Inside Tirupati Balaji temple, just outside the garbha griha, where they give tirtham, the priests secretly take whatever the devotees offer (1 rupee, 2 rupees, 10 rupees).
Looking at that, I used to disgustingly think, "These priests are shameless. Even in the vicinity of God, they are running after money. They are not spiritual. They are money-minded, materialistic. Shameless creatures! Dirty Brahmins!". I used to think that way.
But, just a couple of years earlier, I came to know thay are paid very meager salaries such as Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000. Their salaries are about the same as the security guards stationed there.
After coming to know about that, I felt really bad. I stopped hating them.
Inside every temple, you will find a shameless board placed by our honourable governments, "Drop your offerings in hundis only", meaning that we must not give anything to the priests. After reading that, I sincerely used to drop my offerings into hundi only.
But, after coming to know that they are paid meagerly, I stopped dropping in the hundi and started giving to the priests directly. But, many times, I noticed that the priests drop the money back into the hundi. They are instructed to do so by the government officials (you know who they are!!!).
I urge all readers not to drop the offerings into the hundi, as much of your offerings ae used for "SECULAR" activities. Give as much as possible to the priest himself.
RE:The salary of the priests
by Surya K on Jun 07, 2007 03:43 PM Permalink
Dheeraj,
The last paragraph needs to be corrected. TTD(Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam) is a independent organisation and has nothing to do except appoint a Board and an Executive Officer (IAS Officer). The Government has no control over the funds or the day to day mangement of the temple. N T Rama Rao tried to take control with the funds and he failed. The same was with T Subbirami Reddy when he was the chairman of the Board tried to shift all the funds to ICICI Bank and he failed.
As far as the funds usage is concerned they are used to educational, medical and religious and charity.
The achariyas of the TTD are well paid and mostly they are heredietery.
RE:The salary of the priests
by Dheeraj Akula on Jun 07, 2007 03:55 PM Permalink
I am not talking about the TTD priests alone. I am talking about priests in all the temples.
But anyway, I am sure the priests in most of the temples (to my knowledge, that includes Tirupati too, and there was an article recently in a newspaper) are not well paid.
TTD may be using funds for religious activities.
The same can not be said for all other temples. Next time, when you visit any temple, look for a board which says, "Drop your offerings in hundi only". Also, look out for government executives (not in very small temples, but major temples), who keep watching where the devotees are dropping the offerings, and when they notice that the devotees are directly giving to thr priest, they keep a watchful eye to ensure that the priest drops the offerings back into the hundi.
RE:RE:The salary of the priests
by Surya K on Jun 07, 2007 03:46 PM Permalink
Priestly class has some purity attached to it, money is the least concern for real priest. Worldly needs are pure namesake for them. Our priests have become materialistic and lost the real Bhakthi. Serving the lord should be their main motive.
RE:The salary of the priests
by Subrahmshu Bhattacharya on Jun 07, 2007 04:35 PM Permalink
I urge all to do just the opposite. What you give to the priest goes only to him. What you put in the Hundi is used for the temple up keep, maintenance, payments to the non-regularised workers, upkeep of the poorer temples under Devaswam board, payments to the priests in those temples which get fraction of the visitors who come to bigger temples and such other activities. Ofcourse, the government mechanism also used the money to pay workers of the Devaswam Board, its offices and some money will get diverted by the governmental machinations. So some of the money does get diverted. But you can be sure that what goes to the priest goes only to him. I know of many small temples which were almost on the point of ruin due to the avaricious priests, but were revived by locals who took up the management of the affairs.
This is an addendum to the second part of the interview published here. The Tantri claims that he is the father of the deity here on earth. What bosh! Why does the all-powerful need a father here on earth or anywhere in heavens! How can a mere puny man claim to be the father of the deity? This fatherhood has been self proclaimed and is not supported by any religious canons other than a blind belief that is carried down centuries. People and communities which benefited from this faith have added to its perpetration by repeatedly proclaiming it as Shri Raman does here. This is the power game of religion and those who derive benefits from it.
Notice how in the second part of the interview Shri Raman has subtly changed from his "Laid down by Adi Sankara" to laid down by the law of the land principle. He must have realised that his claim for "Laid down by Adi Sankara" does not hold any water and has now decided to lay the blame squarely at the ministers footstep itself.
One is not asking him to change any major traditions, but merely asking him to apply his intellect in recognising and respecting a fellow human being. Or does only a law make him do that?
RE:Shame on you! - Addendum
by Vas on Jun 07, 2007 03:33 PM Permalink
Another marxist ranting. You bengali babus lead a double life, don't ypu - proclaiming marxism & socialism in public life, and leading an oppulent luxurious personal life. One has to look at the number of very wealthy bengali babus in the US, who have no problem in leading a 7-star lifestyle (champagne and all the jazz), but give great lectures on social equality and pitfalls of capitalism. Bengalis - thy name is hypocrisy!
RE:What is a Cult?
by Tinda on Jun 07, 2007 06:33 PM Permalink
All religions with this nonsense of "our god is true, your god is false" fall under the definition of a cult.
1. How a sacred religious book like Quran which claims to be most perfect contain chapter like chapter 8-"Al Anfan"-"Spoils of War"? How can a religious book advocate decalring war on non-believers, taking their wealth and women as booty and distributing among believers? 2. How a religious book can abuse non-believers and incite hatred against them (sEe verse no.8:12-for example).
i can identify u from your questions, but i will not deny an answer for the sake of others.
Banu quraiza conspirated against muslims, incited pagans to raid on makka, while having treaty with Prophrt Mohammad PBUH. the treaty obliged them to not support makkans, but they broke the treaty.
They participated in Battle of trenches along makkan non believers. with ALLAH Help, Makkan had to give up besirging Madina. Once they fled, leaving their ally Banu Quraiza behind, Mohammad PBUH raided banu quraiza, besieged and forced tthem to suurender.
Banu quraiza were allowed to appoint the Judge who shall give the verdict in their case. which conquerer will give this liberty??? They chose Ibn Salam, expecting favour from him...It was Ibn Salam, an ex jew, who Ordered that All War age men shall be killed, because This was the Punishment for Breaching a treaty and Waging war.
I hope this answer should be sufficient to clear any doubt.
RE:Abdul Hameed-Explain
by SHAHRUKH NIZAMI on Jun 09, 2007 12:51 PM Permalink
First you must know the meaning of Non-Believers. Its clear that non-believers of god are evil and evil is a destroyer of mankind. so if god says to destroy non-believers in Quran or IN GEETA whats the difference in that. moreover after winning war someone has to take care of women, children and wealth. Quran doesn't say to rape or murder those woman who are left by their non-believer husbands. Quran says give them shelter because they are innocent. GOT IT????
the answer has been given umpteen times ,here in this forum and elsewhere. chances are that u r raising this question merely for raising it, but I will not disappoint u.
Quran came on Prophet PBUH, time to time. These particular verses came at a time when muslims have suffered 13 yrs in makka , migrated twice to abyssinia, and finally to madina, in their quest to live with peace. but enemies followed them in madina, in an attempt to finish muslims. the attacked madina.
muslims till now had been told to observe patience from ALLAH, but these verses came to order them to fight enemies of muslim.
You will argue that muslims were shrewd to wait till they outgrow in number, ...so let me clear muslims could summon 313 odd people...including few adoloscents who insisted to go on war.
Resulting battle of Badr saw muslims as victorious over 1000 enemies.
The verses in question belong to special occasions of war, rather than being a general guideline.. if u want to study kuran, you will have to study wholistically rather than from here and there. and ofcourse a bias less approach is required.
RE:Abdul Hameed-Explain
by abdul hameed on Jun 07, 2007 04:30 PM Permalink
abovementioned verse forbids asking questions whose controversy can never be settled, and there will always remain a chance to argue, whatever stand you may take.
Jews and Xtian scholars tried hard to trap muslims in such useless discourse, like one trying to ascertain the number of people of kahaf('cave'), pagans had their own varying number, so quite tactically they probed muslims, unknowingly some muslims also pondered on such questions, who were forbade to do so.
Islam asks believers to observe things and ponder over the system God has created, rather than pursuing purposeless inquisite.
This clarification nullifies your second assumption too. Afterall Quran doesnt ask to kill xtians, non muslims or anybody. becoz it is from ALLAH. and ALLAH never gives an order to do Injustice.
I praise ALLAH that he gave me enlightment to believe Him. If beleiving ALLAH means puppet of Quran, which I disagree, I am proud of it.
RE:RE:Abdul Hameed-Explain
by abdul hameed on Jun 07, 2007 04:35 PM Permalink
by the way You and Mr Aiyer never acknowledged my previous 2 answers. Was it sufficient or You want more clarification. Its important before moving to a new question.
RE:Abdul Hameed-Explain
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 04:46 PM Permalink
Rediff deleted one of my questions as abuse. Rediff allows any unjustified criticism against hindus while even paointing out verses in Quran is treated as "abuse".
Your clarifications are not the least bit satisfactory. Putting to death surrendered people is against all norms of humanity. Prophet Muhammad should have overruled Ibn Salam's decision. Would u like America do the same to surrendered muslim soldiers?
Ibn Salam knew what Prophet wanted and decided accordingly. Being with your leader for a bit of time, one can make out his likes and dislikes. That was the acse with Ibn Salam also.
More than justifying all this to me, whats important is u justify to your conscience.
Abiding a peace treaty was regarded highest duty. breaching it was biggest crime.
ibn salam was appointed by jews themselves. His decision was obligatory on Mohammad PBUH too. His verdict was in accordance with torah , jewish sacred book.
I base my ideas on objectivity, rather than bias. I will give up an idea if you can convince me. can you proclaim the same???
RE:To www.faithfreedom.org
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 03:13 PM Permalink
Dheeraj-dheeraj.akula@rediffmail.com is said to be "invalid id". I tried to mail u at that id. My id is vaithee1111@rediffmail.com
Head Priest told: Earlier, we actually got all that in kind. More recently, the Dewaswom gives us that in cash, as per current value. So, each month, we get some money for that -- and the maximum we get is about Rs 2,000.
RE:We have to think on the Head Priests Statement : Max. Rs. 2000/- per mongh
by Dheeraj Akula on Jun 07, 2007 03:16 PM Permalink
That is a pity!
Inside Tirupati Balaji temple, just outside the garbha griha, where they give tirtham, the priests secretly take whatever the devotees offer (1 rupee, 2 rupees, 10 rupees).
Looking at that, I used to disgustingly think, "These priests are shameless. Even in the vicinity of God, they are running after money. They are not spiritual. They are money-minded, materialistic. Shameless creatures! Dirty Brahmins!". I used to think that way.
But, just a couple of years earlier, I came to know thay are paid very meager salaries such as Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000. Their salaries are about the same as the security guards stationed there.
After coming to know about that, I felt really bad. I stopped hating them.
Inside every temple, you will find a shameless board placed by our honourable governments, "Drop your offerings in hundis only", meaning that we must not give anything to the priests. After reading that, I sincerely used to drop my offerings into hundi only.
But, after coming to know that they are paid meagerly, I stopped dropping in the hundi and started giving to the priests directly. But, many times, I noticed that the priests drop the money back into the hundi. They are instructed to do so by the government officials (you know who they are!!!).
I urge all readers not to drop the offerings into the hundi, as much of your offerings ae used for "SECULAR" activities. Give as much as possible to the priest himself.
If Ravi is so concerned about rights to enter religious places, why does he not concentrate on muslim "womens" entry to mosques.
Reply to only Mahesh (others please excuse me):
Mahesh why not make Hindu Women head priests of Temples. Temples are discriminating, all temples should have women as head priestess.
I recommend Mallika Sherawat. They are many sex goddesses of India - they are eligible to be one of the goddess / dieties that can be worshipped in temples.
See all the forums - she is being referred by everyone in India including the media as a sex goddess.
Why not this will be an entertaining step, Mahesh.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Ghost Rider on Jun 07, 2007 02:50 PM Permalink
There are several temples in south India where women are priests. Also some where men are not allowed and vice-versa......It all depends on local beliefs and traditions, and the government/law should not interfere with that just as they do not interfere with the Muslim laws!
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Zing Thing on Jun 07, 2007 03:42 PM Permalink
Why should we explain Muslims and Christians as to why women are or are not allowed. Go to Saudi Arabia / Rome as the case may be. We are not interested.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by RATIONALIST on Jun 07, 2007 02:53 PM Permalink
Morons do not possess that logic to understand. So, grow up to understand the rationalists. They are only wondering, how come. So keep wondering and live????
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 02:53 PM Permalink
In Pune, women have been trained in Vedas and mantras and r already working as priests and performing ceremonies.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Akbar on Jun 07, 2007 11:14 PM Permalink
Mr. Shahrukh Nizami,
Why are soo keen about Draupadi? It is just that you want to highlight something in Mahabharata which looks like a flaw and you want gain weight to your argument, you are such a sick foolish CRAPPY fellow i've ever seen.
First thing Mahabharata is just a tale which at length describes the responsibilities to be fulfilled by every human to do the 'DharmaSamsthapana'(Instituting Justice in the rectitude) in the society.
Now read this to understand why Draupadi has to marry five people. And how she can distinguish the father of her children.
"Draupadi is the only instance we come across in epic mythology of a sati becoming a kanya. It is stated that in an earlier birth as Nalayani (also named Indrasena), she was married to Maudgalya, an irascible sage afflicted with leprosy. She was so utterly devoted to her abusive husband that when a finger of his, dropped into their meal, she took it out and calmly ate the rice without revulsion. Pleased by this, Maudgalya offered her a boon, and she asked him to make love to her in five lovely forms. As she was insatiable, Maudgalya got fed up and became an ascetic. When she remonstrated and insisted that he continue their love-life, he cursed her to be reborn and have five husbands to satisfy her lust. Thereupon she practiced severe penance and pleased Lord Shiva with her prayers. He granted a boon to her. Nalayani said that she wanted a husband and to ensure that her request was heard, she repeated it five
RE:RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Akbar on Jun 07, 2007 11:14 PM Permalink
Correction: Typo: Instituting Justice in the rectitude Read as: Instituting rectitude in the society
RE:RE:RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Akbar on Jun 07, 2007 11:18 PM Permalink
Contd...
Shiva then said that in her next life she would have five husbands. She obtained the boon of regaining virginity after being with each husband. Sage Narada advised the Pandavas to honour the privacy of Draupadi when she was alone with any other brother. Whosoever entered the room of Draupadi when she was with other brother would be forced to self exile as the punishment. All the brothers agreed. Thus the problem of one wife and five husbands was solved!
Thus, by asserting her womanhood and refusing to accept a life of blind subservience to her husband, Nalayani, the sati, was transformed into Yajnaseni, the kanya. Some sources have a slightly different narration. Draupadi made her request only once but she added a long list of qualities that she wanted in her husband. Lord Shiva said that it would be impossible to find one man with all these qualities. Hence she would have five husbands in her next life. All of them together would posses the qualities she had enumerated. [ According to Brahmavaivarta Purana, she is the reincarnation of the maya Sita (shadow Sita - wife of Lord Rama, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, and hero of Ramayana) who, in turn, was Vedavati, reborn after molestation at Ravana's hands, and would become the "Lakshmi of the Indras" ][*] (one of the forms of Goddess Lakshmi, eternal consort of Lord Vishnu) in heaven.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by SHAHRUKH NIZAMI on Jun 09, 2007 01:50 PM Permalink
I am not keen about Draupadi, I was giving an example why in islam its not permitted to have more than one husband as Anand Iyer asked in above debate. If a woman has more than one husband then no husband will take the responsibility of the child. all will say its not mine. but if one man having more than one wife then the father is clear. Take the example of Bhagwan Ram's Father, He was also having more than one wife.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 02:52 PM Permalink
Mahaesh is so ignorant of the status of women in Islam. That is why he talks all such silly things. Here is verse no.2:223 of Quran which says: "Your wives are as a tilth(farm/field-khet in hindi) unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will"
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 03:28 PM Permalink
Yeah! Nor was it bthe case that the Pandavas killed her wife and forcibly had sex the very same night the way Prophet did to a jew lady. Nor was Draupadi the divorced wife ofa dopted son of Pandavas. The Pandavas did not tell their sons to divorce their wives anfd then marry them the way Prophet did.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Dheeraj Akula on Jun 07, 2007 03:39 PM Permalink
Did Prophet kill his wife and have sex with a Jewish woman the same night? Really? I can't believe this! Is he so filthy? Then, why are Muslims worshipping him? Are you sure, Anand? Please double-check your facts!
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by shahrukh nizami on Jun 07, 2007 04:52 PM Permalink
Anand Lyer, Can you answer if Draupadi gives birth to a child and how you can say who is the father of that child?
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 03:49 PM Permalink
Sorry, Prophet and followeres killed Jewish Chieftain and Prophet enjoyed the widow of the Chieftain the same night.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 03:05 PM Permalink
Hindu society gave equal rights to women. Islam only allows men 4 wives. Why not allow women 4 husbands also????
In any way, Mahbharata is only descriptive of what happened or what is said to have happened. It doesnot say that one should do all those things. It is basically fairytale kind of things.Only Bhgvad Gita part of Mahabharat is prescriptive(ie.says what should be done).
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by SHAHRUKH NIZAMI on Jun 07, 2007 04:32 PM Permalink
If one man having 4 wives then you can clearly say to 4 wives children that who is the father and who is the mother. If woman have 4 husbands then no one can say who is the father. GOT IT???? GROW UP ANANAD LYER...
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Anand Iyer on Jun 07, 2007 05:04 PM Permalink
Sharukh Grow up. There r DNA tests which accurately point out who is the father.Stop calling me Lyer and such things. U have lost the debate dude.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by SHAHRUKH NIZAMI on Jun 09, 2007 04:50 PM Permalink
Please clarify me if DNA test accurately point out who is the father. then what is agni pariksha? why people asked bhagwan ram to take agni pariksha of Sita. why not he proved by DNA test that he is the father. REPLY ME PLEASE.
RE:Mahesh Jagga is more concerned about Women
by Raj on Jun 07, 2007 03:51 PM Permalink
First of all you don't know anything about islam. You should study first and then go on this islam topic buddy. In islam it's not like you must have four wives. There are many restriction also ok. Don't talk like blind dear.
WE CAN\'T UNDERSTAND, ACTUALLY WHAT IS PROBLEM OF PERSONS WHO WANT TO ENTER FOR ALL PEOPLE.
JUST I WANT TO GIVEN TO MSG FOR ALL LEADERS.
PL.KINDLY LOOK INTO OUR KERALA STATE\'S PROBLEMS. SOMANY THINGS WANT TO CLEAR IN KERALA. IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE PLEASE READ MANORMA DAILY THE RECENT EDITORIALS. PLEASE, THEN YOU CAN...
RE:To RATIONALIST
by RATIONALIST on Jun 07, 2007 03:31 PM Permalink
For sure anyone cannot tolerate such comments. SEe the whole of the rediff forum, it is full of filth and bullshit, hatred against Xtians & muslims.
So, I write only one comment - that too against foolish mahesh, and you cannot tolerate. What type of peaceful hindus are you.
RE:To RATIONALIST
by Vas on Jun 07, 2007 04:01 PM Permalink
"What type of peaceful hindus are you..."
The kind that is fed up of poisonous, medival cults like islam and christianity. The western world entered the Age of Reasoning once they got rid of christianity, and pushed away islam from their shores. Hindus now don't want India to be turned into some desert medival culture that islam and christianity brings into a society into wherever it goes. Just take a look at saudi arabia - you call that a civilization. No one would dispute that they are barbarians! Thats why islam and chrstianity MUST be eliminated so that India can be free of all the medival mindset. If the west can liberate itself from christianity and islam, why not India? You call yourself a rationlist - surely then you know by now islam and christianity are NOT compatible with rationality. Or are you THAT kind of rationalist found in TN, who takes money from islam and christianity to promote their causes while belittling all other religions?
RE:RE:To RATIONALIST
by RATIONALIST on Jun 07, 2007 04:34 PM Permalink
This is reply only to Vas - Chamunda Vaas
(Others please excuse me)
ha ha ha . I can understand your restlessness & worry
The complete world is full with Rationalists (Xtians, Jews & Muslims).
We have irrational people only in India. Hindus do not exist anywhere in the world except India. Their culture and religion is extinct and ancient, of dark ages.
RE:To RATIONALIST
by Vas on Jun 07, 2007 05:43 PM Permalink
Mmmm, interesting..I thought you guys hated Jews with all your heart, soul and mind. Just take a look at how much filth and hatred the muslims and christians exhibit against jews, and calling for their total annihilation. Yet, you are including the jews in your category. Ha..ha..ha. That is the biggest and most amusing joke!
I don't think the jews want to be included along with dark cults like christianity and islam. The last time I checked, the jews are more supportive of hindus than the two cults that are constantly calling for their annihilation.
RE:RE:To RATIONALIST
by Surya K on Jun 07, 2007 02:50 PM Permalink
Good, that you have both definations of good and the bad. Keep these things with you and keep thinking that we are here are barbarians. Turn youself around and you will see that 100% of your community in India are rotten with hatred.
