Friday, 2 September 2011

 Conquering Veils: Gender and Islams
by Asma T. U
ddin
Photo:1
Spiritual evolution works like a standardized test taken on the computer. Every time you get a question right, the computer moves you on to a harder question. But if you get it wrong, it moves you to an easier question. Similarly, if you interpret God’s signs correctly, a veil is lifted, and you comprehend God and the purpose of life more clearly. With each “right answer,” you see more signs and keep moving to the next level of increased revelation and awareness. Eventually, you encounter reality. The final veil to be lifted is that which covers the face of your beloved in the hereafter.
Although I have a long way to go and many more veils to conquer, the struggles of my life thus far have resulted in at least a few “right answers,” evidenced by a spiritual peace previously unimaginable. During some of these struggles, it was less than obvious that I was anywhere near the right answer. Inner turmoil and severe cognitive dissonance — to the point where I felt myself teetering on the precipice between faith and unbelief — convinced me that my inquisitive mind was going to be the end of me.
In the Qur’an, God admonishes us to reflect. Sometimes, reflection brings anguish. It can take us through complex mazes we never really escape until we are ready to move beyond the maze to a greater challenge.
Photo: 2
My simultaneous encounter with Muslim extremism and a feminist realization of self is one of the more philosophical mazes I have encountered. I spent my youth enchanted by a relatively warm and fuzzy Islam. In middle school, my enthusiasm and love for my religion made me an unintentional proselytizer. By high school, I was studying comparative religion. When the news vilified Islam, I defended it passionately, writing manifestos against the manipulative media representations of Islam.
Photo: 3
I eventually recognized this concept of Islam was naive. Moving past it required a lot of tumultuous soul-searching. The journey began when I entered college, where I was assaulted by Muslim extremism. Countless pamphlets extolling the virtues of simplistic Wahhabi thinking floated around the university campus. Books outlining this ideology were stacked up in the prayer room, and the fiery Friday sermons embodied the intense anger behind those words.
feminist
Some of these books were written for women by men, purporting to discuss Islam’s mandates on various women’s issues. The books spoke of women only in terms of subjugation. My innocence was ravaged by the descriptions of women as sex slaves; house servants; satanic temptations; and moral, physical, and intellectual inferiors. The books claimed Islam required these roles for women and that any resistance to this destiny was a sign of impiety — ensuring those women were headed to an indescribably horrid hell.
As I read these books, my identity as a woman was, for the first time, clashing with my Muslim identity. It occurred to me that what I wanted as a woman may not fit with what I wanted as a Muslim. The more I researched the matter, the worse the dilemma became. Islam detractors come in many forms, with some more purposefully destructive than others. When I googled “Islam + women,” I stumbled across endless scores of Islamic texts quoted out of context, mistranslated, or citing weak hadith (oral traditions relating to the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad). The websites argued that these mangled quotes constituted Islam’s view of women. At the time, I believed them. After all, they were quoting prophetic traditions and other religious texts. How could they be anything but Islamic?
The practical effects of this turmoil were many. Representative of them was my struggle with the hijab, which I had always told myself I would start wearing when I began college — a promise to which I stayed true. It was unfortunate that my adoption of the hijab coincided with my naiveté being shattered by extremist rhetoric. The pride I felt when I wore it was often penetrated by the fact that there were other Muslim women who were being forced to wear it to satisfy some male’s whim.
For those women, hijab was not a symbol of independence and liberation, but precisely the opposite. It held them down, suppressed their individuality, and made them compliant to another’s will. And these women were not just abstract figures described in a textbook. I ran into them frequently around school and at social gatherings, where they were almost uniformly timid, slinking back from attention. I knew it was a logical fallacy to equate oppression with hijab — once I adopted it, I wore it for many years, and in subsequent years, I have met hundreds of incredibly inspirational, strong women in hijab. But at that fragile point in my spiritual growth, observing what was around me, I couldn’t help but increasingly come to fear that my wearing the hijab helped legitimize its use as a tool of subjugation.
Even worse than the male imposition of the hijab was what I call the Hijab Cult, developed by Muslim women in the community. This group ostracized women who didn’t wear hijab, making them feel like lesser Muslims, somehow weaker in their faith than those who wore it. Even though members of this cult were backbiting or constantly judging others’ actions according to their personal rubric of proper Islam, they were still elevated as a symbol for all of those “immodest” women to emulate. The hypocrisy was stifling.
Associating the hijab with harshness, I found my relationship with God was becoming primarily based on fear, rather than being properly balanced between love and fear. I worried incessantly about being judged by Him, and it sometimes felt like His disapproval was manifesting itself in the anger I sensed within my community.
Looking back, I see my plight as a necessary struggle. We all have important causes to which we are innately drawn. My cause has always been twofold: women’s equality and Islam. For the world to make sense to me, women and men had to be of equal worth and dignity, just as Islam had to be the true religion. Before I encountered the extremist interpretation of Islam, my world seemed wonderfully whole. Afterwards, my world became fragmented. To glue it back together, I had to reconcile sex equality and Islamic piety.
It took years for me to achieve any semblance of peace, which came largely through long periods of observation and contemplation of what I later discovered to be God’s signs. He was initiating dialogue, and through time, I came to embrace that interaction. As I continued to read, I encountered a wide variety of books about spiritual purification and other issues beyond the extremist rhetoric. I questioned the reasons behind my feminist bent. Following hours of meditation and, eventually, greater self-realization, I learned to better distinguish between the environmental and instinctual sources of my ethics. And more importantly, I discovered an Islam that was welcoming — similar to my high school Islam, but far richer and more complex than any Islam I had before encountered. For me, the intricacies of Islamic legal interpretation, the depth of Islamic spirituality, and the breadth of Islam’s acceptance of variable practices forever disproved the extremist version.
Whereas before I had always feared subjectivity and variability in religion — mistaking these characteristics as somehow being antithetical to absolute truth — what I learned from my studies of Islamic law and legal interpretation is that subjectivity actually underscores religious authenticity. If Islam, aside from its essential core, is about interpretational diversity — allowing room for people’s cultures and personalities to determine what is religiously “right” or “possible” for them — then there is a greater likelihood that Islam is the true religion. After all, truth must be accessible to all, and universal accessibility is impossible with black-and-white interpretations that place most of the world outside the parameters of “proper” Islam. And it was precisely this that I learned of my religion: Islam is, at its core, a religion of dissent. It is not premised on an endless list of do’s and don’ts but is instead multifarious and openly accepting of multiplicity.
One of the bases of multiplicity is culture. As Dr. Umar Abd-Allah explains in his article “Islam and the Cultural Imperative,” Islam spread throughout the world by adopting the culture of the people it sought to convert. Muslims did not brand these cultures “foreign” and invalidate them in the name of “Islam”; instead, they incorporated everything except those ideas that clearly contradicted Islamic principles and used those elements to make Islam acceptable and, eventually, indispensable to the people. Islam spread when Muslims stayed true to all of the Qur’an’s fundamental principles, including its message of acceptance.
It was precisely this message that helped heal the rupture between my identities as a woman and a Muslim. My understanding of Islam continues to evolve, but it has finally found a solid foundation. As a woman and an American, I have certain values and inclinations that are, at the core, moral. And I had finally encountered an Islam that embraced this core and encouraged me to use it to do good things for myself and others. In realizing these actions would draw me closer to God, I obliterated yet another barrier between Him and me. It was a momentous victory.

Photo:1: "I knew it was a logical fallacy to equate oppression with hijab," the author writes. Here, a feminist marches in the Minneapolis May Day parade in 2006. Creative Commons/Laggard.
Photo: 2: AltMuslimah.org.
Photo: 3: A mural outside Daniel's tomb in Shush, Iran, calls on women to veil themselves. Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Pentocelo. 

Note: Asma T. Uddin is the founder and editor-in-chief of altmuslimah.com. She is also an international law attorney with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm based in Washington, DC.
  
Source: Tikkun

Thursday, 1 September 2011

Same-Sex Weddings, Hindu Traditions, and Modern India
by Ruth Vanita
Painting by Raja Ravi Varma
Over the last three decades, Indian newspapers have reported same-sex weddings and joint suicides taking place all over the country, both in urban and rural areas. Most of the couples are non-English-speaking young women from lower-income groups. Most of them are Hindus (not surprising since Hinduism is the majority religion in India); there have been a few Sikhs and Christians, and some interreligious as well as many inter-caste unions.
At first glance, this phenomenon might appear related to the push for gay marriage in the West, but in fact, it is not. None of these young women were connected to any movement for equality; most of them were not aware of terms like "gay" or "lesbian." Many of them framed their desire to marry in terms drawn from traditional understandings of love and marriage, saying, for example, that they could not conceive of life without each other, and wanted to live and die together. The closest counterparts to these same-sex unions are heterosexual "love marriages" and joint suicides that are also regularly reported in the Indian press.
Modern Homophobia or Traditional Authoritarianism?
Same-sex desire and even sexual activity have been represented and discussed in Indian literature for two millennia, often in a nonjudgmental and even celebratory manner, but a new virulent form of modern homophobia developed in India during the colonial period (more specifically after the decisive crushing of indigenous cultures, such as the urbane culture of Lucknow, following the revolt of 1857).
This homophobia was part of a more generalized attack on Indian sexual mores and practices undertaken by British missionaries as well as educationists. It is evident not only in the anti-sodomy law introduced by the British in the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (overturned by the Delhi High Court in 2009), but also in the deliberate heterosexualization of entire literary canons and genres (such as the Urdu ghazal, or love poem, which gendered both lover and beloved as male). Saleem Kidwai and I explored this extensively in Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History.
Most Indian nationalists internalized this homophobia and came to view homosexuality as an unspeakable crime, even as they also attacked polygamy, courtesan culture, matriliny, polyandry, and other institutions that were seen as opposed to heterosexual monogamous marriage. Prior to this, homosexuality had never been considered unspeakable in Indian texts or religions.
The new silence surrounding homosexuality is one reason modern institutions such as the police force and educational as well as religious organizations today typically respond to same-sex unions with horror and even violence. However, I would argue that in contrast to these public institutions, most families respond to same-sex unions in the same authoritarian spirit with which they respond to disapproved heterosexual unions. Most Indian families tend to be suspicious of and resist love marriages of all kinds—not just cross-caste, cross-class, cross-religion, or international marriages but even eminently "suitable" marriages that they themselves might have arranged. The degree of resistance varies widely from family to family.
Female-female unions are always love unions. Hence families respond to them as they do to male-female love unions. Depending on family dynamics, the responses range from wholehearted acceptance to hesitant tolerance to virulent opposition. When female couples elope and marry in temples, their families often enlist the help of police to track them down and separate them. Such families usually invoke the law against abduction, which is also commonly used against eloping heterosexual couples.
The violent intervention of right-wing Hindu organizations has the effect of strengthening parental opposition and inhibiting traditional types of compromise. Thus, when nineteen-year-old Seeta attempted suicide by poisoning in Meerut in January 2006, because her bride, eighteen-year-old Vandana, whom she had married in a Shiva temple, had been locked up in her parental home, the local activists of two right-wing organizations—the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Association) and the Shiv Sena—held a rally outside the district magistrate's office. In an uncanny echo of the demonstrations at Matthew Shepard's funeral, they also protested outside the hospital where Seeta lay battling for her life, shouting slogans like, "Stop perverse marriages, stop anti-social impulses," according to The Telegraph. Both young women are from poor families and were workers in a hosiery factory.
It is important to remember that these same Hindu right-wing organizations are also opposed to cross-sex dating and romance. For over a decade, they have protested and attacked establishments that offer Valentine's Day cards or gifts, threatening young heterosexual couples who go out together to celebrate.
Homophobia is thus only one aspect of their larger opposition to all forms of erotic love outside marriage, which they view as products of globalization, Western neo-imperialism, and market forces that commercialize sex. They forget that there is a tradition in Hinduism, dating back two millennia, of worshiping the god of love, Kamadeva, especially at spring festivals like Madanotsava, from which the modern festival of Holi, which has strong erotic overtones, descends.
Unapproved young couples (whether same-sex or heterosexual) are often violently separated and then pushed into family-arranged marriages. On the eve of such a marriage or following it, they often commit joint suicide. Lovers often perform private wedding rituals before killing themselves and leave behind notes that frame the suicide as a type of wedding in death. A typical example is that of high school teacher Ranu Mishra, 21, and college student Neetu Singh, 19, who consumed poison together in May 2005, when Ranu's parents forcibly arranged her marriage to a man. Before taking poison, the women married each other privately, Neetu applying sindoor (vermilion) to the parting-line of Ranu's hair. Application of sindooris a common ritual in many Hindu weddings.
Compromise and Acceptance:
Not all families oppose love marriage or even same-sex marriage. Many families first resist and then accept a marriage, incorporating it into that flexible arena called "tradition." Like families, Hindu priests, too, adopt a range of attitudes to love marriages, including same-sex love marriages. In North India, family-arranged weddings generally take place at home, while a wedding disapproved of by parents often takes place in a temple. Runaway heterosexual couples frequently get married in temples. Female couples have been marrying in temples all over the country, from the first such reported case in 1987 when two policewomen, Leela Namdeo and Urmila Srivastava, married in a temple in Bhopal in central India, to the present day. Many cases have been reported of families coming to accept same-sex unions and participating in, as well as arranging, wedding ceremonies for the couple.
Hinduism and Democracy:
The law courts, the media, and some Hindu spaces are the three forces that have proved most helpful to female couples (as well as heterosexual couples in cross-caste and cross-religion unions). Whenever female couples have managed to get past local police and appeal to the law, the courts have consistently upheld their right to live together. If the women have some economic resources and social support, they may then be able to live independently, without police harassment. However, if local communities or their families subsequently harass them, courts have not been able to offer timely protection. Nevertheless the courts' declaration that two women have a constitutional right to live together as consenting adults is important.
The national, English-language media have helped by generally portraying the women's feelings and relationships sympathetically, upholding their right to liberty, and also by bringing them to public attention, thereby putting them in touch with civil liberties and sexuality rights organizations, who have helped out some of them.
Hindu spaces, often seen by the Indian Left as irredeemably reactionary, have in fact often worked in tandem with these democratic institutions to support female couples. Both in India and Nepal, many female couples have married in Hindu temples. The media, the women themselves, and their supporters have also used Hindu vocabulary and doctrine to legitimize these marriages. Among these doctrines are Hindu ideas of "love marriage."
Hindu Ideas of Love and Marriage:
Ancient and medieval Hindu scriptures list eight to twelve forms of marriage. The two best known today are family-arranged marriage and gandharva vivaha, marriage based on mutual love and attraction between two individuals. The Sanskrit term "gandharva" is routinely used in modern Indian texts, including popular cinema and newspapers, to indicate a marriage based on romantic love. Gandharva marriage is constituted by mutual consent and requires no witnesses, no officiant, and no parental consent.
Gandharva marriages are often celebrated with truncated or symbolic Hindu rituals such as an exchange of garlands or walking around a fire together. Hindu sacred texts debate the status of gandharva marriage; while it has a lower status in law books, some texts consider it a superior form. For example, the fourth-century Kamasutra (III.V. 29-30), which is a sacred text, states that gandharva is the best form of marriage because it is based on mutual attraction (anuraga). Perhaps the most famous gandharva marriage from an ancient text is that of Shakuntala; the story highlights both the pleasures and the risks of gandharva marriage as the hero, who weds the heroine with a ring but without witnesses, disowns her when she gets pregnant by him but is unable to produce the ring.
While many homosexually inclined individuals in India signal their difference by refusing to enter family-arranged marriages, the female couples who marry choose a path that may be both more difficult or may be easier, depending on their particular family dynamics. When they declare that they will marry each other, they are perceived as choosing a somewhat unusual but nevertheless comprehensible form of gandharva marriage.
Many Hindu texts insist that everyone has a duty to marry and have children. If one renounces the world, one may be freed of this duty, but not otherwise. It is this social dharma that powerful family members invoke to bully the individual into submission.
However, this doctrine of social dharma has always been in conflict with the doctrine of individual dharma (in the sense of the law of one's being), which is inseparable from the doctrine of rebirth. An individual is reborn in order to work through attachments from previous births and thus move towards freedom from attachment, which enables liberation from the cycle of rebirth. This urge to work through one's attachments constitutes individual dharma; it is inborn and cannot be erased. If an attachment is forcibly suppressed in one lifetime, the individual will be reborn with the same attachment in the next life.
Repeatedly, in Hindu narrative, authority figures who oppose an individual's passionate love are compelled to give in when they realize that this love is irresistible. As the eleventh-century Sanskrit Kathasaritsagarastory-cycle states, in the context of an intense male-male attraction at first sight: "Vakti janmaantarapritim manah snihyadakaaranam" (Affection that arises in the heart without a cause speaks of love persisting from a former birth).
While modern Hindu families' initial response to socially disapproved love affairs, cross-sex or same-sex, tends to spring from the perspective of outraged social dharma, the second perspective—that of individual dharma—often creeps in and helps families adjust and compromise with the couple.
Beginnings of Doctrinal Debate:
Apart from the more popular views of love based in Hindu doctrine, there are also specifically religious views expressed by priests and teachers in modern India that consciously draw upon ideas derived from ancient texts. In her 1977 book, The World of Homosexuals, mathematician Shakuntala Devi recorded an interview with Srinivasa Raghavachariar, Sanskrit scholar and priest of the major Vaishnava temple at Srirangam in South India. Sri Raghavachariar, himself married and the father of thirteen children, said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a former life. The sex may change but the soul remains the same in subsequent incarnations, hence the power of love impels these souls to seek one another.
In 2002, I talked to a Shaiva priest from India who conducted the wedding of two Tamil Brahman women in Seattle. He explained that when the women requested him to officiate at their wedding he thought hard about it and, although he realized that other priests in his lineage might disagree with him, he concluded, on the basis of Hindu scriptures, that "marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female."
The beginnings of a debate were evident at the Kumbha Mela in 2004, when Rajiv Malik, a reporter forHinduism Today, asked several Hindu swamis gathered there for their opinion of same-sex marriage. The swamis disagreed even with others from their own lineages who were present. The answers ranged from Swami Avdheshananda's condemnation of same-sex marriage as unnatural and unheard-of, to Mahant Ram Puri's remark: "There is a principle in all Hindu law that local always has precedence.... I do not think that this is something that is decided on a theoretical level," according to Malik's article "Discussions on Dharma." He went on to point out that Hinduism has "a hundred million authorities."
Unlike some other religions, Hinduism has not one but thousands of sacred texts. If a line disapproving of same-sex unions can be found in one text, a story celebrating it can be found in another. Modern Hindu right-wing organizations are attempting to stamp out this diversity by imposing a uniform authoritarian version, with little scriptural backing, from above. The range of practices and community responses around female-female unions is just one small example demonstrating the ultimate futility of this attempt.
The swami's understanding of Hindu law coincides with that of legal historians, because custom in all schools of Hindu law does in fact take precedence over written laws. This principle was recognized even by the British rulers and is enshrined in post-independence law, such as the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which recognizes as valid any marriage performed by a ceremony customary in one of the partners' communities, regardless of whether a license is obtained or the marriage registered with the state. In my book Love's Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West, I argue that same-sex marriages performed by customary ceremony and with community participation are legal under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, even if the state refuses to recognize them.
In 2004, I interviewed Swami Bodhananda Saraswati, a Vedanta teacher, on the question of same-sex unions, and he said, "There is no official position in Hinduism. From a spiritual or even ethical standpoint, we don't find anything wrong in it. We don't look at the body or the memories; we always look at everyone as spirit."
Ruth Vanita, a professor at the University of Montana, former reader at Delhi University, and founding co-editor of Manushi from 1978 to 1990, is the author of several books and a well-known translator from Hindi to English. This article is an adaptation of her scholarly essay "Same-Sex Weddings, Hindu Traditions, and Modern India," in "Special Issue on South Asian Feminisms," eds. Firdous Azim, Nivedita Menon, Naila Kabeer, & Dina Siddiqui, Feminist Review 91 (2009): 47-60. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Vanita, Ruth. 2010. Same-Sex Weddings, Hindu Traditions, and Modern India. Tikkun 25(4): 43. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tikkun

Wednesday, 31 August 2011

WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY GANESH CHATHURTHI: 
Vedantic attributes of Lord Ganesh 
Let us now begin with a Lord Ganesha Stotram:
"Vakratunda Mahakaaya
Suryakoti Samaprabha
Nirvighnam Kuru Mey Deva
Sarva Kaaryeshu Sarvada"
[Oh, Lord Ganesh you are as Briliant as ten million Suns. I pray to you please remove all obstacles from my path]. 
"Ganpati Bappa Morya
Mangal Murti Morya"

SLOKAS ON LORD GANESH:
(i) "Shuklaambara Dharam Vishnum
Shashi Varnam Chatur Bhujam
Prasanna Vadanam Dhyaayet
Sarva Vighna Upashaanthaye"

[We meditate on Lord Ganesha - who is clad in white (representing purity), who is all pervading (present everywhere), whose complexion is gray like that of ash (glowing with spiritual splendor), who has four arms, who has bright countenance (depicting inner calm and happiness) and who can destroy all obstacles (in our spiritual and worldly path)].

(ii) "Vakratunda Mahakaaya
Suryakoti Samaprabha
Nirvighnam Kuru Mey Deva
Sarva Kaaryeshu Sarvada"

[The Lord with the curved trunk and a mighty body, who has the luster of a million suns, I pray to thee Oh Lord, to remove the obstacles from all the actions I intend to perform].

(ii) "Agajaanana Padmaarkam
Gajaananam Aharnisham
Anekadantham Bhaktaanaam
Ekadantam Upaasmahey"

[I worship day and night that elephant faced Lord Ganesha who is like sun to the lotus face of Mother Parvati. Giver of many boons, the single tusked Ganesh, I salute Thee to give e a boon].

(iv) "Gajaananam Bhoota Ganaadhi Sevitam
Kapitta Jamboophaala Saara Bhakshitam
Umaasutam Shoka Vinaasha Kaarnam
Namaami Vighneswara Paada Pankajam"

[The Lord with the elephant face, served by all the Ganas, One who takes as His food, the essence of Kapitta and Jamboophala (these are two favorite fruits of Ganesh), son of Uma (Mother Parvati), destroyer of misery of the devotees, controller of obstacles, we worship Your Lotus Feet].

(iv) "Ganaanaam Twam Ganapathi Gam Havaamahe
Kavim Kaveenaam Upamasra Vastamam
Jyeshta Raajam Brahmanaam Brahmanaspatha
Aanashrunvanna Oothibhi Seedha Saadanam"

[We invite You, the Lord of spiritual faith (of Lord Shiva). You are the wisest among the wise, the best to be given as a standard of comparison. You are the senior Lord, Lord of the Vedic manthras, listening to our prayers. Please visit our home with prosperous things and be seated here].
LORD KRISHNA HIMSELF WORSHIPS LORD GANESH:
The story of the Syamantaka shows how powerful of the curse Ganesha is. Satrajita of Dwaraka had a gem called Syamantaka. It was dazzling. If it was worshipped with devotion it used to give plenty of gold every day.
Once Prasena, Satrajita's brother, went out hunting. He was wearing the Syamantaka. 
A - lion killed him and went to a cave, carrying the gem. A bear by name Jambavanta killed the lion and gave the Syamantaka to his child to play with.
This Jambavanta was not an ordinary bear; he was the heroic follower of Shri Rama.Prasena did not return to Dwaraka. Satrajita suspected that Krishna himself had killed him for the sake of the Syamantaka. The rumor soon spread. Krishna had not done anything wrong. So when he heard about Satrajita's suspicions he was unhappy. He went in search of Prasena.
He found the corpse of Prasena. There were footprints of a lion nearby. Following these footprints, Krishna entered the cave of Jambavanta. He fought with Jambavanta for twenty-eight days. At last, Jambavanta understood that Shri Krishna was Shri Rama himself. Then he offered him the Syamantaka.
Krishna gave the Syamantaka to Satrajita and put an end to the evil rumors. However, he was surprised at what had happened. 
"How could such things be said of me even when I had not done anything wrong". 
Great sages told him the story of Ganesha's curse and said, " You saw the Moon on the fourth day. "
Then Krishna worshipped Ganesha. 
Siddhi-Vinayaka Vrata-the worship of Ganesha-is performed on the fourth day of the bright fortnight of the month of Bhadrapada. The devotees believe that those who see the Moon on that day will not suffer, if they listen to the story of the Syamantaka. 
Devi Parvati: Universal Mother
A TRIBUTE TO HINDUISM:
Hinduism is often labeled as a religion of 330 million gods. This misunderstanding arises when people fail to grasp the symbolism of the Hindu pantheon. Hindus worship the nameless and formless Supreme Reality (Bramh) by various names and forms. These different aspects of one reality are symbolized by the many gods and goddesses of Hinduism. For example, Brahma (not to be confused with the over-arching Bramh) is that reality in its role as creator of the universe; in Vishnu it is seen as the preserver and the upholder of the universe; and Shiva is that same reality viewed as the principle of transcendence which will one day 'destroy' the universe. These are the Trimurti, the ' three forms,' and they are not so much different gods as different ways of looking at the same God. Each emphasizes a particular aspect or function of the one reality. "Ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti" or "Truth is One, the wise call It by many names." 
The forms are many, the reality is one; the principle is very deeply rooted in Hindu thought, and was stated at the very outset in the Rg Veda:
"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni
And he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title:
They call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan. [Rigveda 1.164.46]
Vishnu receives the Chakra
It is the same with all the gods and goddesses: they are not rivals but aspects of a single principle. Hindus have represented God in innumerable forms. Each is but a symbol that points to something beyond; and as none exhausts God's actual nature, the entire array is needed to complete the picture of God's aspects and manifestations. It has been said that images are to the Hindu worshipper what diagrams are to the geometrician. The Hindu devotee, while he will generally have one particular form of god - his or her ishta deva, or chosen deity - on whom his devotion centers, moves easily between one god and another. The same idea carries over into the human sphere. Krishna and Rama are not strictly speaking gods, but avatars, 'descents' - human incarnation of Vishnu - since he is the 'upholder' of the world. This idea is brought forth clearly in the following doctrine of the Artharva Veda:
" He is the one, the one alone, in Him

all deities become One alone." 
Eko’aham Bahusyaam
"Eko’aham Bahusyaam" (I am the One who became Many)
The One in Many, the Many in One: Hindu Notions of the Divinity as Unity
God his One, His names and Forms are Many:
They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is the Divine good winged bird (the sun with beautiful rays). The sages describe one and the same Agni in various ways and call it Agni, Yama and Matarisvan. [Rigveda 1.164.46]
Agni itself is Indra, Vayu, Brahma, Vishnu and Brahmanaspati. [Rigveda 2.1.3]
Varuna and Mitra are but functional manifestations of Agni. [Rigveda 2.1.4]
Vishnu, Rudra and Marut are also functional manifestations of Agni. [Rigveda 2.1.6]
That (Supreme Being) is Agni; that is the Surya; that is the Vayu; that is the Chandrama; that is Jyoti; that is Brahman; and that is Prajapati. (Madhyandina) [Yajurveda 32.1]
“For indeed Agni is that God. His are the names: as the easterners (prachyaah) call him ‘Sarva’ (all), Bahlikas (call him) ‘Dhava’ (one who shakes), ‘Rudra’ (one who causes weeping), ‘Pasunampatih’ (the Lord or the protector of beasts), ‘Agni’ (the first leader, he who was there at the outset).” [Kanva Shatapath Brahmana 2.7.1.7]
The perception of the worshipper makes the ONE Deity appear as three, but in their ontological essence, they are ONE. [Brhaddevata 2.18]
Different ‘gods’ are limbs of the ONE Supreme Soul:
“On account of superb excellence of the Divinity, One soul (i.e., the All-pervading Soul) is extolled in various ways. The other (manifest) gods are just like the limbs of the Great Soul, the secondary members of the body. The specialists in this branch of study (= spirituality) observe that the Sages praise the beings according to the plurality and Universality of their intrinsic nature. The gods are (figuratively described in the Veda as) born from each other (e.g., Rigveda 10.72.4). The gods are the primary source of each other. They owe their birth, i.e., coming into being, to their specific functions as well as to the (Universal) Soul. Soul alone is their chariot, horse, weapon and arrow, i.e., these things which are not different from the soul are only figurative appellations in their descriptions.” Nirukta 7.4
ONE God is Immanent and Transcendent:
Purusha is 1000 headed, 1000 eyed, 1000 footed; And, pervading the earth on all sides. He exists beyond the 10 directions. Rigveda 10.90.1 (Purusha = Immanent, Creator God)
Purusha indeed is all this, What has been and what will be, And the Lord of immortality, Transcending by mortal nurture. [Rigveda 10.90.2]
Such is his magnificence, but Purusha is greater than this; All beings are a fourth of him, Three fourths- his immortality-lie in heaven. [Rigveda 10.90.3]
“(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the mighty powers collected in Him.
(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the heavenly lights everywhere.
Verily, The Supreme Being was born as first Lord of all that exists.
Who, then is fit to be this Supreme Being’s rival” [Atharvaveda Paippalada VIII.8.1]
“He by Whom all this Universe is pervaded- the earth and the mid region, the heaven and the quarters and the sub-quarters, that Purusha is fivefold and is constituted of 5 elements. He who has attained the Supreme Knowledge through Samnyasa (renunciation) is indeed this Purusha. He is all that is perceptible in the present, was perceptible in the past and will be perceptible in the future. Though apparently human-like, His true nature is that which is settled by the Vedas and what is attained by his new birth is in right knowledge. He is firmly established in the richness of knowledge imparted by His teacher, as also in his faith and in Truth. He has become the self resplendent. Being such a one, He remains beyond/separate the darkness of ignorance. [Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.79.16]
There are, no doubt, two forms of Brahman- one having a form and the other formeless. The mortal and the immortal. The stationary and the moving. The discernible and the indiscernible. [Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.1]
That under which the year revolves with its days, the gods worship that as the light of lights and as life immortal, That in which the people of all the five regions of the Earth and space are established, that alone I regard as the Soul; know that Immortal Brahman, I too am immortal (=reference to Divinely enlightened). Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. 4.4.16-17
Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are aspects of One Supreme Being:
“They said: ‘Revered one, you are the teacher, you are the teacher indeed. What has been said has been duly understood by us. Now answer a further question. Fire, air, sun, time, whatever it is, breath, food, Brahma, Rudra (Shiva), Vishnu- some meditate upon one, some meditate upon another. Tell us- which one is the best for us?’ Then he replied to them: “All these are merely the manifest/frontal forms of Brahman, the Immmortal, the Formless. To whichever form each man is devoted here, in the realm of that deity does that man rejoices. For it has been said- ‘Verily, this whole is Brahman. Verily, these, which are its manifest forms that one meditates on, worships and discards. For by meditation upon these forms, one moves into higher and higher realms. And when all things perish, he attains unity with the Purusha!” Maitrayaniya Aranyaka IV.5-6

God is the Ruler of the Universe:1
AUM iishaavaasyamid.h.N sarvaM yatkiJNcha jagatyaaM jagat.h |
tena tyaktena bhuJNjiithaa maa gR^idhaH kasyasviddhanam.h ||
“All sentinent and insentinent objects in this ever changing Universe are ephermal and pass away with time.
But the Lord Who is immanent in everything, and controls it in multifarious ways, is Eternal and Imperishable.
Seek to realize this Eternal Truth and do not get entangled in this world.
Enjoy the bounties of Nature, but with a sense of reunuciation.
To whom does all this belong?” [Ishavasya Upanishad 1]

1NOTE:
M K Gandhi once remarked that if all the sacred lore of Hindus were to be consigned to flames with the exception of this verse, Hinduism would still have survived in all its beauty. Thus, according to him, this verse represents the essence of Hindu spirituality. Note that this verse does not forbid the enjoyment of mundane things, rather it enjoins that we should not get unduly obsessed with them.
We can worship ONE God in ANY Form:
“In whatever form my worshipper chooses to worship Me, in that very form I accept his worship, and make his faith steady in that very form.” Gita 7.12
Meanings of the names of God: From Vayu Purana
He is called 'Atman' because whatever He attains (apnoti), takes up (adatte) and exists (asti) for the (enjoyment of) objects, that is his permanent being. 1.5.32
He is called Rishi because He goes everywhere. He is Vishnu because he pervades everything. He has the lordship over everything. He is the lord of the Physical body etc. 1.5.33
He is called Bhagavan because there are such (excellences) in him. He is Raga (lord of passion) because he controls passion. He is Para (Supreme) because he is the cosmic being. He is Om because he protects (all). 1.5.34
He is Sarvajna because he knows everything. He is sarva because everything originates from him. As men originate from him, He is called 'Narayana.' 1.5.35
Because He is the first to manifest, he is called the first god. He is called Aja because he is not born (is self existent). Since He protects his subjects, He is called the Prajapati. 1.5.37
He is called Mahadeva because he is the greatest deity amongst the Devas. He is Ishvara because he is the Lord of the worlds and because he is not subject to other's control. 1.5.38
He is called Brahma because of his hugeness. He is called Bhuta because of his (eternal) existence. He is Kshetrajna because he knows the unmanifest cosmic nature. He is Vibhu because he is omnipresent. 1.5.39
Because he lies in the subtle body (called Pur), he is called Purusha. He is called Svayambhu because he is not procreated and because he exists before the creation. 1.5.40
They who distinguish between Forms of ONE God suffer:
From Kurma Purana:
This great mediator, the Imperishable Vishnu Who is your protector is none other than Mahadeva, the Lord of gods- there is no doubt in it. 1.14.86
They, who regard Vishnu, the cause of the Universe, as different from Lord Shankara due to a deluded mind or due to lack of adherence to the Vedas indeed go to hell. 1.41.87
The followers of Vedas behold Lord Vishnu and Lord Rudra with the same feeling (of reverence) and thus become fit for Salvation. 1.41.88
He Who is Vishnu is indeed Rudra himself; and He who is Rudra is indeed Vishnu. He who worships God, with this understanding; reaches the supreme state (of salvation). 1.14.89
Narada Purana:
They who do not distinguish between Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva, but worship them both equally as ONE- these indeed are the true devotees of God. 1.5.72
The Gender of God: Either Both or None2
: God as Half Woman: In numerous iconic representations, God is shown as ‘ardhanariishvara’ or ‘God who is half woman’, to emphasize that either God has no gender or he is both woman and man.

2NOTE:
The very word ‘Brahman’ used to denote Supreme Being in Hindu texts is in neuter gender. Likewise, many words used to denote Universal Virtues such as Truth (Satyam) are considered neuter gender in Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hindu Dharma.
God as a Divine Couple:
Sage Parashar said:
O Maitreya! Always a companion of Vishnu and the Mother of this Universe,
Devi Lakshmi is eternal. Vishnu is omnipresent, so is She.
If She is speech, Vishnu is the object of description.
Vishnu is the Law, and She is the Policy.
Lord Vishnu is knowledge, she is intelligence.
He is Dharma, She is good karma.
If Vishnu is the Creator, She is the Creation (that abides eternally with Him).
He is the mountain, She is Earth.
He is the virtue of contentment, She is the all satisfying.
If Lord Vishnu is desire, She is the object of desire.
He is the sacred Vedic ritual, she is the priestly fee…( Vishnu Purana 1.8.17-20ab)

ORIGIN OF GANAPATHY FESTIVAL IN MAHARASHTRA: 
This colourful festival is a very Maharashtrian one, which is celebrated with great gusto. In fact it is the most popular festival in the State. There are several reasons for this. Ganpati is after all a popular god. His blessings are invoked at most religious ceremonies as he is the god who can remove all obstacles to success. He is the giver of fortune and can help to avoid natural calamities. He is also the god who brings prosperity. 
Ganpati, the god of wisdom and the benevolent deity of the dynasty of Peshwas who ruled Maharashtra inculcating a special culture in the state. Ganpati is the herald of auspicious beginnings and is the beloved deity of all Maharashtrians. 
The Ganeshutsav was celebrated at the houses of leading Sardar families like Patwardhan, Mujumdar, Khasgiwale etc. In 1893, Sardar Nanasaheb Khasgiwale for the first time celebrated the utsav as a public festival and that year Ghotawdekar, Kasgiwale and Bhau Rangari these three Savajanik Ganesh utsav's were celebrated and for the first time There was a procession also taken out on the roads. The well known freedom fighter and statesman, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, saw in the festival a way of uniting people in a common cause and in this manner a possible means of bringing about political consciousness under the guise of a religious celebration, with freedom for India being the ultimate goal. Lokmanya Tilak also started celebrating Ganesutsav as a public festival by establishing a Sarvajanik Ganpati at Vinchurkarwada in 1894 and today it is the most popular event in the State.It was a unique move by this freedom fighter, which he acheived with the Ganpati Visarjana or immersion procession which is taken out on the final day of the ganesh festival. 
The ten-day festival starts fr, m the fourth day of the bright half of the lunar month, Bhadrapada and continues till the fourteenth day.Thousands join in and form the many processions that fill the streets when the time comes for the image to be immersed in water...the sea, river or lake. The festival brings with it a feeling of comradeship. Everyone wants to participate. 
On the first day the clay form of Ganpati is brought home with great devotion. Prayers are said and songs chanted to the accompaniment of music from the mridanga or two-sided drum and the jhanj or cymbals. Some devotees select and buy their Ganpati on the same day and others place their orders months in advance. The figures are often very large, standing several metres high. These larger Ganesh images are usually ordered by neighbourhood puja committees, the entire neighbourhood contributing towards the purchase. 
After the Ganpati image is collected it is ceremoniously installed in a place of honour and various rituals take place. The Ganpati is decorated with ornaments, flowers and lights. Puja and aarti are performed every morning and evening using flowers, rice, betel nuts and leaves, turmeric, red powder, coins and oil lamps. Men and women, the old and young all join in.Special sweets called modaks are steamed or fried for offering to Ganpati. Modaks are small rice or wheat flour dumplings stuffed with coconut and jaggery. These are served at the festive meals during the festival. Additionally, a large variety of savoury and sweet snacks such as karanjis, ladoos, chaklis, kadbolis and anarsas are distributed to devotees and guests during the pujas. 
On the tenth day of the festival this happy loving god leaves for his celestial home and is immersed in water. Huge processions made up of different groups all accompanying the image of Ganpati that they have worshipped, make their way by foot to the immersion site. The very large images are transported by truck. All this is done to the accompaniment of dancing and singing. The mood is jovial with everyone chanting, over and over again, "Ganapati Bappa Morya, Pudhchya Varshi Lavakar Yaa..." calling Ganpati to come again soon next year. 
The sight of the crowded streets, the different Ganesh images and the happy people is an amazing spectacle. In large towns special roads are demarcated for these processions and the traffic police and users of cars, buses and two-wheelers display notable patience with the crowds and never-ending processions. 
However, it is the stupendous scale of this festival, celebrated by communities of people in the cities and villages of Maharashtra, which attracts millions of people to the state. Some of the community idols are as tall as 20 metres. These are set up in large pandals, worshipped for 10 days and then taken to the sea in immense processions for immersion. Not only are the massive idols the attraction of the festival, the plays, musical soirees, contests of skill, bullock cart races, swimming galas -all of which are planned in different venues -are events which show the enthusiasm of the people. Undoubtedly, Maharashtrians love Ganpati. 
A BRIEF ON LORD GANESH:
Ganesha was born on the fourth day of the month of Bhadrapad, the sixth month of the Hindu lunar calendar. In the south, especially in Maharashtra people celebrate 'Ganesh Chaturthi' by buying or making of clay image of Ganesha, worshipping the idol at home or a community center and then taking it in a procession to be immersed in a river, lake or sea. 
Vighneshwara (Remover or controller of all obstacles), Who is Ganapati/Ganesa? Ganapati is the Self. 
In a sentence, Ganesa simply means "Self-realization is but the removal of obstacles to the recognition of the eternal, immanent, inner self, here and now."

[Source: Ganapati: Song of the Self - By John A. Grimes p. 194].

Lord Ganesha (henceforth only Ganesh) has been a major deity, since the seventh and eighth centuries, in Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Ganesha Buddha - as he is also known as Shoden in Japan. It is from Vinayaka that the old Myanmar name for Ganesha, Mahapinary purha, was derived. Other names with a similar meaning occur frequently in Cambodian inscriptions, such as Vighnesha and Vignesvara, both of which mean "Lord of removing obstacles". A popular temple at Futako Tamagawa, Tokyo, Japan, displays Ganesha far more prominently than Buddha. Ganesha was extremely popular in the art of Indonesian islands, especially of Sumatra and Java and compare favorably with the eighth-century Ellora caves, in images, style and iconography. At Chandi Sukuh in central Java, a remarkable fifteenth century relief shows three figures, with a dancing Ganesha in the centre. There are paintings and stone sculptures of the deity found in China, apart from the textual references to Ganesha in the Chinese Buddhist canon. In Japan, there is the Shingon ritual practice that centers on Ganesha, with texts tracing back to China. To some Chinese He is Kuan-shi t'ien or Ho Tei, the large-bellied God of Happiness. To the Polynesians He is God Lono. The Tamils call him by the affectionate term Pilliar, Noble Child. The Tibetians know Him as ts' ogs-bdag, and the Burmese worship Maha-Pienne. In Mongolia His name is Totkhar-our Khaghan. Cambodians offer worship to Prah Kenes, and the Japanese supplicate Vinayaksa or Sho-ten. By some He is envisioned as the feminine Mother Nature, and even non-believers seek to understand Him through personifying His great powers as Fate, Destiny or Numen. The Greeks called Him Janus and sought His blessings at the outset of any new venture. 
Ganesha is the most widely worshipped deity in India , Ganesha also becomes the most versatile in appearance. The lack of restrictions on his iconography means that each Ganesha can reflect local aspirations. But Ganesha was not restricted to India alone. There was a time when there were as many foreign versions as Indian, and some of the earliest images of Ganeshas are found outside India .
The earliest elephant-headed human figure appears on a plaque found in Luristan, in Western Iran. Dating back to between 1,200-1,000 BC, this proto-Ganesha stands dressed as a warrior, holding a sword and a snake in one hand and a quill in another, a multi-hooded snake at his feet. A marble Maha Vinayaka (today partly destroyed) was consecrated by King Shahi Khingala in the 5th century AD in Gardez in Afghanistan, and an earlier undated Ganapati was worshipped in Sakar Dhar. Since Afghanistan was once a land of Hinduism and Buddhism, there were probably other Ganesha images in Afghanistan that were later destroyed. 
According to legend, Asoka’s daughter Charumati built a temple for Ganesha in Nepal, and the earliest surviving Ganeshas in Nepal belong to the 8th century. Vinayaka dances, a rat or lion under each foot, multi-armed, carrying several Tantric symbols including a radish, and is canopied by the snake. This form is also found in Mongolia, where Ganesha travelled with the Tibetan monk P’agspa. 
In Tibet, Ganesha is placed above the entrance of Buddhist monasteries or painted on the doors, often holding a trident and identified with Shiva.
In Khotan, or Chinese Turkestan, Ganesha was painted on wooden panels and bronze tablets at Khaklik, the Endere stupa and the rock-cut temples of Bezaklik. 
From Khotan, Ganesha reached China, and the earliest Chinese image of Ganesha is found at Kung-hsien, a two-armed seated figure holding a lotus and the chintamani jewel. Dated to AD 531, this image is described as the ‘‘Spirit King of Elephants’’. 
The Chinese and Japanese knew two forms of Ganesha: Vinayaka and Kangiten, the latter being a secret esoteric form of the deity. Kangiten symbolised the union of the Individual with the Universal Spirit and consists of two Vinayakas embracing each other. Another form, Vajra Vinayaka or Kakuzencho, had three heads with three eyes, holding a sword, radish, sceptre and modak.
In the Gupta period, Ganesha travelled east to Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia and Borneo — with Hinduism and Buddhism. In the Tibetan Buddhism, the practice associated with Ganesha, as Buddhist Tantric deity, survives up to this day. In Jainism, Ganesha occasionally found a place alongside Mahavir. The Tibetan Ganesha appears, besides bronzes, in the resplendent Thangka paintings alongside the Buddha. In a single Kathmandu valley of Nepal, there are four principal manifestations of "Binayak" in a protective role: Ashok, Surya, Chandra and Bighna. In that valley, Ganapati guards the Buddhist viharas where bhajans are sung in his praise. In Greece, Janus, the god in Greek mythology after whom the month of January was named, has the head of an elephant. Sometimes, he is depicted as a two-headed deity. Like Ganesha, Janus is worshipped at the beginning of any auspicious occasion. In Sri Lanka, the oldest image of Ganesha is found in the Kantak Chaitya in Mihintale which is dated to 1st century BC. The Ganesha idol at Subrahmanyam temple in Katargama town is still worshipped. People who do not practice Hinduism also visit this temple for this Ganesha is believed to grant the wishes of his devotees. Ganesha is a vibrant presence whose benediction is sought by traders, travelers, artists and statesmen. As lord of business and diplomacy, he sits on a high pedestal outside Bangkok's World Trade Centre, where people offer flowers, incense and a reverential sawasdee. A gilt Ganesha presides over the bustling charivari of lucrative tourism in the lobby of the Rama Hotel. Even Muslim Indonesia reveres him and European scholars call him the 'Indonesian God of Wisdom'. Bandung boasts a Jalan Ganesa, and his image adorns 20,000 rupiah notes. The Indonesian Government’s 20,000 rupiah note has Lord Ganesha's picture. According to the Finance Minister of Indonesia - The biggest Islamic Nation- the reason for putting Ganesha picture is to "remove all obstacles from the financial development of the State, whose economy during the last ten years has suffered many a crises."
The importance of Lord Ganesha in the life of Indians has been beautifully expressed by Sir Edwin Arnold (1832 - 1904) in his famous The Light of Asia:
'And on the middle porch God Ganesha, 
With disk and hook-to bring wisdom and wealth, 
Propitious sate, wreathing his sidelong trunk'

References:
(i) http://www.hinduwisdom.info
(ii) http://www.discoveringganesh.com
(iii) http://ganpatibappamorya.faithweb.com
(iv) http://www.balagokulam.org
(v) http://amitslok.blogspot.com
(vi) Source: http://www.ganapatibappa.com
(vii) http://www.letindiadevelop.org