• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Not to the temple - a poem by Tagore

Status
Not open for further replies.

prasad1

Well-known member
Sikhism considers idol worship a false practice and is prohibited.Idolatry or idol worship, also referred to as Pahan Pooja or Murti Pooja, is the worship of any physical object such as statues, images, or sculptures of any deity, human or being with divine attributes. During the era of the Sikh gurus and bhagats, in Hinduism, a murti, or vigraha or pratima was worshiped, rituals were performed, and Sikhs believed that spiritual wisdom was lacking in Indian society. This was believed to have been a manipulation by the priestly caste to keep the power in their hands. Sikh gurus and bhagats spoke out against this practice and informed people about the perceived spiritual disadvantages of idol worship.

Similarly Kabir Das also railed against Pahan Pooja.

Bhagat Kabir, whose hymns are present in Guru Granth Sahib, was strictly against any form of idol worship. He said Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness.

Guru Nanak
, who strictly condemned the idol worship flourishing in Indian society among Hindus also suggested the same in Shalok: The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Sikhism
They were not atheists. They worshipped Hari only, but in the unmanifested form.
 
Last edited:

tbs

Well-known member
Sikhism considers idol worship a false practice and is prohibited.Idolatry or idol worship, also referred to as Pahan Pooja or Murti Pooja, is the worship of any physical object such as statues, images, or sculptures of any deity, human or being with divine attributes. During the era of the Sikh gurus and bhagats, in Hinduism, a murti, or vigraha or pratima was worshiped, rituals were performed, and Sikhs believed that spiritual wisdom was lacking in Indian society. This was believed to have been a manipulation by the priestly caste to keep the power in their hands. Sikh gurus and bhagats spoke out against this practice and informed people about the perceived spiritual disadvantages of idol worship.

Similarly Kabir Das also railed against Pahan Pooja.

Bhagat Kabir, whose hymns are present in Guru Granth Sahib, was strictly against any form of idol worship. He said Kabeer, someone sets up a stone idol and all the world worships it as the Lord. Those who hold to this belief will be drowned in the river of darkness.

Guru Nanak
, who strictly condemned the idol worship flourishing in Indian society among Hindus also suggested the same in Shalok: The Hindus have forgotten the Primal Lord; they are going the wrong way. As Naarad instructed them, they are worshipping idols. They are blind and mute, the blindest of the blind. The ignorant fools pick up stones and worship them. But when those stones themselves sink, who will carry you across?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Sikhism
They were not atheists. They worshipped Hari only, but in the unmanifested form.
hi

guru granth sahib....full of ramayan stories.....as many times about lord krishna too...mainly ramor krishna stories..
 

auh

New member
What matters are his writings available today that reveals he was not an atheist and his message is aligned with the message of the Vedas. His message in the referenced verse is about நட்ட கல் which is really Siva Lingam but in broader sense represent all deities cast in the form of stone. It is not about worship in exclusion he is talking about, it is about worshiping the stone while forgetting or disrespecting the essence of Isvara that represents as Antaryami in all beings.
நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் - can mean that the நாதன் is hidden. "Where" he is hidden is another topic for debate. So while the நாதன் is hidden, how can the stone talk? In other words, the நாதன் will never speak since he is hidden, then how can a stone talk?

The analogy is in the next line: சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?

நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence.
 

tks

Well-known member
நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில் - can mean that the நாதன் is hidden. "Where" he is hidden is another topic for debate. So while the நாதன் is hidden, how can the stone talk? In other words, the நாதன் will never speak since he is hidden, then how can a stone talk?

The analogy is in the next line: சுட்ட சட்டி சட்டுவம்கறிச்சுவை தான் அறியுமோ?

நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence.
There is a vision that is portrayed by the poet. Without 'getting' that, all one is left is to stare at the play of words to understand what might be the meaning.
 

auh

New member
I see a universal message in that small poem regardless of who it is attributed to. In almost all religious practices, focus is placed on rituals than on the intent of rituals or on understanding what God/Isvara is.
There is a vision that is portrayed by the poet. Without 'getting' that, all one is left is to stare at the play of words to understand what might be the meaning.
When you make a comment about a "universal message" in a poem that is not even attributed to Tagore (as pointed out by other members) you do not seem to be "getting" the message of the poet either ! When you dont even know what was the original intent of the unknown poet !!

Perhaps time to reflect on your thoughts before your high pedestal collapses.
 

Vaagmi

Well-known member
In my understanding, the message by anyone quoted, is not about NOT going to a temples and doing rituals. It is not about anyone approving or doubting whatever 'devotion' one may have. It is not about putting anyone down.
A reading of the messages quoted does not give this impression. It appears certainly the intention of the writers of these messages that "devotion" and the actions of a devotee that flows from it are all meaningless. and that makes it a judgment. I am unable to agree with that judgment for two reasons-1. the judges are themselves not qualified to sit in judgment and 2. the judgment is wrong.

Hypocrisy is possible with any acts of rituals especially when there is a violation of intention of a ritual.
How to determin this violation?

A true understanding (and not belief) of Isvara will change our relationship to Isvara, temples and rituals. The messages of Thyagaraja or SivaVakkiyar or Tagore will resonate with those that are ready to set aside their long held beliefs and be open to examining what is being said.
Belief is not like pain or pleasure to happen instantaneously. It comes after a search, experience, rumination, understanding, discrimination, appreciation and acceptance. To trash it is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance.

When Tagore says do not go to God, he mocks at devotees who go to Him with solid reasons. All the devotees who go to God and pray are not doing a saudha/bargain. There are many devotees who go to Tirupati who do not put anything in the hundi. They just have darshan, pray and come back. Tagore advises them not to go to temple.

Sivavakkiyar perhaps makes fun of a Shivling as Nattakallu. His ignorance of the underlying principle of a Shivling is pathetic. He is no better than an European from a different culture calling the Shivling a phallus and the Avudayar supporting the shivling a yoni (female genetalia).

I do not feel intimidated by the Nobel prize or the Sidhdhies. I will change my opinion only if someone gives me a reasonable argument.
 
Last edited:

tks

Well-known member
When you make a comment about a "universal message" in a poem that is not even attributed to Tagore (as pointed out by other members) you do not seem to be "getting" the message of the poet either ! When you dont even know what was the original intent of the unknown poet !!

Perhaps time to reflect on your thoughts before your high pedestal collapses.
There are English translations of a supposed poems by Tagore originally written in Bengali.
The name of the author is irrelevant to understanding if there is a meaning to the verses, given it is a short piece.

The original intent etc are irrelevant details when what matters is the message of pieces of writing or poem presented.

The prior 'conclusion' - நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence is logically flawed. I leave it at that with this comment below.
If the big picture is understood, it is easy to recognize that a conclusion is flawed.
 

tks

Well-known member
1. A reading of the messages quoted does not give this impression. It appears certainly the intention of the writers of these messages that "devotion" and the actions of a devotee that flows from it are all meaningless. and that makes it a judgment. I am unable to agree with that judgment for two reasons-1. the judges are themselves not qualified to sit in judgment and 2. the judgment is wrong.



2. How to determin this violation?



3. Belief is not like pain or pleasure to happen instantaneously. It comes after a search, experience, rumination, understanding, discrimination, appreciation and acceptance. To trash it is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance.

4. When Tagore says do not go to God, he mocks at devotees who go to Him with solid reasons. All the devotees who go to God and pray are not doing a saudha/bargain. There are many devotees who go to Tirupati who do not put anything in the hundi. They just have darshan, pray and come back. Tagore advises them not to go to temple.

5. Sivavakkiyar perhaps makes fun of a Shivling as Nattakallu. His ignorance of the underlying principle of a Shivling is pathetic. He is no better than an European from a different culture calling the Shivling a phallus and the Avudayar supporting the shivling a yoni (female genetalia).

I do not feel intimidated by the Nobel prize or the Sidhdhies. I will change my opinion only if someone gives me a reasonable argument.
1. The poem does not ask one to not go to the temple unilaterally or puts down any 'acts of devotion' but makes the point of ignorance of such acts in certain contexts. To understand the context one has to have better understanding of what a temple and Godhead represents. One must be able to see that vision of what a temple and Godhead represents (as taught in our knowledge scriptures) in order to *understand* such poems. Having said this, it is a free world, one can hold whatever view one wants.

2. Violation refers to violation of universal principles of Dharma.

3. Belief is not subject to reason. It can be a reasonable belief (that is does not violate whatever laws that are known) or unreasonable beliefs. Unreasonable beliefs can be commented on.
No one is trashing reasonable beliefs. If insecurity arises by reading a poem that someone is trashing one's long cherished beliefs , it only means the beliefs are in very shaky grounds.

4. Belief in Isvara is a starting point for many. It is sad if it is also the ending point in their life. Isvara has to be *understood* and not just believed. From a belief view point one cannot understand certain messages,

5. We see the world the way we are!
 

prasad1

Well-known member
Faith and rationality are two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith sometimes refers to a belief that is held with lack of reason or evidence, a belief that is held in spite of or against reason or evidence, or it can refer to belief based upon a degree of evidential warrant.
Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated and used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as defined above.
Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:


  1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
  2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.
From at least the days of the Greek Philosophers, the relationship between faith and reason has been hotly debated. Plato argued that knowledge is simply memory of the eternal. Aristotle set down rules by which knowledge could be discovered by reason.
Rationalists point out that many people hold irrational beliefs, for many reasons. There may be evolutionary causes for irrational beliefs — irrational beliefs may increase our ability to survive and reproduce. Or, according to Pascal's Wager, it may be to our advantage to have faith, because faith may promise infinite rewards, while the rewards of reason are seen by many as finite. One more reason for irrational beliefs can perhaps be explained by operant conditioning. For example, in one study by B. F. Skinner in 1948, pigeons were awarded grain at regular time intervals regardless of their behaviour. The result was that each of pigeons developed their own idiosyncratic response which had become associated with the consequence of receiving grain.
Believers in faith — for example those who believe salvation is possible through faith alone — frequently suggest that everyone holds beliefs arrived at by faith, not reason. The belief that the universe is a sensible place and that our minds allow us to arrive at correct conclusions about it, is a belief we hold through faith. Rationalists contend that this is arrived at because they have observed the world being consistent and sensible, not because they have faith that it is.

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

prasad1

Well-known member
Virtually every religion has a sort of demerit system. Hinduism certainly has its. But believing the“wrong thing” doesn’t lose points for Gryffindor or anyone else. Even atheism, if embraced out of true spiritual inquiry and not simple laziness can be considered a noble effort. The Sanatana Dharma has plenty of opportunities to acquire less-than-good karma. But it’s equally available to believers and nonbelievers alike.

We get the predictable retort, “Oh, so you can just believe what you want.” No, if I believed just what I wanted to be spiritual reality I might opt for a path to moksha that included a lifestyle such as seen in a Fellini film. No, it’s not what I want to believe. It’s what I’m able to believe. There are millions of religionists all over the world who wrestle with doubts that they cannot easily reconcile. I’m sure that crowd includes a good number of Hindus; and I would offer solace in way of indicating that Self Realization can only be attained by ridding oneself of lesser beliefs. Part of my sadhana is the continued reinvestigation of long held assumptions. If any doctrine doesn’t pass the test I quickly sweep it into my spiritual dustbin with an efficiency my wife could only wish I’d exercise in cleaning our basement of more mundane artifacts that have long since abdicated any measure of usefulness.


And honestly, there is nothing wrong with admitting that on some issues, I just don’t know.

As Hindu I encourage you to take advantage of this wonderful aspect of our Dharma. Be at peace with the gift of questions. .However I would pray that doubt never devolves into cynicism, as it can. I believe that this is what Sri Krishna meant when He said in the counsels Arjuna about his doubts. Here is the trick: to find the Great Middle. Somewhere between mindless blind faith and that obsessive skepticism which can keep us so stagnant that we refrain from everything; from choosing pizza toppings to getting married.

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/hinduism/articles/when-your-faith-isnt-faith-based.aspx#GAo9wlb45m9MqF78.99
 

auh

New member
There are English translations of a supposed poems by Tagore originally written in Bengali.
The name of the author is irrelevant to understanding if there is a meaning to the verses, given it is a short piece.

The original intent etc are irrelevant details when what matters is the message of pieces of writing or poem presented.
So how do you know what the message of the piece of writing of a verse is, given that it is open to interpretation?

The prior 'conclusion' - நாதன் is equal to the சுவை of existence is logically flawed. I leave it at that with this comment below.
If the big picture is understood, it is easy to recognize that a conclusion is flawed.
Are we debating about whether the poem is logical or not? your above comment has silliness written all over it when you have inserted it out of context here.

Who knows what the original author of the verse intended to convey. We are all, at best, trying to voice our views through a maze of words.

You seem to have a habit of superimposing your "grand big picture" over everything and jump at every opportunity to call everyone around as with a flawed understanding. In all my time here in this forum, I have not seen you giving any clear answer to the queries posted by various members here. Perhaps, for you, it then becomes Q4 time and you vanish !

All the while, member's eyes are bleeding from the word "big picture" / "absolute truth" / "Ishvara" / "Brahman" etc. No shred of logic or evidence to support what you are attempting to say.

Maybe you are becoming Sravna II ?
 

tks

Well-known member
So how do you know what the message of the piece of writing of a verse is, given that it is open to interpretation?

Are we debating about whether the poem is logical or not? your above comment has silliness written all over it when you have inserted it out of context here.

Who knows what the original author of the verse intended to convey. We are all, at best, trying to voice our views through a maze of words.

You seem to have a habit of superimposing your "grand big picture" over everything and jump at every opportunity to call everyone around as with a flawed understanding. In all my time here in this forum, I have not seen you giving any clear answer to the queries posted by various members here. Perhaps, for you, it then becomes Q4 time and you vanish !

All the while, member's eyes are bleeding from the word "big picture" / "absolute truth" / "Ishvara" / "Brahman" etc. No shred of logic or evidence to support what you are attempting to say.

Maybe you are becoming Sravna II ?
There were two points you had - one about the meaning of the poem, the other is about Sivavakiar's poem.
If you draw conclusions I have to point out logical issues (if my Q4 time permits, yes)

If there is shraddha behind a question and I have answers I will answer it. If you come here to pass opinion or belief or strong statements that do not have a basis (and lack the required background or vision) I have a choice to ignore (which I do sometimes ) or give an appropriate response.

All I can say is in certain subjects one cannot discuss without a proper background. I will not be responding to your comments further since they are not rooted in logic or to the content of a post (turning into personal attacks).
 

auh

New member
There were two points you had - one about the meaning of the poem, the other is about Sivavakiar's poem.
If you draw conclusions I have to point out logical issues (if my Q4 time permits, yes)

If there is shraddha behind a question and I have answers I will answer it. If you come here to pass opinion or belief or strong statements that do not have a basis (and lack the required background or vision) I have a choice to ignore (which I do sometimes ) or give an appropriate response.

All I can say is in certain subjects one cannot discuss without a proper background. I will not be responding to your comments further since they are not rooted in logic or to the content of a post (turning into personal attacks).
I have no issues with whatever you want to "conclude" from my post. Maybe you should clarify with the author of my post if you have "got" the message of the post !

I have not come here to get a certificate of shraddha or get a lecture about logic here. Even if I wanted to avail of a sermon, you have not acquired the requisite skills to impart me in shraddha or logic, or to even assess my background.

Just as the sun's rays fall on everyone, you had ample chance to clear everyone's doubts on what you meant. Instead you have decided to slide away. So be it.
 

tks

Well-known member
Post #39
continue with my nithyaradana of God, chanting உளனெனிலுள னவன் உருவமிவ் வுருவுகள், உளன் அலன் எனில் அவன் அருவ மிவ்வருவுகள், உளனென இலனென இவை குணமுடமையில், உள னிரு தகைமை யோடு ஒழிவிலன் பரந்தே (நம்மாழ்வார்)
இவ்வுருவுகள் இவ்வருவுகள் - With form and formless present in all entities


ஒழிவு இலன் பரந்து உளன் - He exist in all Time and everywhere

(My Tamil language skills are not as advanced as many here and I can be corrected)

Now let us look at an expression in the following post

Post #46
All the devotees who go to God and pray are not doing a saudha/bargain.
The very expression of 'Going to God and pray' is not consistent with the message of the prayer above which asserts that the Formless and 'with Form' Godhead pervades all time and space. Therefore one is never away from God hence the idea of 'Go to God' is not exactly right.
With effort one can appreciate that
"அவன் இன்றி ஓர் அணுவும் அசையாது!"


Certainly one may feel the presence of God in a temple only for some but with better understanding of message of நம்மாழ்வார், it is possible for some to sense the presence of the same Godhead elsewhere. The meaning of Bhakthi then takes a different form of expression.
 

Vaagmi

Well-known member
இவ்வுருவுகள் இவ்வருவுகள் - With form and formless present in all entities


ஒழிவு இலன் பரந்து உளன் - He exist in all Time and everywhere

(My Tamil language skills are not as advanced as many here and I can be corrected)

Now let us look at an expression in the following post



The very expression of 'Going to God and pray' is not consistent with the message of the prayer above which asserts that the Formless and 'with Form' Godhead pervades all time and space. Therefore one is never away from God hence the idea of 'Go to God' is not exactly right.
With effort one can appreciate that
"அவன் இன்றி ஓர் அணுவும் அசையாது!"


Certainly one may feel the presence of God in a temple only for some but with better understanding of message of நம்மாழ்வார், it is possible for some to sense the presence of the same Godhead elsewhere. The meaning of Bhakthi then takes a different form of expression.
This is an attempt to stand the pasuram of Nammazhwar on its head and extract a meaning which is convenient to You. I am unable to agree with your limited interpretation.

Read this fully "உளனெனில் உளன் அவன் உருவம் இவ்வுருவுகள்,...."

The meaning of this line is that "If one understands that all the physical forms that we perceive in this world have Him in them as the antaryami, then He does exist there" There is no scope to exclude the numerous deities in various temple from these "physical forms".

Alwar says he is present in all forms by the words "இவ்வுருவுகள்". Not only in all times and everywhere but also in all forms. So I choose to worship Him by going to a temple. In the temple I have given a form to Him for my "convenience" and I know that he pervades that form and beyond too. For me the immediate least complicated form is just a replica of a human being like me. The anthropomorphous form. But I add a lot of attributes, which I may not have, to that form and pray to it. Not for anything in return (sauda) for the prayer. And then Alwar also says, he is everywhere as the antharyami. Myself being an ordinary human being with limited span of cognitive abilities, I find it very convenient to give Him a form and then worship. I know also that there are "great" people in this world who do not need this anthropomorphous form in a temple for worship. They can just stand looking at a direction (usually west while in India) in the empty space and worship. And there are those who can join an assembly of like minded people and just close their eyes and pray to the empty space. But my way is convenient for me. "ஒரு நாமம் ஒருருவம் ஒன்றும் இல்லார்க்கு ஆயிரம் திருநாமம் பாடி தெள்ளேணம் கொட்டுவது" எனக்கு பிடித்திருக்கிறது,திருப்தி கொடுப்பதாய் இருக்கிறது. And I never said, nor did Alwar ever say that அவன் இன்றி அணுக்களெல்லாம் அசையும். So your condescending last sentence is redundant to the context.

Alwar, according to Acharyas, speaks about an altogether different faith here though I am not touching that subject here.

So, I follow Thyagaraja who had sung "கன கன ருசிரா" and another Alwar (தொண்டரடிப்பொடி) who said "இச்சுவை தவிர யான் போய் இந்திரலோகம் ஆளும் அச்சுவை பெறினும் வேண்டேன் அரங்கமாநகருளானே".

It is a mindset. LOL.
 
Last edited:

Vaagmi

Well-known member
1. The poem does not ask one to not go to the temple unilaterally or puts down any 'acts of devotion' but makes the point of ignorance of such acts in certain contexts. To understand the context one has to have better understanding of what a temple and Godhead represents. One must be able to see that vision of what a temple and Godhead represents (as taught in our knowledge scriptures) in order to *understand* such poems. Having said this, it is a free world, one can hold whatever view one wants.
The context is limited to the poem quoted. It is just English language and we are using that as the common denominator here. If Tagore had a grand matured vision of the temple or the Godhead, it is not evident in the language here. I have to know Tagore for that by reading about him and not reading scriptures about Him. Yes, it is free world indeed. LOL.

2. Violation refers to violation of universal principles of Dharma.
That is okay. But how do you determine it?
You said "Hypocrisy is possible with any acts of rituals especially when there is a violation of intention of a ritual."
intention is an intensely mental process. So how do you know the mind of a bhakta who engages in a ritual? Only if you know that you can determine any violation of that intention.
Simply put every bhakta who indulges in a ritualistic worship does it with a perfectly justified underlying mental process. In the absence of a jnana drushti/mind reading ability to know the mind of such people, violation of intention is not determinable and you have to just accept that there was no intention to violate any dharma. Period.

3. Belief is not subject to reason. It can be a reasonable belief (that is does not violate whatever laws that are known) or unreasonable beliefs. Unreasonable beliefs can be commented on. No one is trashing reasonable beliefs. If insecurity arises by reading a poem that someone is trashing one's long cherished beliefs , it only means the beliefs are in very shaky grounds.
In the evolution of an individual belief comes and stays at a point of time. It could have been inherited, but it gets acceptance only when a certain evolutionary stage is reached. To say belief is not subject to reason is a tongue in cheek statement. Then dividing belief into reasonable belief and unreasonable belief is again flavorless alphabet soup. For instance I was born in an orthodox family. But I became a materialist in my college days when Communism had a strong influence on my thinking. Then I had a good teacher in my father with whom I had several sessions of argument about belief systems and God. As I had retained my basic hunger for truth and my father was a good teacher, I learnt a lot from him and my comrades and evolved. Then it was an exciting journey through various stages of development. A faith is picked up after a lot of questions, assessed, compared, eliminated and then picked up as the final discovery to be retained. Even after this there are periodic reviews on the basis of information and knowledge that keeps impinging on me. The world and life in it are not after all static. I leave that barb about feeling insecure unanswered for obvious reasons.

4. Belief in Isvara is a starting point for many. It is sad if it is also the ending point in their life. Isvara has to be *understood* and not just believed. From a belief view point one cannot understand certain messages,
This tendency to be judgmental about others is your weakness. I would addres just one question to you: Have you *understood* Isvara? If yes, please present briefly what is your *understanding*. You may also tell if you have understood Isvara, is it a belief now or something else and if something else what is that something?
 
Last edited:

Janaki Jambunathan

Well-known member
தெய்வம் இருப்பது எங்கே?….
Published on December 13th, 2016 | 0 Comme

இதை நான் அவனுக்கு இன்னும் சொல்லவில்லை, சொல்லியிருந்தால் கோவில் பக்கமே இனி காலடி வைக்கமாட்டான். இப்போதைக்கு அவனை பொறுத்தவரையில் கோயிலுக்கு போவதற்கு ஒரு முக்கிய காரணம் ……..அம்மாவின் சோறு,கறியை விட கோவிலில் தரும் சோறும், சாம்பாரும் மிகவும் ருசி ! இப்போதைக்கு அப்படியே இருக்கட்டும், சாம்பாரின் ருசி போகும் வரை ……….

http://newneervely.com/தெய்வம்-இருப்பது-எங்கே
 

tks

Well-known member
This is an attempt to stand the pasuram of Nammazhwar on its head and extract a meaning which is convenient to You. I am unable to agree with your limited interpretation.

Read this fully "உளனெனில் உளன் அவன் உருவம் இவ்வுருவுகள்,...."

The meaning of this line is that "If one understands that all the physical forms that we perceive in this world have Him in them as the antaryami, then He does exist there" There is no scope to exclude the numerous deities in various temple from these "physical forms".

Alwar says he is present in all forms by the words "இவ்வுருவுகள்". Not only in all times and everywhere but also in all forms. So I choose to worship Him by going to a temple. In the temple I have given a form to Him for my "convenience" and I know that he pervades that form and beyond too. For me the immediate least complicated form is just a replica of a human being like me. The anthropomorphous form. But I add a lot of attributes, which I may not have, to that form and pray to it. Not for anything in return (sauda) for the prayer. And then Alwar also says, he is everywhere as the antharyami. Myself being an ordinary human being with limited span of cognitive abilities, I find it very convenient to give Him a form and then worship. I know also that there are "great" people in this world who do not need this anthropomorphous form in a temple for worship. They can just stand looking at a direction (usually west while in India) in the empty space and worship. And there are those who can join an assembly of like minded people and just close their eyes and pray to the empty space. But my way is convenient for me. "ஒரு நாமம் ஒருருவம் ஒன்றும் இல்லார்க்கு ஆயிரம் திருநாமம் பாடி தெள்ளேணம் கொட்டுவது" எனக்கு பிடித்திருக்கிறது,திருப்தி கொடுப்பதாய் இருக்கிறது. And I never said, nor did Alwar ever say that அவன் இன்றி அணுக்களெல்லாம் அசையும். So your condescending last sentence is redundant to the context.

Alwar, according to Acharyas, speaks about an altogether different faith here though I am not touching that subject here.

So, I follow Thyagaraja who had sung "கன கன ருசிரா" and another Alwar (தொண்டரடிப்பொடி) who said "இச்சுவை தவிர யான் போய் இந்திரலோகம் ஆளும் அச்சுவை பெறினும் வேண்டேன் அரங்கமாநகருளானே".

It is a mindset. LOL.
No one is saying one cannot worship in any form one pleases. Someone may see Him in a cross and another in another form (and may call it by a different name). I did not imply anything condescending except sharing my understanding. But one needs a more inclusive heart to perceive that.

"Alwar says he is present in all forms by the words "இவ்வுருவுகள்". Not only in all times and everywhere but also in all forms." - this means He is existent in that beggar outside the temple doors. If a person kicks such a beggar with contempt, has hatred in his heart towards others then is there any meaning if such a person 'goes to God' and does some ritual? Is that really Bhakthi?

No answer is really expected -
 

tks

Well-known member
தெய்வம் இருப்பது எங்கே?….
Published on December 13th, 2016 | 0 Comme

இதை நான் அவனுக்கு இன்னும் சொல்லவில்லை, சொல்லியிருந்தால் கோவில் பக்கமே இனி காலடி வைக்கமாட்டான். இப்போதைக்கு அவனை பொறுத்தவரையில் கோயிலுக்கு போவதற்கு ஒரு முக்கிய காரணம் ……..அம்மாவின் சோறு,கறியை விட கோவிலில் தரும் சோறும், சாம்பாரும் மிகவும் ருசி ! இப்போதைக்கு அப்படியே இருக்கட்டும், சாம்பாரின் ருசி போகும் வரை ……….

http://newneervely.com/தெய்வம்-இருப்பது-எங்கே
Interesting link ! Thanks for sharing
 

tks

Well-known member
The context is limited to the poem quoted. It is just English language and we are using that as the common denominator here. If Tagore had a grand matured vision of the temple or the Godhead, it is not evident in the language here. I have to know Tagore for that by reading about him and not reading scriptures about Him. Yes, it is free world indeed. LOL.


That is okay. But how do you determine it?
You said "Hypocrisy is possible with any acts of rituals especially when there is a violation of intention of a ritual."
intention is an intensely mental process. So how do you know the mind of a bhakta who engages in a ritual? Only if you know that you can determine any violation of that intention.
Simply put every bhakta who indulges in a ritualistic worship does it with a perfectly justified underlying mental process. In the absence of a jnana drushti/mind reading ability to know the mind of such people, violation of intention is not determinable and you have to just accept that there was no intention to violate any dharma. Period.



In the evolution of an individual belief comes and stays at a point of time. It could have been inherited, but it gets acceptance only when a certain evolutionary stage is reached. To say belief is not subject to reason is a tongue in cheek statement. Then dividing belief into reasonable belief and unreasonable belief is again flavorless alphabet soup. For instance I was born in an orthodox family. But I became a materialist in my college days when Communism had a strong influence on my thinking. Then I had a good teacher in my father with whom I had several sessions of argument about belief systems and God. As I had retained my basic hunger for truth and my father was a good teacher, I learnt a lot from him and my comrades and evolved. Then it was an exciting journey through various stages of development. A faith is picked up after a lot of questions, assessed, compared, eliminated and then picked up as the final discovery to be retained. Even after this there are periodic reviews on the basis of information and knowledge that keeps impinging on me. The world and life in it are not after all static. I leave that barb about feeling insecure unanswered for obvious reasons.



This tendency to be judgmental about others is your weakness. I would addres just one question to you: Have you *understood* Isvara? If yes, please present briefly what is your *understanding*. You may also tell if you have understood Isvara, is it a belief now or something else and if something else what is that something?
Your weakness is to turn discussion points into attacking a poster. You are welcome to attack the content of a post. Having said that, you limited your attacks and hence I applaud that.

You have described how you have come to your current belief. Your description is nicely written and I wish that you continue your journey.

Then, there is a potential to discover that not only the fascination with communism etc was a confusion then , but also that even the current beliefs are also rooted in delusion. Understanding Isvara is a journey undertaken by every inquiring individual - one that wants to really know. If one is stuck in a belief, then so be it - the potential to be a Jignasu is denied in this life time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Top