I agree mostly with sridhar on periyar.But I cannot accept one point of him at any cost.He says that hindu temples dont allow other religions people inside.Is that a fault?Is our temples just heritage sites for anybody to enter and take fotographs?They are divine residences of god.
Our temples are right in prohibiting people from other religions from entering into them.Christians and muslims eat beef.No problem,let them eat.But we dont want them in our temples.
Even some hindus eat beef.But if they eat beef and enter temples,its the issue between them and god.Its an issue between brothers of the same family.But we cannot extend it to others..But in no way can we allow others into the temples.
Talking secualrism and pointing fingers on hinduism has become a fashion.why dont somebody question why in mosques only arabic is used?Why dont somebdoy question why non-muslims arent allowed into mosques?Can a non-muslims enter any mosque and come out alive?
Allowing all religions into our temples is not secularism.Its treating temples as tourist sites.while personally you can beleive in god or not,millions believe in sancity of temples.we believe that god lives inside.How can we allow beef eaters inside?No way.
Who exactly said beef-eaters cannot enter temples? The essence of Hinduism lies in its openness and statements like yours only show the world how irrational and narrow-minded its followers can be.
I eat beef and I don't believe in the coventional idea of God. I am a Hindu by birth and as I see Hinduism as a way of life(and not as an organized religion), I have no problems in calling myself a Hindu. The only reason I go to a temple(or a church or a synagogue for that matter) is because I am interested in the historical and cultural value that it has. Looking up at the Sistine Chapel(in Vatican) had the same effect on me as looking up at the Thanjavur periyakoil gopuram and I really hope everyone in this world gets a chance to admire masterpieces like them and develop a respect for heritage regardless of whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or whatever.
In all shastras it is said that impure people cannot enter temples.What is narrow mindedness?Next somebody will drink liqour and enter temple and call it as open mindedness.where is the limit?
If you are a hindu and eat beef,welcome.Eat.Who stops you?Its a democratic country.You have all rights to enter the temple.Nobody stops you.You can eat beef in front of the temple,drink liqour in front of temple and enter the temple.That is your right given by constitution.We wont stop you.
If you are a hindu you can treat hindu temples as tourist spots or holy places.Thats your own will and wish.You can come into a temple and enjoy it without praying.Just like how a muslim can enter a mosque without praying.Irfaan pathan played cricket in a mosque when he was a kid.But can a hindu do that in a mosque?Nopes.
The issue here is 1)Do hindus have the rights to stop people from other religions from netering their temples?
answer is Yes.Since muslims are given freedom to refuse non-muslims from entering into the mosque hindus too have such freedom.
2)Can hindus ban beef eaters from entering into temples? Answer is Partially yes.They cannot refuse entry to a hindu beef eater,but can refuse entry to a non-hindu beef eater.Simple.
You can look at thanjai periya gopuram with any artistic view.Question is being a hindu can you enter kabba mosque and look at it with an artistic view?
why do you have different standards for different religions?
Let me say at the outset that I really have no wish to talk abt religion here as 1. This is a literary forum and its not appropriate to talk about it 2. I am not known for being very tolerant of religious conservatism So I will do this last post and I do not intend to write more about this topic here.
Narrow-mindedness is in interpreting religion to one's convenience and thats exactly whats happening here. First of all, you are trying to define pure and impure here by your own standards, or rather by the Dark Ages, medieval standards. There are millions of people in this world who just don't agree that eating beef or drinking is impure. Your kind of thinking is exactly like the American electorate thinking that they are being moral by voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion(or anti-gay marriage) while they don't realize that morality is not about not letting two men marrying but about killing thousands of people in Iraq.
According to you, just because I was born a Hindu, I can do anything I want including murder in a temple while a Muslim cannot enter the same temple even to stop me from murdering someone just because he wasn't born a Hindu. Beautiful logic.
And constitutional right? So tomorrow, if there's an amendment to the Constitution that says that eveyone can enter the temple, you will have no religious reservations against it? Please, lets not mix state with religion here!
And "Since muslims are given freedom to refuse non-muslims from entering into the mosque hindus too have such freedom.". Firstly, no one is denying that Hindus don't have the freedom - They have the freedom and that is why you see so many signboards in every temple in the country saying 'Hindus only'. The point we are trying to make is that not letting anyone else in just does not make sense. You have the freedom to do any kind of nonsense you want but you cannot claim it makes sense. And secondly, we do not have to compare ourselves with every other religion to do the right thing. When in school, you do not look at the guy who fails and say "hey, i won't study since this guy doesn't". The idea it to look forward, not backward. Note: I am not suggesting here that Islam is a backward religion, just saying that some of their rigid practices are definitely not forward-looking.
i am sorry but i cannot agree with this argument.I think that people from other religions should not be refused entry to temples.Hinduism is a tolerant religion.even those who read ponniyin selvan and other books shud know that from ancient times hinduism is a religion that has respected other religions and believed in the peaceful co-existance of all religions.it is the height of narrow-mindedness to refuse people of other religions entry to our temples.Please do not say that they are doing it so let us all do it.that argument cannot hold water.As for impure people not being allowed into temples do u mean by extension that people of other religions are impure.And how far can we carry this argument.should we once again ban people of lower castes entry to temples.absurd.Once we start selecting the people who can and cannot enter temples there will be no end to it.
And the tanjavur periya kovil is a marvel that should inspire awe and respect in the hearts of all people.it is a site of more than religious significance,by denying non-hindus rights to enter the temple we are hiding away our own culture.let us not fall prey to that.also all non-muslims are not denied entry to all mosques.i am a hindu and i myself have visited a mosque.it is true that deunken people should be denied entry to temples.but that is because that kind of behaviour is indecent irespective of religion and should not be tolerated.And if u wish to deny beef-eaters rights to enter temples than do so to all beef-eaters.do not practise the double standards that u urself condemn.Finally i remember a passage from sivagamiyin sabatham where mahendra pallavar dreamt of building temples to all dieties in a single complex.even later he was only disillusioned by the political interferance of the samanars and buddha bikshus,not by the religions themselves.let us not just read these lovely passages but also practise what is said.
Narrow minded-ness is NOT a likable trait.. I loved the quote from Mahendra pallavan in "Sivagamiyin sabadham" about building the 7 pagodas for 7 different religions.. dont know if it's true or fictional, but that should be the ideal..
Is it "vandhiya thevan" who remarks to "azhvaarkadiyan" that "hariyum sivanum onnu.. athai ariyathavar vaayila mannu" ??
i feel that a temple , church or mosque is meant for believers to relate to god in the way they visualise him and non believers have no business to disregard the essential purpose for which they were built and make it into a mere tourist spot - it certainly affects the sanctity of the place
for example i do not feel the religious fervour when i enter the big temple because it has become a torist spot and has thus lost part of its sanctity and has become moe of an archaelogical site ha a temple - given its uniqueness it probably cannot be helped but i will certainly not be comfortale with the same fate befalling all other old temples
Dear Freinds I think there is fundamental misunderstanding and misconception about our religeon and history here..... Unless We are clear in our mind about that there is no point in discussing things further.
Purity is in the mind Beleif is peoples mind....To quote Kannadasan Deiyvam enral athu deiyvam Adhu silai enral verum silai thaan....
If you want people to restrict entry to temples to hindus whats the next stage only vaishnavaits into perumaal thalams and vice versa....
You can enter any Buddist temple in nepal,Thailand and Malaysia they dont say you cant enter because you arent buddist secondly they know its their heritage and art that people admire if they dont worship the lord....
Same in all the churches around the world...
The religious edicts and symbols are our only link to our heritage....Imagine if rajaraja had not built Big Temple He had not Built Gangai Konda Cholapuram would the world believe our engineering skills 1000 years ago????No my freinds....
One cant but admire our tamil kings particularly cholas because the forts and palaces they lived were all of sengal and sunambu which goes away with time but they left behind himalayan proof of their magnificance....
Yes Periyakoil feels like a tourist spot because you see all colours and all religeons admiring the thakshina meru...but have you also noticed how many foreigners sit on the nandi mandapam to sketch and paint the gopuram....
One of the reason we havent achieved the importance in architechture and archeaology is because we wont let anyone other than hindus to enter the temples which are our only link to our past..
Unless we do that all the world will know about tamil building skills and temples is from the chola temple triad of Bigtemple.GKC and darasuram because they are UNESCO Heritage centres
as i myself have indicated i have no problem with a few of the grand old temples being converted to tourist spots to showcase our architectural capabilities
but basically we have to bear in mind that a temple, church or mosque is a religious place meant for our communion with god and as such needs to be tretaed with reverence and not as a pure tourist spot and there certainly needs to be a restriction on entry of non believers in and around the sanctum sanctorum
" 1. This is a literary forum and its not appropriate to talk about it 2. I am not known for being very tolerant of religious conservatism"
Literature devoid of religion loses its spirit.Seperate religion from tamil literature and see what remains.Nothing.And accusing me of being a religious conservatist is like accusing an atheist of being an atheist.Is being a religious conservatist a sin?I dont think so.
"Narrow-mindedness is in interpreting religion to one's convenience and thats exactly whats happening here. First of all, you are trying to define pure and impure here by your own standards, or rather by the Dark Ages, medieval standards. There are millions of people in this world who just don't agree that eating beef or drinking is impure."
I never interpreted hinduism according to my convenience.Ahamas and shastras define the way temples should be run.Nobody can comeup with their own version of running a temple.Temples were built by kings who were staunch devotees and who wanted them to uphold the vedic tradition.For thousands of generations they were run in that way.They are for the believers and will be for the believers.Calling them as dark age standards doesnt degrade them.One man one wife was also a ramayan age standard.Do we give it up since its old?No.
everyone can have their versions of purity.Being in usa,i everyday move around with beef eaters and people who drink.I dont mind people doing it.But when it comes to temples,its not my view or anyones view thats important.The ithegas and ahama shastras should be followed there.
"Your kind of thinking is exactly like the American electorate thinking that they are being moral by voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion(or anti-gay marriage) while they don't realize that morality is not about not letting two men marrying but about killing thousands of people in Iraq."
Where do you draw the line my friend?next somebody will ask for freedom to marry their own mother and sisters.Somebody will want permission to marry an animal.There has to be a line somewhere.Americans drew that line as they wanted it to be.
"According to you, just because I was born a Hindu, I can do anything I want including murder in a temple while a Muslim cannot enter the same temple even to stop me from murdering someone just because he wasn't born a Hindu. Beautiful logic"
The debate was not about DOING THINGS INSIDE TEMPLE.Its about doing things outside temple.Many murderers have entered temples.Many criminals enter temples.Nobody stops that as long as they are hindu.
"And constitutional right? So tomorrow, if there's an amendment to the Constitution that says that eveyone can enter the temple, you will have no religious reservations against it? Please, lets not mix state with religion here"
There are many ways in which hindu temples are hurt today.Allowing movie shootings inside the temples,allowing actresses who are impure bilolgically to enter temples for shootings,allowing love scenes,duet scenes inside temples...
If hindus are taken for granted like this no wonder BJp gets so many votes.
"The point we are trying to make is that not letting anyone else in just does not make sense. You have the freedom to do any kind of nonsense you want but you cannot claim it makes sense. And secondly, we do not have to compare ourselves with every other religion to do the right thing" Make sense to who?Who is that authority to whom we should make sense?Who is that deciding authority of what makes sense and what doesnt?Should we design our temple rules to make sense to people who dont believe in god?
Religion is sentimental.Its not logical.If you search for logic and science in religion you are mistaken.Its about faith.Its about faith in god and the holy book.All religions are run that way.And how do you say that what you think is the right thing and what I think is wrong?I believe in the sancity of vedas.Millions of hindus do.If you want to come up with your version of right and wrong,then dont expect us to adhere to your belief.Temples were built to uphold vedic dharma and they should remain that way.
"When in school, you do not look at the guy who fails and say "hey, i won't study since this guy doesn't". The idea it to look forward, not backward. Note: I am not suggesting here that Islam is a backward religion, just saying that some of their rigid practices are definitely not forward-looking.
As I said I do not intend to talk abt religion as it will be belaboring the same points, but since you questioned the premise, here are a couple of clarifications.
1. There has definitely been religious literature, but saying that without religion literaure loses its spirit is not only being chauvinistic but also being plain ignorant. Thirukkural is still amazing literature without the first ten lines, if you can't appreciate it, I really have nothing more to say. There is no religion in the sonnets of Shakespeare or the verses of Shelley or Keats; there is no religion in 'A Tale of Two Cities'; there is no religion in the verses of 'The Golden Gate; there is no religion in the solitude of Gabriel Garcia Marquez or the metaphorical lines of Salman Rushdie; there is no religion in any of Milan Kundera's masterpieces; there is no religion in Hemingway's 'Old Man and the Sea' or Steinbeck's 'Of Mice and Men'; I could go on and on and on here. Ofcourse, the authors and the characters belonged to some religion or the other; some of them happened to be atheists. So? Its still awesome literature and none of them are religious works. If you think that they are 'spiritless literature', you are ofcourse entitled to your opinion, but please don't make generalized statements.
2. I am not accusing you of anything. I said "I am not very tolerant of religious conservatism". Its me, not you. I simply cannot understand people who take literally whatever is said in some book ages ago and use that to justify 'anything they want'(not everything, mind you. Nowadays, since its not politically correct, we will let low castes enter the temple though its mentioned in the same holy books but but we will agree with the book on other kinds of nonsense like 'how to not let certain biologically impure actresses into the temple'). I just find it interesting that they are not capable of applying their (God-given?) brians and for some reason, their standard of comparison is some other religion which does the same thing! As I said, I find it difficult to converse with people like that, so its my fault; I am not accusing you of anything!
Food for thought: Couldn't resist this one - >>One man one wife was also a ramayan age standard.Do we give it up >>since its old?No.' 'One woman, five husbands is Mahabharatha standards' - why don't we start living that way from now on? :)
There are enough literature in the world which stand out without the impact of religion
I will agree with the rest that thirukural is not a religious text...thamarai kanaan ulagu....just a cynics veiw did he mean the brindavanam and gopigasthrees....
meaning that woman's shoulder was better than all the Gopikas in brindavan of the Thamarai kannan?????!!!!!!!
The first 10 verses do not mean any particular deity all he says is god the pure one etc which could denote any god....
If Valluvar wanted to praise Vishnu He could have done in in every chapter and every verse he did not do it so please dont say he glorifies vishnu.....
One man one wife was also a ramayan age standard.Do we give it up since its old?No.
One woman had five husbands do we practise that...most females in mahabaratha had a child out of wedlock....shall we encourage that practice??
food for thought we have to change and live according to present standards ..