Representations of Human Beauty & Physique from Sanskrit Texts: Part- I

Welcome back, guest writer* Gyanendra Narayan! In this day and age of obsession with the physical form, six packs, enhancements, treatments, corrections (phew!) and changing ideas of what is attractive, Gyanendra reminds us that our Scriptures have refreshing descriptions of the physical form, both male and female. Why should we look else where for an ideal of beauty? Read on. You can contact Gyanendra by leaving a comment, or on Twitter @Gyan_

Representations of Human Beauty & Physique from Sanskrit: Part- I

Notion of Tall, Dark and Handsome from Sanskrit

Description of beauty and physique has been part of literature from time immemorial. Unlike popular notions, Sanskrit is no exception to it. In fact, if one goes by chronology of literature, perhaps Sanskirt might be one of the first languages delving deep into sublime, subtle representation of human beauty and physique - notwithstanding current fashion phenomenon of tall, dark, and handsome. Sanskrit has a repository of pretty well describing shlokas about beauty and physique.

To start with, who else is better to start than the Lord Rama himself? The surprising element of Sanskrit is the detail with which it goes to talk about each part of body. I’ve selected few verses from a Sargah of Valmiki Ramayana , but would recommend readers to completely read Valmiki Ramayan, Sundar kand, 35^th Sarga.

The context is: While searching for Sita,  Hanumaana has arrived in Lankaa, and have managed to meet her. However Sitaa is perplexed to find a monkey with Lord Rama’s message. She is also afraid that it might be Raavana, who in the guise of well behaving monkey, wants to know about her feelings. So Sitaa is asking very probing questions about Raama (as Raavana has not seen Raama ).

In the response,  Hanumaana describes physique of Lord Rama.

Sundarakaand, 35^th Sargah, 23^rd Sloka.

Sa suvarnacchavih srimaan Ramah shyaamo Mahaayashaa |

Taavubho  narashaardulauh twaddarshankritautsawau||

Vichinwantau mahim kritsnaamsmaabhih saha sangatau|||

To maintain the context with discussion, I’m translating first line Sa: He( Lakshamn is being referred here ),  suvarna-cchavih: Of golden tint/complexion Ramah: Lord Rama,  shayaamo : Dark color ,  Mahaayashaa : Who is very famous

Here complexion of Lord Rama is being referred as dark. Isn’tit surprising that be it Rama or Sri Krishna; both have been described of dark complexion in respective literatures.  In yet another shloka the same has been reemphasized.

Sundarakaand, 35^th Sargah, 16^th  Sloka.

Dundubhiswananirghoshah snigdhavarnah prataapvaan|

Samascha suvibhaktaangauah varnam shyaamam Samaasritah||

Translating second line Samascha: All, Suvibhaktaangauh: proportionately well developed, varnam : complexion shyaamam : Dark, Samaasritah:  endowed with

In this shloka also Valmiki - through Hanumaana’s narrative- is describing complexion of Lord Rama. In this shloka too Rama has been described as a person of dark complexion (definitely not fair). Moving further; one of the verses has talked about eyes of Lord Rama.

  

Sundarakaand, 35^th Sargah, 8^th  Sloka.

Raamah kamalapatraakshah poornachandranibhananah|

Roopadakshinyasampannah prasuto janakaatmaje||

Translating first half of the first line Raamah: Lord Rama, kamal patraakshah : Lotus( Kamal) petals (Patraa) Akshah ( eyes)

In first line of shloka, Rama’s eyes have been compared with petals of lotus (Remember round and shining). In one of the verses height of lord Rama has been described as four arm length. Well, that’s a really great height. The shloka goes like

Sundarakaand, 35^th Sargah, 18^th  Sloka.

Trivaliimaans-trayavanata-schaturvayngasha-trishirshvaan

Chatushkala-schaturlekh-aschachatuskiwkuchatushctusamah||

Translating second half of second line gives the idea of ideal height which Sanskrit Author like Risihi Valkmiki ascribes to Lord Rama’s height.

In previous shlokas also Valmiki says that Lord Rama has a deep and sound voice (Sudumbhisananirghoshah: 35^th Sargah 16^th shlokas) . In 15^th shloka Valmiki says Lord Rama hand long hands ( Mahaabahuh ) and had heavy shoulders ( Vipulansho)

& at last, this shloka, which is shloka 20th in same sargah,  should delight with detail

Dasha padmo dasha vrihat tribhih vyapto dwi shuklawaan|

Shad unnato nava tanuh tribhih vyaapnoti raghavah||

His ten(Dasha)  organs are like lotus (Padmo), ten organs (dasha) are big (vrihat) . He is full of three great qualities (Tribhih vyapto), these qualities have been identified as  wealth,fame,might and from both side of his parents ( dwi shuklawaan). His six organs are a bit elevated( Shad unnato) and nine organs are small( nava tanuh)

This shloka does not mention about each of those ten, ten, six and nine organs. However many reference have been found ( including transliteration of Valmiki Ramyana ) that first tens denote (, eyes, tongue, lips, palate, breasts, nails, countenance, mouth,hands and feet ), second tens denote (hest, head, forehead, neck, arms, heart,  mouth, back, ears and feet), six denotes(nose, shoulders, flanks, abdomen, breast,  and the forehead) and last nine denote( hair, moustaches and beard, nails, hair on the body, skin, finger-joints, membrum virile, acumen and perception). You can’t have any poet describing more than this.

A handsome person cannot be described in more detailed way than this.

 There are many references to physique of Lord Rama and in fact many other literature in Sanskrit have detailed about physical beauty. All references which I have taken belong to just half Sarga( sub-chapter ) of Valmiki Ramayana.

 Chances are you will not find any sophisticated, well written, more detailed and authentic piece of a person physique than what Valmiki has described.

Disclaimer: This article is by no mean to demean/defame any religion/god as me myself is a professed devout. This article is an attempt to find the description of beauty, physique and masculinity in Sanskrit literature. It is as well an attempt to break the pre-conceived notion of description of beauty, “Saundarya” being domain of any particular or foreign language.

* The views of  guest writers is their own. I may or may not agree with them, but I respect their right to be heard.  

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – III

Continuing his series on Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa , Bibek Debroy  talks to us about the importance of silence and inner contemplation for the realisation not just of wisdom, but of the atman itself. Is language all it's made out to be? Do we realise the importance of listening, not just to others but also to our inner self? How can we obtain mukti? Read on, for some thought provoking ideas.

Let’s continue from where we left off last month.  As a core principle of Hinduism, we have the existence of the atman.  It is reasonably easy for most people to accept that the आत्मन् is distinct from the physical body.  By that, I mean the acceptance of the principle, the concept.  It is a different matter that, in practice, most of us may find it difficult to disentangle the two.  

The physical body means the five organs of sense and the five organs of action.  The physical is easier.  The non-physical is more difficult to digest.  There are layers in the non-physical.  In the last piece, I quoted Adi Shankaracharya’s निर्वाणषट्कम् and मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि नाहं.  अहंकार is pride, ego, arrogance, self-conceit.  अहंकार is actuallyअहम्-कार.  It is that which leads to the sense of अहम्.  

Think of the word “I” in the English language.  Why is it in capital letters?  Thankfully, in Sanskrit and in Indian languages that I know of, there is no “I” in capital letters.  That ought to make it easier, though it probably doesn’t.  All the time, one runs into people who say, “I will do this.  I will do that.  I will change the world.”  With age, one ought to mellow down and realize that the world is impervious to change in that sense.  We can’t change the world.  We are insignificant.  At best, we can change ourselves.  There is a shloka in the Bhagavad Gita, 5.8.  नैव किञ्चित् करोमीति युक्तो मन्येत तत्त्ववित्.  I am glossing over the युक्तो तत्त्ववित् part a bit, because I don’t want to complicate matters right now.  For present purposes, the relevant bit is नैव किञ्चित् करोमीति मन्येत.  The one who knows about the truth thinks, “I am doing nothing.”

If अहंकार is difficult to transcend, बुद्धि and मन are more so. बुद्धि is reasoning, intelligence, the intellectual faculties and मन is the mind. Without getting into taxonomy and semantics too much, चित्त is a consciousness that is different from both mind and intelligence.  What’s the point? The point is that just as the physical bits are subservient to the senses, the so-called mental bits of मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि are also subservient to the senses.  To use another term, these are discernible or manifest, व्यक्त.  However, discernible by what?  By the senses.  

The atman is none of these. It is अव्यक्त.  It is indiscernible.  It is not manifest.  That doesn’t mean it can’t be realized.  But it cannot be realized by the senses.  The senses are about our relationships with the external world.  The atman is about what is inside us.  By seeking to measure it with norms that are relevant for the external world, we are asking the wrong question.  It is like a door in a house.  That door can be used to step outside.  But it can also be used to step inside.  If your minds are fixated on stepping outside, we can’t be expected to know what is inside the house.

The word योग is much-maligned and abused through over-use.  Of course, it has multiple meanings and we will revisit it at some point. Chapter 9 of the Bhagavad Gita talks about raja yoga, based on Patanjali’s ashtanga yoga.  It’s called ashtanga yoga because it has eight parts  -यम (restraint), नियम (control, the following of rules), आसन (posture), प्राणायाम (control of the breath), प्रत्याहार (withdrawal), धारणा(concentration on an object), ध्यान (meditation) and समाधि (trance).  If one leaves out the higher levels, this is about reflection, meditation, spending time with one’s own self and physical and mental discipline that helps one to do this.  

Every human advance has brought benefits, but it has also brought costs.  One of the great advances is the discovery (or is the right word invention?) of language.  But let’s not pretend that it has not had its costs.  We are so busy talking all the time that we don’t listen.  This isn’t just about listening to others.  It is also about listening to one’s own self, about contemplation on one’s inner self, without necessarily implying high-flying concepts of meditation.  Let’s just cut ourselves off from the external word and think about who we are.  I like the word मुनि.  It means sage or holy man (especially one who has taken a vow of silence) and comes from मन् the etymological root of मनन, the act of thinking or meditation.  What is interesting is that मुनि lead to the word मौन, silence. Silence is also correlated with wisdom.

As a logical principle, we know there are phenomena beyond the immediate senses.  Infra-red and ultra-violet light is a case in point. These exist despite our senses being unable to capture them.  As another logical principle, we also know that many animals have senses superior to human beings.  When a sense is not used, it tends to atrophy.  Had language not existed, our other senses might have been more acute.  When one sense organ is completely dysfunctional, the other senses tend to compensate.  This leads me to the following proposition.  Trying to measure the atman through the senses, or through apparatus, is a pointless exercise.  I need to spend time in inner contemplation.  There are people who have done that and have said that they have comprehended something beyond the physical body and the मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि.  I see no reason to dismiss all of them as frauds, because all of them certainly do not have anything to gain from that assertion.  If I am not prepared to spend the time myself, who am I to disbelieve?  If I am interested, let me spend the time.

Let me leave you with the first line of the Ashtavakra Gita, from a question being asked by King Janaka to the sage Ashtavakra.  कथं ज्ञानम् अवाप्नोति कथं मुक्ति: भविष्यति  “How is knowledge obtained?  How is freedom obtained?”  As I said earlier, I am not talking about other religions. But this is Hinduism’s core question.  And we will continue to probe the answers.