DMK's and AP Target - Hindu Temples

[Husky]

1/2



From the bharatabharati blog

Comments organised in chronological order:

anonymous, on September 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM said:

[color="#0000FF"]newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article603317.ece[/color]



[color="#0000FF"]Big temple symbol of religious integrity, says Vatican envoy[/color]



Earlier, he was directed by the temple officials to use the side entrance. An official on condition of anonymity explained, “We allow people of all religions when they are not in their religious attire. However, the envoy was in his religious attire.”



a response to this article, IS



[color="#0000FF"]Yes by making this secular statement, soon in near future there would suddenly appear a cross inside the premises and missionary will start claiming this as their miracle church and occupy the temple[/color]

Posted by boga at 09/09/2012 12:48

Reply

First they will declare it belongs to everyone, that 'it's universal' and 'a perfect example of interfaith harmony' etc. Or at least a universal tourist spot/'Indian' heritage.

Then they will sneak their crosses in, demand an alcove and start proselytising.

anonymous, on September 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM said:

[color="#0000FF"]www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/article3877150.ece[/color]



[color="#0000FF"]“The king who built the temple remained a symbol of secularism and communal harmony.” said the Vatican envoy.[/color] Is it so!!! IS , Raja Raja was an ardent Siva Bhakt. The response to the New Indian express report by Boga is on dot with the comments or did the responder read the Hindu report and write this. The Hindu has censored the non-admittance of the envoy thru the main gate news. Editorial hypocrisy.



[color="#0000FF"]ibnlive.in.com/news/big-temple-symbol-of-religious-integrity-says-vatican-envoy/289812-60-118.html[/color]



Earlier, he was directed by the temple officials to use the side entrance. An official on condition of anonymity explained, “We allow people of all religions when they are not in their religious attire. However, the envoy was in his religious attire.”



IBNLive has reported the denial of entry.



Reply

IS, on September 9, 2012 at 6:07 PM said:

The Tanjavur Big Temple is officially an ASI monument and not a traditionally functioning Shiva temple under the HR & CE Dept. (as far as I know; I may be corrected on this point). The ASI permits pujas to go on but I suspect no prana pratishta has been done for decades — it should be done every 12 years — as [color="#FF0000"]the ASI doesn’t want the temple building ‘damaged’ by traditional worship.[/color] So the Big Temple is an official GOI tourist attraction and I am surprised that the temple officials had the gumption to refuse entry to the bishops because they were in their cassocks. Normally anybody can enter and tourist guides take foreign groups in who are always inappropriately dressed (foreign tourists in India always think they are at the beach and dress accordingly). This is not a good policy because the Big Temple sanctum is built joining right on to the main hall (if I remember correctly) so there is not any distance between the Lingam, which is very large, and the tourists. They are separated by a railing only. Usually tourists are kept at a good distance from the deity in the temple sanctum in South India temples.



There is a good article by Sadhu Rangarajan on Raja Raja Chola I and the Brihadeeswar Temple at [color="#0000FF"]bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/rajarajan-the-emperor-of-the-three-worlds-sadhu-rangarajan/[/color]



Of course Raja Raja wasn’t a secularist and was not concerned about religious harmony because it was not an issue during his reign (not up with Raja Raja’s history; there may have been an issue between Shaivites and Jains which went on for some time in Tamil Nadu, but not between Hindus and Abrahamists).



And the bishop isn’t a secularist either, so why is he patting us on the back for an attitude he himself does not have?



[color="#0000FF"]What we do know is that there is no record of Christianity in Tamil Nadu during his period, 10th-11th centuries, which is important information because the Dravidian-ists, supported by the Indian Church, claim Christianity had a good following in Tamil Nadu then and contributed to the theology of Tamil Shaivism (which it didn’t of course).[/color]

Reply

the ASI doesn’t want the temple building ‘damaged’ by traditional worship.

This is christianism. It's most deliberately treating Hindu dharma as a dead religion - preventing Hindus from carrying out the necessary religious rites in their own temples - and instead turning such temples and their moolamoorties into "tourist attractions" for demonstrating "Indian" "civilisation". (Quite like the christogovt has done to famous ancient cave temples, where Hindus are also specifally disallowed from doing traditional poojas. Note, as was said about Rome and observed by the Hellenes: at first christianism particularly went after breaking the continuity of correct rituals at temples, before proceeding to ban Hellenes from temple worship.)



Hindus should reclaim all Hindu sites that the ASI/christian govt is hogging. These things were built by Hindoos for Hindoos to perform Hindooism in alone. They were not built by some loser "secular" (let alone cryptochristo) Indian govt.