Seldom explored aspects of Divine Mother Sita - Page 2

Wow, okay, I know this is a relatively old discussion, but I want to bring it back since Lola Di and I were talking about the exact same thing a few weeks ago, and I would just like to add my own comment to it. I hope that's okay.

Well, first of all, I want to thank Cool-n-Fresh (I bet that's not your real name, but that's all I have to go by), for making this thread and showing all the ways that Devi Sita was related to nature and fertility, and this is just another way we can worship her. So thank you. This is brilliant! And I am so glad you provided sources too. It shows you have done a very thorough job.

And now going to the more trivial matter of whether Shri Raam had a beard or not, here are my two cents:

Yes, incarnations of God such as Raam and Krishna are referred to as Nityakishore. However, I look at it as a way of saying that he is ever youthful. Not necessarily always in the form of a little boy, but always young. Not every word used in the scriptures can be interpreted literally. For example, Vishnu is referred to as Kamalaksh, having lotus-like eyes. Now, you can interpret the two root words there, Kamal and Aksh, and wrongly assume that he does in fact have two flower bulbs growing out of his eye-sockets. But that would be wrong. The intention of the writer, when he uses the name Kamalaksh is to compare Shri Vishnu's beautiful eyes to lotus flowers. In the same way, Nityakishore can be interpreted to mean always a kishore (age 13-15), or ever youthful. I think the latter one makes more sense.

According to the Manu Smriti, the kishor yuva spans from the age of thirteen to fifteen. So even if you take the word "Nityakishore" as literally as always having the appearance of a 13-15 year old, then Raam and Krishna would have the physical appearance of a thirteen to fifteen year old boy. And most males do in fact develop facial hair at that age. My fifteen year old little brother has to shave everyday. Let me reiterate, kishoras have facial hair. So, Ram and Krishna would have facial hair even then.

Having a beard doesn't indicate growing old, but growing up. You can still be youthful and have a beard. Growing up is when your body changes. Growing old, on the other hand, is when your body starts to disintegrate and slowly die. Your cells start to oxidize, there is not enough fat in the skin tissue, so you develop wrinkles. Your melanocyte stem cells die, and the lack of them causes there to be less pigmentation and melanin, resulting in hair graying. Raam and Krishna's bodies might not have disintegrated like a normal human's, but Krishna did grow up, got married, and had kids. As did Rama! If they were old enough to conceive children, then obviously their bodies were mature enough to develop facial hair. Yes, because they are bhagwaan swaroop, the rules of nature that apply to regular human beings might not apply to them, but there is nothing to indicate that they're bodies were in a permanent stasis, never growing up.

It is mentioned many times throughout the hindu epics that people used to live for thousands of years in the satyug, tretayug, and dwaparyug. As the eras passed, and the level of sin increased, their people's lifespan was shortened. But I don't think that necessarily means that they grew up at a slower rate, not having beards until the hundreds. But that their bodies didn't disintegrate as soon. Many scientists agree that reducing oxidation damage will lengthen lifespans, but it has no effect on growing up. Growing up, developing body hair, an adam's apple, etc are related to hormonal changes, not oxidation. So, my theory is that everyone grew at relatively the same rate, but didn't grow old and die until much much later on. And perhaps, going back to the name of Nityakishor, that means that Krishna and Rama's bodies, which are indeed bagwaan swaroop, and different from sthul sharirs, never oxidized.

Oh, and the quote that was brought up earlier, the one from Sunderkand where Hanuman is describing Shri Ram to Devi Sita goes thus:

Rama has ten lotus-like limbs. He has ten ample limbs. He is spread through by reason of three. He is doubly pure. He is elevated in six limbs. He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine. He pursues religious merit, worldly riches and the sensuous delight in three periods.

You can interpret the "he' [has] fine' [features] in nine" as him having fine hair, beard, moustache, but it is not clarified. It could mean he has a beard, but it doesn't prove it.

So, that was my dou take ki baat. I know I took a very trivial matter and stretched it out and made a huge deal about it. I'm sorry. If you read through all that, then let me just send you a virtual hug. Your sahensheelta is commendable. I am so sorry if you feel like I wasted your time, but I just wanted to get this out there, and well, I was bored. College hasn't started yet, and I don't have much to do. Bye!

Originally posted by: AishuHiBawari

Wow, okay, I know this is a relatively old discussion, but I want to bring it back since Lola Di and I were talking about the exact same thing a few weeks ago, and I would just like to add my own comment to it. I hope that's okay.

Well, first of all, I want to thank Cool-n-Fresh (I bet that's not your real name, but that's all I have to go by), for making this thread and showing all the ways that Devi Sita was related to nature and fertility, and this is just another way we can worship her. So thank you. This is brilliant! And I am so glad you provided sources too. It shows you have done a very thorough job.

And now going to the more trivial matter of whether Shri Raam had a beard or not, here are my two cents:

Yes, incarnations of God such as Raam and Krishna are referred to as Nityakishore. However, I look at it as a way of saying that he is ever youthful. Not necessarily always in the form of a little boy, but always young. Not every word used in the scriptures can be interpreted literally. For example, Vishnu is referred to as Kamalaksh, having lotus-like eyes. Now, you can interpret the two root words there, Kamal and Aksh, and wrongly assume that he does in fact have two flower blubs growing out of his eye-sockets. But that would be wrong. The intention of the writer, when he uses the name Kamalaksh is to compare Shri Vishnu's beautiful eyes to lotus flowers. In the same way, Nityakishore can be interpreted to mean always a kishore (age 13-15), or ever youthful. I think the latter one makes more sense.

According to the Manu Smriti, the kishor yuva spans from the age of thirteen to fifteen. So even if you take the word "Nityakishore" as literally as always having the appearance of a 13-15 year old, then Raam and Krishna would have the physical appearance of a thirteen to fifteen year old boy. And most males do in fact develop facial hair at that age. My fifteen year old little brother has to shave everyday. Let me reiterate, kishoras have facial hair. So, Ram and Krishna would have facial hair even then.

Having a beard doesn't indicate growing old, but growing up. You can still be youthful and have a beard. Growing up is when your body changes. Growing old, on the other hand, is when your body starts to disintegrate and slowly die. Your cells start to oxidize, there is not enough fat in the skin tissue, so you develop wrinkles. Your melanocyte stem cells die, and the lack of them causes there to be less pigmentation and melanin, resulting in hair graying. Raam and Krishna's bodies might not have disintegrated like a normal human's, but Krishna did grow up, got married, and had kids. As did Rama! If they were old enough to conceive children, then obviously their bodies were mature enough to develop facial hair. Yes, because they are bhagwaan swaroop, the rules of nature that apply to regular human beings might not apply to them, but there is nothing to indicate that they're bodies were in a permanent stasis, never growing up.

It is mentioned many times throughout the hindu epics that people used to live for thousands of years in the satyug, tretayug, and dwaparyug. As the eras passed, and the level of sin increased, their people's lifespan was shortened. But I don't think that necessarily means that they grew up at a slower rate, not having beards until the hundreds. But that their bodies didn't disintegrate as soon. Many scientists agree that reducing oxidation damage will lengthen lifespans, but it has no effect on growing up. Growing up, developing body hair, an adam's apple, etc are related to hormonal changes, not oxidation. So, my theory is that everyone grew at relatively the same rate, but didn't grow old and die until much much later on. And perhaps, going back to the name of Nityakishor, that means that Krishna and Rama's bodies, which are indeed bagwaan swaroop, and different from sthul sharirs, never oxidized.

Oh, and the quote that was brought up earlier, the one from Sunderkand where Hanuman is describing Shri Ram to Devi Sita goes thus:

Rama has ten lotus-like limbs. He has ten ample limbs. He is spread through by reason of three. He is doubly pure. He is elevated in six limbs. He is small, thin, fine or sharp in nine. He pursues religious merit, worldly riches and the sensuous delight in three periods.

You can interpret the "he' [has] fine' [features] in nine" as him having fine hair, beard, moustache, but it is not clarified. It could mean he has a beard, but it doesn't prove it.

So, that was my dou take ki baat. I know I took a very trivial matter and stretched it out and made a huge deal about it. I'm sorry. If you read through all that, then let me just send you a virtual hug. Your sahensheelta is commendable. I am so sorry if you feel like I wasted your time, but I just wanted to get this out there, and well, I was bored. College hasn't started yet, and I don't have much to do. Bye!

Originally posted by: Cool-n-Fresh

Hai! Aishu(can I address you this way?)This is Cherry :)

Agreed!I feel the same,there is nothing to do with the physical body and it will perish one day,but it is the infiniteness which remains for ever!

Srujadi said the same thing.I guess she forgot to post it here but it was the same like what you said.😳

Will request her again to post the matter here!

Originally posted by: AishuHiBawari

Hey, Cherry! Yeah, you can call me Aishu. My name's Aishwarya, but I go by Aishu. :) And seeing your icon, you're also a Jhalak fan? Hopefully perhaps maybe?

And yes, exactly! When I read the Ramayan or Bhagavad Gita, I usually try to think about the teachings and life lessons in it rather than things like this. Although, to be quite honest, I also critique a lot of mytho shows for their depiction of the characters and weird wardrobe choices, but that is another issue entirely.

And that would be so awesome! I'd love to read it too!

Originally posted by: Cool-n-Fresh

Hey so you can see my new iconbut why I'm unable to..😕my old DP is not leaving me😔

Yah even I love to learn life lessons from our scriptures.(sometimes they confuse me)thanks to members like you who help me understand*tears of joy*from the weird depictions and presentations!