--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...> wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2009, at 5:18 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > The following page contains scans that I made of > > several 17th-century tsakli (Tibetan miniature > > paintings) that hang on my walls. The four that > > are labeled 'Dakini' portray Yeshe in some of > > her Dakini aspects. The one at top right shows > > her fire aspect. Now *that* is hot. :-) > > > > http://www.ramalila.net/RoadTripMind/gallery.html > > Thanks, Barry. I don't have much of an appreciation > for Indian art (or Indian culture in general, really) but > those look pretty cool. Or hot, depending on your POV. > > Sal
I don't think they were 'meant' to be pornographic, (if that's what you were thinking) rather, they were meant to celebrate the marriage of Shakti and her consort Shiva, the marriage of which on the objective level creates children and inwardly creates Self-Realization, which appears obvious. Shakti, the creative energy of Mother Divine, is omnipresent IN creation (hence the flames). It's meant to be seen in the context of the *creative* faculty of procreation and not sensual lust. In that context sex is a sacred act, but like anything it can be misused as is ofter the case. In short, they weren't glorifying sex for sex's sake but for the creative product that results 'from' sex, IMO.
