Actually, followers of Jesus don’t put a premium on place either. Since His resurrection from the dead, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 50 days later, both individual followers and local gatherings of followers of Jesus are the dwelling place of God.
This is a wonderful article. Thank God, really, for our freedom to lead a peaceful and quiet life, free to love God and our neighbors
So government red tape and BS nearly stopped something truly beautiful from being built? My daily reminder of why I’m libertarian. What gorgeous piece of architecture.
Just building things anymore is impressive. I know little about Hinduism but the temple stands as testimony to the strong faith required to build it in this day and age, and I can’t help but imagine lesser, taxpayer-funded structures which cost far more than $96M. I celebrate the effort and will make a point to see it soon.
As an Indian American who grew up here in NJ, went to Rutgers, and is very much a part of the diaspora, your journey was a joy to read. I live 15 mins from this Temple and, yeah, it's a sight to behold. God bless...
Congratulations. It's nice to hear about the real "Religion of Peace" for a change, and not that other religion that causes so much trouble in the world.
Kiran, this was beautiful and refreshing. So many horror stories lately about the ‘downside’ of multiculturalism. Most of us in the host countries of the West can and do get behind immigration when the folks coming in have similar values (or at least, aren’t actively hostile to ours) and a lot to contribute, like the vast majority of the Hindu diaspora. Absolutely love this!
Yes. What matters is whether the culture/doctrine is a true one or not. Hinduism is not a cult of hate. But, you should be able to understand politics in India better when Hindu leaders in opposition to islam are described as right-wing, or riots as "anti-muslim". It's not like that for them either.
The greatest muslim shrine in India is built around the ruin of the former great Hindu temple. But as Kiran said, temples are not necessary to Hindu practice, even though they may be highly valued, enough to die for.
Indeed, it’s a tradition that the Muslim armies built their mosques upon the houses of worship of the vanquished. It’s a kind of cultural vandalism practised everywhere the Islamic hordes rampaged and spread their religion. The Hagia Sofia, for example.
Nice and I can only imagine what the cost would be without volunteer support of the faithful. A beautiful church not only brings glory to God but us a draw to the community for generations and is thus always a good investment.
The author writes "we Hindus don’t even need a place to practice our religion.... (Hinduism) has never put a premium on place.. We don’t need temples—or any buildings, really—in which to practice our faith. "
This is an astoundingly incorrect statement. Literally the opposite of True. It betrays a total lack of understanding of the history and practice of what Hindu religion is and how it has been practiced and the role of temples in it. The implication seems to be that this (and maybe other) temples are somehow a vanity project, a fancy community/cultural center that happens to be a place of worship instead of a place of spiritual/religious upliftment. If that is the implication, it is straight up false and maybe malicious reporting.
In fact it is such a howler, that I would suggest the editors to issue a correction. It is pure hokum.
Let me explain.
The ultimate goal of "practicing" Hinduism is Moksha i.e. liberation from the cycle fo birth and death. This is achieved through various paths, think of them as methods viz. path of knowledge, devoition, Karma, rituals etc. These are often thought of as separate but are in reality the same and interrelated in practice. Temples serve not only as places of "worship" (in a Judeo-Christian sense) but they have always served and continue to serve as places of transmission of these methods. Specific temples are well known for worshiping specific deities, learning the method of worship that is particular for that particular deity etc.. They appeal to people on that particular path. Temples served not only as religious but also stores and transmission-places of cultural and non-religious knowledge systems.
That the author (and most Hindus) have a little shrine at home where they worship daily does not diminish the importance or the need to have temples. You will be laughed at in India for spouting such balderdash.
If fact, it is because of temples that Hinduism survived the centuries of onslaught of Islamic and European Christian zealotry that was unleashed in Indian subcontinent. Indeed, these invaders specifically targeted temples because they correctly saw them as nerve centers of the entire Hindu religio-cultural systems. Which brings me to my next point....
The author also claims "...(destruction of temples by Mughals and Christians) did little, if anything, to stop the practice of Hinduism." Again, this is stupendously ignorant. The kind of stuff one would expect to read in NYT.
Hinduism survived the monotheistic onslaught precisely because of its ability to evolve in face of these upheavals. Temples placed such a crucial role in this that, History of India is replete with incidents where whole cities and towns often sacrificed themselves in front of vastly superior military forces to protect these temples.
The kookery published in this article is a slap in the face of millions of Hindus undertake strenuous pilgrimages every year to specific temples across the subcontinent for their religious betterment.
I would urge the author to educate herself in the religion of her ancestors. And no! Just calling up "Nana and nani" for a couple of quick quotes to slant her writing for her western audiences does not count!
I think you need to read the article again before getting too emotional about the role of temples. For some Hindus it plays an important role in their lives but going to the temple is no way mandatory or essential like it is in Christianity. In fact, we were taught the principle of Aham Bhramasmi- god resides every where and in everyone. So maybe you need to broaden your perspectives about the religion before you make reductive broad commentary on a very diverse and culturally rich religion.
1) Hindus dont need temples to practice their religion.
2) Hindus have not put a premium on place.
Both of these are historically incorrect as well as theologically incorrect. They were incorrect in the past and are still incorrect today.
There are numerous temples across Indian subcontinent that are considered very very sacred places and draw tens of millions of visitors from across the globe every year precisely because a premium is placed on their importance. I can list them out if you wish.
Even Vedantins, the hardcore proponents of principle of "Aham Brahmasmi", visit these temples an indeed build their own temples. Their belief in advaitin principles does not preclude them from doing so. In fact, they have their own forms and methods of temple sadhana.
PS: "Aham Brahmasmi" does not mean, strictly speaking, that there is a god that resides in every one. It is a declaration that translates to "I am Brahman", the supreme reality.
The fact is, everything changes. Everything arises and then passes out of sight. This is why sand mandalas are made in Vajrayana. Something beautiful and spiritually meaningful is made, often with great effort.
And then the beautiful art is swept away, leaving no trace. That is what a temple is, even this one. Will it last 1000 years? 10,000 years? It does not matter. It will be swept away in time. Just as the sand mandalas are. Dust in the wind.
And still, Aham Brahm Asmi. "I am the One." The truth that is true always was and always will be. Witness, submitted to all, "I" Live All Things.
Yes temples can be cultural centres, there might be people protecting them with their lives. But still contrast this with a religious Catholic person who goes to Church every Sunday to listen to sermons from the local priest. It is critical for binding the community and the faithful to their faith. Growing up in a Hindu family, my parents prayed everyday to the idols of Gods we had inside the house. We did visit temples sometimes. But the temple was in no way essential for my parents to practice their faith or be part of a community. So the destruction of any temple would have hurt their sentiments but did not stop them from practising their faith. Which I think is the key difference.
The author made a blanket claim that Hindus "dont even need a place of worship to practice our religion". And that it has never put a premium on place.
Both are patently false statements.
Hindus have always built temples for practicing their religion and culture in its entirety, and have done so often in face of brutal monotheistic repression. Hindus see their temples as powerful sources of spiritual energy and therefore, even Hindus who pray at home visit temples. They have also put a premium on specific places due to their spiritual importance. Maybe you have not heard of Kailash Mansarovar, 12 Jyotirlingas, Tirupati, the four mathas and countless other temples dotted all over the Indian subcontinent.
Ultimately, Hinduism is much much much more than saying a few prayers in the home shrine everyday and declaring oneself a "practicing Hindu", whatever that means. That your parents did so in western country does not diminish the importance of temples in Hinduism and render them dispensable. So destruction of temples is not a just a matter of "hurt sentiments" as you say. It is about a way of preservation of a way of life, worship and being.
Yes, Hindu temples are places related to spiritual transmission. They are not required. Period. When there is no more lineage of transmission, anywhere, of human realization, then it might have died out.
I am going to ignore the ad hominem. Sounds like I touched a nerve for you.
EDIT : Sparty, You stealth edited out "YOu are full of it. You are the ignorant one". Why?
For Hinduism to exist, the existence of temples as centers of worship etc. are absolutely necessary. You say that temples are not required. They are not required for what?
All paths for Moksha in Hinduism involve worship of deity. There is no such thing as worshiping/praying in bedroom and attaining moksha. Even the most stringent gyaan margis worship in temples and not just as a formality.
I dont' know what you mean by "human realization" and "lineage of transmission".
Yes. Exactly. You do not grasp, nor have exposure to, the core of it. (Or more properly, It.) Your understanding is superficial, fixated in and on "things" that are dust in the wind.
Perhaps you should spend a year with the sky-clad.
What a delightful piece. Thanks for sharing this. Once again I'm saddened to read Fedzilla charges in with criminal coercion and lies to stymie people of faith from expressing their belief publically. We should all ask the Catholics how they've ended up as a "terror organization" for questioning the content of the education their children receive. Our republic has been taken from us by the roaringly mad leftists and their extreme elements. We've permiited this to happen.
What a lovely story! A much needed change from all the distressing news.
I could not agree more with you. I hope to visit it one day.
Thank you for sharing this with us!
Actually, followers of Jesus don’t put a premium on place either. Since His resurrection from the dead, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 50 days later, both individual followers and local gatherings of followers of Jesus are the dwelling place of God.
This is a wonderful article. Thank God, really, for our freedom to lead a peaceful and quiet life, free to love God and our neighbors
Wherever two or more are gathered in my name.
I raise you "Two Baptists on a Bridge". ;-)
Only one Baptist required. ;-)
So government red tape and BS nearly stopped something truly beautiful from being built? My daily reminder of why I’m libertarian. What gorgeous piece of architecture.
Just building things anymore is impressive. I know little about Hinduism but the temple stands as testimony to the strong faith required to build it in this day and age, and I can’t help but imagine lesser, taxpayer-funded structures which cost far more than $96M. I celebrate the effort and will make a point to see it soon.
As an Indian American who grew up here in NJ, went to Rutgers, and is very much a part of the diaspora, your journey was a joy to read. I live 15 mins from this Temple and, yeah, it's a sight to behold. God bless...
Faith-the light in the darkness. A consistent message be it Hindu, Christian, Jew. Comforting.
Congratulations. It's nice to hear about the real "Religion of Peace" for a change, and not that other religion that causes so much trouble in the world.
Kiran, this was beautiful and refreshing. So many horror stories lately about the ‘downside’ of multiculturalism. Most of us in the host countries of the West can and do get behind immigration when the folks coming in have similar values (or at least, aren’t actively hostile to ours) and a lot to contribute, like the vast majority of the Hindu diaspora. Absolutely love this!
Yes. What matters is whether the culture/doctrine is a true one or not. Hinduism is not a cult of hate. But, you should be able to understand politics in India better when Hindu leaders in opposition to islam are described as right-wing, or riots as "anti-muslim". It's not like that for them either.
The greatest muslim shrine in India is built around the ruin of the former great Hindu temple. But as Kiran said, temples are not necessary to Hindu practice, even though they may be highly valued, enough to die for.
Indeed, it’s a tradition that the Muslim armies built their mosques upon the houses of worship of the vanquished. It’s a kind of cultural vandalism practised everywhere the Islamic hordes rampaged and spread their religion. The Hagia Sofia, for example.
Or the Temple Mount
Nice and I can only imagine what the cost would be without volunteer support of the faithful. A beautiful church not only brings glory to God but us a draw to the community for generations and is thus always a good investment.
The author writes "we Hindus don’t even need a place to practice our religion.... (Hinduism) has never put a premium on place.. We don’t need temples—or any buildings, really—in which to practice our faith. "
This is an astoundingly incorrect statement. Literally the opposite of True. It betrays a total lack of understanding of the history and practice of what Hindu religion is and how it has been practiced and the role of temples in it. The implication seems to be that this (and maybe other) temples are somehow a vanity project, a fancy community/cultural center that happens to be a place of worship instead of a place of spiritual/religious upliftment. If that is the implication, it is straight up false and maybe malicious reporting.
In fact it is such a howler, that I would suggest the editors to issue a correction. It is pure hokum.
Let me explain.
The ultimate goal of "practicing" Hinduism is Moksha i.e. liberation from the cycle fo birth and death. This is achieved through various paths, think of them as methods viz. path of knowledge, devoition, Karma, rituals etc. These are often thought of as separate but are in reality the same and interrelated in practice. Temples serve not only as places of "worship" (in a Judeo-Christian sense) but they have always served and continue to serve as places of transmission of these methods. Specific temples are well known for worshiping specific deities, learning the method of worship that is particular for that particular deity etc.. They appeal to people on that particular path. Temples served not only as religious but also stores and transmission-places of cultural and non-religious knowledge systems.
That the author (and most Hindus) have a little shrine at home where they worship daily does not diminish the importance or the need to have temples. You will be laughed at in India for spouting such balderdash.
If fact, it is because of temples that Hinduism survived the centuries of onslaught of Islamic and European Christian zealotry that was unleashed in Indian subcontinent. Indeed, these invaders specifically targeted temples because they correctly saw them as nerve centers of the entire Hindu religio-cultural systems. Which brings me to my next point....
The author also claims "...(destruction of temples by Mughals and Christians) did little, if anything, to stop the practice of Hinduism." Again, this is stupendously ignorant. The kind of stuff one would expect to read in NYT.
Hinduism survived the monotheistic onslaught precisely because of its ability to evolve in face of these upheavals. Temples placed such a crucial role in this that, History of India is replete with incidents where whole cities and towns often sacrificed themselves in front of vastly superior military forces to protect these temples.
The kookery published in this article is a slap in the face of millions of Hindus undertake strenuous pilgrimages every year to specific temples across the subcontinent for their religious betterment.
I would urge the author to educate herself in the religion of her ancestors. And no! Just calling up "Nana and nani" for a couple of quick quotes to slant her writing for her western audiences does not count!
I think you need to read the article again before getting too emotional about the role of temples. For some Hindus it plays an important role in their lives but going to the temple is no way mandatory or essential like it is in Christianity. In fact, we were taught the principle of Aham Bhramasmi- god resides every where and in everyone. So maybe you need to broaden your perspectives about the religion before you make reductive broad commentary on a very diverse and culturally rich religion.
I read the article. It made the following claims.
1) Hindus dont need temples to practice their religion.
2) Hindus have not put a premium on place.
Both of these are historically incorrect as well as theologically incorrect. They were incorrect in the past and are still incorrect today.
There are numerous temples across Indian subcontinent that are considered very very sacred places and draw tens of millions of visitors from across the globe every year precisely because a premium is placed on their importance. I can list them out if you wish.
Even Vedantins, the hardcore proponents of principle of "Aham Brahmasmi", visit these temples an indeed build their own temples. Their belief in advaitin principles does not preclude them from doing so. In fact, they have their own forms and methods of temple sadhana.
PS: "Aham Brahmasmi" does not mean, strictly speaking, that there is a god that resides in every one. It is a declaration that translates to "I am Brahman", the supreme reality.
🤣🤣
The fact is, everything changes. Everything arises and then passes out of sight. This is why sand mandalas are made in Vajrayana. Something beautiful and spiritually meaningful is made, often with great effort.
And then the beautiful art is swept away, leaving no trace. That is what a temple is, even this one. Will it last 1000 years? 10,000 years? It does not matter. It will be swept away in time. Just as the sand mandalas are. Dust in the wind.
And still, Aham Brahm Asmi. "I am the One." The truth that is true always was and always will be. Witness, submitted to all, "I" Live All Things.
Which means little unless you realize it, truly.
Yes temples can be cultural centres, there might be people protecting them with their lives. But still contrast this with a religious Catholic person who goes to Church every Sunday to listen to sermons from the local priest. It is critical for binding the community and the faithful to their faith. Growing up in a Hindu family, my parents prayed everyday to the idols of Gods we had inside the house. We did visit temples sometimes. But the temple was in no way essential for my parents to practice their faith or be part of a community. So the destruction of any temple would have hurt their sentiments but did not stop them from practising their faith. Which I think is the key difference.
The author made a blanket claim that Hindus "dont even need a place of worship to practice our religion". And that it has never put a premium on place.
Both are patently false statements.
Hindus have always built temples for practicing their religion and culture in its entirety, and have done so often in face of brutal monotheistic repression. Hindus see their temples as powerful sources of spiritual energy and therefore, even Hindus who pray at home visit temples. They have also put a premium on specific places due to their spiritual importance. Maybe you have not heard of Kailash Mansarovar, 12 Jyotirlingas, Tirupati, the four mathas and countless other temples dotted all over the Indian subcontinent.
Ultimately, Hinduism is much much much more than saying a few prayers in the home shrine everyday and declaring oneself a "practicing Hindu", whatever that means. That your parents did so in western country does not diminish the importance of temples in Hinduism and render them dispensable. So destruction of temples is not a just a matter of "hurt sentiments" as you say. It is about a way of preservation of a way of life, worship and being.
Yes, Hindu temples are places related to spiritual transmission. They are not required. Period. When there is no more lineage of transmission, anywhere, of human realization, then it might have died out.
I am going to ignore the ad hominem. Sounds like I touched a nerve for you.
EDIT : Sparty, You stealth edited out "YOu are full of it. You are the ignorant one". Why?
For Hinduism to exist, the existence of temples as centers of worship etc. are absolutely necessary. You say that temples are not required. They are not required for what?
All paths for Moksha in Hinduism involve worship of deity. There is no such thing as worshiping/praying in bedroom and attaining moksha. Even the most stringent gyaan margis worship in temples and not just as a formality.
I dont' know what you mean by "human realization" and "lineage of transmission".
Yes. Exactly. You do not grasp, nor have exposure to, the core of it. (Or more properly, It.) Your understanding is superficial, fixated in and on "things" that are dust in the wind.
Perhaps you should spend a year with the sky-clad.
What are you even talking about.
There is always some prat who wants to piss in the font.
There is always a self labeled atheist who resorts to unprovoked name calling. Predictably on brand.
Ignore him he is a second tier troll. Thank you for educating and enlightening me.
Ok that's funny
What a delightful piece. Thanks for sharing this. Once again I'm saddened to read Fedzilla charges in with criminal coercion and lies to stymie people of faith from expressing their belief publically. We should all ask the Catholics how they've ended up as a "terror organization" for questioning the content of the education their children receive. Our republic has been taken from us by the roaringly mad leftists and their extreme elements. We've permiited this to happen.
This is extraordinary. How beautiful. What a wonderful gift the Hindu-American community has given to the rest of us.
I respect that the Hindu people are still creating beautiful works of art. Meanwhile this is what we westerners consider the height of art: https://twitter.com/BgmLudwig/status/1716785883645424074
Good on them for not only keeping the traditions alive, but creating a building for the whole community and future generations to visit and admire!
Got a translation for that? Looks pretty lame!
Thank you for such an uplifting and beautiful story.
What a beautiful place! As a Jewish guy I hope to visit, and learn more about Hinduism. I will of course take off my shoes, out of respect.