Published in Vjayavaani.com
In a 4:1 ruling of the Constitution Bench that
struck down an age old tradition at Sabarimala temple of Lord Ayyappa, the
judges held that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
The only dissenting judge Justice Indu Malhotra held that Ayyappa devotees do
form a separate denomination.
This contradictory stance on religious denomination
and the interpretation of the same having become vital in deciding the fate of
this case, one is at a loss to understand why no thought or debate had gone
into knowing what constitutes a religious denomination in the Hindu religion.
During the hearing stage the judges asked how Ayyappa devotees constituted a
denomination when there is no specific Ayyappa sect. This question seemed to
have been guided by the opinion that Hindu faith has only pre-established
denominations with zero scope to have developed new denominations over a period
of time.
Even in the US 35 denominations were found to be
present among the followers of Christianity when a survey was taken as recently
as in 2001 by The Graduate Center of City University of New York. This was a
great surprise to many but this shows the internally evolving denominations
within a religion even in a modern society. Mr Sai Deepak appearing for one of
the respondents rightly pointed out that the denomination must come from within
the community, implying that courts cannot decide a denomination.
Evolving Hindu denominations.
A popular classification of the denominations within
the Hindu community was last established by Adi Sankara which he collectively
called as ‘Shanmatha’ – based on six deities namely Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti,
Ganesha, Surya and Skanda. If this basis is any indication, Ayyappa followers rightfully
form a denomination of their own, for, their worship methods are uniquely
centred on the deity, Ayyappa.
If we further analyse the Shanmatha concept, we find
that two among the six were the children of another two of the six deities. As
per Hindu tradition Ganesha and Skanda were the children of Shiva and Shakti!
Though all the four can be clubbed together as a single family and are found
installed together in most temples belonging to any of one of them as the main
deity, Sankara had treated them as different denominations for the reason that
worship methods and religious austerities
are different from each other and distinct for each of them. On
the same basis one can say that Ayyappa constitutes a separate denomination
Before Shanmatha denomination came into being there
were eleven denominations in the very country of Kerala, then known as Chera land
where Adi Sankara was born. These eleven denominations are explained in a full
chapter in an old Tamil text called “Manimekalai”, that was about a real life
story centred around a young girl Manimekalai who went on to become a Buddhist
monk after listening to the preceptors of the other ten sects. These eleven
sects were,
1. Parinaama
2. Shaiva
3. Vaishnava
4. Brahma
5. Veda
6. Ajeevika
7. Nikanta
8. Sankhya
9. Vaisheshika
10. Bhuta
(Charvaka)
11. Bauddha
After going through the precepts of these sects,
Manimekalai embraced Buddhism finding it more suitable for her. (Article 25 -1
was present at that time, it seems!) Of the eleven, only two (Shaiva and Vaishnava)
have continued to exist till today and are part of Shanmatha. Two (Ajivika and
Buddhism) were rejected by Hinduism later when they started distancing their doctrines
from Vedic Thought. Parinaama, Brahma and Veda were absorbed by Shanmatha in
various degrees. Sankhya and Vaisheshika are no longer in existence as separate
paths. Charvakas always existed. This shows that denominations owe their
existence to the followers. Some of them become redundant with time or are absorbed
into others. There is also scope for newer denominations being born! What
brings all these denominations under the Hindu Faith is their adherence to
Vedas as the basis of their precepts and worship methods.
One must take note that four deities of the Shanmatha
(Shakti, Surya, Ganesha and Skanda) were not treated as separate sects or
denominations 2000 years ago in the Tamil lands. When they came to be followed
by more people with exclusive worship methods, Sankara found it reasonable to
accord a separate identity.
Further back in time, six Darshanas were the only
denominations in existence.
Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta
were popular then of which Sankhya and Vaisheshika continued in Manimekalai
period. They are no longer in vogue
today. The concept of religious
denomination is thus a continuously evolving feature testifying the vibrancy of
a religion.
Is Ayyappa worship of recent origin?
This question is heard on the basis of recent origin
of Pandalam dynasty in which was born Ayyappa, now worshiped at
Sabarimala. It is true that Ayyappa of
Sabarimala was very much a real person who walked on this earth, like Rama or
Krishna or Skanda who were also real entities. Hinduism recognises the
elevation of real persons as Gods under one condition. There is a written
record of this condition in the biography of Alexander by the Greek historian
Plutarch.
To a question by Alexander, “How may a man become
God?”, the Hindu sage Kalanos (Kalyan) replied, “By doing that which is
almost impossible for a man to do.” When a person does things that no other
man can do or which are beyond normal human limits, then such a person comes to
be regarded as a God. Such persons have been celebrated as Gods by sages
with mythical events woven around them. In course of time they come to be
recognised as incarnations of the Ultimate God Himself.
It is in this way Manikantha born in the Pandalam
family was recognised as “Shasta”, the child of Shiva and Vishnu (in Mohini
form). This
is like how Skanda born to Meenakshi of the Pandyan dynasty was deified by the sages
with a celestial birth and nursing by 6 star mothers of Krittika thereby
getting him the name Kartikeya. Similar deification found in the legend of
Ayyappa born as Manikantha is proof enough that his deification at Sabarimala
was a well formed cult devised by some sages of the past for the benefit of
people. With worship methods unique for Himself, He does constitute a separate denomination
and can be regarded as the 7th matha of the Hindu religion.
In the light of the fact that Manikantha alias
Ayyappa was a real figure having given instructions for worship, the Supreme
Court’s ruling is certainly a violation of the promise given to him and his oath
of celibacy. The tradition set with regard to the entry by women of the
post-partum period for the first feeding of their children in five days every
month is proof of non-discrimination against them, and at the same time without
violating the oath. Without appreciating the finer aspects of maintaining the
oath, Justice Nariman commented “What happens to the celibate nature of Lord
Ayyappa in those 5 days? Is it that the idol vanishes on those days?”
Shasta
is an old concept.
Ayyappa is known as “Dharma Shasta” – one who
delivers Justice or who is an embodiment of Justice. A deity by this name in
Tamilised form (Arap peyar Saatthan) is mentioned in verse 395 of Purananuru,
an old Tamil text. The name Shasta (Saatthan) was common among the masses in
Sangam texts. Worship of Shasta in many places was in existence from Sangam
times.
A special feature of Shasta is found in two
inscriptions and written by the Historian K.A.Nilakanta Sastri. Shasta is
identified as a God of the Cheris (rural region) mentioned along with Surya and
Seven Mother Goddesses (inscription no 335 of 1917 and 131 of 1892). The
association with seven mothers was not indigenous to Tamil lands but had spread
from Indus civilization (there is an Indus seal of seven women) with its later
prevalence found in Chalukyan and Hoysala regions 1000 years ago. Shasta of
Sangam texts was not accompanied with the seven mothers or any associate. This
establishes the olden Shasta concept as a single - with additions coming
later.
The location in rural region is repeated in
“Mayamatam” a Vaastu text containing the Vaastu principles purportedly given by
Maya. After explaining the iconography of Shasta, the text describes the
features of Shasta, the offspring of Mohini (female form of Vishnu) as a
celibate and as a married man with two wives. Then it goes on to say that those
who seek what is good, must install Shasta in villages. It also says that “Shasta,
beloved of the gods, is to be installed in the haunts of lower castes, in the
house of courtesans and in forts”.
The association with the downtrodden is a feature
found in the astrological text “Prasna Marga” written in 1649 by a Kerala
Nambhoothri. It says that those afflicted by Saturn must propitiate Shasta.
Saturn also represents undeveloped and dirty regions. As such Saturn identifies
Shasta as a village deity. It is a deity of all villagers. Those who have no
idea of the village deity worshiped by their ancestors and those who were not
initiated into any path of worship in Hinduism are also advised to worship
Shasta – particularly of Sabarimala.
Even today scores of devotees going to Sabarimala
are disadvantaged classes with no regular practice of religious austerities.
The Vrata period is a kind of boon for them to commit themselves to
religious austerities which otherwise they may not follow. The devotee is not
expected to be well versed in scriptures. What is expected of him is to follow the
rules of behaviour. There are other hill-deities too such as Venkateswara,
Narasimha and Skanda. The first two come under one denomination and Skanda is
another denomination due to varying practices in worship methods. But Sabarimala
pilgrimage is different from them.
The Chief Justice refused to accept separate
denomination for Ayyappa worshippers on the pretext that people of other faith
also worship him. It is true that Ayyappa is worshiped by people from across
all the other sects. The worshiper could come from any background, from other
Hindu sects such as Shaivism or Vaishnavism or from any other religion. But
every one of them must follow the rules of Vrata as applicable to
Sabarimala! And that Vrata follows certain tradition of do’s and dont’s.
That makes Ayyappa worship unique by itself. This in effect is a valid reason
to treat Ayyappa worship a unique religious denomination. We don’t need an Adi
Sankara to be born again to tell us this!
*********
Some salient features written by me in response to comments to my article in Vijayavaani .
Issue 1: The restriction on women is as though women are by nature seducers. It is also as an insult to the deity as though he cannot withstand temptation.
My reply:
Certainly
no Hindu book of Dharma says that women are seducers, but modern science
says. Dr. Louann Brizendine of the
University of California and author of "The Female Brain” has said “About
10 days after the onset of menstruation, right before ovulation, women often
feel sassier. Unconsciously, they dress sexier as surges in estrogen and
testosterone prompt them to look for sexual opportunities during this particularly
fertile period.” You can read the rest of the story in Live Science here: https://www.livescience.com/14421-human-brain-gender-differences.html
None of
the Hindu Dharma Sastras that deal with menstruation speaks as above but only
from the point of view of how the Smarta karmas can be carried out without any
depletion in different situations like the woman in menses and persons whose
close relatives have died. Yes, restrictions are there for death also.
With
only Tamilnadu and Kerala still continuing to be the retainers of the original
tradition of the Vedic society, please be informed, that even a road side
temple of recent origin in a city like Chennai would close its doors if someone
living in the close proximity of the temple dies. The temple would not be
opened until the dead is taken out and the purifying rituals are done. Not only
that, any person whose close relative had died cannot and would not enter a
temple for a stipulated time period.
This is
not an ‘insult’ on the deity and does not mean that the deity is not powerful
enough to withstand the ‘impurity’. After all, the dead person is believed to
reach His lotus feet. But what the person has left behind in this physical
world in the destruction of his body of many sheaths is what causes these
‘impurities’. None of them can touch the deity, but we the ordinary mortals
cannot draw the benefits from the deity if we allow these ‘impurities’ vitiate
the consecrated energy in the temple. It is all because of this kind of strict
adherence, the olden temples of South India are still able to retain their
sanctity.
Same
with women’s menses period. If the wife has the period, the husband cannot
participate or officiate a Vedic Yajna. This is still being strictly followed
in South India. The reasons are quite scientific but what science has not found
out.
Issue 2: Custom and tradition can and in some cases, should
be changed. They are Shastra, not the Veda, which is immutable and cannot be
changed
My reply:
No one
here has the right and the capacity to do the change. To quote Taittriya
Upanishad "When in doubt on dharma please consult Brahmanas well versed in
the Vedas, impartial and having a Dharmic bent of mind, and take their word as
the word of the Vedas" In Sabarimala issue, the word of the temple priests
and the acharyas is final. Just point out any one acharya who supports the
change proposed by the SC.
Issue 3: The tantri may object, but that is because that has
become the established tradition over some time.
My reply:
The ‘established
tradition’ is known from Mahabharata times to say the latest. Drupadi was in
her periods when she was brought to the royal court after the Pandavas lost the
dice game. From what she spoke in the court, it is known that she was supposed
to be secluded and not to be seen by the king and others who were her close
relatives. The seclusion at that time was part of the Vedic life style, whose
remnants are lost in all spheres today except in traditional temples. Let us
not be party to the decadence setting in temples.
Issue 4: There is nothing dharmic about excluding
menstruating women from worship. The Veda does not call for that.. The criteria of purity, since when does menstruation qualify as 'impurity' ?
It is the all important signal of creativity, the question of birth.
My reply:
Menstruation is not a signal
of creativity. If it is signal of creativity, a new life would be growing
inside the woman. I can pull out quotes from Tamil Sangam text to show that
pregnant women till her time of delivery used to spend lot of time in temples
in those days. But menstruation is the time of shedding of the dead ova along
with dead material that would have gone into creating a new life otherwise. It
is almost akin to the dead being removed. As I already wrote, no temple opens
its doors until the dead is completely removed in its vicinity. So it is better
to keep off from temple during that time.
Veda does not call for these. Quoting an authority (as what Taittriya Upanishad
says), Paramacharya of Kanchi (Chandrasekaraendra Saraswati Swami), Rig Veda
are mantras whose practical application are the Yajur Veda. They are about how
to worship the deities praised by the Rig Veda. In the course of practical
application done as Yajnas, there are Grihya sutras stipulating what to do and
what not to do for the householder and his dharma patni.
When the dharma patni
has her periods, the husband cannot sit as the kartha in any vedic yajna. The
beginning of the so-called ban starts here. With the yajna being a worship of
the deity in energy form, the dead energy at the time of menses upsets the very
purpose of yajna. The temples close their doors whenever a dead and decaying
energy is emanating in its surroundings. The temples can be spared of that if
the women keep themselves away to a distance of three- arrow shoots in olden times
– so that their physical condition would not cause any hindrance to any Vedic
rituals.
Issue 4: People of other faiths also worship Ayyappa. More
importantly, the Ayappa worshippers also worship other deities.
My reply:
So what?
We must ask what determines a denomination and who worships. I have explained
the criteria in the article and also the need to recognise it as a religious
denomination with increase in importance for this deity with increase in
devotees. Sankara had done that under similar circumstances.
To a question: What does the sentence that all the extant Hindu
sects follow the basic Vedic principles mean?
My reply:
It means
that only those sects that swear by Vedas and adhere to the Vedic version of
Brahman are considered Vedic / Hindu sects. In the reference to 11 sects I
quoted from Manimekalai, Buddhism and Jainism were initially Vedic at that
time. When they delinked from Vedic Thought they were rejected by the Vedic
society.
For
example Mamimekalai’s father Kovalan was married to Kannagi in Vedic marriage.
But his father took to asceticism of AjIvika because it was an off-shoot of
Vedic Thought at that time. But later Jainism was rejected by the Vedic society
as known from Sambandar’s role in banishing it from the kingdom of Koon Pandya.
Similarly Buddhism which was originally an off shoot of Vedic Thought was
rejected when started deviating from that. I suggest a reading of the 2nd section of the 2nd chapter of Brahma surtas with
the commentary by Adi Sankara or Ramanuja. The entire section is about how a
Path that does not stand by Vedic concept of Brahman as the First Cause must be
rejected. The Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Buddha, Jaina and Pashipata sects are
rejected in this section for the precise reason that they did not adhere to
Vedic Thought.
Finally
on the restriction to women in Sabarimala: I believe the above explanation
gives the rationale – that woman cannot undertake 41 day vrata in their menstruating
age. I have seen women in the houses of men in the vrata period, not even
staying at home when the men are doing puja at home. I have seen them staying
away from their house at that time. Such was the care taken by women that vrata
should not impaired. Today Sabarimala is the ONLY temple exacting such commitment
from the people. Would anyone in the know of these things accept the support
for violations?
