From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani <ashokjai@sancharnet.in>
Date: Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: {UnitedHinduFront} Opening Vedic Temples to All, from Stephen Knapp
To: Stephen Knapp <srinandan@aol.com>
Cc: Prof Anantanand Rambachan <rambacha@stolaf.edu>, Dr Raj Pandit Sharma <drrsharma@o2.co.uk>
----- Original Message -----From: Srinandan@aol.comSent: 28 Jan 2010 9:30 AMSubject: Re: {UnitedHinduFront} Opening Vedic Temples to All, from Stephen KnappDear Raj Pandit,Namaste. I understand your points completely, but I'm not sure if you understand mine. I'm not talking about allowing just anyone into the sanctum of any temple. I'm also not comparing churches and mosques to Vedic temples. I'm only saying that when people are sincerely respectful and want to participate in the Vedic traditions, to help preserve and protect the future of the Vedic traditions, temple should allow any such person the freedom to participate and feel welcome. Otherwise, it brings about a slow extinction to the future of Hindu society, while an increasing number of people will join the ranks of Muslims and Christians--those who would rather see the complete demise of the Vedic culture altogether.Of course, those who are not sincere in regard to the Vedic traditions can be restricted. But many are those who are sincere and are still restricted. That is the problem, which then forces them to go someplace else.You mention the Bhagavad-gita, but that also points out how everyone is a spiritual being. So how is it that some people are recognized as not being suitable to participate in a spiritual process, the Vedic process, that is meant to help everyone rise to a higher status of spiritual understanding. This has nothing to do with diminishing the potency of the deity.Yes, Christians are often the worst when it comes to discrimination and segregation amongst castes, so why should we be like them? We should work to be the exact opposite of them.Actually, I have been to Kashmir and have seen their light complexion, since you bring that up. You seem to make certain presumptions regarding my experience in India, as if I am not so familiar with it.Furthermore, I did follow protocol when it came to visiting temples and gain entry to a few with the help of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati's letter, who seems to know more about me than you do. It was the temple management who decided to allow my entrance into their temples and also allow me to do puja as any other Hindu through the priests of that temple. Nonetheless, as I have said, I have visited and entered literally hundreds of temples across India, so I'm not much upset by the few who have not allowed me to go in.As in your last paragraph, you say that I appear to be proud of my European identity. In what way have I made that appearance? Also, you say that it is the Vedic scriptures that establish what castes can or cannot enter temples, so you must be familiar enough to give some quotes from them. I'd like to hear them. And yes, Hindus should be proud of their culture, proud enough to stand up to defend it, which many do not seem to be.I also hope you realize that there are many Hindus who have also mentioned how their own faults are turning large numbers of other Hindus or potential Hindus away to become either Christians, Muslims or Buddhists. Surely you read the papers and are aware of such things, and the statements that have been made by other Hindus in this regard. If the conversion tactics of Christians and Muslims are so successful, there must be a reason why, other than being better funded and more organized. If Hindus worked to be more inclusive, and people felt better about being Hindu, it would certainly be more difficult to turn others away from the Vedic tradition. That is the key issue here. So, if things do not change in some way, your own family may very well turn away from the Vedic tradition in another few generations. I pray that does not happen, but if you look around, it is already happening at an increasing rate across India.Hari OM,Stephen KnappIn a message dated 1/27/2010 6:06:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, drrsharma@o2.co.uk writes:Aadarneeya Shri Stephen Knapp ji (Sri Nandana dasa)
Thank you kindly for your comments which we read with interest; it is always fascinating to see Sanatan Dharma through the eyes of someone who has adopted Hindu ways and offers solutions using western parameters.
Firstly it appears that both you and Professor Rambachan ji misunderstand the actual concept of a devAlaya / mandir; they are not intended for congregational worship as a church, synagogue, gurdwara or mosque, rather function as sanctums allowing the archanA (veneration) of a carefully consecrated embodiment (prAna-pratiShThit mUrti / pratimA / vigraha) of divinity, according to shAstra and not primarily for the 'darshan' of all asunder. The very construction (nirmANa) and configuration of such a place is strictly governed by Hindu scriptures. Furthermore, it is incumbent on the temple Priests and governing body to ensure that the sanctum sanctorum remains free from impediment thereby maintaining the resident deity's potency. If the mandir's sanctity is compromised in any way, then a lengthy and complex punar-prANapratiShThA would have to be undertaken in order to restore the deity's potency.
You will appreciate that these are not manmade notions, but governed by the statutes of our Shaastras. Even Shri Krishna commands "Tasmaat shaastram pramaanam te, kaarya akaarya vyavasthitau" (vide Gita 16.24); that for what ought or ought not to be done, Shaastra is the ultimate authority. Such a spiritual place must be kept sanctified for the vigraha (embodiment of divinity) to remain effective and emanate positivity. Even the temple archakas are not exempt from these rigorous scriptural statutes and would not enter the sanctum during times of ashaucha. If such directives were unnecessary one could question as to what then is the difference between the vigraha in a mandir and a statue in a gallery? Can we emphatically demonstrate that such prerequisites apply to churches, mosques or synagogues? We think not and for that reason it is wholly simplistic and iniquitous to compare the religious buildings of other faiths to Hindu temples, as their purpose is quite different.
You will also appreciate that Hindus are not unique in alleged entry restrictions to places of worship; are Ahmadiyaa Muslims in Pakistan permitted to enter masjids? Christians perhaps are the worst when it comes to discrimination in religion, which extends even to the grave. They are guilty of keeping reserved pews in certain churches and cathedrals for monarchs, nobility or gentry and Dalit converts made to stand in the periphery of the church, with separate cups for communion and not even allowed to be buried in the same cemeteries as other Christians when they expire.
Many UK Hindus when attending a Hindu-Christian bridge building lecture delivered by the very same author of this article, Professor Rambachan and arranged by the world leader of the Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury last year witnessed the worst kind of discrimination practised by Christians against Hindus. Whilst Professor Ramabachan ji proportioned the blame for some Hindus leaving the fold as being 'our own fault' and totally ignored the effects of the well-oiled and rampant conversion strategy of the Church in India, the venerable Archbishop was quite openly asked before the invitees to concur whether he considered the Hindu Faith to be a legitimate path to salvation, his Eminence would not accept that anyone following the 'pagan' Hindu Faith could reach moksha without surrendering to Christ. Many Hindus present were disenchanted with this response and saw the true face of Christian haughtiness and bigotry.
If you Sri Nandana ji were permitted to enter mandirs in India with a pramANa patra from Swami Dayanand Sarasvati ji, then we would question on what authority the Swami would provide this document which clearly flouts the tenets of our scriptures. Had you any regard for the statutes and scriptures of the very Dharma you appear to uphold, then you would have accepted as other Hindus do, the regulations of the mandir you are visiting and not gone out of your way to defy protocol. Furthermore you contend that you were barred entry to temples on the basis of your complexion then evidently you have not encountered some Hindus of Jammu Kashmir and other parts of India whose fair skin exceeds the hue of any foreigner; in fact K M Munshi of Gujarat and Sir C P Ramaswami Iyer' s pallor far exceeds that of any westerner,
We admire and commend your affinity for Sanatan Dharma and your zeal to establish it to its original status, however in so doing let us not distort it beyond recognition. We would respectfully request that you bear this in mind prior to propounding novel ideas about Sanatan Dharma. Our dharmAcharyas have never refuted or disregarded the directives of our scriptures and even to this day are there to guide us in matters of faith. We note that though you would wish to be accepted as a fully fledged member of the Hindu community and that we Hindus agree to your reflections, you still retain your European identity and appear to be proud of your ancestry and status. Similarly I am sure you and Professor Rambachan ji will appreciate that Hindus are equally proud of their rich and illustrious heritage and do not respond warmly to comments that their scriptures and practices therein are the cause of people turning away from the Faith. The reasons why Hindus are being outnumbered by other religions (and not decreasing as you suggest) are legion, least of all the issue of temple entry as you and Shri Rambachan advocate. Unbridled reproduction and a prolific, targeted and well orchestrated conversion policy in Islam and Christianity have given them a pre-eminent global position.
Namaskar.
Raj Pandit
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:42 PM, <Srinandan@aol.com> wrote:
Namaste,It has always been an issue of why Hindus often proclaim to be of a great and high philosophy, recognizing the spiritual nature of one and all regardless of background, yet cannot display such a philosophy in their own actions. How is it that Hindus complain of their decreasing numbers when they do not even welcome everyone to be a Hindu, or to enter their temples? This is especially outlined in the article below, which addresses how Indian Dalits are often treated with much bias to the point of not being allowed to enter Hindu temples.As for me, I have been treated the same way in various temples. However, I have visited so many temples across India that for every temple that did not allow me to enter, there were twenty others that did. Of those that did not some changed their attitude when I presented a letter from Swami Dayananda Sarasvati stating that I was a dedicated follower of Sanatana Dharma and should be treated as such. Then at times, with his recommendation, I was let in and treated very nicely. In some temples, however, it doesn't matter. You are still not getting in if your skin is the wrong color or you are of the wrong class.Nonetheless, it disturbs me when other Hindus, whether they be of low caste, class, or of the wrong color (in my case just by being white-skinned) they are not allowed in the temple. When so many other religions, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc, are willing to open their doors to anyone, discriminating amongst those who can enter and those who cannot enter Hindu temples seems to me to be a sure prescription to a slow extinction of the Vedic culture. If anyone cannot enter the Hindus temples, or participate in the Vedic traditions with others, then why should they not join or convert to other religions or spiritual paths?This is something that should be corrected, or the Hindus that remain may become the few who are left to manage their temples, which will be gradually taken away by government acquisition, lack of support from followers, or left to deteriorate because of neglect. And this may not take so many generations before this becomes increasingly evident, if it has not become so already.I am constantly surprised by how many Hindus feel that the Vedic tradition is an eternal path, so why worry? Is this their excuse to be apathetic? If it is, then they are doing a damn good job for finding the ways to do nothing at all. And anyone who does worry, in their eyes, is simply illogical. This is not the prescription that Lord Krishna gave to Arjun in the Bhagavad-gita, who told him to stand up and fight.Anyone who knows me and hears how I speak about the Vedic culture often says that I had to be an Indian Hindu in a previous life. Nonetheless, when I write an article that raises my red flag about how Hindus should be more open or inclusive to those who would sincerely like to participate, and more determined to protect their own culture, I feel fortunate that many agree, but still amazed at how many feel there is no need to listen to me [after all, what do I know?], primarily because I'm white-skinned. However, the concerns I raise are still supported by others, as found, for example, in the article below.Let us all open the doors of temples to everyone so they can feel included and welcome to remain within the fold of followers of Vedic Dharma. Why should anyone feel they have to leave? This is the way we can increase our numbers, our influence, strength, and support. There is nothing bad in that. It is our duty to preserve, protect, promote. and help perpetuate the true Dharma for the benefit of everyone, including ourselves.Hari OM,Stephen Knapp (Sri Nandanandana dasa)Opening temple doors to allA new year resolution for HinduismPublished: 24 Jan 2010A recent report of a study conducted across 1,655 villages in the Indian state of Gujarat, representing 98,000 Dalits, revealed the shocking fact that 97 per cent of them feel that they are unwelcome at Hindu temples, religious gatherings and public discourses on scripture. Researchers did not find a single village that was free from the practice of untouchability. ("No temple entry for Dalits in Gujarat," Times of India, December 7, 2009). Such exclusion is neither infrequent nor limited to Gujarat. The BBC News ("Fury over south India temple ban," October 15, 2009) reported an incident of stone throwing to protest Dalits entering a temple near Vedaranyam in the state of Tamil Nadu.Last month the High Court of Chennai issued an order, against the wishes of temple trustees, that a temple procession pass through a Dalit community in the Villipuram District. Dalit (oppressed) is the name preferred by those who have been relegated to the lowest rungs of the caste ladder and regarded as untouchable by members of upper castes. Dalits constitute around 20 per cent of the Indian population.
Although the exclusion of Dalits from places of Hindu worship ought to be a matter of deep concern and distress, there is hardly a ripple of protest in the sea of Hindu complacency. Shutting the doors of Hindu temples to Dalits stands in bewildering contrast to the anxiety in other religious traditions about dwindling numbers and the expenditure of considerable resources to attract the faithful. It should not surprise that those debarred from Hindu sanctums enter, in significant numbers, the open and inviting doors of others.
Those in India and outside who are vociferous opponents of religious conversion must understand and acknowledge the Dalit experience of the Hindu tradition as oppressive and negating their dignity and self-worth.
Conversion is a challenge for Hindus to consider the relationship between religious practice and systemic oppression. Exclusion from temples is only one manifestation of such oppression. It troubles deeply also that, with notable exceptions, the principal voices of protest over exclusion are not those of Hindu leaders. In the case of anti-Dalit violence in the town of Vedaranyam, referred to above, the protests were led by supporters of the Communist Party of India–Marxist. In other cases, secular-minded human rights activists are at the forefront of the agitation on behalf of the Dalits.
Earlier this year, Navin Pillay, UN Commissioner for Human Rights, condemned caste as negating the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and called for a UN convention to outlaw discrimination based on caste.
The response of silence from Hindus may be interpreted as support for barring Dalits from places of worship. Even more importantly, indifference gives validation to the wrong impression that the Hindu tradition has no theological ground or core for challenging the human inequality that is at the root of the Dalit ostracisation and oppression. The assumptions of human inequality that explain the continuing persistence of untouchability need an urgent, vigorous and unambiguous theological repudiation originating from the non-negotiable heart of the Hindu tradition. Although Hinduism is admittedly diverse, its major traditions are unanimous in affirming the equal existence of God in every being. "God," the Bhagavadgita proclaims, "lives in the heart of all beings." This core theological teaching must become the basis for the assertion of the equal dignity and worth of every human being and the motivation for challenging and transforming the oppressive structures of caste that, in reality, deny and violate the luminous presence of God in all.
Although every unjust expression of caste needs to be denounced, the shutting of temple doors to people pleading for the opportunity to worship challenges, in a special way, the meaning and legitimacy of Hinduism as a religious tradition. For this reason, Hindus must commit themselves with tireless determination to the work of welcoming Dalits into every Hindu place of worship. Such work must be seen as fundamental to Hindu identity and the meaning of belonging to the community of Hindus.
While we must commend and support Hindu leaders and movements working already for the wellbeing of Dalits and their equality and dignity, we must recognise also that many Hindu leaders may not be at the forefront of such a religiously inspired movement. They are the beneficiaries of the privileges of caste and immune to the pain of those who live at the margins. All Hindus who understand the contradiction between teachings centred on God's embodiment in every human being and the exclusion of people from places of worship must embrace this cause.
Hindus settled outside of India who enjoy the privileges of living in free societies and the protection of the law against unequal and unjust treatment, have special obligations in this matter. They need to lift their voices in protest against practices in the name of Hinduism that denigrate human beings. They must ensure that Hindu leaders, and especially those who travel often to the West and who are the recipients of their donations and reverence, hear their voices. They must make clear the unacceptability of religious discrimination and demand that leaders renounce silence and indifference and become active advocates for change. Every Hindu leader must be challenged to take a stand in this matter.
The Constitution of India specifies: "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth." Constitutional and legal measures, as necessary as these are, have not and will not eliminate all forms of discrimination based on caste inequality.
Legal measures can never cause the joyous embrace of all that follows from awakening to God's presence in each heart. Religious vision and wisdom can be the source of such transformed relationships. Hinduism needs an unequivocal theological proclamation that complements constitutional law by repudiating caste injustice and that commits Hindus to the equal worth of all human beings. Opening the doors of all Hindu temples to Dalits is an important step, an urgent religious matter and an opportunity for the Hindu tradition, in our time, to define itself. Let this be our collective Hindu resolution in 2010.
Prof Anantanand Rambachan
Professor and Chair
Religion Department
Saint Olaf College
rambacha@stolaf.edu
***************************************************************************************
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment