i didn't sort of support the guruvayur authorities, i supported them fully. it's the temple's business to decide who should come in. non-worshippers have no business there. if they want to sight-see, they can always go to a nearby museum or amusement park.
those who clamor for christists and mohammedans to be able to go to temples, i have one simple question for you:
a. when was your last visit to the the pope's private chapel? when was your last visit anywhere within 10 miles of the kaaba in mecca?
the answer: never. they don't want anybody but their faithful there. so think of guruvayur the same way.
dont get seduced by this notion that churches and mosques are so welcoming, so temples must be too. that's a take off on the "all religions are equal equal" bullshit. christists and mohammedans and marxists say their religions must rule the world, hinduism doesn't say so. so there's good precedent for hindus to not do what the semitic types do.
as for their liberalism, please note how the church refused to baptize the same yesudas' son because yesudas sang at hindu temples. yes, very, very liberal indeed. how come nobody talks about that, only about guruvayur refusing yesudas entry? as i have said before, if yesudas wants to convert to hinduism, i don't think anybody will object. so why doesn't he? he wants to have the cake and eat it too, and be a martyr as well, maybe?
i dont' understand the fuss about buddhists coming to guruvayur. hindus and buddhists and jains have always been very tolerant of each other. for instance, sabarimala simultaneously a place of worship for siva and buddha pilgrims. so were the great temples of java. hindus and buddhists and jains go worship at each others' shrines. (unfortunately, hindus go to semitic shrines too, not realizing that these are shrines for imperial world conquest, not faith).
that's another point of difference with the semites: hinduism and buddhism are tolerant, non-exclusive religions. so "all religions are *not* equal-equal"
mohammedans certainly have a soft corner for 'people of the book' -- ie jews and christists. according to mohdan law, these people can live as dhimmis, but 'polytheists' must die. so they do make distinctions about the degree of wickedness of other religions.
similarly, hinduism has a soft corner for 'people of reason and not blind idol-worship of books' -- ie buddhists, jains. therefore we give them better treatment. so what's the problem?
i am delighted that temples disallow churidars as they are basically a semitic outfit: a burqa or nun's habit lite. the burqa/nun's habit is what desert people forced their women to wear as part of their oppression of them, so why should we welcome a 'lite' version of that? it's a decidedly ugly outfit, and totally graceless compared to the sari. you might as well wear a potato sack. so i am with the temple authorities: churidars offend one's sense of aesthetics.
as for churches, i am ROTFL: the 'fathers' give a lot more than mere 'counseling': the thousands of cases pedophilia are proof of that. so, by all means, if your fantasy is to be sodomized by a priest, please feel free to go to church. 'counseling', my foot!
there is this tendency in the indian media, films and serials, to show all 'fathers' as holy and pious, and all hindu swamis as crooks. this is deliberate propaganda, and the fact of the matter is that the fathers are buggering little boys and impregnating nuns constantly with their holy water (dont take it from me, the vatican itself produced a report about this).
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dri
Date: Jan 17, 2006 1:26 AM
Subject: Guruvayur Temple
To: Rajeev.srinivasan@gmail.com
Dear Rajeev
I hope you have seen the noise being made over Shiranthi Rajapakse's Guruvayur temple visit.
I remember that you had written about Vayalar Ravi's son's wedding once in rediff
in which you had sort of supported the authorities in their right to prevent non-Hindus from entering the temple
Now consider this. For being a Hindu inspite of his mother being a christian, Vayalar Ravi's son had to go through the humiliation. When any church in Kerala would gladly accept him and his newly wed wife and treat them with "dignity" (how much ever opportunistic that may be) , why would any self-respecting person want to continue a Hindu after going through such humiliation ?
Likewise , in this when the President himself has said that his wife is a Buddhist, and that it was a promise made and so on, isn't the ultra-orthodoxy of the temple causing damage to Hinduism ?
I personally have other "complaints" also about the temple.. Only Arya Samaj is authorised to give "Hindu" certificates to non-Hindus who have converted (and Arya Samaj doesn't even support idol/temple worship). For girls, Churidars are not allowed (they are made to remove the bottom piece), but micro-minis are fine !! Once more, when there are churches without any dress codes and Fathers and nuns there ready to give "counselling", why would a "modern" girl want to go to temple to hear the "move away, move away" from the temple priests ? I would say that ABVP or some one should start an agitation to remove some of these meaningless restrictions
Just some thoughts.. Hope to see you write about these issues atleast on your blog
thanks
arun
Posts
15 comments:
Rajeev off the topic did you see this one
http://ia.rediff.com/movies/2006/jan/17seth.htm
Re:
the burqa/nun's habit is what desert people forced their women to wear as part of their oppression of them, so why should we welcome a 'lite' version of that? it's a decidedly ugly outfit, and totally graceless compared to the sari.
---Everytime I come here hoping I
will never have another comment to
make and can simply sit back and
read, and do find I have something
more to say...:-) and still hoping
this will be last time I comment..
See Rajeev, you guys wear trousers
which were borrowed from the
british culture. I hope no one is
forcing you to wear them, and that
you are wearing them of your own
volition. And surely you know the
advantages of shirt-pant over the
mundu and veshti.
As for aesthetics, whose opinion
did you take beofre you adopted
them ?
I think I have terrific aesthetic
sense, and most of my good
churidars are absolutely lovely,
they are NOT potato sacks, they
are graceful, elegant, flowing,
and I have received so many
compliments from both men and
women, both in India and USA, so
why would I care about your
comments ?! :-)
The churidars I wear in the kitchen
or when I have to go grab a bag
of potaoes, those ones do look
like potato sacks, I fully agree
with you.
I was very annoyed when my father
made me wear saree at Guruvayoor
and not one of my abosultely,
lovely, gorgeous churidars that
make me look like an apsara from
high above.
:-)
I hate the pics that were taken of
me at Guruvayoor. I even had to
tie up my nice hair. I didnt look
like me at all.
I had posted in this blog 4 months back that BJP will form government in Karnataka( Eventhough I am not great admirer of party and of leaders like Jaswanth Singh and Pramod Mahajan and Jinnah admiring Advani) they are better than the rest. Congress and Dharam Singh got Bangalored. Lot of young turks in Janata Dal got tired of Mantra of secularism and congress goondagiri. They have walked into BJP's waiting hands. Domino effect Goa congress govt is the next. What will happen to Aryan Invasion theorey when supposed Aryan BJP is ruling Karnataka home state of Periyar. Sorry DMK and Communists. Lot of young congress turks in Centre will give some more time for Italian Bahu to deliver (Looks likely mirage) and find out they can move to greener postures. I hope to see it happen this year.
I'm not a believer (in any faith), so I guess my comments are not relevant - since we're talking about a temple, it is the people of the faith that must decide. In any case, I think the temple authorities' comments about 'cleansing' the place if the Sri Lankan first lady was a Christian make them look like neanderthals. A part of me thinks they may be, to an extent.
Also, what is this fuss about Churidars? You have gone way over the top on that one, I think. In the end it's all about commonsense being exercised.
- Nanda Kishore
Hi Rajeev,
Whilst I completely agree with you on not allowing muslims and christians into Hindu temples, I beg to differ with you on your description of Churidars.
First of all, unfortunately, this attire was not in existance when Mohammed was getting/dictating his verses. Burka and Abhayas were the dress items mentioned by him for the purpose of hiding the women from every man's gaze. Therfore, for a Muslim woman to venture out in a churidar would be unislamic.
To substantiate the above statement, if you goto Kashmir, you should see that Kashmiri women don't usually venture out in churidars but full burkas. Same is true with places in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, multiple terrorist outfits and Mullahs (who in most cases are different sides of the same coin) have banned this outfit in Kashmir/Pakistan. Some women in Kashmir got acid thrown on them for daring to venture out in Churidars.
Secondly, I think the evolution of Churidar has more to do with the region (North) and it's weather than any particular religion. Although, I think, islam might still have played a part in the development of this dress. Because of muslim rule (which was concentrated in the North), Hindu women were always at risk and were to be kept covered/veiled. Therefore a churidar slowly came into being (alongwith the chunri/duppatta that women used to cover their faces with).
Offtopic, but I think a lot of ills also crept into Hinduism due to islamic rule. Purdah system is one example. I think Sati became widespread during the muslim rule (lest the ruling muslims snatch the widow). Gender based discrimination against women was also introduced to us courtesy Islam. It's just impossible to think that a culture so at ease with it's sexuality (that texts like Kama Sutra were not only written but celebrated) would deteriorate to such low levels just a couple of centuries later.
Lastly, we should be careful on what we credit the Muslims with. Give them the churidar and next they'll lay a claim on Punjabi (language and culture).
indianpatriot,
I wish there is a change of government in Karnataka. Dharam has one more week to buy or keep MLAs. As far as Congresswalas are concerned, I have no hope that they will ever reform. Sycophant bastards without a modicum of self-respect. They will die genuflecting at "madams" feet. If not her, the sob Rahul.
I have more of a question than a comment. How can we inspire people of 'other' religions in India to come back to Hinduism if we do not let them experience it for themselves? If they come to denigrate our religion, then yes ban them, but on the other hand if they come to experience it, let them see the beauty for themselves and then decide. If we do provide an opportunity for them to come back and show them open hostility, how can they ever feel like converting. Just a question I had.
Need to add another ill that has crept into Hinduism/Indian culture thanks to islam:
The obsession with fair skin.
This just struck me as I was reading the essay on faithfreedom.org (a link to which Rajeev posted under another topic titled "Danger to world from China").
I am now 100% convinced that this is how the concept of 'Fair and Lovely' originated in India. O Thank You! 'Religion of Peace' for integrating another one of your dogmas into our culture.
upasna, the would-be returnees to hinduism must absolutely go to guruvayur to see how beautiful hindism is? it's not enough that they can go to tirupati or sabarimala or srirangam or chidambaram or ten thousand other temples? no, it has to be guruvayur? why?
then why dont you hold christists and mohammedans to the same standards? why dont they allow you to go to mecca? i will tell you why: because you are impure and would pollute their holy of holies. same with the big godman's private chapel in the vatican. you wont be allowed in as you are a filthy pagan.
well, why doesnt that apply in reverse? there is good reason to consider semites inferior, theologically speaking.
I am also not for a carte-blance vis-a-vis temple admission for non-Hindus. But some exceptions to the rule can be made.
The Tirupathi temple has a tradition of allowing non-Hindus in, provided they make a declaration that they have faith in Balaji.
Guruvayoor too can have a rule of that sort. Jesudas can enter the temple if he makes the mandated declaration, which he woulnd't mind making, because he is a devotee after all and not a tourist.
Will tourists misuse this facility? They may. But then they will rot in hell for accepting that there are other gods than Allah, or that Jesus is not the only saviour. :)
It is said that Madame Italy just waved away the register and entered the Balaji Temple at Tirumalai without nary a signature !
Shouldn't rules apply to everybody?
People belonging to tother beliefs have no business entering our temples. As Rajeev says, if sight-seeing is the object they are welcome at our museums.
Nizhal Yoddha,
All along I thought salwarkameez was Punjab's.
Till I came across Sree Kanchi Paramacharyar's thorough Dressing Down to indian women
where he states it came from turkey!
Nizhal Yoddha,
Fie ,fie ,
We dare not enter "the vatican"!
I am curious to know your opinion on this: I have been to Tirupathi once and found their system of faster darshan for a higher pay disgusting. How can they take money for darshan?
I recently heard that GVR is also planning to go that way.
"there is this tendency in the indian media, films and serials, to show all 'fathers' as holy and pious, and all hindu swamis as crooks."
---------------------------------
Very true Rajeev!
The Mr.know all cho.Ramaswamy has done EXactly the same in his own movie "Unnmaye Un Vilai Enna" .
Post a Comment