I suppose
it was inevitable that my appeal to the powers that be at the Guruvayur
temple (“Nature of the Faith”, July 8) to open their doors to any
who cared to enter, should have elicited a ferocious backlash. My argument
was that temples exist to open doors to God, not to close them to people;
instead of imposing various restrictions on who can enter, I argued,
the temple authorities should let even unbelievers in, as other religions
do. Many readers - including several who began by describing themselves
as my admirers - made it clear that they emphatically disagreed.
For the
status queue
R. Rajagopalan
of Alappuzha writes on behalf of “a silent majority of ardent devotees
who would like to have it as at present - a calm place of only real
believers in the Lord, chanting His name, and not crowded with
tourists”. Frankly I think that description of Guruvayur is
a an utter fantasy, since I have never known the temple to be
calm or uncrowded. Indeed, Mr. Rajagopalan rather undermines his own
case by conceding that “already it takes, on any ordinary day, nearly
three hours in the queue for a genuine devotee to get a glimpse
of the Lord”. But he adds: “how long will it be if tourists also
are allowed in?” My response would be that any tourists who
are willing to brave that three-hour queue (and the priests shouting
“move on!” in tones hardly conducive
to piety) deserve admission: there are unlikely to be so many of them
as to make the crowding significantly worse than it already is.
But Mr.
Rajagoapalan’s real point lies in the words, “What real business
do non-Hindus, opposed to idol-worship, have in the temple? Unlike the
Semitic religions, Hinduism does not believe in conversions. Therefore
we don’t believe in saying to unbelievers, ‘come in and see what
we have to offer’. We are not on offer.” Let others pursue “other
paths to God”, he says, “but let us peacefully follow our [own]
path”.
Intrinsically
different?
Mr. P.
S. Leelakrishnan of Koyilandy in Kerala tells me that mosques and churches
“are mere places of worship. A temple, on the other hand, is the seat
of an idol installed according to Thantra Sastra and worshipped as a
symbol of God and daily pujas are performed by trained priests
according to Tantric rituals. Purificatory rites are part of daily
pujas. Every Tom, Dick and Harry cannot enter a Hindu temple at
his sweet will and pleasure even if he is a born Hindu. One goes to
a temple only for worship, not for sightseeing as you suggested. Utmost
purity of body and mind should be maintained by worshipper.
The Hindu
knows when he can go to a temple and when he cannot. Who will teach
these matters to non-Hindus if doors of Temples are kept open for all
as you wanted?”
V. Jayapal
of Thrissur says the exclusionary practices did not exist in the
ages of the yagnas and yagas, when temples were open to all,
but arose more recently “to safeguard Hindu values ani scriptures”
- perhaps, he speculates, to protect “the valuables of the temples
from the Mughal attacks and onslaughts, and by local Muslim Rulers like
Tippu”. He admits that such considerations are no longer relevant,
and goes on to laud the contributions of non-Hindus to the development
of Hinduism, mentioning K.J. Yesudas, Yusaf Ali Kechery and Kalamandalam
Hyderali.
|
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
|
MANY READERS - INCLUDING SEVERAL WHO BEGAN BY
DESCRIBING THEMSELVES AS MY ADMIRERS - MADE IT
CLEAR THAT THEY EMPHATICALLY DISAGREED WITH MY
VIEWS ON TEMPLE ENTRY FOR NON-HINDUS
|
|
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• |
The case
of Yesudas, the singer whose devotional songs are routinely played at
Guruvayur while he himself is refused admission, divides my correspondents.
A majority feel he should ideally be allowed in, but several argue
that an exception cannot be made for one ‘individual, however deserving.
Mr. Rajagopal, however, argues that Yesudas “is only a professional
singer. He has sung in praise of not bnly Lord Guruvayurappan, but also
Muhammed Nabi, Jesus Christ etc. He has sung even songs questioning
belief in God, even ridiculing God. If he is particular about worshipping
at Guruvayur, even now he can, after getting formally converted as a
Hindu”. (This from a writer who says Hindus don’t believe in conversions.)
The individualism
of Hindu practice is a weapon in the writers’ armoury. As Mr.Rajagopal says, “each temple has its individual customs, which
gives it its uniqueness. For instance, even non-Hindus are allowed
in Sabarimala; but there women are restricted”. Mr.
Leelakrishnan adds: “Of all the temples in Kerala, Guruvayoor has
a tradition of its own. Many devotees from the north say real Bhakti
flourishes only in Guruvayoor in its pristine purity in India. We should
not do anything in haste which may bring discredit to its great tradition”.
The
other side
On the
other side of the debate, A. Vijayakumaran from (of all places!) Rishikesh,
tells me that I have ‘’boldly expressed the sentiments of lakhs
of human beings”. Professor S.A.Thiaga Rajan of Tirunelveli recounted
visiting Guruvayur with his wife in 2004, ‘’but [we] dared not enter
the temple, being Christians. We went round the temple and returned
with a sense of disappointment. We enter other places of worship freely
and respectfully watch people performing puja
or saying prayers - be it Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or any other, where the
custodians are not so orthodox about allowing entry”.
Tinatin
Japaridze, a young Georgian woman in New York, writes: “I have been
increasingly fascinated by Dharmic religions..... However, I could never
quite comprehend why of all the different traditional religions, Hinduism
has been viewed as more of an ‘ethnicity’ as opposed to a path to
spirituality open to all cultures of any ethnic or racial heritage and
background. Although there doesn’t seem to be a formal process
for converting to Hinduism (which perhaps is for the better, as I personally
believe in spirituality more than a set of mere formalities and rules),
as an outsider I have noticed how reluctant, territorial and utterly
‘precious’ many representatives of this religion can get if anyone
from a group of ‘outsiders’ demonstrates an obvious interest. On
numerous occasions, I’ve heard some of my Hindu friends refer to Hinduism
as ‘our religion’ or ‘our path to spirituality’, thus excluding
the non-Hindus.”
What
will it
be?
Ms. Japaridze
adds: “From what I’ve read and heard, Hinduism is extremely diverse
and open-minded in its philosophy, spirituality and beliefs. And yet,
its doors still remain closed to most of us...” She laments that this
should be so “in the increasingly spiritless world we live in,”
where so many are seeking the truths that Hinduism has to offer. Her
appeal goes to the heart of my case. Which is true Hinduism - the self-centred
exclusionism of today’s Guruvayur, or open hearts, open minds - and
open doors?
|