Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- what Abraham Maslow [1964] calls "peak experiences" and Marghanita Laski [1961] terms "non-religious ecstasy" - and the states of "altered consciousness" produced by various psychosomatic techniques or drugs? On Hindu religion, at page 290 it is stated that "yet deep within ritualism there is inherent the concern for accuracy and faithfulness. This is the essentially sacramental nature of ritual that arises from its nature as an ordered symbol system. Thus both symbol and ritual are perceived as intrinsic embodiments of the sacred essence, the supersensible and indescribable ultimate of a religion. Thus ritual and symbol bring the real presence of the religious depth-dimension into the lives of its experiments and in so doing become incredibly precious".

Johnson said rightly that sublimate is produced by aggregation and not by dispersion. In that lies a great truth. It must not be forgotten that all rituals ultimately are only means to the state of knowledge. Thus seers and thinkers have in fact reduced rituals to the bare minimum and sometimes even decried them because a non-essential adherence to them is only bound to be an obstacle or impediment in the attainment of true knowledge. It would be very useful to note that if religious experience is an internal experience, rituals beyond evoking the necessary environment and atmosphere and as it were painting sea scope of purity must yield to the unrelenting pursuit of true knowledge which is identical with true religious experience. The pursuit of knowledge, the knowing of the being, eve, has been described by eminent philosophers as incapable of sustaining observance of rituals. The belief is that observance of rituals and the devotion to true knowledge cannot co-exist.

How there can be the union of knowledge and action inasmuch as they are incompatible? It is impossible to conjure darkness and light together, one at the same time. The knowledge and action cannot be combined. Likewise one cannot keep one's eyes closed and open at the same time, one who is looking western side, cannot see towards eastern direction.

Whereform there can be the competence for work or action when one's heart and soul is set on the devotion of knowledge in opposite direction.) It thus follows that to one who is devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, the observance of rituals is of no use since the observance of rituals and the devotion of knowledge cannot co-exist. There is considerable incompatibility between knowledge and rituals inasmuch as their natures are entirely antithetical. It is only he who regards himself as the agent of action that can perform the rituals; but the nature of knowledge is altogether different and it dispels all such ideas. All the wrong ideas beginning with the identification of Self with the physical body etc., are eradicated by knowledge, while they are reinforced by action. Ignorance of Atman is at the root of action, but the knowledge of Atman destroys both. How is it possible for one to perform the prescribed rituals while engaged in the pursuit of knowledge inasmuch as they are incompatible! It is as much impossible as the co-existence of light and darkness. One cannot keep one's eyes open and closed at the same time. It is equally impossible to combine knowledge and rituals. Can one who is looking westward look eastward? How is one whose mind is directed towards the innermost Atman fit to take part in external activities?

It is next contended that as per rules laid down in Agmas, the archaka of particular denomination alone is entitled to enter sanctum sanctorum and touch the image of God. A touch by a person of different denomination defiles the image of God. Therefore, persons belonging to that particular family, sect or denomination alone are entitled to perform pooja or ceremonial rituals of daily worship and that the abolition of hereditary right amounts to interference with the religion offending Article 25(1). Ex- facie the argument being attractive, we had put a pointed question to Shri Parasaran that when with the advancement of education and the liberty of a person to pursue liberal higher education of his choice to improve his excellence, persons born in a particular sect or denomination acquire liberal education and migrate, as is usual, to a foreign country and settle themselves in profitable avocation, and no other person from that particular family, sect/sub-sect or denomination having knowledge, proficiency and accomplishment is available, what would happen to the preference of rituals in that particular temple. The counsel, after due consideration, was frank to submit that in that eventuality the management of the institution has to seek a suitable person from outside the family, sect/sub- sect or denomination. With increased modern facilities for liberal higher education and learning and ample opportunities to improve excellence to seek advantageous avocation, a child in traditional Vedic family may not fall in line with father to practise his archakatwam, avocation or services and no one can compel him to do so. Therefore, what would be relevant is not that the candidate who seeks to serve as an archaka must be from that family etc., but must be an accomplished person in Agama rules having faith and devotion in that form of worship and also proficiency to perform rituals and rites, ceremonial rituals appropriate to the temple according to its customs, usages, Sampradayams etc. In other words, the faith and belief in the religion, customs, usages or Sampradayams in that particular Agamas and proficiency in performance of the rituals to the image of God in those particular rituals are conditions precedent to be eligible to hold office of the archaka. One who fulfils those pre-conditions is eligible to be considered and appointed to the office of archaka or other similar offices. The regulation of this secular activity, therefore, does not offend any faith or belief in the performance of those duties by a person other than one hailing from the family, sect/sub-sect or denomination hither to performing the same. Earlier, the field of choice to appoint a particular archaka was confined and limited to that family, sect/sub-sect or denomination, but after the statutory regulation the field of choice is widened and all eligible candidates including those available from the family etc. will be considered; competency is tested and when one is found qualified, appointment is made to the office of archaka according to the prescribed procedure. We, therefore, hold that abolition of hereditary principle under Section 34 is not violative of either Article 25(1) or 26(b) of the Constitution.