Hinduism Vs Rest

[NARAS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

SIR - muslims in bangalore have indulged in unprovoked vandalism against hindus, public & private property on the pretext of opposing hanging of saddam hussain! one wonders why indian citizens should be disturbed so much by the hanging of an iraqi fascist. it clearly shows most of indian muslims are arabians living in india , rather than indians who have embraced islam.

sir- if i go to USA, can i burst crackers on deepavali? can i conduct yagnas with fire & smoke reaching the sky? can i light lamps all around my house on karthigai? i cannot ! because the laws of USA will not allow it!i have to obey the laws and finetune, adapt my celebrations so that i do not violate rule of law. brahminism is not an evangelical religion believing in conversion unlike islam & christianity. so brahmins are in a minority all over the world. they never have violent quarells with the majority. brahmins also have adapted to varying conditions in so many countries, whereever they go. cannot muslims also do the same? why are muslims in india insisting on following arabian practices & rituals in india even today? unlike brahmins, muslims & christians have spread their religions in many parts of the world, through conversions & violence , money, power & other dubious means. muslims & christians have not integrated or adapted with the majority in many parts of the world, including in india. Had muslims and christians too, not spread their religion like virus in this fashion, and sticked to only the homeland of their religions,like brahmins, may be they too would have had much more respectability!!!!!!

BUT I AM AN ARDENT SECULARIST BELIEVING IN SEPARATION OF RELIGION FROM POLITICS & PUBLIC LIFE.I ALSO FEEL NO COUNTRY OR GOVT.IN THE WORLD SHOULD HAVE A STATE RELIGION. ALL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE TOLERANT OF EVEN IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT OR RESPECT ALL OTHER FAITHS IN THE WORLD!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

The Terror Of Rationalism!!

sir - it is embrassing for me to see members of this site having the names of discredited comedians as their pseudonyms! there is nothing wrong in having pseudonyms of film personalities like senthil, illayaraja etc. but please avoid names like balachander, vallee,manivannan , vairamuthan, goundamani etc., which are associated with wickedness and vulgarity! the goundan was a successful and popular comedian, but his comedy was of low class quality,only for the front benchers.

sir - why are members and even moderators of this forum so reluctant to reveal their original names, the names given to them by their parents?? is it because of fear that they may be physically maimed by 'rationalists'? such is the fear & terror created in the minds of even peace loving people in this state by 'rationalists'!!!

 

[NARAS]

Speed Up Economic Reforms!!!!!

sir - what about abolishing the army and instead using para military forces alone for our defence purposes? that will reduce our defence expenditure by a big margin! all taxes can then be abolished! even interest need not be charged on any loans at all, though interest can be given on deposits!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

[
the P.chidambaram, finance minister of india 'boasts' about performance of indian economy under his rule. but by opening the economy more and more to foreigners, he is making the country dependent on foreign investment, which is highly dangerous! SELF RELIANCE & self sufficiency have been given a go by! foreign investment is highly volatile. the growth which we achieve due to foreign investment is not something to be proud of. this investment could suddenly decrease , putting the country's economy in peril! BJP tried to achieve a higher growth rate,not by depending on foreign investment, but by indian private investment, which is the right model for a country like india.
but having a italian as its leader, the present govt. does not seem to have any reservations about selling the country to foreigners!!!!!

SIR- in rich countries it will be impossible for politicians to come to power on a 'atheist', 'rationalist' or 'communist' platform. because there will be no poverty in these countries for these politicians to exploit! if there are many poor, in a country, it is easy for these 'rationalists' to put the blame on god & upper castes for all the poverty and come to power posing as emancipators of the downtrodden. if economic reforms are speeded up and poverty reduced to the barest minimum, 'rationalist' & 'communism' like buddhism , will be expelled from this country- lock, stock & barrel!!!!!

i would like to remind all of you that in an interview to the channel CNN/IBN, Mr. Narayanamurthy, founder of INFOSYS, requested indian government to adopt Capitalism!![/quote]

 

[NARAS]

SIR - I remember reading in CNN/IBN website that mohinder, notorius criminal who raped and killed many children in NOIDA, Uttar pradesh, could be a split personality. i referred oxford dictionary which says'split personality means a person having alternate characters at the same time'. by this definition, i am convinced that the periar was a split personality. it is said that the periar used to warmly welcome even persons less than half of his age or even persons who used to oppose him bitterly to his place and treat them with dignity and honour. but the very next day he used to attack his opponents, brahmins and orthodox hindus in the cheapest of language. this is a classic example of split personality.so is the case with the kalaignaa! the kaliaignaa also will welcome any person, even his bitter opponent, to his place and treat him with respect. but the very next day,he will pounce and abuse his opponents and brahmins using the dirtiest of languages, without any provocation!!! another example of 'split personality'???

sir - is the jayalalitha also a type of split personality? look at the way the lalitha behaves. she mingles very well with a person one day and suddenly , without any provocation pounces on the very same fellow like a terrible tiger! e.g. Mr. vajpayee, Mr. L.K. Advani & Kanchi acharya shri. jayendra saraswathi sankaracharya swamigal.

 

[NARAS]

Dear Suresh:

p.s. Arjuna was a Shaktriya and so he ate meat.

sir - my understanding of the situation is as follows -

even if arjuna had consumed meat , he was not a non veggie in a sense,because he did not kill animals for consuming meat. whereas ekalavya killed animals and consumed their flesh. brahminism is not opposed to using animal products after animals die a natural death!!!

i understand even in ashvameda yaagas horses were not killed. actually only dead horses were used. in any case, it is centuries since ashvameda yaga has been abandoned! it is not performed in old style at all!!!!!!!!

 

[NARAS]

Rahul Gandhi Vs Freedom Of Speech!

[SIR - the good news is out! the bjp-shiv sena combine has done better than sonia maina in maharashtra municipal elections in places like mumbai, the commercial capital of india, nagpur & pune.

sir - Rahul Gandhi , s/o, sonia maina gandhi has slapped a law suit on a u.s. based website called www.hinduunity.org alleging that slanderous 'information' about his family has been published in the website! i tried to access the site, but i am unable to do so from my PC! it seems the indian govt. has blocked access to this website, just because it is a hindu website opposing sonia maina! slanders have to be opposed and challenged in a court of law. what right does the indian govt. have to block a website just to protect a single family? if this blockage is true, this is an attack on freedom of speech! can members or viewers of this forum based outside india, pls. go to this site and tell us what exactly has been published about the sonia maina family?

 

[NARAS]

sir - my understanding of the situation is as follows -

even if arjuna had consumed meat , he was not a non veggie in a sense,because he did not kill animals for consuming meat. whereas ekalavya killed animals and consumed their flesh. brahminism is not opposed to using animal products after animals die a natural death!!!

i understand even in ashvameda yaagas horses were not killed. actually only dead horses were used. in any case, it is centuries since ashvameda yaga has been abandoned! it is not performed in old style at all!!!!!!!!

sir - i remember even former prime minister and eminent gandhian the late morarji desai was ridiculed for his views regarding humans drinking their own urine. what he said was this: 'a pure veggie (pure veggie means a person who does not only eat meat, drink, wine or smoke but does not even use tobacco products of any nature, even coffee and tea!) should drink his or her first urine early morning in the day. this early morning ist urine is called Shivambu. non veggies will have lot of dirty contents in their urine. their urine is not applicable under shivambu!' morarji said he had been doing this for many years, and he lived upto 100 yrs. hale and healthy!!!!

 

[NARAS]

sir - i remember even former prime minister and eminent gandhian the late morarji desai was ridiculed for his views regarding humans drinking their own urine. what he said was this: 'a pure veggie (pure veggie means a person who does not only eat meat, drink, wine or smoke but does not even use tobacco products of any nature, even coffee and tea!) should drink his or her first urine early morning in the day. this early morning ist urine is called Shivambu. non veggies will have lot of dirty contents in their urine. their urine is not applicable under shivambu!' morarji said he had been doing this for many years, and he lived upto 100 yrs. hale and healthy!!!!

sir - in 1979 the late morarji went to soviet union as a prime minister. there he told the then president of soviet, breznev- 'sir do you know that most of the animals consumed by humans, are themselves vegetarians'!!!

i said to this to a veggie brahmin friend of mine.he also told me that had there been no practice of eating fishes, the casualty due to tsunami in2004 could have been very low! he said many fishermen who normally have their settlements very close to the sea were killed by tsunami waves. if people stop eating fishes, these fishermen would move to new jobs and away from the coasts and thereby their precious lives would have been saved! the only hitch is how and where to find new jobs for them? that is the million dollar question!

 

[hariharan1972]

Yes, poverty reduction & much more

if economic reforms are speeded up and poverty reduced to the barest minimum, 'rationalist' & 'communism' like buddhism , will be expelled from this country- lock, stock & barrel!!!!!

i would like to remind all of you that in an interview to the channel CNN/IBN, Mr. Narayanamurthy, founder of INFOSYS, requested indian government to adopt Capitalism!!

[/quote]

While you are right in a way, i think it is not just eradication of poverty which will do the trick but it is the creation of an inclusive,egalitarian society that will remove the social ills. I agree with 'rationalists' or any such "ists" on the need to create a more inclusive society but i am against the methodology adopted by them.

If a small part of India is happily dining & the majority are whining, as a nation we are not shining !!!. The idea should be to enable, empower, educate the poor, impoverished to the path of prosperity. The idea is to keep growing the "pie" of wealth rather than keeping it constant & distributing it to everyone. The poor have to be made richer no doubt but not by making the rich (who are rich by legal, lawful & ethical means) any poorer. As i have said in another post, the gravy train has no free passengers. Get the ticket of merit & the train will come to your doorstep.

Ofcourse such changes do take time. However our "friends" don't have the time !!!!!. (Thennangandrai innikki vechu thanni voothittu, nalaikku illaneerukku asai pada koodathu). As a nation we are taking all the retrograde steps by trying to "force fit" people into "partaking" the fruits of someone's labour citing social structural issues - whether right or not. It is going to backfire in the years to come.

We need to make the delta between the rich & the empowered enabled poor smaller & smaller & invisible one day. There will always & should always be a delta between the guy who works his butt off & the guy who is lying on his butt.

As regards NRN, he does favour capitalism but a capitalism with a humane approach.

 

[kudumi]

Deepavali aborad.

sir- if i go to USA, can i burst crackers on deepavali? can i conduct yagnas with fire & smoke reaching the sky? can i light lamps all around my house on karthigai? i cannot ! because the laws of USA will not allow it!i have to obey the laws and finetune, adapt my celebrations so that i do not violate rule of law. brahminism is not an evangelical religion believing in conversion unlike islam & christianity. so brahmins are in a minority all over the world. they never have violent quarells with the majority. brahmins also have adapted to varying conditions in so many countries, whereever they go. cannot muslims also do the same? why are muslims in india insisting on following arabian practices & rituals in india even today? unlike brahmins, muslims & christians have spread their religions in many parts of the world, through conversions & violence , money, power & other dubious means. muslims & christians have not integrated or adapted with the majority in many parts of the world, including in india. Had muslims and christians too, not spread their religion like virus in this fashion, and sticked to only the homeland of their religions,like brahmins, may be they too would have had much more respectability!!!!!!

BUT I AM AN ARDENT SECULARIST BELIEVING IN SEPARATION OF RELIGION FROM POLITICS & PUBLIC LIFE.I ALSO FEEL NO COUNTRY OR GOVT.IN THE WORLD SHOULD HAVE A STATE RELIGION. ALL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD SHOULD BE TOLERANT OF EVEN IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT OR RESPECT ALL OTHER FAITHS IN THE WORLD!!!!!

As a matter of fact, countries like US, Canada, UK etc.. are very tolerant. The hindu societies celebrate deepavali, kaarthigai etc. Lot of councils in UK even turn on extra lights to celebrate diwali. Infact most of the westerners are very tolerant to hinduism. Even yagnas are allowed. There was a case in UK where they got permission and performed the rites in an open pyre ( for a sikh). For kaarthigai, I have seen homes having traditional lights...but I dont know if they got a prior permission from the authorites... may be something like adherence to EHS coded might be needed.

 

[goundamani]

[/url] "]
sir - TEMPLE is like a country. a country belongs to citizens of that country. foreigners can come and visit that country. but they cannot claim equal rights like citizens. like that, any person can visit a temple. but temples should be run only as per the reigning deity of the temple. temples are not govt. property, so govts. cannot interfere in that. temples are private affairs.

Dear Suresh,

Temples belong to the people.All institutions in the country belong to the people.These temples were built by vellalas, chettiyars, and devar kings,traders etc for the benefit and welfare of the society.In these temples they employed brahmin priests to serve the society.An employee can never become the owner of the property.These temples belong to all people.People have the right to change any employee or to appoint whomever they want.An employee cannot argue that the owner cannot hire new employees from other castes.

[/url] "]

so anybody has right to say that within temples only the rituals of the sect to the god of the temple should be followed. those who do not like this rule, need not visit temples at all!

No.It's the other way around.

In temples there wont be any caste baste based discrimination.In front of god all castes will be equally respected.No one caste can claim special rights.Those who do not like this rule of the law, need not visit temples.

[/url] "]
if you have respect for god, you will automatically have respect for the individuality of the rituals of all sects. what sort of 'rationalism' is it to say ' i believe in god. but not in brahminism!'

Again its the other way around.

If you really have respect for god,you will automatically treat all human beings as equal sons of God.You will not claim special rights or treatment to one's jathi.God is beyond castes and jathi.

[/url] "]
the trinity- creator brahma, protector vishnu, destroyer siva - are all bramins. the priests in all orthodox temples are brahmins. so it is not hinduism, but hypocrisy to say that 'god up up! brahmins down down!

First of all it is atrocious to claim god to be a brahmin.God is the mother of all people and everything in the world.Alwar pasurams says that she is neither male, nor female nor ali.God is everything.SHe is a sandala,She is a ksathriya, She is a pulaiya and She is also brahmin.No one jathi can claim that she belongs to their jathi.

[/url] "]
in a democracy, it is not majority opinion which always matters. but rule of law. to say that non brahmins now have the right to modify laws as per their whims and fancies just because they are in a majority reminds me of a man sixfeet tall saying to man whose height was only 3 feet -'even if i am wrong, i should prevail over you,because i am 3 feet taller than you!!!' (famous quote by mahatma). this is the tyranny of majority over minority. this is fascism. the bottomline of democracy is freedom of speech. trampling over freedom of speech on the pretext of enforcing 'social justice' paves the way for dominance of fascist ideals like 'rationalism' & 'communism'

Again you are quoting the right adage for a wrong context.The current judgment permiting all castes to become archakars were given according to law and not because it was majority opinion.This is the right law according to all standards of law.

The previous law which banned 97% of devotees from becoming archakars was morally, ethically and legally wrong.A wrong was corrected here.How can any self respecting government agree that one jathi has exclusive rights over a job?

Law has closed it eyes witha black cloth.It doesnt see whether the prosecutor and defendent are 6 feet or 3 feet.The law which was accepted by the highest constitutional authority in India,the supreme court is ethically and morally the best judgment.It is the previous law which is discriminatory and casteist.

[/url] "]
where is the question of imposing here? it is anti brahmins who are imposing their practices in brahmin temples, and not other way round.

They are not brahmin temples.Srirangam belongs to all vaishnavas and chidambaram belongs to all saivas.They dont belong to one single caste.They belong to all hindus.

[/url] "]
has any brahmin asked non brahmin temples like melmaruvathur etc., to modify its practices and be run like orthodox brahmin temples?

Melmaruvathur is run by the person who built it. But in case of the temples you talk about ,the ones who built them are prevented from running the temples.Rajaraja chola built big temple and its rather unfortunate that his descendents are prevented from entering the temple sanctorium and dooing poojas even if they become qualified archakars.

[/url] "]what is the need to change existing rituals which have been there for centuries?

They are casteist and discriminatory.That is why they need to be changed.

[/url] "]
it is being said no sect can claim any supremacy even inside temple premises. by this logic, no religion can also claim supremacy inside their places of worship. it automatically means christians can enter and administer mosques, buddhists can dictate how gurudwara should be run etc., this will lead to bitterness, clashes amongst various religions.

You have misunderstood the issue.we are talking about castes and not religion.Among the followers of a religion,there shall not be any discrimination in their place of worship.Particularly not by caste.This is unconstitutional.

 

[goundamani]

[/url] "]
how can brahmins allow non brahmins as priests in temples when they do not even allow gods or priests of even rival brahmin sects in temples? this is the nadir of absurdity!!

Who are brahmins to allow or disallow anobody?

You dont make rules anymore.Those days are gone.

Rule of law shall only prevail in a democracy.Not rule of brahmins or vanniyars or devars.All are equal before law.Only equality shall be allowed to prevail,not superiority.

[/url] "]
just because a person is a 'hindu' does that qualify him to claim rights to modify rituals as per his whims & fancies? just because i sell a saree to a women as a shopowner, can i claim 'she is wearing the saree of my shop. so i have right to touch her'! this is outright nonsense !!

exactly.Thats what I am saying.

Just because you are employed in a temple to serve the people,it doesnt mean you can claim the rights to modify rules of appointment as per your choice.

Just because you are a saree shop employee,you cannot claim that you have the right to touch women customers of a shop because she wears the saree which you gave her.

How you serve people should be determined by people and not by you.Similarly who should serve the people should also be determined by them.You cannot say people cannot appoint somebody else to serve them.It's their wish.

As a loyal employee you have rights,but that right doesnt include preventing people from other castes being employed in a shop.

[/url] "]
Individuality of a sect, that too within the premises of the place of worship,in no way collides with equality, because temples are not govt. places to enforce 'social justice' or 'rationalism'.

Temples belong to people.And individuality of a sect doesnt include claiming supremacy over other sects.Its like saying declaring jihad on kafirs is the individual rights of muslim.

[/url] "]
places of worship were built as a mark of respect to god. so they will be run only according to the agamas of the sect of the god to which reigns in the temple.TEMPLES ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTIES OF ANTI BRAHMINS, NON BRAHMINS OR GOVERNMENTS.

Temples are neither the private property of brahmins,anti brahmins or nonbrahmins.

They are peoples proerty and government is its custodian.What belongs to government cannot become private property.What belongs to government belongs to all people.

Temples are nobody's private property.They belong to the people.

[/url] "]
every person has got a right to hate or love any religion within rule of law.there is nothing wrong in that. the bogey of 'brahmins will suffer' or' 'hatred of brahmins will increase' clearly shows ignorance of non brahmins.

That bogey is not imaginatory.It exists.Brahmins do suffer.

Do you know why?

Its because of some brahmins who still argue that their cate is superior according to rebirth, they own temples, brahmanism is a seperate religion, meat eating is illegal and so on.

even though such people are minority among brahmins, majority of innocent brahmins suffer a lot due to the opinions of these people.Such people add fuel to the fire by this claims and this ends up in spoiling the name of all brahmins.

You might think that you are doing a great service to brahmins by arguing like you do.Actually you are harming their cause.Even though I say bitter truths ,I say this only for the benefit of brahmins.what i say is like giving a sour medicine.Medicine tastes bad.But it is good for health.If a society falls into the hands of the orthodox,the society will be ruined.Muslims are a prime example for this.Christians could develop only after they came out of the clutches of the church.Brahmins too should follow the same example.

[/url] "]
after all brahmins do not even allow even brahmin gods or priests of rival sects in to temples of their sect beyond a point.

Who are they to allow or disallow?

Nobody has the right to stop anybody from taking up a profession.

[/url] "]
it is clear these 'rationalists'are confusing hinduism with other religions. in other religions, god of their religions can enter their places of worship freely. but here only the god of the sect to which the temple belongs, can have supremacy. even brahmin gods of rival sect are restricted!

According to whose rules?Rule of manu?

That rule is changed.Its the rule of indian constitution which prevails now.That change was not arbitrary,but was legal,moral and non-discriminatory.

[/url] "]
then why should anti bramins feel jealous or suffer from inferiority complex? why are'rationalists' claiming rights in temples which even gods or brahmins themselves do not have??????

"Dont beg for rights which belong to you.Take it by revolution" - Marx

Rationalists arent claiming rights.It's the hindus who ask for the rights which were denied to them for centuries.BJP, RSS, VHP all support the rights of all hindus to become archakars.Only orthodox people still jump up and down.

 

[NARAS]

sir - it is clear again & again that you are confusing hinduism with other religions. in other religions, though there are various sects, the god is common for all sect. but here, even god is different for each & every sect.for e.g.lord shiva cannot enter sanctom sanctorum of vishnu temple and lord vishnu cannot enter sanctum sanctorum of a siva temple. a priest in a saivaite temple cannot become a priest in vaishnava temple. a priest in a vaishnava temples cannot become a priest in siva temple. when there are so much restrictions amongst gods themselves & brahmin priests how can you allow anybody as a priest just because he is a 'hindu'? after all even ordinary brahmins cannot become priests in orthodox temples! after all, i cannot become a priest throughout my life in orthodox temples, inspite of being a brahmin by birth, a believer who has full respect for the agamas! it is hereditary! a person can become a brahmin only by birth. and even among brahmins, a person can become a priest only by hereditary order!

non brahmins, to repent for the atrocities committed on brahmins since days of parasurama, donated land for temples& constructed them & appointed brahmins as priests. TEMPLES, unlike mosques & churches are not places for propagating religion. temples were built as a mark of respect to god. so, when you want to show respect to god, you have many restrictions inside the place of worship. AGAMAS are permanent. they cannot be changed, modified by 'rationalists' & apologists of 'rationalists' like you. you either accept them, or if you do not like them, ignore them. but they cannot be modified at all.of course you can build new temples with your own 'laws' & 'rules', 'social justice', & 'rationalism'!

I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT WHEN GOVERNMENTS GO FOR A CHANGE, THERE SHOULD BE A NEED & ALSO A GUARANTEE THAT THE NEW ARRANGEMENT WHICH GOVTS. ARE PROPOSING SHOULD BE BETTER THAN EXISTING ONE. IN THIS CASE WHAT IS NEED FOR CHANGE?AFTER ALL IT IS BEING SAID PRIESTS ARE ONLY EMPLOYEES! WHY ARE SO CALLED 'RATIONALISTS' SO JEALEOUS OF THESE EMPLOYEES? IN OTHER SECTORS, 'RATIONALISTS' ARE ARGUING FOR CASTE QUOTAS. BUT IN TEMPLES, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT 'MERIT' & 'QUALITY'!!!

even the national anthem is not recited inplaces of worship. does that mean these places are anti national? temples do not belong to government. they cannot dictate how temples should be run. this is not a hindu rashtra. this is a secular government. ironically the same 'rationlists' who oppose concept of 'hindu rashtra' want to tamper with temples laws! who are the persons who aregoing to bring this new laws & rules? apologists of the illiterate rationalists! 'rationalists' do not make rules any more those days are gone. only rule of agamas should prevail inside temples. all are equal before god. no caste can claim superiority over god just because they form a statistical 'majority'! this is not numbers game. even the basic character of indian constitution cannot be modified. agamas are like basic character of indianconstitution. even courts have ruled that they cannot be modified.

just because you are a devotee or you form a group which happens to be a 'majority' in your country at a particular time, you cannot change laws & rules as per your whims & fancies. you are saying that even employees do not have any authority. by that logic what about devotees? they are below these employees! how can they have authority to change agamas?
you cannot go to a shop and say that a woman employed in that shop should wear the costume of your choice just because you are a customer! if you do not like the shop, you go to other shop!

temples belong to people. yes. priests also form this people. so they also have a right. they have loyally serviced these temples for so many centuries. they have faithfully adhered to the agamas for so many centuries inspite of torture of muslims, christians & 'rationalists'. who are rationalists to disallow priests from taking up their profession?
nobody can claim supremacy inside temples premises on the pretext that he or she belongs to a group which forms 'majority' in the country. being a majority does not entitle you to commit atrocities on minorities as per your whims & fancies. this 'majority' argument is worse thanthe jehadi mentality of muslims! in a secular country govts. cannot be custodians of temples. it is a violation of the secular fabric of the country.

even womenare not allowed to become priests in orthodox temples, because priests have to be in toplees attire. if rule of constitution should be followed , does that mean that women should also become priests in temples? in topless attire? may this is what 'rationalists' and their 'apologists' are craving for!!!!
will a man be allowed to head a women's organisation? will a brahmin be accepted as a member of vanniar sangam? will a lawyer be admitted in a doctor's forum? no! does that mean there is discrimination? these are all specialist functions which only specialists of that particular order can do. likewise priesthood is a specialist function in orthodox temples, only for hereditary order.
i wonder how speaking the truth will hurt the brahmins! it is better to speak the truth, even if it hurts the brahmins, rather the believe in falsehood of 'rationalists'. a doctor can give bitter medicine to his patients. but can quacks do that? 'rationalists' & their 'apoligists' like you, are quacks!
you have quoted marx and instigated anti bramins to indulge in violence to become priests in orthodox temples. that show the depth to which 'rationalists' like you have descended!

 

[NARAS]

[/url] "]
sir - TEMPLE is like a country. a country belongs to citizens of that country. foreigners can come and visit that country. but they cannot claim equal rights like citizens. like that, any person can visit a temple. but temples should be run only as per the reigning deity of the temple. temples are not govt. property, so govts. cannot interfere in that. temples are private affairs.

Dear Suresh,

Temples belong to the people.All institutions in the country belong to the people.These temples were built by vellalas, chettiyars, and devar kings,traders etc for the benefit and welfare of the society.In these temples they employed brahmin priests to serve the society.An employee can never become the owner of the property.These temples belong to all people.People have the right to change any employee or to appoint whomever they want.An employee cannot argue that the owner cannot hire new employees from other castes.

[/url] "]

so anybody has right to say that within temples only the rituals of the sect to the god of the temple should be followed. those who do not like this rule, need not visit temples at all!

No.It's the other way around.

In temples there wont be any caste baste based discrimination.In front of god all castes will be equally respected.No one caste can claim special rights.Those who do not like this rule of the law, need not visit temples.

[/url] "]
if you have respect for god, you will automatically have respect for the individuality of the rituals of all sects. what sort of 'rationalism' is it to say ' i believe in god. but not in brahminism!'

Again its the other way around.

If you really have respect for god,you will automatically treat all human beings as equal sons of God.You will not claim special rights or treatment to one's jathi.God is beyond castes and jathi.

[/url] "]
the trinity- creator brahma, protector vishnu, destroyer siva - are all bramins. the priests in all orthodox temples are brahmins. so it is not hinduism, but hypocrisy to say that 'god up up! brahmins down down!

First of all it is atrocious to claim god to be a brahmin.God is the mother of all people and everything in the world.Alwar pasurams says that she is neither male, nor female nor ali.God is everything.SHe is a sandala,She is a ksathriya, She is a pulaiya and She is also brahmin.No one jathi can claim that she belongs to their jathi.

[/url] "]
in a democracy, it is not majority opinion which always matters. but rule of law. to say that non brahmins now have the right to modify laws as per their whims and fancies just because they are in a majority reminds me of a man sixfeet tall saying to man whose height was only 3 feet -'even if i am wrong, i should prevail over you,because i am 3 feet taller than you!!!' (famous quote by mahatma). this is the tyranny of majority over minority. this is fascism. the bottomline of democracy is freedom of speech. trampling over freedom of speech on the pretext of enforcing 'social justice' paves the way for dominance of fascist ideals like 'rationalism' & 'communism'

Again you are quoting the right adage for a wrong context.The current judgment permiting all castes to become archakars were given according to law and not because it was majority opinion.This is the right law according to all standards of law.

The previous law which banned 97% of devotees from becoming archakars was morally, ethically and legally wrong.A wrong was corrected here.How can any self respecting government agree that one jathi has exclusive rights over a job?

Law has closed it eyes witha black cloth.It doesnt see whether the prosecutor and defendent are 6 feet or 3 feet.The law which was accepted by the highest constitutional authority in India,the supreme court is ethically and morally the best judgment.It is the previous law which is discriminatory and casteist.

[/url] "]
where is the question of imposing here? it is anti brahmins who are imposing their practices in brahmin temples, and not other way round.

They are not brahmin temples.Srirangam belongs to all vaishnavas and chidambaram belongs to all saivas.They dont belong to one single caste.They belong to all hindus.

[/url] "]
has any brahmin asked non brahmin temples like melmaruvathur etc., to modify its practices and be run like orthodox brahmin temples?

Melmaruvathur is run by the person who built it. But in case of the temples you talk about ,the ones who built them are prevented from running the temples.Rajaraja chola built big temple and its rather unfortunate that his descendents are prevented from entering the temple sanctorium and dooing poojas even if they become qualified archakars.

[/url] "]what is the need to change existing rituals which have been there for centuries?

They are casteist and discriminatory.That is why they need to be changed.

[/url] "]
it is being said no sect can claim any supremacy even inside temple premises. by this logic, no religion can also claim supremacy inside their places of worship. it automatically means christians can enter and administer mosques, buddhists can dictate how gurudwara should be run etc., this will lead to bitterness, clashes amongst various religions.

You have misunderstood the issue.we are talking about castes and not religion.Among the followers of a religion,there shall not be any discrimination in their place of worship.Particularly not by caste.This is unconstitutional.

SIR - if temples belong to everybody, then also to brahmins! if employees have no rights over temples,how can devotees or 'rationalists' have? moreover, temples are not wine shops where you change employees& servants as per your personal whims! after all the priests,left their own profession and started working in these temples as priests, as servants for so many centuries! if suddenly they are asked to go out, or their monopoly is plucked for no fault of theirs, where will they go? they were appointed specifically to serve god!

sir -if god is beyond caste & jathi does that mean even muslims & christians should be allowed as priests in orthodox temples? God does belong to everybody, but a particular form is associated with a particular group. fore.g.the whole world knows that brahma & vishnu were brahmins. that krishna was a yadava. Lord Rama was a kshatriya. Majority & minority could change as days progress. tomorrow, if brahmins become a majority in india due to some reason, what wll happen to this 97% vs 3% argument? the question is not about majority or minority alone.the queston is can agamas be changed or modified by humans, even if they are devotees? can the basic character of indian constitution be changed as per our own whims & fancies? no! the agamas are lke basic character of indian constitution! they can be inferred liberally, but they can never be changed or modified! saying that the the majority is empowered to modify anything on the pretext of being numerically superior, is like saying being taller than other person gives you right to prevail over him, even if you are wrong!!!

if temples belong to all hindus, automatically they belong to brahmins also.!!! so why change or modify existing situation??
BRAHMIN Temples means temples which are following orthodox agamas, where brahmins alone are priests!

Leave raja raja chola, even Lord vishnu cannot enter a saivaite temple! so where is question of discrimination??

The 'rationalists' who are qualing for changes in temples laws are also themselves casteist, discriminatory & anti national! their views should be ignored, because they are ignorant of temple laws and do not have any respct or possess even basic knowledge about temples!
even brahmins are not allowed into each others' temples beyond a point.but they are not quailing, wailing or lamenting that they are being discriminated. why are non brahmins & anti brahmins not sportive, tolerant like brahmins???

 

[mrifan]

Brahmanas and temples

By convention, Brahmanas were appointed as priests in temples by the erstwhile kings in south India. To attract scholarly Brahmanas, they were promised land near the temples, and allowed to keep the dakshina proferred by devotees. I would speculate the reason Brahmanas were invited to be priests is for the same reason that bright people are invited to America to come to universities and settle there with a tenured position being the main enticement. Most rulers would want to attract scholars, artists and skilled people to their kingdom/country.

However, the temples built by the kings are the property of the governnment, which is the de-facto ruler of the state. It is upto the govt to decide who enters/preaches in these temples since they are public places of worship.
Brahmanas cannot claim exclusive rights over these temples. If we Brahmanas want to have our own temple, similar to how Jain associations built their own temples etc, then the government has no right to interfere in the method or details of worship. It should be considered a private place of worship, provided it is built by contributions from Brahmana patrons, and the land was acquired on the open market.

 

[goundamani]

sir - it is clear again & again that you are confusing hinduism with other religions. in other religions, though there are various sects, the god is common for all sect. but here, even god is different for each & every sect.for e.g.lord shiva cannot enter sanctom sanctorum of vishnu temple and lord vishnu cannot enter sanctum sanctorum of a siva temple. a priest in a saivaite temple cannot become a priest in vaishnava temple. a priest in a vaishnava temples cannot become a priest in siva temple. when there are so much restrictions amongst gods themselves & brahmin priests how can you allow anybody as a priest just because he is a 'hindu'?

Dear Suresh,

I made no comparison of Hinduism with other religions.I am only talking about rights of Hindus in Hindu temples.Gods are not different for each sect.For example a devar sect devotee can go to any temple and worship any god.He might think palani muruga as his family deity,but that doesnt stop him legally from going to temples of other gods.Gods like muruga, vishnu and shiva are worshipped across all sects and you cannot claim one sect owns one god.In fact what sect you belong to is irelevant when you go to a temple.All hindus have equal rights in temples like srirangam and bigtemple of tanjore.

Shaivite brahmins cannot become priests in vaishnavite temples.Yes.Once the rule is changed they too can become priests in vaishnava temples and vice versa.

after all even ordinary brahmins cannot become priests in orthodox temples! after all, i cannot become a priest throughout my life in orthodox temples, inspite of being a brahmin by birth, a believer who has full respect for the agamas! it is hereditary! a person can become a brahmin only by birth. and even among brahmins, a person can become a priest only by hereditary order!

Once the rule is changed you too can become a priest in any orthodox temple.You seem to be highly devotional and I bet that you will do a good job as a priest.If you dont want the job, fine.Let that not stop people who are willing to take the job.

non brahmins, to repent for the atrocities committed on brahmins since days of parasurama, donated land for temples& constructed them & appointed brahmins as priests.

That is your claim.History is history.we cannot change it.In a secular democracy we have only equitable principles to guide us and not legends of parasurama's time.

TEMPLES, unlike mosques & churches are not places for propagating religion. temples were built as a mark of respect to god. so, when you want to show respect to god, you have many restrictions inside the place of worship.

Restrictions levied by who?People will obey to fair restrictions. But If people feel that any restriction is unfair and discriminatory they can change it by approaching the supreme court.

AGAMAS are permanent. they cannot be changed, modified by 'rationalists' & apologists of 'rationalists' like you. you either accept them, or if you do not like them, ignore them. but they cannot be modified at all.of course you can build new temples with your own 'laws' & 'rules', 'social justice', & 'rationalism'!

Rule of law is above agamas and shastras.Can anyone claim today that according to agamas he has to marry at age 8? Even though agamas permit it, law bans it.Can a muslim say that he can stone adultresses to death because quran permits it and court has no rights to alter quran?No.

Nobody is talking about modifying agamas.Nobody cares.In a democracy respect rule of law and courts.Follow any agamas or shastras as long as it is within the rule of law.

I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT WHEN GOVERNMENTS GO FOR A CHANGE, THERE SHOULD BE A NEED & ALSO A GUARANTEE THAT THE NEW ARRANGEMENT WHICH GOVTS. ARE PROPOSING SHOULD BE BETTER THAN EXISTING ONE.

Non-discrimination is better than discrimination.The government's law that doesnt discriminate on people based on caste, is better than the current system which discriminates based on caste.In this way the current proposal is better than the existing one.

IN THIS CASE WHAT IS NEED FOR CHANGE?AFTER ALL IT IS BEING SAID PRIESTS ARE ONLY EMPLOYEES! WHY ARE SO CALLED 'RATIONALISTS' SO JEALEOUS OF THESE EMPLOYEES? IN OTHER SECTORS, 'RATIONALISTS' ARE ARGUING FOR CASTE QUOTAS. BUT IN TEMPLES, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT 'MERIT' & 'QUALITY'!!!

No.Again you got it wrong.It is you who is asking for 100% reservation for brahmins in this job. How can a caste claim 100% reservation for itself in one job?When brahmins become businessmen,lawyers,software professionals, clerks etc. they actually take up the jobs of ksathriyas and vaisyas and sudhras. When you are willing to take up their job, should they not be willing to take up your job?

even the national anthem is not recited inplaces of worship. does that mean these places are anti national? temples do not belong to government. they cannot dictate how temples should be run. this is not a hindu rashtra. this is a secular government.

Nobody talks about national anthem temples.We only talk about equality of all hindus in front of God.Temples belong to people.Government is its custodian.As you said if it is hindu rashtra govt. can prevent others from becoming archakars.But this is a secular government.Secular government has to act secularly.It has to ensure equality and justice.

ironically the same 'rationlists' who oppose concept of 'hindu rashtra' want to tamper with temples laws! who are the persons who aregoing to bring this new laws & rules? apologists of the illiterate rationalists!

I am not a 'rationalist'. I am more devotional than you think me to be.Further remember that VHP,BJP,RSS etc support governments move in this.They are not 'rationalistic',are they?.

I have to support governments move because it supports the growth of hinduism.Just like it was the duty of all hindus to support 'rationalists' when they fought to allow dalits inside temple,it is the duty of all believeing hindus now to support 'rationalists' in this issue.

'rationalists' do not make rules any more those days are gone. only rule of agamas should prevail inside temples.

If somebody cites agamas and prevents 'meat eaters, women and sandalas' from entering temples, what should the law do?If a priest conducts marriage for two children inside temple by citing agamas what should the law do?If a temple appoints devadasis by citing agamas what should the law do? Should it sit idle and let such agamas rule inside temples?

Anywhere rule of law should be supreme.In India no place is above law.Sikh agamas prevented police and military from entering golden temple,but army went inside and killed terrorists in 1984.This shows that rule of law will work in all places in india at all times.

 

[goundamani]

all are equal before god. no caste can claim superiority over god just because they form a statistical 'majority'! this is not numbers game. even the basic character of indian constitution cannot be modified. agamas are like basic character of indianconstitution. even courts have ruled that they cannot be modified.

Nobody talks about modifying agamas.Certain portions are declared as not valid by law because they collide with indian constitution.When Indian law banned stoning by death it did not change quran.It simply made that illegal.When marriage age of women was raised to 18, again no agams or shatras were changed.Those portions which called for early marriage were declared illegal.That's all.

just because you are a devotee or you form a group which happens to be a 'majority' in your country at a particular time, you cannot change laws & rules as per your whims & fancies.

It is not based on whims and fancies.It is based on law and justice.Equality and anti-discriminatory mindset.Irrespective of which caste claims majority,all can become archakars at anytime.Simple.

you are saying that even employees do not have any authority. by that logic what about devotees? they are below these employees! how can they have authority to change agamas?

Nobody is talking about changing agamas.They simply declare certain portions as void and null.For example, if a girl aged 5 and boy aged 7 get married inside a temple agamas will not prevent it.But law will prevent it.here agamas were not changed,but that portion was declared as not binding.Dont argue that nobody has the right to declare agamas as null and void.Law has already delcared so many laws in manu,quran and bible as not legal anymore.

Temples belong to devotees.They have appointed their elected representative,government to act as its trustee.Thus government has all rights to run temples as per the will of devotees, subject to law.

you cannot go to a shop and say that a woman employed in that shop should wear the costume of your choice just because you are a customer! if you do not like the shop, you go to other shop!

You got it wrong.The shop employee cannot say "the shop owner cannot appoint anybody from other castes to work in the shop.He should only hire people belonging to my caste".If the employee doesnt like working with employees from other caste,it is he who has to leave the shop and not the shop owner or customers.

temples belong to people. yes. priests also form this people. so they also have a right. they have loyally serviced these temples for so many centuries. they have faithfully adhered to the agamas for so many centuries inspite of torture of muslims, christians & 'rationalists'. who are rationalists to disallow priests from taking up their profession?

Nobody disallows brahmins from becoming priests.For new openings they will hire from all castes.Current employees will not be dismissed.

Imagine a temple where a dalit and brahmin and vanniyar do poojas.How congenial and good such an atmosphere will look?How happy will people feel?Why do you want to deny a devotee this opportunity to become priest?

nobody can claim supremacy inside temples premises on the pretext that he or she belongs to a group which forms 'majority' in the country. being a majority does not entitle you to commit atrocities on minorities as per your whims & fancies. this 'majority' argument is worse thanthe jehadi mentality of muslims! in a secular country govts. cannot be custodians of temples. it is a violation of the secular fabric of the country.

Nobody claims supremacy.people only claim equality.If equality is rejected,they instill it by approaching law.Nobody took law in hands and declared themselves as archakars.They went to court,the highest authority in india.

even womenare not allowed to become priests in orthodox temples, because priests have to be in toplees attire. if rule of constitution should be followed , does that mean that women should also become priests in temples? in topless attire? may this is what 'rationalists' and their 'apologists' are craving for!!!!

Nobody asked for women to become archakars.It applies only for males of all castes.Dont raise a can of worms by asking 'what about women'. Somebody might go to court for that also:heh:

will a man be allowed to head a women's organisation? will a brahmin be accepted as a member of vanniar sangam? will a lawyer be admitted in a doctor's forum? no! does that mean there is discrimination? these are all specialist functions which only specialists of that particular order can do. likewise priesthood is a specialist function in orthodox temples, only for hereditary order.

vanniar sangam,doctor sangam are owned and run by private people.temples are owned and run by government.

can the descendents of rajaraja chola claim that they only have the right to become collectors of tanjore by hereditary rights?Those rights are declared null and void by the constitution.Simple.

i wonder how speaking the truth will hurt the brahmins! it is better to speak the truth, even if it hurts the brahmins, rather the believe in falsehood of 'rationalists'. a doctor can give bitter medicine to his patients. but can quacks do that? 'rationalists' & their 'apoligists' like you, are quacks!
you have quoted marx and instigated anti bramins to indulge in violence to become priests in orthodox temples. that show the depth to which 'rationalists' like you have descended!

I am not a 'rationalist'.You will be surprised to know my credentials,but I am not here to flash my resume and boast about me.I am as devotional and pious as the majority of the people of this country.

I quoted marx to say the truth.And indeed only it was by revolution dalits got the rights to walk inside temples and streets.Only by going to court, people of other castes got the right to become archakars.Nobody gave it to them on a silver platter,did they?

Even brahmins are fighting back by such forums.They too call for a revolution albeit in the gandhian way.Similar was my quote.So please stop putting words in my mouth:Cry:.

 

[goundamani]

SIR - if temples belong to everybody, then also to brahmins!

Exactly.They can apply for jobs in temples like all other castes,prove their merit and qualification(Which is what you claim in all other jobs,I believe) and get the job.

if employees have no rights over temples,how can devotees or 'rationalists' have? moreover, temples are not wine shops where you change employees& servants as per your personal whims! after all the priests,left their own profession and started working in these temples as priests, as servants for so many centuries! if suddenly they are asked to go out, or their monopoly is plucked for no fault of theirs, where will they go?

Nobody chases away current employees.We only talk about future openings.Current employees' job is safe.

I would say that instead of suffering in temples,younger generation of brahmins should go outside and seek jobs in private sector.Why come to this unremunerative job?

sir -if god is beyond caste & jathi does that mean even muslims & christians should be allowed as priests in orthodox temples? God does belong to everybody, but a particular form is associated with a particular group.

a particular form is associated with a particular group doesnt mean a caste.It means only a religion.Temple of a religion belongs to all believers of that religion.

fore.g.the whole world knows that brahma & vishnu were brahmins. that krishna was a yadava. Lord Rama was a kshatriya.

But can yadavas claim that only they can become priests in all krishna temples?can ksathriyas claim that they own all lord rama temples?It is like saying only gujarathis can become presidents of all gandhi sarvodaya sangams.

Majority & minority could change as days progress. tomorrow, if brahmins become a majority in india due to some reason, what wll happen to this 97% vs 3% argument? the question is not about majority or minority alone.

exactly.By this rule irrespective of demographical changes all qualified persons can become archakasr at all times.Doesnt this sound fair?

the queston is can agamas be changed or modified by humans, even if they are devotees? can the basic character of indian constitution be changed as per our own whims & fancies? no! the agamas are lke basic character of indian constitution! they can be inferred liberally, but they can never be changed or modified! saying that the the majority is empowered to modify anything on the pretext of being numerically superior, is like saying being taller than other person gives you right to prevail over him, even if you are wrong!!!

Nobody talks about changing agamas.Certain portions are declared as not binding.

if temples belong to all hindus, automatically they belong to brahmins also.!!! so why change or modify existing situation??

Brahmins can claim equal rights as all hindus.They can claim rights as hindus and not as brahmins.

BRAHMIN Temples means temples which are following orthodox agamas, where brahmins alone are priests!

The temples we discuss are not brahmin temples.They are hindu temples.

Leave raja raja chola, even Lord vishnu cannot enter a saivaite temple! so where is question of discrimination??

This is the perfect form of discrimination.cant you see?each brahmin sect claims rights to each temple and finally other castes are refused the right to become priests in all temple.perfect form of discrimination

The 'rationalists' who are qualing for changes in temples laws are also themselves casteist, discriminatory & anti national! their views should be ignored, because they are ignorant of temple laws and do not have any respct or possess even basic knowledge about temples!

VHP,RSS and BJP also call for such reforms.Do you call them as casteist,discriminatory and antinational?

even brahmins are not allowed into each others' temples beyond a point.but they are not quailing, wailing or lamenting that they are being discriminated. why are non brahmins & anti brahmins not sportive, tolerant like brahmins???

why do forward castes complain if they are not allowed jobs by reservation?(I am not talking about that argument's merit or demerit,but just quoting an example) For 50% reservation in government jobs,they argue that their rights are taken away.So how can you ask for 100% reservation for one caste in a government job(priest) and ask other castes to take it sportively?

Why cannot you take it sportive and allow dalit prests?What wrong will befall the temple?

 

[NARAS]

Dear Suresh,

I made no comparison of Hinduism with other religions.I am only talking about rights of Hindus in Hindu temples.Gods are not different for each sect.For example a devar sect devotee can go to any temple and worship any god.He might think palani muruga as his family deity,but that doesnt stop him legally from going to temples of other gods.Gods like muruga, vishnu and shiva are worshipped across all sects and you cannot claim one sect owns one god.In fact what sect you belong to is irelevant when you go to a temple.All hindus have equal rights in temples like srirangam and bigtemple of tanjore.

Shaivite brahmins cannot become priests in vaishnavite temples.Yes.Once the rule is changed they too can become priests in vaishnava temples and vice versa.



Once the rule is changed you too can become a priest in any orthodox temple.You seem to be highly devotional and I bet that you will do a good job as a priest.If you dont want the job, fine.Let that not stop people who are willing to take the job.



That is your claim.History is history.we cannot change it.In a secular democracy we have only equitable principles to guide us and not legends of parasurama's time.



Restrictions levied by who?People will obey to fair restrictions. But If people feel that any restriction is unfair and discriminatory they can change it by approaching the supreme court.



Rule of law is above agamas and shastras.Can anyone claim today that according to agamas he has to marry at age 8? Even though agamas permit it, law bans it.Can a muslim say that he can stone adultresses to death because quran permits it and court has no rights to alter quran?No.

Nobody is talking about modifying agamas.Nobody cares.In a democracy respect rule of law and courts.Follow any agamas or shastras as long as it is within the rule of law.



Non-discrimination is better than discrimination.The government's law that doesnt discriminate on people based on caste, is better than the current system which discriminates based on caste.In this way the current proposal is better than the existing one.



No.Again you got it wrong.It is you who is asking for 100% reservation for brahmins in this job. How can a caste claim 100% reservation for itself in one job?When brahmins become businessmen,lawyers,software professionals, clerks etc. they actually take up the jobs of ksathriyas and vaisyas and sudhras. When you are willing to take up their job, should they not be willing to take up your job?



Nobody talks about national anthem temples.We only talk about equality of all hindus in front of God.Temples belong to people.Government is its custodian.As you said if it is hindu rashtra govt. can prevent others from becoming archakars.But this is a secular government.Secular government has to act secularly.It has to ensure equality and justice.



I am not a 'rationalist'. I am more devotional than you think me to be.Further remember that VHP,BJP,RSS etc support governments move in this.They are not 'rationalistic',are they?.

I have to support governments move because it supports the growth of hinduism.Just like it was the duty of all hindus to support 'rationalists' when they fought to allow dalits inside temple,it is the duty of all believeing hindus now to support 'rationalists' in this issue.




If somebody cites agamas and prevents 'meat eaters, women and sandalas' from entering temples, what should the law do?If a priest conducts marriage for two children inside temple by citing agamas what should the law do?If a temple appoints devadasis by citing agamas what should the law do? Should it sit idle and let such agamas rule inside temples?

Anywhere rule of law should be supreme.In India no place is above law.Sikh agamas prevented police and military from entering golden temple,but army went inside and killed terrorists in 1984.This shows that rule of law will work in all places in india at all times.

sir -any 'hindu' can certainly go to any hindu temple anywhere in india.but question is about becoming priets, employees & administrators of orthodox temples! orthodox hinduism does not believe in conversion. a person can be an orthodox hindu, or a brahmin only by birth! like that, a person can be a priest of an orthodox temple, only by heriditary practice! even brahmins cannot become priests, if they are not born in a priestly family.

child marriage and devadasi system were not there in agamas. even if there was sanction for child marriage & devadasi system in scriptures so what?
in scriptures gods even kill demons, does that mean we should also kill our enemies as we like?

indian army entered gurudwaras because they were used for illegal purposes. there is nothing illegal inorthodox temples having orthodox hindus as priests. so there is no need for governments to enter here.

can history be changed as per whims of 'rationalists' ?
can grammar of a language be altered as per fancies of 'rationalists'.? like that nobody, even brahmins of today cannot alter agamas. so there is no question of non brahmins or 'rationalists'altering it. of course, if they want they can build a new temple with their own style of functioning. tampering with existing arrangements on the pretext of enforcing 'equality' & 'social justice' is condemnable. even women arenot allowed as priests. why even devotees , before going to a temple, leave their slippers & shoes outside temples. does that mean devotees are insulting the leather industry:nod: ??
devotees cannot smoke or drink inside temples. if agamas are to be altered, 'rationalists' could well allow smoking & drinking inside temples on one pretext or other!! tomorrow, 'rationalists' could bring a law that nobody should leave slippers outside temples, because as per principle of 'equality' & 'social justice' , leather manufacturers also should not be insulted!

temples were not , are not and will not be maintained by govt. funds or taxpayers money. temples are also not public places. because a public place is a place where all citizens of that country can go. but in temples, only devotees of a particular religion can go. so it is not a public place. it is a private place, where people are not subject to govt. interference beyond a point. in a private place, any person can ask & enjoy any quantum of reservation for any caste!

just because all persons inthe world are human beings in the world, can we allow foreigners to come and stay in india without any restrictions? when even brahmins do not have equal rights in temples, it is absurd to say that all hindus have equal rights in temples! these were the very 'rationalists' who once said non brahmins should not worship brahmin gods or go to temples! now they are singing a different tune!

 

[NARAS]

Exactly.They can apply for jobs in temples like all other castes,prove their merit and qualification(Which is what you claim in all other jobs,I believe) and get the job.



Nobody chases away current employees.We only talk about future openings.Current employees' job is safe.

I would say that instead of suffering in temples,younger generation of brahmins should go outside and seek jobs in private sector.Why come to this unremunerative job?



a particular form is associated with a particular group doesnt mean a caste.It means only a religion.Temple of a religion belongs to all believers of that religion.



But can yadavas claim that only they can become priests in all krishna temples?can ksathriyas claim that they own all lord rama temples?It is like saying only gujarathis can become presidents of all gandhi sarvodaya sangams.



exactly.By this rule irrespective of demographical changes all qualified persons can become archakasr at all times.Doesnt this sound fair?



Nobody talks about changing agamas.Certain portions are declared as not binding.



Brahmins can claim equal rights as all hindus.They can claim rights as hindus and not as brahmins.



The temples we discuss are not brahmin temples.They are hindu temples.



This is the perfect form of discrimination.cant you see?each brahmin sect claims rights to each temple and finally other castes are refused the right to become priests in all temple.perfect form of discrimination



VHP,RSS and BJP also call for such reforms.Do you call them as casteist,discriminatory and antinational?



why do forward castes complain if they are not allowed jobs by reservation?(I am not talking about that argument's merit or demerit,but just quoting an example) For 50% reservation in government jobs,they argue that their rights are taken away.So how can you ask for 100% reservation for one caste in a government job(priest) and ask other castes to take it sportively?

Why cannot you take it sportive and allow dalit prests?What wrong will befall the temple?

sir -the main argument tearfully put forward by 'rationalists' is that only bramins are priests in temples. but actually, even among brahmins only a very miniscule minority form priestly class. they are pure vegetarians, teetotallers who have dedicated their entire life to service to god. unlike other religions there is no scope of conversion in orthodox hinduism. so only a person by birth can become a priestly brahmin. there is NO provision for converts. the'rationalists' are confusing brahminism with other religions. actually priesthood is not a commercial employment . it is a service which needs dedication, respect, knowledge, commitment , sacrifice etc. there are many among even brahmins who will not qualify for this. only priestly class have the necessary credentials in their blood and genes for this. i do not think even i , though a devotional brahmin will qualify for this!
why are 'rationalists' so eager to push anti bramins & non bramins into this unremunerative income? they would do well to drop this idea like they dropped 'dravidanadu' due to threat by nehru to ban organisations preaching secessionism.
it is the 'rationalists' who are asking for a change. so if they want change let them construct new temples and appoint non brahmins as priest. let not bramins be allowed inside these temples. let bramins be banned from being priests, employers r administrators in these temples. but why tamper with existing arrangements when you do not have the authority to do so? there are temples all over india and all over world. nowhere has any govt. tried to impose non brahmins or anti bramins in bramin temples. this is because there is no violation of law in persons of particular religion monopolising priesthood in places of worship of that religion. brahminism was a separate religion once upon a time. so only bramins were appointed as priests,employees & administrators in brahmin temples, even if it was funded or constructed by non brahmins!!!

discrimination means one set of persons not allowing same set of persons inside.for e.g. muslim in various parts of world, christians in many parts of world clashing with each other etc.,. but what is happening in temples is not discrimination. this is a particular style of worship, peculiar to brahminism. this is the beauty of brahminism that even god & priestly class has restrictions in places of worship, which is not to be found in any other faith in the world!!! this is because temples are basically places built as mark of respect to god, not to propagate religions, just like places of worship of other faiths. that is why without even bothering about quantity & numbers, in orthodox hinduism, restrictions are placed on devotees, to preserve sanctity of temples!

men are not allowed in women's colleges, associations etc. Is this discrimination.? any group not allowing other groups in their forum is not discrimination, even legally or constitutionally. it is the individual right of that group to determine who to be allowed, who not. it is freedom of speech.for e.g. if people of other caste are not even allowed in temples, that can be called discrimination . but here there is no restriction on entry. restriction is only on becoming owners, priest or employees. these restrictions are there even for brahmins! this is not at all discrimination.
a place of worship of a religion, belongs to all believers of that religion. so anybody can enter as a devotee. but priesthood,employment & adminstration are specialist jobs. only specialists can do that! those who constructed temples did not want all & sundry, even among bramins,to become priets, employees or administrators. since temples were built only as a mart of respect to god, reasonable restrictions were imposed to preserve sanctity of the premises. an eye doctor cannot perform a heart surgery just because he is a doctor. like that, being a devotee does not qualify for becoming a priest!!!

gujarathi belongs to gujarathis. others can also learn them. but they cannot claim ownership. like that orthodox temples belong to orthodox hindus. others can visit them. but they cannot become priests, emplyees or administrators.

tomorrow if brahmins become majority community in india, then the law can easily be altered to say that even in non brhmin temples, only brahmins can become archakas! i do not believe in the theory, that just because you are ina 'majority' you should always prevail over the minority even if truth and justice is not in your side!!

any person in this world can construct or build a temple and claim that he or his caste or their practices alone willbe followed in that temple. there is nothing illegal in this. the problem comes when you alter existing practices and impose you own agenda in the name of 'social justice' & 'equality"! there are s many temples , even in platforms, constructed by so many persons, following so many kinds of rituals! nobody is opposed to this.

any person can claim any right as citizen of india. like that brahmins can also claim rights as citizens of india and as bramins also!! BTW brahmin temples means temples which have bramins as their priests!

do you know that there are many countries which are flourishing democracies, but which allow monarchy! most famous examples are U.K., newzealand, canada, australia, japan, sweden, denmark, netherlands etc. so hereditary privileges in certain areas that too in private places is not a violation of rule of law. of course nobody can claim hereditary rights for posts of collector of a district. because it is not a private, but a public post!!

quotas in govt. jobs out of tax payers money is a violation of basic character of indian constitution which proclaims 'equality' for all . this cannot be taken sportively! this a tyranny of majority over minority! but monopoly of bramins in orthodox temples is not violation of law, because temples are not built or maintained by tax payers money or govt.funds! so they can be taken sportively by others!!!!!! what wrong will befall this world if bramins areallowed to continue as priests in orthodox temples???

 

[murali]

Suresh sir,
i admire your intellectual honesty and integrity in expounding the orthodox view on temple priests.

 

[murali]

goundamani sir,
There has been no demand for non-brahmana priests from the hindu community at large.Most hindus want the present system to continue.Why tamper with the temples,when other pressing issues demand our attention.

 

[kudumi]

Apples to oranges.

goundamani sir,
There has been no demand for non-brahmana priests from the hindu community at large.Most hindus want the present system to continue.Why tamper with the temples,when other pressing issues demand our attention.

Most of Goundamani's problem seem to come from the fact of incorrect comparison.
Apple is a fruit, orange is a fruit. What is wrong in making apple juice out of orange?


Temple is business, Running a country is businesss. Anybody can run any business, what is wrong in anybody running a temple?

Engineering admission is a process, preaching is a process. Why not apply quota to preaching?

He has completely forgotten that, religion is different and governance is different in a secular country. As long as the laws of the land are not interfered with, the government cannot interfere with religious activities.

Its like applying this logic to eating -Mouth is a hole a** is also a hole. What is wrong in eating with an a**.

 

[NARAS]

goundamani sir,
There has been no demand for non-brahmana priests from the hindu community at large.Most hindus want the present system to continue.Why tamper with the temples,when other pressing issues demand our attention.

sir - darwin theory says man originated from monkeys.that does not mean animals can claim priesthood rights in orthodox temples, on the pretext that they were precursors to hindus!:humble:

in brahminism and orthodox hinduism ,there is lot of scope for humour, whereas other religions are totally serious, devoid of any lighter moments at all!
actually there are so many restrictions imposed on indians by law & by society. for e.g. you cannot vote in elections or procure a driving licence until you are 18. you cannot stand for elections until you are 25. does that mean that those who are below 18yrs. or below 25 yrs. are discriminated or are untouchables? those who are above 60 are compulsorily retired, and those who are above 31 are refused govt.jobs! is this discrimination & untouchability?

why, even women are refused priesthood in orthodox temples, because women cannot perform inside temples in topless attire! it can always be argued that brahmin males deliberately brought this provision of topless attire for priests, to keep women out! does this mean a law should be brought that priests need not be topless even inside orthodox temples, so that females also can become priests ? are all these things botherations of a secular govt.? is this the business of a 'secular' govt?

though india is a republic, hereditary priesthood in temples cannot be banned, as temples are not properties of govt. unlike museums & monuments, temples are not subject to govt. whims and fancies, though govts. do appoint persons to look after affairs of a temple. just like embassies & consulates which are exempt from govt. control & subject to international laws, temples are not subject to govt. rules & regulations and are run as per agamas! any person who does not have respect for agamas can always boycott temples. after all there is no compulsion to visit a place of worship. but nobody , even brahmins do not have the right to alter,modify or tamper agamas. just like special ecoonomic zones, temples are special zones, where 'rationalists' should not wag their tail

can you install potraits or photos inside mosques? can statues of 'rationalists' be installed inside churches? no! and rightly so. because places of worship are not subject to govt. orders.
smoking or drinking are strictly controlled even in many public places. even cellphones are banned in many public places. is this discrimination or untouchability? or violation of equality? not at all! when there are so many restrictions even in ordinary public places,what is wrong in placing restrictions in temples, which are divine, holy places, whose sanctity has to be preserved.
our forefathers and ancestors preserved these valuable treasures and have handed over to us. is it not our duty to safeguard them and hand over for future generations?

priesthood is not a life of luxury. it is a life of sacrifice. a priest has to be 100% vegetarian, 100% teetotaller, and is subject to numerous restrictions in his life. even among brahmins outside priestly class, there are very few who can live this sort of a life. where will these poor priests go if their only source of employment is plucked?

the word HINDU is not used in any orthodox scripture at all. so for any person to claim that he has got a right to become an employee or a priest or an administrator in orthodox temples, just because he is a 'hindu' is not legally or morally tenable. it is not even mentioned anywhere in constitution even indirectly that places of worship should be opened to all for becoming priests. so it is not mandatory for govts. to try to enforce 'equality' inside temples and install 'priests' of their choice!!!!!