temple priests

[ganesh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hi,

I am new to this site. I just happened to see this website when I was browsing thru google.

This site needs to be popularised. It would be great to bring all tamil brahmins under one forum and increase the membership of this website.

First and foremost, we would need to send this link among all our tamil brahmin friends in schools , colleges , work place etc.

Let us bring together all tamil brahmins

 

[KRS]

Dear Silverfox,

I am the one that Sri Anbu characterizes as a 'secularist' when I questioned his connection of KarmaPhala to the birth.

I agree with the concept of Varna and the Varnashrama Dharma. But, I can not agree with the effect of one's Karma Phala (effects from previous birth actions), connect to your life in this life as a 'Brahmin'. This totally takes out 'free will' as a determinent to one's conduct.

The Maha Periaval did observe traditions and there was a reason for that. We have a raging debate going on about 'Varna and Dharma - an interpretation for today's life' under the Miscellaneous section of the Kanchi Forum about the same topic. You will learn there that the context makes the difference. Please do not be so quick to condemn the teachings of a Great Sage.

While I agree with Sri Anbu in the contents of his postings, I do not agree with him on his inferences. And for this, he has been saying things here about his experiences at Kanchi Forum, which are patently untrue. And, if any of you want, I can prove it.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[silverfox]

Dear Silverfox,

I hear your views and no one is forcing you to accept this. I don't think Acharyal could be forced to accept a new rule for his traditional acts. When you say " Next thing I will hear is that we should practice 'sati' because that was also an 'acharam'" you have gone a bit too far in your assumptions, I am sorry to say.

Acharyal or anybody else in the world is NOT forcing any young or old widow to shave her head. I thought I made that clear. Pl. be fair in making such statements.

Dear Mr. Anbu:
Thank you for your response. However, I am afraid you are taking things out of context. The whole purpose of my posting was NOT for my own sake but for the community; more so for our women. The Acharyal is our guru and if he himself shuns our ladies because they wouldn't (or didn't) shave their heads, then how can he claim himself to be a 'Jagadguru'?
Also, shall I infer that you agree with the tradition of shaving a woman's head if she becomes a widow? You keep saying that 'noone is forcing anybody'; but the argument is not 'forcing someone' but the Acharyal not seeing a widow whose head is not shaved.
Please, I apologize if any of my questions offended you but I was sincere when I asked the question - if shaving a woman's head is 'acharam' so also the practice of 'sati', which was abandoned, thanks to the British.

Nevertheless, the central theme of my posting is that Acharyal implicitly forces widowed women to shave their heads; otherwise, he will not see them and bless them.
I thought this forum has been started for uplifting, advancing and reforming our Brahmin society. Until all of us do our soul-search and own up to our shortcomings, nothing good will come out of this forum. We can write about our glorious past, the Vedas, and all that good stuff until the cows come home. But it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if it is not going to help put our women on par.

Mr. KRS:
[The Maha Periaval did observe traditions and there was a reason for that. We have a raging debate going on about 'Varna and Dharma - an interpretation for today's life' under the Miscellaneous section of the Kanchi Forum about the same topic. You will learn there that the context makes the difference. Please do not be so quick to condemn the teachings of a Great Sage.]
Based on your posting, you certainly don't fit the bill of 'secularist'; otherwise, you would agree with me!!! (even though I hate secularism). I hope Mr. Anbu doesn't label anybody who wouldn't agree with his views. It is like the US Republicans labeling anybody who criticized the Bush Administration going to war on Iraq as 'unpatriotic'!!
I plead ignorance; I did not get a good understanding of what you were trying to convey. Certainly by any extent, I am not 'condemning' any teachings of the Acharyal; I am a disciple and I am too stupid to 'condemn' the Maha Periyaval. At the same time, if he is to decree (or teaching) that in order to see a widow and to bless her, she must shave her head, then I have a problem with that. God did not issue these rules.
Why are you, gentlemen, not answering me when I ask you -- 1. how come we treat a widower different than a widow? 2. Will you do it if it comes to your own daughter who becomes a widow, since you all believe in tradition and 'acharams' (only in this context)?
Thanks

 

[Chintana]

Hi all,

I think Silverfox raised an important question: Status of women. For those who have been closer to traditions it will be harder to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. But I hope that you'd agree when I express that simply because a thing is difficult to do it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I too have heard stories about the refusal of Acharya (Mahaperiyava) to see widowed women. The version I heard was that he was willing to speak to them if there was a cloth screen separating him from the woman in question. When I asked my family members about this strange custom the reply I got was that Periyava takes care to see that he does not become an object of temptation for the widowed woman who has come to seek his blessings.

At the time I didn't know how to respond to this but now I recognize the absurdity of such a statement. If widowed women want to get 'tempted' I am pretty sure they wouldn't bother coming all the way to see Periyava. To assume that all widowed women are seeking gratification from monks is completely ridiculous.

I have wondered several times about why the Kanchi Mutt does not give primary roles to women - afterall Goddess Kamakshi is a woman! If the Acharyas have not mastered the art of Divine Love for all human beings which knows no gender, caste or creed then do we deserve to call them acharyas? I hope this question does not offend anybody but women in general seem to get the bad end of the bargain not just in seeing Acharyas but in religious activities in general.

The point that KRS raised about the idea of Karma-Palan: If one believes in reincarnation one cannot but believe in Karma palan. I think the idea of Karma is frequently misunderstood as being a trap - and a fatalistic one. My understanding of the teachings of Hindu Philosophy suggests that the actions of your previous life sets the conditions under which your new actions should be produced. But the new actions one produces is completely and totally under one's control. Free will here refers to the choices the individual makes - a choice between leading an ego-based engagement with Maya or deciding that no matter what the circumstantial influence is one's thoughts and deeds are based in accordance with Divine guidance.

The second choice coincides with the idea of surrender. It does not mean that we have to sit passively - that would be escapism. It means doing the best job one can under every circumstance with keenness, attention, joy and enthusiasm while recognizing that the consequences of those actions are in God's hands.

In fact most of the Hindu scriptures encourage attunement with one's own intuition (the voice within) to guide a person through every situation. There are no prescriptions. Each situation is unique and the level of maturity/spiritual advancement of the person is different. So solutions will differ. Going after the right solution here becomes Free will. And if free will is practiced right all Karmic influences can be broken away.

 

[silverfox]

Dear Chintana:

Thank you for understanding where I am coming from. Yes, I am questioning the treatment of our women. And, Hindu religion is the ONLY religion which recognizes a GODDESS. That reminds of a story I used to hear when I was growing up as a boy in India. This is about some poet Nakkeerar in Madurai telling Lord Shiva that even if he was the Supreme Lord, he was still at fault!! (I forget the whole story!)

I rest my case.

 

[KRS]

Dear Silverfox ji,

A very good question and I will answer it thus:

Any society has history of development. With the advent of 'humanism' we are now in today's society where Varna and Castes seem to be anachronistic. And they are if you are a Brahmin by birth but hold a job nowadays and try to live in the modern world.

But the original roots of our religion devised this method called Varna and Dharma based on Varna, which was central to maintaining the survival of Hinduism till the rule of the British (more or less, because even in Mahabaratha it is intimated that people belonging to certain Varna (like Drona who was a Brahmin), transgressed in to activities prescribed for other Varnas).

This is very important to understand, because the well being of the society and the Guardianship of the Vedas were assigned to the Brahmins. And the origins of our religion are very different from other religions: in that a written word was far inferior in acquiring knowledge, because the 'Sruthis' (Vedas) contained truth not only in the words, but how they were recited. The ole 'Sastras' or 'Laws' were devised based on this, where a Brahmin sacrifices and chants Vedas everyday for the betterment of others in the society.

Since our lineage is paternal, and a woman was considered on par with a man, all sorts of rules came about.

This is why our religion seems to be cruel, based on modern pathos and morality. So, the crucial difference is this:

Our Acharyas are not morality keepers, but rather tradition keepers. Even adi Shankaracharya observed the traditional ways of his times when He encountered Shiva in person of an untouchable and Shiva reminded Him about His humanity (there is a beautiful verse by Adi Shankara to this).

The intent is not to rob a widow of the blessings - but rather to make sure that the widow's condition does not contribute to anything untoward both to her state of mind and to the Sanyasin vows taken by the Gurus.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[shankar]

temple priests - Role of Women in Hinduism

Dear pals,

Let us accept the reality.

Let us not try to do "sappaikkattu" on the issue of women in the religion!

Hinduism has been biased against women!
How many women priests you can show in our temples?
We will sing hymns in praise of Lordess Kamakshi - But we will not permit even our grand mother to go inside the sanctum -sanctorum, even if she belongs to the Gurukkal sub-caste and has learnt agamas!

First of all, women are prohibited from learning and chanting vedas!
It is a fact that the Acharyas were not meeting widows if they were not presenting themseleves as per the stipulated appearance! But rules are different for men!

Sanatana Dharma is very retrogressive as far as women are concerned!
See the latest case of Sabarimala! Big hue and cry about a non-issue!
The behaviour of the puritans do not add to the glory of our religion!

We only give lip service for giving women their rightful place ! Once it comes to the brasstacks every one backtracks!

Shankar

 

[silverfox]

Dear Shankar:
I was about to send you an email asking you to join this thread; I like your views. I am thrilled that you have been keeping up!!

Yes, I have read about the Sabarimalai fiasco where some Kannada actress went into the temple. By these asinine rules, what kind of message are we sending to our own folks? Besides, we are giving more fodder to the christian missionaries.
The reason they give is that since Lord Ayyappa is a bachelor, women will not be allowed. This would be a great joke except it is not. The problem with many of us is that we try to humanize and anthropomorphize God; we attach our mortal values and our own biases to God and say that is the way things ought to be and drag God into this by saying that is what HE wants!!

Dear Mr. KRS:
Thank you for your analysis; it was beautiful. However, since we live in present day world, shouldn't we be adapting and adjusting to the modern world?
Will it make a difference if the Sanyasin cannot know whether a woman is a widow or not?

 

[Chintana]

Sure Silverfox. I am happy to endorse any valid idea. I do think women have been ignored for too long within the Hindu and even Brahminical traditions. The man does all the rituals in front of the fire and the women cook in the kitchen all the time when they are supposed to be praying with the men. That's always been hard for me to understand.

A point about the story where Nakkeran finds fault with Lord Shiva. If you ever get a chance to listen to Pulavar Keeran's interpretation of the story (on audio tape) you will recognize that the movie version did not portray the entire story. The contest was not only for the right answer but also for the ability of the poet to be able to read the King's mind. Actually when the contest is announced the words were, 'There is a doubt in the King's mind. Those who can solve it...' etc. But the announcer never actually says what that doubt is. So when Lord Shiva went upto to Shenbaga Pandiyan and said that his wife's hair had a much better fragrance than any flower what he actually was doing was endorsing Pandiyan's love for his wife. Pandiyan loved everything about his wife and so her hair smelt good. But since it was such a private matter he didn't know how to express it. Hence his actual problem was never advertised.

Lord Shiva's intent was not to fool Pandiyan but to celebrate his conjugal love. When a husband and wife truly love each other, everything about the other person would seem grand and good. To an outsider that might look ordinary. But in such situations it is the subjective opinion that matters. Objectivity is of no use because a third person cannot really comment on how a lover should view his beloved.

This is exactly what Nakeeran did - when he asked how can human hair have more fragrance he was looking at the issue from an objective, scholarly stand point. Lord Shiva got angry because it was not a matter for an objective, scholarly discussion. So in the actual Periya Puranam verse Lord Shiva calls Nakkeran as "Thera(k) Keeran" which means "Aarya theriyathavane" - which means one who has shown an inability to understand the context under which the question was raised.

Lord Shiva burns him because scholarship is useless if it cannot understand the context it has to serve. Ultimately intelligence has to serve people - it cannot exist for its own sake in the human form. (Divine intelligence is different and it always expresses itself through love.) Since Nakkeran became very arrogant about his scholarly prowess he was unable to see that the question needed to be answered from a subjective standpoint, not from an objective one.

According to the movie, Lord shiva gets angry because he feels insulted. That is simply ridiculous. The Lord knows no ego - Anbe Sivam. In fact it is the opposite - the Lord came to destroy Nakkeran's ego. Which is what happened when he burnt him - Nakkeran's ego got destroyed and he was restored in the context of renewed faith and humility so that he could serve the world more efficiently. The actual burning of Nakkeran in the movie is a figurative or a metaphorical expression for the way the Lord destroyed his ego. He was not actually killed and brought back to life.

Sorry if this is too long. But I hope it has been an interesting read.

 

[silverfox]

Dear Chintana:

What a beautiful story and your outstanding analysis and commentary. I greatly enjoyed reading it and have learnt from it. My Tamil reading is halting; nevertheless, I would like to get the book; what it is called? Periya Puranam? I would love to read the 'leelas' of Lord Shiva.

Please keep up the good work. Like I have said before, I am blessed to be part of this group; great scholars like Anbu, Venkatraman, KRS, you .... the list goes on.

 

[Chintana]

Thank you, I am glad you liked it. I've always wanted to write pieces like this one. Time and access to books have been a bit problem. Yes, it is called Periya Puranam and the author is Sekkizahar. But you will need an interpretation though. That Tamil is rather ancient and requires a bit of training to get through.

 

[silverfox]

Dear Chintana:
Please, by all means, continue to write; your commentary of Lord Shiva not getting angry because God is 'Anbe Sivam' and above all human weaknesses, and HE didn't literally burn Nakkeerar but his ego - these are beautiful interpretations of these magnificent stories to show that these are metaphorical.
Please continue to write about other stories with your commentaries. You have an ardent follower!
Can you or someone recommend an easier Tamil book on these?

 

[rxrajamo]

What a nice interpretation Chintana ! I have heard this story so many times from so many people. But till date none have explained it as you have done. Great job ! As Silverfox said, please write about more stories. Probably you can start with all Thiruvilaiyadals. Probably we can request Pravin to start a new forum for this.

 

[silverfox]

Chintana:
You had mentioned a Tamil movie on the subject; what is the name of this movie? Thanks!

 

[rxrajamo]

The movie is called "Thiruvilayadal" starring Sivaji Ganesan in the lead. Nagesh has given a sterling performance as the poor poet Dharmi.

 

[Chintana]

Yes, rxrajamo is right. The movie is called 'Thiruvilayadal' starring Sivaji Ganesan. 'Thiru' has multiple meanings - divine, holy, prosperity, respectability. 'Vilayadal' is play. When it is Thiru-Vilayadal it roughly means Divine Play. This is the tamil equivalent of the Sanskrit word called 'Leela'. Just as Lord Krishna's leelas are beautifully portrayed in Sanskritic stories ( I am sure there are Siva Leelas and Kali Leelas etc. But I am most familiar with Meera Bai and Tulsi das and other Krishna Bhaktas in the Sanskritic tradition and many Shiva Bhaktas in the Tamil tradition), Shiva Leelas are wonderful and sweet in the Tamil tradition.

 

[Chintana]

Thank you for encouraging me to write. I will do what I can.

 

[Anbu]

Hari OM

Thanks Sow. Chinthana for reminding us of the great story where Lord Shiva quells the ego of Nakkeeran. Many of us get immersed in this world of Maya and think in terms of equlity, right and wrong, valid, invalid, scholarship etc. etc. Adhi Sankara woke these people up with his loud cry of “Bajagovindam, Bajagovindam.” (I have to entreat you to tell this great story of Bajagovindam in your own beautiful story telling way to people like Sri Silverfox who may or may not know the story. People like me love to listen to the story again and again even though I know it!)

I am also going to tell a story but it is not a fiction. Actually I should say stories because it about two incidents and both of them actually happened, therefore real. Both stories involve women and both were widows. These incidents involved one and the same sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I don’t know how much you guys know the story of Bhagavan Ramana but let me start with a brief about him. Venkataraman as he was called then was a playful young boy and he never displayed great spiritual inclination except for the fact he was a Brahmin boy but when he was sixteen years old he suddenly felt an urge to leave home at Madurai to Arunachala or Thiruvannamalai as it is called in Tamil. It is a unseen/unheard call from the Guru that he could not resist so he went there and began doing Thapas at the Holy Hill of Arunachala. For two years his mother who was a widow searched for him and one day knowing that the son was in Thiruvannamalai she went there to persuade him to return home with her. The mother pleaded with him sometimes even crying aloud. Bhagavan Ramana did not run away from her entreaty but stayed there looking at her and listening to her without saying a word. This drama continued for three days. On the third day, losing his patience an onlooker said to Bhagavan “Why do you have a heart of stone; your mother is crying and pleading with you for the last three days and you have not said even one word to her in consolation”. At this Bhagavan wrote in a piece of paper (or perhaps on the sand, I forget this part) the following: “What is supposed to happen will happen however much one tries to prevent it and what is not supposed to happen will not happened however much one may try to bring it about. When such is the case the best recourse is to keep quiet.” Thus having come to know that Bhagavan would not come with her, the mother left Thiruvannamalai for Madhurai with great sense of sorrow.

In a few years the mother lost her brother who was her support. Her elder son also soon died. She really became a destitute. Her attachment to the son took her to Thiruvannamalai. At that time Bhagavan was staying on top of the hill called Skandasramam. There was a widow by name Yechammal who lived at the foot of the his and she used to prepare midday meal for Bhagavan in her home and take it everyday in the hot sun to the top of the hill to Bhagavan where He was staying completely oblivious to the world. The mother went and stayed with Yechammal and she would accompany Yechammal to Skandasramam when she was taking the food to Bhagavan. Being old and sick the mother found it difficult to climb the hill and on the third day Yechammal told Bhagavan: “Bhagavan, this is your mother so she should rather die here in your place rather than in my home.” So saying she left the mother behind and left for home.

Immedaitely the co-sanyasis who were living with Bhagavan started heated arguments among themselves if a woman can stay among sanyaasis. They argued for a long time and finally arrived at the conclusion that no woman can stay with sanyasis. As soon as they delivered their judgement, Bhagavan sprang, up went to the mother and said “Come on Amma, we cannot stay with them. Let’s go somewhere else.” This act of Bhagavan surprised everybody because (a) Bhagavan never talked to his mother before and (b) that Bhagavan would disagree like this and go with his mother. They suddenly realized that they were staying there only to be with Bhagavan and without Bhagavan they would feel empty. So they all fell at the feet of Bhagavan and asked him to forgive them and requested Bhagavan to stay at Skandasramam with his mother. This incident reveals two important attitude of Bhagavan.He was a Kaarunya Murthy to those who have surrendered to him (in this case his mother) and second, he did not care for any consequence because he had no ego.

The second incident involved a very young widow who distressed at the turn of events in her life. She left her home and came all the way to see Bhagavan Ramana. She came and saw Bhagavan and by then it was evening and everybody had to leave the Ashramam and the Sippandhi closed the gate after escorting them out. As the night fell Bhagavan asked one of the inmates as to what happended to the young widow who came to see her. He was told that she does not know anybody in town and so she is staying on the steps of an adjoining temple. Bhagavan exclaimed, “What! a young girl staying all alone in the open in the night. Go fetch her here.” The inmates some of them Brahmins, and some of them Sanyasis where shocked at Bhagavan’s orders to bring in a young girl into the Asramam for the night! A man went out and came back and told Bhagavan that the young widow was mestruating (meaning that such a girl should not come inside the Asramam which is actually a temple.) Bhagavan said, “So what, bring her in, give her water, give her food, give her a mat to sleep on” Every one of his orders were violative of the Acharam besides bringing in a young girl among the sanyasis will add grist to the mill of people who would attack them with malice. Bhagavan once again showed he was a great Karunya Murthy to those who have surrendered to him.

The above is not intended to compare and contrast the two sages Bhagavan Sri Ramana and Sri Mahaperiavaal. Both are sages who are Para Brahmam and remember “Brahmam Okate”, there is only one Brahman. One is here to establish Gnana Maarga and other is to establish Karma Maarga. These two great Souls are great friends without ever having seen each other or communicating with each other. Because they are one and the same.

So please, please set aside your worldly sense of fair play when it comes to Gnanis. Instead surrender to them. That is the only way to deliverance.


Sri Gurubyo Namaha

 

[silverfox]

Dear Mr. Anbu:
Great stories. I have already read a few stories about Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi and was moved by them. I greatly enjoyed reading your piece.
I still say what Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi did was the right way to go and I would expect us mortal human beings to follow his example.
We HAVE to have worldly sense of fair play because we are not sanyasis and we do not live in their unique world.
How can I surrender to mortal human beings, however holy they are? I can only surrender to God. Am I right?
I am not being a wise guy but am genuinely asking this question.

 

[Anbu]

Dear Silverfox,

Surrendering to God is a start. Doing Nishkaamakarmam is Surrender to God.

Narayana Smrithi
Anbu

 

[silverfox]

Dear Mr.Anbu:

[ Surrendering to God is a start. Doing Nishkaamakarmam is Surrender to God.]

What do 'Nishkaamakarmam' and 'smrithi' mean?

Thank you.

 

[Anbu]

AUM

Smrithi is that which is practised as opposed to Sruthi that which is heard. Veda which is as old as the creation was handed down the generations by word of mouth and absorbed through the ears by the hearing. Veda is therefore older than any writing for writing naturally was man made. So Sruthi does not change. On the other hand Smrithi which literally means that which is remembered can change not always out of necessity. customs and practices therefore comes under Smrithi. Brahmins who followed ancient customs and practices are called Smarthas and they are mostly Advaithis. Iyengars and Madhwas are later day Brahmins (not that they were not Brahmins before as some of them were ancient Brahmins too) who broke away from Smartha customs. Iyengars follow Ramanuja's Visishtaadwaitham and Madhwas follow Madhwacharya's Dwaitham.

On your other question re: Nishkaama Karmam" (action not motivated by a result), people tend to do things so as to achieve certain results that they think are beneficial to them. For example you go to work so you can get paid with which you can spend as you like and be happy. You go to a particular work as opposed to another that you could have gone because you made a choice that will benefit you in a way better than the other etc. So the work (Karma) and the fruit of work (Karmaphala) are desire born. The entire universe functions on the basis of work however as much as it is desire born, the person performing work with the objective for its fruit should therefore get the fruit as otherwise [FONT=&quot]then there arises the fault of 'kritha vibranaasam' i.e. those karmas getting destroyed without yielding fruit. Thus if a person dies before enjoying the fruit of his actions, the logic dictates that he be born again to enjoy or suffer for his actions. This goes to show that all desire born karmas cause future births into this world where a person mostly suffers grief and rarely enjoy happiness while ideally one should only be happy and never grieve.

So the conclusion is that Kaamya karma (desire born actions) should be avoided in order to prevent future rebirths. I will be talking about this in greater detail in my Musings on the fundamentals of Hinduism. Hope you are visiting that thread.

With Narayana Smrithi
Anbu
NB: Narayana Smrithi here means remembering the Narayana in you!
[/FONT]

 

[Chintana]

Dear Silverfox and Anbu,

I'd like to add a slight bit to what Anbu has mentioned here. I've had my battles with trying to understand what in the world is 'Nishkama Karma' - desireless actions as Anbu explained, is what the scriptures said (I've read mostly translations, in bits and pieces). The next question, to me was, 'Ok, so now how do I do that?'. Supposing I am a salesman if I don't achieve my target for the month my boss will be unhappy with me. Suppose I am a student and I don't make the requisite marks or grade I will fail. If I don't push myself to work I will never learn to excel. Since work is hard I need rewards that can motivate me.

So it is kind of a double bind. So how do we get the better of it?

By developing a certain type of an attitude. And one needs to possibly visualize its exercise in different situations before actually practising it. To me, the first shades of answer showed itself through Ramakrishna Paramahansa's words. He says, 'Be like a servant in a rich man's house - enjoy everything but own nothing.' You take care of everything in the house (meaning your life, work, relationships etc) with the utmost care but know that what will ultimately be done with them is not under your control.

So it is about surrendering control.

But doesn't ownership of a thing teach a person to be responsible? Why is it bad? Well, ownership per se isn't bad but attachment to anything one owns is bad. In other words if you lose something that you own your world shouldn't come crashing about your ears. If you find your mind not terribly disturbed by something you've lost (especially something that is/has been dear to you), you are on your way to being there. If you feel absolutely nothing you are there already and you perhaps may not raise this question.

In other words, if one goes another might come in its place. Or it might not.

It is the attitude of being Ok with both options.

You might say, 'This is all very well as far as possessions are concerned. But what about my sales targets? What about my performance at school?'

Well Paramahansa Yogananda says that one must bring one's inner sense of peace to one's daily work. The aspects of work that one likes one must perform with great joy and those aspects that one particularly does not like one should perform with the greatest attention.

But this will work only if one has chosen for himself/herself the right kind of profession.

So the question becomes, 'Am I doing something that reflects my true potential? Does this line of work suit me? What subjects of study am I drawn to the most?'

It might take a while to get this answer. But spiritual evolution is like that - doesn't happen in a day or even in a few years. It requires patience and attention. In the process we will all feel encouraged if we know we are held in the warmest embrace of Divine Love.

I think Anbu wrote a very nice piece. But for those of us who are caught in the daily grind an 'everyday' perspective can help demystify a lot.

Trust this helps.

 

[sarathy]

Helllo Members,

Yesterday karunanidhi announced that all sections of people can become priests in HRCE temples in tamilnadu. It affects us very much as most of us looking after temple priests jobs also. Why is he not insisting the same for churchus and mosques?

Till now the ******* also not protested this and we have no party to protest this move because of their vote bank.

So let us all protest and insist ******* also to protest.

Kanchi Nagu

your fear is on weak foundation.
ultimately priest job is a profession fetching money!
its a job related to ..god,temple , community and seekers!
any job requires approved school for training and placement based on certain criteria.if you see a priest job ..90% of unqualified, dirty looking ,

ill clad ,without following ethics and code , without any basic education.. even in temple activities, canvasing and doing private practice openly,giving priority to some people doing 3 circles of karpoora harathy infront of diety with no time to chant even basic manthras,coming out and showing the plate for dropping of coins and even coerse people to offer daksina!.
this is their income!
hereditory practice is one monopoly which has shown no development towards community service.since there is no strong foundation other than sentiments it will be broken very easily like MKs Archaka scheme.Periar was able to break a tradition of hindu system which has been followed for 1000s of years!
we have to find a modified religious hindu system which cannot be opposed even by aethists/rationalists/reformists...
/
under these circumstances shall we think of atleast educating the existing and new eligible recruits thro an intensive course in temple practices ,conduct exams ,appoint meritorious candidates as priests without offending the existing community practices...a man cutting goats head in mariamman temple will not be accepted as a priest in Srirangam temple in the name of sama needi!! vice verse..!
let us think of education in religious practices like priest,poojaris,butters,sastris,pundits,and purohits.
eligible candidates who are approved and sponsored by the concerned communities and learn with existing sets of framed rules which nobody can break!
think....
GPS

 

[atharvan]

Go Away Maddy!

Hi Mr.Alex / Ms.Evelyn,

Why do you take so much pain to become a member of this forum and fill it with junk?

I presume you are neither man nor woman, a eunuch?:amen:

You cannot even write anything original. I found the same junk in sundry sites. Please, sell your ware elsewhere. This is not the place for the likes of you.

Good bye.