Go Not to the temple - a poem by Tagore

[mskmoorthy]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Here is Saint Tyagaraja's (One of the Carnatic Music Trinity) take on going to temple https://sriramv.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/tyagaraja-and-temple-processions/and http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...ing-in-temple-processions/article17032488.ece

Sriram judiciously chose a positive title instead of a negative title to his Hindu piece. Saint Tygaraja liked the temple procession.

Quoting Mr. Sriram from his blog:


"Tyagaraja clearly did not lay much store by visits to temples. In his Darshanamu Seya (Narayana Gaula), he makes fun of the behaviour of the standard temple-goer – seeing the gopuras, the massive pillars, the stone idols, the dancing girls, the rows of lights, the beautiful processional mounts, making 16 circumambulations – the mind focused eternally on external delights, including slandering others and ogling at the women who are visiting! It is no wonder then that he did not go to many shrines."

You can read the song and its translation here.
http://www.karnatik.com/c2249.shtml

 

[prasad1]

Here is Saint Tyagaraja's (One of the Carnatic Music Trinity) take on going to temple https://sriramv.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/tyagaraja-and-temple-processions/and http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...ing-in-temple-processions/article17032488.ece

Sriram judiciously chose a positive title instead of a negative title to his Hindu piece. Saint Tygaraja liked the temple procession.

Quoting Mr. Sriram from his blog:


"Tyagaraja clearly did not lay much store by visits to temples. In his Darshanamu Seya (Narayana Gaula), he makes fun of the behaviour of the standard temple-goer – seeing the gopuras, the massive pillars, the stone idols, the dancing girls, the rows of lights, the beautiful processional mounts, making 16 circumambulations – the mind focused eternally on external delights, including slandering others and ogling at the women who are visiting! It is no wonder then that he did not go to many shrines."

You can read the song and its translation here.
http://www.karnatik.com/c2249.shtml

That is a beautiful post.

 

[Raji Ram]

Here is Saint Tyagaraja's (One of the Carnatic Music Trinity) take on going to temple https://sriramv.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/tyagaraja-and-temple-processions/and http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...ing-in-temple-processions/article17032488.ece ..........

:thumb:

 

[Vaagmi]

Bhakti is intensely personal. Each one may have a different experience. But to loudmouth one's own experience to the world as the right one is arrogance. Whoever it may be, I am unable to have respect for their words if they project their intensely personal experience as the right one to the world. I also do not agree with those who applaud such loudmouthed expositions.

As bhakti is pure love for God, it can be experienced and expressed in multiple ways. But if there is someone who mocks it saying your bhakti is just ritualistic nonsense and no bhakti, it is something else. i will always stand up to that arrogance--whosoever it may be Tagore or Thyagaraja--even if it is in enjoyable Narayana Gaula.

It is better not to be judgmental about bhakti of others.

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Vaagmi Sir,

Thyagaraja writes as if he himself has committed the wrongs, while visiting the temple, though he might not have done so! This is

not the only song. In the second pancharathnam in GowLa rAgam, he describes many mistakes as if those are all committed by

himself. In a few other keerthanAs he mocks at the way some people pray without bhakthi but have divine appearance outwardly.

Eg: 'manasu nilpa' in AbhOgi; 'entha muddhO' in BindhumAlini; 'theliyalEru RAmA' in DhEnuka; 'entha nErchina' in Udhaya

Ravichandrika.

They are all gems of the Saint composer imho.

 

[V.Balasubramani]

Siva Vakkiya Siddhar has written many poems on this line:

கோயிலாவது ஏதடா ? குளங்களாவது ஏதடா?
கோயிலும் குளங்களும் கும்பிடும் குலாமரே
கோயிலும் மனத்துளே குளங்களும் மனத்துளே
ஆவதும் அழிவதும் இல்லைஇல்லை இல்லையே.

"நட்ட கல்லை தெய்வம் என்று நாலு புஷ்பம் சாத்தியே
சுற்றி வந்து முனுமுனுவென்று சொல்லும் மந்திரம் ஏதடா?
நட்ட கல்லும் பேசுமோ நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் ?
சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?"

 

[tks]

In my understanding, the message by anyone quoted, is not about NOT going to a temples and doing rituals.
It is not about anyone approving or doubting whatever 'devotion' one may have. It is not about putting anyone down.

Hypocrisy is possible with any acts of rituals especially when there is a violation of intention of a ritual.

A true understanding (and not belief) of Isvara will change our relationship to Isvara, temples and rituals. The messages of Thyagaraja or SivaVakkiyar or Tagore will resonate with those that are ready to set aside their long held beliefs and be open to examining what is being said.

 

[dhikshita]

A piece of perfect advice by the bharat ratnam and the author of our country'so National Anthem.

 

[auh]

Siva Vakkiya Siddhar has written many poems on this line:

கோயிலாவது ஏதடா ? குளங்களாவது ஏதடா?
கோயிலும் குளங்களும் கும்பிடும் குலாமரே
கோயிலும் மனத்துளே குளங்களும் மனத்துளே
ஆவதும் அழிவதும் இல்லைஇல்லை இல்லையே.

"நட்ட கல்லை தெய்வம் என்று நாலு புஷ்பம் சாத்தியே
சுற்றி வந்து முனுமுனுவென்று சொல்லும் மந்திரம் ஏதடா?
நட்ட கல்லும் பேசுமோ நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் ?
சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?"

The term "உள்ளிருக்கையில்" can have many meanings... imo

 

[V.Balasubramani]

The term "உள்ளிருக்கையில்" can have many meanings... imo

May be he means 'அஹம் பிரமாஸ்மி' in simple terms imho.

 

[renuka]

My weakness is that I keep forgetting this, only to engage with people with no Shraddha and find once again that it was a wasted mental energy.

This is not really a weakness.

Nature has its way of making us gravitate towards those who share similar interest,IQ,traits and characteristics.

It's a primal instinct for survival of species cos venturing into unknown territory might be met with dire consequences.

Perfectly normal..Ma Suchah(Don't worry).

 

[tbs]

Siva Vakkiya Siddhar has written many poems on this line:

கோயிலாவது ஏதடா ? குளங்களாவது ஏதடா?
கோயிலும் குளங்களும் கும்பிடும் குலாமரே
கோயிலும் மனத்துளே குளங்களும் மனத்துளே
ஆவதும் அழிவதும் இல்லைஇல்லை இல்லையே.

"நட்ட கல்லை தெய்வம் என்று நாலு புஷ்பம் சாத்தியே
சுற்றி வந்து முனுமுனுவென்று சொல்லும் மந்திரம் ஏதடா?
நட்ட கல்லும் பேசுமோ நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் ?
சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?"

hi

hi

உள்ளிருக்கையில்




may be ANTHAR YAAMI TOO,,,,

 

[V.Balasubramani]

hi

hi

உள்ளிருக்கையில்

may be ANTHAR YAAMI TOO,,,,

Yes Sir, I agree.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sidhdhars are poor souls lost for ever in a Black Hole of sidhdhies. However hard they tried they could never come out of that situation. That is the reason why our acharyas carefully avoided getting into that Ashtamaa sidhdhi trap.

So we need not attach much importance to the words of Sidhdhas, who were superhuman beings. They were super human beings who could not get on with the script written for them by God.

I smile reading the line "நட்ட கல்லை தெய்வமென்று நாலு புஷ்பம் சாத்தியே, சுற்றி வந்து முணுமுணுவென்று சொல்லும் மந்திரம் ஏதடா" and continue with my nithyaradana of God, chanting உளனெனிலுள னவன் உருவமிவ் வுருவுகள், உளன் அலன் எனில் அவன் அருவ மிவ்வருவுகள், உளனென இலனென இவை குணமுடமையில், உள னிரு தகைமை யோடு ஒழிவிலன் பரந்தே (நம்மாழ்வார்).

 

[tks]

Sidhdhars are poor souls lost for ever in a Black Hole of sidhdhies. However hard they tried they could never come out of that situation. That is the reason why our acharyas carefully avoided getting into that Ashtamaa sidhdhi trap.

So we need not attach much importance to the words of Sidhdhas, who were superhuman beings. They were super human beings who could not get on with the script written for them by God.

I smile reading the line "நட்ட கல்லை தெய்வமென்று நாலு புஷ்பம் சாத்தியே, சுற்றி வந்து முணுமுணுவென்று சொல்லும் மந்திரம் ஏதடா" and continue with my nithyaradana of God, chanting உளனெனிலுள னவன் உருவமிவ் வுருவுகள், உளன் அலன் எனில் அவன் அருவ மிவ்வருவுகள், உளனென இலனென இவை குணமுடமையில், உள னிரு தகைமை யோடு ஒழிவிலன் பரந்தே (நம்மாழ்வார்).

Siddhar is what people called Sivavakkiayar. It is really immaterial whether people of his time thought he possessed any powers.
What matters are his writings available today that reveals he was not an atheist and his message is aligned with the message of the Vedas. His message in the referenced verse is about நட்ட கல் which is really Siva Lingam but in broader sense represent all deities cast in the form of stone. It is not about worship in exclusion he is talking about, it is about worshiping the stone while forgetting or disrespecting the essence of Isvara that represents as Antaryami in all beings.

So I am unable to understand how this specific message from நாலாயிரத் திவ்வியப் பிரபந்தம் at its essence different from the message of Siva Vakkiyar who is not an atheist in the way that word is understood today (if one reads his all his verses).

If I get the meaning approximately right, நம்மாழ்வார் is saying that regardless of what people say (He exists or not exists), both in form and as formless he pervades everything. But a person (a religious ego) caught in the shackles of ignorance can focus only on the form (where he thinks Godhead exists ) while abusing other beings which also represents the same Godhead. Siva Vakkiyar is talking about those exhibiting that rank hypocrisy.

 

[prasad1]

Sikhism considers idol worship a false practice and is prohibited.Idolatry or idol worship, also referred to as Pahan Pooja or Murti Pooja, is the worship of any physical object such as statues, images, or sculptures of any deity, human or being with divine attributes. During the era of the Sikh gurus and bhagats, in Hinduism, a murti, or vigraha or pratima was worshiped, rituals were performed, and Sikhs believed that spiritual wisdom was lacking in Indian society. This was believed to have been a manipulation by the priestly caste to keep the power in their hands. Sikh gurus and bhagats spoke out against this practice and informed people about the perceived spiritual disadvantages of idol worship.

Similarly Kabir Das also railed against Pahan Pooja.

Bhagat Kabir, whose hymns are present in Guru Granth Sahib, was strictly against any form of idol worship. He said Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness.

Guru Nanak, who strictly condemned the idol worship flourishing in Indian society among Hindus also suggested the same in Shalok: The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Sikhism
They were not atheists. They worshipped Hari only, but in the unmanifested form.

 

[tbs]

Sikhism considers idol worship a false practice and is prohibited.Idolatry or idol worship, also referred to as Pahan Pooja or Murti Pooja, is the worship of any physical object such as statues, images, or sculptures of any deity, human or being with divine attributes. During the era of the Sikh gurus and bhagats, in Hinduism, a murti, or vigraha or pratima was worshiped, rituals were performed, and Sikhs believed that spiritual wisdom was lacking in Indian society. This was believed to have been a manipulation by the priestly caste to keep the power in their hands. Sikh gurus and bhagats spoke out against this practice and informed people about the perceived spiritual disadvantages of idol worship.

Similarly Kabir Das also railed against Pahan Pooja.

Bhagat Kabir, whose hymns are present in Guru Granth Sahib, was strictly against any form of idol worship. He said Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness.

Guru Nanak, who strictly condemned the idol worship flourishing in Indian society among Hindus also suggested the same in Shalok: The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Sikhism
They were not atheists. They worshipped Hari only, but in the unmanifested form.

hi

guru granth sahib....full of ramayan stories.....as many times about lord krishna too...mainly ramor krishna stories..

 

[auh]

What matters are his writings available today that reveals he was not an atheist and his message is aligned with the message of the Vedas. His message in the referenced verse is about நட்ட கல் which is really Siva Lingam but in broader sense represent all deities cast in the form of stone. It is not about worship in exclusion he is talking about, it is about worshiping the stone while forgetting or disrespecting the essence of Isvara that represents as Antaryami in all beings.

நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் - can mean that the நாதன் is hidden. "Where" he is hidden is another topic for debate. So while the நாதன் is hidden, how can the stone talk? In other words, the நாதன் will never speak since he is hidden, then how can a stone talk?

The analogy is in the next line: சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?

நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence.

 

[tks]

நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் - can mean that the நாதன் is hidden. "Where" he is hidden is another topic for debate. So while the நாதன் is hidden, how can the stone talk? In other words, the நாதன் will never speak since he is hidden, then how can a stone talk?

The analogy is in the next line: சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?

நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence.

There is a vision that is portrayed by the poet. Without 'getting' that, all one is left is to stare at the play of words to understand what might be the meaning.

 

[auh]

I see a universal message in that small poem regardless of who it is attributed to. In almost all religious practices, focus is placed on rituals than on the intent of rituals or on understanding what God/Isvara is.

There is a vision that is portrayed by the poet. Without 'getting' that, all one is left is to stare at the play of words to understand what might be the meaning.

When you make a comment about a "universal message" in a poem that is not even attributed to Tagore (as pointed out by other members) you do not seem to be "getting" the message of the poet either ! When you dont even know what was the original intent of the unknown poet !!

Perhaps time to reflect on your thoughts before your high pedestal collapses.

 

[Vaagmi]

In my understanding, the message by anyone quoted, is not about NOT going to a temples and doing rituals. It is not about anyone approving or doubting whatever 'devotion' one may have. It is not about putting anyone down.

A reading of the messages quoted does not give this impression. It appears certainly the intention of the writers of these messages that "devotion" and the actions of a devotee that flows from it are all meaningless. and that makes it a judgment. I am unable to agree with that judgment for two reasons-1. the judges are themselves not qualified to sit in judgment and 2. the judgment is wrong.

Hypocrisy is possible with any acts of rituals especially when there is a violation of intention of a ritual.

How to determin this violation?

A true understanding (and not belief) of Isvara will change our relationship to Isvara, temples and rituals. The messages of Thyagaraja or SivaVakkiyar or Tagore will resonate with those that are ready to set aside their long held beliefs and be open to examining what is being said.

Belief is not like pain or pleasure to happen instantaneously. It comes after a search, experience, rumination, understanding, discrimination, appreciation and acceptance. To trash it is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance.

When Tagore says do not go to God, he mocks at devotees who go to Him with solid reasons. All the devotees who go to God and pray are not doing a saudha/bargain. There are many devotees who go to Tirupati who do not put anything in the hundi. They just have darshan, pray and come back. Tagore advises them not to go to temple.

Sivavakkiyar perhaps makes fun of a Shivling as Nattakallu. His ignorance of the underlying principle of a Shivling is pathetic. He is no better than an European from a different culture calling the Shivling a phallus and the Avudayar supporting the shivling a yoni (female genetalia).

I do not feel intimidated by the Nobel prize or the Sidhdhies. I will change my opinion only if someone gives me a reasonable argument.

 

[tks]

When you make a comment about a "universal message" in a poem that is not even attributed to Tagore (as pointed out by other members) you do not seem to be "getting" the message of the poet either ! When you dont even know what was the original intent of the unknown poet !!

Perhaps time to reflect on your thoughts before your high pedestal collapses.

There are English translations of a supposed poems by Tagore originally written in Bengali.
The name of the author is irrelevant to understanding if there is a meaning to the verses, given it is a short piece.

The original intent etc are irrelevant details when what matters is the message of pieces of writing or poem presented.

The prior 'conclusion' - நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence is logically flawed. I leave it at that with this comment below.
If the big picture is understood, it is easy to recognize that a conclusion is flawed.

 

[tks]

1. A reading of the messages quoted does not give this impression. It appears certainly the intention of the writers of these messages that "devotion" and the actions of a devotee that flows from it are all meaningless. and that makes it a judgment. I am unable to agree with that judgment for two reasons-1. the judges are themselves not qualified to sit in judgment and 2. the judgment is wrong.



2. How to determin this violation?



3. Belief is not like pain or pleasure to happen instantaneously. It comes after a search, experience, rumination, understanding, discrimination, appreciation and acceptance. To trash it is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance.

4. When Tagore says do not go to God, he mocks at devotees who go to Him with solid reasons. All the devotees who go to God and pray are not doing a saudha/bargain. There are many devotees who go to Tirupati who do not put anything in the hundi. They just have darshan, pray and come back. Tagore advises them not to go to temple.

5. Sivavakkiyar perhaps makes fun of a Shivling as Nattakallu. His ignorance of the underlying principle of a Shivling is pathetic. He is no better than an European from a different culture calling the Shivling a phallus and the Avudayar supporting the shivling a yoni (female genetalia).

I do not feel intimidated by the Nobel prize or the Sidhdhies. I will change my opinion only if someone gives me a reasonable argument.

1. The poem does not ask one to not go to the temple unilaterally or puts down any 'acts of devotion' but makes the point of ignorance of such acts in certain contexts. To understand the context one has to have better understanding of what a temple and Godhead represents. One must be able to see that vision of what a temple and Godhead represents (as taught in our knowledge scriptures) in order to *understand* such poems. Having said this, it is a free world, one can hold whatever view one wants.

2. Violation refers to violation of universal principles of Dharma.

3. Belief is not subject to reason. It can be a reasonable belief (that is does not violate whatever laws that are known) or unreasonable beliefs. Unreasonable beliefs can be commented on.
No one is trashing reasonable beliefs. If insecurity arises by reading a poem that someone is trashing one's long cherished beliefs , it only means the beliefs are in very shaky grounds.

4. Belief in Isvara is a starting point for many. It is sad if it is also the ending point in their life. Isvara has to be *understood* and not just believed. From a belief view point one cannot understand certain messages,

5. We see the world the way we are!

 

[prasad1]

Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.
Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated and used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above.
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

From at least the days of the Greek Philosophers, the relationship between faith and reason has been hotly debated. Plato argued that knowledge is simply memory of the eternal. Aristotle set down rules by which knowledge could be discovered by reason.
Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal's Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are seen by many as finite. One more reason for irrational beliefs can perhaps be explained by operant conditioning. For example, in one study by B. F. Skinner in 1948, pigeons were awarded grain at regular time intervals regardless of their behaviour. The result was that each of pigeons developed their own idiosyncratic response which had become associated with the consequence of receiving grain.
Believers in faith — for example those who believe salvation is possible through faith alone — frequently suggest that everyone holds beliefs arrived at by faith, not reason. The belief that the universe is a sensible place and that our minds allow us to arrive at correct conclusions about it, is a belief we hold through faith. Rationalists contend that this is arrived at because they have observed the world being consistent and sensible, not because they have faith that it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

 

[prasad1]

Virtually every religion has a sort of demerit system. Hinduism certainly has its. But believing the“wrong thing” doesn’t lose points for Gryffindor or anyone else. Even atheism, if embraced out of true spiritual inquiry and not simple laziness can be considered a noble effort. The Sanatana Dharma has plenty of opportunities to acquire less-than-good karma. But it’s equally available to believers and nonbelievers alike.

We get the predictable retort, “Oh, so you can just believe what you want.” No, if I believed just what I wanted to be spiritual reality I might opt for a path to moksha that included a lifestyle such as seen in a Fellini film. No, it’s not what I want to believe. It’s what I’m able to believe. There are millions of religionists all over the world who wrestle with doubts that they cannot easily reconcile. I’m sure that crowd includes a good number of Hindus; and I would offer solace in way of indicating that Self Realization can only be attained by ridding oneself of lesser beliefs. Part of my sadhana is the continued reinvestigation of long held assumptions. If any doctrine doesn’t pass the test I quickly sweep it into my spiritual dustbin with an efficiency my wife could only wish I’d exercise in cleaning our basement of more mundane artifacts that have long since abdicated any measure of usefulness.

And honestly, there is nothing wrong with admitting that on some issues, I just don’t know.
As Hindu I encourage you to take advantage of this wonderful aspect of our Dharma. Be at peace with the gift of questions. .However I would pray that doubt never devolves into cynicism, as it can. I believe that this is what Sri Krishna meant when He said in the counsels Arjuna about his doubts. Here is the trick: to find the Great Middle. Somewhere between mindless blind faith and that obsessive skepticism which can keep us so stagnant that we refrain from everything; from choosing pizza toppings to getting married.

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/hin...ith-isnt-faith-based.aspx#GAo9wlb45m9MqF78.99