Dear devout Hindu women desperate to enter Sabarimala I have a question for you. Why can't you simply reject that 1 single temple? Do you think in the process of entering you inadvertently abrahamise Hinduism? I'm curious. Only for the devout women who want to enter.
I explained the whole Naistika Brahmachari concept to my wife. She heard me patiently & said "Well 1 less temple to visit". Told her do you feel this is discrimination? She said nope, it's a story & if that God needs his space he can have it all the time. I'll go somewhere else.
She also told me if this was all Hindu temples I would reject that Hinduism totally. FYI my wife is an Arya Samaji. So she isn't into temples in a major way anyway. But it was an interesting discussion.
Judging religion under the burden of rationality is extremely dangerous and anti freedom. The one and only test should be the harm principle. Does the religious practise cause any direct harm or affect fundamental rights.
Also what defines an individual? Is a deity an individual too? If the Devata is an individual does it have rights too? Then how can one force their will upon the Devata? If the Devata is an individual like us can his individual rights be trampled upon? These are serious issues.
I personally feel Devatas are individuals. They have rights like we do. For e.g. in America aren't corporations also treated like individual entities? Think in those lines. Things start getting clear.
Indian legal systems are an outcome of a Christian jurisprudence. Pagan traditions are fundamentally different. They will always struggle. The direction Hindus should be going towards is how to build new arguments & winning people over to their side intellectually.
Bring in philosophers, legal scholars and thinkers to help you out. Invest in this on a long term basis. What you need is a project that finds legal and philosophical answers in a system thats fundamentally misunderstanding your worldview.
Use neutral observers as adversaries to debate you. Refine your arguments. Get out of the echo chamber of people who agree with you anyways. Because when you understand your opponents arguments better you deal with them better.
Sabarimala is a great example. You might lose this particular case. But learn from it, refine your arguments and educate the masses. That should be your long term goal. Otherwise keep crying and outraging.
