Temples should allow non-Hindus, agree? - Page 12

Originally posted by: souro

Hmmm... nice thought. Anyone who wants to visit the bedroom of the President of India in the Raj Bhavan should be allowed to do so. Anyone who wants to go inside the Parliament should be allowed to do so, even if that person is not an MP, MLA or doesn't hold a pass. And those are places owned by the people we are talking about.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

now you are giving me one😉😆

you know that....debate to kab ke kahatm ho gaya from your end...i rem that now😆

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

but still then a temple will never ever be equal to anyones bedroom so no point dragging in such absurd points just for the sake of it, aint it?😉

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

No religion and race are equivalent to making groups based on similar characteristics... if you believe in jesus you can be christain.. if you believe in islam u could be muslim.. but however hard you try unless you are born one you cant be a hindu....

the bold line is wrong.. religion spirituality is a community act.. otherwise you wouldnt have religions in first place.,....

if you feel you can have a private view of "your" religion thats fine... but then why would you voice opinions in these matters....when others wont have the same view as yours...😊

Originally posted by: souro

Btw, Krystal you must know the fact that the word mandir actually also meant house. If you take the word devalaya then it means house of the god. The people who coined these words were very much human beings.
Even today, the sanctum sanctorum (garbhagriha) is treated as the bedroom of the god (except for maybe in case of Shiv mandirs, I'm not sure of that).

Still feel that comparing temple with house or bedroom is absurd?

To be more technical:

The Sanskrit root 'laya' is best translated as absorption. So devalaya translates more as a place of God, a place of divinity for devotion, meditation to absorb the essence of God. Another term used us devasthana which is more like a place of God. 'Garbha' means womb, so garbhagraha is literally translated as 'womb house' and means a safe haven, sanctorum for the idol. So neither is the temple a house, nor is the garbagraha the bedroom. Although one can take the term 'house' when referring to the garbagraha literally.

Many Hindu temples do not allow anyone other than priests to enter the most inner sanctum. The area of prayer and ritual may also be restricted. However, the outer temple structure is to be considered more as an assembly hall for people to gather, pray, discuss, and spend time in spirituality even if not participating in rituals. Most religions have inner sanctums/rituals that are restricted. It is understandable, there are aspects of faith that are personal and not suitable for sharing with all.

By asking that temples not be racist or discriminatory in their policies does not mean one is expecting the temple to completely disregard their religious sentiments and allow people to wander about like it's a public park and do as they wish. What it does is tell people to refrain from the illegal practice of racism and discrimination and be more open. For ultimately the temple mandapam and the porch are supposed to be 'public'. I don't think this is unfair at all. But I guess there is no law restricting temples. But I guess for now holy places like temples are given the freedom to be racist discriminating xenophobes and not be questioned about it.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

To be more technical:

The Sanskrit root 'laya' is best translated as absorption. So devalaya translates more as a place of God, a place of divinity for devotion, meditation to absorb the essence of God. Another term used us devasthana which is more like a place of God. 'Garbha' means womb, so garbhagraha is literally translated as 'womb house' and means a safe haven, sanctorum for the idol. So neither is the temple a house, nor is the garbagraha the bedroom. Although one can take the term 'house' when referring to the garbagraha literally.

Alaya means abode, abode roughly means home. Deva + alaya becomes devalaya.
Btw, I did not say that garbhagriha means bedroom, I said many people treat it as the bedroom of god. You'll mainly see it in case of Vishnu/ Krishna mandir.

Though my primary reasons for drawing parallels with home was because temples are as much private property as anyone's home. So, you can choose any private property, does not necessarily has to be a home.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Many Hindu temples do not allow anyone other than priests to enter the most inner sanctum. The area of prayer and ritual may also be restricted. However, the outer temple structure is to be considered more as an assembly hall for people to gather, pray, discuss, and spend time in spirituality even if not participating in rituals. Most religions have inner sanctums/rituals that are restricted. It is understandable, there are aspects of faith that are personal and not suitable for sharing with all.

Yes, we can consider that. Does that in any way make it compulsory for the temple authorities to throw their gates open for each and everyone? They can still exercise their control over who they want to allow and what all people will be allowed to do within the premises.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

By asking that temples not be racist or discriminatory in their policies does not mean one is expecting the temple to completely disregard their religious sentiments and allow people to wander about like it's a public park and do as they wish. What it does is tell people to refrain from the illegal practice of racism and discrimination and be more open. For ultimately the temple mandapam and the porch are supposed to be 'public'. I don't think this is unfair at all. But I guess there is no law restricting temples. But I guess for now holy places like temples are given the freedom to be racist discriminating xenophobes and not be questioned about it.

First and foremost the temple is not discriminating based on race. As far as discrimination based on religion is concerned, others have no authority to ask anything at all from them. The outer areas of a temple might be meant for public use, but it is still not a public property.

'Racist discriminating xenophobes' - Why? Do you attach those terms to every other place on earth? Every place have some conditions that need to be fulfilled before someone can go inside. Our home, our workplace, the library we go to, the hotels we stay in, almost everything should then be described by those three words.

Originally posted by: souro

Alaya means abode, abode roughly means home. Deva + alaya becomes devalaya.
Btw, I did not say that garbhagriha means bedroom, I said many people treat it as the bedroom of god. You'll mainly see it in case of Vishnu/ Krishna mandir.

Though my primary reasons for drawing parallels with home was because temples are as much private property as anyone's home. So, you can choose any private property, does not necessarily has to be a home.

Yes, we can consider that. Does that in any way make it compulsory for the temple authorities to throw their gates open for each and everyone? They can still exercise their control over who they want to allow and what all people will be allowed to do within the premises.

First and foremost the temple is not discriminating based on race. As far as discrimination based on religion is concerned, others have no authority to ask anything at all from them. The outer areas of a temple might be meant for public use, but it is still not a public property.

'Racist discriminating xenophobes' - Why? Do you attach those terms to every other place on earth? Every place have some conditions that need to be fulfilled before someone can go inside. Our home, our workplace, the library we go to, the hotels we stay in, almost everything should then be described by those three words.