Mandirs for devotees or tourists?

[Guest guest]

Hindu News Headlines for December 02, 2005

 

Mandirs for devotees or tourists?

 

2005-12-02

Published by Hindu Herald

Gathered by Staff Reporter

 

NEWDELHI,DECEMBER 2: The Hindu mandir has once again become the focus

of secular controversy. Reformists have taken umbrage at the refusal

of Orissa priests to let a White American Hindu woman and a Thai

princess enter the Jagannath and Lingaraj temples.

 

There is also outrage that the famous Guruvayoor temple in Kerala

announced it was repeating five days of puja after a deranged

Christian was found disturbing devotees on the premises. This anger is

misplaced, and derives not from a sense of dharma violated, but from

embarrassment at what others will think and say about believing Hindus.

 

This is nothing but a hangover of the inferiority complex instilled in

Hindus during the colonial period when Christian missionaries

unleashed a barrage of propaganda against the tradition, in their

quest for converts. To understand the issue in its proper perspective,

we must understand the difference between the Hindu mandir and

monotheistic houses of worship.

 

The mandir is literally god's palace; it is built according to

shastric specifications, and once the images are consecrated it means

the gods have accepted the invitation to reside in the respective

temples. This is what gave temples their power and sanctity in all

ancient traditions. In monotheistic traditions, the synagogue, church

and mosque are houses of congregation where the respective gods are

remembered in community worship.

 

But monotheistic gods do not descend from their heavenly abodes to

dwell with the believers, even during the hour of worship. This is an

important distinction, because the congregation itself has no special

sanctity, and can meet anywhere. Hindu tradition, on the other hand,

shares divinity with the believers, because man is made of the same

atman as Parambrahman.

 

Hindus can invite god to be present at a ceremony (wedding, satsang)

or sacrifice, and both the devotee and the devoted have sanctity.

Mandirs thus belong to god and the devotee. In India, priests of all

except some especially sacrosanct temples have allowed free access to

temples to visitors who may not be Hindus, but this is not a right

that can be demanded by anyone.

 

Yet media publicity has put Hindus so much on the defensive that they

have been quick to blame `Brahmin' hegemony for the behavior of the

priests of Lord Jagannath and Lord Lingaraj. This is ironical, because

both these gods are popular Hindu deities worshipped by all castes.

Jagannath was the god of the Sabara (Savara, Saora) tribe, and even

today, only Daityas (descendants of the original tribal worshippers)

can dress and move the god and renovate his wooden image.

 

At Lingaraj, only the tribal Badu priests can bathe and adorn

Lingaraj! At Jagannath, medieval iconoclasm destroyed the images of

the gods and the temple ceased worship for 144 years before Raja Man

Singh assisted in reviving worship. Even thereafter, there were

several threats to the temple. Since the story of the molestation of

the gods and the devotees is well known on an all-India plane, it was

only natural that some of the most prestigious temples protected their

sanctity by denying entry to non-believers.

 

Temple entry cannot be a secular right of non-believers. It is a

privilege of the believer, and that is why truly reform-minded Hindus

in previous centuries fought for the right of underprivileged

believers, like Harijans (Dalits), to enter temples.

 

This is an issue to which Hindu society urgently needs to rededicate

itself.

 

, pyari_h <no_reply> wrote:

>

> Namaste all. _/\_

>

> Seekers of Divine Love can enjoy the

> (Hindi) Documentary: Opening of Bhakti Mandir

>

> Details at:

>

> http://barsanadham.org/e-list/enews/announce.html