Since I’m hardpressed for time, let me just give a small vignette, so to speak, of information, about a topic pertaining to Ancient Indian culture, which is a perennial object of debate & controversy.
This is related to the identity of the “Aryan” race – the Aryan “invasion”, and whether or not “Aryans” were fair-skinned {or “originally” fair-skinned folks} – who “conquered” dark-skinned or black-complexioned “aboriginal” Dravidians of India.
The funny part is that though Indians have some vague, half-baked, half-digested notions of some “later” “intermixture” and “influence” flowing in together from both sides {Aryan & Dravidian} – the “fair Aryan” strain dominated until now – that is, the “higher-castes” were, and still are, predominantly “fair”.
The implicit, inherent assumption is that the “higher-castes” – most vehemently, the nefarious “Brahmins” – were always “fair”.
If that were the case, it is difficult to see how did the “higher-caste” “Brahmins” worship, adore, and revere – so many dark-skinned figures.
How many depictions of a Black or Mongoloid or “olive-skinned” Jesus, does one find, in Caucasian Europe, from the 15th century onwards {or for that matter, before that}?
Or of Virgin Mary, or Joseph, or St. Peter, or John the Baptist, or even David & Bathsheba?
Any and every Renaissance painting of Jesus or Virgin Mary or God The Father or John the Beloved Apostle, will tell you that the race of the painters was White.
Mary Magdalene is very often portrayed as a blonde beauty, a Caucasian woman with lush golden hair, which, if such a woman ever existed historically, would be highly unlikely.
Can we safely say that the foremost intellectual exponents of a race consciously {perhaps even unconsciously} will project its own distinctive racial characteristics onto the figures they worship, salute, prostrate themselves & genuflect, before?
One indicator of race should be the complexion or colors attributed by that race, to its gods and heroes, goddesses & heroines.
If “higher caste” Indians were fair, or predominantly fair –and if their thinking was dominated by colorism, or racial skin-color – why is there such absence of obsession with the skin-color white?
As I’ve pointed out before, overwhelmingly, it seems, Indians admired the black or dark complexion.
An astonishing number of heroes in Ancient Indian literature are dark-complexioned – indeed, black complexioned.
Kṛṣṇa & Arjuna from the Mahābhārata, and Rāma from the Rāmāyaṇa, are the three most important examples.
Poetically, this complexion is depicted as blue or as green.
An important point.
{At a more recondite level, the words & metaphors & similes might have altogether different meanings, not related to the present issue under discussion.}
Indeed, one of the two most important Indian divinities – Viṣṇu Himself – is black, or blue.
There seems to be no specific admiration for the skin-color white {though there is a passionate love for the color white itself} – there seems to be no “colorism” anywhere in Indian thinking – and there is no link between skin-complexion and beauty, strength, heroism, intellect, wisdom, moral grandeur, or greatness.
Some of these figures may be white, and when they are, the color is praised – but so are the dark colors.
In the present post, let me start with a quote:
“...the faultless (“aninditā”) Draupadī, slender-waisted like the wasp, was born of a portion of Śacī (the queen of the celestials) {the consort of Indra}, in the line of Drupada.
And she was neither low nor tall in stature.
And she was
© of the fragrance of the blue lotus (“nīlotpala-sugandhinī”),
© of eyes large as lotus-petals (“padmāyatākṣī”),
© of thighs fair & round (“suśroṇī”),
© of dense masses of black curly hair (“asitāyata mūrdhajā”).
And
© endued with every auspicious feature (“sarvalakṣaṇa-sampūrṇā”) &
© of complexion like that of the emerald (“vaiḍūrya maṇisaṃnibhā”),
she became the charmer of the hearts (“citta-pramathinī”) of five foremost of men {i.e. the Pāṇḍavas}.”
This description of Draupadī, from the Mahābhārata 1.67.157-158, indicates that she was dark-complexioned, like Kṛṣṇa, whose complexion is often compared to that of a sapphire, or emerald.
Indeed, since she is dark-skinned, she is called Kṛṣṇā – i.e. Black.
The crucial word here, as I’ve said in an earlier post, is the word śyāma.
{Link: https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/05/were-originals-indian-aryans-black.html}
Interestingly enough, this word has been interpreted in strangely inconsistent ways.
I shall come to that.
It should be noted that the above translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli is his – or based on the manuscript used by him.
The Hindi translation has a slight variation.
I would beg the reader to note that I do not always concur with any specific translator or author – sometimes I disagree with Ganguli & agree with the Hindi translation – sometimes it’s possible the Hindi translator is not entirely convincing.
He makes some profound blunders, when it comes to the episode of the death of Pāṇḍu and the subsequent death of Mādrī, and their later cremation, which is entirely ridiculous.
vaiḍūrya is officially defined as “cat’s eye-gem” or “a jewel” – but Ganguli interprets it specifically as emerald.
But it is also translated as sapphire, or lapis-lazuli.
“of complexion like that of the emerald” seems to indicate that she is dark-skinned, at least – because there are no green human beings {unless you go in for the alien theory} – so this is like a poetic simile.
It would be very unconvincing to compare the complexion of a white skinned person, or even a fair-skinned “higher caste” Indian, to that of an emerald, or sapphire.
The Ancient Indian imagination apparently saw the two colors as profoundly related.
Thus, we read, in Bhūmī Khanḍa of the Padma Purāṇa, Chapter 88, Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa described as: “Madhusūdana...the great lord, dark-green like a sapphire and a cloud...”.
While I have read about green sapphires, I’ve never heard of, or seen, a green cloud.
The original Sanskrit is “indranīlaghanaśyāmaṃ” – indra-nīla being the sapphire – I think the original meant “blue”, but, as I’ve noted earlier, śyāma tends to mean “dark-green” more than “blue” or “dark-blue”, hence, the apparent confusion.
In the 90th chapter of the same Khanḍa, Viṣṇu is directly described as “nīlotpalābhaṃ” – which again, may be translated as “having the effulgence of a blue-lotus {or blue water-lily} {nīlotpala}” – or “like a blue-lotus” – or, as the Motilal Banarasidass translator says, “a blue lotus (in complexion)”.
{In South India, Pārvatī, the consort of Shiva, is invariably depicted as green-skinned: another example of the absence of skin-complexion-based race-consciousness; whereas the great Mother Goddess is invariably red.
I have already pointed one beautiful epithet of the Goddess Lalitā Mahātripurasundarī.
It is Nija-aruṇa-prabhāpūramajjad-
She is also called Sarvāruṇā – No. 49 – “She is fully red” – or “All-Red” – i.e. everything about her, is red.}
The Hindi translator, however, seems to understand “vaiḍūrya maṇi saṃnibhā” as “she was full of radiance of, or she was effulgent like, a vaiḍūrya”.
Not an unlikely idea, but vague, and which says nothing clearly about the color of her skin.
I think he, much more than Ganguli, deliberately navigates his translation away from the idea that she is dark-complexioned.
But it’s also true, that this kind of phraseology is used quite often, in Indian texts.
Thus, we read in the 150th Chapter & 213th verse of the Matsya Purāṇa, of Viṣṇu,
“śarad-ambara-nīla-abja-kānta-
“He whose beautiful body had the radiance {kānti, कान्ति} of the autumnal sky {śarad-ambara} & the blue-lotus {nīla-abja}...”
“radiance” is undoubtedly not the same as “color” – but it is obvious that we’re being told that Viṣṇu is a blue-black, or of a bluish color – since he’s being explicitly compared to a blue-lotus.
Similarly, the Earth Goddess is also most probably visualized as blue-complexioned, as is evident from this passage of the Liṅga Purāṇa (4.94 – italics mine) in which she’s described as indīvara-prabhā – “the Earth that has the lustre of blue lotus”.
This seems to mean that the Goddess Pṛthivī was also imaged as dark-skinned – at least sometimes.
With regard to Draupadī, what nearly clinches the deal is this passage which comes later in the Mahābhārata {1.166.48-50}:
“When this girl of fair hips {??} was born an incorporeal voice said,
‘This dark-complexioned girl will be the first of all women, and she will be the cause of the destruction of many Kṣatriyas.
This slender-waisted one will, in time, accomplish the purpose of the gods, & along with her many a danger will overtake the Kauravas.’”
Ganguli’s translation is slippery.
Why does he keep translating suśroṇī as “of fair hips”?
It simply means one of beautiful hips, or good hips, or excellent hips – and the reference is most probably to the wideness of the hips, not to their color.
“fair” – a rather irritating word, vague enough – is totally unwarranted by the word “su”.
There seems to be no correlation whatsoever.
“su” is indicative of greatness, or excellence, or superiority of quality, virtue, magnitude etc. – it isn’t a reference to whiteness.
su-madhyamā means “she who has a beautiful/good/ excellent {su} waist {madhyamā}” – and is understood as having a very slim waist.
“slim waist” doesn’t translate into “fair waist”.
Isn’t it contradictory to say she has “fair hips” and is “dark-complexioned”, at the same time?
And what does “fair hips” mean anyway?
As for “...this dark-complexioned girl”, the Hindi translator, on the other hand, says {i.e. the aerial, heavenly voice says}: “Her name is Kṛṣṇā”.
This doesn’t add up.
Just before these passages, we are told {1.166.44-46}:
“Her eyes were black, and large as lotus-petals,
her complexion was dark, and
her locks were blue & curly.
Her nails were beautifully convex, and bright as burnished copper;
her eye-brows were fair, and
bosom was deep.
Indeed, she resembled the veritable daughter of a celestial born among men.”
Ganguli, indeed, does more justice to the original, than the Hindi translator.
The Sanskrit original clearly says {1.166.45-46}:
śyāmā padmapalāśākṣī nīlakuñcita mūrdhajā
tāmratuṅganakhī subhrūsca rūpīnapayodharā
mānuṣaṃ vigrahaṃ kṛtvā sākṣād amara varṇinī
Ganguli again translates su-bhrū as having fair eyebrows.
What does “her eyebrows were fair” mean?
Nothing at all.
She clearly has “blue” hair – nīla-kuñcita mūrdhajā – blue & curly hair – nīla being translated as blue – or black.
So her eyebrows are not white, or silvery, or “fair”.
It maybe said that su-bhrū itself is a rather vague term.
Yes, it isn’t very specific, but it certainly doesn’t mean “having fair eyebrows”.
It most probably means beautiful eyebrows.
As for the word śyāmā, the feminine of śyāma, the Hindi translator is totally confusing.
He says that “the effulgence of her body was śyāma” – an inconclusive, almost meaningless statement, unless the word kānti is to be understood as color, in which case he’s definitively saying that her body was dark-skinned.
Fact is, Draupadī is śyāmā – black or dark-skinned – just like Kṛṣṇa, Arjuna, and Rāma, and many others – are śyāma.
The word, as noted in the previous post on this subject, śyāma can be interpreted as black, blue {for e.g., as in sapphire-blue}, green {as in emerald green}, brown ... there are quite few interesting colors which are brought into the ambit of the word.
Draupadī, also called Kṛṣṇā, is simply black-skinned like Kṛṣṇa – philosophically connected to him – and in a sense, a reflection of him.
Ganguli has understood this, but the muddles up the issue – not just in this case, but in many others – by his peculiar translations – by adding the word “fair” here & there.
Probably because there was a pressing need to project Draupadī, & other heroines & goddesses, as “Aryan” beauties? – which Draupadī, along with Sītā, undoubtedly is?
Thus, the term vara-variṇī – which should be understood as possessing
· the most beautiful, or
· the most coveted/desirable, or
· the most excellent
complexion, or
· the best of complexions
– has been translated as possessing a fair complexion!
Most probably, vara-variṇī refers to the golden color, but I cannot be absolutely sure.
It doesn’t look like the Ancient Indian conception of color & complexion was the same as ours.
It should also be noted that the typical phraseology of Ancient Indians may lead to confusion.
Rāma, for instance, is dark-skinned, but his countenance may be likened to the Full-Moon.
As an example, in the Rāmāyaṅa 6.33.35, it’s said, of his countenance: “pūrṇa-candra-udita-mukha” – his face is like the risen Full-Moon.
This doesn’t mean that his skin is white like the Moon – it’s a reference either to its radiance/shininess/effulgence – or its beauty – or some special quality {as in it’s as enchanting, or delightful, as the newly-risen full-Moon}.
This poetic fluidity should be comprehended properly, and the right inferences drawn.
It should also be realized that at times, it might be a little difficult to heighten or highlight certain details pertaining to a woman’s beauty – if she’s dark skinned or black skinned.
Thus, it’s possible that the author, for purposes of poetic sentiment & emotional sensitivity, adds some details here & there which might come across as slightly odd.
Coming back to Draupadī, we’re further told {1.166.46}:
“Her body gave out fragrance like that of a blue lotus {nīlotpala = nīla + utpala}, perceivable from a distance of full two miles {krośas}.
Her beauty was such that she had no equal on earth.
Like a celestial herself, she could be desired (in marriage) by a celestial {Deva}, a Dānava, or a Yakṣa.”
Besides being a technical detail of sorts – I have no clue whether red or white lotuses smell differently from blue ones – why select only the blue lotus, as poetic simile?
Probably because most of our dark-skinned, black-skinned, or blue-skinned heroes are constantly poetically compared to blue lotuses?
A lot can be gleaned from those three sentences, but I can’t get into that now.
{For instance,
1 krośa is ¼ of a yojana;
1 yojana being about 8 miles,
1 krośa is 2 miles;
2 krośas should be 4 miles.
Yes, people are not totally decided on the precise length of a yojana.}
If there’s yet some doubt, let these words allay thy apprehensions, O reader:
“Then the Brāhmaṇas {dvijas} (present there), their expectations fully gratified, bestowed names upon the new-born pair,
‘Let this son of king Drupada, they said, be called Dhṛṣṭadyumna, because of his excessive audacity (ati-dhṛṣṇu) and because of his being born like Dyumna with a natural mail and weapon.’
And they also said, ‘Because this daughter is so dark in complexion, she should be called Krishnā (the dark).’”
Finally, even the Hindi translator can’t obfuscate the passage here, and clearly says, “...they named the maiden Kṛṣṇā because, by her body, she was of syāma-varṇa”.
The truth is out.
Now whether, like the Egyptian Osiris, or the Indian Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa-Rāma, she’s sometimes green, sometimes blue, or sometimes black – is up to the poetic fancy of the author.
Apart from the Goddess figures, like Pārvatī, Lakṣmī, Durgā, Sarasvatī, Aditi, etc., the two most important heroines of Indian literature are Sītā and Draupadī.
Of these two, neither is white-skinned.
Sītā is golden {as I may clarify subsequently in a post} – Draupadī is black, or dark – she is of the kṛṣṇa-varṇa.
Both are the consummate exemplars of feminine beauty, of Ancient Indian “Aryan” culture, and neither betrays any signs of being white, or “fair-skinned” as we understand the term nowadays.
It cannot be, thus, said, that it was “okay” for men to be dark, but a woman was considered desirable only when she was fair.
Draupadī, whose beauty is constantly highlighted, is dark.
Alas, there is a serious complication out here – the word śyāma has some-times even been understood to mean something like “golden”.
Was this meaning adduced later – much later – long after the original texts were written?
It’s difficult to say.
It’s true that a Sanskrit word may have 10-15 different meanings – sometimes diametrically opposed to each other – but more conclusive inferences can be drawn by other data, such as Draupadī being compared to a lapis or emerald.
If she was white-skinned, she’d be compared to something white – there’s no dearth of such comparisons in Indian literature.
This is an issue {the varied meanings of śyāma & syāmā} I’ll come to sometime later, but it is very clear that Draupadī – one of the greatest heroines of world literature – and one of the consummate beauties of Ancient Ārya-India – is dark-skinned, because even Ganguli says so clearly, and finally, even the Hindi translator has to say: “vaha śarīra se (kṛṣṇa) syāma varṇa ki thī” – i.e. by her body, she was of dark complexion {1.166.54}.
And her complexion is explicitly compared to a vaiḍūrya – i.e. either an emerald, or a lapis, or a sapphire – so she’s green or blue (poetically, or philosophically) – i.e. dark-skinned, like Kṛṣṇa or Rāma.
The case of Pārvatī is a little complicated.
She has many different forms, many different names, and many different “colors”.
There are also differences in the philosophical systems implicit in many allegories & tales.
As the Devī Bhagavatam (3rd Book, 1st Chapter) says:
“Some Ācāryas (teachers) say again that
the All-auspicious,
the Ādi Māyā,
the Great Śakti Bhavānī,
the Giver of everything,
Who is the nature of with and without attributes,
Who is not different from Brahmā,
Who is both Puruṣa and Prakṛti,
The Creatrix, the Preservatrix and the Destructrix of all,
The Mother of all the gods, beings and lokas,
is the Great Goddess of this Brahmāṇda.
She is without beginning and end, full, present in all the beings and everywhere.
It is this Bhavanī that assumes the various endless forms such as Vaisnavī, Śānkarī, Brāhmī, Vāsavī, Vāruṇī, Vārāhī, Nārasiṃhī, Mahā Lakṣmī the one and secondless Vedamātā, and others.
It is this Vidyā nature that is the One & the only Root of this tree of Saṃsāra (universe).”
Thus, it is impossible to assign one specific color to the consort of Shiva.
But it’s very important that in the Shiva Purāṇa, in the whole episode of the birth, penance, and marriage of Pārvatī – specifically as the daughter of Himavat & Menā – Pārvatī is dark-skinned.
We’ve already seen that the Great Indian Goddess is most aptly described as red – in some cases, this being the golden-red of the rising, Morning Sun.
She is depicted in South India as green, in paintings.
But She is also called “Gaurī” – the word in itself means “White” or “Yellowish-white”.
And yet, it’s strange when we are told, of this great goddess of India,
“tāntu dṛṣṭvā tathā jātāṃ nīlotpala-dala-prabhāma
śyāmā sā menakā devī mudamāpāti nārada”
“O Nārada, Menā rejoiced much on seeing goddess Umā of the splendor of the blue lotus as her daughter”
– Verse 42, Chapter 6, Pārvatī Khaṇḍa, Shiva Purāṇa.
I don’t think the translation is absolutely accurate, because it seems to miss out the word śyāmā altogether.
It should be noted that the word in the first half is nīlotpala-dala.
The word dala can refer to the petals of the lotus {thus, the color being blue} – or the leaves of the lotus {the color being green}.
{The translator also messes up the term vara-variṇī, as Ganguli does, in his translation of the Mahābhārata.}
Again, we are slightly confused with the term “splendor” or “effulgence”, but one can infer, directly or indirectly, that the reference is to color.
I shall demonstrate subsequently, that the great wife of Shiva – the Mother of the Universe
– the “jagadambā” {66.42, Pārvatī Khaṇḍa}
– the “ādi-śakti-jagat-parā” {4.14, Pārvatī Khaṇḍa, “the Primordial Energy who is greater than the Universe”}
– Pārvatī Herself, the daughter of Himavat & Menā, in the Pārvatī Khaṇḍa of the Shiva Purāṇa
– is also black-skinned, or dark-complexioned.
Certainly not the conception of a “race” {read “Aryan” race} which is obsessed with “fair” women.
“I am black but beautiful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem”
– 1.5, The Song of Solomon, The Canticle of Canticles, The Song of Songs.
