new truth explained with the help of

symbols of vagina and penis was misinterpreted by some ignorant

people.and these are the people who branded shakti cults as evil.

 

 

jai gurudev

soham.

[Guest guest]

Dear Satish:

 

Thanks for you response. As I expected, we are more in agreement

than disagreement.

 

*** The only thing being the above advice, I feel, is relevant only

to practitioners of tantra. ***

 

This may be true, I think.

 

*** But the painting in question is on public display of which more

95% of those seeing it might be ppl who have no idea of tantra nor

its concepts. ... Not every one is a yogi. ***

 

Yes. You mentioned how it's not right to let theives ransack a home

on the belief that there may be some hidden good behind the act. An

example that springs to my mind after reading your post -- re:

public display of sky-clad portrayals -- might be leaving a loaded

gun on the table, within each reach of children. It can cause untold

damage if you don't know how to approach and use it correctly.

 

I do think you have to be careful. The moderators here went back and

forth a little before finally deciding to post a photo of the sky-

clad devi Amritakarshini last week. Very early on in the life of the

group, we had posted a photo of a Lajja Gauri (Aditi) sculpture, and

were roundly and loudly condemned by sincere Hindus in some

quarters.

 

For a while thereafter, we decided to stay away from that kind of

controversy. But finally we decided -- and I think you might agree --

that context is everything. In a group like this, which strives to

be something of an online Devi temple, such images *can* be

respectfully posted on occasion, so long as efforts are made to

clearly explain their meaning and function. Sure such images will

invariably be seen as "lust objects" by some -- but those looking

for prurient gratification can certainly find "sexier" images on the

Web. But those who truly want to learn about and understand these

shaktis will at least have a reliable forum in which to do so.

 

As to the nude Durga, you write:

 

*** When a normal hindu sees that in a temple he will not find it

objectionable, bcoz there is an underlying assumption that it is

certianly done with bhakti and reverence to show Devi as being

gorgeous, given that it is located in a temple which is a place of

worship and reverence, and that it is sculpted so that it can serve

as an aid to devotees in their meditation on the form of Devi. ***

 

I agree. Since you'd also mentioned Saraswati, I'd meant to include

a link to the venerable skyclad Saraswati at Madurai. However, no

matter; your analysis aptly applies to all such images.

 

*** The sculptors name is not even carved anywhere,most of the time

coz they cared not for their name or fame while carving it, but were

concerned more with scriptural confirmation. ***

 

That is probably the single most convincing argument I've heard for

judging the motivation behind such images. ;-)

 

*** With the current painting in question, it is neither intended to

be placed in a temple nor is any aspect of devotion (subjective)

visible in the painting, and I am sure it wasnt painted to help

tantrics(much less normal devotees) to visualise her as sky-clad,

while it is obviously painted with an intention to serve themselves

(of course, a good number of them paint not to help others but for

their intellectual and psychological satisfaction or to just express

themselves), which I guess is the cause for the violent reaction. ***

 

Your point is well-taken. Thanks for your fair and considered

comments.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Though I am not an artist, I have some thoughts that I would like to

share with the group. Otherwise, I agree with Devi Bhakta on all

that he said on this subject.

 

An artist would always want to bring out something new... wants to

express his thoughts in a way to capture the audience... Why does he

need to conform to standards (that too set by a non-artist)? I think

non-conformism is an essential quality in becoming an artist.

 

Now coming to Devi being his object for painting where he needs to

show his creativity. Devi is a Shakti - She is also the artist's

creativity as well as his artistic capability. He is doing a form of

Devi worship in bringing out a painting of her. As it is a Shakti

sadhana, he should follow her rules. If not he incurs her wrath! She

may punish him in the form of riots of Bajrang Dal activists or in

the form of nobody liking/buying his painting or in any other way to

make him realize his mistake. On the other hand, if he has been

earnest and devoted in his sadhana/painting, he would be duly

rewarded. His painting would fetch him whatever he was aspiring - it

would get sold for a high price and/or would end up in the puja room

of a devotee.. and so forth.

 

The nude painting of Durga is right or wrong is difficult for us to

judge outrightly - is all that I wanted to say.

 

Thanks,

mahesh--

 

 

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

[Guest guest]

I think Sri Mata's children reacting with violence is a worse

defamation and degradation of Durge Mata than any almost thing else.

 

Om Hreem Namaha

 

, "millindala" <millindala>

wrote:

> Though I am not an artist, I have some thoughts that I would like

to

> share with the group. Otherwise, I agree with Devi Bhakta on all

> that he said on this subject.

>

> An artist would always want to bring out something new... wants to

> express his thoughts in a way to capture the audience... Why does

he

> need to conform to standards (that too set by a non-artist)? I

think

> non-conformism is an essential quality in becoming an artist.

>

> Now coming to Devi being his object for painting where he needs to

> show his creativity. Devi is a Shakti - She is also the artist's

> creativity as well as his artistic capability. He is doing a form

of

> Devi worship in bringing out a painting of her. As it is a Shakti

> sadhana, he should follow her rules. If not he incurs her wrath!

She

> may punish him in the form of riots of Bajrang Dal activists or in

> the form of nobody liking/buying his painting or in any other way

to

> make him realize his mistake. On the other hand, if he has been

> earnest and devoted in his sadhana/painting, he would be duly

> rewarded. His painting would fetch him whatever he was aspiring -

it

> would get sold for a high price and/or would end up in the puja

room

> of a devotee.. and so forth.

>

> The nude painting of Durga is right or wrong is difficult for us to

> judge outrightly - is all that I wanted to say.

>

> Thanks,

> mahesh--

>

>

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

[Guest guest]

Excellent point.

 

, "Amarthya" <dianadevi@c...>

wrote:

> I think Sri Mata's children reacting with violence is a worse

> defamation and degradation of Durge Mata than any almost thing

else.

>

> Om Hreem Namaha

[Guest guest]

, "Amarthya" <dianadevi@c...>

wrote:

> I think Sri Mata's children reacting with violence is a worse

> defamation and degradation of Durge Mata than any almost thing

>else.

 

 

No it isnt. How is it a degradation and defamation of Durga Mata?

It only shows the violent nature of some of her children. What you

wrote above may sound noble but I dont think there is any truth in

it.

 

There are many places where her children followed the path of

violence(rather dharmic path which involved violence) when needed.

Ex:Parashurama, Sudarshana, Arjuna and many others.

[Guest guest]

Surely you aren't comparing Arjuna to the mob of

violent idiots who desecrate art and bully others into

doing what they want? That sounds a little more like

the side Arjuna was fighting against, to me...

 

Nisarg

> There are many places where her children followed

> the path of

> violence(rather dharmic path which involved

> violence) when needed.

> Ex:Parashurama, Sudarshana, Arjuna and many others.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

If Arjuna is here, he would have first fought the artist(a negative

intellect is far more dangerous than a mindless mob) and then the

mob maybe ..who knows..

 

As for the statement, "I think Sri Mata's children reacting with

violence is a worse defamation and degradation of Durge Mata than

any almost thing else", I said there is no truth in that because

there are none who are capable of defaming or degrading Durga.

 

Rgds

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Surely you aren't comparing Arjuna to the mob of

> violent idiots who desecrate art and bully others into

> doing what they want? That sounds a little more like

> the side Arjuna was fighting against, to me...

>

> Nisarg

>

> > There are many places where her children followed

> > the path of

> > violence(rather dharmic path which involved

> > violence) when needed.

> > Ex:Parashurama, Sudarshana, Arjuna and many others.

[Guest guest]

That's the way I feel as well. Who can possibly sully the glory of

the Great Goddess?

 

But if that's true...then why advocate for a mob's right to destroy

this painting?

 

If the painting can't defame or degrade Her, then let the artist

starve - ignore his work, ignore his plea for attention. Your

attention is only feeding the monster.

 

In Her Service,

 

KG (J)

 

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> As for the statement, "I think Sri Mata's children reacting with

> violence is a worse defamation and degradation of Durge Mata than

> any almost thing else", I said there is no truth in that because

> there are none who are capable of defaming or degrading Durga.

[Guest guest]

, "Kensho Godchaser (Jay

Allen)" <kg@K...> wrote:

> That's the way I feel as well. Who can possibly sully the glory of

> the Great Goddess?

>

> But if that's true...then why advocate for a mob's right to

destroy

> this painting?

 

I am no advocate of those mobs. The violence part was not

intended to justify what has been done, but to point out something

related from Amarthya's statement.

>

> If the painting can't defame or degrade Her, then let the artist

> starve - ignore his work, ignore his plea for attention. Your

> attention is only feeding the monster.

 

Pertinent question! The painting might be a bait, and the mob

obviously ran into the artists trap, if it is so.

 

I was only trying to remove the impression that "the guys who

protested(the painting) are sinners and the artist is a saint".

 

Hope am clear.

[Guest guest]

Satish, you are right! Ma's Perfect Grace exists far beyond this

world of provocative artists and justice mobs!! Jai Ma!

 

As per the story, the "protesters" seemed more like rioters, and the

artist.. who can say? We haven't the oportunity to decide for

ourselves since we will not be able to view a work destroyed.

Wouldn't you agree? I don't feel that the "protestors" are sinners,

but they are probably not the good example (a softer version of my

earlier statement).

 

 

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> , "Kensho Godchaser (Jay

> Allen)" <kg@K...> wrote:

> > That's the way I feel as well. Who can possibly sully the glory

of

> > the Great Goddess?

> >

> > But if that's true...then why advocate for a mob's right to

> destroy

> > this painting?

>

> I am no advocate of those mobs. The violence part was not

> intended to justify what has been done, but to point out something

> related from Amarthya's statement.

>

> >

> > If the painting can't defame or degrade Her, then let the artist

> > starve - ignore his work, ignore his plea for attention. Your

> > attention is only feeding the monster.

>

> Pertinent question! The painting might be a bait, and the mob

> obviously ran into the artists trap, if it is so.

>

> I was only trying to remove the impression that "the guys who

> protested(the painting) are sinners and the artist is a saint".

>

> Hope am clear.

[Guest guest]

Very well put KG!

 

The people who would like to see the painting

destroyed or the painter "punished" should realize

that it is their own petty fears and hatreds that is

the source of their degradation, not that of Durga.

How can She be harmed by anything a human being does?

NO, only the fundamentalists are harmed because it

causes them to fear and hate.

Fine, they can fear and hate, but they cannot use

Durga as an excuse. How convenient it is to hurt or

kill someone and then say "my god(ess) made me do it".

 

 

Nisarg

 

--- "Kensho Godchaser (Jay Allen)"

<kg wrote:

> That's the way I feel as well. Who can possibly

> sully the glory of

> the Great Goddess?

>

> But if that's true...then why advocate for a mob's

> right to destroy

> this painting?

>

> If the painting can't defame or degrade Her, then

> let the artist

> starve - ignore his work, ignore his plea for

> attention. Your

> attention is only feeding the monster.

>

> In Her Service,

>

> KG (J)

>

> , "Satish

> Arigela"

> <satisharigela> wrote:

>

> > As for the statement, "I think Sri Mata's children

> reacting with

> > violence is a worse defamation and degradation of

> Durge Mata than

> > any almost thing else", I said there is no truth

> in that because

> > there are none who are capable of defaming or

> degrading Durga.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Satish Arigela [satisharigela]

 

Blessings Satish,

> Pertinent question! The painting might be a bait, and the mob

> obviously ran into the artists trap, if it is so.

> I was only trying to remove the impression that "the guys who

> protested(the painting) are sinners and the artist is a saint".

> Hope am clear.

 

Crystal clear. My apologies for not understanding clearly. And I agree -

just because you *can* exercise a right, doesn't mean you *should*.

 

With Love and Laughter,

KG (J)

 

----

Kensho Godchaser

http://www.KenshoGodchaser.com/

 

Why should there be anything new? The object of spiritual seeking is to find

out what is eternally true, not what is new in Time.

 

- Sri Aurobindo