20 billion in Indian temple?

[happyhoix]

So I read an article where a lawyer in Indian became concerned that his local Hindu temple in India wasn't doing enough to protect it's treasure. The temple had been there hundreds of years and had collected gold and jewels as tax payments and donations, and only had a couple guys with sticks for guards. There was no formal inventory of the treasure. Parts of the temple hadn't been entered in over 100 years. There was some evidence that pilfering had been going on.

After a lot of wrangling and court proceedings one of the old cellars was opened and was found to contain a literal treasure trove of gold and jewels. The stuff had originally been stored in wooden boxes, but the boxes had rotted, so it was laying in heaps on the cellar floor. Some of it was religious, like a jewel encrusted statue of Vishnu, but a lot of it was old gold coins, gold chains, and loose jewels. An estimate of the worth of just that one area of the cellar is $20 billion (B for Billion) dollars. There is a second large cellar with a jammed door that is rumored to contain gold bars.

Before you start planning any robbery attempts, they've increased the security and added cameras.

My question is this - India has a lot of very poor people. However, the citizens of that town don't want to take the treasure out of the temple because they claim it belongs to Vishnu, and if it's removed the god will destroy the town. They claim it's no more right to take the money from the temple then it is to strip European cathedrals of their gold.

Is it proper to expect a religious facility, especially in a country with as many poor people as India, to liberate some of their treasure horde - maybe the plain gold coins and chains, anyway? Or is that sacrilegious?

[zibazinski]

Well, I would liken this to the Catholic church with its millions of dollars in property and other holdings not using it for the good of the people, even if it's just the Catholics in poorer nations like Jamaica. I don't agree and think whatever higher power anyone believes in, that higher power would want their believers to have a better life.

[Virgil Showlion]

If they were wise, they'd put all the treasure in display cases, spruce up the temple, and turn it into a tourist destination. The treasure remains intact, and they have a perpetual source of income with which they can do as they please.

[zibazinski]

[happyhoix]

Jul 6, 2012 7:35:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If they were wise, they'd put all the treasure in display cases, spruce up the temple, and turn it into a tourist destination. The treasure remains intact, and they have a perpetual source of income with which they can do as they please.

The problem, apparently, is you can't go in that temple unless you're a hindu. And apparently the devote believers think it's wrong to take the items from the cellars at all, so I think they would object to them being moved someplace else to be shown.

I understand the religious point of view that the items were donated to a holy site and should remain untouched. But from a practical point of view, this is a city that doesn't even have ambulance service and the poorer neighborhoods have dirt roads. Couldn't they at least take all those gold coins, deposit them into a bank account and donate the interest to public interest?

Of course another issue is that apparently there is a lot of corruption in the Indian government and locals don't think if their government gets their hands on it the poor won't see any of it, anyway. Might as well keep it safe with Vishnu.

I don't know, I can see both arguments.

[Virgil Showlion]

And apparently the devote believers think it's wrong to take the items from the cellars at all, so I think they would object to them being moved someplace else to be shown.

Sell off one of the gold vases, buy off the idealists with a few hundred rupees apiece, proceed as originally intended.

[Gardening Grandma]

Jul 6, 2012 7:24:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Well, I would liken this to the Catholic church with its millions of dollars in property and other holdings not using it for the good of the people, even if it's just the Catholics in poorer nations like Jamaica. I don't agree and think whatever higher power anyone believes in, that higher power would want their believers to have a better life.

That was my immediate response as well. Religion can make for irrational behavior.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2012 8:34:14 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Deleted.
deminmaine- Moderator. Refers to a deleted post.
quote]
That is an extremely rude and prejudiced statement. How would you like it if someone insulted your religion? And trust me, I can think of rude things to say about every religion.

[Tiny]

As for a Higher Power wanting it's adherents to 'have a better life' that's a big assumption to make. Especially about the the motives of the Higher Power as well as that Higher Power's definition of what a 'better life' looks like for humans. Religions can hold some very odd ideas about the benefits of 'suffering' and how humanity should live. Suffering may make one's life better (or atleast make one's afterlife better).

I think it's interesting that so much 'wealth' has been accumulated by the Temple over the centuries and find the philosophical side of it even more interesting. I think it sez alot about the nature of 'religious belief', the nature of cultural beliefs, and the nature of humanity.

[happyhoix]

You could extend this argument to state museums that house valuable works of art. Is it right if a country's economy is going down the tubes to keep so much money tied up in old paintings?

I think this comes to mind because I recently saw a documentary about how the French packed up everything at the Louvre and shipped it around to various castles during WWII, trying to stay ahead of the Nazi's. When half of Paris was struggling to evacuate in front of the oncoming Nazi's, the Mona Lisa rode out of town in style, all by herself in a specially equipped ambulance.

I think probably there were some injured or old people who would have liked to use that ambulance to escape.

[Phoenix84]

As someone who isn't hindu, I don't think I"m in a position to judge what they do with their treasure. Now, if I had 20 billion in treasure I'd share some of it.

I don't know very much about the hindu religion, but I do know they're big on cast systems and reincarnation. I think they view poverty differently than we view it here. To them, poverty is someone's just reward for a past life, and they're working off their bad Karma.

[Tiny]

Jul 6, 2012 12:08:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Jul 6, 2012 11:06:53 GMT -5 @gin1984 said:

That is an extremely rude and prejudiced statement. How would you like it if someone insulted your religion? And trust me, I can think of rude things to say about every religion.

I'm sorry you took it that way, it wasn't meant to be. The point is, I can't speak for someone that I am not. Nor can they speak for me. We can't judge, even if it seems strange to us. Many people probably think it's quite odd that we won't eat dogs.

I think it was the "worshipping a cow" part that was rude. Tossing in an obvious slur (assuming you're not totally ignorant of basic tenents of other religions - and how can you be? You've got the internet at your fingertips!) was the problem.

[zibazinski]

I thought they didn't eat cows because they thought it could be someone reincarnated as a cow? Isn't that why? Or are they just not meat eaters? I'm not trying to be rude, I am asking a question.

[Jaguar]

I would be interested in seeing this, from a historical. art point.

[Phoenix84]

"I thought they didn't eat cows because they thought it could be someone reincarnated as a cow? Isn't that why? Or are they just not meat eaters? I'm not trying to be rude, I am asking a question."

That is my understanding, they don't want to eat meat in general because that cow or pig or chicken be your dear departed grandmother. And I know cows in particular are sacred to their relgion. I once rented a room to a guy who was Hindu. Curiously he would eat chicken but not cow. I didn't think to ask him about it because I thought it would be rude.

[zibazinski]

Well, I wasn't that far off. I had heard stories or cows being treated with respect. As a younger person it was hard for me to understand starving when there was food walking around but if I had been trained to think it was a family member, I'd feel differently, I'm sure. Just like if I thought eating dog or horse was okay, I'd do it.

[Tiny]

Jul 6, 2012 14:35:53 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"I thought they didn't eat cows because they thought it could be someone reincarnated as a cow? Isn't that why? Or are they just not meat eaters? I'm not trying to be rude, I am asking a question."

That is my understanding, they don't want to eat meat in general because that cow or pig or chicken be your dear departed grandmother. And I know cows in particular are sacred to their relgion. I once rented a room to a guy who was Hindu. Curiously he would eat chicken but not cow. I didn't think to ask him about it because I thought it would be rude.

I think a bug could be your dear departed relative (or enemy) as well... I don't think the not eating meat thing is 100% to do with reincarnation - more a reverence of living things (versus it being someone you use to know).

I think the cow is simply a revered symbol - like a rosary or a bible or the statue of the Blessed Virgin. If your religion has taught you that something is 'blessed' or should be revered you probably wouldn't do something to desecrate it. Generally bible burning is seen as terrible thing, as would descrating a religious icon (or crucifix). Same concept.

Lots of religions have dietary restrictions - some of which the followers would rather starve to death than break.

[mmhmm]

As I learned it, cows are considered sacred in the Hindu religion and are to be protected. They're thought to be God's gift to mankind. They give their milk, not only to their own young, but to humans, as well. Butter, curd, and ghee come from this milk. Many poor burn cow dung for warmth and cooking. They're not worshipped as Gods by most Hindus, but most do see them as sacred beings.

[Tiny]

[weltschmerz]

Jul 6, 2012 14:35:53 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"I thought they didn't eat cows because they thought it could be someone reincarnated as a cow? Isn't that why? Or are they just not meat eaters? I'm not trying to be rude, I am asking a question."

That is my understanding, they don't want to eat meat in general because that cow or pig or chicken be your dear departed grandmother. And I know cows in particular are sacred to their relgion. I once rented a room to a guy who was Hindu. Curiously he would eat chicken but not cow. I didn't think to ask him about it because I thought it would be rude.

McDonald's in India will serve chicken and lamb, but never beef. It has nothing to do with your relatives coming back as chickens or pigs.

[Annie7]

Hindus have 4 major sects - the brahmins (teachers and priests), the kshatriyas (the warriors and kings), the vaishyas (the merchants) and the shudras (the menial workers). It was originally based on your occupation, not your birth. Later it evolved into you are what your father was. The warriors and menial workers do eat meat. It's forbidden only for the brahmin and for some vaishyas. However, there are brahmins in the eastern part of India who do eat fish. And of course the modern brahmins who do eat meat and don't strictly follow the guidelines. So a blanket statement that hindus don't eat meat at all is not true.

Regarding eating cows - as someone said, it's a matter of the cow being sacred since it provides us with so many things. It's worshipped as a mother for the milk and hence it's revered. I guess chickens haven't made any such contributions so it's acceptable to eat them

[Deleted]

Take all the gold away - nothing happens to the town - people stop believing and giving their hard earned money to religion - people prosper..

[Phoenix84]

"But there are only so many antique coins, too."

Yes. Some of those things may be irreplaceable treasures. It would be like saying let's sell the Mona Lisa or statue of David to help poor people. Yes it's good to help the poor, but some of this stuff is one of a kind.

To me, it would make more sense to set up a museum or something to draw in tourists and pilgrams to view the artifacts.

[happyhoix]

Jul 13, 2012 18:11:23 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

"But there are only so many antique coins, too."

Yes. Some of those things may be irreplaceable treasures. It would be like saying let's sell the Mona Lisa or statue of David to help poor people. Yes it's good to help the poor, but some of this stuff is one of a kind.

To me, it would make more sense to set up a museum or something to draw in tourists and pilgrams to view the artifacts.

That had been suggested, but the devotely religous followers objected to removing anything from the temple, because they believed it all belonged to the god and he would be furious and punish the city if his things were removed, even if it was just down the road to a museum. It was suggested they display some of the items on the temple grounds, but only Hindus can enter the temple, so that restricts the amount of tourist cash you can get (this city was half hindu, a quarter muslim and 1/4 christian, if I remember right). And the really devote followers wanted it left locked inside the basement vaults and never seen at all.

[zibazinski]

Well, hope you can eat your values.