Guest guest Posted December 5, 2005 Report Share Posted December 5, 2005 An excellent article by Sandhya Jain that clearly defines what a Mandir is. Article starts after the comments below. Just wanted to comment: To put it in mundane terms, imagine if someone went to a King's palace or Bill Gate's Mansion and demanded the Housekeeper to let him in because he is a known well-wisher. It does not work like that. A well-wisher would not want to cause trouble. In the same way, how can anyone demand to be let into God's House. Only if you dont believe that its really God's domain would such a mentality make sense. One recognizes that only by invitation or Grace is one allowed entry. My Gurudev says that to have Darshan does not mean the act of seeing the Murtis. It means the presentation of oneself to the Lord for His/Her pleasure. The devotee is the one being seen and enjoyed by the Lord and the Lord is the enjoyer of the devotee. So if the representative of the Lord says not to enter and one still demands entry, that is not proper decorum. Just as in the days of Kings and Queens, they would hold court and people would present themselves for the pleasure of the Ruler. Not the other way around. In the same way, images and pictures of the Gods should be placed as invocations of the Divinity. Not as decorations to beautify one's self, car, home or environment. Rather the self, home, car and environment should be kept nice for the pleasure of the Lord. If the Jagganath Mandir authorities decide to lift the restrictions, this would be only by the grace of Jagannath. If they maintain the restrictions that is also His grace. Either way, Jagganath is and has always been available to His devotees. If we can not recognize that, then just remember that it is Jagganath's Rathayatra festival, above and beyond any other public Hindu festival, that has been experianced by millions of people all over the world in nearly every continent and major city of the world. So where is the question of not being able to see Jagannath? Vrndavan "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." HinduThought, "Sraddhalu Ranade" <sraddhalu@a...> wrote: > > Note that the Christian church does not permit non-Christians to partake of the eucharist. In contrast, no Hindu institution has denied prasad to anyone. > > SR >ARTICLE BEGINS HERE > - > Sandhya Jain > Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:32 PM > sandhya article > > > Organiser-27November 2005 > > Mandirs are for devotees only > > > > Sandhya Jain > > > > 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 Guruvayur temple in Kerala announced it was repeating five days of pujas 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 Parabrahman. 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 behaviour of the priests of Jagannath and Lingaraj. This is ironical, because both these gods are tribal gods 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 the 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. > > > > The custodians of each holy site must have the right to decide who shall be permitted entry. At Pushkar, priests hitherto permitted foreigners in the sacred precincts and then discovered them acting contrary to the sanctity of the place. They have now prepared a code of conduct for outsiders. It is humbling to recall that the great Vaishnava acharya, Haridas Thakur, being born in a Muslim family, never tried to enter the Jagannath mandir at Puri, even though many persons wanted him to have darshan. I believe this is because he felt he should be born as a Hindu in order to enter the temple. Even Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, personally a very devout Hindu, was denied entry to the Puri temple because she married a Parsi and thereby shared that identity. She accepted the decision with grace and withdrew. > > > > The American-born Pamela Yadav may do well to emulate this example; she should visit the innumerable temples where entry is free, and not enervate devout Hindus by calling our priests 'racists.' Tomorrow, another American will protest that not getting meat and eggs in holy cities is a violation of human rights, and Amnesty will breathe down our necks. It is time we drew the line somewhere. It may be mentioned that the priests of the Jagannath temple have traditionally recognized Hindus, Buddhists and Jainas from undivided India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan, as officially entitled to enter the temple. There may be a case to extend this privilege to practicing Buddhists of Asian countries which have a civilizational affinity with India, but this is a decision the priests must take with due consideration, and cannot be forced upon them by external agencies. > > > > In Guruvayur in Kerala, priests of the famous Shri Krishna temple discovered a deranged non-Hindu had been present in the temple for five days, which affected the sanctity of 15 pujas conducted in that period. Temple administrators pointed out that though there were boards requesting non-Hindus to keep out, the rules were difficult to enforce if people did not respect the sentiments of others. They said that whenever non-Hindus were detected, they sprayed punyaham (holy water) inside the temple. Such a "purification ceremony" was held after the son of Congress leader Vayalar Ravi and his Christian wife entered the temple during his wedding some years ago. That time also, far from supporting the besieged Hindu community in protecting the sanctity of its holy spaces, secularists tried to brand the priests as intolerant communalists. > > > > END > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.