Guest guest Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Bear in mind, Mary Ann, that styles of beauty have changed over the millenia, too. The classical Greek statues of Gods and Goddesses are lovely, but the Goddesses are not as pneumatic as 20th century pin-up girls, and the Gods not nearly as studly as your average porno star. This was because bigger boobies and larger lingams were considered "gross" and "materialistic" by the Greeks. Idealised deities would have tasteful, smaller attributes. (Exceptions were deities explicitly associated with fertility or the material world, like Pan, or Gaea.) Similarly, in ancient India, the deities of abundance were supposed to LOOK like they never missed a meal. Hence Ganesha and Kubera are always chubby, not lean or muscular, and in the oldest images, Mother Lakshmi has a distinctly "pleasingly plump" physique. Even in the West, abundance deities are usually fat. Would you trust a skinny Santa Claus? The Gods are also shape-shifters; while they prefer to present themselves as youthful and perfect, they take on other forms for their own purposes. Lakshmi appears to her devotees sometimes as an adorable, but aged and wrinkled old woman. Kali is sometimes shapely, sometimes demonic in appearance. Some devas will eagerly change into animal forms, or hide as "inocent" children when an anti-god is seeking an adult. -- Len/ Kalipadma --- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > Hi Mary Ann: > > I take and appreciate your point. Sure, go into any > nursing home, > and you're probably going to find more accumulated > experience and > wisdom than you will at a photo shoot for Sports > Illustrated's > latest Swimsuit Issue. This much is true. > > But we are talking about imagery that points beyond > the human to > something absolute and eternal. Look at Greek and > Roman sculpture: > images of Divine Beings, whether they are portrayed > as male or > female, tend to be specimens of astonishing physical > beauty and > perfection (and youth). Same with ancient Hindu > sculpture – the > female figures are voluptuous, and male figures are > virile; artists > quite naturally drew upon human ideals of beauty > (whether those > ideals are subjectively "right" or not is a matter > of individual > response of course). > > Certainly, there are exceptions: Bhairava forms of > the Divine > Masculine; Bhairavi forms of the Divine Feminine. > Dhumavati, > Chamunda, the early Kali, etc., are examples in > which physical age > and the inevitable decay of the flesh are invoked > for some of the > most powerful imagery in the canon. But that is > beside the point. > > There are, broadly speaking, two main paths of > Shaktism: The dark > way of Kali, and the bright way of Lalita. My > initiation was into > Srividya, which is primarily a bright path, though > the darker > aspects certainly have their place. Lalita is called > Shodashi, She > Who is Eternally Sixteen. Why is She eternally > sixteen? Well, first > of all because the Dhyanas (scriptural meditation > imagery) call for > Her to be sixteen, and that is what the > practitioners (male or > female) follow. Also because the reality of the time > and place in > which the dhyanas were realized was that average > human life > expectancy was 30 or so. Sixteen was, for men and > women alike, > something like the high flowering of adult beauty. > Maybe if they > were written in modern times, the ideal would be > raised to somewhere > in the 25-35 range? I dunno. > > Now perhaps you are right, that those who were male > among meditators > and followers of Devi were a primarily a bunch of > randy goats who > liked their wimmins meaty, beaty, big and bouncy. > Pretending to > worship Devi when they *really* were thinking about > polishing their > big, long lingams, right? And maybe the women were > no better -- a > bunch of naughty nymphs who were secretly turned on > by sketchy > characters like the lithesome pin-up boy Krishna and > his sexually > charged games; like Radha, having an intense mental > love affair when > she should have been attending to her boring old > husband and snippy > in-laws. What a nasty bunch of libertines! > > But maybe – just maybe – there was (and is) > something more going on > here. Maybe the beauty of these divine creatures > really did lift > them above sexual fantasy and into the realm of > divine bliss. Maybe > the passing experience of human orgasm led them to > the larger bliss > of Divine Unity. That's what Tantra promises anyway > – maybe it's not > bullshit? The gurus, male and female, promise us > it's not. But we > can only discover the Truth for ourselves. > > Also, as Max Dashu and I have discussed, all of > these physical > descriptions have multiple levels of meaning. The > Lalita > Sahasranama, the Soundarya Lahari and all of these > are divided into > groups of names, some of which tell stories, some of > which describe > pujas and rituals in coded language, some of which > correspond to > portions of Sri Chakra, some of which describe > physical ideals. But > when we are told She is "slim-waisted," for example, > it doesn't just > signal to the sadhak, "Whoa, she's a hottie! Forget > the fat, > wrinkled goddesses; this is the Wisdom Babe for me, > dude!" (Not to > say *nobody* thinks like that; we are all humans at > whatever level > of spiritual development ;-)). But in fact, > "slim-waisted" indicates > to the informed sadhak that there is "nothingness at > the Center." > Put away the brewskis, no party here tonight. (Or > maybe, a bigger > party than we bargained for?) > > Why do magazines feature impossibly beautiful men > and women? I don't > deny that there are abundant reasons to object to > "the ideal of > beauty that the pop-culture and youth culture of the > modern-day > media promotes." But I'd venture to say that – > putting aside for a > moment all of the very valid societal and > health-related objections – > that is because seeing human perfection of some > sort really does > make us feel better at some level. It's just *nice* > to see how > beautiful human beings can be. > > Same with ballet, for instance, or any classical or > stylized system > of dance -- *real* human beings just don't move like > that. We are > not so unaffected by gravity, so unfettered in > movement; but even > the greatest ballet stars can only pull it off for a > relatively > brief number of years. Still, it feels nice to see > how beautifully > human beings can move when they approach some > impossible standard of > perfection. Same with the most beautiful music, > especially vocal > music – to hear our blumpy, sloppy human feelings > expressed so > purely and perfectly! Human beings hardly ever sound > so nice – but > isn't it wonderful to know that some of us can? And > sure, you could > take all this and get angry or envious – "why can't > *I* > look/move/sound like that?!" But I think most of us > "get it" for > what it is, at a very profound level – a vindication > of humanity. > > I don't deny that there is a profound beauty of a > different kind in > the elderly and those who are battered and scarred > by time and hard > experience – a human beauty akin to old rock > formations or gnarled > ancient trees. I am not saying that youthful beauty > and perfection > is better than this. It's not. It's just different. > And for whatever > reason, the Divine ideal most commonly called upon > in Hindu systems, > as it was in ancient Egypt and Greece and Rome and > so on, is > youthful beauty. It just is. The Abrahamic systems – > Judaism, > Christianity and Islam –lean more toward the rugged > old patriarchs. > And Wicca and many other Pagan, Goddess-centered > systems often call > up rugged old matriarchs. Whatever works for you, > that's the thing – > it is up to the individual, innit? > > But when we use the human being as metaphor for the > divine in > Tantra, the beauty dynamic I've described is the one > that's > generally at work. And if it works for you – and > initiation into a > bright-path lineage of Shaktism generally indicates > that === message truncated === Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Hi Len: Nice reply, thank you. My reply to Mary Ann was obviously lighthearted in many places, but -- since there are people in the group at all levels (of spiritual advancement, exposure to the practices and philosophies of Hinduism, etc.) -- I should probably be more clear and less silly at times. Mary Ann said "I think what causes men to image the Goddess in this way [i.e. in voluptuous rather than "fat and wrinkly" forms] is more in homage to the Shiva Lingam than to Devi" -- in which equation she was using the term lingham as an interchangeable word for the phallus. She used one of my paintings as Exhibit A (we love to provoke each other on board like that ;-) ), so of course I had to rise to the bait and give my two cents. *lol* But as you know (and as I am quite sure Mary Ann knows, for that matter), the lingam is not a simple phallic symbol, nor is it perceived as such (according to an interesting scholarly survey I once came across) by the vast majority of Hindus -- both men and women -- in India. The lingham (invaribly paired with and arising from the yoni) is an infinitely rich and complex aniconic representation of the Divine -- in many ways, as Amrita has elucidated, invoking the Feminine Divine as much as it does the Masculine Divine. It's fun to joke around with the old stories -- as I did with Maatangi's creation story at the end of my last post. They are playful stories, after all! But the truths that they convey remain profound and absolute -- if only we have ears to hear them. aim mAtangyai namaH --- Len Rosenberg <kalipadma108 wrote: > > Bear in mind, Mary Ann, that styles of beauty have > changed over the millenia, too. The classical Greek > statues of Gods and Goddesses are lovely, but the > Goddesses are not as pneumatic as 20th century > pin-up > girls, and the Gods not nearly as studly as your > average porno star. This was because bigger boobies > and larger lingams were considered "gross" and > "materialistic" by the Greeks. Idealised deities > would have tasteful, smaller attributes. > (Exceptions > were deities explicitly associated with fertility or > the material world, like Pan, or Gaea.) > > Similarly, in ancient India, the deities of > abundance > were supposed to LOOK like they never missed a meal. > > Hence Ganesha and Kubera are always chubby, not lean > or muscular, and in the oldest images, Mother > Lakshmi > has a distinctly "pleasingly plump" physique. Even > in > the West, abundance deities are usually fat. Would > you trust a skinny Santa Claus? > > The Gods are also shape-shifters; while they prefer > to > present themselves as youthful and perfect, they > take > on other forms for their own purposes. Lakshmi > appears to her devotees sometimes as an adorable, > but > aged and wrinkled old woman. Kali is sometimes > shapely, sometimes demonic in appearance. Some > devas > will eagerly change into animal forms, or hide as > "inocent" children when an anti-god is seeking an > adult. > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > > --- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > > > Hi Mary Ann: > > > > I take and appreciate your point. Sure, go into > any > > nursing home, > > and you're probably going to find more accumulated > > experience and > > wisdom than you will at a photo shoot for Sports > > Illustrated's > > latest Swimsuit Issue. This much is true. > > > > But we are talking about imagery that points > beyond > > the human to > > something absolute and eternal. Look at Greek and > > Roman sculpture: > > images of Divine Beings, whether they are > portrayed > > as male or > > female, tend to be specimens of astonishing > physical > > beauty and > > perfection (and youth). Same with ancient Hindu > > sculpture – the > > female figures are voluptuous, and male figures > are > > virile; artists > > quite naturally drew upon human ideals of beauty > > (whether those > > ideals are subjectively "right" or not is a matter > > of individual > > response of course). > > > > Certainly, there are exceptions: Bhairava forms of > > the Divine > > Masculine; Bhairavi forms of the Divine Feminine. > > Dhumavati, > > Chamunda, the early Kali, etc., are examples in > > which physical age > > and the inevitable decay of the flesh are invoked > > for some of the > > most powerful imagery in the canon. But that is > > beside the point. > > > > There are, broadly speaking, two main paths of > > Shaktism: The dark > > way of Kali, and the bright way of Lalita. My > > initiation was into > > Srividya, which is primarily a bright path, though > > the darker > > aspects certainly have their place. Lalita is > called > > Shodashi, She > > Who is Eternally Sixteen. Why is She eternally > > sixteen? Well, first > > of all because the Dhyanas (scriptural meditation > > imagery) call for > > Her to be sixteen, and that is what the > > practitioners (male or > > female) follow. Also because the reality of the > time > > and place in > > which the dhyanas were realized was that average > > human life > > expectancy was 30 or so. Sixteen was, for men and > > women alike, > > something like the high flowering of adult beauty. > > Maybe if they > > were written in modern times, the ideal would be > > raised to somewhere > > in the 25-35 range? I dunno. > > > > Now perhaps you are right, that those who were > male > > among meditators > > and followers of Devi were a primarily a bunch of > > randy goats who > > liked their wimmins meaty, beaty, big and bouncy. > > Pretending to > > worship Devi when they *really* were thinking > about > > polishing their > > big, long lingams, right? And maybe the women were > > no better -- a > > bunch of naughty nymphs who were secretly turned > on > > by sketchy > > characters like the lithesome pin-up boy Krishna > and > > his sexually > > charged games; like Radha, having an intense > mental > > love affair when > > she should have been attending to her boring old > > husband and snippy > > in-laws. What a nasty bunch of libertines! > > > > But maybe – just maybe – there was (and is) > > something more going on > > here. Maybe the beauty of these divine creatures > > really did lift > > them above sexual fantasy and into the realm of > > divine bliss. Maybe > > the passing experience of human orgasm led them to > > the larger bliss > > of Divine Unity. That's what Tantra promises > anyway > > – maybe it's not > > bullshit? The gurus, male and female, promise us > > it's not. But we > > can only discover the Truth for ourselves. > > > > Also, as Max Dashu and I have discussed, all of > > these physical > > descriptions have multiple levels of meaning. The > > Lalita > > Sahasranama, the Soundarya Lahari and all of these > > are divided into > > groups of names, some of which tell stories, some > of > > which describe > > pujas and rituals in coded language, some of which > > correspond to > > portions of Sri Chakra, some of which describe > > physical ideals. But > > when we are told She is "slim-waisted," for > example, > > it doesn't just > > signal to the sadhak, "Whoa, she's a hottie! > Forget > > the fat, > > wrinkled goddesses; this is the Wisdom Babe for > me, > > dude!" (Not to > > say *nobody* thinks like that; we are all humans > at > > whatever level > > of spiritual development ;-)). But in fact, > > "slim-waisted" indicates > > to the informed sadhak that there is "nothingness > at > > the Center." > > Put away the brewskis, no party here tonight. (Or > > maybe, a bigger > > party than we bargained for?) > > > > Why do magazines feature impossibly beautiful men > > and women? I don't > > deny that there are abundant reasons to object to > > "the ideal of > > beauty that the pop-culture and youth culture of > the > > modern-day > > media promotes." But I'd venture to say that – > === message truncated === ~ aim mAtangyai namaH ~ In Devi's supreme cosmic form, the Satyaloka is situated on the topmost of Her head; the Sun and Moon are her eyes; the quarters, Her ears; the Vedas are Her words; the Universe is Her heart; the earth is Her loins; the space between earth and sky is Her navel; the constellations are Her Thighs; the Maharaloka is Her neck; the Janarloka is Her face; Indra and the Devas and then Svarloka are her arms; the sound is the organ of Her ears; the fire is within her Face; day and night are like her two wings; the mountains are Her bones; the rivers are Her veins, and the trees are the hairs of Her body. Childhood, youth, and old age are Her finest modes; the two twilights are Her raiment; the Moon is the mind of the Mother of the Universe. ~ Devi Bhagavata Purana, VII.33.1-21 * Please visit the Shakti Sadhana Homepage at http://www.shaktisadhana.org * Please join the Shakti Sadhana Group at Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 I appreciate the input of each of you (DB and Len). Funny DB, "Exhibit A" Yes, on-board provacation - this time I was aware of what I was doing, though, and it was meant with humor. However... I still feel there is something apt in what I see, and said. I think it's worth noting that a girl or boy is still not an adult, not capable of fully adult thinking/reasoning/understanding, and that all that attention being heaped on a child as a symbol is not good for any actual people involved. I understand that you are saying the symbolism goes far beyond just the physical, but I'm thinking now of an article I read about a country in which a young girl is selected to represent divinity, and she is taken from her family and lives in a palace and holds an esteemed position for several years, until she hits puberty, I think. Then she is cast out of the palace, not even given any severence pay or stipend to live off of. I don't recall what country this is, but I just remember that the people revere their tradition, so they don't really pay much attention to how this affects actual families and the child(ren) involved. They are honored to be part of it all. I can see how people of eastern cultures might take umbrage at the way westerners view such eastern practices. However, I feel that both eastern and western views are needed in order to provide a complete picture, and that both things can be true - the eastern and western view - and that each can be deepened (which no doubt means growth on both sides) by recognizing the truth of the other, rather than denying it. Other cases of revering the beauty of youth bring Lolita to mind, and I wonder if that was intentionally made so close to Lalita, or if it just happened that way due to the collective unconscious. , Devi bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: > Hi Len: > > Nice reply, thank you. > > My reply to Mary Ann was obviously lighthearted in > many places, but -- since there are people in the > group at all levels (of spiritual advancement, > exposure to the practices and philosophies of > Hinduism, etc.) -- I should probably be more clear and > less silly at times. > > Mary Ann said "I think what causes men to image the > Goddess in this way [i.e. in voluptuous rather than > "fat and wrinkly" forms] is more in homage to the > Shiva Lingam than to Devi" -- in which equation she > was using the term lingham as an interchangeable word > for the phallus. She used one of my paintings as > Exhibit A (we love to provoke each other on board like > that ;-) ), so of course I had to rise to the bait and > give my two cents. *lol* > > But as you know (and as I am quite sure Mary Ann > knows, for that matter), the lingam is not a simple > phallic symbol, nor is it perceived as such (according > to an interesting scholarly survey I once came across) > by the vast majority of Hindus -- both men and women > -- in India. The lingham (invaribly paired with and > arising from the yoni) is an infinitely rich and > complex aniconic representation of the Divine -- in > many ways, as Amrita has elucidated, invoking the > Feminine Divine as much as it does the Masculine > Divine. > > It's fun to joke around with the old stories -- as I > did with Maatangi's creation story at the end of my > last post. They are playful stories, after all! But > the truths that they convey remain profound and > absolute -- if only we have ears to hear them. > > aim mAtangyai namaH > > > > --- Len Rosenberg <kalipadma108> wrote: > > > > > Bear in mind, Mary Ann, that styles of beauty have > > changed over the millenia, too. The classical Greek > > statues of Gods and Goddesses are lovely, but the > > Goddesses are not as pneumatic as 20th century > > pin-up > > girls, and the Gods not nearly as studly as your > > average porno star. This was because bigger boobies > > and larger lingams were considered "gross" and > > "materialistic" by the Greeks. Idealised deities > > would have tasteful, smaller attributes. > > (Exceptions > > were deities explicitly associated with fertility or > > the material world, like Pan, or Gaea.) > > > > Similarly, in ancient India, the deities of > > abundance > > were supposed to LOOK like they never missed a meal. > > > > Hence Ganesha and Kubera are always chubby, not lean > > or muscular, and in the oldest images, Mother > > Lakshmi > > has a distinctly "pleasingly plump" physique. Even > > in > > the West, abundance deities are usually fat. Would > > you trust a skinny Santa Claus? > > > > The Gods are also shape-shifters; while they prefer > > to > > present themselves as youthful and perfect, they > > take > > on other forms for their own purposes. Lakshmi > > appears to her devotees sometimes as an adorable, > > but > > aged and wrinkled old woman. Kali is sometimes > > shapely, sometimes demonic in appearance. Some > > devas > > will eagerly change into animal forms, or hide as > > "inocent" children when an anti-god is seeking an > > adult. > > > > -- Len/ Kalipadma > > > > > > > > --- Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > > > > Hi Mary Ann: > > > > > > I take and appreciate your point. Sure, go into > > any > > > nursing home, > > > and you're probably going to find more accumulated > > > experience and > > > wisdom than you will at a photo shoot for Sports > > > Illustrated's > > > latest Swimsuit Issue. This much is true. > > > > > > But we are talking about imagery that points > > beyond > > > the human to > > > something absolute and eternal. Look at Greek and > > > Roman sculpture: > > > images of Divine Beings, whether they are > > portrayed > > > as male or > > > female, tend to be specimens of astonishing > > physical > > > beauty and > > > perfection (and youth). Same with ancient Hindu > > > sculpture – the > > > female figures are voluptuous, and male figures > > are > > > virile; artists > > > quite naturally drew upon human ideals of beauty > > > (whether those > > > ideals are subjectively "right" or not is a matter > > > of individual > > > response of course). > > > > > > Certainly, there are exceptions: Bhairava forms of > > > the Divine > > > Masculine; Bhairavi forms of the Divine Feminine. > > > Dhumavati, > > > Chamunda, the early Kali, etc., are examples in > > > which physical age > > > and the inevitable decay of the flesh are invoked > > > for some of the > > > most powerful imagery in the canon. But that is > > > beside the point. > > > > > > There are, broadly speaking, two main paths of > > > Shaktism: The dark > > > way of Kali, and the bright way of Lalita. My > > > initiation was into > > > Srividya, which is primarily a bright path, though > > > the darker > > > aspects certainly have their place. Lalita is > > called > > > Shodashi, She > > > Who is Eternally Sixteen. Why is She eternally > > > sixteen? Well, first > > > of all because the Dhyanas (scriptural meditation > > > imagery) call for > > > Her to be sixteen, and that is what the > > > practitioners (male or > > > female) follow. Also because the reality of the > > time > > > and place in > > > which the dhyanas were realized was that average > > > human life > > > expectancy was 30 or so. Sixteen was, for men and > > > women alike, > > > something like the high flowering of adult beauty. > > > Maybe if they > > > were written in modern times, the ideal would be > > > raised to somewhere > > > in the 25-35 range? I dunno. > > > > > > Now perhaps you are right, that those who were > > male > > > among meditators > > > and followers of Devi were a primarily a bunch of > > > randy goats who > > > liked their wimmins meaty, beaty, big and bouncy. > > > Pretending to > > > worship Devi when they *really* were thinking > > about > > > polishing their > > > big, long lingams, right? And maybe the women were > > > no better -- a > > > bunch of naughty nymphs who were secretly turned > > on > > > by sketchy > > > characters like the lithesome pin-up boy Krishna > > and > > > his sexually > > > charged games; like Radha, having an intense > > mental > > > love affair when > > > she should have been attending to her boring old > > > husband and snippy > > > in-laws. What a nasty bunch of libertines! > > > > > > But maybe – just maybe – there was (and is) > > > something more going on > > > here. Maybe the beauty of these divine creatures > > > really did lift > > > them above sexual fantasy and into the realm of > > > divine bliss. Maybe > > > the passing experience of human orgasm led them to > > > the larger bliss > > > of Divine Unity. That's what Tantra promises > > anyway > > > – maybe it's not > > > bullshit? The gurus, male and female, promise us > > > it's not. But we > > > can only discover the Truth for ourselves. > > > > > > Also, as Max Dashu and I have discussed, all of > > > these physical > > > descriptions have multiple levels of meaning. The > > > Lalita > > > Sahasranama, the Soundarya Lahari and all of these > > > are divided into > > > groups of names, some of which tell stories, some > > of > > > which describe > > > pujas and rituals in coded language, some of which > > > correspond to > > > portions of Sri Chakra, some of which describe > > > physical ideals. But > > > when we are told She is "slim-waisted," for > > example, > > > it doesn't just > > > signal to the sadhak, "Whoa, she's a hottie! > > Forget > > > the fat, > > > wrinkled goddesses; this is the Wisdom Babe for > > me, > > > dude!" (Not to > > > say *nobody* thinks like that; we are all humans > > at > > > whatever level > > > of spiritual development ;-)). But in fact, > > > "slim-waisted" indicates > > > to the informed sadhak that there is "nothingness > > at > > > the Center." > > > Put away the brewskis, no party here tonight. (Or > > > maybe, a bigger > > > party than we bargained for?) > > > > > > Why do magazines feature impossibly beautiful men > > > and women? I don't > > > deny that there are abundant reasons to object to > > > "the ideal of > > > beauty that the pop-culture and youth culture of > > the > > > modern-day > > > media promotes." But I'd venture to say that – > > > === message truncated === > > > ~ aim mAtangyai namaH ~ > > In Devi's supreme cosmic form, the Satyaloka is situated on the topmost of Her head; the Sun and Moon are her eyes; the quarters, Her ears; the Vedas are Her words; the Universe is Her heart; the earth is Her loins; the space between earth and sky is Her navel; the constellations are Her Thighs; the Maharaloka is Her neck; the Janarloka is Her face; Indra and the Devas and then Svarloka are her arms; the sound is the organ of Her ears; the fire is within her Face; day and night are like her two wings; the mountains are Her bones; the rivers are Her veins, and the trees are the hairs of Her body. Childhood, youth, and old age are Her finest modes; the two twilights are Her raiment; the Moon is the mind of the Mother of the Universe. > > ~ Devi Bhagavata Purana, VII.33.1-21 > > * Please visit the Shakti Sadhana Homepage at http://www.shaktisadhana.org > * Please join the Shakti Sadhana Group at > > > > > > Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 You were thinking of Nepal Mary Ann. http://www.visitnepal.com/nepal_information/kumari.php -------------- Original message -------------- I appreciate the input of each of you (DB and Len). Funny DB, "Exhibit A" Yes, on-board provacation - this time I was aware of what I was doing, though, and it was meant with humor. However... I still feel there is something apt in what I see, and said. I think it's worth noting that a girl or boy is still not an adult, not capable of fully adult thinking/reasoning/understanding, and that all that attention being heaped on a child as a symbol is not good for any actual people involved. I understand that you are saying the symbolism goes far beyond just the physical, but I'm thinking now of an article I read about a country in which a young girl is selected to represent divinity, and she is taken from her family and lives in a palace and holds an esteemed position for several years, until she hits puberty, I think. Then she is cast out of the palace, not even given any severence pay or stipend to live off of. I don't recall what country this is, but I just remember that the people revere their tradition, so they don't really pay much attention to how this affects actual families and the child(ren) involved. They are honored to be part of it all. ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Hi - Thanks for posting the link. I saw a similar article in a magazine in a waiting room a few months back. , bsubramaniam@c... wrote: > You were thinking of Nepal Mary Ann. > > http://www.visitnepal.com/nepal_information/kumari.php > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > I appreciate the input of each of you (DB and Len). Funny > DB, "Exhibit A" Yes, on-board provacation - this time I was aware > of what I was doing, though, and it was meant with humor. However... > > I still feel there is something apt in what I see, and said. I think > it's worth noting that a girl or boy is still not an adult, not > capable of fully adult thinking/reasoning/understanding, and that > all that attention being heaped on a child as a symbol is not good > for any actual people involved. > > I understand that you are saying the symbolism goes far beyond just > the physical, but I'm thinking now of an article I read about a > country in which a young girl is selected to represent divinity, and > she is taken from her family and lives in a palace and holds an > esteemed position for several years, until she hits puberty, I > think. Then she is cast out of the palace, not even given any > severence pay or stipend to live off of. I don't recall what country > this is, but I just remember that the people revere their tradition, > so they don't really pay much attention to how this affects actual > families and the child(ren) involved. They are honored to be part of > it all. > > ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 , "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote: > Hi - Thanks for posting the link. I saw a similar article in a > magazine in a waiting room a few months back. > > , bsubramaniam@c... wrote: > > You were thinking of Nepal Mary Ann. > > > > http://www.visitnepal.com/nepal_information/kumari.php > > > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > I appreciate the input of each of you (DB and Len). Funny > > DB, "Exhibit A" Yes, on-board provacation - this time I was > aware > > of what I was doing, though, and it was meant with humor. > However... > > > > I still feel there is something apt in what I see, and said. I > think > > it's worth noting that a girl or boy is still not an adult, not > > capable of fully adult thinking/reasoning/understanding, and that > > all that attention being heaped on a child as a symbol is not good > > for any actual people involved. > > > > I understand that you are saying the symbolism goes far beyond > just > > the physical, but I'm thinking now of an article I read about a > > country in which a young girl is selected to represent divinity, > and > > she is taken from her family and lives in a palace and holds an > > esteemed position for several years, until she hits puberty, I > > think. Then she is cast out of the palace, not even given any > > severence pay or stipend to live off of. I don't recall what > country > > this is, but I just remember that the people revere their > tradition, > > so they don't really pay much attention to how this affects actual > > families and the child(ren) involved. They are honored to be part > of > > it all. Perhaps its good if we actually goes back to how this tradition started in the beginning. How sure are you to say "that they don't really pay much attention to how this affects actual families and the child(ren) involved." Its like saying, the family who offered and feel honoured that their daughter being selected as a Kumari do not have the mind of their own to think for themselves but just to follow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Actually, my comment about attention to the families and children comes from what I read in an article that discussed the poverty and the kind of treatment of the families and children around this ritual, treatment after the "holy time" is over for the child, etc. I don't remember the magazine the article appeared in, unfortunately. But again, as has been posted here before, there are folks who think committing sati is an honorific ritual. Not looking into other aspects underlying such rituals (eg no finanical support for a woman after her husband dies) means continuing in "traditions" that are ultimately harmful, woman-hating, etc. , "NMadasamy" <nmadasamy@s...> wrote: > , "Mary Ann" > <buttercookie61> wrote: > > Hi - Thanks for posting the link. I saw a similar article in a > > magazine in a waiting room a few months back. > > > > , bsubramaniam@c... wrote: > > > You were thinking of Nepal Mary Ann. > > > > > > http://www.visitnepal.com/nepal_information/kumari.php > > > > > > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > I appreciate the input of each of you (DB and Len). Funny > > > DB, "Exhibit A" Yes, on-board provacation - this time I was > > aware > > > of what I was doing, though, and it was meant with humor. > > However... > > > > > > I still feel there is something apt in what I see, and said. I > > think > > > it's worth noting that a girl or boy is still not an adult, not > > > capable of fully adult thinking/reasoning/understanding, and > that > > > all that attention being heaped on a child as a symbol is not > good > > > for any actual people involved. > > > > > > I understand that you are saying the symbolism goes far beyond > > just > > > the physical, but I'm thinking now of an article I read about a > > > country in which a young girl is selected to represent divinity, > > and > > > she is taken from her family and lives in a palace and holds an > > > esteemed position for several years, until she hits puberty, I > > > think. Then she is cast out of the palace, not even given any > > > severence pay or stipend to live off of. I don't recall what > > country > > > this is, but I just remember that the people revere their > > tradition, > > > so they don't really pay much attention to how this affects > actual > > > families and the child(ren) involved. They are honored to be > part > > of > > > it all. > > > > > Perhaps its good if we actually goes back to how this tradition > started in the beginning. How sure are you to say "that they don't > really pay much attention to how this affects actual families and > the child(ren) involved." > > Its like saying, the family who offered and feel honoured that their > daughter being selected as a Kumari do not have the mind of their > own to think for themselves but just to follow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.