User talk:Firinel

Tantras and Tantra

The texts and the Hindu (and Buddhist) sects are not the same thing. I'm undoing your 'redirect.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:21, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

That's cool... but the tantras page should instead be expanded, which task I will accordingly undertake. As for the Hindu myth thing, it's an unfortunate reflection fo Abrahamic-centrism. --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:06, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Saraswati

Finnel, I'm not being prude or hyper-sensitive or purist when I say Saraswati is never depicted nude. There were near-riots when Hussain, an Indian painter, depicted her nude in a Mumbai art exhibit. Four thousands of years people have been using the white (for, yes, purity) sari. You may be thinking of ancient, as in, 2000 year-old statues which may or may not even be Saraswati. The practice and norm is to fully-clothe Hindu gods and goddesses.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:25, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Just as an exercise, search Google or Hindu books and tell me how many nude, as opposed to clothed, depictions of Saraswati you find; the ratio will be an answer to this question.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:26, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

You are hyper-sensitive. As I acknowledged, this was not about normative standards being enforced. You need to get in touch with what goes down in Hindu iconography. Minor artisans in rural temple towns and atavistic representtions of Saraswati being carried on in minority circles does not count for "usual depictions". I have no objections to mentioning that in days of old she was depicted thusly, or that the practice is continued by some smaller artisans, but if you're actually interested in representing what the real state of affairs is, you won't harumph when I write that proportionally these representatiosn are not nearly as popular as the standard sari. Don't assume you know everything or that everyone's repressed. I'm interested in factual accuracy, not your idealized self-delusions. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)