Can I get a permanent tattoo of mother Earth as a respect towards her? I want to get it on my back just between the shoulders. Is getting a permanent tattoo on our body sacred according to Hinduism?

  • 2
    Your question seems like pesonal advice which is not supported in this site. Change your question in a way so it don't look like you are asking this for yourself, make it a general question something like, Are God/Goddess tattos are allowed to be made on body. Edit your question or it might get closed before you get your answer. – Vishvam Jun 27 '19 at 6:11
  • If you want to respect mother earth why not pray to her? Or do a puja for her? – Wikash_ Jun 27 '19 at 7:39
  • 1
    @wikash_ There are lots of ways to show respect towards someone. Everyone is free to choose their way of giving respect or show devotion. There is no fix way of devotion. One should choose that way in which they feel confirtable coz that will be his true/honest devotion which is free from any rule and boundation. – Vishvam Jun 27 '19 at 11:31
  • Possible duplicate of Is tattoing alowed in hinduism? – Sarvabhouma Jun 27 '19 at 14:01

No, getting tattoo or human branding is not a part of original Hinduism.

The origin may be the ancient treatment of a slave (often without legal rights) as livestock.

European, American and other colonial slavers branded millions of slaves during the period of trans-Atlantic enslavement. Sometimes there were several brandings, e.g. for the Portuguese crown and the (consecutive) private owner(s), an extra cross after baptism as well as by African slave catchers. To a slave owner it would be logical to mark such property just like cattle, more so since humans are more able to escape.

In criminal law, branding with a hot iron was a mode of punishment consisting of marking the subject as if goods or animals, sometimes concurrently with their reduction of status in life.

Brand marks have also been used as a punishment for convicted criminals, combining physical punishment, as burns are very painful, with public humiliation (greatest if marked on a normally visible part of the body) which is here the more important intention, and with the imposition of an indelible criminal record. Robbers, like runaway slaves, were marked by the Romans with the letter F (fur); and the toilers in the mines, and convicts condemned to figure in gladiatorial shows, were branded on the forehead for identification. Under Constantine I the face was not permitted to be so disfigured, the branding being on the hand, arm or calf.

The Acts of Sharbil record it applied, amongst other tortures, to a Christian between the eyes and on the cheeks in Parthian Edessa at the time of the Roman Emperor Trajan on a judge's order for refusal to sacrifice.In the 16th century, German Anabaptists were branded with a cross on their foreheads for refusing to recant their faith and join the Roman Catholic church. In the North-American Puritan settlements of the 17th century, men and women sentenced for adultery were branded with an "A" letter on their chest, and for other crimes, such as "D" for drunkenness and "B" for blasphemy. Similar human branding is also shown in the movie Inferno-2016.

  • 1
    This is more speaking of historical origin of practice of branding as slaves. Getting a tattoo and branding as a slave are different matters. This is not done as a slavery. If you are talking as branding as slave, there is also a practice among many sects where they brands various weapons of their various gods on their bodies to show devotion. Sri Vaishnavas brand conch and discus. Madhwas brand 5 weapons of Vishnu. This shows devotion and not like an animal. If Christians used it as a symbol of slavery, it doesn't mean we indicate the same. The intent is different here. – Sarvabhouma Jun 27 '19 at 14:19
  • 1
    Body art is very much older than European or American colonialism. Oldest tattoo dates back to 3250 BC.rdmag.com/article/2015/11/… . Body art is different where one is doing out of love. Colonialism is different. In Hinduism we have a practice of applying tilakas over body but not permanent tattoo. So, saying human branding is against Hinduism is not correct. Anyways, you need to cite sources for the claims made in your answer. Please read How does a new user get started on Hinduism SE? – Sarvabhouma Jun 27 '19 at 14:29
  • @Sarvabhouma Using temporary symbols or marks on body by Vaishnavas is not same as permanent branding or tattoos. Permanent branding or tattoos is part of colonization starting with Aristocracy, where power is held by few. – Bipin Roy Jun 28 '19 at 18:02
  • @bipinroy Sanatana Dharma is not against of permanent symbol on body. Actually it really don't care if you would do that or not coz it has nothing to do with dharma. It's all about faith which depends on individual. But yes, one thing that we will loose by adding tattoo is a chance to help someone by donating blood. – Vishvam Jun 29 '19 at 6:28

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .