Let revolutionary politics stay in academics. The marxists are disturbing people, they talk of revolution, violence and have no respect for elder and sages.
RE:Let Revolutionary politics stay in academics
by Jarnail singh on Jun 05, 2007 07:46 PM Permalink
is their any restriction in churches for hindus to enter. why schedule castes were not allowed to enter temples earlier? do you think christians are born without the will of almighty? does air, water, soil, fire, clouds, rain, sun, differntiate with christians and hindus. will of god is prevailing in nature. nature never differentiate among human being. if these tantris are studying vedas then they should have study them in proper manner. then they will come to know what vedas says. it is painful to see when hindus are being convert to christianity. hindus are stopping them to enter in their temples. oh god what this state of mind. whole world is creation of god and all human beings are equal. there is only one caste humanity. guru gobind singh said "manas ki jaat sab aike pehchanbo."
RE:Let Revolutionary politics stay in academics
by abhishek nair on Jun 05, 2007 07:25 PM Permalink
Biz,
It is all a power struggle. Vayalar Ravi wishes to throw around his ego. The temple priests are resistant to change because it will make them seem weak. There is no pure side here.
RE:Let Revolutionary politics stay in academics
by biz Narayan on Jun 05, 2007 07:32 PM Permalink
Abhisek, I think It is a sacred tradition of hindus, where the world is eternal but ignorance. They have their universal symbolisms in temples they keep it alive. Minister Ravi shouldn't take it personally, because in name of lord the tantri would be 'purifying' himself so many times a day.
RE:RE:Let Revolutionary politics stay in academics
by abhishek nair on Jun 05, 2007 07:54 PM Permalink
This is a local temple tradition, not a hindu tradition - please read my previous point.
The tantri is right on most points here, except for two critical arguments he has failed and avoided answering here. First, he carefully creates an analogy to compare punyaham after someone's entry into the temple to punyaham after vomiting/blood shedding. He knows very well that the two are not the same. The latter is a natural body act that is considered impure but does not render the person impure. So, it is the act that requires purification. The former punyaham, is required when someone who is not believed to be of the faith enters the temple, which is an insult on that person, if he/she is a follower of Hinduism. At the heart of this lies the archaic tradition, as the tantri pointed out, that a mother's children takes the religion of the mother. This is an extremely chauvinistic perspective and one expects better of a supposedly egalitarian religion. What would have happened if Ravi had a daughter by his Christian wife and that daughter had a daughter and so on? Aren't they "non-believers" in the tantri's eyes? In the end, one should not go by what these temple priests believe to understand Hinduism. All a true devotee has to do is go back to the basics - the Gita - to understand who are true devotees of Hinduism and who are not. And when one does so, one realizes that a Hindu is not chosen by a temple priest or a temple tradition, but a Hindu is a person who approaches God a
The tantri is right on most points here, except for two critical arguments he has failed and avoided answering here. First, he carefully creates an analogy to compare punyaham after someone's entry into the temple to punyaham after vomiting/blood shedding. He knows very well that the two are not the same. The latter is a natural body act that is considered impure but does not render the person impure. So, it is the act that requires purification. The former punyaham, is required when someone who is not believed to be of the faith enters the temple, which is an insult on that person, if he/she is a follower of Hinduism. At the heart of this lies the archaic tradition, as the tantri pointed out, that a mother's children takes the religion of the mother. This is an extremely chauvinistic perspective and one expects better of a supposedly egalitarian religion. What would have happened if Ravi had a daughter by his Christian wife and that daughter had a daughter and so on? Aren't they "non-believers" in the tantri's eyes? In the end, one should not go by what these temple priests believe to understand Hinduism. All a true devotee has to do is go back to the basics - the Gita - to understand who are true devotees of Hinduism and who are not. And when one does so, one realizes that a Hindu is not chosen by a temple priest or a temple tradition, but a Hindu is a person who approaches God and knows him as his "own Divine Self".
RE:Sexist
by BhejaFry on Jun 05, 2007 07:14 PM Permalink
the tantri was unsure whether ravi krishna was hindu or whether he was baptised by his mother.so he had no choice but to perform purification.
RE:RE:Sexist
by abhishek nair on Jun 05, 2007 07:19 PM Permalink
No, the sole criteria was biological. Ravi Krishna, although he claims to be a practising Hindu, happens to have a Christian mother. That is the sole reason why he is not allowed inside the temple, and why the purification ritual was deemed necessary.
RE:RE:RE:Sexist
by Surya on Jun 05, 2007 08:21 PM Permalink
abhishek nair
Hey can the tantris prove biologically they are pure and Ravi Krishna is impure.Please tell me.What is biological pureness and what its significance in hinduism.Please publish a paper on this and request for coments from all over the world let me see how true is this biological pureness is?
WE Hindus are not like Muslims or Christians who straight-away head for mosque or church from their bed. Hindus take bath and then only visit temple, especially in Kerala.
As far as Tantri is concerned, he takes bath not once or twice - he may have to take bath sometime, even half a dozen time in a day.
RE:Sexist
by abhishek nair on Jun 05, 2007 07:16 PM Permalink
He who knows me as his own divine Self breaks through the belief that he is the body and is not reborn as a separate creature.
Such a one, Arjuna, is united with me. Delivered from selfish attachment, fear, and anger, filled with me, surrendering themselves to me, purified in the fire of my being, many have reached the state of unity in me.
As men approach me, so I receive them. All paths, Arjuna, lead to me."
Guruvayooyr does not allow non-hindus, that is true.they have their own rules. the question is why do non-hindus want to visit temples? for picnic ? even Parsis do not allow non-parsis to enter their temples. even Jains do not allow non-jains to enter their temples. so rules should be respected. if non-hindus want to visit hindu temples ,they should first convert to hinduism.simple.
RE:Respect temple rules
by BostonPunekar on Jun 05, 2007 07:15 PM Permalink
Absulutey true dude, u hit the nail in the head. Cant be an appropriate discription than what u said.
Temples are not public gardens where one goes for a outing or a picnic, Vailar Ravi very very well knew why he went there and what was his presise motive.
RE:Respect temple rules
by Surya on Jun 05, 2007 07:30 PM Permalink
BostonPunekar & BhejaFry
Its discrimination that Ravi is talking about,No christian is intrested in entering hindu temples. Its just his helpless wife who entered the temple unaware there are people that think they are superior and now she is facing the consequence of the good hindu culture.
Ask any real christian hates to enter any hindu temple.
Its not a picnic or a public garden its a den of wolfes.
RE:Respect temple rules
by Seven Maniacs on Jun 06, 2007 10:18 AM Permalink
chuckles... helpless wife indeed! Unaware indeed! My man surya is a king of words. And i can't stop smiling at his choice of words!
RE:Respect temple rules
by BostonPunekar on Jun 05, 2007 07:37 PM Permalink
Surya one is disputing anyones religious rights. Issue is why do u wish to meddele in someone elses Temple. Stay in your own religious mosques or churches or gurudwaras. No one is objecting, its when u interefere in someone elses temple of worship the dispute has started. That too to create a political point when the LDF government is in a midst of a crisis and some one from Congress like V Ravi who himself is a Cgief Ministerial candidate. This issue to use the sacred Temple to score personal political points is the biggest of contention.
Infact people from all religions should condemn V Ravi for playing dirty politics.
If the Temple is a den of wolves then what was the cunning Fox Vailar Ravi doing there?
RE:Respect temple rules
by Surya on Jun 05, 2007 07:54 PM Permalink
BostonPunekar
V Ravi thought that by being devot to a hindu g_d he might get entry to g_d's temple. He is mistaken you are right he should have remained a christian where is he treated better off, instead he thought being a devot of a hindu g_d he might get a good treatment in temple, tantris proved him wrong. Tantris want the bilogical purity and not devotion to hindu g_d n this is what pisses lot of people.Hindu temple prests expects biological purity instead of pure devotion to hindu g_d.Thats where i come to understand that hinduism is about biological problem n not devotion this is so sick when every human on this earth is created equal.
RE:Respect temple rules
by Jarnail singh on Jun 05, 2007 07:54 PM Permalink
earlier guruvayooyr did not allow lower castes to enter temple. then why they have changed the rules? there was a sati pratha in hindus when husband dies his wife has to set on his chita. it was accepted to hindus. why you stopped and enact a law against that. by just saying this temple has its own rules you cannot justify it. in islam kafirs and butpoojak should be killed. muslims have to do jehaad against them. dont you think they should have change their mindset. if change is for good and in right direction then it should be accepted. you should not be rigid.
RE:Invitation to Sunilgiri, Narad
by Serious on Jun 05, 2007 07:13 PM Permalink
Its totally different Kj, have a look at the main differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism .
RE:Invitation to Sunilgiri, Narad
by guruDev on Jun 05, 2007 07:14 PM Permalink
Your abuse illogical languages elsewhere proves you havent read Dhammapad, Diamond sutra, or know Atisha took Buddhism.
If you knew you wont have been egoistc .... better practice before preach
RE:if christians and muslims want to bow and pray to hindu gods we should help them in converting to hinduism...LOL
by India on Jun 05, 2007 07:11 PM Permalink
Hello abcd, When was India named. What were the borders before. They were ruled by Kings. Its not Hindustan brother. India is a secular state. No place for just one religion brother.
RE:if christians and muslims want to bow and pray to hindu gods we should help them in converting to hinduism...LOL
by BhejaFry on Jun 05, 2007 07:15 PM Permalink
The word 'BHARAT' is found in Bhagwad Geeta. so India existed as a country since then.it consisted of present day India plus nepal,pak, bangladesh,afghanistan.
RE:if christians and muslims want to bow and pray to hindu gods we should help them in converting to hinduism...LOL
by BostonPunekar on Jun 05, 2007 07:18 PM Permalink
exactly then no one is disputing that. Issue is why do u wish to meddele in someone elses Temple. Stay in your own religious mosques or churches or gurudwaras. No one is objecting, its when u interefere in someone elses temple of worship the dispute has started.
RE:if christians and muslims want to bow and pray to hindu gods we should help them in converting to hinduism...LOL
by India on Jun 05, 2007 07:30 PM Permalink
Dai Pullu Cheruvil George kutty, What quality you need to sit infront of computer. Do people need make up sill fella. When did India name as India. What was its old name. Which religion where together. Mughal had northern part, Some kings had divided parts in south. So its clear its was not one kingdom. During freedom fight people got together and its was India not Hindustan. Dont think I dont like India.
It is a practice all over the world that in a church, mosque or a temple no one is allowed inside the sanctum sanctorum. Even top orthodox brahmins are not allowed to touch the idol in the temples. Why, even the so called ISKCON. movement does not allow any one to touch their idols. ISKCON TEMPLES ARE NOT EVEN 50 YEARS OLD AND WHEN THEY HAVE THIS TRADITION WHY NOT IN HINDU TEMPLES WHERE FOR CENTURIES THERE IS A PRACTICE. ONE MUST REMEMBER THESE PRACTICES HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME. A TIME WILL COME THERE WILL BE FURTHER LIBERLISATION IN RELIGION. NO ONE CAN STOP IT. LET US NOT HURRY. LET US HAVE A GOOD BABY. A PREMATURE BABY BENEFITS NO ONE INCLUDING THE BABY ITSELF. REMEMBER THAT IN INDIA NEHRU AND GANDHI MOVED WITHOUT SECURITY. THE POLITICAL GODS OF TODAY CANNOT BE TOUCHED EVEN WITH A BARGE POLE. SO KINDLY LET US EXEMPT OUR HINDU GODS (WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO UNTOLD HUMILITY BY SO CALLED MEDIA BRAGS) FROM ALL THE BULL SHIT THAT IS GOING AROUND IN NAME OF SECULARISM. LET THE GODS LIVE IN PEACE.
Why can't BJP, Shiv Sena, RSS, Sang Parwar, BD and others work along with Hindus in eradicating discrimination against Lower class people. Are Lower class Hindus or not Hindus?
RE:RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by Ranjith Parakkal on Jun 05, 2007 07:05 PM Permalink
I agree with you that caste system is an evil, and it is still prevalent in our society to some extent.
But I dont see the connection between this incident and caste discrimination. Please do let me know, if you are understand the connection.
RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by Serious on Jun 05, 2007 07:09 PM Permalink
ranjith, i am glad that you have at least realized the evil caste-system. why are others defending this yet in this century??
RE:RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by Ranjith Parakkal on Jun 05, 2007 07:24 PM Permalink
No ones defening caste system here.
Other than not permitting non-Brahmins to be temple priests. I havent seen anyone openly defending caste based discrimination. Ok all of us have some of it inside. But publicly atleast most people try not to show it.
In anycase I dont why people are trying to project this incident as a caste issue.
I can see why Vayalar Ravi is trying to do it. Get some political mileage from this. Hes simply trying to generate some caste-hatred to get his communtiy to vote for him enmasse next time.
RE:RE:RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by India on Jun 05, 2007 07:13 PM Permalink
Discrimination is not getting equal opportunity. Only because he or she is lower class they are refused few rights. They can't worship, be a priest, etc.
RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by Ranjith Parakkal on Jun 05, 2007 07:17 PM Permalink
I understand the "definition of caste-discrimination". But what has anything you said got to do with this incident.
The worst you can say about this incident is "religion" based discrimination. What has caste go to do with it.
RE:RE:RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by jjari on Jun 05, 2007 07:54 PM Permalink
Certainly, caste discrimination is evil. It must be removed from minds and hearts of every Hindu or if I say followers of Vaidik dharma. But, cast system in its ORIGINAL form was pure, scientific. It was an arrangement on simple and rational principle of division of labor. Today caste system which was caste-arrangement turned into caste-discrimination. Every true follower of Vaidik dharma must try to bring it back into its original form.
RE:RE:Eradicating Discrimination?
by guruDev on Jun 05, 2007 07:09 PM Permalink
There is really no inferior people. In Metropolitan cities everyone sits together and from same hotel.
There are two problems
1> Vote bank politics of reservation giving steroid shots to casteism
2> Economic & Educational anaemic condition which breeds cheapness. Was the Gujjar riots any different from Somalian food riots?
RE:actually brahiminism is not brahmins it is the group which opresses lower people(nowadays obc are mostly brahminism) ,,,if sc oppreses st then sc is brahiminism
by biz Narayan on Jun 05, 2007 07:00 PM Permalink
Some people respect for being send to Jehad. Raja should giveup false notions.
