Calvin wrote:It doesn't appear that we are able to get past the "torn shirt open fly" stage.
Please note that the temples that I pointed out are among the most visible temples in the dharmic tradition. These places would be on par with Mecca, St. Peters in Rome, Westminster Abbey in London etc.
The argument that these places are "private" is not quite tenable. A "public space" is generally defined as a place that is open to the public whether or not on payment of money.
The argument that churches restrict access to non-dharmic peoples on the basis of the fear of destruction may have some merit, but in the context of restrictions on the basis of caste, one wonders if this is an post-facto justification.
At the end of the day, the only reason to bring up this particular aspect of the religious practice was to highlight the differences between the discourse among (evidently) highly learned individuals and the reality experienced by the majority of the practitioners. How is this different from the Islamist dualism in regard to the meaning of "jihad"?
Calvin,
Regarding restrictions on entering of non-hindus into some hindu temples, there have been so far 3 arguments which I paraphrase below:
- (i) Temples are literally the private houses of the deity. And management worries whether allowing non-hindus who do not have respect for the deity into the sanctum sanctorum is a sacrilege or not.
(ii) Past bitter history of destructions and loot of temples by non-hindus has created a persistent phobia regarding non-hindus getting into some of these large temples.
(iii) Temples are private property and it is upto the owners to decide who gets to enter and put restrictions on non-hindus, certain castes, women etc.
First two are quite valid, the last one is most shaky.
In hinduism, most respected scriptures are caste and gender neutral. In Bhagavad Gita krishna says clearly that he is present as the innermost Self in every person , and any humble offering, of a leaf, fruit or merely water, when offered by a devotee, he gladly accepts. He also says that people may worship in various ways and to various deities but all that worship ends up reaching him since he is the heart of all existence. Vedas have no caste or gender issues at all. People bring up the Purusha-Sukta of Rgveda where shudras were called the feet of the universal-being (the Purusha). There is strong evidence that during vedic times, castes were purely varna based and not jati based, i.e. a person's lifestyle and work determined his varna not his family of birth. Varnas could be changed too as Rishi vishwamitra changed from kshatriya to brahmana. Upanishads, which being the source of all hindu philosophy have perhaps the biggest admirers amongst the intellectually oriented mamebers on this forum, do not discuss rituals and worship in the usual sense, and have no issues regarding caste and gender.
In this light if a temple management discriminates against a person based simply on caste and gender, then that is not supported by the highest hindu scriptures. But many temples did and some still do. There has been a lot of movement within hindu society in rectifying the situation and there has been gradual but steady improvement in the situation.
But do the practices of some temples in restricting caste based entry reflect or reflected on the hindu society and religion at large? I have to say that they reflect on the Indian society in general, but not specifically and entirely on the religion. Manusmriti, which is blamed for many of the caste practices, is not a scripture, it a book of laws amongst many such books written by many sages. Manusmriti is not the word of the divine. Manusmriti has a much inferior position than the shruti (veda-upanishad) and bhagavad-gita .
To justify this, I point out that many hindu saints and sages were born in lower castes but were revered by all nonetheless. One of the stringent requirements of the dashanami monk system started by Adi Shankaracharya is that after a person takes the sanyasa (monkhood) vows, his past life including his caste become completely immaterial. And hindu society all through the ages has practiced this. A sanyasi or sage is given all respect due to him/her irrespective of what caste he/she was born into.
Couple of present day examples. Mata Amritanandamayi was born in a fisherman caste, and had very little formal education. But since she was recognised as a god-realized soul, today she is literally worshipped by millions of hindus as Devi herself. A large number of monks in her order, were born in the so called upper castes with a preponderance of brahmins. Another example is Baba Ramdev. He was born in the yadava caste. But today his millions of followers belong to all possible castes.
Caste divisions have been a reflection of the hindu society not of the religion itself. If it were a reflection on the religion, then hindus who convert to Islam and Christianity should be out of it the moment they convert. But that is not the case. Converted muslims and christians continue their caste identities into their new religions. So pinning anomalies of caste discrimination in some temples, squarely on hindu religion is not really valid.
