Objective manifestation of belief

The following passages from the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata are sufficient to understand the philosophical foundation behind the manifestation of religious belief through worship, rituals and places of worship.

“The material nature is working under My direction, producing all moving and non-moving things; by this rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.”
— Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 10

“It is I who am the ritual, I am the sacrifice, the offering to the ancestors, the healing herb, the transcendental chant. I am the butter, the fire and the offering.”
— Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 16

The philosophical point is clear: the Divine is understood as manifesting through the world and through different forms of worship. Therefore, when a Hindu worships a deity through an idol and performs rituals in a temple, the theological understanding is not necessarily that the stone itself is God. Rather, the deity is regarded as a manifestation or representation through which the devotee directs his or her consciousness and devotion towards the Divine.

The Mahabharata likewise repeatedly emphasizes the principle that human action should be directed towards the welfare of society and in accordance with Dharma.

A temple, therefore, is not merely a building. Traditionally, it is a place where a community gathers for worship, rituals, meditation, festivals and collective religious life. The idol provides the devotee with a concrete focus through which the otherwise abstract conception of the Divine can be contemplated and worshipped.

Now apply the same principle consistently.

A Muslim goes to a mosque, offers namaz, and observes the practices prescribed by Islam. The mosque is a physical manifestation of the Muslim community's religious faith and its place of collective worship.

There is nothing controversial about recognizing that proposition.

But then a peculiar contradiction arises.

If one side is permitted to explain, before the Court, the religious objective and manifestation of Muslim belief through a mosque, how can the religious purpose and manifestation of Hindu belief through a temple and its deity simultaneously be questioned or minimized?

If the argument is that a mosque represents the religious faith of the Muslim community, then, by the same principle, a temple represents the religious faith of the Hindu community.

If the mosque is understood in the context of the faith, rituals and beliefs of Muslims, then a temple must likewise be understood in the context of the faith, rituals and beliefs of Hindus.

Faith cannot be selectively interpreted.

One cannot argue for the protection and recognition of the religious character of one community's place of worship while questioning the very religious reasoning by which another community understands its own place of worship.

The issue before the Court should therefore be approached with intellectual consistency.

The question is not whether a person personally believes that an idol represents God. The question is what the religious tradition itself believes, how that belief is manifested through worship, and what historical and archaeological evidence establishes regarding the character and use of a particular site.

If the religious belief of one community is relevant to understanding its mosque, then the religious belief of the other community is equally relevant to understanding its temple.

The principle must be the same for everyone.

Otherwise, the argument ceases to be about law, history or evidence and becomes an exercise in applying two different standards to two different faiths.

So, before questioning the Hindu conception of idol worship and temples, the basic question ought to be asked:

If faith explains the existence and purpose of a mosque, why should faith suddenly become irrelevant when explaining the existence and purpose of a temple?

Ram mandir

The question of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be discussed intelligently without first understanding the place of faith and belief in a religious claim.

Faith necessarily proceeds from belief. An atheist, by definition, does not accept the religious proposition on which such faith rests. The Court therefore cannot understand the nature of a religious claim by pretending that the underlying belief does not exist.

The Supreme Court itself recognized in the Ayodhya judgment that the faith and belief of Hindu devotees concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman are matters of personal conscience and that the Court is not required to test the rationality or strength of that belief beyond determining whether it is genuinely held.

There is another important legal question.

In the case concerning Guru Granth Sahib, the Supreme Court recognized its capacity to be treated as a juristic person, arising from the religious significance accorded to it and its installation in a gurdwara. The same judgment also reaffirmed the established legal principle that a consecrated and publicly installed Hindu deity can possess juristic personality.

Then what is the objection to recognizing Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman as a juristic person?

In fact, in the Ayodhya proceedings, the legal personality of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman was not contested. The Supreme Court itself dealt with the deity as the first plaintiff in Suit 5.

The distinction is important: the Court did not recognize the abstract geographical entity “Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi” as a juristic person. But that is entirely different from the legal personality of the deity Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman.

The historical and textual evidence must also be considered carefully.

The Valmiki Ramayana describes Ayodhya as a magnificent and highly developed city and gives an extensive account of its religious and civic life. More importantly, Ayodhya Kanda contains a description of Rama staying with Sita in a splendid temple of Lord Vishnu.

Therefore, it is historically unsound to suggest that the Ramayana presents Ayodhya merely as an ordinary secular settlement devoid of established religious institutions.

At the same time, historical claims must be stated accurately.

It would be incorrect to assert without qualification that Babur's own Baburnama contains a straightforward statement that he personally destroyed the Ram temple and constructed the mosque. The surviving historical record is more complicated; Beveridge's notes concerning the inscription and the missing portions of the Baburnama contain an interpretation concerning the replacement of a Hindu shrine, but the underlying diary material is incomplete.

That does not end the historical inquiry. It simply means that the claim must be evaluated through all available evidence—archaeology, inscriptions, architectural remains, historical accounts, documentary records and evidence of worship—rather than through one disputed quotation.

And that is precisely why consistency is important.

If the law can recognize the religious significance of Guru Granth Sahib on the basis of the faith and practice of its followers, and if it can recognize a consecrated Hindu deity as a juristic person, then Hindu belief concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman cannot be dismissed merely because the religious concept is unfamiliar or different.

Different religions may have different conceptions of the Divine. The law need not declare one theology correct and another incorrect. It must, however, apply the same legal standard to both.

That is the real issue.

Ram mandir hearing

Consequences of demolition of babri masjid.
Let me be very clear that I don't support demolition of babri masjid, because if everyone starts taking law in their own hand it detoriates justice system in the country. But since it's a legal issue I would like to bring it to the notice of honourable court that muslim invaders demolished numerous temples in India just to establish and spread their own religion. They build many masjid just besides Hindus temples, ASI has numerous evidence of the said facts,my question to Mr. Dhavan is that didn't it hampered the conscience and belief of Hindus. Didn't it had any repercussion on Hindus belief.
Disclaimer:- I don't support Revenge, muslims have every constitutional Rights available , but since you have raised the issue of consequences of demolition of babri masjid, in that context I have reminded you of the facts.

Plea on behalf of Idol, Plea claiming Janmabhoomi.

Plea claiming janmasthan should be given more importance than that of plea claiming of Idol, since Janmabhoomi came into Existence first than came the Idol. Idol has no relevance without the Existence of Lord Ram. Idol was established as per vedic rituals by his Son Kush after Lord Ram left for his abode. So Idol is dependent on the Existence of Lord Ram and the Janmabhoomi is known because  of Ram and the lineage of Ikshvaku. Kush was the inheritor of the Janmabhoomi and kingdom of Kush has reference with regards to dwarpar yug, which reference could be found in the Purana.
           Both the plea should be entertained and is legally binded  and Janmabhoomi has grater significance.

Janmabhoomi is is a juridical person.

With reference to skand puran where it's mentioned that by merely seeing the Janmabhoomi our all previous life sins get vanishes. It clearly states the importance of Janmabhoomi. The bhoomi belongs to the lineage of Ikshvaku and after Lord Ram left for his abode kush rebuilt the place at the beginning of dwapar. The reference of rebuilding of the structure by kush can be found at kanak bhavan.

Since Janmabhoomi alone has such Religious significance why can't be it a juridical person.

Aspect of belief and Janmabhoomi
The belief in the hindu religion is that Performing rituals at tirth has greater Religious importance. Ayodhya is one of the seven moksha tirth and hence it has much more Religious significance than other tirth in the country.
Since the belief emphasises more on the Janmabhoomi hence it has its own aspects which should not be hampered.

Article25- Sorry! If it hurts but at a time the truth has to be spoken. Does muslim only has the conscience and right to Religious practices,With all due respect Will a temple be allowed to be built beside mecca.
What should be emphasised and debated here his whose conscience and belief is being hurt here of Hindus or muslims.

Acceptance: Distinction of Janmabhoomi is evident.
If it's case of Janmabhoomi than all hands should be off the place including the court.

I only hope that Mr. Dhavan doesn't repudiate from his words!