--- Sachin Phadte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But is this the rule or the exception? The article gives a >strong impression that it is the rule. >
I don't understand this defensiveness at all. What is so embarrassing about beautiful sculptures that depict and sanctify an important fact of life, indeed, one that is necessary to propagate life itself? Referring to the famous Kamat's potpourri again, it becomes clear that even the above defensive moving of the goal post ends up being futile. It clearly seems that erotic temple art is more a rule than an exception in India. Here are the relevant quotes from K. L. KamatÂ’s descriptions of the erotic arts in Indian temples, followed by relevant links: "The erotic sculptures of Khajuraho (in Madhya Pradesh) and Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) have been widely publicized, while others are almost unknown. In Karnataka State alone, there are a large number of such temples and sculptures..." "Although Khajuraho is most famous for these sculptures, most Indian temples have them in one form or another. Belur, Halebidu, Somanathupura, and Nugguhalli temples of the Hoysala period have many such beautiful sculptures. The Badami and Banashankari temples of the Chalukya times, and the Vijayanagar temples of Bhatkal, Lepakshi and Hampi have these too. The Meenakshi temple of Madurai and Veeraranarayan temple of Gadag has erotic sculptures on their Gopuram." http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/intro.htm http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/khaju.htm http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/erotica/bhatkal.htm http://www.kamat.org/picsearch.asp?search=erotic > > Furhtermore, the statues are NOT of deities in the sense of gods >and goddesses. They are what would be called lay people. > I won't be so sure. Uma and Shiva, Radha and Krishna, and Rati, Manmatha and Kamadeva, the gods of erotica and lust, figure prominently in these sculptures. Cheers, Santosh