temple priests - Page 10

Yes, rxrajamo is right. The movie is called 'Thiruvilayadal' starring Sivaji Ganesan. 'Thiru' has multiple meanings - divine, holy, prosperity, respectability. 'Vilayadal' is play. When it is Thiru-Vilayadal it roughly means Divine Play. This is the tamil equivalent of the Sanskrit word called 'Leela'. Just as Lord Krishna's leelas are beautifully portrayed in Sanskritic stories ( I am sure there are Siva Leelas and Kali Leelas etc. But I am most familiar with Meera Bai and Tulsi das and other Krishna Bhaktas in the Sanskritic tradition and many Shiva Bhaktas in the Tamil tradition), Shiva Leelas are wonderful and sweet in the Tamil tradition.

Thank you for encouraging me to write. I will do what I can.

Hari OM

Thanks Sow. Chinthana for reminding us of the great story where Lord Shiva quells the ego of Nakkeeran. Many of us get immersed in this world of Maya and think in terms of equlity, right and wrong, valid, invalid, scholarship etc. etc. Adhi Sankara woke these people up with his loud cry of “Bajagovindam, Bajagovindam.” (I have to entreat you to tell this great story of Bajagovindam in your own beautiful story telling way to people like Sri Silverfox who may or may not know the story. People like me love to listen to the story again and again even though I know it!)

I am also going to tell a story but it is not a fiction. Actually I should say stories because it about two incidents and both of them actually happened, therefore real. Both stories involve women and both were widows. These incidents involved one and the same sage Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi.

I don’t know how much you guys know the story of Bhagavan Ramana but let me start with a brief about him. Venkataraman as he was called then was a playful young boy and he never displayed great spiritual inclination except for the fact he was a Brahmin boy but when he was sixteen years old he suddenly felt an urge to leave home at Madurai to Arunachala or Thiruvannamalai as it is called in Tamil. It is a unseen/unheard call from the Guru that he could not resist so he went there and began doing Thapas at the Holy Hill of Arunachala. For two years his mother who was a widow searched for him and one day knowing that the son was in Thiruvannamalai she went there to persuade him to return home with her. The mother pleaded with him sometimes even crying aloud. Bhagavan Ramana did not run away from her entreaty but stayed there looking at her and listening to her without saying a word. This drama continued for three days. On the third day, losing his patience an onlooker said to Bhagavan “Why do you have a heart of stone; your mother is crying and pleading with you for the last three days and you have not said even one word to her in consolation”. At this Bhagavan wrote in a piece of paper (or perhaps on the sand, I forget this part) the following: “What is supposed to happen will happen however much one tries to prevent it and what is not supposed to happen will not happened however much one may try to bring it about. When such is the case the best recourse is to keep quiet.” Thus having come to know that Bhagavan would not come with her, the mother left Thiruvannamalai for Madhurai with great sense of sorrow.

In a few years the mother lost her brother who was her support. Her elder son also soon died. She really became a destitute. Her attachment to the son took her to Thiruvannamalai. At that time Bhagavan was staying on top of the hill called Skandasramam. There was a widow by name Yechammal who lived at the foot of the his and she used to prepare midday meal for Bhagavan in her home and take it everyday in the hot sun to the top of the hill to Bhagavan where He was staying completely oblivious to the world. The mother went and stayed with Yechammal and she would accompany Yechammal to Skandasramam when she was taking the food to Bhagavan. Being old and sick the mother found it difficult to climb the hill and on the third day Yechammal told Bhagavan: “Bhagavan, this is your mother so she should rather die here in your place rather than in my home.” So saying she left the mother behind and left for home.

Immedaitely the co-sanyasis who were living with Bhagavan started heated arguments among themselves if a woman can stay among sanyaasis. They argued for a long time and finally arrived at the conclusion that no woman can stay with sanyasis. As soon as they delivered their judgement, Bhagavan sprang, up went to the mother and said “Come on Amma, we cannot stay with them. Let’s go somewhere else.” This act of Bhagavan surprised everybody because (a) Bhagavan never talked to his mother before and (b) that Bhagavan would disagree like this and go with his mother. They suddenly realized that they were staying there only to be with Bhagavan and without Bhagavan they would feel empty. So they all fell at the feet of Bhagavan and asked him to forgive them and requested Bhagavan to stay at Skandasramam with his mother. This incident reveals two important attitude of Bhagavan.He was a Kaarunya Murthy to those who have surrendered to him (in this case his mother) and second, he did not care for any consequence because he had no ego.

The second incident involved a very young widow who distressed at the turn of events in her life. She left her home and came all the way to see Bhagavan Ramana. She came and saw Bhagavan and by then it was evening and everybody had to leave the Ashramam and the Sippandhi closed the gate after escorting them out. As the night fell Bhagavan asked one of the inmates as to what happended to the young widow who came to see her. He was told that she does not know anybody in town and so she is staying on the steps of an adjoining temple. Bhagavan exclaimed, “What! a young girl staying all alone in the open in the night. Go fetch her here.” The inmates some of them Brahmins, and some of them Sanyasis where shocked at Bhagavan’s orders to bring in a young girl into the Asramam for the night! A man went out and came back and told Bhagavan that the young widow was mestruating (meaning that such a girl should not come inside the Asramam which is actually a temple.) Bhagavan said, “So what, bring her in, give her water, give her food, give her a mat to sleep on” Every one of his orders were violative of the Acharam besides bringing in a young girl among the sanyasis will add grist to the mill of people who would attack them with malice. Bhagavan once again showed he was a great Karunya Murthy to those who have surrendered to him.

The above is not intended to compare and contrast the two sages Bhagavan Sri Ramana and Sri Mahaperiavaal. Both are sages who are Para Brahmam and remember “Brahmam Okate”, there is only one Brahman. One is here to establish Gnana Maarga and other is to establish Karma Maarga. These two great Souls are great friends without ever having seen each other or communicating with each other. Because they are one and the same.

So please, please set aside your worldly sense of fair play when it comes to Gnanis. Instead surrender to them. That is the only way to deliverance.


Sri Gurubyo Namaha

Dear Mr. Anbu:
Great stories. I have already read a few stories about Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi and was moved by them. I greatly enjoyed reading your piece.
I still say what Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi did was the right way to go and I would expect us mortal human beings to follow his example.
We HAVE to have worldly sense of fair play because we are not sanyasis and we do not live in their unique world.
How can I surrender to mortal human beings, however holy they are? I can only surrender to God. Am I right?
I am not being a wise guy but am genuinely asking this question.

__________________
SILVER FOX
"செந்தமிழ் நாடெனும் போதினிலே -இன்பத் தேன்வந்து பாயுது காதினிலே"

Dear Silverfox,

Surrendering to God is a start. Doing Nishkaamakarmam is Surrender to God.

Narayana Smrithi
Anbu

Dear Mr.Anbu:

[ Surrendering to God is a start. Doing Nishkaamakarmam is Surrender to God.]

What do 'Nishkaamakarmam' and 'smrithi' mean?

Thank you.

__________________
SILVER FOX
"செந்தமிழ் நாடெனும் போதினிலே -இன்பத் தேன்வந்து பாயுது காதினிலே"

AUM

Smrithi is that which is practised as opposed to Sruthi that which is heard. Veda which is as old as the creation was handed down the generations by word of mouth and absorbed through the ears by the hearing. Veda is therefore older than any writing for writing naturally was man made. So Sruthi does not change. On the other hand Smrithi which literally means that which is remembered can change not always out of necessity. customs and practices therefore comes under Smrithi. Brahmins who followed ancient customs and practices are called Smarthas and they are mostly Advaithis. Iyengars and Madhwas are later day Brahmins (not that they were not Brahmins before as some of them were ancient Brahmins too) who broke away from Smartha customs. Iyengars follow Ramanuja's Visishtaadwaitham and Madhwas follow Madhwacharya's Dwaitham.

On your other question re: Nishkaama Karmam" (action not motivated by a result), people tend to do things so as to achieve certain results that they think are beneficial to them. For example you go to work so you can get paid with which you can spend as you like and be happy. You go to a particular work as opposed to another that you could have gone because you made a choice that will benefit you in a way better than the other etc. So the work (Karma) and the fruit of work (Karmaphala) are desire born. The entire universe functions on the basis of work however as much as it is desire born, the person performing work with the objective for its fruit should therefore get the fruit as otherwisethen there arises the fault of 'kritha vibranaasam' i.e. those karmas getting destroyed without yielding fruit. Thus if a person dies before enjoying the fruit of his actions, the logic dictates that he be born again to enjoy or suffer for his actions. This goes to show that all desire born karmas cause future births into this world where a person mostly suffers grief and rarely enjoy happiness while ideally one should only be happy and never grieve.

So the conclusion is that Kaamya karma (desire born actions) should be avoided in order to prevent future rebirths. I will be talking about this in greater detail in my Musings on the fundamentals of Hinduism. Hope you are visiting that thread.

With Narayana Smrithi
Anbu
NB: Narayana Smrithi here means remembering the Narayana in you!

Dear Silverfox and Anbu,

I'd like to add a slight bit to what Anbu has mentioned here. I've had my battles with trying to understand what in the world is 'Nishkama Karma' - desireless actions as Anbu explained, is what the scriptures said (I've read mostly translations, in bits and pieces). The next question, to me was, 'Ok, so now how do I do that?'. Supposing I am a salesman if I don't achieve my target for the month my boss will be unhappy with me. Suppose I am a student and I don't make the requisite marks or grade I will fail. If I don't push myself to work I will never learn to excel. Since work is hard I need rewards that can motivate me.

So it is kind of a double bind. So how do we get the better of it?

By developing a certain type of an attitude. And one needs to possibly visualize its exercise in different situations before actually practising it. To me, the first shades of answer showed itself through Ramakrishna Paramahansa's words. He says, 'Be like a servant in a rich man's house - enjoy everything but own nothing.' You take care of everything in the house (meaning your life, work, relationships etc) with the utmost care but know that what will ultimately be done with them is not under your control.

So it is about surrendering control.

But doesn't ownership of a thing teach a person to be responsible? Why is it bad? Well, ownership per se isn't bad but attachment to anything one owns is bad. In other words if you lose something that you own your world shouldn't come crashing about your ears. If you find your mind not terribly disturbed by something you've lost (especially something that is/has been dear to you), you are on your way to being there. If you feel absolutely nothing you are there already and you perhaps may not raise this question.

In other words, if one goes another might come in its place. Or it might not.

It is the attitude of being Ok with both options.

You might say, 'This is all very well as far as possessions are concerned. But what about my sales targets? What about my performance at school?'

Well Paramahansa Yogananda says that one must bring one's inner sense of peace to one's daily work. The aspects of work that one likes one must perform with great joy and those aspects that one particularly does not like one should perform with the greatest attention.

But this will work only if one has chosen for himself/herself the right kind of profession.

So the question becomes, 'Am I doing something that reflects my true potential? Does this line of work suit me? What subjects of study am I drawn to the most?'

It might take a while to get this answer. But spiritual evolution is like that - doesn't happen in a day or even in a few years. It requires patience and attention. In the process we will all feel encouraged if we know we are held in the warmest embrace of Divine Love.

I think Anbu wrote a very nice piece. But for those of us who are caught in the daily grind an 'everyday' perspective can help demystify a lot.

Trust this helps.

your fear is on weak foundation.
ultimately priest job is a profession fetching money!
its a job related to ..god,temple , community and seekers!
any job requires approved school for training and placement based on certain criteria.if you see a priest job ..90% of unqualified, dirty looking ,

ill clad ,without following ethics and code , without any basic education.. even in temple activities, canvasing and doing private practice openly,giving priority to some people doing 3 circles of karpoora harathy infront of diety with no time to chant even basic manthras,coming out and showing the plate for dropping of coins and even coerse people to offer daksina!.
this is their income!
hereditory practice is one monopoly which has shown no development towards community service.since there is no strong foundation other than sentiments it will be broken very easily like MKs Archaka scheme.Periar was able to break a tradition of hindu system which has been followed for 1000s of years!
we have to find a modified religious hindu system which cannot be opposed even by aethists/rationalists/reformists...
/
under these circumstances shall we think of atleast educating the existing and new eligible recruits thro an intensive course in temple practices ,conduct exams ,appoint meritorious candidates as priests without offending the existing community practices...a man cutting goats head in mariamman temple will not be accepted as a priest in Srirangam temple in the name of sama needi!! vice verse..!
let us think of education in religious practices like priest,poojaris,butters,sastris,pundits,and purohits.
eligible candidates who are approved and sponsored by the concerned communities and learn with existing sets of framed rules which nobody can break!
think....
GPS

Hi Mr.Alex / Ms.Evelyn,

Why do you take so much pain to become a member of this forum and fill it with junk?

I presume you are neither man nor woman, a eunuch?

You cannot even write anything original. I found the same junk in sundry sites. Please, sell your ware elsewhere. This is not the place for the likes of you.

Good bye.