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
