> I would however prefer not to take God's and Goddess > fotos,especially the main shrines.I am not sure if the > fotos,contains any.Yet this is just my peronnel > feelings again.
In fact, Kamal has "covered" (handy cam) the moolavar in Brahadeeswara temple.....
(naarayaana naarayana)...
Now, coming to your "preference" issue....why do you prefer not to take "a snap" of "GOD"?
What is that that prevent us from doing so?
I even asked one person from the Archeo Dept. in Dharasuram......(as I did not know already)....they obviously have no objection whatsoever for taking any photos or whatever there in any "Koil"s..
Which leave us with our aagama vidhi & culture....
So, does this mean that anywhere in vedas it is written not to "paint" or take picture of a god? What is the significance?
Have not we had enough trying to attempt safeguarding our "culture & tradition"? Or does anyone feel that the Holiness will be lost when we make God a "Public Property",in its real sense? Or is it like that everything should be where it should be?
It ios true that we pay so much to see silly junk in the west and yet do not understand the value of our heritage....It was a sattaiyadii.......Even for those who are interested in our heritage and architechture there are nt enough scopes to see and pursue them because there arent any good links...
A good example is a battlefeild in scotland which charges ��10 and all it is is barren land and you get a head phone which gives you good stories of the valour of the scotsmen but nothing to see other than the flags on the ground marking the troups.....
IMAGINE ...
Goimg to mamallapuram paying 100 RS and you get a handset which has buttons and you pay a deposit so you dont run away.... you go to panchapandavaratham and there is a number with a breif description and you press the number and there is a commentary in tamil and english telling you about the architecture the history and there can be link numbers to local stories....you then come to the arjuna thavam and same there the whole sculpture is photographed with numbers on each statue depicting the story and significance and finaly the shore temples....
you can also listen to sivakamiyin salangai...or ayanars seedars uliyosai...and get transported to a different place different era and you will also get your moneys worth......but will the government do that???
Second most temples are seen as places of worship and not as heritage centres that affects the tourism and interest....
Picturing the idold ...I agree with Krupa what is wrong in picturing the deity we all have deities which we worship somebody takes pictures dont they....
Having said that did you take pictures of Natarajar in chidambaram....because a few friends of mine anad even my brother in law tried taking pictures of the moolavar inspite of people asking them not to take pictures and all of the moolavar pictures were black...any similar experiences?
> In fact, Kamal has "covered" (handy cam) the > moolavar > in Brahadeeswara temple.....
> (naarayaana naarayana)...
sat > SIVA SIVA!! (kaatha poththikittu..)
> Now, coming to your "preference" issue....why do you > prefer not to take "a snap" of "GOD"? > > What is that that prevent us from doing so? > > I even asked one person from the Archeo Dept. in > Dharasuram......(as I did not know already)....they > obviously have no objection whatsoever for taking > any > photos or whatever there in any "Koil"s.. > > Which leave us with our aagama vidhi & culture.... > > So, does this mean that anywhere in vedas it is > written not to "paint" or take picture of a god? > What > is the significance? > > Have not we had enough trying to attempt > safeguarding > our "culture & tradition"? Or does anyone feel that > the Holiness will be lost when we make God a "Public > Property",in its real sense? Or is it like that > everything should be where it should be? > > (naaraayana naaraayana) >
sat > According to me, when I start thinking of taking pictures, I just see the moolavar as a sculpture. At that time, I won't able see Him as He. I am not saying His holiness is lost. But at that time I will be just appreciating the art, but nor I could I feel His Holiness. Even when I took some moolvar photos in the PS trip, I was not having the feel of divine, I was just photographing. ( This is my personal feeling )
> Another argument could be made on the laying of > tiles within the main > sannidhi. Many of us disagree that the place loses > is asthetic appeal > once this is done. I agree that this is how I too > feel in the case of > tiles. But marble flooring? I have seen some temples > in Bangalore with > marble flooring that looks as appealing to the eye > as many of the other > temples.
sat > This is not the matter of tiles/marbles/granite. While constructing new temples, if the flooring is put with marbles/granite, that doesn't matter much. But, in the ancient temples, when nothing is damaged, what is the need of renovating it with marbles? Instead of preserving our old art and some valuable inscriptions ( some stones in the flooring may have some historical inscriptions ), how can we afford to lose those valuables, just for the sake of appeal. As a matter of fact, the marble flooring in some temples eg: Srimisunam temple doesn't appeal that great when compared to the previous stone flooring. The whole temple is of stone flooring except one sannithi which makes it look odd. Moreover the majesty what the stone temple has, I cudn't feel with marbles. This is just my view.
sat > Thank u all for ur appreciation of the photos :)