Hare Krishna.

Question: Why do many Hindu temples not allow non-Hindus to enter? Can the Vedic tradition still be considered inclusive?

Answer: Let’s address this in three parts: historical, comparative, and philosophical.

1. Historical Perspective:

The primary reason many temples restrict non-Hindus from entering, such as the famous Lord Jagannath Temple in Puri, is historical. Many temples have been desecrated, destroyed, and looted in the past. The priests and other devotees at these temples were often slaughtered, and these attacks were not perpetrated by Hindus. Non-Hindu aggressors were responsible for these acts of violence, and some temples were repeatedly targeted.

As a defense mechanism against such vandalism, the policy of restricting access was put in place. While this may have been influenced by tradition and scripture, the primary cause for these restrictions stems from the need for security. It is not the case for every temple — there are thousands of temples across India. In fact, Vrindavan alone has over 5,000 temples. Major temples like Jagannath Puri, Guruvayur, and Kashi Vishwanath were often targeted by those who sought to impose religious supremacy, plunder wealth, and terrorize non-believers into conversion.

The fact that only a few major temples have adopted this policy, while thousands of others have not, points to the inclusivist nature of the broader Hindu tradition. If the restriction were purely theological, then all temples would have followed this practice. The existence of this inclusivity despite the actions of a few temples highlights the resilience of the inclusive ethos in Hinduism, even after repeated attacks by exclusivist forces.

2. Comparative Perspective:

This is not unique to Hinduism. For instance, in Islam, the holiest place, Mecca, does not allow non-Muslims to enter. Similarly, in Parsi temples, non-Parsis are not permitted. The reasons for these exclusions vary, but in Islam, one reason is that idolaters are considered impure, which is ironic given that those who worship idols (i.e., Hindus) maintain high standards of cleanliness. Each religious tradition has its own understanding of purity and impurity, and it’s essential to respect that.

From the Vedic perspective, those who do not follow the Vedic path may be considered impure, especially because of their dietary habits, such as eating cow flesh, which is considered sacred in the Vedic tradition. Lord Krishna, who is also Gopal (the protector of cows), embodies this sacredness. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Vedic tradition to have certain rules about purity, including the restriction on non-Hindus entering temples.

3. Philosophical Perspective:

Restricting entry to a holy place does not necessarily make a tradition exclusivist. Exclusivism is when people who do not adhere to one’s belief system are viewed not just as misguided but as evil or misled by the devil. This is not the Vedic worldview. The Vedic tradition understands that everyone is part of one universal family and that the essential spiritual nature exists within all people. The Vedic philosophy is not exclusivist; rather, it is inclusivist.

While there may be certain practices or standards for entering temples, these are meant to foster higher consciousness. The philosophy of the Vedic tradition is highly inclusive, and many temples, even in their entry policies, reflect this inclusivity. Contemporary expressions of the tradition, such as the Krishna Consciousness movement, welcome all people to visit temples and recognize that impurity is not a permanent state. Anyone who becomes pure-hearted can enter the temple and, if they live purely, even worship on the altar.

In the Bhakti tradition, inclusivism is demonstrated in a very dramatic way, especially in contemporary expressions of Bhakti.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the historical memory of temple desecrations has led to certain restrictions, but the broader tradition remains deeply inclusive. The very existence of such temples, even with their restrictive policies, shows the inclusiveness of the Vedic tradition. It means that the tradition can accommodate such practices without fully adopting or condemning them. If some people try to reduce the vast, inclusive Vedic tradition to the practices of a few temples, it may be because they are unaware of the tradition’s broader expression today or because they refuse to acknowledge the evidence and continue to hold onto a particular narrative, even in defiance of the facts.

Thank you.