This has to do with cultural conditioning, what you consider as default and judge everything else from this pov.

Vedic culture prescribes to cover intimate parts. In Padma Purana allegedly* Bhumi devi says that the womb and breasts of women are sacred being the places where children are born and nourished. In the same way that we never throw any shastra or sacred article on the dirt, these sacred places should also not touch the dirt. She therefore says that women should pay pancanga (two arms, two legs and head) pranama, not astanga (dandavat) pranama.

)* Maybe Deena could look it up?

Some say that the influence of Islam in India made women to cover even their faces in public. One can still see it in rural areas (my experience is specifically related to Rajasthan).

Other practical reasons for not covering oneself fully I can think of:
warm weather, limited possibility to carry concealed weapons

VEDA:

This has to do with cultural conditioning, what you consider as default and judge everything else from this pov.

I am certaintly not denying my cultural conditioning.[br][br]
I wonder though how one would have to think of oneself and one's body in order to be comfortable wearing clothes that expose so much skin. Personally, I think I would need to feel invincible before I would be comfortable walking around showing so much skin.
[br][br]

I thought about various possibilities, and one I could think of is that perhaps a woman's decency and orderliness is measured by the amount of fat on her belly and that women have to wear their waists and backs only loosely covered, so that everyone can see and judge for themselves. The reasoning being that if she's fat in the belly, she probably isn't very orderly and eats too much, and as such probably isn't the right person to associate with. (Women gain and lose belly fat much more easily than men.)

[br][br]But perhaps it has to do with Indians having a more relaxed and open view of sexuality, so showing skin doesn't bother them or entice them?

[br][br]

Other practical reasons for not covering oneself fully I can think of:
warm weather, limited possibility to carry concealed weapons

But it is very hot in the Arab desert, and it's hot in parts of Europe, yet at least traditionally, people would cover their bodies much more than in India.

Baker:

Namely, one big problem I have always had with Vaisnava culture (and Indian culture and some others as well) is that the dress code prescribes exposing far more skin than I am comfortable with.

This goes to the extent that I find it impossible to pray to God, to chant in a mood of a child crying for his mother - if I am to envision God as a rather scantily dressed person, as well as His consorts.

If I envision God as an elderly, but strong person, dressed in something like traditional Arab attire (where except for the face and hands, everything is covered, loosely and with many layers so that the shape of the body cannot be distinguished), then I can imagine praying. Otherwise no.

You should dress the way you are comfortable with and I doubt anybody will criticize you for a very conservative dress. Yet others may have different ideas and we should respect them as well. Young single ladies looking for a husband, for example.

-------------------- As to visualizing God... that is a very, very tricky subject matter... if Lord Krsna offends your sensibility in any way, you should definitely worship Lord Vishnu. But God does not have an appearance of an old man...even as some people fancy Him that way... Lord Vishnu's look is best described as youthful.

>Other than that, I don't feel comfortable that devotees wear clothes that expose so much skin.

Baker, you are saying this because you haven't met a Naga Baba or a Digambara Jaina Muni yet. The day you will meet one of these sadhus, you will realise that Vaisnava sadhus are very nicely dressed and your views will be changed.

>Chanting while evisioning Govinda doesn't work for me either - I cannot bring myself to be serious and earnest then. (I start giggling like a giddy, ditzy teenager which surely isn't an appropriate religious attitude!)

It seems you have got some strange concept of being religious, that one has to be serious to be religious. As if seriousness is synonymous to being religious. Bhaktiyoga is performed joyously, dancingly with a happy heart. The earth is already full of serious people with long faces, how much more it can tolerate? Now it needs Sankirtana movement which is performed singing, dancing and joyously.


The process of devotional service is a very happy one (susukham). Why? Devotional service consists of çravaëaà kértanaà viñëoù [SB 7.5.23], so one can simply hear the chanting of the glories of the Lord or can attend philosophical lectures on transcendental knowledge given by authorized äcäryas. Simply by sitting, one can learn; then one can eat the remnants of the food offered to God, nice palatable dishes. In every state devotional service is joyful. (Bhagavada Gita, Purport 9.2)

VEDA:

> God does not have an appearance of an old man...

Well, I can think of Advaita Acarya.

As far as I know only in Iskcon temples he is portrayed in that way.
Besides, he is playing a certain lila, just like Lord Varaha ;)

dweller-in-peace:

Baker, you are saying this because you haven't met a Naga Baba or a Digambara Jaina Muni yet. The day you will meet one of these sadhus, you will realise that Vaisnava sadhus are very nicely dressed and your views will be changed.

I did look up some pictures of them ...[br]
[br]

It seems you have got some strange concept of being religious, that one has to be serious to be religious. As if seriousness is synonymous to being religious.

Just look at the picture of Srila Prabhupada I posted above.

Baker:

It's not just about clothes and what I am comfortable with and what not. It's also about allegiance to ISKCON.[br][br]

If I take ISKCON to be the one who has the highest authority on the process of Krishna consciousness, and women in ISKCON wear and are expected to wear rather revealing clothes, then I have to see to it that I accept it and do so myself as well. Thus, I would like to understand the reasoning behind exposing so much skin.

Your primary allegiance should alawys be to your common sense. At least that is how I see it. Over the years I have seen plenty of idiocy within Iskcon. I have no clue why Iskcon turned Bollywood in the last decade or so. I hope it is not because sex sells. Still, I do not like our lady devotees looking like mice either. When our women look like mice our men keep looking elsewhere for partnership. We should be like a tribe, promoting unions within our group. But you should have your own standards and not be too preoccupied with the standards of others.

Kula-pavana:

Over the years I have seen plenty of idiocy within Iskcon. I have no clue why Iskcon turned Bollywood in the last decade or so.

I have to ask - Are you an ISKCON devotee?
[br][br]

Still, I do not like our lady devotees looking like mice either.

I think styles like these are nice, aren't they? http://urduplanet.com/showthread.php?t=6747

dweller-in-peace:

What is the significance of showing so much skin?

Before this question is answered, another questioned can be asked, why people are so much concerned about others that who is showing how much skin?

As I noted earlier, I myself would be uncomfortable being dressed like that. But not dressing like that could cause me not to fit in with the devotees; not fitting in with the devotees eventually could mean I would not make spiritual progress - and my life would continue to be meaningless. This is something that definitely concerns me.[br]
[br]For me, the main issue is not fitting in. Having a problem with specific clothing is one such aspect of not fitting in, an easily apparent one, but there are many others.

Baker - that's a nice picture of Govinda. He looks beautiful.