Idolatry among Vaishnavas? - Many gods - Idolatry in Hinduism?

[ Split from Sarva Samvadini ]

* * * * * * * * * *

Which brings me to TAWHEED.
The ONENESS of God in the Islamic Tradition.

The Vaishnavas also say they believe in that. That it is a fundamental doctrine of the Vaishnava creed. But really guys, come on, you have so many "deities" floating around. Are the muslims right when they accuse you of "idol worship" and "dividing the ONENESS?" I have heard Vaishnavas say "we are not "idol worshippers" like the Hindus or Pagans.
But it looks the same. What is the difference?

I trust you are familiar with Bhagavata's three-fold view of God, as in Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan?

As for "dividing the oneness", there is no division outside the Complete Whole, though there is variegatedness expressed within the Whole. We call this zakti-parinAma-vada, the doctrine of the transformation of potencies, which make up the world of variegatedness. If God were a homogeneous unspecified One and all that existed, we would not be here to talk about it.

OK. What about the "idols"?
Looking at the Rathyatra pics on this site I see so many figures.
Males, females, animals. What about them?

They are seen as aspects and manifestations of God and His prowess, His avatars or His servants. Of course, that is seen by those with a proper theological foundation. Others may perceive them in the same way a pagan engages in idolatry. That, however, is not the fault of the object itself, but merely a matter of a lack of proper theological education.

The pagans also have their reasoning too. Why would you differentiate yourselves from them, then?

Why the need to make images out of these various "aspects and manifestations" of God.
Do you think those girls with the buns as pictured in the Rathayatra thread have any power? If so, why do they have to be tied to the cart with ropes?

I have read somewhere in the Atharva Veda about the appearance and Prophet Mohamed Nabi and Jesus Christ predicted on our scriptures. Very clearly and their purpose of avatar etc. I don't have a real verse pertain to that. If any rasika Vaishnava out there has that verses can put over here. My books are all in Vrindavan. I just came on a short visit to west. So basically Vedas are the mother of major religion. Of course their are many god/goddess worship for different purpose. Our Vedas cater for a bigger audience like brahman, parmatman, Bhagavan realizations.

So I assume Quran, Bible as a part of Vedic system but with a lesser Rasa in it. So I have no conflict at all in these topics.

Actually, the word "pagan" evokes all kinds of strange and barbaric rituals. I am not sure that it has a great deal of valid meaning for the purposes of discussion.

Religion is fundamentally about human experience and the wonder of our existence. I don't quite understand what you are thinking, Betalnutji. Do you think that Hindus believe these statues are going to give them something or do something? I think even your most primitive illiterate villager would have a more sophisticated understanding than that.

What is the purpose of pictures and representations in the first place? Do you have a photo of your parents in your wallet, or your husband on your mantelpiece, or perhaps a half-dressed picture of Brad Pitt on your bedroom wall? What purpose do these things serve? A true Muslim is against all image-making, just as he is against music (!) Is this where Tawheed leads us? Is this where you are going?

There are many considerations of sacred time and space that you also need to understand. Call it arbitrary if you like, but human beings have a need to create sacred space and sacred moments. Set aside a place in your home that is dedicated for meditation and remembering Krishna. Yes, God is everywhere and you should see Him (and Her) everywhere. But start by seeing Him/Her in ONE PLACE.

India is full of these focal points for communally remembering God, each of which has a different flavor. Jagannath Puri is one such place, with its wonderful, colorful traditions. Muslims are altogether too serious (someone was recently remembering Buddhists laughing and joking at a ritual in the midst of grave-faced Westerners) in their condescending attitudes to such primitive paganism.

This is a festival. The people of this world are suddenly participants in this great game involving God--pulling him in chariots along with all these divine beings from all spheres of the universe, just as it should be.

But the important thing here is that God is complicit in this great game, and he both participates in and approves of it. And in these "pastimes," he is especially pleased by your astonishment, your joy, your aesthetic pleasure, your prayers, your hymns and your dancing.

Only a person who thinks himself very clever says, "God is everywhere, what need have I of Church, Temple, pictures or statues?" Too clever. Television signals are everywhere, but having a satellite dish and a television set helps us to see them, do they not?

It is easy to reduce God to a human projection. Xenophanes said this many centuries before Christ. Buddha practically said the same thing. So did the Mimamsakas. It is not something that Feuerbach or Freud invented, though they certainly developed the idea.

The point is that God is complicit in such psychological processes. God is everything, and he is using everything to increase our joy. The greatest joy is finding Him, seeing Him, being in emotional touch with Him. So, we who believe in a personal, sensual God, engage in sensual activities that increase our joy, increase our sense of wonder and service. Hearing, chanting, looking at the Deity Form, these all help us to see Him (and Her) everywhere, in everything, phenomenal and noumenal.

Not Atharva Veda, it's in the Bhavishya Purana, which is, I might add, a rather controversial text.

Jagat, I know that hindus don't expect those images to reach out and hand them an apple. My point is, what exactly DO they expect of those images?

Any vaishnava will say that the Deity is Krishna Himself.
Why do they say this?
Why do they not say that the Deity is an image to remind us of Krishna?

If just a Deity of Krishna is perceived to be Divine and then appropriately worshipped then that is a subject that is a bit easier to understand and can be dealt with separately. However, I notice that at alot of Vaishnava temples and functions that Vaishnavas participate in such as mahotsavas and the Puri Rathyatra as pictured on this website, there are other images as well, such as the images of those bunned maidens, images of elephants and lions, etc. Are those images accorded the same Divinity and power that Jagannath Deva Himself is? If so, why? If not, why not? It seems the distinction between archan and actual IDOL WORSHIP is not one that has been well defined within the Vaishnava theology.

If I am wrong and it indeed has been distinctioned and defined, please tell me.

Of course, that distinction has been made. I am just a little surprised that you did not think that there was any difference. Unless prana pratishtha has been made, no archa form is considered worshipable.

The idea that the Deity form is more than just a reminder is essential to the bhakti way of doing things. This is precisely because though the psyche is the site of experimentation, the Vaishnava is not a solipsist. The world and the Deity are real.

So then there is a mixture of pagan idolatry in with bhakti, right?
You have a Deity who has been pran pratishted and alongside that you have other images, such as the bunned maidens and animals who have not been pranned.
In that case Vaishnavism has both.

Therefore the accusation of idolatry stands until and unless the Vaisnavas limit their imagry to just the pp'd Deity.

What are you trying to prove? If I put a picture in my house, that's idolatry? Only according to the most retrograde Muslim.

What is really meant by idolatry? The ancient Jewish criticism was that God cannot be represented by anything, and that if one tried to do so, then one was automatically "missing God." The Islamic expression for idolatry "shirk" or "mushrik" means adulteration or applying worldly attributes to God, or putting something in the place of God.

So this idea has been extended, and in Christian circles one often gets the discussion of a rather sophisticated deconstruction of worship, that sees the mind as constantly setting up idols in the place of true surrender to God. So the discourse around idolatry is really about substituting other ideals in the place of God, like making money, fame, adoration one's goals in life.

Religions that hate idolatry tend to be prophetic and dualistic. The prophets are always coming out and inveighing against the "new idols" of a religion--institutions, hierarchies, sensuality, etc.--which may have insinuated themselves into the religion as God-substitutes, or as valid co-goals to pure love of God (or union or whatever way the goal is expressed).

So, in fact, to simply see an image as the sign of "idolatry" is rather missing the point. The real idolatry is to mistake ego or worldly goals for true devotional ones.

One should not be attached to form, neither in the positive nor in the negative sense. To me, idolatry means a very strong, narrow-minded, unwise attachment to images (I refer to persons who worship images but at the same time never realize God's all-pervasive nature). The other extreme is the similarly narrow-minded and unwise aversion to images. Image is all right, no image is all right, too. If one prefers sitting under a tree and feel the presence of God there to worshipping images and thus feeling the presence of God, no problem. None of them should think that they are superior or inferior to the other in any sense. Isn't that so?

What is different about the conception of the Semitic religions and Vaisnavism is that Semitic religions are theistic whereas Vaisnavism is more than just theistic.

Theism is the belief in God. A personal God. So that can be Allah, Jehovah, or Krsna (just different names). But the difference is that Vaisnavas do not conceive that the World and the Souls are completely separate from God (except for Madhvas who are more like the Semitics).

So Krsna or Visnu are two names given in Vaisnavism to personals forms of God. If God is all powerful how can He be limited to only one form? Therefore He can have unlimited forms. In fact the word Visnu means all-pervading. So Visnu (God) not only has unlimited forms but He also pervades everything. You, me, the table, the chair, the universe, everything. So in one sense everything is God.

Now that is confusing to some people (especially Semitics who are used to thinking of God sitting up there in heaven and nothing else). They say "Hey if God is in everything, then why go to the Church or Mosque?" Because you are unable to realize that. We relate to each other in personal ways. Like sharing email messages, but how do we then relate to God? Well, some would say "by prayer". But if God is everywhere, where do we pray and how do we pray? Well if you can realize that God is everywhere then you can pray anywhere. But just to help you God gives different ways that you can relate to Him. He gives those ways in the Scriptures. These are not imaginary ways made up by us.

One way is to offer prayers of the Vedas while offering ghee, fruits and grains into the sacrificial fire. One way is by chanting His holy name. One way is by sitting and meditating on one of His unlimited forms within the mind. And one way is to make an iconic deity form according to the directions of the scriptures and worship God through it. This form just like the fire, your mind, the Holy Name, and everything is pervaded by God. But God tells us that we should do all these things according to the rules he sets for them in the scripture. He doesn't say you can just do anything, chant anything, worship any form or meditate on anything. But he gives the exact details. If we follow the instructions of the scriptures then He says that He will accept our worship through whatever form we use and He will reciprocate with us. God is everywhere but we cannot just worship the table or the floor. Although He is there, he does not agree to accept our worship or reciprocate with us, unless we play by His rules.

In Vaisnava scriptures there are instructions for worshiping God in all these ways and more. However the Semitic religions are limited in their concept of God and the ways in which He can be worshiped. The reactions of the Jews and Muslims against worship of forms is an extreme reaction to people doing their own thing. Just making it up as they went along. That cannot be compared to the methods and philosophy of Vaisnavism.

Even today Muslims do namaz 5 times (3 times for Ismailis) facing Mecca. Why Mecca? They actually are facing the Kabba. What is that? It is like their deity, it is sacred to them. It is the thing that Mohammed (Praise be upon Him), asked Muslims to bow to. If this was something given in revelation from God then so be it. If not then it is idolatry.

I have no problem with this type of worship because I know that God is everywhere. So if God told Mohammed to worship Him like that, then that's fine with me. Because I know that in the Vedic scriptures (also revelation) God has given bonafide methods for Vaisnavas to worship Him.

So you see. You say potato and I say potAto. There is no difference. All the religions of this world that are based on revelation worship according to that revelation. That you can't understand the concept of God in Vaisnavism doesn't mean that our concept is incorrect. It is in fact more all-inclusive than yours. Because the Vaisnava concept not only includes theism but also explains the relationship between God, the world and the souls. This is the purport of the Vedas, and the subject of Vedanta.

So Jews, Christians and Moslems all have their icons. What is an icon? It is a sacred object. An object that one uses to help one relate to God. What makes it sacred? Well according to Vaisnavism everything is ultimately sacred becasue everything is pervaded by God. But beyond that a icon is that thing which is particulary sacred due to it's being related to God. How is it particularly related to God? It is because He says it is, in His revealed scriptures.

So I have no problem with Jews praying at the Wailing Wall, Christians worshiping crucifixes and statues of Mary, or Moslems bowing to the Kabba. As long as these methods of worship are given in their revealed scriptures. So why should any of them have a problem with me making offerings into the sacred fire, worshiping the deity, chanting the holy name, or meditating on the Lord's forms? Or any of the other bonafide methods given in the Vedic scripture?

Keshava

Dear Keshava,

Thank you for your valuable posts. You wrote that worship must be executed according to specific rules. I read about many persons, usually wandering sadhus, who seemed to be much beyond any rules as far as their worship is concerned. They often carried their Deity in a sack or in their hands, sometimes offered food to Them, sometimes they did not. Sometimes they joked with the Deity, sometimes they chastised the Deity. Still, nobody would claim that their method of worship was not bona fide, moreover, often these persons were mahasiddhas.

I know very well that this advanced stage is not to be imitated artificially, the point I am trying to make is that attaining a specific stage of spritual realization, strictly following the scriptural rules becomes a burden, an impediment to spontaneous love. Just consider the plays of Krsna and His friends: the main flavor in these plays is the complete absence of any rigid rules or reverence (aishvarya). That would just kill the whole pastime.

With respect,

Openmind

Dear Openmindji, namaskaram

Yes, I do appreciate your points. My previous post on this thread was directed mostly to Betalnut. I just wanted to explain the basics of the concept of icons and deities to one who professes iconoclastic ideas.

Regarding those who practice the type of worship that you mentioned. Those who are on the higher platforms of devotion certainly can and do disregard some of the little rules and regs (or even the big ones) of Vaidhi Bhakti. No doubt. Some also do not. So that they can be a good example to the people in general. As you stated we should not imitate this stage, but we certainly can apprecitate it.

You might note that before launching into the 64 items of Vaidhi Bhakti in BRS, Srila Rupa Goswami quotes the verse about the main rule and reg is simply to always remember Lord Visnu and never forget Him (or should I say Krsna around here?). Anyway he is right. And all rules and regulations are subservient to this.

Keshava

Just a thought to the concept and practice of imitation. We all seem to know what is meant when told not to imitate. But there is also a form of imitation which leads to learning the experience behind that which is imitated and getting acquainted on a personal basis. An instance is when a small girl starts to baby a doll. She develops the motherly feelings along with it. Similarly, when a person becomes a bhakta he or she starts to imitate the practice done by others, and does them even when not feeling like it.

In Christianity there is a great classic text, the Imitatio Christi by Thomas a Kempis. Imitation has a great following in Christian mystic practice. Within the limits of good taste, respect and maturity, why should one not imitate a great vaishnava, if that imitation is going for the substance, but not for the form only? Obviously, suddenly to speak and pronounce one's own language like one's guru, is not a very mature form of imitation. Speaking English with a Bengali accent is simply ridiculous, if you are not a Bengali yourself or speaking with one and want to facilitate his or her understanding. No mature person would think of imitating the tears of someone else, or another emotion. But it may be possible for one to imitate, that is to follow an example shown by someone, an example that inspires and may give one an experience after a while. In my personal view, Openmind is giving an example here, that may well be imitated, or rather the guilt-ridden fear of imitation is out of place in this regard. Why not talk to your deity, and love him and her really, joke and chastize, if that is there for you? So, if that example is giving inspiration, the example of these sadhus, just try it out. If you feel you have to follow ritual and rule at every step, no problem, do that. But do not hesitate to love (and laugh with) your Thakur, when that possibility and capability grows in your heart (and even before that, which, of course, is the point of this post.)

In a sense one could say a murti is an imitation of the reality of the God depicted. As Bhaktas we do go beyond the imitation, because we take the vigraha as one of the windows of God's personal reality into our world. That is why the unlimited God can enjoy that small little offering that we are making in our houses, even if it is only a small imitation of what we know is done by the real bhaktas, and in the big temples with their elaborate ritual and practice. God enjoys them all. But perhaps (or certainly) he feels more touched when he or she is treated like your intimate friend, or your child...