Homo-Sexuality @ Supreme Court and Lord Ayyappa

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Murali Krishnan says:

    Every point in this blog appeared logical and convincing until you hit upon “……Similarly, the deity in Sabarimala is unmarried Sastha – that’s before his marriage…..” also as you say “….But Sastha is married and Ayyappa was a Brahmachari….” How can a married person’s deity be of his unmarried representation no matter its his child hood form? Its analogical to saying I was an innocent child 40 years ago, now I am of vice character, but you should worship or remember me for the innocence in me when I was 2 years old? The idea that you are trying to hold upon is mostly clear – you are probably trying to say, the temple has its significance, but since now the question of Pandalam prince’s (who attained Samadhi in celibacy at the age of 16) identity is linked to it the question has become whether the temple’s existence to be proven true or the deity’s identity or existence to be proven right. The confusion for multitudes has become, if they link the Pandalam prince to this story (because of the marxist or whatever), the authenticity of godliness will be reduced as we (all Indians irrespective of our religion) don’t attach much godliness to people who are born post AD 1000 because of the availability several historical references and cross- verifiable proofs to satisfy our inquisitive minds of them being humans and however we elevate them, they will be seen as a ‘human god’, while if we link the Drama Saasta of the Bhagavat Puran to this story, the celibate story doesn’t hold good (like I said, a child form deity of a married person standing for celibacy theory, doesn’t hold, much water). Bringing the idea of Guruvayur’s deity being a child Krishna doesn’t hold much relevance here as the baby Krishna or its proponents is/are ‘not forcing’ people to follow ‘some practices’ in the name of he being a child and some things being out of bound for a child, like the Sabarimala practice is doing.

    While all said and done, the ‘Vratas’ and celibacy etc cleanse the body and mind, forcing women (between the ages 10-50) out for ‘some reason’ is the one that is not going down the gut of logical thinking people, no matter how-much-ever we demand that the logic be kept out of divinity or religion.

    Now I need to add here that technically speaking I was born into a Hindu family – or I am more Hindu, than a non-Hindu since Hinduism doesn’t call for a “baptism” to enroll, may be because every creature born south-east of Hindukush mountain ranges is a ‘Hindu’ by definition – and was born in that part of India which Sabarimala is also a part of and have been to this place in discussion once or twice as every other follower, but the 10-50 theory and the many stories that we build behind it to make it sound logical is something that I have not been able to stomach so far, more so because the importance of ages 10 and 50 is not clear per se. if the argument is about 10-50 and their contribution to making or breaking or some one’s celibacy, What is the guarantee that girls below 10 and women above 50 are ensuring that the purpose (whatever that purpose is, which is the base question that I have) is met? How can the entire world’s women folks between 10-50 to be responsible for ensuring somebody’s celibacy who lived and died (or attained Samadhi) 800 years ago or 5000 years ago as per some Puraan postulated it?

  2. karam says:

    no body will listen. calling ayappa homosexual is so foolish, and your double sri shankar is hugely responsible. read my post on gay agenda at karamlamba.blogspot.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *