Re: Painted gopurams...
From the Bhakti List Archives
• August 13, 1999
Dear Anand, You wrote: > The meaning of heritage > and the concept of 'leaving alone' any historical or > archeological monuments are predominantly a product of > recent (and mostly a western) approach. Your point is very well taken, and I am certainly not suggesting that we leave our temples alone as static monuments of a bygone era. One of the best things about temples in India is that they are still *alive*, teeming with devotees, flower-sellers, etc., all of whom leave their mark on the place ("kambamE kaavEri"). In contrast, when I visited the magnificent churches of Florence, Paris, and Rome, I found them to be more museums than active places of worship. People would go primarily to admire the artistry, and what few devout there were (mostly senior citizens) would go to mass at an appointed time and then leave. (St. Peter's in Rome is of course an exception). At the same time, we should be careful in making wholesale changes to a structure, without regard to history and artistic value. Judging from the responses on our List, it seems that brightly painted gopurams have a history in Tamil Nadu, and that many people today like them. If this truly is the case, or if they have some other unmentioned merit, I'm not one to oppose them. But I do think that we should think very cautiously before succumbing to the temporary whims of an ever-changing society, which in the process can destroy the age-old atmosphere of some of our holy sites. Mani
- Next message: Venkatesh K. Elayavalli: "Re:Love vs. legalism in Vaishnavism?"
- Previous message: Sampath Rengarajan: "Sri ANDAL Rules ?!!!..."
- Maybe in reply to: P.B. Anand: "Painted gopurams..."
- Next in thread: P.B. Anand: "Re: Painted gopurams..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]