The case of entry of women in Sabarimala Sannidhanam Dharmashasta Mandir has gather a lot of traction in past few days as Supreme court lifted the ban on entry of women in Sabarimala Sannidhanam hearing the writ petition (civil) no. 373 of 2006 followed by a huge no. of protests erupting all over Kerala and at a few other places with devotees demanding to not interfere in the rituals & customs of the Mandir.
The ban on entry of women from between age 10 to 50 has been depicted as gender discrimination but if that is the case why would women below age of 10 and above age of 50 are allowed. So, the next question is hurled that the discrimination is based on the notions of menstruation and there are deep patriarchal structures behind it which discriminates & humiliates women and in order to have equality in society , such a custom needs to be bulldozed with the help of some centralized authority.
But a question arises that just exclusion of a particular group of people from any custom amounts to discrimination. As if that is the case there are many Mandirs in India where men are banned from participation. e.g.,In Attukal Mandir, Kerala, men are not allowed to enter and on Pongala every year there happens the largest gathering of women devotees & women take part in different customs in which men can't participate. In Brahma Mandir, Rajsthan, married men are not allowed to enter. Similarly, In Chakkulathukavu Mandir, Kerala, Bhagati Mandir, Kanyakumari, Mata Mandir, Bihar, Trayambakeshwar Mandir, Maharashtra, entry of men is shadow banned. And in contrary to what is perceived in the case of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, In Kamakhya Mandir, Assam menstruation of Devi Maa is celebrated and men are banned to enter Mandir premises during menstrual period of Devi Maa. There are also many festivals, rituals & customs which exclude different sections of people on the lines of age & sex.
So, now, why is there partial ban on entry of women in Sabarimala Sannidhanam. In Hinduism, the construction of each Mandir and installation of Deva in the Mandir is done as per Vedas, Agamas, Mahapuranas or Sthala Purana ( which consists local narratives). The Sthala Purana relating to Sabarimala Sannidhanam is Bhootnath Upajnanam which clearly says that the Deva Ayyappa is in a distinct form in this particular Mandir and has taken a vow of Naishtika Brahmacharya and wants to keep a certain distance from women with reproductive capabilities. So, this clearly states the ban has nothing to do with the generally peddled argument of discrimination on the notion of stereotype of 'impurity' relating menstruation. And, that is why, women with reproductive capabilities are banned to enter the premises of Mandir.
Now, next question arises as how God can discriminate between the entities it has created. So, the notion of God doesn't exist in Hinduism which in Abrahmic tradition is some ultimate superior power residing above in sky creating us and deciding our fate. On the contrary, Devas are said to be Saguna Brahman (Brahman with specific gunas).
The question next is, what is Brahman. Brahman, in Hinduism, is termed as the Paramtattva (essence of essence) of every entity (living or non-living). e.g., as a pot is an entity in itself, but it consists of clay, water, fire etc. So, it can be termed as a unique expression of the clay. But if we dig deep, what is the basis of creation of clay and that what it is made of and this term goes on. So, in Hindu consciousness it is termed as Brahman, the Paramtattva, the basis of existence.
So, if all the entities (living or non-living) are unique expression of Brahman, we all can be termed as Saguna Brahman. What's distinct in Devas. Devas have a very sacred & divine place in Hindu consciousness on accounts of their leelas & distinct roles in superitendence of this world. But the distinct gunas they hold make them love something and hate something and equating all sorts of emotion. So, they can feel happy, sad, blessed, angry, contemplated etc. etc.
Now, if anyone claims to have shraddha in some Deva, s/he needs to respect the choice and likes of that Deva, both can't be contradictory. As if I can't claim to have respect for someone while abusing her/him. e.g., Sending your mother-father to old age home against their likes and touching their feet showing that you do respect them. So, a devotee must respect the choices & likings of the Deva s/he claims to be devotee of. I can't put oil on Shivling and milk on Shani and claim to be devotee of Devas. Rituals & customs as described in Vedagamas, and Sthala puranas need to be respected and preserved. Since, if the sancity of the Mandir is not maintained, the Deva will leave the Murti and that Mandir has no significance thereafter.
As Mandir is not some prayer hall or public place of worship as in the case of Abrahmic traditions where there is one God, one scripture, one history creating a monochromatic religious body. On the contrary, a Mandir is a place where Devas reside. Devas are invoked and asked to take place in the Murti and to bless us through the grace of their presence during Prana-Pratishtha, i.e., a Murti is a living entity as per Hindu tradition and the Mandir is abode of the Deva. The idea of Prana in Murti is so significant that the abode is closed in the night saying Devas are going to sleep. We don't go to Mandirs just to do prarthana but to talk to the Devas and to show our respect for them through offering flowers, fruits, bhog & other offerings they like.
So, Supreme Court of India needs to take an account of what is the idea of Devas & Mandirs and what constitutes a devotee in Hindu tradition. Just being Hindu doesn't fulfill the criteria of being a devotee of a particular Deva.
The ban on entry of women from between age 10 to 50 has been depicted as gender discrimination but if that is the case why would women below age of 10 and above age of 50 are allowed. So, the next question is hurled that the discrimination is based on the notions of menstruation and there are deep patriarchal structures behind it which discriminates & humiliates women and in order to have equality in society , such a custom needs to be bulldozed with the help of some centralized authority.
But a question arises that just exclusion of a particular group of people from any custom amounts to discrimination. As if that is the case there are many Mandirs in India where men are banned from participation. e.g.,In Attukal Mandir, Kerala, men are not allowed to enter and on Pongala every year there happens the largest gathering of women devotees & women take part in different customs in which men can't participate. In Brahma Mandir, Rajsthan, married men are not allowed to enter. Similarly, In Chakkulathukavu Mandir, Kerala, Bhagati Mandir, Kanyakumari, Mata Mandir, Bihar, Trayambakeshwar Mandir, Maharashtra, entry of men is shadow banned. And in contrary to what is perceived in the case of Sabarimala Sannidhanam, In Kamakhya Mandir, Assam menstruation of Devi Maa is celebrated and men are banned to enter Mandir premises during menstrual period of Devi Maa. There are also many festivals, rituals & customs which exclude different sections of people on the lines of age & sex.
So, now, why is there partial ban on entry of women in Sabarimala Sannidhanam. In Hinduism, the construction of each Mandir and installation of Deva in the Mandir is done as per Vedas, Agamas, Mahapuranas or Sthala Purana ( which consists local narratives). The Sthala Purana relating to Sabarimala Sannidhanam is Bhootnath Upajnanam which clearly says that the Deva Ayyappa is in a distinct form in this particular Mandir and has taken a vow of Naishtika Brahmacharya and wants to keep a certain distance from women with reproductive capabilities. So, this clearly states the ban has nothing to do with the generally peddled argument of discrimination on the notion of stereotype of 'impurity' relating menstruation. And, that is why, women with reproductive capabilities are banned to enter the premises of Mandir.
Now, next question arises as how God can discriminate between the entities it has created. So, the notion of God doesn't exist in Hinduism which in Abrahmic tradition is some ultimate superior power residing above in sky creating us and deciding our fate. On the contrary, Devas are said to be Saguna Brahman (Brahman with specific gunas).
The question next is, what is Brahman. Brahman, in Hinduism, is termed as the Paramtattva (essence of essence) of every entity (living or non-living). e.g., as a pot is an entity in itself, but it consists of clay, water, fire etc. So, it can be termed as a unique expression of the clay. But if we dig deep, what is the basis of creation of clay and that what it is made of and this term goes on. So, in Hindu consciousness it is termed as Brahman, the Paramtattva, the basis of existence.
So, if all the entities (living or non-living) are unique expression of Brahman, we all can be termed as Saguna Brahman. What's distinct in Devas. Devas have a very sacred & divine place in Hindu consciousness on accounts of their leelas & distinct roles in superitendence of this world. But the distinct gunas they hold make them love something and hate something and equating all sorts of emotion. So, they can feel happy, sad, blessed, angry, contemplated etc. etc.
Now, if anyone claims to have shraddha in some Deva, s/he needs to respect the choice and likes of that Deva, both can't be contradictory. As if I can't claim to have respect for someone while abusing her/him. e.g., Sending your mother-father to old age home against their likes and touching their feet showing that you do respect them. So, a devotee must respect the choices & likings of the Deva s/he claims to be devotee of. I can't put oil on Shivling and milk on Shani and claim to be devotee of Devas. Rituals & customs as described in Vedagamas, and Sthala puranas need to be respected and preserved. Since, if the sancity of the Mandir is not maintained, the Deva will leave the Murti and that Mandir has no significance thereafter.
As Mandir is not some prayer hall or public place of worship as in the case of Abrahmic traditions where there is one God, one scripture, one history creating a monochromatic religious body. On the contrary, a Mandir is a place where Devas reside. Devas are invoked and asked to take place in the Murti and to bless us through the grace of their presence during Prana-Pratishtha, i.e., a Murti is a living entity as per Hindu tradition and the Mandir is abode of the Deva. The idea of Prana in Murti is so significant that the abode is closed in the night saying Devas are going to sleep. We don't go to Mandirs just to do prarthana but to talk to the Devas and to show our respect for them through offering flowers, fruits, bhog & other offerings they like.
So, Supreme Court of India needs to take an account of what is the idea of Devas & Mandirs and what constitutes a devotee in Hindu tradition. Just being Hindu doesn't fulfill the criteria of being a devotee of a particular Deva.
Comments
Post a Comment