Hurley-Nayar wedding, mocking Hindu Customs?
On March 9th Elizabeth Hurley (British model) and Arun Nayar (Businessman) wed in the desert city of Jodhpur, Rajastan. They may now risk prosecution there with a judge set to decide whether they should be prosecuted after hearing testimony presented by some enraged Hindus.
Hurley and Nayar had allegedly drunk alcohol prior to the Hindu wedding where religious rites were going to take place. They had supposedly acted innappropriately near a sacred fire. Nayar was photographed wearing leather shoes during the actual ceremony.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The rich and famous think they are beyond Sanathan Dharma and see it as some sory of backward faith that we should only pay lip service too. Nayar is pathetic, and clearly under the influence of Maya as his wealth has clearly inflated his ego.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I know nothing of the whole thing and so am loathe to judge; it is easy to get carried away with rumour and accusation but I believe we follow a standard of justice that maintains an individual “innocent until proven guilty”. However, I think it not out of place to say that if what is alleged is true, I agree with HV’s comment at the end of the article - the most disturbing thing for me in all this is the alleged treatment of the father. As the Vedas say, ‘ayam maataa, ayam pitaa, ayam jeevatur aagamat’ (As mother, and as father, God accompanies us through our lives).
May 1st, 2007 at 7:50 am
i do not think it is mockery the wedding of liz nayyer i think india not only should embrace but encourage a lot when i am saying this i am keeping the need to very far in order to be able to influence the world in important issues this kind of marriage publicity are a way to show the world the .
As far as procution is concern the judge should use his valuable time the matter which concern the nations poor that way he /or the people who want to prosecute the newly wed leave them alone
May 1st, 2007 at 8:49 am
hang on a minute …Hinduism is not fashion …nor is it a show of materialistic pleasure……
Hinduism teaches respect for old customs and tradition…..Liz and Nayer have no idea of what Hindu faith teaches ……they have made a mockery of a SACRED ceremony ……
this will continue to happen if the Indian Government does not put a stop to all this nonsense……you can marry in Indai in the tradtuional way but respect the customs of that country……
india just wants tourists money and it is selling its soul………
May 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Of course, from the Western perspective, one may well argue that marriage itself has become a mockery anyway - Viva Las Vegas! :p
May 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
all kind of durgs are ok in hinduism in modaration so where is the niradar. its not a close minded faith as sikhism
May 1st, 2007 at 7:02 pm
It is now becomiung a trend that non Hindus from the west mostly from America are coming to India to get married in the Hindu style.. They find our colourful wedding dresses, our Mandaps, our rituals, our chanting of Mantras and all the accompaniments as very very fascinating. Whether it has any spiritual appeal for them or whther it gives permanancy to their marriages is a bit too early to say but if it does or at least they believ that it does then I think our spirituality is recognised as having much intrinsic worth than what the west has to offer to the sacred institution of marriage. I would like to know the reaction of the Hindu clergy to these marriages.
May 8th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
The couple participating after consuming alcohol and wearing leather shoes before the sacred fire (Agni Dev) during the ceremony is highly disrespectful, sacrilegious and an act of grave profanity. It ought to be condemned by all Hindus. The sanctity of the ceremony should not be allowed to be trampled upon like this. It is highly contemptuous of them.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
every marriage ceremony I’ve been to ends with an apology to God and the guests for mistakes of commission or ommission done and a request that the ritual be accepted in the spirit it is offered rather than the faulted execution of the priest or guests.
This points to a recognized humility of all humans to each other and God.
It seems some hindus have forgotten to have such humility. They know what should and should not be done exactly at every ceremony. Wearing a shoe is bad but having a leather wallet is ok. Kissing is bad, but drinking in the corner is good.
This is bunk. If you want to impose rules on a marriage ceremony, impose them before you agree to perform the ceremony. If you forgot to impose a rule, then don’t blame the person who did it out of ignorance that you could have prevented. If you don’t like the ceremony someone else did, don’t do it that way when your turn comes but why criticize it now?
This is ego that says we know what is best and how insulting someone was because of a single act.
If the father is upset that the son did not respect him enough, the question may be asked, why didn’t the father raise his son with those values? Could the father have demonstrated to the son that rich and powerful people should be deferred to before one talks to one’s son?
Here two people that could have had a ceremony on the moon, anyway they would have liked it (christian, muslim, secular…) chose to have a ceremony in a hindu fashion and they are being attacked for it. Here the hindu community could stand up and say, welcome, we will bless your wedding with our mantras (just don’t wear leather shoes or wallets at the ceremony). But no, now anyone who happens to have a public face will ask who will be insulted by a mistake that I did not know I was making and thus sue me in court. So the public figures will go and get christian style weddings and the hindus will complain, why to our young get married in other traditions.
This (ugly hindu pseudofanaticism), it seems is why someone would say, I don’t want to be called a hindu when so many people think in such black and white backward ways. Then the orthodox intolerant hindus can marry only orthodox intolerant hindus to the point of extinction. Good riddens.
hariaum
May 18th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
what the hell kind of reply was that Navin
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
If a Hindu marriage is to be performed (or is being performed), it has to be as per the rules laid down in the Hindu Shastras; otherwise how can it be called Hindu. There are certain rules for even a ‘court marriage’. Hindu or Muslim rules are not (and they would not be) applicable there. Similarly, rules of Western society cannot be applied to Hindu ‘marriages’.
Hindu Vivah is a Hindu ‘religious’ ceremony – rather, it is a ‘Sanskar’. To be effective, it has to be performed in the way it has been dictated.
Yes, leather valet too is not permitted - and it cannot be kept. In fact, prescribed dress for a Hindu ‘doolha’ does not have a pocket in it!
No one says one who does not follow the rules or codes and dictates of the Hindu Shastras is not a Hindu. Nevertheless, he cannot be counted among good and faithful believing Hindus as well.
It is not correct to say that Shrimad Bhagvad Gita says ‘even a dog-eater can achieve salvation’. This word is found in verse 5:18 only. But the verse is not talking of salvation there. It is with reference to a ‘Gnani purush’. It can be confirmed from the preceding verse in which the word ‘Gnannir-dhoot-kalmashaah’ has been clearly mentioned meaning thereby ‘one whose ignorance of the Self has been removed by ‘Gnan’ i.e. Knowledge’. Such a person, it says, sees God in a Self-realised Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater equally.
Regards.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It seems to me that every state in India has different protocols for weddings. The laws of Manu refer to several types of weddings including elopement to fully social sanctioned ones.
I agree that a “hindu” wedding sould be done distinctly than other weddings - making it “hindu”
But if you want to sue someone for making a mistake perhaps it would be better to advise the priests running the wedding to set out the rules and enforce them - no purses for women, no shoes of leather for men or women, perhaps no bacteria in the food (they are living beings), no cooked food (only satvic food), and certainly no butchers as their money is basically animal matter. Once the rules are clearly dictated, publish them and enforce them at the wedding. Not with anger - get out of your mundap - but with wisdom - lets hold the ceremony until all the animal goods and other “insults” are set aside.
If a father wants to blame a child for the wrong priorties, he should first look at his own priorties and those he followed when raising a kid.
I think if this was a poor couple no one would have cared and the religious orthodoxy would have disregarded the whole thing - poor people don’t insult groups. But since this is a world stage, these orthodox maniacs need to show that they know what kind of hinduism is best for everybody -theirs!
That is not what hinduism is about. If the Vedas disappeared, Hinduism would survive. If no one spoke of Krishna, hinduism would survive. This is not dharma of books and names but a dharma of meaning and intent. If there are, and there are, hindus who think they can say hinduism is a set of books and precepts, they are cowards to the eternal dynamic truth that exists around us in this moment.
The books and teachings of the past, the goals and desires projected into the future are mythologies of our human bio-mental construct. The reality is that which is. A person who fails to see the past is foolish, as is the person who fails to anticipate the future. But to live in the past or the future is rubbish - egoism.
So my attack is on the orthodox hindus who fail to see the intent and options open to this couple. So the attack is for those hindus that say an act, whose intent is unknown to the writer, is highly contemptuous, a trampling of hindu values. Such condemnation is what I find contemptuous to the very heart of hinduism - an open hearted and open souled humility that accepts the faults in others as in oursleves and says we flawed humans must work together to make the world more realized as perfection that comes from perfection, not the petty “they hurt my feelings becasue they didn’t know what I was thinking they should do”
apologies for those insulted by my ignorance.
hariaum
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Applaud to Navin. All readers should absorb Navins last Posting. He has distilled ‘Substance Over Form’
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
Agree with Navin’s sentiments above - very well said.