Tattva-viveka
Deity tattoos.
Philip Breakenridge - November 2, 2006 9:49 pm
Haribol,
I was wondering if it was offensive to have an image of Krishna or the demi-gods tattooed on one's body. I was considering getting a tattoo of either Gaura-Nitai or Lord Ganesha on my right forearm.
Any thoughts?
philip 
Madangopal - November 2, 2006 11:57 pm
Over the years I have heard different opinions about this. Some advocates compare it to the branding rituals that I believe the Madhva's do. Others say it is offensive because you take it in the bathroom ( yeah, kind of funny). Some say it is tamasic, some say it helps their remembrance of Krsna... It is really just like anything else. If it is meaningful to you, and something that inspires your bhakti, why not? I have some of my favorite verses about the glories of Hari Nama tattooed on my arms. When talking about tattoos, people always ask me about them (they are in Bengali) and in that way I get to explain some nice philosophy. It is also a self reminder.
I had my first tattoo done 16 years ago before I joined the temple. It was an act of commitment for me, embracing my new faith. I was however unaware of cultural norms. That tattoo is a verse authored by Rupa Goswami and it is on my ankle. I would not suggest anything below the waist because that pushes the cultural envelope a bit too much. I've gotten a lot of looks from Indians when I visited India and I tried my best to cover it up so that I would not attract attention from them.
Cultivate a good motivation, be introspective about it and find a good, clean artist.
Bhrigu - November 3, 2006 3:00 pm
The tattoo discussion! Just to give another opinion: I'm one of those "others", people against taking devotional tattoos. I know many very nice devotees who have beautiful devotional tattoos, but on this point, I disagree with them. Some indeed compare taking tattoos to the branding that the Madhva's do or to applying tilaka, but I think that argument is fallacious. Both tilakas and the Madhva-style brands are regularly repeated devotional activities enjoined by shastra (the branding is very light and repeated once or twice a year -- one of the days is Utthana Dvadasi, today!). Tattooing you do once and that's it, and I have never seen it mentioned in any shastra. The "if it helps you remember Krishna, go for it" -argument is also not the best. It has been used by men wanting to dress up as gopis and refuted by Vishvanatha Cakravarti.
Also, since the picture of Gaura-Nitai really is non-different from Gaura-Nitai, a person who has it on his or her body would have to be pretty careful about how they use that body. In our modern society we are surrounded by all kinds of pictures on every side and don't take them that seriously, but when it comes to Gods I think we should.
So if you want devotional insignia on your body, I would recommend you to get some stamps (to be used with gopicandana or sandalwood pulp) with the holy name, avataras, weapons of Vishnu or similar amulets -- or indeed getting them branded on you by a Vaishnava expert. All of that is recommended in our shastras as beneficial for bhakti.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 3, 2006 10:00 pm
Tattooing was never used in Vedic culture. It has tribal (adivasi) roots and some tribes in India are still using them, but it has nothing to do with Vaisnavism or any other traditional path. Appearances of Vedic style tattoos in Western Hindu culture is a product of crosspollination between cultures, nothing more.
Madangopal - November 3, 2006 10:26 pm
Vedic style tattoos in Western Hindu culture is a product of crosspollination between cultures, nothing more.
So are white people in dhotis and tilak! I have nothing invested in defending tattoos, I could care less. But, "cross pollination" of cultures is a fact of the modern world. "Vedic" culture will not be revived, but the spirit will thrive with our detachment from an idealist view of it.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 3, 2006 11:49 pm
Hehe, never read "Varnasrama Manifesto" in the childhood. It will scar you for life
Swami - November 3, 2006 11:55 pm
So if you want devotional insignia on your body, I would recommend you to get some stamps (to be used with gopicandana or sandalwood pulp) with the holy name, avataras, weapons of Vishnu or similar amulets -- or indeed getting them branded on you by a Vaishnava expert. All of that is recommended in our shastras as beneficial for bhakti.
Branding one's body with the symbols/weapons of Visnu is not favorable for raganuga bhakti for obvious reasons. There is a famous story of one devotee who out of curiosity left the Vraja and went to Dvaraka. While he was there he followed the local custom and branded himself with the symbols of Visnu. However when he returned Radha apppeared to him in a vision and told him he could not enter the eternal Vrajaloka. They say he died in spearation, his destiny unknown. Don't get distracted!
Syamasundara - November 4, 2006 8:02 am
Ok, I'm very vain, and don't know how seriously I will be taken, but instead of decorating our gross body with God, it's far better to decorate our heart with him, or rather him with our heart.
If we wear a beautiful tattoo, we may have the best devotional intentions, but people could always come and say, Wow nice tattoo! And that may trigger a lot f subtle ego things.
This won't happen if Krsna is seated in our decorated heart. It's a process that takes longer, but one that assures a much more lasting life of all-pervading "beauty".
Madangopal - November 4, 2006 12:52 pm
If we wear a beautiful tattoo, we may have the best devotional intentions, but people could always come and say, Wow nice tattoo! And that may trigger a lot f subtle ego things.
This won't happen if Krsna is seated in our decorated heart.
Just for arguments sake: Aren't there plenty of examples of people's false ego being triggered by someone complimenting the "decoration" of the heart? This is what pratistha is all about. Decorated externally or internally (or both), all devotees face this challenge. If people admire something we have externally or internally devoted to the Lord, we must continually direct it toward the Lord and our identity as a humble servant.
You do have a point about attracting attention to ourselves... We don't want to be putting out signs for people to always be bothering us, complimenting us, etc. But that is not much of a problem in western cultures because of the prominence of tattoos. But, if it is a problem it can easily be solved by tattoos that are placed in inconspicuous or unseen places. A personal anecdote; my tattoos are not visible unless I'm shirtless. They are a bit of a private meditation I have. When GM gave me diksa he saw them and started reading the Bengali! I felt a little embarrassed and humbled to have my guru reading from my arm, but then again, they are glorification of Nama prabhu and he was bestowing that merciful name upon me. I pray that those names can pervade every cell of my body and heart.
Phillip: I'm not advocating getting a tattoo. Contemplate it a lot and then do what you wish to do. I don't think there is a clear cut yes or no answer on this.
MG
Syamasundara - November 4, 2006 2:14 pm
Just for arguments sake: Aren't there plenty of examples of people's false ego being triggered by someone complimenting the "decoration" of the heart? This is what pratistha is all about. Decorated externally or internally (or both), all devotees face this challenge. If people admire something we have externally or internally devoted to the Lord, we must continually direct it toward the Lord and our identity as a humble servant.
True
Syamasundara - November 4, 2006 2:25 pm
At the same time, I was talking of that happening substantially. If someone tattoos his arm, the motivations and the followup may vary, but if someone manages to have the yugala kishora seated in his or her heart, then
he or she is necessarily already at a stage beyond "amana" (amanina manadena), so they won't be disturbed.
Ian Laycock - November 4, 2006 2:29 pm
Hi everyone. This is Ian, I am new to this forum. This is my first post actually. But I wanted to express some thoughts on this subject. For a variety of reasons Ive ended up with a significant number of tattoos all over my body (no dieties or scripture though) . I dont regret any of them but my feelings about them have changed over the years. I guess the main thing is that it really does draw attention to yourself. Its like "hey look at me and all my nice artwork". Now I tend to cover up as much as possible. Especiallly at the temple. Thats the last place I want attentioned drawn to myself. Also I wish that I had spent all the time, pain and effort in something that was more significant than decorating my body. Like one devotee mentioned, I think I would have been better of working on my heart instead of my body. One other thing, this might be a bit presuptous, but generally I think the Indian community views it as very low class. There are some positive things though. It has helped me think about the teaching that "I am not my body" And it can also show how much people relate on the bodily platform. Also it can be a valid tool in personal issues like commitment and growth ect. Its also important to remember that body modification has been around as long as humanity. Every culture and religion has it in some form or another. There is one really good article by an anthropologist named Jehanne Teilhet-Fisk called " The Spiritual Significance of Newar Tattoos". Its about devotional tattooing amongst Hindus, primarily in Nepal. Guess which dieties are most often tattooed 
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 5, 2006 12:39 am
Interestingly this post excaped my attention and maybe it was a good thing. Now that I read it I cannot help but express my opinion since I suffer from little contenece. I have very strong opinions but thats all they are. I do not intend to say what one should or should not do in their own life.
As many of you know I have many tattoos on my body and most of them are replicas of images from KC. I deliberatlely avoided to call them "devotional" because I do not consider my tattooing a part of devotional life. I do, however, consider them decorations and for that reason I agree that they are in a sense something that attracts attention to my body and me. They are at the same time very meaningful to me and they express a two stories about very important events in my life. KC just happens to be very important to my life so I could only express what I wanted using that imagery and not something else. Even though they are very daring they are also very private and not only meant for show. I thought about my tattoos for years before I had them done it was not something I decided just because I like a particular image that I paired with a particular body part where I thought it would be cool to have a tattoo (that was the case with the one on my head). I think to have a tatto or not is a personal decision and has nothing to do with devotional life.
I also think that "devotional images" are those towards which one relates with devotion. It is nice to say that the image of Krishna is non different from Him but the why do we have throw away papers, calendar, tilak wrapping, etc, that have an image of God on them? Do you collect every piece of paper you encounter and do puja to it? The images on one's body are not meant for devotion and are not there to be worshiped. This is like confusing bananas and oranges. Take the tattoo to the bathroom. Please, WE ALL GO THERE EVERY DAY.
It is hard to relate to people who assume some foreing value system and interpret things according to the Vedic stadrards. If tattoos are not vedic neither are we. And what is Vedic? Do we have Vedic culture experts here that can tell us what actually that is? That is, "WILL THE REAL VEDIC PLEASE STAND UP!" I personally do not care about what the Indians think. They are one of the most prejudicial, closeminded, and bigoted people around. It is also not true that tattoos are forieng to Indian culture. No one cared to mention that Rama-bhaktas routinely tatto the Holy name on their bodies especially the first time they go on a pilgramage. Most indians have a symbol of their caste tattooed on their arms. And yes do read the article that Ian mentioned (welcome by the way) if you want to know about culture and history don't just invoke "Vedic this or that. 
"
I agree that people should cultivate the right sentiment and try to do the best they can to live an honest, and intergated life. One's devotional life is not in clothing, markings, or wooden flip-flops, not to mention which hand you use to eat or do other unspeakable things.
Most of all I wanted to say just chill out and chant Hare Krisha!!! OK?
Jason - November 5, 2006 4:07 am
Does anyone else feel like they've just been "schooled" by Vamsi? Wow! I really appreciate how people on here can just let it all out! Um, I have tattoos, love 'em, hate 'em and will continue to get them. I, unlike Vamsi, have no reservations about seeing a striking image, appreciating it and just finding some space to have it done. I agree with him about maybe NOT calling it "devotional". For me anyway, it's something I'm into that is much less destructive than some of my previous pastimes. BTW, Vamsi's tattoos are absolutely stunning!
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 5, 2006 4:28 am
Does anyone else feel like they've just been "schooled" by Vamsi?
I think that "scolded" would be more acurate then "schooled," but I could not resist
I do apreciate being able to express myself and set things "straight" 
BTW, tattoos are not distructive pastimes me tihnks
Bhrigu - November 5, 2006 5:18 am
It is hard to relate to people who assume some foreing value system and interpret things according to the Vedic stadrards. If tattoos are not vedic neither are we. And what is Vedic? Do we have Vedic culture experts here that can tell us what actually that is? That is, "WILL THE REAL VEDIC PLEASE STAND UP!"
I do not know what "Vedic" is, so I will not speak for that, but since Philip asked a sincere question and I know a bit about Vaishnava rituals, I just wanted to make the point that tattoos have not traditionally been a part of Vaishnavism. I see no reason for throwing away thousands of years of tradition. If guru, sadhu and shastra are not authorities, what is? (Guru Maharaja has written about tattoos in a Sanga, but I can't find it right now).
No one cared to mention that Rama-bhaktas routinely tatto the Holy name on their bodies especially the first time they go on a pilgramage. Most indians have a symbol of their caste tattooed on their arms.
Are you sure that the Rama-namas the Rama-bhaktas write on themselves are tattoos? I always thought they were just written with ink on the skin. As for the second example, what symbols would that be? I have never seen one.
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 5, 2006 6:35 am
I think that Philip asked for our thoughts and I expressed them. I guess that the bottom line for me is when one expressses one's opinion it would be nice to say something like "My opinion about tattoos is...." I like to hear people say things that come from them. Why would the shastra treat the subject of tattoos? Why is it important if something is Vedic?
One's sensibilities as a devotee can be offended by seeing an image of Krishna on someone's body if that's one's real sentiment. But then it becomes a matter of one's sentiment and one's feeling and not something that is per se wrong or right. Or one might not be offended, but in the end it is a personal rather then scriptural injuction.
I am aware of Guru Maharaja's thoughts about the tattoos. He also did write a post on a subject so I don't think that I need to speak for him.
I also hope that my argumentative tone did not offend you because it is not my intention to do that, just wanted to stir the pot as usual.
The Indian traditional tattoo painting is called Godna (like folk art)
Caste symbols in India from 1600s
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 5, 2006 7:58 am
It is not your body to do with as you like if you have surrendered. It is place for Krsna to reside and property of the Guru.
I sure would not want to disfavor Rhada.
Bhrigu - November 5, 2006 11:33 am
Dear Vamsi,
I was not at all offended. I also like to stir the pot! I just think it is important that we don't throw out too much of the tradition in the name of being contemporary, liberal etc. To me, the shastra and Vaishnava traditions are important, because Krishna has manifested himself through them. I don't like the word "vedic" (since it really doesn't say anything apart from that the person using it meaning that what he or she is speaking about is ancient and somehow good), but there is a Vaishnava tradition that can be studied from texts and otherwise. While I don't think anyone here thinks that we could or indeed should return to the 16th century, I personally believe that the tradition can teach us many things.
Why would the shastra deal with tattoos? Because it tries to deal with life as a whole, not only transcendental matters. I am not aware of any direct prohibition against tattoos in our holy texts, so we do not have a clear cut yes/ no - scenario here. Instead, we have to use our heads to try to understand what the sages would say to a question such as Philip's. The HBV, for example, deals extensively with the outer decorations of a Vaishnava (4th chapter), but says nothing about tattoos. However, in the 15th chapter, in connection with the branding (which Guru Maharaja of course correctly points out is forbidden for Raganuga-sadhakas), Sanatana Goswami brings out a doubt whether also brahmanas may wear the brands, since it is forbidden to injure or disfigure the body of a brahmin (you may say we're not brahmins, but Bhaktisiddhanta's vision was that Vaishnavas should surpass brahmanas!). Sanatana Goswami replies to this doubt that this instance should not be seen as injuring the body, but rather as a way to show one's belonging to the Lord, just as a married woman wears bangles to show her social standing. Since the branding is made with fire (which always is pure), the branding is also pure. He also brings up some scriptural prohibitions against the brands, and harmonises them by saying that they refer to irregular brands (not of the weapons of Vishnu) or to non-Vaishnavas.
Since tattoos are (usually) not made by devotees, since they may be made with (shastrically) impure materials, and since they do not conform to any shastrical guidelines, I deduce that they would be included in the "forbidden brands" cathegory above. At best, they are not recommended. But this is only my understanding, and I am prepared to change my mind if someone gives a better argument. I would not dream of criticising anyone who already has a tattoo -- I do not have any myself, but I have bunches of much worse stuff in my heart -- but if someone asks whether or not to take a tattoo, I feel that I would have to recommend against it.
And yes, Vamsi, I do not do puja to every single image of Krishna, but I do not take them into the bathroom, put them on the floor or take them to bed with me...
Jananivasdas - November 5, 2006 1:19 pm
check out this link.it holds in some KC tattoos.my tattoos arent there.but mohan is representing there:
i have tattoos that are KC and i love 'em.i have other tattoos too and i love them too.
why not decorate this body with pictures of lord rather than some pinupgirls???
wich are more "vedic" or whatever...
its allways fun to tell people why i have a lionheaded dude on my arm?or who the elephantheaded fat guy is?
tattoos are personal thing and i think our own bodies are too.
have fun,get ink and chant krsna!!
Vamsidhari Dasa - November 5, 2006 5:41 pm
OK so the most important distinction between branding and tatooing is that they are as related as banannas and oranges (again my favourite analogy). Branding is done by either burning or cutting the skin deep so that it produces a visible scar. Tattoos on the other hand do not produce scars but are ink injected just below the second layer of the epidermus. It is important to understand this distinction. The needle acually piaces the skin in tiny dots thus injecting the ink it does not cut it or scar it. So it is entirely different process with different amounts of pain and suffering associated with it. I think that when there is an injuction against someting in the HBV one should really look at the context it is written in and to whom it is speking to, at what hostorical time. Which is not to say that we should disregard it.
Again, I am not disputing Brighus scholarship or depth of his attachment to the scriptures. It is certainly not the arena I could enter with any credibility since my understanding is poor. I can only comment of what is said in the posts.
Given that I live in 2006 in San Francisco my life unfortunately is within the context of non-devotes and in my life I have to employ many impure materials that do not conform to shastric guidelines. Like for example kind of cloth I wear or when I cut my hair or beard (wait am I supposed to have one or is it out of my caste ). I am sure that there are few injustions agains fashion in the scriptures. Of course my life or experience is not to be confused with how things are supposed to be. I am just trying to spek of what is quotidina for me and thus real. I have to sonsider my soroundings and reality of my life as a context withing which my deovtional service is performed.
One can easily say that since there is no mention of tatooing (and we established that it is different from branding and other self injurious practices that are routinely employed by the Hindus) that there is no prohibition agains it. I mean one deduces what one wants to deduce accordin g to ones sentiment and understanding which is always limited.
In conslusion I would like to ask if we have Krishna in our hearts where does Krishna go when we sleep or perform other activities? Here I am reminded of what Sripad Puri Maharaja said about Lord Jagannath. "Does the Lord lose His caste when people touch Him with diry hands in the Rathayatra? You can see hand prints all over His eyes. Does that bother Him, does He loose His caste? Of course not He is pure."
So this always helps me remeber who God is and where He is, but most of all why He is there.
Vinode Vani Dasa - November 5, 2006 6:26 pm
I think that a lot of how we interpret devotional principles when we come to Krishna consciousness has to do with where we are coming from in our "pre-devotional" life. I may be generalizing, but it seems that many of those who have come out in favor of tatooing are those who have come into this process with some history of tatooing already. Those of us without tatoos (myself included) will probably find little need or desire to add any kind of devotional tatoos to our body, but for those who already have tatoos, the desire to add something devotional to their bodies is understandable. We all come to this with our own unique personality and makeup, and therefore what may be appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another. A mature understanding of morality will take into consideration this element of relativity.
Mathura-natha Das - November 6, 2006 6:57 pm
So it seems that there are several devotees here with some nice inkwork on their body. So roll up your sleeves and post a picture of you devotional tattoos! I will post mine as soon as i´ll get my camera back from the shop.
Anuraga Das - February 3, 2014 4:29 pm
Branding one's body with the symbols/weapons of Visnu is not favorable for raganuga bhakti for obvious reasons. There is a famous story of one devotee who out of curiosity left the Vraja and went to Dvaraka. While he was there he followed the local custom and branded himself with the symbols of Visnu. However when he returned Radha apppeared to him in a vision and told him he could not enter the eternal Vrajaloka. They say he died in spearation, his destiny unknown. Don't get distracted!
Woah....