Rashmun wrote:a related note: according to sufi saints there are two types of love--haqiqi ishq and majazi ishq. the former is love between man and God and the latter between man and woman. in the sufi songs there is a lot of talk about love so much so that one suspects they are singing about the romantic love between a man and  a woman. But no, they are being mischievous--they are actually singing about the love between man and God.

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Name: Kali is so called because She devours Kala (time) and then resumes Her own dark formlessness. She is the embodiment of three gunas (qualities of nature): She creates with Her sattva guna (quality of goodness and purity), preserves with rajas (passion and activity), and destroys with tamas (ignorance and inertia).

Complexion: Her complexion is deep blue, like the sky. As the sky is limitless, so is She. From a distance one sees the ocean water as blue, but it is colorless and transparent when examined closely.

Crescent above the forehead: She is the giver of liberation.

Earrings: Images of two little babies hang from Her ears; this means that She favors childlike devotees.

Smiling face: She is ever-blissful.

Tongue: Kali's white teeth symbolize sattva or serenity; Her red tongue, rajas, or activity; and Her drunkenness: tamas or inertia. The meaning: tamas can be conquered by rajas, and rajas by sattva.

Full breast: She is the nourisher of all beings.

Terrible form: She is the mother of the universe as well as the destroyer. When a mother spanks her child, it does not mean that she is cruel; she disciplines her child for its own good.

Necklace: It consist of fifty skulls that represent the fifty letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, the origin of sound. She is Shabda Brahman (Sound-Brahman), or Logos-the source of creation.

Two right arms: The upper right arm grants fearlessness, and the lower right arm offers boons. She protects Her children from danger, and She fulfills their desires.

Two left arms: She holds a sword with the upper left arm and a severed head with the lower. She can cut human bondage with the sword of knowledge, and She imparts wisdom to the head, the receptacle of supreme wisdom.

Naked form: She is called digambari, "clad in space." She is infinite, so no finite dress can cover Her.

Waist: Kali's waist is encircled with a girdle of severed human arms that represent action. All human actions and their results go to the Divine Mother. At the end of a cycle all souls merge with Kali; during creation they again evolve with their respective karmas.

Shiva is under Her feet: Shiva and Shakti are always together. He is the changeless aspect of the Supreme, and She the apparently changing aspect of the same. Shiva is pure cosmic consciousness, and Kali is cosmic energy. No creation is possible without their union. Siva cannot manifest without the power of Kali, and Kali cannot function without the consciousness of Shiva.

Dakshina Kali and Vama Kali: If Her right foot is forward, She is Dakshina Kali (benign form); and if Her left foot is forward, Vama Kali (terrible form).

swapna wrote:scary! troubling.

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:scary! troubling.

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:scary! troubling.

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:scary! troubling.

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

the idea is to instill fear in the wicked. With respect to Kali holding the head, this is the head of a demon who had received a boon (i think from Lord Shiva) that when any drop of his blood falls on the ground then that drop will be converted into a replica of this demon and become another demon. So she had to ensure that no drop of his blood fell on the ground and hence she is holding a container under the head from which blood is dripping.

Notice how she seems to be trampling Shiva. She had gone mad in her anger and Shiva threw himself on the ground in front of her so that when she stomped on his chest her tongue came out in embarrassment at what she had done (trampling her husband Shiva) and she calmed down. I have heard of an alternative version of this story as to why her tongue is out ( i think, perhaps, because she is drinking the demon's blood to prevent it from falling on the ground and turning into replica demons).

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

one other point: many of these hindu myths have parallels in greek mythology. 

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:scary! troubling.

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

the idea is to instill fear in the wicked. With respect to Kali holding the head, this is the head of a demon who had received a boon (i think from Lord Shiva) that when any drop of his blood falls on the ground then that drop will be converted into a replica of this demon and become another demon. So she had to ensure that no drop of his blood fell on the ground and hence she is holding a container under the head from which blood is dripping.

Notice how she seems to be trampling Shiva. She had gone mad in her anger and Shiva threw himself on the ground in front of her so that when she stomped on his chest her tongue came out in embarrassment at what she had done (trampling her husband Shiva) and she calmed down. I have heard of an alternative version of this story as to why her tongue is out ( i think, perhaps, because she is drinking the demon's blood to prevent it from falling on the ground and turning into replica demons).

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

one other point: many of these hindu myths have parallels in greek mythology. 

I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly.

the last two paragraphs of your post above are irrelevant.

I shall be interested in hearing from hindu parents who live in the u.s. about any discussion they've had with their children on the worship of these fantastic entities. I have no doubt that they have questioned you about it. what were your answers? did they accept your answers without further questions?

do they and their children worship such goddesses? do the parents somehow force the children to do so?

swapna wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

the idea is to instill fear in the wicked. With respect to Kali holding the head, this is the head of a demon who had received a boon (i think from Lord Shiva) that when any drop of his blood falls on the ground then that drop will be converted into a replica of this demon and become another demon. So she had to ensure that no drop of his blood fell on the ground and hence she is holding a container under the head from which blood is dripping.

Notice how she seems to be trampling Shiva. She had gone mad in her anger and Shiva threw himself on the ground in front of her so that when she stomped on his chest her tongue came out in embarrassment at what she had done (trampling her husband Shiva) and she calmed down. I have heard of an alternative version of this story as to why her tongue is out ( i think, perhaps, because she is drinking the demon's blood to prevent it from falling on the ground and turning into replica demons).

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

one other point: many of these hindu myths have parallels in greek mythology. 

I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly.

the last two paragraphs of your post above are irrelevant.

I shall be interested in hearing from hindu parents who live in the u.s. about any discussion they've had with their children on the worship of these fantastic entities. I have no doubt that they have questioned you about it. what were your answers? did they accept your answers without further questions?

do they and their children worship such goddesses? do the parents somehow force the children to do so?

an edited version of my last paragraph above:


do you and your children worship such goddesses? do you somehow force your children to do so?

brie wrote:

swapna wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:
that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

the idea is to instill fear in the wicked. With respect to Kali holding the head, this is the head of a demon who had received a boon (i think from Lord Shiva) that when any drop of his blood falls on the ground then that drop will be converted into a replica of this demon and become another demon. So she had to ensure that no drop of his blood fell on the ground and hence she is holding a container under the head from which blood is dripping.

Notice how she seems to be trampling Shiva. She had gone mad in her anger and Shiva threw himself on the ground in front of her so that when she stomped on his chest her tongue came out in embarrassment at what she had done (trampling her husband Shiva) and she calmed down. I have heard of an alternative version of this story as to why her tongue is out ( i think, perhaps, because she is drinking the demon's blood to prevent it from falling on the ground and turning into replica demons).

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

one other point: many of these hindu myths have parallels in greek mythology. 

I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly.

the last two paragraphs of your post above are irrelevant.

I shall be interested in hearing from hindu parents who live in the u.s. about any discussion they've had with their children on the worship of these fantastic entities. I have no doubt that they have questioned you about it. what were your answers? did they accept your answers without further questions?

do they and their children worship such goddesses? do the parents somehow force the children to do so?

an edited version of my last paragraph above:


do you and your children worship such goddesses? do you somehow force your children to do so?

i don't live in the U.S. BUT, 

CAN I ANSWER? 
CAN I ANSWER? 
CAN I ANSWER? 
CAN I ANSWER?

Rashmun wrote:

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:swapna: i am curious. before i answer your question, i have a clarification to seek. do you object to this particular image that rashmun posted, or to the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity (yes with multiple arms etc.) vanquishing the forces of evil?

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

Great question, Rashmun.

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:swapna: i am curious. before i answer your question, i have a clarification to seek. do you object to this particular image that rashmun posted, or to the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity (yes with multiple arms etc.) vanquishing the forces of evil?

your use of the word "object" above in connection with my post is an insinuation. this kind of insidious "cleverness" will only damage your credibility, especially with people who are not naive. 

you know very well whether I have objected to rashmun's post or not. and in my posts, I have stated my opinion and position quite clearly. 

here are four words, none meaning "objection," that succinctly describe what I experienced on seeing rashmun's post: shock, disgust, revulsion, *puke*.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:swapna: i am curious. before i answer your question, i have a clarification to seek. do you object to this particular image that rashmun posted, or to the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity (yes with multiple arms etc.) vanquishing the forces of evil?

your use of the word "object" above in connection with my post is an insinuation. this kind of insidious "cleverness" will only damage your credibility, especially with people who are not naive. 

you know very well whether I have objected to rashmun's post or not. and in my posts, I have stated my opinion and position quite clearly. 

here are four words, none meaning "objection," that succinctly describe what I experienced on seeing rashmun's post: shock, disgust, revulsion, *puke*.

my apologies for not being careful. please replace the sentence with the word "object" in my post with the following:

do you find this particular image rashmun posted objectionable, or do you find the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity vanquishing the forces of evil, objectionable? in other words is your reaction  specific to just this image, or the entire genre of art based on this theme?

i did not then, and i am not now, trying to insinuate anything. it is a question born out of genuine curiosity and i am hoping we can have an interesting and polite conversation about this.

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:swapna: i am curious. before i answer your question, i have a clarification to seek. do you object to this particular image that rashmun posted, or to the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity (yes with multiple arms etc.) vanquishing the forces of evil?

your use of the word "object" above in connection with my post is an insinuation. this kind of insidious "cleverness" will only damage your credibility, especially with people who are not naive. 

you know very well whether I have objected to rashmun's post or not. and in my posts, I have stated my opinion and position quite clearly. 

here are four words, none meaning "objection," that succinctly describe what I experienced on seeing rashmun's post: shock, disgust, revulsion, *puke*.

my apologies for not being careful. please replace the sentence with the word "object" in my post with the following:

do you find this particular image rashmun posted objectionable, or do you find the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity vanquishing the forces of evil, objectionable? in other words is your reaction  specific to just this image, or the entire genre of art based on this theme?

i did not then, and i am not now, trying to insinuate anything. it is a question born out of genuine curiosity and i am hoping we can have an interesting and polite conversation about this.

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

there is a lot of philosophical symbolism in the Kali picture.

that's the 7,358th time I've heard that poor excuse for bad taste. why does philosophical symbolism have to look ugly, cruel, and scary? severed head held by the hair with blood flowing and entrails exposed? ah, the conquest of evil? that's profound!

the idea is to instill fear in the wicked. With respect to Kali holding the head, this is the head of a demon who had received a boon (i think from Lord Shiva) that when any drop of his blood falls on the ground then that drop will be converted into a replica of this demon and become another demon. So she had to ensure that no drop of his blood fell on the ground and hence she is holding a container under the head from which blood is dripping.

Notice how she seems to be trampling Shiva. She had gone mad in her anger and Shiva threw himself on the ground in front of her so that when she stomped on his chest her tongue came out in embarrassment at what she had done (trampling her husband Shiva) and she calmed down. I have heard of an alternative version of this story as to why her tongue is out ( i think, perhaps, because she is drinking the demon's blood to prevent it from falling on the ground and turning into replica demons).

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

one other point: many of these hindu myths have parallels in greek mythology. 

I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly.

the last two paragraphs of your post above are irrelevant.

I shall be interested in hearing from hindu parents who live in the u.s. about any discussion they've had with their children on the worship of these fantastic entities. I have no doubt that they have questioned you about it. what were your answers? did they accept your answers without further questions?

do they and their children worship such goddesses? do the parents somehow force the children to do so?

an edited version of my last paragraph above:


do you and your children worship such goddesses? do you somehow force your children to do so?

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

As for good taste, how do you interpret a young caucasian male with his hands and feet nailed to a cross in the most ugly, cruel, and scary manner? Is that representative of superior taste?

Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

As a kid growing up in Madurai, there used to be dances performed at the temple around Sivaraathri. One dance I particularly recall is Kali Thaandava as part of Rudra Thaandava dances. Very fierce and thunderous, beautiful nevertheless.

TruthSeeker wrote:(-:

Read my table again. Its been sourced by lots of wise folks.

One must think such - Why did Hindus create these idols? Even if they did, why did they create them with 8 hands, 12 hands? With an elephant trunk riding a mouse? Is it imagination gone wild?

One must think. And one must seek.

Hinduism is designed for a seeker.

Other religions are designed for a follower.

Take a moment, and realize the difference in great great wisdom of our ancestors.

Rashmun wrote:

TruthSeeker wrote:(-:

Read my table again. Its been sourced by lots of wise folks.

One must think such - Why did Hindus create these idols? Even if they did, why did they create them with 8 hands, 12 hands? With an elephant trunk riding a mouse? Is it imagination gone wild?

One must think. And one must seek.

Hinduism is designed for a seeker.

Other religions are designed for a follower.

Take a moment, and realize the difference in great great wisdom of our ancestors.

good point you made about the elephant (Lord Ganesha) riding a mouse. The best explanation for this is that the elephant and the mouse were animal totems for two different tribes. Such animal totems exist till date amongst the north american indians. the tribe with the elephant totem subjugated the tribe with the mouse totem and both these tribes were subsequently absorbed into hinduism at some point of time. There is factual evidence for such a conflict taking place. Further, the absorption process was similar to how hinduism absorbed a tribe with the snake totem by putting a snake around Shiva's neck.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:


Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

TruthSeeker wrote:(-:

Read my table again. Its been sourced by lots of wise folks.

One must think such - Why did Hindus create these idols? Even if they did, why did they create them with 8 hands, 12 hands? With an elephant trunk riding a mouse? Is it imagination gone wild?

One must think. And one must seek.

Hinduism is designed for a seeker.

Other religions are designed for a follower.

Take a moment, and realize the difference in great great wisdom of our ancestors.

good point you made about the elephant (Lord Ganesha) riding a mouse. The best explanation for this is that the elephant and the mouse were animal totems for two different tribes. Such animal totems exist till date amongst the north american indians. the tribe with the elephant totem subjugated the tribe with the mouse totem and both these tribes were subsequently absorbed into hinduism at some point of time. There is factual evidence for such a conflict taking place. Further, the absorption process was similar to how hinduism absorbed a tribe with the snake totem by putting a snake around Shiva's neck.

another explanation is that the mouse is a nuclear-powered mouse. that's how the tiny mouse has the strength and the energy to carry an elephant on its back. our ancient hindu civilization had harnessed nuclear energy for everyday use, in this case, transportation.

our murli manohar-ji who was a physicist, and at one time, india's human development minister, had prepared plans to introduce nuclear-powered animal transportation into the i.i.t. curriculum. 

the sikularist conwalas, however, didn't have murli manohar-ji's vision or courage, so the plans are now gathering dust, and we indians continue to underutilize our mice.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:


Great question, Rashmun.

an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

TruthSeeker wrote:(-:

Read my table again. Its been sourced by lots of wise folks.

One must think such - Why did Hindus create these idols? Even if they did, why did they create them with 8 hands, 12 hands? With an elephant trunk riding a mouse? Is it imagination gone wild?

One must think. And one must seek.

Hinduism is designed for a seeker.

Other religions are designed for a follower.

Take a moment, and realize the difference in great great wisdom of our ancestors.

good point you made about the elephant (Lord Ganesha) riding a mouse. The best explanation for this is that the elephant and the mouse were animal totems for two different tribes. Such animal totems exist till date amongst the north american indians. the tribe with the elephant totem subjugated the tribe with the mouse totem and both these tribes were subsequently absorbed into hinduism at some point of time. There is factual evidence for such a conflict taking place. Further, the absorption process was similar to how hinduism absorbed a tribe with the snake totem by putting a snake around Shiva's neck.

another explanation is that the mouse is a nuclear-powered mouse. that's how the tiny mouse has the strength and the energy to carry an elephant on its back. our ancient hindu civilization had harnessed nuclear energy for everyday use, in this case, transportation.

our murli manohar-ji who was a physicist, and at one time, india's human development minister, had prepared plans to introduce nuclear-powered animal transportation into the i.i.t. curriculum. 

the sikularist conwalas, however, didn't have murli manohar-ji's vision or courage, so the plans are now gathering dust, and we indians continue to underutilize our mice.

Agree... just like the sikularist conwalas would convince us that praying to a deadman who could not even save himself would somehow take us all to heaven. And worse, he came back from the dead.... perhaps he was in a coma and wiggled his pinky toes and the people who were on booze imagined him to be alive.

What do you think?

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:
another explanation is that the mouse is a nuclear-powered mouse. that's how the tiny mouse has the strength and the energy to carry an elephant on its back. our ancient hindu civilization had harnessed nuclear energy for everyday use, in this case, transportation.

our murli manohar-ji who was a physicist, and at one time, india's human development minister, had prepared plans to introduce nuclear-powered animal transportation into the i.i.t. curriculum. 

the sikularist conwalas, however, didn't have murli manohar-ji's vision or courage, so the plans are now gathering dust, and we indians continue to underutilize our mice.

Agree... just like the sikularist conwalas would convince us that praying to a deadman who could not even save himself would somehow take us all to heaven. And worse, he came back from the dead.... perhaps he was in a coma and wiggled his pinky toes and the people who were on booze imagined him to be alive.

What do you think?

irrelevant!

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
an entirely irrelevant question.

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus UP YOUR ASS for intensive study.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Not so fast. You had said earlier, "I reject the repetition of fantasy and mythology as justification and rationalization of the worship of scary, ugly figures that are depicted disgustingly."

Don't you consider the crucifixion of Christ as gory, scary and ugly? That symbol of him beaten up and dying at the cross, bleeding in hands and feet, is seen in all the churches; and worshipped by those who are into Christianity. Isn't it equally a relevant question to ask if it is justified to worship something depicted so crudely?

it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
it's not, because I didn't post any disgusting picture here of a fantastic, naked humanoid holding the just-chopped-off head of a human being by the hair, while blood and entrails spill out of its neck into a bowl. and I didn't call that thing my goddess, did I?

indeed, I have never had or displayed a picture or some other depiction of any being or creature that's considered divine, including jesus, ever since I started living by myself, at the age of sixteen, at iit-m.

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

I have neither accused you of posting any disgusting picture nor made any comment on your personal choice. My only question simply was that if you take people to task about worshipping goddesses personified in that manner, how do you respond to those who worship a crucified human figure depicted in a horrific manner.

the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.