Homo-Sexuality @ Supreme Court and Lord Ayyappa
“Udayji, the Supreme Court of India has begun hearing pleas challenging gay sex law. I have a question related to that. Many people in support of legally accepted homosexuality quote the birth of Lord Ayyappa. He is born to Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu and says further that this means that the concept of homosexual relationship exists from the beginning of Gods. But the Hindu fundamentalists like those from Islam and Christianity oppose lesbian and gay sexuality saying that it is un-natural. Those who oppose do not have problem with millions of devotees who visit Lord Ayyappa temple every year. Isn’t it the highest hypocrisy among Hindu thinkers?” this was a question asked by a friend of mine from Ernakulam.
“I would say your argument connecting Ayyappa with homosexuality is the height of stupidity and it just shows sheer ignorance of facts.”
“Udayji, you always quote Bhagavatam and other Puranas as authentic. Why can’t you approve Ayyappa’s legacy as a product of gay relationship?”
“To begin with Lord Ayyappa is not a part of any classical “Hindu” scripture. He is not mentioned in any authentic Puranas. Ayyappan’s living period dates back by 950 years i.e. around 1150 A.D. in Kerala. Puranas date back to 5000 years!”
“So, you mean to say that Sabarimala Ayyappa temple is just a hoax?”
“I didn’t say that. Don’t jump guns. Sabarimala deity is actually NOT Ayyappa. The temple is officially called ‘Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple’. It was Marxist led government who promoted the temple as Ayyappaswamy Temple to create rift and confusion among believers…”
“Oh, that’s a stunning fact, I didn’t know that. What was the Left’s idea?”
“It is not part of any ideology. Like any political parties they also always played vote bank politics. What’s the basic strategy of Indian political parties? Splitting Hindu votes or unifying Muslim votes towards their benefits. It has nothing to do with their love or hate to any religions, but it is just a wily strategy to appease and get votes. They wanted to project Ayyappa as a Dravidian God and Sastha as an Aryan God. Only people with scientific background would research and find truth. But the general public will fall for any such emotional appeals.”
“Oh, I didn’t know that…”
“That’s what I said initially – know your facts well before coming to arguments like this…”
“So what’s the difference between Ayyappa and Sastha?”
“Ayyappa was a historical person, who lived in Pandalam. Successors of Pandalam dynasty, Poonjar palace and some other living generation add credence to this fact. He is an avatar of Sastha…”
“Can you explain that? It is said that Ayyappa is born out of Vishnu and Shiva, so can he be considered as a joined avatar ? ”
“Hmmm. You should know the basic difference between concept of God and avatars. Vishnu is not a real person. It is a scientific concept of cosmos, personified as a God (I have explained science behind Vishnu in many articles – those who didn’t read, may refer to my website) who sustains the Dharma. So whenever somebody upholds and lives for Dharma our sages elevate them to the status of Avatar. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna were historical persons. Real human beings like us. Because of their commitment to Dharma, we elevated them to the position of Vishnu. Similarly Mohini helped to sustain Dharma, hence we elevated her as avatar of Vishnu!”
“How come, she is a female?”
“Aha, just observe your biased mind-set. Sanatan Dharma doesn’t discriminate anything on the basis of sex, race or species. Vishnu has taken 24 avatars including that of animals like Pig, Lion, Toroise, Fish etc. He has also taken partial-avatars. Why can’t he take an avatar of a woman? Is it so wrong to be a woman elevated to the position of God? Hinduism worships females as God; you should know your facts…”
“Oh, sorry Udayji, I didn’t think that way. Okay. So Mohini and Shiva had a relationship and Ayyappa was born out of it…”
“It’s not as simple as that. As I said, no authentic Puranas mention about Ayyappa.”
“Does any Purana mention about Mohini?”
“Yes. Mohini is mentioned in many Puranas.”
“What does Puranas say about the relationship between Mohini and Shiva?”
“Their relationship is mentioned only in minor Puranas like Skandam, Lalithopakyanam, Brahmanda which also say that Lord Hariharaputhra was born to Shiva and Mohini”
“What about Dharma Sastha?”
“He is well known in Puranas – references of Sastha appear in Puranas and Upa-Puranas and Epics including Ramayana and Mahabaratha.”
“Again confusion, so how does Ayyappa fit into this?”
“Ayyapa was a legendary prince who lived for Dharma. Ayyappan was born on in 1158 AD, and reached ‘Samadhi’ as a teenager, at 16. He fought for Dharma. Hence he has been elevated as avatar of Hariharaputhra or Dharma Sastha. Dharma Sastha idol was installed by Parasurama at Ponnambalamedu, the highest peak of the Sabarimala hills and some 2000 ft above the present Sabarimala shrine. Sages believe that Ayyappa went in to deep Dhyana and dissolved into Dharma Sastha. Hence Ayyappa’s chaithanya is with the idol of Sastha…”
“But Sastha is married and Ayyappa was a Brahmachari. Mensturating women are not allowed to visit the temple.”
“Yes, like most of Hindu Gods, Sastha also has two wives – Poorna and Pushkala. About women’s entry to Sabarimala, please read my article ‘The ‘Bleeding’ Issue: Sabarimala Temple Ban for Women!’ ( https://udaypai.in/the-bleeding-issue-sabarimala-temple-ban…/ ). Have you heard of Guruvayoor temple?”
“Yes, Guruvayur temple of Unnikkannan or baby Krishna.”
“The deity is the infant form of Lord Krishna. Not a grown-up and married Krishna…Similarly, the deity in Sabarimala is unmarried Sastha – that’s before his marriage. In short, the deity is Brahmachari Sastha…”
“Wow…you have cleared as many confusion at one go. So Ayyappa is not born out of homosexuality…”
“Why can’t you use simple logic – is it possible to produce a child without a female? According to Hindu beliefs, a female in the present birth, married to a male and delivered a son, may have been a male in the previous birth.”
“I didn’t understand…”
“Can you say that since your wife was a male in previous birth, her sexual relationship with you in the present birth is homosexual? Does that mean a male delivered a son? Let’s use minimum common sense…”
“Oh, yes, Mohini was a female out and out. She may have been Vishnu in the previous or next birth. But then Mohini was a female. I understand it perfectly now.”
“Good. So, know your facts well and please do not drag Ayyappa in such controversy.”
“So many learnt people know these facts, but still why do they propagate Ayyappa as son of two males?”
“The real aim and intention of such learnt people should be detected. It could be a conspiracy to mar the popularity of Sabarimala temple. Most of the society in general considers homosexuality as un-natural and as a taboo. So, the idea should be to appease them and later exploit them for their benefits.”
“Thank you Udayji, all your articles on Hindu Gods clear lot of doubts. Can you write about all those remaining Gods and temples – it would be helpful for the mis-informed Hindus as well as others…”
“I shall write whenever I get an opportunity to do so.” I said.
By
Udaylal Pai
Let’s share and care. Let’s get connected:
Facebook: udaylal.pai
WhatsApp Number: +919447533409
E-mail: uday.pai@hotmail.com
Website: www.udaypai.in
Twitter: Udaylal Pai
Book: Why Am I a Hindu (The Science of Sanatan Dharma). For kindle and international paperback, please visit: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N9PAGLT
For Indian paperback (print) edition only: http://prachodayat.org/why-am-i-a-hindu/
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?
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.