Why does Sabarimala discriminate against women, when Vedas don't: SC

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Sabarimala Temple authorities to give details on when the discrimination on women’s entry began at the temple and the historical reasons behind it. The court gave the authorities a time-frame of 6 weeks to respond. The court also appointed Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran as 'amicus curiae' in the case. Amicus curiae literally means a friend of the court and refers to someone who is not a party to the case but is appointed by the court to offer information that bears on the case.
“Vedas and Upanishads do not discriminate between men and women. This has cropped up historically,” the court said.


KK Venugopal, the lawyer representing the temple wondered why it was that the issue was being dug up now while the practice was in place for 1000 years.
Clarifying that the court was not taking a narrow view, it said that it wanted to strike a constitutional balance between the right to equality and the right to religious practice. The temple is a religious phenomenon and its functions must come within parameters, the court said.
Observing that the "discrimination against women would be examined under Constitutional provisions,” the court maintained “emotional arguments would not be permissible."
The court had earlier, on January 11, questioned the temple’s practice of banning entry to women in the hill shrine on Constitutional basis. “At best, there can be religious restrictions and not a general restriction,” it said.


The Kerala Government had told the Court that banning entry of women of menstrual age in the Sabarimala temple is a 'matter of religion' and it is duty bound to 'protect the right to practice the religion of these devotees'.

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nati...e-against-women-when-vedas-don-t-asks-sc.html

 

[prasad1]

Reacting to the contention of physical hardship, austerity and days of celibacy male devotees endure to reach Swamy Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala, the Supreme Court wryly on Friday asked the Kerala government and the Travancore Devaswom Board whether, according to them, spirituality is the exclusive domain of men and are women incapable of attaining the spiritual self.

A three-judge Bench led by Justices Dipak Misra left the State government and the temple board almost speechless when it said the Vedas, Upanishads and scriptures hardly discriminated between men and women.
"Is spirituality solely within the domain of men? Are you saying that women are incapable of attaining spirituality within the domain of religion?" Justice Misra asked.
"Can you deprive a mother" Justice Misra asked at one point during the hearing on the tradition followed in the temple of depriving women entry.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, intervening on behalf of an association of law students in a batch of petitions challenging the prohibition of entry to women of a certain age into the temple, said there were "women brahmacharis too in this world."
He said, "Celibacy is not the exclusive privilege of men. Article 25 of our Constitution says 'throw open' the doors of public religious spaces to all human race. Are you saying that we are not part of the human race?"
Justice Misra said religion is different from cult culture.
"Cult culture has a core group. Entry is restricted to others considered as outsiders. Religion is wholistic - Sanathana Dharma - and includes one and all without discrimination of sex, caste and gender,"he observed.
Appearing for the State government, senior advocate V. Giri submitted that when a man prepares to go for Sabarimala, the entire family, including women and children, "cooperate."
"Over centuries, this prohibition has been ingrained in the minds of devotees," he submitted.
"The God is a celibate. The men who go there to worship him are called 'swamy'," senior advocate K.K. Venugopal said.
Justice Misra said, "So, is this tradition of prohibition bound to stay on despite the fundamental right of equality envisaged in the Constitution? If discrimination is not there in the Vedas, the Upanishads, tell us when this kind of distinction really started in history?"
Justice Misra said there should be a constitutional balance. "A temple is a public religious phenomenon and its functions should come within the constitutional parameters."
The court granted Mr. Venugopal six weeks time to file an affidavit which, he said, would contain information on the traditions of the temple dating a 1000 years ago in support of the prohibition.
It said the case would require in-depth research on legal, constitutional and even spiritual questions. It appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandran as amicus curiae.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...e-entry-case/article8227964.ece?homepage=true


Let us say that 100meter dash minimum qualification is set at 10sec.
So most of the other world men and women are not allowed to participate.
So the so called "austerity" is purely man made qualification.

 

[sravna]

I do not think that tradition should be totally overridden. The decision should be based on the strength of the argument of each.

 

[Vaagmi]

I do not think that tradition should be totally overridden. The decision should be based on the strength of the argument of each.

The best course will be to conduct a referendum to find out what the devotees who visit the sabarimala temple in a year think about this (this includes ladies also) and on that basis to decide on this finally. Now the matter has become the exclusive preserve of non-temple going, non-believing, left-leaning arm-chair intellectuals/revolutioneries. Let it be brought to more level ground by going to the ordinary devotees who are the real owners of this temple having the stake in the temple's reputation-if some one can own the temple. That will finally seal the issue for ever.

 

[prasad1]

I do not think that tradition should be totally overridden. The decision should be based on the strength of the argument of each.

There was cannibalism, human sacrifice "Traditions" in different parts of the world, fortunately they have been OVERRIDDEN in civilized societies.
There was the "Tradition" of keeping slaves, thankfully Lincoln outlawed it.
There is no sanctity of "tradition", they are just some old practices.

If a referendum has to be conducted, then entire Hindu population must be consulted.
If you just ask the people who have been selected by discrimination (and are biased), that is just biased opinion.

It is always the privileged who wants to maintain, their superiority by asking for status quo. The downtrodden and unprivileged wants to change the status, and sometimes the few enlightened privileged people decide that it is high time to abolish the age old practice. They see the tyranny of the powerful and join the minority to change the "tradition".

Even the privileged British saw the barbarism of their ways, and abolished slavery.

In July 1833, a Bill to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire passed in the House of Commons, followed by the House of Lords on 1st August. There has been a lot of debate over the factors that contributed to the final success of the bill.

 

[tks]

Modern practices of Hindu religion consists primarily of superstition laden practices and rituals with most practitioners devoid of knowledge of any connections to the foundational aspects.

Today we have few major sub-religions - Ayyappa followers, Sai Baba followers (both Shiradi and Sathya Sai Baba), Vaishanvism, Saivism

There are new Gurus springing up everyday. Even Sankara Matam is more focused on ritualistic worship than teaching of Sri Sankara's works.

Unless one or many women devotees get together and invoke the constitution to be allowed to go to Sabai Malai, I think the court should not intervene proactively. It is about live and let live

If there was a protest, then courts have to rule that the constitution has to be upheld.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Modern practices of Hindu religion consists primarily of superstition laden practices and rituals with most practitioners devoid of knowledge of any connections to the foundational aspects.
Today we have few major sub-religions - Ayyappa followers, Sai Baba followers (both Shiradi and Sathya Sai Baba), Vaishanvism, Saivism
There are new Gurus springing up everyday. Even Sankara Matam is more focused on ritualistic worship than teaching of Sri Sankara's works.
Unless one or many women devotees get together and invoke the constitution to be allowed to go to Sabai Malai, I think the court should not intervene proactively. It is about live and let live
If there was a protest, then courts have to rule that the constitution has to be upheld.

Dear Sri Tks.,

I agree with the points raised by you. How ever, there is discrimination in every field of activity in the name of religion, caste, Language and gender. To my knowledge, the rituals in the Temples are followed according to the guide lines of Agamas, specific to the particular temple.I understand Chidambaram is the only temple claims to follow Vedic rituials in puja. Religion and religious practices are based on faith and convention, cannot be proved by logic and science. I believe religious practices should be guided by the experts in that subject and not by the Lawyers. Constituion, which is Dharmasastra, is not static it has also gone through 99 amendments (another one is waiting) as per the requirements of the people.

As a matter of interest, Vedic rituals are based on performing Yajna for the propitiation of the natural elements in which the gods were offered ghee, honey, purodasa (a sacrificial offering made of ground rice) soma- (wine)-and meat of animals, and it was called balikriya (oblation- offering) or pashukarma. I understand the word "Puja" is not there in Vedic literature ! "Yajur Veda is clear when it declare "Na tasya prathima asti" (32:3) - meaning "There is no image of Him". It declares worship of created things arise from ignorance "Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste". ( 40:9) "Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshipers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent." (Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith).

This is a vast subject and plenty of written material by learned people of various generation, available on this subject.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

The best course will be to conduct a referendum to find out what the devotees who visit the sabarimala temple in a year think about this (this includes ladies also) and on that basis to decide on this finally. Now the matter has become the exclusive preserve of non-temple going, non-believing, left-leaning arm-chair intellectuals/revolutioneries. Let it be brought to more level ground by going to the ordinary devotees who are the real owners of this temple having the stake in the temple's reputation-if some one can own the temple. That will finally seal the issue for ever.

Vaishnava with a shade of Iyer (Muthuswamy) syndrome ! Invincible பாத்திரம் full of சாத்திரம் invisible !

 

[sangom]

If the regular devotees who visit Sabarimala every year eventually find that women also going to that temple is irksome, then the number of devotees will come down; side by side, hooligans of all shades will jump at the opportunity and we will come to hear of many cases of molestation, raping (and...eventually, murder) of women devotees during every Sabarimala season. Finally, as the income from the temple declines the government will also start neglecting it and the place will turn into the pristine forest that it once was, before the Namboodiris conned the local tribes and made Ayyappa, a godhead for themselves!

தெய்வம் நின்று கொல்லும்!

 

[prasad1]

If the regular devotees who visit Sabarimala every year eventually find that women also going to that temple is irksome, then the number of devotees will come down
தெய்வம் நின்று கொல்லும்!

It might increase then what happens?

 

[tks]

Dear Sri Tks.,

I agree with the points raised by you. How ever, there is discrimination in every field of activity in the name of religion, caste, Language and gender. To my knowledge, the rituals in the Temples are followed according to the guide lines of Agamas, specific to the particular temple.I understand Chidambaram is the only temple claims to follow Vedic rituials in puja. Religion and religious practices are based on faith and convention, cannot be proved by logic and science. I believe religious practices should be guided by the experts in that subject and not by the Lawyers. Constituion, which is Dharmasastra, is not static it has also gone through 99 amendments (another one is waiting) as per the requirements of the people.

As a matter of interest, Vedic rituals are based on performing Yajna for the propitiation of the natural elements in which the gods were offered ghee, honey, purodasa (a sacrificial offering made of ground rice) soma- (wine)-and meat of animals, and it was called balikriya (oblation- offering) or pashukarma. I understand the word "Puja" is not there in Vedic literature ! "Yajur Veda is clear when it declare "Na tasya prathima asti" (32:3) - meaning "There is no image of Him". It declares worship of created things arise from ignorance "Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste". ( 40:9) "Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshipers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent." (Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith).

This is a vast subject and plenty of written material by learned people of various generation, available on this subject.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Dea Sri Brahmanyan,

Thank you for sharing your opinion and expert knowledge.

Temple rituals follow Agama sastras in authentic Hindu temples. But no sastra can violate Samanya Dharma which itself is self evident and not dependent on any scriptures.

Similarly constitution of any nation cannot also violate Samanya Dharma. If it did, then amendment process will have to restore Dharma over time.

Having said this, in today's world there is confusion as to what constitute violation of Samanya Dharma.

In some instances, interpretation is not simple : is there a violation if women are not allowed to go to a 'particular' temple but can go elsewhere -meaning they have choice of other temples to go to? It may be but then, what if most women do not care to go to that particular temple?

A religion may require men and women to dress in a particular manner which by itself cannot be considered to violate any dharma. However if the same attire could hide weapons during travel requiring a new law to be adopted about attire, then such a law cannot be considered adharmic.

In other words, religious doctrines and rules have to be interpreted based on time and place but no interpretation can violate common-sense Dharma.

In the case of Supreme court, they are behind by about crore of so cases (I do not know the exact number but it is very large). Delayed justice is effectively denied justice. They ought to be working on clearing the cases they have instead of interfering with some customs (unless violations are shown to have major consequences). This is my overall point.

 

[vgane]

Different temples have different traditions...We are aware about the tradition in Attukal Bhagavathi temple Pongala festival where men are not allowed...Why tamper with temple tradition in case of Sabarimala?

 

[auh]

There is no sanctity of "tradition", they are just some old practices.

This is the correct perspective.

 

[auh]

Actually, Iyyappan is not even considered as a God among orthodox iyers. They are supposed to have adherence only to their Matams.

Since the study of our scriptures, by iyers (other than for survival) has gradually come down, I presume the tendency to look upon, as God, anything under the nebulous umbrella of hinduism, to relieve of the modern day stress, troubles and greed.

Currently, the trend is that kutti chaatthaan is used for maandhrigam only; perhaps there might come a day when ck takes shelter under the ever gracious umbrella!

 

[vgane]

Actually, Iyyappan is not even considered as a God among orthodox iyers. They are supposed to have adherence only to their Matams.

Since the study of our scriptures, by iyers (other than for survival) has gradually come down, I presume the tendency to look upon, as God, anything under the nebulous umbrella of hinduism, to relieve of the modern day stress, troubles and greed.

Currently, the trend is that kutti chaatthaan is used for maandhrigam only; perhaps there might come a day when ck takes shelter under the ever gracious umbrella!

Kerala Iyer including orthodox variety worship Swami Ayyappan as far as I know...Sastha Preethi (Ayyappan Vilakku poojai) is a grand religious function followed by a feast is organized by Ayyapa Seva Sangham and Kerala Iyer Samooham participates in large numbers!

Nurani village, a famous Agraharam in Palakkad is the origin of the Sastha cult!

 

[auh]

Kerala Iyer including orthodox variety worship Swami Ayyappan as far as I know...Sastha Preethi (Ayyappan Vilakku poojai) is a grand religious function followed by a feast is organized by Ayyapa Seva Sangham and Kerala Iyer Samooham participates in large numbers!

Nurani village, a famous Agraharam in Palakkad is the origin of the Sastha cult!

I am aware of the kerala connection as my paternal grandmother's village was kumarapuram.

Tamil brahmins who migrated to kerala have adopted many customs that their peers back in TN would not have done. I do not think that we could go by their endorsement.

 

[zebra16]

Actually, Iyyappan is not even considered as a God among orthodox iyers. They are supposed to have adherence only to their Matams.

Since the study of our scriptures, by iyers (other than for survival) has gradually come down, I presume the tendency to look upon, as God, anything under the nebulous umbrella of hinduism, to relieve of the modern day stress, troubles and greed.

Currently, the trend is that kutti chaatthaan is used for maandhrigam only; perhaps there might come a day when ck takes shelter under the ever gracious umbrella!

How does adherence to MaTams come in the way of visit to temples or holy places? There are lakhs of Iyers for whom the family deity is Lord Venkateshwara of Tirupati, and Pazhani Skandan. They also make a visit to Udupi Shri Krishna temple, Annapurneshwari temple in Horanadu, Siddhi Vinayak temple at Mumbai, Mahalakshmi temple in Kolhapur etc. None of these temple comes within the ambit of either of the two southern Sankara MaTams.

 

[renuka]

Somehow the Devil does not discriminate.

Everyone is welcomed at hell!

 

[sravna]

Somehow the Devil does not discriminate.

Everyone is welcomed at hell!

It is demand and supply. The demand is low and so the devil focuses on increasing the supply.

 

[auh]

How does adherence to MaTams come in the way of visit to temples or holy places? There are lakhs of Iyers for whom the family deity is Lord Venkateshwara of Tirupati, and Pazhani Skandan. They also make a visit to Udupi Shri Krishna temple, Annapurneshwari temple in Horanadu, Siddhi Vinayak temple at Mumbai, Mahalakshmi temple in Kolhapur etc. None of these temple comes within the ambit of either of the two southern Sankara MaTams.

Iyyappan is not a deity similar to devasenadhipathi or balaji... more like taking Iyyanaar and infusing him with some vedic divinity to justify the practice.

There are various mariamman temples and village deities that are not even looked upon by brahmins. Why do you think? The gods that you sepak of, form part of the vedic fold and are thus venerated. Matams are not opposed to vedic deities, I should think.

 

[biswa]

Iyyappan is not a deity similar to devasenadhipathi or balaji... more like taking Iyyanaar and infusing him with some vedic divinity to justify the practice.

There are various mariamman temples and village deities that are not even looked upon by brahmins. Why do you think? The gods that you sepak of, form part of the vedic fold and are thus venerated. Matams are not opposed to vedic deities, I should think.

But Balaji is not a Vedic deity either, right? It appears that in all parts of India local deities have been added to the Vedic pantheon.

 

[auh]

But Balaji is not a Vedic deity either, right? It appears that in all parts of India local deities have been added to the Vedic pantheon.

Yes and no. Yes because it has been included by the "v" matam as "original". No, because there are speculations around it. But afaik, Iyyapan's case is closed ... is it not?

 

[zebra16]

Yes and no. Yes because it has been included by the "v" matam as "original". No, because there are speculations around it. But afaik, Iyyapan's case is closed ... is it not?

Iyyappan's case is not closed because there are speculations around it. Who is Hari-hara putran..? Was there a conception in the Mohini - Siva union? Are harihara putran and aiyyappan one and the same? etc etc.

And what is "v" maTam? "v" stands for what..? If "v" maTam stands for "vaidhika maTam" as I understand, they also endorse other forms of worships like "Shri chakram" or "Shri yantra" etc which do not find mention at least directly in vedas.

I feel the entire mahA-BhAratam episode (including its subsidiaries like Bhagwat-Geeta, Vishnu Sahasra nAmam etc.) were composed to over-turn the vedic hegemony. Principal Gods of vedic lore like Indra, Surya, Yama, vAyu, the Ashwin-twins are made to toe the line of a freshly minted all powerful Lord Krishna and their off-springs (KarNa, Arjuna, Dharmaputra, Bhima, nakula-sahadevA pair) are shown to become law-learners rather than the law givers they were in the original pantheon. Post facto Lord Krishna is made a full fledged avatar of MahA-Vishnu.

So things were never vedic post itihAsa-purANam period. Only some lip service here and there.

 

[yesmohan]

More than 85% of the Sabarimala pilgrims from Tamilnadu, are NBs.
Among these people, more than 60% are strictly adhering "vruthams".
Balance 40% are compromising "vruthams" to suit their needs.
Some take it granted, granting themselves exemption to " Pan masala".
Some give themselves exemption to " Beedi / cigarette "
A few could not leave up / drinking even "drinking".
All habitants, on return journey, have mostly restore their habits.

If these are the status of happening that prevail, women activists should analyse the ground realities and demand their rights of equality in hill track pilgrimage which is fraught with risking their modesty.

 

[auh]

Iyyappan's case is not closed because there are speculations around it. Who is Hari-hara putran..? Was there a conception in the Mohini - Siva union? Are harihara putran and aiyyappan one and the same? etc etc.

Imo, Iyyappan's case = Iyyanaar's case. You may differ; I have no issues.

And what is "v" maTam? "v" stands for what..? If "v" maTam stands for "vaidhika maTam" as I understand, they also endorse other forms of worships like "Shri chakram" or "Shri yantra" etc which do not find mention at least directly in vedas.

v matam is for vaishnava matam; apologies for being ambiguous.

I feel the entire mahA-BhAratam episode (including its subsidiaries like Bhagwat-Geeta, Vishnu Sahasra nAmam etc.) were composed to over-turn the vedic hegemony. Principal Gods of vedic lore like Indra, Surya, Yama, vAyu, the Ashwin-twins are made to toe the line of a freshly minted all powerful Lord Krishna and their off-springs (KarNa, Arjuna, Dharmaputra, Bhima, nakula-sahadevA pair) are shown to become law-learners rather than the law givers they were in the original pantheon. Post facto Lord Krishna is made a full fledged avatar of MahA-Vishnu.

So things were never vedic post itihAsa-purANam period. Only some lip service here and there.

I am glad that I have alienated my beliefs from the puranas. Too much going on to really point out the wheat from the chaff.