Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm Merlyn

Should Allow All Women In Sabarimala Temple, Kerala Tells Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Quote

New Delhi:  Women of all age groups should be allowed in the famous Sabarimala shrine of Kerala, the state government today told the Supreme Court, reversing the stand of the previous Congress-led government.

Young women are traditionally not allowed in the Sabarimala temple. Some say they are not allowed since they are considered "unclean" during menstruation but other scholars say that they are not allowed because Ayyappa- to whom the temple is dedicated -  is considered a celibate yogi.

Last year, there was outrage when the chief of the Sabarimala Devasom Board, Prayar Gopalakrishnan, had said women will be allowed into the temple the day a machine is invented to detect if they are menstruating.

 


"The day there will be a machine to detect if it's the 'right time' for women to enter temples, that day they will be allowed in Sabarimala," Mr Gopalakrishnan was reported as saying.

The Left-led LDF government had in 2007 said that women should not be stopped from entering the shrine but that stand changed when the Congress-led UDF was in power.

http://www.ndtv.com/kerala-news/women-of-all-ages-should-be-allowed-into-sabarimala-temple-kerala-tells-supreme-court-1622291?pfrom=home-lateststories

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer Sai Deepak fighting for Sabarimala in the SC. @beetle FYI. See this video before claiming victimhood for discrimination against women in the case of Sabarimala issue. In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs. Follw #ReadyToWait hastag where women are coming out in support of the tradition 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/guest-column/sabarimala-in-defence-of-tradition

 

Quote

Tradition has it that just hearing about Lord Rama had made Sabari one of his ardent devotees. As was a dream come true for most Bhaktas, Sabari was able to assuage Rama and Lakshmana's hunger, as they went on their way in search of Sita who had been abducted by Ravana. Sabari bit into the fruits she served Lord Rama, from the ones she used to collect daily, in the hope of feeding Rama, were He to suddenly manifest. This was a gross violation of traditional Indian etiquette. It took the sagacity of Rama to explain to Lakshmana, that far from being unhygienic and spittle spattered, Sabari was ensuring that He would get only the sweetest of fruit. Sabarimala, the place where this lady used to live had become a divine place, its very name celebrates the power of woman.

Lord Ayyappa had an unusual genesis. He was born out of Shiva and Vishnu, in His female Mohini form. There are two notable instances in this mystic birth. Attributing qualities like masculinity and femininity to Supreme Powers is totally a human trait. To have a Deity that was the synthesis of both Shaivite and Vaishnavite powers brought together the warring factions.

Traditionally, it was only the pre and post puberty females who were allowed into this Temple. One of the reasons was the sheer physical rigorousness of journey. Before hormone pills were discovered, it was impossible for a menstruating woman to take an unbroken "Mandala" vow for 41 days. The rank smell of menstrual blood would have been a liability then, in attracting the attention of wild animals in the now sadly depleting and once almost impenetrable jungle of this mountain shrine.

With thirty-three Crores of Divinities to choose from, a Hindu is spoilt for choice. Ayyappa, the God of Sabarimala, does not hate women. To suggest that this bachelor God will lose His Head if female devotees throng to see Him is ridiculous.

Malikapurathamma, a lady in love with Lord Ayyappa, has been yearning for Him since centuries. Ayyappa had promised to wed Her, the year there are no new devotees ( or Kanni Ayyappans as they are called ). As part of their visit to the temple, first time devotees are required to make their mark at the Sharam-Kuthi-Aal. Kerala folk songs abound with an eager Malikapurathamma setting out to the Sharam-Kuthi-Aal, hoping to find it bare and Her wedding to Ayyappa finally taking place, only to return dejected at the ever increasing deluge of first time Sabarimala goers.

In the traditions enshrined in Hinduism, women who fell in love with deities themselves became deified and worshipped. Parvathi, was the daughter of Himavan as well as a rebirth of Sati, Shiva's first wife, became a Goddess Herself, as did Aandaal who married Her beloved Vadapathrasaayi, or reclining Vishnu. Isolating a male God from His possible human lovers was never a tenet of Hinduism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs.

Same  same.

If a small girl and an old women can climb...so can menstruating women. Menstruation is not a sickness. Not all women even have discomfort during the periods.

Women do not menstruate 365 days a year....so the keeping women out for their health goes out of the window.

 

That said, it seems to be more symbolic .

Personally I would never go to a temple or pray a God who doesn't care and wants me out.

 

I would advise my daughter to never make the effort to go to a place or God where she will not be welcome in some years. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Lawyer Sai Deepak fighting for Sabarimala in the SC. @beetle FYI. See this video before claiming victimhood for discrimination against women in the case of Sabarimala issue. In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs. Follw #ReadyToWait hastag where women are coming out in support of the tradition 

 

 

I read about it yesterday. Good argument but not convinced.

Personally...I don't care much . Not interested in going to insecure temples. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as the "bachelor god" as much as I know. Allowing women just violates that very faith of the devotees for which they go there. Their entire purpose of the visit is defeated.

 

What next? Let's allow non Muslims to perform Hajj as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, motomaverick said:

Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as the "bachelor god" as much as I know. Allowing women just violates that very faith of the devotees for which they go there. Their entire purpose of the visit is defeated.

 

What next? Let's allow non Muslims to perform Hajj as well.

So women who can reproduce are in the same category as  non hindus now.

Even non hindu guys are allowed but a majority of hindu women are not.

 

If it is about celibacy of god....then why girls and old women are allowed?

They also have the same reproductive organs. 

 

If it is a men's only temple ...then do so.

Why discriminate only against women in the reproductive age ....

 

Why not accept that the temple discriminates against women who are young and can reproduce?

 

Why make silly excuses of ' for their good only ' ?Why not just accept that people don't want to accept that their mentality has not changed .

 

 

As for being a bachelor God.....that is fine. Just declare it as such and banish all women. Why scared of being anti women completely?

 

Or just accept the temple does not want women  because women are either 'dirty or seductresses only 'in a certain age group.

 

Besides what are the women  going to do in the temple besides praying?

Why so insecure?

 

And one  thought temples were for praying .

 

 

 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, beetle said:

So women who can reproduce are non hindus now.

 

 

What are you even blabbering about? There are women specific temples all over india. These arent god(s), these are dieties. Know the difference, before popping a vein. 

Edited by surajmal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/sabarimala-case-people-for-dharma-leaves-court-spellbound-here-are-his-arguments

Quote

 

The petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking entry of women of all ages in the Sabarimala Temple is in the final stages of its hearing.

The petitioners have argued that not allowing all women inside the temple amounts to discrimination based on gender and is thus violating of the Indian Constitution. A series of respondents has contested the claims of the petitioners in the case.

On 26 July, lawyer J Sai Deepak appeared on behalf of a non-profit organisation called ‘People for Dharma’, one of the respondents in the case. His forceful arguments in the court took social media by storm, where he was hailed for greatly strengthening the case of the defence.

Sai said that from the language of Article 25(1), it is evident that the rights of any worshipper under the said Article are subject to the rights of religious institutions under Article 26 and, therefore, the former cannot claim to have better rights than the latter.

The lawyer submitted that while the petitioner, temple, and devotees have been asserting their rights under Articles 25(1), 26, and 25(1) respectively, no one has pointed out that deity also has rights under Articles 25 (1), 21, and 26.

Sai then referred to various judgments of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India establishing that a deity has juristic character and is thus a legal person and, therefore, can enjoy rights under Articles 21, 25(1), and 26.

Sai submitted that the deity has rights to practise and preserve its Dharma, including its vow of Naishtika Brahmacharya under Article 25(1) and has the right to expect the privacy of that character under Article 21. He further stated that it is the vow of the deity that is implemented as the tradition of the Sabarimala Temple, which, therefore, brings into the picture rights under Article 26(b).

The lawyer then argued that the petitioner cannot claim that its rights under Article 25(1) must prevail over the rights of the deity along with the rights of devotees, men and women, who observe the tradition. He also submitted that a worshipper cannot claim to have a greater right to worship than the rights of the deity whom he or she claims to worship and whose traditions he or she has no respect for.

Sai argued that the issue in the petition was not about “temple vs women” or “men vs women”, but “men v men” and “women vs women”. If the petitioner’s contention were allowed, then men who don't observe the 41-day vow can also claim right of entry into Sabarimala Temple citing Article 25(1). A Hindu might say that he wants to offer chicken to Lord Ganesha citing Article 25(1) and so on.

While arguing for the temple’s right to preserve its denomination under Article 26, Sai was asked by the Chief Justice how Ayyappa devotees constituted a religious denomination when there was no specific “Ayyappa sect”. Sai pointed out to the Chief Justice’s observation that the status of a religious denomination is not bestowed by the court but is something that comes from within the community. Since Ayyappa devotees share a common faith in Lord Ayyappa, and respect the practices associated with the worship of Lord Ayyappa, they would qualify as a religious denomination.

The Chief Justice then asked that since Ayyappa devotees come from other faiths, would it still be possible to call them a religious denomination. To this, Sai responded that Hinduism differs from other faiths on this aspect and Anglican/Christian definition or understanding of religious denomination cannot be applied to Hinduism.

On the charge of discriminating against menstruating women, Sai submitted that the primary object of the religious practice was to preserve the celibate form of the deity and not exclusion of menstruating women. The latter follows from the former. Sai put evidence from the religious texts before the bench, establishing the celibate nature of the deity.

Sai stated that the discrimination charge would’ve been justified had the entire focus of the temple and its practices was to keep “all women” out, but that’s not the case. All exclusion is not discrimination, especially when the object of the rule has nothing to do with misogyny or impurity of menstruation, he said.

On the issue of whether the Sabarimala Temple was being maintained out of the funds drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India, Sai placed before the court the 1922 proclamation of the erstwhile Maharaja of Travancore, where, in return for taking over the lands of the temples in Travancore, he had declared to pay an annuity of Rs 16 lakh for the running of the temples in the Travancore Devaswom. This obligation was inherited by the Indian state since it took over the temple lands from the Princely State. Therefore, it’s incorrect to state that the Sabarimala Temple was being run by state funds and, therefore, were state bodies.

Sai was granted 10-15 minutes’ time in the forenoon to put forth his submissions. However, he argued for more than one and a half hours without being asked by any of the judges to stop. This is a testament to the quality of his argument and rhetoric.

Justice Nariman observed that Sai Deepak’s submission was instructive. The Chief Justice commented that not only was it instructive but was an impressive articulation with both rhetoric and logic. “Your arguments are impressive, I must admit that”, he said.

 

Imo, the petitioners just came easy and under prepared with just the equality card, while the defense clearly prepared well, did their research, and have all the facts, and evidence based on our constitution.

Edited by someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, someone said:

On the charge of discriminating against menstruating women, Sai submitted that the primary object of the religious practice was to preserve the celibate form of the deity and not exclusion of menstruating women. The latter follows from the former. Sai put evidence from the religious texts before the bench, establishing the celibate nature of the deity

They would have better success if they had gone with this argument from the begining.....not just in the court case but also in public.

 

But that is not really the case.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332227/Hindu-temple-declares-allow-women-enter-scanning-machine-designed-check-going-menstruating.html

 

Sabarimala, in Kerala, India, currently does not let any women of a certain age group through its doors, because of the risk they might be menstruating - making them 'impure'. 

Its new leader Prayar Gopalakrishnan said there may come a day when all women would be allowed through the door. However, that will only when they could be checked to ensure it was not their time of the month.

 

This stand probably turned most neutrals to supporter . The guy single handedly offended most women and many men.

He probably was born out of his father's clean womb.

Dumb guy probably did not realise how offensive his statement was for women. 

Way to score a self goal stupid man.

 

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.scoopwhoop.com/amp/inothernews/prayar-gopalakrishnan-periods-taboo/

 

 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, surajmal said:

What are you even blabbering about? There are women specific temples all over india. These arent god(s), these are dieties. Know the difference, before popping a vein. 

 

 

Women only temples don't discriminate against men because they are always carrying sperms. 

Why discriminate against people for how nature made them?

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, surajmal said:

This shouldn't even be a debate but because majority of "hindus" are mahachewts and the Supreme court is an arm of the desert death cults, hindus have to fight tooth and nail for every little bit. 

Keep supporting discrimination against people of your own religion  and when sane , thinking people move away from religion.....then scream..."hindus don't have balls".

 

Hindus discriminated against dalits in most inhumane ways and expect them to stand by the 'hindus' when ' hindus' need them .

 

The SC is giving rights to hindu women and the response of most hindu men is outrage and ' what about muslims' what about mecca' 'what about this and that'.

Like hindu women are not  their  people , like hindu women are enemies , like hindu women are  not hindus.:((

 

Then these hindu men will expect these women to stand by them .

Why? ....to be treated like dirty people because they reproduce .

 

Hindu men are the biggest enemy of hinduism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith  or  tradition has to be protected  in the constitution and it is as well. The law says a temple should not rule out entry to a caste or gender of a particularb faith. It is not case here. The temple also believes that women who can give birth (and hence mensurate) are not allowed for a tradition of being a celibate or any other reason. The  path to temple is a treacherous trek in jungles. In olden days, it would attract wild beasts who can  smell blood. Whatever be the reason, faith is supreme here.  If they can let kids being thrown from top of a mosque, as part of a belief system, this comes under the  same umbrella.  

 

IMO, feminists fighting this for equality , shouldn't bother. There are bigger fights than mere entry to a  temple or place of worship . It  is trivial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beetle said:

Keep supporting discrimination against people of your own religion  and when sane , thinking people move away from religion.....then scream..."hindus don't have balls".

 

Hindus discriminated against dalits in most inhumane ways and expect them to stand by the 'hindus' when ' hindus' need them .

 

The SC is giving rights to hindu women and the response of most hindu men is outrage and ' what about muslims' what about mecca' 'what about this and that'.

Like hindu women are not  their  people , like hindu women are enemies , like hindu women are  not hindus.:((

 

Then these hindu men will expect these women to stand by them .

Why? ....to be treated like dirty people because they reproduce .

 

Hindu men are the biggest enemy of hinduism.

Why does it bother you ? Are you going to visit this temple or for that matter any temple .If they allowed women into this temple would you then have become very religious in your outlook ? come on .


I had never heard of this temple till this controversy .Of what ever little i know they claim that visiting this temple is harmful for menstrual age and pregnant  women ,as an atheist it doesn't make any sense to me but then thats their narrative and tradition and i dont see what hindu women  are missing out ,on not being able to visit this place ,it's not as if visiting this temple or any temple is a must if you want to be a hindu .In fact many religious women defend these temple rituals much better than i have .


Secular are just using women's right as an excuse to show off their dominance on hindus ,they will tell us what traditions are acceptable and what aren't . They will dictate and we must obey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, surajmal said:

This shouldn't even be a debate but because majority of "hindus" are mahachewts and the Supreme court is an arm of the desert death cults, hindus have to fight tooth and nail for every little bit. 

Couldnt agree more with this part ,more ppl need to say it out loud.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

Why does it bother you ? Are you going to visit this temple or for that matter any temple .If they allowed women into this temple would you then have become very religious in your outlook ? come on

Why does it bother you that SC has allowed women ? 

 

As a woman , it does bother me that women are treated this way because they menstruate .It may not be my life but millions of women are made to feel impure, degraded even in this day and time.

 

I would not go to such a temple because I do not either believe in this God or belong to the region but I do feel if some women do feel like going, they should have the right to, specially if the law is on their side.

 

I am also appalled that hindu men are treating women like swown enemies because the SC is giving them a right.

 

I am also amused that these guys who are opposing think they need to protect God or his temple. If their God is offended, he will find a way to punish these bad women ....why not have faith ?

Why show false concern for their safety and health.

 

Personally,I do visit temples but mostly small ones because I do not like crowds and controlfreak pujaris.

I regularly visit one these days near our village . The priest is respectful to all irrespective of age and gender.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, beetle said:

Keep supporting discrimination against people of your own religion  and when sane , thinking people move away from religion.....then scream..."hindus don't have balls".

 

Hindus discriminated against dalits in most inhumane ways and expect them to stand by the 'hindus' when ' hindus' need them .

 

The SC is giving rights to hindu women and the response of most hindu men is outrage and ' what about muslims' what about mecca' 'what about this and that'.

Like hindu women are not  their  people , like hindu women are enemies , like hindu women are  not hindus.:((

 

Then these hindu men will expect these women to stand by them .

Why? ....to be treated like dirty people because they reproduce .

Hindu men are the biggest enemy of hinduism.

What a random rant. I guess we should all just convert as we will automatically become sane, thinking people according to you.

 

And what is this shifting goalposts? You can't stay on topic and keep talking about other stuffs.  And you don't represent all women. Back on topic, you understand that the deity itself is protected by our constitution, and has rights. Next, the temple doesn't practice exclusivity, and there are women groups who support them. The article in this thread has some very nice points summary.  And the outcome and its implications could mean tomorrow another can say "he wants to offer chicken to Lord Ganesha citing Article 25(1) and so on" (as mentioned in the article).  So it's not as black and white as you foolishly try to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Beetle the deity ain't no wanting no menarche chicks since he supposed to be celibate or smth. It's the friggin ancient custom **** we talkin bout here lady. Nothing to do with y'all blood pure or ****.

 

Relax ya makin it sound a whole lotta big than it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, someone said:

What a random rant. I guess we should all just convert as we will automatically become sane, thinking people according to you.

 

And what is this shifting goalposts? You can't stay on topic and keep talking about other stuffs.  And you don't represent all women. Back on topic, you understand that the deity itself is protected by our constitution, and has rights. Next, the temple doesn't practice exclusivity, and there are women groups who support them. The article in this thread has some very nice points summary.  And the outcome and its implications could mean tomorrow another can say "he wants to offer chicken to Lord Ganesha citing Article 25(1) and so on" (as mentioned in the article).  So it's not as black and white as you foolishly try to tell.

Well the thread gives a good indication how hindu  men value  the basic rights of hindu women.

 

SC says women can enter and the responses..

What about mecca ?

What is some one offers chicken ?

 

Seriously makes one wonder about the version of faith . 

I am done with this thread.

You guys can continue with the chest beating and feeling outraged .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beetle said:

Well the thread gives a good indication how hindu  men value  the basic rights of hindu women.

 

SC says women can enter and the responses..

What about mecca ?

What is some one offers chicken ?

 

Seriously makes one wonder about the version of faith . 

I am done with this thread.

You guys can continue with the chest beating and feeling outraged .

You can't think straight, can't stick to topic. Your rants doesn't make you right.  And again, you don;t represent Hindu women. There are women who support this case, so you can keep bashing men, and religion, but that will not make you right. Seriously, your rants makes me wonder about your mental state...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, someone said:

You can't think straight, can't stick to topic. Your rants doesn't make you right.  And again, you don;t represent Hindu women. There are women who support this case, so you can keep bashing men, and religion, but that will not make you right. Seriously, your rants makes me wonder about your mental state...

 

There is no need to make personal comments.

 

Just because some women support the cause does not mean the women denied do not want to enter.

 

True, I do not represent all women.

You do not represent any women .

Those women who support the case don't represent all women .

 

Most older women are the ones who treat the the younger women like untouchables and teach them that is the right way .

 

Left go them ,women would be living in dark ages forever . Older women and other women who support the case can believe what they believe. They should not force other women to believe the same . 

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beetle said:

There is no need to make personal comments.

 

Just because some women support the cause does not mean the women denied do not want to enter.

 

You do not represent any women and those women don't represent all women .

 

Most older women are the ones who treat the the younger women like untouchables and teach them that is the right way .

Left go them ,women would be living in dark ages forever . Older women and other women who support the case can believe what they believe. They should not force other women to believe the same . 

 

So stick to the topic. Don't come here bashing men and religion... and don't make it like you are the smart women, while others just are dumb who treat other women unfairly. That's another rant from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, someone said:

So stick to the topic. Don't come here bashing men and religion... and don't make it like you are the smart women, while others just are dumb who treat other women unfairly. That's another rant from you.

May be you should first learn basic etiquette of discussion .

Making personal attacks is not called discussion.

 

This is a thread on the topic and it is being discussed .If you can't take it, you should stay out of it instead of attacking the person  discussing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beetle said:

May be you should first learn basic etiquette of discussion .

Making personal attacks is not called discussion.

 

This is a thread on the topic and it is being discussed .If you can't take it, you should stay out of it instead of attacking the person  discussing.

I guess you don't even understand your own posts. You keep bashing men, religion, and now other woman. You really hate everybody except yourself. Obviously, it's gonna be pointless discussion with you. Quit taking a high ground. Stick to topic and discuss on actual things. There are enough points already mentioned to support the cause. Either offer a counter, else just quiet down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, someone said:

I guess you don't even understand your own posts. You keep bashing men, religion, and now other woman. You really hate everybody except yourself. Obviously, it's gonna be pointless discussion with you. Quit taking a high ground. Stick to topic and discuss on actual things. There are enough points already mentioned to support the cause. Either offer a counter, else just quiet down.

I am here because I was tagged.

You are here for personal attack.

I have already presents my views.

You don't like them...you can ignore them .

 

You don't like me as a poster, there is an ignore option . You can use it.

 

I can't because I have to read posts to keep a check on people who make personal attacks .

 

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole angle of equality in this issue is bogus. Just because the feminazis won in case Haji Ali, they want to monkey-balance with a corresponding Hindu issue. Haji Ali thinks all women are impure and hence were barred. In case of Sabarimala, women are not banned, only certain age because of a celibate deity. You call it regressive, I call it faith/tradition and that is to be protected just like we protect numerous minority customs and traditions under the same law. They can't win this case on the same grounds as Haji Ali. No woman is wanting to go to Sabarimala and is held back  because of this restrictions. If they believe in the deity, they are ready to wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beetle said:

I am here because I was tagged.

You are here for personal attack.

I have already presents my views.

You don't like them...you can ignore them .

 

You don't like me as a poster, there is an ignore option . You can use it.

 

I can't because I have to read posts to keep a check on people who make personal attacks .

 

You are here because you are only bashing men, religion and other woman. At least be honest with yourself. Of course, I have to question your sanity as you are on full rant mode.  Plus I mentioned some legality points on this case to which you have no answer. This topic isn't about you, so stop hating everybody else. Stick to topic, is again my last respond to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, someone said:

Back on topic, you understand that the deity itself is protected by our constitution, and has rights. Next, the temple doesn't practice exclusivity, and there are women groups who support them. The article in this thread has some very nice points summary.  And the outcome and its implications could mean tomorrow another can say "he wants to offer chicken to Lord Ganesha citing Article 25(1) and so on" (as mentioned in the article).  

Firstly...they are not your points. 

They are all over the net.

If the deity has constitutional rights....then the SC is the best place to decide. ....just like the individual rights if people.

 

Temple does practice exclusivity.....the exclusion of women in reproductive age . That  is exclusivity.

 

The women who support  the case are within their right to support as are the people fighting for entry for all.

 

Like I wrote...they should have gone with the ' celibate  deity ' angle from the begining but everybody knows that is not the only reason. Why else did the temple board member gleefully said that women will be allowed when they can scan women to check if they are menstruating. It has always been about that. 

 

There I am done with 'your' summary points.  

 

I don't hate men....just the ones who think they are thekedaars of women.

 

I don't hate religion....just question it at times like most  people .

 

I don't hate women....just the kind who feel entitled to suppress other women in the name of tradition.

 

I am done now.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, beetle said:

Firstly...they are not your points. 

They are all over the net.

If the deity has constitutional rights....then the SC is the best place to decide. ....just like the individual rights if people.

 

Temple does practice exclusivity.....the exclusion of women in reproductive age . That  is exclusivity.

 

The women who support  the case are within their right to support as are the people fighting for entry for all.

 

Like I wrote...they should have gone with the ' celibate  deity ' angle from the begining but everybody knows that is not the only reason. Why else did the temple board member gleefully said that women will be allowed when they can scan women to check if they are menstruating. It has always been about that.

It's interesting that one side has presented literature,  supporting documents, statements based on constitution while another side has none other than the equality card.  You do understand there are festivals and temples where men aren't allowed. But hey, don't let facts corrupt your mind.

 

Your quotes that how men, the religion and other women are evil, shows the deep hatred you have for others. That's the personal attack. You can't think straight, and can only shift goalposts. 

Edited by beetle
The forum/ thread is not your personal property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dial_100 said:

Who Aiyappa again? Forgive me for my ignorance. Why this deity needs to be worshiped again?

 

Don't know if your question is rhetorical, but read this link to get more information.

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/guest-column/sabarimala-in-defence-of-tradition

 

He is believed to born out of Shiva and Vishnu unison after Vishnu used Mohini mayavatar to destroy Bhasmasura. Shiva got attracted to Mohini and that's how Aiyappa was born. It is a myth to unite the Vashnavaites and Shivites who were fighting a lot in olden times in south India. He is believed to be celibate and hence women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed. Men take a vow of not eating meat or drink alcohol or even smoke for 44 days before taking this pilgrimage on bare foot to climb the sabrimala mountain in KeralaTN border. This happens during December. The custom is very popular among middle and lower class people all over south India. Among famous people, singer KJ Yesudas is a famous follower and has sung quite a few Aiyappa bhajans. I am surprised to hear this god is not known in the rest of India.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Don't know if your question is rhetorical, but read this link to get more information.

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/guest-column/sabarimala-in-defence-of-tradition

 

He is believed to born out of Shiva and Vishnu unison after Vishnu used Mohini mayavatar to destroy Bhasmasura. Shiva got attracted to Mohini and that's how Aiyappa was born. It is a myth to unite the Vashnavaites and Shivites who were fighting a lot in olden times in south India. He is believed to be celibate and hence women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed. Men take a vow of not eating meat or drink alcohol or even smoke for 44 days before taking this pilgrimage on bare foot to climb the sabrimala mountain in KeralaTN border. This happens during December. The custom is very popular among middle and lower class people all over south India. Among famous people, singer KJ Yesudas is a famous follower and has sung quite a few Aiyappa bhajans. I am surprised to hear this god is not known in the rest of India.

Nah no worshipping of Aiyappa up north.

Heack I doubt anyone even have heard the name before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Don't know if your question is rhetorical, but read this link to get more information.

 

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/guest-column/sabarimala-in-defence-of-tradition

 

He is believed to born out of Shiva and Vishnu unison after Vishnu used Mohini mayavatar to destroy Bhasmasura. Shiva got attracted to Mohini and that's how Aiyappa was born. It is a myth to unite the Vashnavaites and Shivites who were fighting a lot in olden times in south India. He is believed to be celibate and hence women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed. Men take a vow of not eating meat or drink alcohol or even smoke for 44 days before taking this pilgrimage on bare foot to climb the sabrimala mountain in KeralaTN border. This happens during December. The custom is very popular among middle and lower class people all over south India. Among famous people, singer KJ Yesudas is a famous follower and has sung quite a few Aiyappa bhajans. I am surprised to hear this god is not known in the rest of India.

Ah. @coffee_rules Thanks for the explanation. No rhetorics here. I dont do that sort of stuff on forums or real life. I got it now.

Surprisingly i never heard it before. Would it be part of Vishnu Puran by any chance or Shiv Puran? I just read the whole thing. again I ask your forgiveness for my ignorance. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dial_100 said:

Ah. @coffee_rules Thanks for the explanation. No rhetorics here. I dont do that sort of stuff on forums or real life. I got it now.

Surprisingly i never heard it before. Would it be part of Vishnu Puran by any chance or Shiv Puran? I just read the whole thing. again I ask your forgiveness for my ignorance. 

 

 

 

No, it is not part of Vishnu/Shiva Purana. There are multiple theories of the deity's origin, there are some references to Sri Bhutanatha Purana where it could be argued that Aiyappa and some brahminical deity are the same, it is folklore. Hinduism adopts gods based on Purana or even local customs and traditions (what British called as tribal) - Aiyappa, Kali are some examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Forgive me my ignorance but why does any deity or any God or any Goddamn thing needs to be worshipped again?

Hinduism believes in the oneness of universe with man and every part of nature is to be respected for us to persevere. This respect manifests as worship, coupled with thousands of years of rituals which were adopted by each generation.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Hinduism believes in the oneness of universe with man and every part of nature is to be respected for us to persevere. This respect manifests as worship, coupled with thousands of years of rituals which were adopted by each generation.

You don't say?

My post was more of a rhetorical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

You don't say?

My post was more of a rhetorical one.

I was trying to explain it for others who might have the same doubt. Charvaka is also accepted in Hinduism and it's founder was given the status of a 'Rishi'. Skeptics should be part of any faith.

Edited by coffee_rules
wishful thinking than fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I was trying to explain it for others who might have the same doubt. Charvaka is also accepted in Hinduism and it's founder was given the status of a 'Rishi'. Skeptics are part of any faith.

Also the fact that Nastika school of philosophy along with Samkhya and other sub schools of Astika school which rejects the traditional view of God also find a place in the larger Santana philosophy.

You can practically question anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

The Sabarimala yatra is similar to Kanwar Yatra done in North India (it is in the news today).

I hope it isn't even remotely similar to it.

Most of the pilgrims in Kanwar yatra are a bunch of a&&holes who are there just to oggle at women and vandalize public property.

Every procession has a significant population of miscreants who make sure people hate them more and more with each passing year.

I hate those SOBs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stradlater said:

I hope it isn't even remotely similar to it.

Most of the pilgrims in Kanwar yatra are a bunch of a&&holes who are there just to oggle at women and vandalize public property.

Every procession has a significant population of miscreants who make sure people hate them more and more with each passing year.

I hate those SOBs. 

I went by WikiPedia's description. it seems similar. But I guess it has deteriorated to hooliganism now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanwar_Yatra

 

Quote

The Kānvar (or Kānwar/ Kavad) Yātrā (Devanagari: कांवड़ यात्रा) is an annual pilgrimage of devotees of Shiva, known as Kānvarias(कावड़िया) or "Bhole" (भोले), to Hindu pilgrimage places of Haridwar, Gaumukh and Gangotri in Uttarakhand and Sultanganj in Bihar to fetch holy waters of Ganges River. Millions of participants gather sacred water from the Ganga and carry it across hundreds of miles to dispense as offerings in their local Śiva shrines, or specific temples such as Pura Mahadeva and Augharnath temple in Meerut, and Kashi Vishwanath, Baidyanath, and Deoghar in Jharkhand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I went by WikiPedia's description. it seems similar. But I guess it has deteriorated to hooliganism now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanwar_Yatra

 

 

Bhai I have been observing their behavior since childhood. While some of them might be pious, majority comprises of gunday, mawalis for whom this becomes an excuse to take part in hooliganism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stradlater said:

I hope it isn't even remotely similar to it.

Most of the pilgrims in Kanwar yatra are a bunch of a&&holes who are there just to oggle at women and vandalize public property.

Every procession has a significant population of miscreants who make sure people hate them more and more with each passing year.

I hate those SOBs. 

It is one month of socially approved hooliganism.

 

This year UP govt is using helicopters to shower petals on them from above ....they should be showering bombs on some of them.

 

Last three days the news is about how they beat up people, break cars in mob fury because apparently only they have right to roads and about indulging in violence even against police.

 

It is a month long picnic for a lot of socially devient gundas.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×