Tattva-viveka
comparing the four arm form of the lord to a recent birth defect
Vivek - December 3, 2007 2:59 am
This article was pretty ridiculous; comparing a birth defect to the four armed form of visnu.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770
Zvonimir Tosic - December 3, 2007 5:08 am
This article was pretty ridiculous; comparing a birth defect to the four armed form of visnu.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770
Uh, my goodness, this actually looks like two bodies joined together.
The metaphor journalists suggested doesn't fit, but that we can expect nowadays.
___ * * * ___
Despite this, I always wondered how four armed Visnu, or his eight armed form, can actually take place. Srimad Bhagavatam says the form of Visnu is all beautiful, human-like, he smiles charmingly and I'm just scratching my head asking myself how his arms are actually attached to his body.
I've spent many weeks in the art academy studying figure drawing; adding extra arms to the human body means altering the upper torso, extending it, adding new joints (see image below). Body becomes distorted, not human-like any more but quite grotesque. Adding more arms means making it look even worse -- an impossible task. It's quite obvious that 3D artist face this same challenge when creating four armed characters in video and computer games and thus their characters are not charming at all. :Broken Heart:
When examining paintings that depict Lord Visnu, we can see a visual illusion in place. His body is actually of normal height, and his torso is, in fact, quite short --shorter than human's. Hips sit high, arms are longer (I believe that adds to the charm) and other multiple arms just mysteriously appear from the same spot. They're always covered somehow, so we don't see joints.
So we have an illusion here. Sri Visnu obviously occupies some different reality where everything is possible and where everything is all charming, including his multi-armed expansions.
On the other hand, Srimad Bhagavatam also describes some powerful bad guys as having multiple heads and arms too. Since they don't occupy the same reality as Sri Visnu -- the reality where everything is possible -- and because their appearance is not charming at all, can we assume sastras are actually talking metaphorically; having hundreds of arms may simply mean that bad guy is just incredibly powerful when compared to us mere humans? Using metaphors like those means the only way for us to perceive their incredible strength and mystical powers.
Just a curiosity.
Ys, Z.
Brahma Dasa - December 3, 2007 5:49 am
From Sanga: The Rasa Dance of Balarama
Q. In Sri Caitanya-caritamrta there is a story of how the Brahmas from different universes visited Krsna in Dvaraka. In that story the Brahma representing our universe had only four heads while the Brahmas from other universes had up to a million heads. Those Brahmas addressed the Lord in plural as “we” even though it said in the story that none of the Brahmas could see one another. How are we to understand “a million heads” as well as this contradiction in the story?
A. The sentence you are concerned with, tara kahe,—'tomara prasade sarvatra-i jaya, can be translated “They (the Brahmas) said, 'By your mercy there is victory everywhere.' “ Technically there is no “we” in the sentence.
Regarding the many heads of the different Brahmas, don't become negatively preoccupied with these kinds of unimaginable details. Everything in scripture need not be taken literally. In Latin the word centi means one hundred and mill means one thousand, yet the centipede does not have a hundred legs nor does the millipede have one thousand legs. These insects are named such simply because they each have anamazing amount of legs. Similarly, when the different Brahmas are said to have 100, 1,000, 10,000, or more heads, this is a way of saying that their individual universes were progressively larger and larger and more and more amazing. The idea being that the more heads they have the larger and more amazingly complex were their respective universes.
To most the idea of a million heads may be unimaginable, but this is no reason to conclude that such things are absolutely impossible. To do so would superimpose a limitation on the wonders of the universe. In our everyday experience of nature and life itself, there is so much mystery, so much that we cannot understand, and so much yet to experience. Why then should we think that we have already somehow come to know or conceive of every fascinating miracle that the material manifestation has to offer? Although the scripture sometimes speaks allegorically, the Vedic description of expanding material universes on multiple levels of existence, occupied by countless variegated species of plants, animals, human and supernatural beings, rings true to many even though the conception is indeed mind-boggling. More amazing than the temporary material manifestation is the eternal world of Krsna, which is described as adhoksaja—beyond the mind. Beyond the mind anything can happen.
The essential message of this story about the Brahmas is that Bhagavan Sri Krsna is beyond the mind of everyone, regardless of how intelligent or powerful someone may be. Also, no one, not even Lord Brahma, can fully comprehend the universe in which one lives, what to speak of the entire material manifestation, which is but the maya-sakti (illusory energy) of Sri Krsna. This Krsna, who is worshipped in millions of universes by millions of Brahmas and is a mystery to even the greatest Lord Brahma, appears in Vrndavana as a simple cowherd boy—the darling of Nanda and Yasoda. What could be more wonderful and mind-boggling than this?
Rather than trying to comprehend every unimaginable detail with the tiny conditioned mind, aspiring devotees should learn to experience the essence of these stories from Caitanya-caritamrta and the Bhagavatam through the association of advanced devotees. Such association breathes life into the unimaginable.
For further information refer to the following Sanga: Scripture: Literal and Allegorical
Zvonimir Tosic - December 3, 2007 6:41 am
Rather than trying to comprehend every unimaginable detail with the tiny conditioned mind, aspiring devotees should learn to experience the essence of these stories from Caitanya-caritamrta and the Bhagavatam through the association of advanced devotees. Such association breathes life into the unimaginable.
Thank you for the answer Brahma Prabhu. I like that Sanga issue very much.
I was observing this problem from the artist's perspective. Still working within the limitations of two-dimensional artboard, sometimes it becomes impossible to follow the literate descriptions in sastras and make aesthetically pleasing painting or drawing. Thus I was asking myself, if I'm to paint a scene from Ramayana for example, could I simply make Ravana dark and big, for example, omitting all the legs, arms and heads present in many traditional miniatures?
In that way I can simplify the scene and focus more attention onto other, more subtle details that make him Ravana, and also other important details in the scene that now I can include without creating a visual mess. Similar approach was noted in the art of European Renaissance, for example, where different complex ideas were expressed though symbols, an adapted visual language used to express intentions and emotions not possible to express literally.
But when it comes to depicting the eight-armed Sri Visnu, then for the sake of not being ridiculed and accused for heresy :Broken Heart: I have to figure out how to make him believable and still beautiful in paintings. Thus my thoughts on how artists try to cope with such compositional problems. It's not easy. Thinking in more metaphorical and abstract terms, but yet trying to understand the complexity of the subject matter in its depths, helps a lot.
Ys, Z.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - December 3, 2007 3:51 pm
I have to figure out how to make him believable and still beautiful in paintings.
Dear Zvonimir,
Because you’ve studied art you might find this book quite interesting: “The Vishnudharmottara Part III” translated by Stella Kramrisch. It deals specifically with rules of image-making. It discusses proportions, sizes, etc. which had been used by masters to make Murti. To draw traditional form you need to use this book. I can send you the copy if you wish.
Ys,
Nanda-tanuja dasa.
Syamasundara - December 4, 2007 2:24 am
Hmmm that sure sounds like an interesting book.
Zvonimir, I don't understand why you are son concerned with joints. I would understand if you were an anthropologist, but an artist of all people should have no problem depicting surreal things.
Sadaputa explains in his book about Vedic cosmology that just like someone who reasons in terms of two dimensions can't fathom a third one, similarly, many things won't make sense if we keep thinking threedimensionally.
The Vedas are written from a vantage point that is entirely opposite to ours, it's us who need to shift, from matter and self-centeredness to transcendence and God-centeredness.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 4, 2007 6:08 am
Dear Zvonimir,Because you’ve studied art you might find this book quite interesting: “The Vishnudharmottara Part III” translated by Stella Kramrisch. It deals specifically with rules of image-making. It discusses proportions, sizes, etc. which had been used by masters to make Murti. To draw traditional form you need to use this book. I can send you the copy if you wish.
Ys,
Nanda-tanuja dasa.
Dear Nanda-tanuja Prabhu
Thank you very much. Your post intrigued me and I've googled the title and .. voila! I've found it in archive.com.
It's downloadable. Your help was immense, thank you so much for that!
Ys, Z.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 4, 2007 6:11 am
Hmmm that sure sounds like an interesting book.
Zvonimir, I don't understand why you are son concerned with joints. I would understand if you were an anthropologist, but an artist of all people should have no problem depicting surreal things.
Sadaputa explains in his book about Vedic cosmology that just like someone who reasons in terms of two dimensions can't fathom a third one, similarly, many things won't make sense if we keep thinking threedimensionally.
The Vedas are written from a vantage point that is entirely opposite to ours, it's us who need to shift, from matter and self-centeredness to transcendence and God-centeredness.
Dear Syamasundara, thank you for your observation.
Visual art and philosophy may deliver the same message, but they speak different languages. One is visual, other is abstract.
Philosophy is expressed with ideas that communicate with letters and sounds -- which are the ultimate abstractions. Visual art, on the other hand, relies on communication with recognisable visual elements, both two-dimensional (drawing, painting) and three-dimensional (sculpture).
Visual arts rely on common visual knowledge in order to communicate well. Because visual language is less abstract and more concrete, it becomes much harder to deliver the message properly tuned. For example, how would you react if I drew Sri Visnu with extra joints, quite enlarged torso that ultimately looks grotesque in our mindset? It would look like a blue painted Ravana :Broken Heart:
So, you see the problem. I agree with all of you, with Sadaputa, Brahma and you. From the philosophical point you're all correct, but from the visual art's perspective, you're talking with a language that cannot be conceived.
Visual art is also objective reality and is thus prone to criticism. Let's take Yadurani Devi's paintings for example; once she started introducing elements and ideas into her paintings not previously done in devotional art, many members of ISKCON objected. She has made since some breathtaking paintings, that are surely quite different from her earlier work, but new paintings were criticised fiercely. Rightfully? I don't think so. I don't agree with her censors.
Unlike Yadurani's, the image of Radha and Krishna in your mind no one will criticise. They're your subjective reality, known only to you.
So, you're very lucky too.
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 5, 2007 2:00 am
Maybe we are lost in semantics here, but you refer to visual art as if it were "portraiting" there are all kinds of futurist painting and sculptures that have nothing to do with proper anatomy and the concerns of the renaissance, but convey and communicate nevertheless.
So I feel like replying, what's the problem with depicting Visnu with for arms? There are tons of pictures already in the BBT books, and the arms seem to merge, because they do! The eyes seem to be as big as their sockets, because they are, the arms do reach the knees.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 6, 2007 1:24 pm
Maybe we are lost in semantics here, but you refer to visual art as if it were "portraiting" there are all kinds of futurist painting and sculptures that have nothing to do with proper anatomy and the concerns of the renaissance, but convey and communicate nevertheless.So I feel like replying, what's the problem with depicting Visnu with for arms? There are tons of pictures already in the BBT books, and the arms seem to merge, because they do! The eyes seem to be as big as their sockets, because they are, the arms do reach the knees.
Of course, dear Syamasundara, futurist paintings are communicating with exactly the same language as any other visual art, but just with different dialect. Futurism is rather a great way to explore motion, passage of time and change of form. I believe devotional art can explore such avenues too, at least in some details.
But what I wanted to say originally, is that truth you and others have expressed verbally, or in the form of an idea, is hard to conceive visually. Some generalisation is needed, some symbols must be used to express complex philosophical themes in two dimensional space.
Artist must develop some unique visual means, infuse them with common human understanding of visual language and perception and use them masterfully to explore such spiritual concepts. In such attempts artists fight the obstacles of the material and media, and also try to perceive the level of abstraction or realism needed for a painting to be understood and appreciated by their audience.
See this two examples:
Krishna kidnaps Rukmini
One is futurist, one is influenced by traditional Indian art. In the frist one, can you enjoy beautiful Krisna's eyes and flowers falling off Rukmini's beautiful hair, or even claim they're there?
Of course, Carlo Carra's image is not about Krishna at all, but if you'd tried to make such devotional painting, it would be very, very challenging to convince people on what are you trying to say through your work. Now, perceive eight joints in a more renaissance-looking Visnu and people will say you're heretic :Just Kidding:
Over-abstraction of highly evolved and complex philosophical and aesthetical ideas thus fail, because they're so far apart, almost diametrically opposite. They must meet somewhere in between them, in the ground of visual realism to communicate properly with us.
Again, I realy appreciate your thoughts. Thank you so much!
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 6, 2007 5:14 pm
OK it's become a private conversation... :Just Kidding:
I know the motivations and concerns of an artist, but I still don't quite understand and/or agree. What people would think you are a heretic? From what point of view? Why do you keep talking of joints and anatomical accuracy? The guy is blue!
On a different note, I do appreciate the importance of pictures in, say, the BBT books. They were a great feature of them, despite the Jehovah's Witness creepy vibe most of the time. However, we can count on other channels.
Premañjanacchurita bhakti-vilocanena, the eyes of love make a lot of difference in what is seen. Take Babhru's silas we are both in love with? How can you explain that to someone? We see so much more in them that someone who has no sukrti or sraddha wouldn't.
At the beginning of my devotional life I was only attracted to the iskcon type deities. I never noticed how big the eyes are compared to human proportions, but they were for sure more attractive than the average Indian deities with crossed eyes, rough features, etc. Sri Radha-ramanji, a self-manifested murti, yet you can't fit a straight flute in those fingers, but now I have some feelings for that form, those little teeth, funky shaped eyes. The three murtis of Madana-mohana, Govinda, and Gopinatha that are supposed to be the most resembling Krsna... have you taken a look at them? Mahaprabhu's deity that made Visnupriya feel like in his presence? I remember being a little disappointed the first time. Similarly, someone can be put in front of the most beautiful picture of Krsna, or the most anatomically accurate, and not develop positivity, or even develop an unfavorable attitude.
How many people became devotees because they got flashed by the paramatma on the Spiritual Sky incense? Cobras, arms, heads, and yet...
A cobra, how pleasant an image is that? Three lines on the throat and red eyes? In a human that translates into a chubby guy with conjunctivitis. It's just hopeless, we need to come to terms with God's idea of beauty and aesthetics, and we need divine eyes, smeared with prema.
I don't like medieval art, all those impossible proportions, no perspective, everyone has the same face, no comparison to Leonardo or Michelangelo, but there was a lot of symbolism in it, religious, magical, a lot of meta artistic communication, and once you tune into it, you see the frescoes with different eyes. It's art that brings you beyond art; that's cool.
Beauty and transcendence are quite a vast subject, specially if combined.
If our concern is that people become devotees or favorable, we can't count on material media like art, words, etc, we can only be devoted and favorable ourselves.
Why do you talk of "Over-abstraction of highly evolved and complex philosophical and aesthetical ideas"? There is obviously a specific language in all of our iconography, I remember thinking: "Ok, Visnu's symbols mean this and that, but why does he have to carry them all the time? It sounds reductive of God, and more like something for us to recognize each form of divinity and philosophize on them." At the same time, we carry a wedding ring all the time and don't think about it. So, everything about God's form has a meaning, but is's also what it is. No need to abstract. He has four or more arms? Fine. They sprout from the same joint and you can't quite see the origin of them? Then you depict what you "see", after all you can't see someone's chest and spine at the same time either.
I think you dwell a lot on the fact that God's limbs are made of flesh and bones and that everybody would think the same if they were to see our icons, which in an average human mind would result in somebody like that Indian girl, with limbs not quite finding enough space, but I never, ever had that idea until this thread came up. I just took for granted that his body is just of a different substance altogether, all four or five arms could move freely on the same joint and even coincide, as if they were made of light.
Bhrigu - December 6, 2007 6:14 pm
I find the subject of religious art very interesting. As you may know, there are rather strict rules for what murtis are supposed to look like in some shastras, but from what I've heard, nobody's ever really followed them! Still, people are so accustomed to seeing Krishna in a specific way or style that anything else will feel strange or even "offensive". Just like Satsvarupa Maharaja's art. Now there are many things one might say about Satsvarupa Maharaja and his books, but I think that most of the flak that he has been getting has come from his art. It is so different from what Krishna conscious art "should" look like. I don't particularly like his art (though some paintings are pretty neat), but it would be great to see more experimentation being done in the field, in my opinion.
Syamasundara - December 6, 2007 7:12 pm
I don't like half of the Iskcon paintings, as faithful to the standards as they are. The people all have popping eyes, which I guess is typical of the Indian physionomy, but they all have the same lifeless expression. So the artist is also a factor, besides the standards applied
Zvonimir Tosic - December 6, 2007 10:41 pm
Why do you talk of "Over-abstraction of highly evolved and complex philosophical and aesthetical ideas"?
It is said that true reality, the beautiful, is not formless, but it is the ultimate form. Gaudiya vedanta is all about form and lila. Sastras say Krisna, the Bhagavan, and all his saktis and lilas are not formless. They are very similar to our world, but their substance is spiritual.
So from that perspective we are talking about devotional art. Realism in painting (or in sculpture) matches that reality much better than over-abstraction. Renaissance-like art works better than some neo-cubist piece, for example. That futurist painting above, it cannot convey intricate details because such style is not about details.
However, in sequential art (say in comics and in graphic novels) some form of abstraction helps a lot! Sequential art is all about passage of time, and the action that happens between the frames (in an empty space that we fill up with our own conclusions and emotions) imposes quite different concept from a "single frame" painting. Such art involves us into the story, we're becoming participants as well, so abstraction is needed. Superrealistic art simply doesn't work in comics. I believe Krsangi can confirm that from her experience.
I think you dwell a lot on the fact that God's limbs are made of flesh and bones and that everybody would think the same if they were to see our icons ...
Quite the opposite! :Just Kidding:
I wanted to say that it would be good if someone started to explore this idea; make villains look grotesque (similar to what Frank Miller does in his art and movies) by, say, adding extra joints to their numerous hands. At the same time, in the same painting, put Visnu into some different reality by drawing his arms from the same joint, almost like made of light (as you've said). We didn't have such treatment yet, combining two different styles in one painting. But why not? Such treatment automatically evokes different feelings about subjects.
Art is very complex subject matter and we could continue like this forever. I also believe art is a good way to explore our own perception of divinity, to see what we're accustomed to and is there room for something new, fresh.
What is possible to do? Is there more ways to express divine ideas than just through traditional style? What about borrowing some ideas from futurists (motion) and impressionists (dance of light)? I believe impressionism in devotional art must be explored, but has anyone touched it yet? (Ok, maybe Yadurani did slightly in her latest paintings). That brilliant play of light in an impressionistic paining would serve devotional art well, adding one extra dimension now absent: self-illumination, self-radiance, dance of colour and light in a shimmering reality that breathes her own life.
Ys, Z
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - December 6, 2007 11:13 pm
Dear Zvonimir,
Do you work on a devotional painting now? When can you share it with us?
Ys,
Nanda-tanuja dasa.
Syamasundara - December 7, 2007 12:32 am
I am finally starting to see what you mean. I would stick to the Vedic guidelines, out of common sense, but I believe a lot can be done taking advantage of present day's technologies and techniques. If I think of the sculptures at Konarak, they are all beautiful in their style, very complex, but somewhat emotionally static, they all express standard smiles.
I believe the best medium is CGI. Already when I saw the cartoon about Ramayana (after so many bollywood cheesy productions and effects) I was really pleased with seeing Vibhisana's arrows turning into snakes, Hanuman expanding etc. but now we can use so many effects, play with luminosity, colors, etc. Artists will probably still have a problem with something black that emanates light, or representing space and movement through space and time in a mutlidimensional way, but for the rest, much of that bizarre Vedic world and worldview can be depicted pretty well.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 7, 2007 12:52 am
Do you work on a devotional painting now? When can you share it with us?
Dear Nanda-tanuja,
I'm not working on a large scale painting, but I'm devoted to many small drops of expression at the moment.
I feel a little embarrassed to show this one here :Just Kidding: but this, for example, is one of my poems together with art I've made for it.
It's in my language, a Shakespearean style sonnet .. maybe you can guess something when reading, but Vamsidhari can fully understand it I believe. In this one I've tried to express my feelings about sri guru, Swami Tripurari and therefore the title Svitanja (Awakenings, or Dawnings) .. how I feel his presence in my life, what it means to me, day after day, sunrise after sunrise, and hence the plural in the title.
It's a bit hard to translate and keep the rhythm and rhyme, but I'll try my best in the following post. But, please don't condemn my approach too much 
Ys, Z.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 7, 2007 4:28 am
Since the sun of your presence
shone into my world
An eternal summer captured me
my heart opened, like a budding flower
Deep within some unknown strength
in awakening, sweet words cascading
over my lips, o my dear self,
you're bursting, like a mountain spring
Every new day I'm awaiting
silently, the breath of dawn,
the rays of sunshine,
your smile, my endless ocean
My thoughts within you, they're my awakenings,
my sonnets, an ode to joy
- - -
Uh, it's same as translating from Sanskrit. :Just Kidding:
Ys, Z.
Syamasundara - December 7, 2007 6:26 am
:Just Kidding: 
I confirm what I said in private, and I am sure many can identify with this poem.
I also had that fervor at the beginning. The sun is the cause of the same clouds that sometimes cover him. There are so many anarthas that have condensed in the sky of my heart, at least now I can see them, and I know that my sun is always there, even if sometimes I think it's a cloudy day or forget about him.
avidya-timira-tapana-rupe,
hrd-gagane biraje
Zvonimir Tosic - December 7, 2007 8:32 am
.. and I am sure many can identify with this poem.
It's lovely to share among friends. Lots of things inspire me here so I wanted to give you something in return.
I love metaphors, allegories. I love the beautiful colour of the morning clouds too.
Thank you my friends.
Ys,
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - December 7, 2007 5:29 pm
I believe the best medium is CGI.
I think it would be unbelievably cool if someone can actually build a computer model using measurements and proportions from Vishnudharmottara. Alas, I don’t have requires skills. It’s wrong to compare murti with yantra, but I think in both cases precision of execution is important for the result. Otherwise why shastras are so specific? Form triggers the mood on subconscious level, just like vibration of mantras work even without literal understanding of the text.
Vivek - December 8, 2007 1:51 am
I think it would be unbelievably cool if someone can actually build a computer model using measurements and proportions from Vishnudharmottara. Alas, I don’t have requires skills. It’s wrong to compare murti with yantra, but I think in both cases precision of execution is important for the result. Otherwise why shastras are so specific? Form triggers the mood on subconscious level, just like vibration of mantras work even without literal understanding of the text.
But many of the earlier dieties are more crude than those made now. I have seen that old dieties of many devotees are not exactly great in the gross physical way. In ISKCON the dieties are very humanly attractive. But as Syamu said right now it is our material conditioning. I think the main point in the diety is the presence of the devotee who can invoke the Lord to enter into it. Otherwise it is no longer a diety.
Zvonimir Tosic - December 8, 2007 8:58 pm
But many of the earlier dieties are more crude than those made now. I have seen that old dieties of many devotees are not exactly great in the gross physical way. In ISKCON the dieties are very humanly attractive. But as Syamu said right now it is our material conditioning. I think the main point in the diety is the presence of the devotee who can invoke the Lord to enter into it. Otherwise it is no longer a diety.
East has never experienced Renaissance in art and Renaissance humanism. That's why Eastern art hasn't changed much during the last millenia. The reason why many ISKCON deities are physically attractive to everyone is based on that simple fact; they're very human-like, which is due to different visual aesthetics that is prominent in the West for centuries.
I find those two blends, Renaissance humanism and Gaudiya Vaisnavism, to be a perfect union in divine expression. If you observe closely, both Renaissance and Gaudiya Vaisnavism occurred in the same time. I find it to be no coincidence; those things were meant to happen. A highly developed theological thought from Bengal was predetermined to find a fertile ground for its expression in societies strongly influenced by humanism and in those societies which were struggling to preserve it (countries under constant invasion of the Ottoman Empire). And also in the new world (Americas).
One simply needed another and that's why, I believe, Gaudiya Vaisnavism has a more fertile ground in the West, much more than in India or Asia as they're now.
In that regard I cannot stop admiring Srila Prabhupada, who actually perfectly understood the dynamics of desire of Sri Caitanya, and who understood what is it all about. It is all about human aspect of divine lila, and not about religious theory or a new fanaticism of some kind.
So if we ask ourselves why our preaching is maybe not as effective, or why it creates an opposite reaction sometimes, then we should try to understand what's the level of our humanist approach in this whole game. How much we understand and appreciate our humanity, and humanity in others in relation to divine theological thoughts, will reflect on our success or failure. Srila Prabhupada was a humanist first and foremost, same as Srila Sridhara Maharaja, and that's why people were so attracted to them.
Ys, Z