[world-vedic] God, man equal in the eyes of property law

[Guest guest]

NEW DELHI:

 

Does a Hindu deity having a visible image, which

resides in its ``abode'' and was consecrated through proper

religious ceremonies enjoy legal status to own land and

properties? Yes, says the Supreme Court.

 

``Hindu law recognises a Hindu idol as a juridical (legal)

subject which can hold property by reason of the Hindu shastras

following the status of a legal person in the same way as that of

a natural person,'' the court held while deciding that the idols

of ``Ram Janki Ji'' and ``Thakur Raja'', consecrated in two

separate temples in Bihar, were entitled to enjoy exemption under

the state's land ceiling law.

 

The judgment, based on shastras, various pronouncements and

writings on the subject, also deals with the possibility of a

``fake'' deity trying to enjoy the benefit of law.

 

The judgment by a Bench comprising Justice M. Jagannadha Rao

and Justice Umesh C. Banerjee is a fallout of the appeals filed

by the deities through their manager (shebait) who controls their

abode.

 

Referring to the high court ruling that one deity was fake,

the court said: ``By no stretch of the imagination can the deity

be termed fake.''

 

The concept of fake form appeared to a ``misreading of the

provisions of Hindu law texts'', the judges said. ``There cannot

be any fake deity: the whole concept of Hindu law seems to have

been misplaced by the high court.''

 

The court also explained the rituals of consecration. The

image is first carried to snan mandap (bathing place), the

founder then utters the sankalp mantra, the image is then bathed

with panchamrit (comprising holy water, ghee, curd, honey and

rose water).

 

It is then taken for oblation to the sacred fire by which

pran pratishta takes place and the eternal spirit is infused.

Later, the image is taken to the temple and formally dedicated to

the deity.

 

``A simple piece of wood or stone may become the image or

idol and divinity is attributed to it. It is formless, shapeless,

but it is the human concept of a particular divine existence

which gives it shape, size and colour,'' the judges added.

 

``It is not a particular image which is a juridical person

but it is a particular bent of mind which consecrates the

image,'' the judges said.

 

The court also considered whether one god can be superior to

the other. Whichever god the devotee might choose for worship,

set up and consecrate with that object, the image represents the

``Supreme God'' and none else, the court said.

 

__________________________

I am sorry if you have already read this one somewhere. I thought article

was of interest to the members.

 

atimidus

http://surf.to/indica