Thoughts on economics and liberty

Why can’t Muslims and Christians enter Hindu temples?

Jayendra Saraswati, guru and chief of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam says:

Even Muslims and Christians could now enter some of the major temples in the country if they professed they had faith in Hinduism. He said there should be no discrimination among people. [Source]

Why can't they enter if they have no faith in Hinduism? There is nothing preventing ANYONE from entering a Church or mosque. So why this condition in Hinduism that you can enter a temple ONLY if you have faith in Hinduism?

E.g. someone has asked on the internet: 

Can a Christian attend a mosque?

Response:

Mosque is the House of Al-Mighty God Allah Subhanahu Wata'ala. Every mankind are slave of God. Every mankind have the right to be in God's House. During Prophet and Apostle of Al-Mighty God Allah Subhanahu Wata'ala Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu'alaihi Wassalam All meeting with Christians and other religion are done in the Mosque.

Sooner or later the Christians shall be Muslims. Therefore let them be in the Mosque. [Source]

Indeed, if a religion claims to be tolerant but won't even let non-believers enter its temple, then how can it claim to be tolerant?

View more posts from this author
32 thoughts on “Why can’t Muslims and Christians enter Hindu temples?
  1. ramesh

    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    You have mistaken the concept. If other non believers can enter the Church or Mosque it is because the ARRANGEMENTS Or depth of their philosophy permit it. Hinduism may not permit it just because either you will have to understand the concept of God or temple itself or just follow the rules, No questions! Those who understand God will always find themselves in the temple and will understand that the 'rules' are always for the believers who lack the ability to question.
     
    It takes far more critical reasoning to understand the HInduism and its rules. Tragedy is that it has become alien in its own land! God (i.e. people themselves) save India!!!
     

     
  2. sabhlok

    Dear Ramesh

    The stuff that goes on in many famous temples has little to do with any understanding of Hinduism in the sense you sometimes about. The advantage of letting everyone enter temples is multi-facted. It can increase awareness, it can be a tourist experience, it can even (if properly handled) draw people to study the issues in more detail. And the temples can receive more donations. They could even charge an entry fee if they wished, for non-believers – and thus earn some money.

    The closed mind that is displayed by shutting out (a) harijans (b) women who are menstruating or even women more generally, and (c) foreigners and persons of different or no faiths, is a stigma on the very philosophy of Hinduism.

    If people are indeed part of the larger consciousness, then why this discrimination?

    S

     
  3. ramesh

     
    Dear Sabhlok,

    Re:The stuff that goes on in many famous temples has little to do with any understanding of Hinduism in the sense you sometimes about
     
    This is because Hindus themselves have lagged behind for what they stand for [reason: Power entering in the hands of unqualified (harijan, woman as proved below)]
     
    Non entry of non believers: Original reason is as commented in the first comment. Here all the wealth put together could never come near the true knowledge. So donations, earnings never mattered for Hindu temples except the truth since wealth is function of work and material knowledge.
     
    Non entry of harijans, women: SYMBOLICALLY these stands for unqualified ones. Note that Harijans and women are not barred by class but by qualification. Harijans is NOT BEING BY BIRTH it is by qualification to think critically till the successful end. Women by thousands of years of experience are proved to be ~more intelligent but less wise. She is more a matter of love, affections, attachment, care, passion, efficiency, subjectivity etc whereas men is thought to be more wise, subtle, discerning, not given to emotion, objective etc.  Or in short women— Belief;  Man- Reason.
     
    Symbolically all men who prefer 'belief' to 'reason' are always women. In every individual 'Knowledge' part is men and 'physical' part is women. These are JUST CONVENTIONS for convenience and not as absolute truths just like alphabets to understand the language.
     
    Hindu is justified in barring the 'unqualified' [harijans and women by the above conventions] lest the 'knowledge' itself is perverted and putrefied.
     
    Any way India is suffering because not only in the temple but also in politics only the ‘unqulified’ is reigning everywhere. Reasons: The most unqualified ‘voter’ is exercising the ‘power’ by way of democracy.

     
  4. sabhlok

    Ramesh

    I’m afraid your sentiments are directly in violation of the concept of equal liberty for all. I do not agree that there is ANY “harijan” class/category. Nor do I agree that women are in ANY WAY less amenable to reason than men.

    Further you indicate distrust of democracy because the “unqualified” voter is exercising power.

    This is all very problematic, if I may say so. To generalise about people in this manner, to refuse to understand basic causes, and to not admit the common humanity and common constitution of all of us, is inappropriate.

    If Hinduism does these things and won’t reform itself, that’s more reason to be worried about this “religion”. I’m comfortable with Vivekananda but not with this kind of thinking.

    S

     
  5. ramesh

     
    Dear Sabhlok,
     
    This is exactly how a thinking of 'modern man' is miles away from the propagators of the 'true' religions originally meant for the welfare of all by banishing all the ignorance.
     
    re: I do not agree that there is ANY “harijan” class/category. Nor do I agree that women are in ANY WAY less amenable to reason than men.
     
    Can you tell me where did I state harijan and women as category or class. I stated and repeat : 'Harijans is NOT BEING BY BIRTH it is by qualification to think critically' and 'She is more a matter of love, affections, attachment, care, passion, efficiency, subjectivity etc'
     
    What this means? It means that everything should be reasoning based and qualification based. You neglect that I have called even a man as women. i.e. Symbolically all men who prefer 'belief' to 'reason' are always women. In every individual 'Knowledge' part is men and 'physical' part is women  No free lunches. This is true capitalism where no two persons are equal by qualification and should be benefited by their ability. 
     
    You badly failed to realize that 'Hindu Temple' is not a commodity or public property to be shared equally but an 'awareness' to be known by reasoning and questioning i.e. qualification. There may be many temples built by non believers. Hinduism doesn't protest it but regrets that that can't be a temple since temple is always a knowledge and can ONLY BE ACCESSED BY REASONING PURELY, DEVOTEDLY.
     
    Hinduism doesn't need reforms since 'reform' is its “inherent nature”. The matter of worry is not the 'temple entry' but lack of understanding of the logic of Hinduism.
     
    Here you badly failed to realize that I criticised 'socialist' aspect of 'democracy' whereby 'immaturity of democracy' is brought to the fore. 
     
    Why there is an age limit on a voter? Can the age be ever a criterion for a person to be qualified to vote than his 'knowledge'? Has the Indian democracy ever taken a note of it? Have you ever bothered about this aspect of democracy? 
     
    Do you still think I distrust the 'democracy'? 
     
    Forget not you stand for 'Qualified' freedom and liberty and not 'uncontrolled' one. 
     
    In your words: Just as age 18 is a commonly agreed resolution so is the 'entry in temple' a convention by the seers of the 'true' Hindus. No other reasoning of yours will be justified since it is matter of convention and not the 'truth' 
     
    You must understand this my view on 'democracy' or else it would be perverted! And liberty will never be a ‘qualified’ one.
     

     
  6. Sameer

    Ramesh : Your argument stems from a perspective that a temple is divine & should not be corrupted by coming into contact with "lesser beings". I ask…what's the point of bestowing one's faith in the divine when the divine itself is susceptible to corruption?
     
    The fable of Ahalya in the Ramayana is an interesting story to revisit in the given context. For all its patriarchal overtones, the story is meant to reaffirm the purifying effect of the divine. Ahalya, cast in stone by the curse of her husband for having fornicated with "the other man" (interesting to note here that "the other man" was Indra in the form of Ahalya's husband), returned to her human form the moment Rama touched her.
     
    I wonder how the purifier came to be seen as one susceptible to corruption over the years. :)

     
  7. ramesh

     Dear Sabhlok,
     
    You know many 'religious books' are not allowed to read by everybody except by believers. 
     
    So do think think that these books will ever remain immune to be read by non believers? Never. Still the rules say that it should not be so.
     
    Reason: Not all interpret the 'religion' as it, its true welfare implications. Non qualified (non believers) are likely to interpret it differently or contrary to the original intentions. Thus even the welfare of the believers is endangered. 
     
    Essence: All may read the 'religious books' but not all interpret it as they want. Even if they interpret it should only be in the interest of the community as a whole. If WELFARE doesn't establish all such interpretations are void even though words mean it so.
     
    Since the later is hard to be guaranteed Dharma as a rule prescribes that 'religious books' should not be read by non believers and in this sense it is justified. Thus 'many ramayanas' is a wonderful work which compiles vast information at one place little known till today and it should be praised for that reason. BUT when it comes to the interpretation only the 'qualified' can do it and no 'unqualified' is allowed since a 'qualified' knows the essence of it and confirms that only GOOD is prevailed and 'Believer' is not deprived of the benefits due to him from the epic Ramayana. Such a guarantee is not there when non believer interprets it. It was in this sense that recent problem happened at Delhi university. Other than this any other motive on the part of RSS volunteer is worth to be condemned. (I don't think so). You will agree that 'atom bomb' technology should not fall in the hands of 'Gadafi or Laden since they are unqualified. We don't say that 'atom bomb should not be prepared at all. We say ensure proper use. That's all. False interpretation of Knowledge is far more dangerous than the 'Atom bomb' itself.
     
    It is exactly in the above sense that Harijan, Women, non believers are denied access to the temple lest being unqualified they interpret the God detrimental to the interests of the Believers.
     
    Earlier interpretation and this one never contradict at all instead complement each other when understood properly.

     
  8. ramesh

    @ Dear Sameer,
     
    Your reading of Ramayan is corrupted. That is why Shastra prescribe that it should be read over and made understood by the qualified ones only. Not everybody is permitted.
     
    Re:perspective that a temple is divine & should not be corrupted by coming into contact with "lesser beings". I ask…what's the point of bestowing one's faith in the divine when the divine itself is susceptible to corruption?
     
    The perspective that "a temple is divine and should not be corrupted by rest" is held by a believer as told in the dharma shastras. HE JUST OBEYING THEM. In order to counter this act of believers you have to first question the 'Shastra' itself first which establishes the God. This will enter you into the metaphysics. Then the rest things as you desire may happen.
     
    Re:I wonder how the purifier came to be seen as one susceptible to corruption over the years.
     
    For believer and the Jnani the God Rama is always divine and all the rest is corruption. For non believer everything god, dharma, shastra are all void since they want proof the nature of which you people are unaware! 
     
    Even if Rama kills Wali in unjust way, even if he banishes Sita even if he commits any act which is against rule all is justified. Because end is Kalyan and they EVEYTHING (science knows infinitesimly little till today). To understand the concept of Kalyan one needs far more curiosity than required to know the laws of physical world.
     
    Therefore either be believer and just follow rules as interpreted by the Jnani (Dharma) OR start questioning and be the Jnani himself. Choice is yours.

     
  9. Sameer

    Ramesh : I'm not a believer as you define it. I'm rather a seeker. According to me, the Shaastras are more of a socio-political document than an authoritative religious text. But since you bring up the qualification part here, I'd be happy to quote my sources. I've read K.M.Munshi's Ramayana published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, which unfortunately is not in my immediate posession or else I would've quoted the exact pages where the fable of Ahalya is described. But I will mention another authoritative source. A.K.Ramanujan, in his magnificient book, Three Hundred Ramayanas, has mentioned many interpretations of this episode. In the Ramayana according to Kampan, verse 547 to 559 deal with just this episode. I'd read a note on Facebook a few days ago, and I'll link it here to prove the authority of what I based my point on.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=10150384059197855
     
    "The perspective that "a temple is divine and should not be corrupted by rest" is held by a believer as told in the dharma shastras. HE JUST OBEYING THEM. In order to counter this act of believers you have to first question the 'Shastra' itself first which establishes the God. This will enter you into the metaphysics. Then the rest things as you desire may happen."
     
    As I've said earlier, the Shaastras are a mere socio-political document. Moreover, God doesn't require an establishing authority as far as the question of faith is concerned, because faith is beyond science. And if it were a question of science, God doesn't exist as the Shaastras are not a scientific theory but a set of dictats (I won't even use the word rules). Its not a question of metaphysics but one of restriction of faith IMO.
    Chapter 9, Verse 26 of the Bhagvad Gita states…
     

    samoham sarvabhuteshu
    na me dveshyo 'sti na priyah
    ye bhajanti tu mam bhaktya
    mayi te teshu scha apy aham

    Meaning…I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him. What locus standi do the Shaastras have to counter that by creating a distinction between people?

     
    "For believer and the Jnani the God Rama is always divine and all the rest is corruption. For non believer everything god, dharma, shastra are all void since they want proof the nature of which you people are unaware! "
     
    What about middle-ground? Should only these 2 extremes exist?
     
    "Even if Rama kills Wali in unjust way, even if he banishes Sita even if he commits any act which is against rule all is justified. Because end is Kalyan and they (know) EVEYTHING (science knows infinitesimly little till today). To understand the concept of Kalyan one needs far more curiosity than required to know the laws of physical world."
     
    I'm curious enough and I don't subscribe to the view that whatever Rama did was justified. For me, Rama was a human being, an outstanding one no doubt, but a human nevertheless. At the end of the day, he too had his own human failings that led him to do what he did. And I also don't subscribe to the view that the greater good (or Kalyan, as you refer to it) is the ultimate goal of nature. Greater good of whom, I try to reason. And who decides it? If its the divine that decides it, what's the reason behind giving human beings thinking heads with such diversity?
     
    "Therefore either be believer and just follow rules as interpreted by the Jnani (Dharma) OR start questioning and be the Jnani himself. Choice is yours."
     
    I've chosen to question. :)

     
  10. Sameer

    Ramesh : I'm sorry I didn't read your response to Sanjeev before responding. I understand that you don't accept Ramanujan's book as an authoritative text. I'll come back to you with some authoritative references to back up my argument. Thanks in anticipation of the patience. :)

     
  11. Supratim

    I am unable to fathom Ramesh's thought processes and what he intends to really say – what little I can fathom of it, I find extremely repulsive and vile.
     
    Only certified Jnanis are allowed to interpret the shastras? – where did I last hear this elitist and self serving comment? Oh yeah, at the institutionalisation of the caste system, when the Brahmins decreed that only they were to be allowed access to knowledge. As, knowledge in the hands of the less pure would lead to perversion and the destruction of the social order as we know it.
     
    We all know how that particular social structure evolved.
     
    And, Jnanis? Who are the Jnanis? Who certifies them? Other Jnanis? Who certified them? Or, is this another version of the self certified experts who decree that only they can comment on a particular aspect of knowledge and no one else (Climate science, anyone?). Or is there some secret club, equivalent to the Opus Dei or the Illuminati who take in members by invitation, having judged their work in secret? Or maybe they are all part of the less secret and less elitist MENSA?
     
    What hubris.
     
    And, then to say that the "unqualified vote at our elections" and that is the cause for our current problems – I am left nearly speechless. Nearly, not entirely – else, I would not be able to ascertain as to how our new caste of enlightened voters would be chosen or would arise?
     
    The Brahmins never go away, eh? Note that I use the term "Brahmins" here (Capital B) in its most pejorative form – as in the high priests of any culture or cult or sect or thought process – not to denigrate the whole class/caste of brahmins (small B) who are so born and so  indoctrinated, and follow harmlessly the rituals of their forefathers.
     
    Cheers
     
    Supratim

     
  12. a

    cmon…..christianity and islam both preach that non beleivers go to hell for all eternity and beleivers go to heaven…..their deeds dont make any diff at all…..their heology also preaches that all 'pagan' gods are satan's demons…..check this out thru research if u want…..why should a person professing such a beleif be allowed in a temple? what will they do there? worship demons? mix with people who are destined for hell?
    if they believe gandhi,einstein and jefferson will go to hell and hitler will go to heaven simply cos he was christian…….

     
  13. Sameer

    a : The story is patriarchal (I didn't say parochial) because Ahalya was punished for something that wasn't her fault. Indra being punished is beyond the point. Moreover, the discussion here is about the inherent faults in the way Hinduism is being practiced today. Bringing in flaws inherent in other beliefs doesn't serve any purpose. Neither is it the idea to proclaim one faith better than the other nor do two wrongs make one right.

     
  14. ramesh

     
     Dear Sameer,
    Good to hear from you that you want to be seeker not believer. Then I expect you to be Jidnyasu. It is that stage when a sharp intellectual gets disillusioned or becomes doubtful of the laws of universe (it may be modern science, religion or all that is described as Maya i.e. Gods, ethics, sin, curse, re-birth etc….) and starts asking well reasoned critical scientific (the way science or satellite, computer etc work) questions and ultimately finds answer to the same to TOTAL, ABSOLUTE satisfaction OR gets the same knowledge through the TRUE JNANI-in Hindu language BrahmJnani (say just like Einstein in r/o material sciences OR Sabhlok/Ayn Rand about the liberty/freedom etc).
     
    At such a stage for Jidnyasu, as per shastra, it is forbidden for him to do all that a Astik does say belief in God, Rama, Shiva, Swarga, Narak, rebirth ….so on,  which is a subject of all the ridicule in the modern world but held in high esteem by the believer. You should wonder! But it is true.
     
    For such Jidnyasu he starts with a question where did this universe come from, what was the cause of big bang, where did energy required for the first ever big bang come from, how imaginary numbers build an energy etc….. If he gets the final satisfactory, well proved scientific answer he is called as BrahmJnani in Hindu language. He is also called Guru. Then Such a Guru having known everything for above reason guides everybody who comes with his contact ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY TO REASON OUT THE THINGS AND NOT NECESSARILY THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE WHICH HE IS INCAPABLE OF HOLDING AND MAY DISTORT IT. It is exactly in THIS process that Brahma, Shiva, Visnu with all the DRAMA called MAYA defines karma, rebirth, swarga, narak, rama, krishna,etc etc  of which entry to others into hindu temple is one of an issue.
     
    Everybody who tries to explain such MAYA (in modern language DRAMA) he miserably fails except a TRUE JNANI. 
     
    You know 10th standard student cannot understand the complex processes involved in working of satellite, computer etc. Only those who understand the electricity, magnetism, mechanic, maths, etc alone is qualified to interpret those devices. Otherwise unqualified person may call it just MAGIC. 
     
    Please know that in Hinduism Shiva and Visnu fight with each other, Dvaita and Advaita are contradictory for practical purposes, It is the same hinduism which calls all universe as MAYA (DRAMA) and still builds the elaborate rules say Manusmriti, dharmashastras etc. It is the same MAHARSHI VED VYAS WHO PROPOGATES THESE CONTRADICTORY VERSIONS OF HINDUISM. HE IS THE SAME PERSON WHO PROPOUNDS KARMKAND AND REBUTTS IT IN ADVAITA. 
     
    My friends all this is not contradiction in itself but lack of understanding. They are never contradictory but complementary. It was the failure of Jainism, Buddhism to understand these basic concepts of Hinduism which caused their birth. 
     
    So before you question my explanation it is must that all of you understand the basic tenet of Hinduism called 'MAYA' OR 'MITHYA' concept without which nothing would be understood. Without which either he would be just a 'believer' (easiest one) or belong to other religions (which will hardly satisfy your Jidnasu) or remain Atheist (permanently dead blind since science on its own could never understand mass, time, space which are always defined).
     
    I advise to go through my about 137 comments posted in this blog. Sabhlok has put up many such challenging questions and I have answered them. Lastly I referred Vichar Sagar  to understand the basics of Hinduism – "Maya" on which Sabhlok has published many blog posts. however may be for want of time or want of sufficient reasoning power he termed it as 'confusion' which is being studied all over India as an authority on 'ADVAITA'. If you are really 'Jindnyasu' then you must and should refer this work and then you would come to know what this 'believer is' and 'what this rama' is and why no others can interpret him better except the one who has understood this 'MAYA' and hence is called as 'JNANI' just as a well qualified person is called a professor etc.


     
    Sorry I cannot go on writing.

    Happy to hear you again.

     
  15. ramesh

     
    Dear Supratim/Sameer,

     
    For your kind information my caste by birth is far below that of a Brahman. In my 3rd comment and elsewhere I have explicitly put it that caste is like qualification (to understand, to reason out etc) which has nothing to do with the birth or lineage. I accuse you to have overlooked conveniently this aspect of my argument. If I were to mean what you stated I would have not talked about the religion, rama, ethics etc. I stand for reason, critical scientific thinking etc. 


     
    You know well that a person undergoing the placebo effect is cured well. There is no treatment given in that method. But belief (basic qualification) of the person undergoing the treatment cures him. Similar is the case with Hinduism or others. There is nothing called truth, whatever exists is for the sake of believer who lacks sufficient reasoning power. The one who is aware of this truth is called Jnani or Guru. He knows everything. It doesn't mean that he can perform the magic or build the satellites, computer instantly without laws of science. It means that by studying the physical laws one can work wonders just like pursuing Yoga one can achieve mythical asthasiddhies. There is no difference between Asthasiddies possessed by the ancient yogis and the today’s achievements of computer etc. All is maya which is a matter of study and expertise. That's all. No contradiction to science by the Hinduism. Just like in order to run a business how the MBA qualified person is required so in order to benefit by darshan of god in the temple belief is required lest the system itself will collapse. It is not a question of truth; it is a question of arrangements.


     
    You people are nowhere. Neither believer nor Jnani. You are in the middle called Jidnasu. When left free during the course of time these are likely to become just FREE RIDERS for nothing remains to them like a STANDARD to which they can compare the things and judge their correctness since nothing a single truth remain unveiled to them. Science cannot know the ‘truth’ on itself as per its own laws.

     
    Unqualified voter:
     
    Can you run a business by considering the votes of the all workers of organisation successfully? Can you run the family by considering every members view? Never.
     
    For all this someone responsible, knowledgeable person should be in charge. Running a country is similar to running the biggest business. Even if you educate the every voter I doubt its usefulness for HIS SELF INTEREST WILL GUIDE HIM which is not necessarily the right vote casting. This is called ‘unqulified’ voter. Just by democratically voting change were to happen why India is suffering all these years? Is the voter nonsense? Isn’t voter enjoying the sovereign power to elect the government? I know the issues are complex. Need of the hour is to think differently. This is all what I mean by ‘unqualified voter’ and not in the sense you accuse me. How the further proceedings will be issue is different.
     
    Before we could take concrete decision whichever may be the issue we need to agree on BASICS. Knowledge [True Jnana and not the material information], ideas, morality, society, individual etc are the issues which form the basics without which we will be moving in different directions despite of our NOBLE INTENTIONS for the good of all humanity. Is there wonder our endeavour FTI lag behind in India? This is what I think.

     
  16. Supratim

    Ramesh, you said:
    "You people are nowhere. Neither believer nor Jnani. You are in the middle called Jidnasu. When left free during the course of time these are likely to become just FREE RIDERS for nothing remains to them like a STANDARD to which they can compare the things and judge their correctness since nothing a single truth remain unveiled to them. Science cannot know the ‘truth’ on itself as per its own laws."
     
    That is okay, Ramesh – I am happy being what I am. I do not need either your commendation or qualification or that of any other Jnanis either.  What Science can do or can not do
     
    "Running a country is similar to running the biggest business. Even if you educate the every voter I doubt its usefulness for HIS SELF INTEREST WILL GUIDE HIM which is not necessarily the right vote casting. This is called ‘unqulified’ voter. Just by democratically voting change were to happen why India is suffering all these years? Is the voter nonsense? Isn’t voter enjoying the sovereign power to elect the government?"
     
    Running a country is not equal to running a business for profit. Sorry, you are wrong. You do not get it. And, we have a Republic, not a democracy. And, we,as a country, have multiple checks and balances. The way I see it is that our voter has actually done a super job, given the limitations that she faces and the choices that she faces.
     

     
  17. ramesh

    Dear Supratim,
     
    Re: That is okay, Ramesh – I am happy being what I am
     
    If that were a case with everybody and everybody thinks so and that our voter has done super job I think there is no need for such endeavours like FTI, IAC or Ramdev's movement etc. Hope you did not take it personally (If that were a case you understood nothing)
     
    By business I mean stability and sustainability. Profit is natural outcome. Here profit is welfare of its people.
    In this sense comparison is made. 
     
    Issues are far more complex. They aren't so easy. Unless we agree on principles (scientific way on matters like ethics, society, individual, religion, politics, culture etc) it would be hard to succeed in the task we have embarked upon. The earlier we realize it the better it would be.

     
  18. ramesh

    Supratim,
     
    I also feel bad you sidelined the issues and nature of your comment went to be a bit personal. I might have used the word You but not in the personal sense. You appeared to have maintained the defensive status without well reasoning out the issues. 
     
    Is it this way we are going to pursue, convince the people? Will we appear to be critical thinkers? 
    "I do not need either your commendation or qualification or that of any other Jnanis either". 
    Am I arguing for you personally? Do I wish to show my intelligence? Is it going to be our level of understanding? By this argument is the DEADLOCK going to be solved? 
     
    And if that is a case why can't you justify your stand based on critical reasoning? Either you answer or we will answer. But this attitude will move us nowhere.
     
    I am tired! Sorry if I have mistaken you.
     

     
  19. Sameer

    Ramesh : Before I respond to your comments, I'd like to know a couple of things so that I can understand better where you're coming from.
     
    1. What do you consider yourself to be? A Jnani, Jidnasu or believer?
     
    2. What do you consider a majority of today's enforcers of religion to be? Jnanis, Jidnasus or believers?

     
  20. ramesh

    Dear Sameer,
     
    I really appreciate your questions. For the first time I think you have hit the nail squarely even better than Sabhlok. Hope you will try to understand the answers in depth, if not, ask questions.
     
    1. I will be a Jnani if I satisfy all your queries however deeper, difficult, abstract etc it may be. Instead I will be a Jidnasu if you refute my positions and then I begin to question you hoping the satisfactory answers from you. When I neither question nor could answer others properly I am supposed to be just believer just obeying the rules which are SUPPOSED to be in my interest. Atheist is sort of believer who is hanging badly than a believer. One on his own can never proclaim what he is since that doesn't matter and he would be what others think him to be so the above definitions. It may happen that outwardly a mad man may in fact may be a Jnani, we cannot decide in principle. So is the position of Hinduism.
     
    2. In my opinion a majority say (more than 99.9999%) of today's enforcers of religion to be just BELIEVERS. Intellectual community is likely to be Jidnasus, however for failure to understand the science itself on which they boast, they become atheists (hangers). Or Jidnasus fail to realize the truth they become atheists. These suffer far worse than the believers for nothing remains as a STANDARD for them to be compared with and judged as wrong and correct etc.
     
    Hope you keep your journey in the right direction as proved by your above sort of question. I felt happy.

     
  21. Sameer

    Ramesh : One more question…
     
    If a jidnasu is forbidden to read religious texts on account of the interpretation being susceptible to corruption, how does he engage with the religion critically?

     
  22. SaSuKe

    I donot know from where such "experts" derive their morbid interpretations that "shudras", women, non-beleivers cant enter temples.
    Here is a team of vedic experts who are trying to spread the true message of non-discrimination, compassion and the true meaning of dharma to the world.
     
    http://agniveer.com/2415/agniveer-stand/

     
  23. ramesh

    Dear Sameer,
     
    Where did find that  jidnasu is forbidden to read religious texts on account of the interpretation being susceptible to corruption?
     
    Instead I have said that unqualified when read the religious texts on their own there is every possibility that the text is interpreted contrary to its original meaning. 
     
    In such cases it is advised that the unqualified ones (shudras, women etc not by birth but by qualification and eligibility to reason and think critically) are advised to get the same read or learnt from the Guru's or Jnani who is supposed to know their right essence.
     
    In fact everybody may read all that but they cannot interpret in such a way that results in the uprooting of the beliefs of the people which has been cause of their peace, order, morality and all that is constructive. However when such a person (unqualified one) interprets the same which increases the above particular aspect (constructive) he is none other than the Jnani himself. Thus Jnani or Unqualified ones are differentiated from the effect they make on society for the good which lasts forever.
     
    Therefore the interpretation that Ahalya episode was patriarchal one is improper and interpretation that desire etc leads to bad consequences is held right since it establishes the social order and that former promotes the adultery etc.
     
    Jidnasu is supposed to read everything but should keep on questioning till he becomes able to clear the contradictions he faces. If he fails by way of want of answer he repudiates the text themselves and becomes Atheist etc and if he succeeds he is synonymous with the Guru himself.
     
    Confuse not.
     

     
  24. ramesh

    Dear SaSuKe,
     
    Good to hear that such experts exists. In fact I knew them for some time. As per my knowledge still they are far away from society, politics. In my view they exist for the sake of Vedas and not to make the impact on the present social, political scenario. Till they reach such a maturity they are worth not consideration. Vedas or for that sake anything are synonymous with WELFARE (SHIVSWARUP) AND EVERYTHING ELSE END WITH THAT. Till they spring into action notice need not be taken of them.
     
    We will wait such a time your link gets ready to make a impact on Society by way of social, political action the way Sabhlok is acting. Had I meant religion, Dharma, Hinduism for the sake of themselves I would not be making comments on such political blogs. There are innumerable blogs which exist like the one you referred to. These are all meaningless unless THEY START MAKING REAL IMPACT ON THE SOCIETY, POLITY FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD.
     
    Hope you get the point.

     
  25. ramesh

    Dear SaSuKe/Samer
     
    continued…….
     
    Please note that " interpretations that "shudras", women, non-beleivers cant enter temples" 
     
    is not a mine personal. I have not invented it. It has been part of Karmkand of Vedas or some Manusmriti etc (It is not my job to be expert in). I am trying here as to what all this Karmkand etc originally mean. 
     
    You are all ignoring the fact that the same Vedas refute the SAME KARMKAND which stipulates the rules like the above one in the JNANKAND or similar parts. It is here where the reasoning power of the Jidnasu is tested in reconciling the contradictions. If his reasoning is not strong enough he fails and thinks of the religions like Buddhism, Jainism, atheism (This is how they are born). Vichar Sagar may help you to understand the basics of Hinduism analysis of which will help bridge the gap between Dvaita (all that is being interpreted today, science etc) and the Advaita (the ultimate truth).
     

     
  26. SaSuKe

    @ ramesh:
    agree perfectly with "shudras" are not by birth.
    However, nothing prevents any person with a sincere approach to UNDERSTAND TRUTH AND  REJECT FALSEHOOD from taking up the vedas, whether he be a "born" shudra,muslim, xtian ,woman whatever. There is nothing discriminatory sacntioned by teh vedas that so and so should not enter temples.
    "We will wait such a time your link gets ready to make a impact on Society by way of social, political action the way Sabhlok is acting."
    > Dude. check out the link I gave and go through some of their articles.They are  not just printing articles, they are actively involved in society too.They recently managed to bring about ban of cow slaughter in Kolkatta.
     No impact on society the way sablok is doing? I randomly went through this guy's posts and most of it came off as average. By the way, this guy supports Jha's theory of beef in vedas. Here is a rebuttal to such allegations.
    http://agniveer.com/68/no-beef-in-vedas/
    http://agniveer.com/3942/no-beef-in-vedas-part2/
     
     

     
  27. sabhlok

    Sasuke, I’m not saying that Jha is correct, but the fact is that he has presented VERY SOLID evidence, based on solid peer reviewed research (not just of historians, but of archaeologists). I’ve browsed through Agniveer’s material briefly. On balance it is almost certain that Indians ate beef in the past. That’s what ALL OF MANKIND did. But let the truth prevail.

    I’m against all idea of banning “cow slaughter” and the like. Let people who don’t want to eat cows not do so. Let there be freedom. But I won’t engage further on this issue.

    Carry on your other discussions which I’m finding interesting but will comment later.

    S

     
  28. SaSuKe

    @ Sabhlok,

    Dude, I never claimed people never ate beef in the past. I myself have eaten it too. I just told that there is no sanction of it in vedas, which actually vehemently calls for the protection of cows.Agniveer has shown with ample evidences to back up his claim too. If you have any such allegation, please come forward and present it there.
    I believe there is an instance of beef eating in upanishads as translated by shankaracharya himself. But I specifically posted that to refute allegations of  beef in vedas. And by the way, I too had a brief look through your site. You will find many of your ideals in sync with their site's primary objecitves. Please check out that site whenver you get the time.so long.

     
  29. ramesh

     
     
     Dear Sasuke,

     
    Re:However, nothing prevents any person with a sincere approach to UNDERSTAND TRUTH AND  REJECT FALSEHOOD from taking up the vedas, whether he be a "born" shudra,muslim, xtian ,woman whatever. There is nothing discriminatory sacntioned by teh vedas that so and so should not enter temples.
     
    Definitely nothing prevents any person with a sincere approach to UNDERSTAND TRUTH AND  REJECT FALSEHOOD from taking up the vedas, whether he be a "born" shudra,muslim, xtian ,woman whatever is true. 
     
    I said and repeat "In fact everybody may read all that but they cannot interpret in such a way that results in the uprooting of the beliefs of the people which has been cause of their peace, order, morality and all that is constructive. However when such a person (unqualified one) interprets the same which increases the above particular aspect (constructive) he is none other than the Jnani himself. Thus Jnani or Unqualified ones are differentiated from the effect they make on society for the good which lasts forever."
     
    If you understand properly what I said above you will find no difference between a Jnani (qualified) and the Shudra. It the interpretation by the particular person and its impact as a whole on the society lasting forever that decides the qualification of that person and not reading the text itself or seeing the temple itself [Interpretation is like actually taking darshan of the God where there is every chance of the unqualified one to mislead himself and the society so barred]. Valmiki was like those of shudra, hasn't he composed the holy  text which is a part of Hinduism and where the very rules (I don't know where exactly but I have read it many times and I agree with this rule) state that Shudra, women during menstruation or non believers should not enter the temple. This can't be contradiction. The same shastras while dealing in the Jnankanda (Vichar Sagar etc) refute not only this rule but the whole shastras itself not to talk of this rule! Are you aware? It may confuse Shabhlok beyond limit!!!
    Then didn’t you read me wrongly inspite of repetitions? (imagine of unqualified ones understanding the same!-Of course I do agree I have limited expressing power, however).
    You people are getting confused that essence of my saying is not in barring the unqualified ones to read the text but it is against interpreting the texts as a professor or expert or as an authority which attacks the constructive traditional beliefs. Please try to understand what I say.
     
    About Beaf eating:
    Let everybody know that I am a staunch Hindu. Hinduism is synonymous with reason, logic, science (2+2=4). Without these Hinduism is non- existent. 
     
    Dear Sasuke, India is no longer a country of Hindus alone. We have lost it long ago to the non-believers due to taking of dharma into hands by the non-qualified ones. Mother Cow is so dear to me and justify great significance. But we are helpless. Hinduism says that one cannot impose one’s view on others by force except by reasoning. Banning cow slaughter is like imposing our view on others who does exist in India. There will be rift in the society and confrontation of beliefs. It may amount to mixing the religion with politics. Let the people decide themselves. I am aware it will never convince you. But it is sure by this ban that people of other beliefs who think it of as food will not be taken into confidence. It would be more appropriate to convince them by reason, if possible. Otherwise banning the slaughter can’t be a way. It is rational approach suggested by the Hinduism as per desh and kal that prevails. Just for the sake of religion, emotions, feeling pushing the matter further may disturb the order of the society.
     
    Agneerver.com which is supposed to be champion of the true message of Vedas how can indulge in imposing the ban against the interest of the others. Will it ever succeed in politics? In society even the Hindu believers are not with the Hinduism! How is that Agniveer is going to achieve something by such actions?
     
    At present Agiveer seems to be just like group of some Satsang which will offer solace to the inquiring people. It is far from entering the politics. I tried to convey the fact to them. It was in vein.
     
    I request you Sasuke either to take this message to them to involve into the politics, consider FTI, or efforts like FTI e.g. IAC, Ramdev, however the one which succeeds ultimately or ask deserving questions further to get clarified or question our logic itelf. 

     
  30. sagar khobragade

    Dear friend,

    It’s true that the Muslims and Christians believes that they cannot enter the temple. But ask yourself, this question would not have risen if everyone would have a believed that GOD is one and only his avatars are different.. There are no restrictions on any human to enter any kind of religious place.. GOD doesn’t look upon as Hindu’s or Muslim’s or Christians but only human.. And listens us all the time and gives us all at the right time.. We should only have a different identity by our name just to differentiate and not by religion, because we all are one family, everything that exist.. Because we all are HIS creations.. Why do people convert religions? Does they believes that other religion’s GOD is different? No my friend, THEY are all same, ALLAH, JESUS, BRAHMA, VISHNU, MAHESH. all are one same GOD with different avatars. We all are HIS creations. Respect that fact and remember we are just the dust passing through time.. And disrespecting the other religions means you are disrespecting the one and only one GOD. And when you disrespect GOD there would be consequences… And converting the religion would be the most disrespectful act… Stop converting and just believe that we all are one family and our religion is humanity..

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *