Eastern Delight?

[Jack Knave]

Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.

Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?

[Shaker]

Off the top of my head you could compare the exterior of umpteen Hindu temples and texts such as the Kama Sutra and the Koka Shastra with historical Christianity's attitude toward the body and anything sexual.

Hinduism didn't give us the Flagellants and mortification of the flesh, did it?

[wigginhall]

It's certainly been believed.   I remember in Graham Greene's 'The Quiet American' where the main character (Fowler),  raves about Vietnamese women, and their sexual proclivities, or maybe, pliability.  Trouble is, I don't know how much is the result of male fantasies about Asian women, or you might say, orientalism. 

[Jack Knave]

Off the top of my head you could compare the exterior of umpteen Hindu temples and texts such as the Kama Sutra and the Koka Shastra with historical Christianity's attitude toward the body and anything sexual.

What I read did bring this to my mind but wasn't sure if this was from selective biases of our recent culture to focus on such things. The Kama Sutra I think was written around 200AD and contains much more than just being a sex manual. So I was wondering if this perceived outlook from our Western eyes of the East was actually true of the East over many millennia.

[wigginhall]

This is the problem with orientalism, which is the Western fantasy about the East, and goes back a long way.  Exotic, colourful, depraved, sensual, stupid, lazy, semi-pornographic.   Found quite a lot in Western art:

http://tinyurl.com/p5xhwt5

[Udayana]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

[wigginhall]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Did you read that bit where I said that this has been a Western fantasy?  It's 12 words before 'depraved'.

[Udayana]

Wasn't quite sure what you meant. Is a naked man or woman depraved or pornographic? They were fine before the swarm of conquerors and missionaries arrived and made them so. That they were happily naked before was not a fantasy but it soon became one.

[Jack Knave]

Wasn't quite sure what you meant. Is a naked man or woman depraved or pornographic? They were fine before the swarm of conquerors and missionaries arrived and made them so. That they were happily naked before was not a fantasy but it soon became one.

I recall that in some African country the Christian missionaries demanded that their new converted women should cover their breasts. This however was a sign in the African country's culture that the woman was a prostitute.

[Jack Knave]

The grass is always greener........

Did the East think that of the West all those years ago?

[wigginhall]

I think it's a bit more than that.  There's a lot written about it - for example, desires and feelings that Westerners would normally suppress, could be expressed via 'oriental' imagery.   So there are a ton of Victorian paintings, with semi-naked ladies, with their boobs out, cavorting in front of stern looking men.   They have titles like 'The harem', 'The Turkish bath', and so on, and so, it made it OK for Victorian gentlemen (and maybe ladies) to look at these salacious images, cos it was the dark-skinned beauties who was doing it, not us.   Actually, some of the paintings are pretty good, it's not all porn.  And it's not all sex, there are landscapes, market scenes, slave scenes, and so on.  Full of Eastern promise, is right.

[Sriram]

Something I read recently which implied that the East, over the last coupler thousand years or so has been more open and less prudish about sex etc. than the Occidental, with its repressed attitudes as conveyed in religion especially the historical one of Christianity.

Can anyone confirm or rebuke this general notion?

In India, one principle is very important. Everyone is not the same.

Life is about Self Development and therefore everyone is essentially different from everyone else...to at least a small degree.  Some people can be vastly different from some others.  Its a broad spectrum with various kinds of people distributed along the length and breath of life.  The same expectations from everyone is unrealistic.

So...the same rules and the same lifestyles, tastes and preferences cannot apply to all people. It will not only be inappropriate but will also be unnatural and even a hindrance to their spiritual progress.

Sex is not a sin. Even promiscuity is not considered a sin.  Only hurting someone else or preventing some one else's spiritual development is a sin. 

While priests, philosophers, thinkers and mystics were expected to be controlled and lead a monogamous life..... kings, soldiers and such others were allowed to have many wives and even employ courtesans.  The business class were also allowed some liberties especially with money and sex.  Prostitution was legal and books like the kamasutra were common.

The greatest sin was for a person of a higher level to descend in his spiritual level due to the influence of a less developed person. However, since people of different persuasions lived in different communities and in separate places....the lifestyle of one group was not normally allowed to influence the others.

There is even said to be a world called Swarga....where people of certain spiritual levels go after death. There are believed to be beautiful apsaras (maidens of extraordinary beauty) and all pleasures imaginable.  This world is however also a temporary world and the people there would have to be born again on earth and rid themselves of such tendencies in due course.

The same gradation is also valid regarding food and vegetarianism.  Everyone is not expected to be a vegetarian. The Brahmins were expected to be strict vegetarians, live only on alms and lead a monogamous and pious life.  But others were allowed to eat meat and indulge in sensual pleasures. 

[Sriram]

Thanks.

That's interesting post Sriram.

I have read a bit about life in India but have never been there.

One of the things I read, which was about untouchables living in separate communities, you have mentioned here.

Another thing I read was that some people have different stages in life, the last one they travel on foot and in effect become ' holy men' and are given food by the community.

Rose,

1. The caste system was based on division of labor.... also tied in with spiritual development.

The 'untouchables' were a fifth community (outside the caste system) who carried night soil, cremated  the dead, buried and skinned dead animals ...and so on.  They were therefore exposed to many bacteria and diseases.  That is why they were kept outside the villages and were required to use separate wells for drinking water. Their food, clothing and other requirements were kept by their wells for them to take.

It was believed that these people were prevented from getting diseases by the gods (natural immunity we know of today).  If they were allowed into the villages and due to water contamination or direct touch, any epidemic started off, millions would die.  That is why they were untouchables.

Given the context of that time...the medical limitations, close living communities and so on...  it seems a wise idea...though today it might seem cruel and discriminatory.   

It must also be remembered that till recent centuries the caste system wasn't very rigid. Veda Vyasa...who compiled the Vedas and wrote the Bhagavad Gita belonged to a low caste.  Valmiki, who wrote the Ramayana was a tribal hunter who was given the status of a Brahmin when he wrote the epic.  If a person showed great promise..he/she was promoted to a higher caste. A king was once named as a great sage (reserved for brahmins) because he undertook great penance.

2. The second question is about Sanyasis.  Hindus generally do not encourage monastic life.  If a person becomes a monk at an young age he is generally regarded as a wastrel unless he shows extraordinary wisdom and Jnana from an young age.  Some famous child monks (bala-sanyasis) are known....Adi Shankara being one.

Normally most people are expected to go through four stages.

Brahmacharya ...gain knowledge of life and dharma (rules) for living from a guru. (usually 6 to 16 years of age)

Grihasta ..... Work, marriage, children and a house holders life. This period is considered the most important. (16 to 40 years)

Vanaprasta....Life of quite retirement and advising children about the ways of the world, work, bringing up their children etc. (40 to 60)

Sanyasa..... leave the household, renounce all wealth and comforts, no feeling of kinship to anyone. Adopt a universal mindset and see everyone as equal. Lead a life of wandering and live on whatever is given by others.

This process is said to lead to a harmonious and stable social order and also help in spiritual development of the individual. 

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sriram]

About your subsequent points....all humans are not the same and we all know that instinctively.  We all  gravitate towards a group that we feel we belong to.   

The UK class system, the US slavery....and many more examples of segregation abound in the world. Nothing new.

Division of labour was another form of classification. UK always had its bakers, smiths, cooks and so on.  Work was related to family and skills were expected to be passed on through families. All this made perfect sense given the absence of modern systems of formal education and universal schooling.

The caste system was only one example of a such hierarchy systems that worked for millennia. In the modern context, casteism had been banned in India for decades and one hardly knows who is of what caste in the workplace.  There is now universal education and work opportunity.

[ippy]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Sounds about right to me.

ippy

[ad_orientem]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

[floo]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

[ad_orientem]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.

[floo]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.

Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.

[ad_orientem]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.

Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.

You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about what percentage of Christians are actually faithful to Christian sexual morality. Even in the epistle to the Cornthians we see a man excommunicated for doinking his father's wife. Rather it was to give some of the rationale behind it.

[floo]

hmm, well they weren't "depraved" or "pornographic" until the arrival of the repressed Christians and Muslims set on their mission of exploitation. Not only East but North, South and West.

Well, to be fair it's supposed to be one of the things that sets Christianity apart, that Christians are meant to stay away from the sexual immorality of the pagans.

That's a laugh. Look how many paedophiles are Catholic priests and clergy of other denominations!

And it's a scandal, nevertheless my point stands.

Does it? In my experience many religious people are no more moral sexually than those who don't have a faith.

You seemed to have missed my point. It wasn't about what percentage of Christians are actually faithful to Christian sexual morality. Even in the epistle to the Cornthians we see a man excommunicated for doinking his father's wife. Rather it was to give some of the rationale behind it.

The Bible is hardly an example of people being faithful to their spouses is it? The Biblical Patriarchs bonked other women as well as their wives!

[ad_orientem]

Indeed. No one, except Christ, is perfect.

[Shaker]

Interesting definition of perfect you have there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting definition of perfect you have there.

No doubt yours is more in line with Peter Tinniswood's Uncle Mort.....''A bloke wi' big Knockers''.

[Shaker]

Jesus as a hermaphrodite ... I know you lot come up with some crazy shit as a matter of course, but that's a new one on me.