PDA

View Full Version : Murti Puja is not idol worship



rkannan1
09 April 2006, 04:12 PM
Generally those who live in western countries or among people of semitic faith must face questions and/or abuses about Deity Worship. It is sad that even some Hindus use the word "Idol worship" for "Vigraha archanas" we do in temples.

1. The first point is Hindus have to recognoze that the words "Idol worship" has a derogatory meaning and hence should stop using such words at all.

2. The second point is most Hindus have no idea "what is 'Muti Puja' ?" and often have a misconception that the material with which the Murti itself is worshipped.

3. The third point is Hindus themselves have a diverse philosophies where some believe Brahman does not have form and others that Brahman does have form.

4. Some have the idea that Murti is merely a symbol to concentrate.

I will try to present the idea as far as I know. If anybody has more knowledge, they can present.

I started a new thread on this subject, because instead of presenting our own ideas on this subject, it is better to see what the scriptures themselves say.

I request anybody who has read regarding Murti Puja as per Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa Agamas can present about philosophy of Murti Puja better.

As per Vaishnava traditions, Narayana(Brahman) has infinite forms. Purusa Sukta(in Rig veda, Taiitiriya Brahmana etc.) makes it clear that Narayana is Brahman and that Narayana has infinite forms. Also Purusa Sukta makes it clear that Narayana is beyond(transcendental to) all the created Universe.

Hence point no. 3, that Brahman does not have any FORMS can be rejected safely. Also point 2 is just due to worshipper's ignorance and can be rejected as per Purusa Sukta.

I do not think that Murti's are mere symbols. There is an elaborate procedure from carving the image to installing the Deities as per silpa shastras. There are elaborate ceremonies done like Prana Pratishthana, opening the eyes of Deity etc. where different Devatas and Lord Narayana is requested to manifest their persence in the Deity. It is clear from these rituals that Narayana is accepts all the services done to the Deity, just like any Vedic ceremonies(Yagyas) performed.

Hence point 4 is not at all right. Murti is not merely a symbol. Lord Narayana is personally accepting services from devotees and priests to grant Moksha to HIS devotees. A mere symbol cannot do this. It is the residing place of Lord.

To call Murti's as mere symbol is an insult to Lord. In addition it is equally egregious error to think that the material of Murti is itself Lord.

The following link provides some information on Vaikhanasa Agama. If anybody has more information on Agamas and their philosophy please provide it with quotes from scriptures. I could not find any material from net or otherwise regarding Pancaratra or Vaikhanasa agamas.

http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Vaikhanasa

sarabhanga
10 April 2006, 01:07 AM
Namaste,

If the “Idol” is taken as a whole, with all its particularities, then that bright image is only a guide for meditation on that which is unimaginable without any distinguishing marks. And that view of the Murti is Akala (which should not be worshipped).

If the true “Idol” is taken to be only that undivided dark point of the “Pupil of the Eye”, then that dark ocean is Kala, which is the aim of all Hindu Murti Puja.

The most important aspect of Hindu worship is Darshana (Sight), which essentially involves a direct (eye to eye) communication between Jivatman and Paramatman.

Singhi Kaya
10 April 2006, 02:37 AM
We again have a divyachari virachari clash here.
This morning while reading a treatise on tantras, the author wanted to convey that dhyana that generally describes a murti (idol) is more important. dhayna was later written to give a better idea of the murti, so that the sadhak can visualize the murti while reciting the dhyana.

This is similar to buddhist idea, where deities have reduced position than hinduism. But Hinduism dhyanas are much more profound than the murti it conveys. Each letter and each word of dhayana sometimes contains a multitude of experienced knowledge expressed in a symbolic language. The visual diety is the visual form imagined to convey a much exalted state of a cosmic conciousness. I adhere to this view. This is more tuned to path of knowledge. Ofcourse visualizations or murti dhayan are great meditative exercise - but it is the begining (followed by Jyoti, Bindu and culminating in Brahma dhyana or samadhi). The written dhyana often contains much more subtle phylosophical information for the thinking mind.

orlando
20 June 2006, 12:20 PM
Generally those who live in western countries or among people of semitic faith must face questions and/or abuses about Deity Worship. It is sad that even some Hindus use the word "Idol worship" for "Vigraha archanas" we do in temples.

1. The first point is Hindus have to recognoze that the words "Idol worship" has a derogatory meaning and hence should stop using such words at all.

2. The second point is most Hindus have no idea "what is 'Muti Puja' ?" and often have a misconception that the material with which the Murti itself is worshipped.

3. The third point is Hindus themselves have a diverse philosophies where some believe Brahman does not have form and others that Brahman does have form.

4. Some have the idea that Murti is merely a symbol to concentrate.

I will try to present the idea as far as I know. If anybody has more knowledge, they can present.

I started a new thread on this subject, because instead of presenting our own ideas on this subject, it is better to see what the scriptures themselves say.

I request anybody who has read regarding Murti Puja as per Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa Agamas can present about philosophy of Murti Puja better.

As per Vaishnava traditions, Narayana(Brahman) has infinite forms. Purusa Sukta(in Rig veda, Taiitiriya Brahmana etc.) makes it clear that Narayana is Brahman and that Narayana has infinite forms. Also Purusa Sukta makes it clear that Narayana is beyond(transcendental to) all the created Universe.

Hence point no. 3, that Brahman does not have any FORMS can be rejected safely. Also point 2 is just due to worshipper's ignorance and can be rejected as per Purusa Sukta.

I do not think that Murti's are mere symbols. There is an elaborate procedure from carving the image to installing the Deities as per silpa shastras. There are elaborate ceremonies done like Prana Pratishthana, opening the eyes of Deity etc. where different Devatas and Lord Narayana is requested to manifest their persence in the Deity. It is clear from these rituals that Narayana is accepts all the services done to the Deity, just like any Vedic ceremonies(Yagyas) performed.

Hence point 4 is not at all right. Murti is not merely a symbol. Lord Narayana is personally accepting services from devotees and priests to grant Moksha to HIS devotees. A mere symbol cannot do this. It is the residing place of Lord.

To call Murti's as mere symbol is an insult to Lord. In addition it is equally egregious error to think that the material of Murti is itself Lord.

The following link provides some information on Vaikhanasa Agama. If anybody has more information on Agamas and their philosophy please provide it with quotes from scriptures. I could not find any material from net or otherwise regarding Pancaratra or Vaikhanasa agamas.

http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/cgi-bin/kbase/Vaikhanasa

Namaste Shri kannan1.
According to Sri Vaishnavism the,the Supreme Lord Bhagavan Sriman Narayana has five forms.
These five forms are called:
1. Para
2. Vyuha
3. Vibhava
4. Antaryami
5. Archa

The Para form is that of Lord Vishnu in Vaikunta,the spiritual world where He lives along with Lakshmi, Bhudevi and Niladevi.There, He is also called Para Vasudeva.
http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/images/bimages/vaikuntha.jpg
I suppose that almost everyone already know the Para form of Lord Vishnu.
http://www.panditjiusa.com/Vishnu.jpg

Archa avatara,the fifth form of Lord Vishnu, is that where the Lord is worshipped in the temples.
This means that a murti is the Archa form of Sriman Narayana.
The following murti belongs to Ranganatha temple.
http://www.ranganatha.org/pics/2005/Adyayana_Utsavam/images/p5200020.jpg

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
79.Is there any difference between these five forms of the Lord, which you have explained. (Para, Vyuha,etc.)?

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#79
79.There is absolutely no difference. The Lord is fully present in all these five forms; and everyone can worship the Lord, in whichever form he likes, and in whichever temple he likes.

This means that a murti of Lord Vishnu is Lord Vishnu Him-self.

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_matter.html
37.What is suddha sattva?
38.Where is Suddha Sattva?


By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_matter.html#37
37.Suddha sattva, as the name indicates, is pure sattva, without any mixture or trace of the other two qualities, namely, rajas and tamas.
38.Sri Vaikunta or Paramapada is fully suddha, sattva. In this world also, the archa forms of Sriman Narayana and Lakshmi in the temples are suddha sattva.

I think that this means that the material of Murti is itself Lord Vishnu.
I don't know if even the murti in the house's altar are considered Archa avatara form of the Lord.
http://www.isvara.org/plaza/img/IVG-76.jpg
I request someone to explain me this.
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
20 June 2006, 12:42 PM
Para Vasudeva - inaccessible from Earth, even for the greatest Yogis and even devas.
Vyuha Vasudeva - again virtually inaccessible except the greatest saints and devas
Vibhava Vasudeva - available only in certain places and times.
Antaryami Vasudeva - available only for Yogis.
Archa - until you have the qualification for one of the above, what else is the way?

A piece of stone or idol without any formal installation is a mere piece of stone. When it is installed in a prescribed vedic way, it gets chaitanya and becomes an Archa avatara. Certain idols like Saligramam are considered to be Archa Avatar without any such rituals.

The power (chaitanya) of an idol is based on many factors:

1. The person or the saint who installed the diety.
2. The daily puja offered to the murti.
3. The faith of the devotee.
4. The place of the diety, which is more in centres of pilgrimage charged with the spiritual vibrations of the devotees.

Shuddha Sattva is symbolically represented by gold, and is of the nature of pure bliss.

orlando
20 June 2006, 12:51 PM
Namaste Shri Sudarshan Maharaja.
First I request you to not use the word "idol".Please use thr word murti.
My previous questions was:even the murtis in the house'altars are considered Archa form of the Lord?Or does this apply only temples's murtis?
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
20 June 2006, 01:35 PM
Namaste Shri Sudarshan Maharaja.
First I request you to not use the word "idol".Please use thr word murti.
My previous questions was:even the murtis in the house'altars are considered Archa form of the Lord?Or does this apply only temples's murtis?
Regards,
Orlando.

Both are considered Archa as long as installation is done properly and regular puja is done. I am not concerned with the term "idol". If you think murti and idol are one and the same, then it should not matter. It is like getting upset when Bhagavan is called God! So what is your equivalent term for murti or vigraham in English?

orlando
21 June 2006, 08:55 AM
Vibhava Vasudeva - available only in certain places and times.

I recite Rama many times every day.Rama-Nama is my main spiritual practice.
Someone told me that after I will have done Rama-nama 960 millions times I will become siddha in Rama-NAma and I will have the darshan (vision) of Lord Ramachandra.
http://www.sfairos.it/Shanti/images/rama%20e%20sita.jpg

Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
21 June 2006, 09:18 AM
I recite Rama many times every day.Rama-Nama is my main spiritual practice.
Someone told me that after I will have done Rama-nama 960 millions times I will become siddha in Rama-NAma and I will have the darshan (vision) of Lord Ramachandra.


Saint Tyagaraja is said to have seen Lord Rama by reciting the name continuosly with devotion for several years, and towards the final stages he had gone beyond daily life and even sleep. I think it is beleived that he did that so many times ( several crores). Seeing Rama must not be taken in a literal sense of course, it is more than that - and is not really related to vision with the eye. It is like Arjuna's vision of Krishna.

960 millions - At 2 per second, you could do 86,400 for 12 hours/day. That means approx 10,000 days of continued practice, or roughly 25 years. No ordinary person can do this. Looks like a worthy goal in life amdist all these materialsm.:)

Znanna
21 June 2006, 06:43 PM
(I hope y'all dont consider this off topic, please forgive if you deem it so.)

I know little of idol worshipping, just what I read and see pictures and whatnot and the conclusions I've formed as a result.

But, the decoration, dressing up, the ritual of participation (puja) .. these things remind me of playing dolls as a little girl. In the dressing up and enacting with the doll, to an extent, I identified with the doll (Barbie, in my case, hehe) .. I *became* the doll in a way, in my mind. I can't help but thinking there is a process evident here, which sort of goes without saying.

I adore that there are more than 300 million gods in Hinduism :) I think it's just great that so many aspects have been identified and given form through worship. Pretty much, for any contingency, there's an appropriate godform to appeal to/merge with/focus on. That's so cool.

And, even better, is the Godz, the multiplicity which are unity ... only defined by one's particular point of view.

Thanks for indulging my random thoughts.



Namaste,
ZN



____________
Just a girl ;)

satay
21 June 2006, 09:08 PM
( I adore that there are more than 300 million gods in Hinduism :) Namaste,
ZN



____________
Just a girl ;)

namaste!
This comment of yours caught my eye...may I ask where you got this number of 300 million gods in hinduism?

The reason why I ask is that I have seen similar numbers 300 million/ 330 million etc. on the internet about hindu gods...but just curious where you got the number from.

Just curious.

Znanna
22 June 2006, 04:29 AM
namaste!
This comment of yours caught my eye...may I ask where you got this number of 300 million gods in hinduism?

The reason why I ask is that I have seen similar numbers 300 million/ 330 million etc. on the internet about hindu gods...but just curious where you got the number from.

Just curious.

Two tantrika friends of mine whom I respect as well-versed said this to me, and I also had subsequently seen other references on the 'net.

Is this untrue, or allegorical?


ZN

satay
22 June 2006, 09:37 AM
Two tantrika friends of mine whom I respect as well-versed said this to me, and I also had subsequently seen other references on the 'net.

Is this untrue, or allegorical?


ZN

okay, thanks. No, I was just asking...I have never seen a good explanation of this. I don't know of any reference in the scripturs of 300 or more million gods. This seems like a propaganda spread by anti-hindus but I have noticed that some hindus also say such things so that's why I asked for the reference.

In my mind, the number 330 million or 330 million gods in hinduism is not true. I only know of maybe 10 or 20 menifestations of one GOD in hinduism!

Singhi Kaya
22 June 2006, 10:14 AM
330 million was the population of India during the time of independence ??

Znanna
22 June 2006, 05:03 PM
okay, thanks. No, I was just asking...I have never seen a good explanation of this. I don't know of any reference in the scripturs of 300 or more million gods. This seems like a propaganda spread by anti-hindus but I have noticed that some hindus also say such things so that's why I asked for the reference.

In my mind, the number 330 million or 330 million gods in hinduism is not true. I only know of maybe 10 or 20 menifestations of one GOD in hinduism!

Well, both of my friends are Indian Hindus, sooo ... I doubt it is propaganda!

My impression was that these are manifestations, yes, but a WHOLE lot of them. Aren't there several forms, for example, of Tara? Counted separately, these all add up to a lot :)


Namaste,
ZN

satay
22 June 2006, 06:36 PM
Well, both of my friends are Indian Hindus, sooo ... I doubt it is propaganda!



hi,
not to put a too fine line on the point but just because hindus repeat 'something' doesn't mean that it is not the result of propaganda fed to them or to their parents!

I would like to see some reference in the scriptures for this number that's all... to my knowledge (which is very limited of course) there is no such reference.



My impression was that these are manifestations, yes, but a WHOLE lot of them. Aren't there several forms, for example, of Tara? Counted separately, these all add up to a lot :)


could be a 'lot' but a lot is not equal to 300 million!

I think that the propaganda started because of limited understanding of hinduism. Since vedanta says 'there is no separate me' and that there is only one conciousness all around and we look like we are separated due to maya...to an outsider (or to even to an insider) it follows that 'we are then GOD'. The actual number could be related to the number of people following hinduism at the time propaganda started. If that's the case there are around 1 billion GODS in hinduism...:) or if we are all one with god or gods then there are as many gods as the human population of this planet!

:D

This number is a propaganda regardless of 'indian hindus' repeating it!

ZN[/QUOTE]

ramkish42
22 June 2006, 10:01 PM
300 million / 330 million gods, I think, refers to devas and not gods as such.

Dwellers of Heaven are identified as Devas, in my places prime devas are said in different numbers but while indicating their whole lot the number 33 crores is used

sarabhanga
23 June 2006, 01:52 AM
330 million was the population of India during the time of independence ??
It is true! And with Independence in 1947, every formerly bonded Jiva was revealed as a self-luminous Deva.

satay
23 June 2006, 11:15 AM
It is true! And with Independence in 1947, every formerly bonded Jiva was revealed as a self-luminous Deva.
:D :Roll: :1cool:

Devibhakta
23 June 2006, 11:51 AM
Namaste!

This has been an excellent thread, and I would like to add a little.

On the idol - murti issue, although objectively or denotatively they are equal, idol has come to have a connotation of a piece of material that itself is thought to be a God and worshipped. I am not sure this has ever been the case in any culture that uses idols, graven images, or whatnot, but some (Christians, for example) have invented this idea and apply it to anyone that interfaces with God through an idol (except themselves). For this reason, I prefer to avoid saying idol, and in any case if I say murti to a non-Hindu, it usually is followed by a question, and gives me a chance to do some explaining.

I believe that everything is alive, if just more or less awake, even rocks and electrons and paramanus. Everything and every being exists at every level of reality, such as the koshas of humans. This means that a murti, because of the care taken in producing it, does indeed represent the God to the point that one can say the God somehow indwells or actually is the murti. But the same is true of ourselves: we are in a sense murtis, we are our God. Maybe poorly said, but thanks for listening.

sarabhanga
23 June 2006, 11:33 PM
deva means “heavenly or divine”, and it is also applied to terrestrial things of high excellence.

deva indicates a Deity or God.

The plural devAs refers to the Gods, as “the heavenly or shining ones”, and particularly the 33 Vishvadevas.



ये देवासो दिव्येकादश स्थ पृथिव्यामध्येकादश स्थ ।
अप्सुक्षितो महिनैकादश स्थ ते देवासो यज्ञमिमं जुषध्वम् ॥


ye devāso divyekādaśa stha pṛthivyāmadhyekādaśa stha |
apsukṣito mahinaikādaśa stha te devāso yajñamimaṁ juṣadhvam ||
[RV I: 139.11]


O ye Eleven Gods whose home is heaven,
O ye Eleven who make earth your dwelling,
Ye who with might, Eleven, live in waters,
Accept this sacrifice, O Gods, with pleasure.


Eleven Rudras penetrating all the Three Worlds gives us 33 Devas in all!

The Rigveda’s 33 categories of shining Aditya, as expressed in the Hindu population of the newly independent Republic of India, was swollen to 33 crore of liberated Jivas in 1947.

satay
24 June 2006, 11:16 PM
Eleven Rudras penetrating all the Three Worlds gives us 33 Devas in all!

The Rigveda’s 33 categories of shining Aditya, as expressed in the Hindu population of the newly independent Republic of India, was swollen to 33 crore of liberated Jivas in 1947.

Namaste!
I have read about the number 33 for devas. I am curious to know who started this '33 crore liberated jivas in 1947 and thus 330 million gods in hinduism propaganda. Is this indian hindus that started this? Just curious.

Anyway, '330 million liberated jivas' doesn't make any sense. First of all, British didn't control our 'jiva' and jivas were always in maya and are still in maya. British independence has nothing to do with libearation of jivas. Secondly, it is hard to swallow this 'pil' of 330 million gods as one only need to look at the past 59 years of India and see what thse 330 million gods have done to Bharat in general and sanatana dharma in particular!

300 million gods, I think not!

sarabhanga
25 June 2006, 01:09 AM
33 koṭi (Hindi: korī, kora, karoṛa, or kroṛa) indicates 33 points, horns, eminences, or splinters ~ 11 rays penetrating 3 worlds, giving 33 korī (divisions or classes) of Devas from the one Vishvadeva.

In addition, Sanskrit koṭi and Hindi korī are both used to indicate an immeasurably large number, and particularly the figure of 10 million.

It is clear that the idea actually arises directly from Sanskrit, and the connexion with political liberation in 1947 is fortuitous.

Sudarshan
25 June 2006, 07:22 PM
It is true! And with Independence in 1947, every formerly bonded Jiva was revealed as a self-luminous Deva.

:Roll:

charitra
07 May 2013, 01:25 PM
Namaste,
I have seen many abrahamics denouncing hinduism as mere Idol worship and misleading one and all by making the faith just another version of the ancient egyptian faith and Ramon and Greek faiths . By equating hinduism with the now nonexisting above faiths they are tryingto lure the hindus away from their religion. In fact contemporary Iranians makea mockery of hindus by characterizing them as ‘gaab parasthaar’, literally meaning 'cow worshippers'. Iranians call their own ancestors, the zathurashrians or Zorastrians (Parsis), as ‘aathish parastaars’ or fire worshippers. It is shocking that Iranians summarily hate their own ancestors and sadly provide no serious reason for such visceral hatred. The ‘’hatred generates out of their Friday prayer sermons’’, one Iranian friend explained to me a few years ago. Some excellent points were raised enlightening how hinduism’s murthy worship is incomparable to the above mentioned faiths and some other pagan faiths that were predominant in Europe in the past. The below excerpt from Huston Smiths book is yet another articulate explanation elaborating the essence of the murthy worship. I felt like sharing it with you all:

Idol worship: The concept of idol worship in Hinduism is explained by a Chinese scholar – Huston Smith. He writes:


Enter Hinduism’s myths, her magnificent symbols, her several hundred images of God,
her rituals that keep turning night and day like never-ending prayer wheels.
It is obtuse to confuse Hinduism’s images with idolatry, and their multiplicity with polytheism.
They are ‘runways’ from which the sense-laden human spirit can rise for its “flight of the alone to the Alone”.
Even village priest will frequently open their temple ceremonies with the following beloved invocation:
O Lord, forgive three sins that aredue to my human limitations:
Thou art everywhere, but I worship you here;
Thou art without form, but I worship you in these forms;
Thou needest no praise, yet I offer you these prayers and salutations,
Lord, forgive three sins that are due to my human limitations.

- World’s religion by Huston Smith.

philosoraptor
07 May 2013, 04:08 PM
"Idol-worship," if you look at the dictionary definition and historical usage, refers to the deliberate worship of "craven" (i.e. false or manufactured) images. In the Judeo-Christian context, the recently-freed Hebrews committed a sin by making up a god in the form of a golden calf and worshiping it as a god.

Although many Indian Hindus use the term "idol" innocently, technically it is not correct to use the term "idol worship" to describe archa-murthi worship because the archa-murthi is not regarded by traditional Hindus as a false image, but rather an image sculpted in the likeness of the deity as described in the scriptures.

Note that this again applies to traditional Hinduism. In Neo-Hinduism, archa-murthies are indeed regarded as manufactured images given to us by great sages to focus our meditation. When one supposedly realizes that the deity is beyond all name and form, then he can dispense with the "idol" and just worship the formless, nameless, attributeless deity directly. So, to the Neo, the murthy is indeed a false image which serves as a means to an end.

Necromancer
08 May 2013, 05:28 AM
Aum Swastiyastu

The date of the previous posts in this thread has surprised me. Holy necrobump! Seven years in the making!

I was going to ignore this thread because of it, but there's not much else I can talk about on here right now.

Skimming the posts in this thread, I can only re-iterate what has been aforementioned, but in my own way.

Murti Puja is not 'idol worship' because we put our own faith and feelings into the whole concept behind the Deities whenever we pray. It is the focal point for our conscious awareness...like a clay/metal 'transmitter' to the Divine One.

My teenage daughter cannot understand how anything can survive once decapitated and having an animal head placed on the shoulders (Lord Ganesha, Daksha Maharaj etc).

I am still rather hesitant about all that myself and rarely pay Lord Ganesha any mention (apart from the necessary obeisances at the start of my Pujas). I just never 'got' Lord Ganesha (yes, I know the stories inside-out, but that makes no difference whatsoever).

So, when I say "Lord Ganesha exists because Lord Shiva can break every rule of material existence, physics and matter", she's like 'typical, predictable answer there' (she is an Atheist).

When all matter is an illusion and Lord Shiva can only be worshiped in the form of Jyotir Lingam because even the various Murtis and illustrations fall way short of the mark...however, they are there to remind us that something beyond this mortal veil exists and we are not the all-knowing beings we often pretend to be.

We could worship anything really and then if we try hard enough, we can become like that thing or very close to it...some worship money and become rich...others worship food and get fat...Hindus worship Murtis to gain blessing/guidance from the Almighty One and become just one step closer to a merger with the Cosmic Being.

We can call Him/Her Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu, Lord Ganesha, Maha Kali, Jagad Ambe and then worship our chosen deity in the form that is most pleasing to us. It is an individual choice.

I worship (a statue of) Lord Nataraja, but most of my devotion is produced from early oil paintings and pre-1960's lithographs of Lord Shiva and Lady Parvati dancing. I also have a beautiful image of Ardharnarishwar and a picture of Maha Kala/Avalokiteshwar from Tibet. I also really like Kannada Devotional music (I never learned the language, but I can understand it!). All of this makes me remember Lord Shiva.

Just surrounding ourselves with the beauty that is Bhagwan in our own sense...in our own way and what makes us feel peaceful, happy and 'in tune' with our God and environment...then we pay homage to that every day. This is real Puja.

It's very difficult to follow the path of Agama without anything...without reference to any God/Deity besides a name and a somewhat vague description...hard for the mind to associate with That. It's also hard for the heart to love That (this will come later)...Murti worship is only a stepping stone on the way to Infinite Oneness...until then, God must be assigned a form so that out limited minds and senses can understand it in its most miniscule adaptation and representation.

Aum Namah Shivaya

JaiMaaDurga
15 July 2013, 08:38 AM
Namaste,

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvGlR2VdJ9A) is a video with a good answer for critics of murti puja.

JAI MATA DI

Jeffery D. Long
15 July 2013, 03:18 PM
"Idol-worship," if you look at the dictionary definition and historical usage, refers to the deliberate worship of "craven" (i.e. false or manufactured) images. In the Judeo-Christian context, the recently-freed Hebrews committed a sin by making up a god in the form of a golden calf and worshiping it as a god.

Although many Indian Hindus use the term "idol" innocently, technically it is not correct to use the term "idol worship" to describe archa-murthi worship because the archa-murthi is not regarded by traditional Hindus as a false image, but rather an image sculpted in the likeness of the deity as described in the scriptures.

Note that this again applies to traditional Hinduism. In Neo-Hinduism, archa-murthies are indeed regarded as manufactured images given to us by great sages to focus our meditation. When one supposedly realizes that the deity is beyond all name and form, then he can dispense with the "idol" and just worship the formless, nameless, attributeless deity directly. So, to the Neo, the murthy is indeed a false image which serves as a means to an end.

Please don't overgeneralize about us poor Neos. Some of us have a third view that the image is no more (or less) false than anything else in the realm of name-and-form and its usage appropriate at any stage to cultivate and express Bhakti.

philosoraptor
15 July 2013, 06:03 PM
Please don't overgeneralize about us poor Neos. Some of us have a third view that the image is no more (or less) false than anything else in the realm of name-and-form and its usage appropriate at any stage to cultivate and express Bhakti.

Pranams,

If I have overgeneralized, then it is only because certain past masters of Neo-Hinduism have done so, too, in presuming to speak for all of us. In which case, I have no problem with Hindus recognizing that said persons have indeed over generalized. Swami Vivekananda famously told people at the World Parliament of Religions that, "Idolatry in India does not mean anything horrible, it is not the mother of harlots. On the other hand it is the attempt of undeveloped minds to grasp high spiritual truths."

I am fairly certain that none of the followers of Ramanuja, Chaitanya, Vallabha, and many more Hindu traditions would regard the practice of archana as indicative of an "undeveloped mind." On the contrary, they see it as evidence of a purified mind. That Vivekananda and his modern followers cannot grasp this is just one more example of the estrangement of Neo-Hinduism from its traditional roots.

regards,

Jeffery D. Long
15 July 2013, 06:20 PM
That Vivekananda and his modern followers cannot grasp this is just one more example of the estrangement of Neo-Hinduism from its traditional roots.

Namaste!

As a modern follower of Vivekananda, I believe I can grasp this just fine. I think that Swamiji's wording on this occasion was most unfortunate. That he spoke as boldly about Hindu traditions as he did during his time is, I think, very much to his credit. On some occasions, though, I think he conceded more than we would be willing to do today to the sensibilities of his western, nineteenth century, mostly Protestant, audience, who found even the Roman Catholic Christian use of images to be "idolatry," what to speak of Hinduism or Buddhism.

He also taught us not to follow any teacher blindly, including himself, but to utilize our critical capacities. In the modern Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement of TODAY, the twenty-first century, murti puja is not a controversial topic. It is neither denigrated nor discouraged, and is in fact performed in our centers. Let's move beyond the nineteenth century.

The kernel of truth I find in Swami Vivekananda's utterance on this occasion is that we should move beyond attachment to any particular form. But this is not incompatible with using form to go beyond form, to That of which all form is a manifestation. This may be a legitimate topic of disagreement among Hindus of different sampradayas. But it does not have to create the gulf that a too stark statement of it (such as that which Swami Vivekananda arguably made in the lecture you are citing) would indicate.

Pranams and sincere regards.

philosoraptor
15 July 2013, 10:22 PM
Namaste!

As a modern follower of Vivekananda, I believe I can grasp this just fine. I think that Swamiji's wording on this occasion was most unfortunate. That he spoke as boldly about Hindu traditions as he did during his time is, I think, very much to his credit. On some occasions, though, I think he conceded more than we would be willing to do today to the sensibilities of his western, nineteenth century, mostly Protestant, audience, who found even the Roman Catholic Christian use of images to be "idolatry," what to speak of Hinduism or Buddhism.

Pranams,

There is nothing "unfortunate" about Swami Vivekananda's wording, because it clearly revealed his views on this subject, formulated as they were during a time when the influence of Christianity and secular humanism on Indian thought was at an all-time high. It was a time when Hindu thinkers fooled themselves into looking for "higher truths" that went beyond "rituals" and "idols," and thus they developed a worldview more in line with the relatively aniconic religions like Christianity.

I am hard-pressed to believe that with his other speeches being so eloquent, Vivekananda nevertheless somehow bungled the talk on "idol worship" such that he ended up saying something that was the opposite of what he really meant.



He also taught us not to follow any teacher blindly, including himself, but to utilize our critical capacities. In the modern Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement of TODAY, the twenty-first century, murti puja is not a controversial topic.

In the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement of TODAY, lay followers continue to describe icon-worship as an optional exercise, intended primarily for spiritually immature minds. The same view is endorsed by Swami Chinmayananda and his followers and is also held by Sai Baba followers (both Shirdi and Puttaparthi). Indeed, I rarely find Neo-Hindus who do not hold this view, or some permutation thereof.


It is neither denigrated nor discouraged, and is in fact performed in our centers.

Naturally. Since icon worship is integral to Hindu culture, the RK missions have to perpetuate it in order for Hindus to identify with them.



Let's move beyond the nineteenth century.

The kernel of truth I find in Swami Vivekananda's utterance on this occasion is that we should move beyond attachment to any particular form. But this is not incompatible with using form to go beyond form, to That of which all form is a manifestation.

If that indeed was Swami Vivekananda's point, then it is even more offensive than his insinuation that icon worship is for dumb people. For most Vaishnava traditions with which I am familiar, meditation on the Lord's divine qualities is both a means to His grace as well as the result thereof. It is not the case that a Vaishnava "uses" the Lord's murthi form to gain some conception of Him that is beyond form. The idea of moving "beyond attachment to any particular form" is a crassly atheistic sentiment in this context, for Upanishadic conception of Brahman is that of a parama-purusha with countless heads, eyes, arms, feet, and hence, countless divine qualities, and who can bestow His grace on the aspiring soul longing for a vision of Him.


This may be a legitimate topic of disagreement among Hindus of different sampradayas. But it does not have to create the gulf that a too stark statement of it (such as that which Swami Vivekananda arguably made in the lecture you are citing) would indicate.

Well, aside from the fact that it's the polar opposite of what most Vaishnava Vedanta traditions teach, and it was spoken to an assembly of non-Hindus without qualifying the remarks as being non-representative of the Hindu spectrum, I guess I can't see why they should create such a gulf of difference. I mean, why should anyone object if his religious beliefs are misrepresented? Shouldn't we just give credit to Vivekananda for speaking so boldly? Hmmmm......

Jeffery D. Long
15 July 2013, 10:33 PM
The idea of moving "beyond attachment to any particular form" is a crassly atheistic sentiment in this context...

This is rather a new definition of atheism: to include belief in a divinity that has both an informed (saguna) and formless (nirguna) nature. I've always taken atheism to refer to the denial of the existence of any divinity whatsoever. Perhaps you see gradations of atheism, in which one is most theistic when affirming only divinity-with-form, less theistic when affirming divinity-without-form, and maximally atheistic when denying divinity altogether? That's fine, if you want to stipulate the meaning of a term in this way. But it's not what is generally meant by the term "atheism."

We've had abundant discussion in other threads in which we've agreed that Swami Vivekananda's teaching is distinct from much of traditional Hindu, especially Vaishnava, belief. I've also agreed with you (and said elsewhere in my published writings) that to simply identify Swami Vivekananda's teaching with Hinduism, without qualification, would be a misrepresentation. So for me, this is not particularly controversial.

I do think, though, that you have a very strong preoccupation with this topic. I do not criticize you for this, because we all have our own preoccupations. Some here on HDF are preoccupied with ISKCON. You are preoccupied with Swami Vivekananda. But I do not find that such conversations tend to be very edifying for anyone involved when views are so deeply established and evocative of such intense passions.

With respect and sincere appreciation for your perspective. I do find your postings well-informed and informative.

Jeffery D. Long
15 July 2013, 11:20 PM
Upanishadic conception of Brahman is that of a parama-purusha with countless heads, eyes, arms, feet, and hence, countless divine qualities, and who can bestow His grace on the aspiring soul longing for a vision of Him.

As you and others have noted elsewhere, there are Upanishadic references that can support both saguna and nirguna conceptions of Brahman. This is why brilliant people like Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and the other premodern acharyas were able to develop such divergent views of what the Siddhanta should be: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Bhedabheda, etc. It's a perilous venture to say what THE scriptural conception of anything is, given what a complex and internally varied literature we are discussing. One can cite only scriptural references that refer to the divine form and ignore the ones that speak of the divine as beyond form; or we can only cite the references that refer to the divine as beyond form and ignore the ones that speak of the divine qualities. One can cite only scriptural references that support universalism and ignore the ones that rank the devatas in a hierarchy; or we can cite only scriptural references that rank the devatas in a hierarchy and ignore the ones that support universalism. We can explain away anything we dislike as an interpolation or a corruption of the text. And so on.

None of this is to say that seeking the true meaning of scripture is not a worthwhile endeavor: perhaps the most important endeavor a human being can pursue. My point is only that this is not easy, and we need to be cautious about brandishing "the" Upanishadic conception of anything.

jignyAsu
16 July 2013, 08:53 AM
If that indeed was Swami Vivekananda's point, then it is even more offensive than his insinuation that icon worship is for dumb people. For most Vaishnava traditions with which I am familiar, meditation on the Lord's divine qualities is both a means to His grace as well as the result thereof. It is not the case that a Vaishnava "uses" the Lord's murthi form to gain some conception of Him that is beyond form.

Pranam,

I would like to add here that the belief of deity pervading the Vigraha was not exclusive only to Vaishnava traditions alone. Infact I think that most Hindus pre British, did see the actual deities in their temple and did not consider it to be for lesser minds.

If my memory serves right, one Nayanmar saint sacrificed his life for a Shiva Linga. Having not even 1% of devotion or renunciation of these great saints, many Hindus today claim to have a vision beyond them.

It is indeed painful to see established swamis propogating the idea that Murthi worship is for lesser minds be it Swami Vivekanand or Sri Sri. And all this was unnecessary.

Jeffery D. Long
16 July 2013, 09:25 AM
Pranam,

I would like to add here that the belief of deity pervading the Vigraha was not exclusive only to Vaishnava traditions alone. Infact I think that most Hindus pre British, did see the actual deities in their temple and did not consider it to be for lesser minds.

If my memory serves right, one Nayanmar saint sacrificed his life for a Shiva Linga. Having not even 1% of devotion or renunciation of these great saints, many Hindus today claim to have a vision beyond them.

It is indeed painful to see established swamis propogating the idea that Murthi worship is for lesser minds be it Swami Vivekanand or Sri Sri. And all this was unnecessary.

I personally love practicing murti puja. I have many times been brought to tears in gazing upon--and more importantly, in being gazed upon by--the concrete form of the divine.

Regarding Swami Vivekananda, on this particular topic, I am conflicted. On the one hand, I do not agree with the view of his that is so often quoted in this regard (and I know that on other occasions he not only endorsed, but practiced, murti puja).

On the other hand, I do not claim to have even 1% of the mental development of Swami Vivekananda.

philosoraptor
16 July 2013, 12:36 PM
This is rather a new definition of atheism: to include belief in a divinity that has both an informed (saguna) and formless (nirguna) nature.

Pranams,

Actually, this is not what I said at all. What I characterized as atheistIC was the idea of "moving beyond form" as you put it, not the mere belief in Brahman having a two-fold nature of having form/formlessness.

It may surprise you to know that the viShNu purANa also endorses a concept of Brahman having an aspect with form and an aspect that is formless. However, the context of the shloka indicates that the aspect with form refers to the material universe, which He pervades, and thus could be said to be one of His forms. The aspect that is "formless" refers to bhagavAn Himself, in any of His bodies with divine qualities - He is "formless" only in the conventional sense that a form is made up of matter, while His "form" is made up of vishuddha-sattva. Note that this is a very different take on the form/formless dichotomy that is postulated by Advaitins and Neo-Advaitins.


I've always taken atheism to refer to the denial of the existence of any divinity whatsoever. Perhaps you see gradations of atheism, in which one is most theistic when affirming only divinity-with-form, less theistic when affirming divinity-without-form, and maximally atheistic when denying divinity altogether? That's fine, if you want to stipulate the meaning of a term in this way. But it's not what is generally meant by the term "atheism."

That is why I did not use the term "atheism," but rather, "atheistIC," i.e. having qualities or views that are reminiscent of atheism. For the Vaishnava theist (and I dare say most Hindu theists pre 18th century, but I'll let representatives of those traditions speak for themselves), there is no concept of "moving beyond" the form of the deity. The Deity's form IS real, the service done to Him is real, and the devotee's meditation on His divine qualities is an essential component of his saadhana. Not only at the level of this phenomenal world, those same activities persist even for the muktas in Sri Vaikuntha. Whether bound or liberated, the devotees derive great bliss in observing and discussing these divine qualities of Brahman, and of interacting with Him in various modes. To them it is like drinking nectar. Sometimes they even debate with each other as to which of the divine qualities is most glorious. This is a kind of bhAvam that they have. Non-muktas cannot understand their bliss, what to speak of atheists.

When you begin arguing that the form of The Lord having divine qualities is merely a means to an end in realizing His formless aspect, it is basically moving in the direction of atheism. Sure, you do not deny the existence of a Supreme Entity as one must technically do in order to be classified as an atheist. But by presenting an impractical object of meditation that is without form, personality, or qualities, you take away the possibility of any meaningful interaction or relationship with Him. One might as well be an atheist, for without the possibility of real, permanent, loving interactions with Him, there is no bliss to be had there. It is similar to the sense in which the padma purANa declares monism to be nothing more than veiled Buddhism. Factually, Monism is not Buddhism. But it might as well be, for their conclusions are both impersonal and unsatisfying.

I am reminded in this regard of a story I once heard of a beggar who came looking for food at a house, only to be turned away by the lady of the house who told him, "There is no food here, now get out!" Walking away dejected and hungry, he met the lady's mother-in-law in the streets, who was incensed that her daughter-in-law should tell the poor beggar that there was no food to give. She brought the beggar into her house, and once there, turned on him and said, "Now, I am the mother-in-law. I am the one in charge here. And I am telling you, there is no food here, now get out!"



We've had abundant discussion in other threads in which we've agreed that Swami Vivekananda's teaching is distinct from much of traditional Hindu, especially Vaishnava, belief. I've also agreed with you (and said elsewhere in my published writings) that to simply identify Swami Vivekananda's teaching with Hinduism, without qualification, would be a misrepresentation. So for me, this is not particularly controversial.

Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge the reality that Swami Vivekananda did identify himself repeatedly with "Hinduism," without qualifying it, and his lay followers continue to do that to this day. Their behavior reveals that they do not acknowledge the legitimacy of theistic forms of Hinduism, especially (in my experience) when members of those traditions assert themselves and their disagreement with the politically-correct, Neo-Advaitin meta-narrative on what "Hinduism" is. We've seen plenty of examples of that on this forum alone.



I do think, though, that you have a very strong preoccupation with this topic. I do not criticize you for this, because we all have our own preoccupations. Some here on HDF are preoccupied with ISKCON. You are preoccupied with Swami Vivekananda. But I do not find that such conversations tend to be very edifying for anyone involved when views are so deeply established and evocative of such intense passions.

According to forum statistics, I have 1,269 postings, inclusive of articles I posted along with responses to other postings. I would be very surprised if I mentioned Vivekananda in even 50 of them, and then too in most cases as a response to something someone else said. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be "preoccupied" with something.

I don't see it as in any way suspicious when one wants his beliefs, culture, and traditions to be represented truthfully. Most Vivekananda followers object when Westerners misrepresent Hinduism, and they are arguably "preoccupied" with the opinions of Leftist scholars and Christian missionaries. It's only when traditionally-minded Hindus correct Vivekananda's misrepresentations of their beliefs that followers of the latter will insinuate that the former are "preoccupied" with him, as if just going along with Vivekanda's misleading propaganda is the default standard of normal behavior.

As an aside, you objected to my statement that Neo-Hindus see the deity form as a means to an end, i.e. to realize the Deity's formless aspect. But then later, you acknowledged the need to "move beyond form." So... essentially, you have agreed with the point that I made that for Neo-Hindus, deity-worship is a means to an end. Hence, I am not clear on what you are objecting to at this point. If world is false, then so is the conception of the Deity. If the world is real, then the Deity's form is real, in which case you have no argument for asserting the primacy of a "formless aspect" (in the sense understood by Advaitins) over the aspect posessing form.



As you and others have noted elsewhere, there are Upanishadic references that can support both saguna and nirguna conceptions of Brahman.

I have not seen explicit references to "saguna" brahman anywhere. What I have consistently observed is that the shruti declares Him to be "beyond tamas" (Rig veda 10.90.1), "free from evil/old age/disease/birth" (chAndogya upaniShad 8.7.1), "not this, not this" (bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 4.2.4), and so on - all indicating that He is certainly beyond the guNa-s of sattva, rajas, and tamas.

However, you may have meant "guNa" in a more general sense of having attributes.


This is why
brilliant people like Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and the other premodern acharyas were able to develop such divergent views of what the
Siddhanta should be: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Bhedabheda, etc. It's a perilous venture to say what THE scriptural conception of anything is, given what a
complex and internally varied literature we are discussing. One can cite only scriptural references that refer to the divine form and ignore the ones that speak of
the divine as beyond form; or we can only cite the references that refer to the divine as beyond form and ignore the ones that speak of the divine qualities. One
can cite only scriptural references that support universalism and ignore the ones that rank the devatas in a hierarchy; or we can cite only scriptural references that rank the devatas in a hierarchy and ignore the ones that support universalism. We can explain away anything we dislike as an interpolation or a corruption of the
text. And so on. None of this is to say that seeking the true meaning of scripture is not a worthwhile endeavor: perhaps the most important endeavor a human being can pursue.
My point is only that this is not easy, and we need to be cautious about brandishing "the" Upanishadic conception of anything.

I disagree. One can certainly speak of what the upaniShad-s teach if one does so in full cognizance of each of its seemingly contradictory viewpoints. As far as rAmAnuja is concerned, all of the shruti is authoritative, whether it be a bedha shruti, abedha shruti, or ghataka shruti, and he does not have to arbitrarily assign some more desirable statements to the status of "mahA-vAkyas" and others to the status of "alpa-vAkyas" in order to support his viewpoint. The shrutis indicating that brahman is the parama puruSha with countless limbs (and by extension, qualities), and that He is beyond tamas (and thus, His form is non-material) are authoritative and should be accepted by everyone. The idea that His "formlessness" (as Advaitins understand it) is somehow a higher concept than that of His having form appears so far to be a sectarian interpolation without explicit basis in authoritative granthas.

EDIT: Of course, I do agree with the point that understanding the message of the upanishads is not easy and requires considerable effort directed by a qualified guru

regards,

Jeffery D. Long
16 July 2013, 05:05 PM
Namaste, Philosoraptor,

Interesting and intellectually engaging as always! Please allow me to respond (hopefully in kind):


Actually, this is not what I said at all. What I characterized as atheistIC was the idea of "moving beyond form" as you put it, not the mere belief in Brahman having a two-fold nature of having form/formlessness.

Fair distinction (between atheistic and atheist/atheism).


It may surprise you to know that the viShNu purANa also endorses a concept of Brahman having an aspect with form and an aspect that is formless. However, the context of the shloka indicates that the aspect with form refers to the material universe, which He pervades, and thus could be said to be one of His forms. The aspect that is "formless" refers to bhagavAn Himself, in any of His bodies with divine qualities - He is "formless" only in the conventional sense that a form is made up of matter, while His "form" is made up of vishuddha-sattva. Note that this is a very different take on the form/formless dichotomy that is postulated by Advaitins and Neo-Advaitins.

Having studied the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, this does not surprise me at all, and is very close to my own view.


That is why I did not use the term "atheism," but rather, "atheistIC," i.e. having qualities or views that are reminiscent of atheism. For the Vaishnava theist (and I dare say most Hindu theists pre 18th century, but I'll let representatives of those traditions speak for themselves), there is no concept of "moving beyond" the form of the deity. The Deity's form IS real, the service done to Him is real, and the devotee's meditation on His divine qualities is an essential component of his saadhana. Not only at the level of this phenomenal world, those same activities persist even for the muktas in Sri Vaikuntha. Whether bound or liberated, the devotees derive great bliss in observing and discussing these divine qualities of Brahman, and of interacting with Him in various modes. To them it is like drinking nectar. Sometimes they even debate with each other as to which of the divine qualities is most glorious. This is a kind of bhAvam that they have. Non-muktas cannot understand their bliss, what to speak of atheists.

Your last point gets to the heart of the matter, I think. The Lord's qualities are acintya (inconceivable) to those of us still caught up in the material plane. I would suggest the hypothesis that when Advaitins (and certainly Neo-Advaitins) speak of formlessness and when texts like the Viṣṇu Purāṇa speak of formlessness, they are both referring to the same ontological reality. Yes, they are saying two distinct things. I am simply giving my interpretation (in keeping with the spirit of Sri Ramakrishna) that these are different ways of trying to describe that before which mere human language recoils.



When you begin arguing that the form of The Lord having divine qualities is merely a means to an end in realizing His formless aspect, it is basically moving in the direction of atheism.

But only if one does not bear in mind what I take myself to be meaning when I make this argument.


Sure, you do not deny the existence of a Supreme Entity as one must technically do in order to be classified as an atheist. But by presenting an impractical object of meditation that is without form, personality, or qualities, you take away the possibility of any meaningful interaction or relationship with Him. One might as well be an atheist, for without the possibility of real, permanent, loving interactions with Him, there is no bliss to be had there. It is similar to the sense in which the padma purANa declares monism to be nothing more than veiled Buddhism. Factually, Monism is not Buddhism. But it might as well be, for their conclusions are both impersonal and unsatisfying.

This is of course the classic objection of bhakti mārgīs against the jñāna mārga. Why can we not simply say that these are two different ways of approaching divinity, suited to different personalities, with neither being superior to the other? Bhagavān Śri Kṛṣṇa says that both types of seeker find Him, only the jñāna mārga is more difficult (for the reasons you have rightly noted). Bhagavad Gītā 12:2-5.


Unfortunately, we have to acknowledge the reality that Swami Vivekananda did identify himself repeatedly with "Hinduism," without qualifying it, and his lay followers continue to do that to this day. Their behavior reveals that they do not acknowledge the legitimacy of theistic forms of Hinduism, especially (in my experience) when members of those traditions assert themselves and their disagreement with the politically-correct, Neo-Advaitin meta-narrative on what "Hinduism" is. We've seen plenty of examples of that on this forum alone.

But I am not one of those people, and I am willing to count myself a member of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement while maintaining a critical stance, and not always agreeing in every respect with everything that Swamiji ever said. I see far more continuity than difference between the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda with traditional Hinduism than either you or the lay followers that are your pūrva pakṣa tend to grant.


According to forum statistics, I have 1,269 postings, inclusive of articles I posted along with responses to other postings. I would be very surprised if I mentioned Vivekananda in even 50 of them, and then too in most cases as a response to something someone else said. I guess we have different ideas of what it means to be "preoccupied" with something.

What I meant was that the idea of Hinduism that many have formed on the basis of (I would say a very partial understanding of) the teachings of Swami Vivekananda is something that clearly bothers you a great deal, distorting or omitting, as it does, important elements of traditional Hinduism that you rightly hold dear. It's a "hot button" issue for you. That's all I meant by "preoccupied." (And my goodness, 1,269 postings! Young man, you should get out more. :) Just kidding, of course. But that's a lot of postings.)


I don't see it as in any way suspicious when one wants his beliefs, culture, and traditions to be represented truthfully. Most Vivekananda followers object when Westerners misrepresent Hinduism, and they are arguably "preoccupied" with the opinions of Leftist scholars and Christian missionaries. It's only when traditionally-minded Hindus correct Vivekananda's misrepresentations of their beliefs that followers of the latter will insinuate that the former are "preoccupied" with him, as if just going along with Vivekanda's misleading propaganda is the default standard of normal behavior.

I think corrections need to be made (and I have contributed in a small way to making them in my own work) to some of the oversimplifications of the representation of Hinduism that have occurred based on people's readings of Swami Vivekananda. But I don't think we need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Where you and I probably disagree is that I think there really is a baby there (in Swamiji's teachings), whereas you probably think it's just all bathwater. Again, your argument is fine, I simply don't recognize myself as the target you describe.


As an aside, you objected to my statement that Neo-Hindus see the deity form as a means to an end, i.e. to realize the Deity's formless aspect. But then later, you acknowledged the need to "move beyond form." So... essentially, you have agreed with the point that I made that for Neo-Hindus, deity-worship is a means to an end. Hence, I am not clear on what you are objecting to at this point. If world is false, then so is the conception of the Deity. If the world is real, then the Deity's form is real, in which case you have no argument for asserting the primacy of a "formless aspect" (in the sense understood by Advaitins) over the aspect posessing form.

Ah, you've outed me as a traditional Hindu theist! :) I do not subscribe to the view that the formless has primacy over form, or vice versa. Although Swami Vivekananda does hierarchize them in this way, and Sri Ramakrishna does so once or twice, Sri Ramakrishna more often simply identifies them, and traces the distinction between them to the consciousness of the observer, seeing both as simply different facets of the same divine Reality. When I talk about "seeing beyond form" I am speaking in a more mundane fashion (Sanskrit really is better than English for these topics) about symbolism in general: how a thing can indicate ("point beyond itself toward") another thing.


I have not seen explicit references to "saguna" brahman anywhere. What I have consistently observed is that the shruti declares Him to be "beyond tamas" (Rig veda 10.90.1), "free from evil/old age/disease/birth" (chAndogya upaniShad 8.7.1), "not this, not this" (bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 4.2.4), and so on - all indicating that He is certainly beyond the guNa-s of sattva, rajas, and tamas.

However, you may have meant "guNa" in a more general sense of having attributes.

I would say having mundane (i.e. material) attributes: non-acintya attributes (pardon the mixing of English and Sanskrit there).


One can certainly speak of what the upaniShad-s teach if one does so in full cognizance of each of its seemingly contradictory viewpoints. As far as rAmAnuja is concerned, all of the shruti is authoritative, whether it be a bedha shruti, abedha shruti, or ghataka shruti, and he does not have to arbitrarily assign some more desirable statements to the status of "mahA-vAkyas" and others to the status of "alpa-vAkyas" in order to support his viewpoint. The shrutis indicating that brahman is the parama puruSha with countless limbs (and by extension, qualities), and that He is beyond tamas (and thus, His form is non-material) are authoritative and should be accepted by everyone. The idea that His "formlessness" (as Advaitins understand it) is somehow a higher concept than that of His having form appears so far to be a sectarian interpolation without explicit basis in authoritative granthas.

I don't necessarily disagree. I just said we need to be cautious. Even when one has studied a great deal (as you clearly have, when you haven't been posting on HDF :) ), one needs to bear in mind that persons both more learned and more spiritually advanced than any of us have disagreed in their interpretations of these things.

I would finally add (getting back to the theme of the thread) a famous anecdote from the life of Swami Vivekananda. He was once visiting the court of a king in Rajasthan. The king was giving the kinds of objection to murti puja that one often heard in the nineteenth century and threatening to destroy the murtis in the temples of his kingdom. Swamiji then asked for a portrait of the king to be brought before him, and he asked the king's servants to spit on it. They of course refused to do so. He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Is that the king? Is it not just paint on a canvas?" The king then understood Swamiji's point that even if a murti is not the Lord in the full sense, like the king's portrait, it represents the Lord, and stands in for Him, and disrespect to the image amounts to disrespect for the Lord.

This was Swami Vivekananda, defending murti puja.

Om Tat Sat!

Ganeshprasad
16 July 2013, 05:21 PM
Pranam

it seems this Neo is not going away any time soon. If Vivekanand is Neo because of his views on Murti puja, i wonder what title we would give to Chanakya Pandit who predates all the Vedantist who are deemed here as traditional.

This is what Chanakya said in his neeti shastra
04-19

19. For the twice-born the fire (Agni) is a representative of God. The Supreme Lord resides in the heart of His devotees. Those of average intelligence (alpa-buddhi ) see God only in His sri-murti, but those of broad vision see the Supreme Lord everywhere.

Now i don't subscribe to this view of murti puja but it certainly is not new, far from it.

Perhaps we can put Neo to rest now, but somehow i doubt this.

Jai Shree Krishna

JaiMaaDurga
16 July 2013, 10:32 PM
I would finally add (getting back to the theme of the thread) a famous anecdote from the life of Swami Vivekananda. He was once visiting the court of a king in Rajasthan. The king was giving the kinds of objection to murti puja that one often heard in the nineteenth century and threatening to destroy the murtis in the temples of his kingdom. Swamiji then asked for a portrait of the king to be brought before him, and he asked the king's servants to spit on it. They of course refused to do so. He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Is that the king? Is it not just paint on a canvas?" The king then understood Swamiji's point that even if a murti is not the Lord in the full sense, like the king's portrait, it represents the Lord, and stands in for Him, and disrespect to the image amounts to disrespect for the Lord.

This was Swami Vivekananda, defending murti puja.


Namaste,

Perhaps my earlier post in this thread escaped notice, in the heat of discussion? ;)

JAI MATA DI

Jeffery D. Long
16 July 2013, 10:38 PM
Namaste,

Perhaps my earlier post in this thread escaped notice, in the heat of discussion? ;)

JAI MATA DI

Indeed it did! I beg your pardon. :)

Jai Mata Di! Jai Sri Maa!

philosoraptor
20 July 2013, 07:19 PM
Pranams,

Sorry for delayed reply. Had many matters pertaining to the so-called "real world" to deal with before I could budget more time for a lengthy discussion.



Your last point gets to the heart of the matter, I think. The Lord's qualities are acintya (inconceivable) to those of us still caught up in the material plane. I would suggest the hypothesis that when Advaitins (and certainly Neo-Advaitins) speak of formlessness and when texts like the Viṣṇu Purāṇa speak of formlessness, they are both referring to the same ontological reality. Yes, they are saying two distinct things. I am simply giving my interpretation (in keeping with the spirit of Sri Ramakrishna) that these are different ways of trying to describe that before which mere human language recoils.

I am not certain about describing the Lord's *qualities* as achintya, since it is the Lord's qualities that allows us to meditate on Him. Hence, satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ / namasyantaś ca māṁ bhaktyā
nitya-yuktā upāsate // gItA 9.14 // as well as similar verses elsewhere.

The Lord Himself, in the totality of all His glories, is certainly inconceivable. This is why Arjuna required divine eyes (gItA 11.18) to see Him in His virAT-puruSha manifestation. Even with that aid, He could not bear that vision for long, and requested the Lord to conceal those infinite glories and return to His previous form (gItA 11.45-46). This is significant, because while being the infinite Lord who pervades everything and is beyond all this matter, He conceals those glories and takes other forms (like that of Sri Krishna) so that His devotees can relate to Him in more intimate moods. What is important in this context is that His concealing of those glories does not in any way negate Him - He is always the infinite, all-knowing, all-pervading, eternally transcendental Supreme Person even when He chooses to take the form of, say, a helpless-appearing infant.

Now, this is relevant to our present discussion because, it is well known in shruti that to see this brahman, one has to have the purified senses (BU 1.4.7, IU 5, KaU 3.12, MNU 11, etc) to do so. What about those of us who are not yet on that level? Out of His mercy, He agrees to be worshiped in an iconic form. Once again, He is not in any way diminished by this process. The Lord Himself agrees to appear within the icon to receive the worship. In some cases, the Lord actually incarnates as the archa-murthy, as in places like Tirupathi.

This isn't just for neophytes like us, but also for advanced devotees who perform this seva due to spontaneous attraction. There are many gradations of bhakti, even on the platform of those who do not yet have the purified vision (see gItA 7.16-18 for one classification based on the devotee's motivations). All of them are great souls, although the one in knowledge is the one the Lord considers to be His very self (more on this later). The key point is His referring to them as "udārāḥ sarva evaite" - all these are great persons. If He feels that way even about the devotees worshiping Him for material gain, then who are we to suggest that those devotees are somehow of undeveloped mental capacity? This is one reason why Vivekananda's comments about deity worship are simply wrong.

Deity worship is an example of how the Lord makes Himself accessible even to those who don't otherwise have the ability to see Him. The varAha purANa 186.48 indicates that all varNa-s can perform this kind of worship. Note that this is unlike the meditative process described in the upaniShad-s which requires that one be twice-born and schooled in the veda-s in the traditional manner. It is an example of His causeless mercy that He allows us to approach Him in this way. The result of this compassionate act should never be downplayed as a path for the spiritually unenlightened.

Moreover, the process of deity worship is not just for neophytes. As mentioned previously, all the different devotees who choose to worship Krishna are great souls, so we cannot decry their authorized process of worship as being primitive. We have explicit examples in shAstra also of great devotees relishing the worship of the Lord through His iconic forms. One example is that of Prince bharata who joyfully worshiped Lord rAma via His sandals during the latter's forest exile (vALmIki-rAmAyaNa 2.113.1, 2.113.11-18, 2.115.22-24). There are numerous examples in Vaishnava history of great devotees who relished the service they performed to the Lord in His archa-murthy form, so much so that they did not wish to be parted from it. Both Sri Vaishnavas and Gaudiya Vaishnavas on this forum can each testify to supporting examples from their respective traditions. So once again, I must state very frankly, that those who think that Lord's appearance in His archa-murthy is somehow meant for spiritually undeveloped people, are expressing impersonalist and atheistic sentiments that are not consistent with the way this practice has been views historically and as described in shAstra.



This is of course the classic objection of bhakti mārgīs against the jñāna mārga. Why can we not simply say that these are two different ways of approaching divinity, suited to different personalities, with neither being superior to the other? Bhagavān Śri Kṛṣṇa says that both types of seeker find Him, only the jñāna mārga is more difficult (for the reasons you have rightly noted). Bhagavad Gītā 12:2-5.

Because they are NOT two different ways of approaching "divinity." On the contrary, as per shAstra, bhakti is built on a foundation of j~nAna. Indeed, bhakti and j~nAna are inter-related. Hence:

bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate |
vāsudevaḥ sarvam iti sa mahātmā su-durlabhaḥ || gItA 7.19 ||

which indicates that those who are having j~nAna surrender unto vAsudeva, and

mayi cānanya-yogena bhaktir avyabhicāriṇī |
vivikta-deśa-sevitvam aratir jana-saṁsad || gItA 13.11 ||

in which He lists devotion as one aspect of j~nAna, and

yo mām evam asammūḍho jānāti puruṣottamam |
sa sarva-vid bhajati māṁ sarva-bhāvena bhārata || gItA 15.19 ||

in which He states that those who know Him as the supreme puruSha (which hearkens to mind the descriptions of Him found in shruti) render devotional service to Him.

So in other words, j~nana is implicit in bhakti-yoga. It is not that one can select bhakti-yoga as a path because he has no interest in cultivating j~nAna. It is noteworthy in this context that Adi shankarAchArya, in his vivekAchudAmani, also defines bhakti in the context of j~nAna. So if he also agrees that bhakti and j~nAna are interrelated, then why should Neos disagree?

Even j~nAna-yoga, as described in shAstra, has a devotional basis. The bhAgavata purANa states, after describing the analytical process of j~nAna-yoga, that one should constantly remember the person who is the goal of yoga:

yamādibhir yoga-pathair ānvīkṣikyā ca vidyayā |
mamārcopāsanābhir vā nānyair yogyaṁ smaren manaḥ || bhAgavata 11.20.24 ||

This is reminiscent of a similar statement in the gItA (2.60-61) which states that the senses, being so strong and tending to wander, must be kept constantly in check by constant rememberance of the Lord (tāni sarvāṇi saṁyamya yukta āsīta mat-paraḥ).

So you see, whether one chooses bhakti-yoga, karma-yoga, or j~nAna-yoga, bhakti is implicit and is required in all three. There is nothing like a non-devotional yoga, and the Neos, who have constructed this artificial dichotomy of bhakti-yoga versus j~nAna-yoga, in which the latter dispenses with bhakti, have missed the point of what j~nAna-yoga is. What differentiates j~nAna-yoga from bhakti-yoga is not a lack of worship of the Lord, but rather an attitude of disgust towards the world of the senses and activity (see bhAgavata 11.20.7). Even in j~nAna-yoga, meditation on paramAtmA as the inner self of the jIvAtmA is still required, without which one will have much difficulty (see gItA 12.1-5).

Everywhere you look in lay Hinduism, bhakti is a constant feature. Whether it is in temple worship or home worship, devotional service to a deity is ubiquitous. The very act of worshiping a higher power is devotional by its very nature. It always amuses me when these modern thinkers treat bhakti as an optional process. Such ideas fly in the face of the reality that traditional Hindu practices are almost all bhakti-based in nature. Enter Swami Vivekananda into this reality, who was always interested in promoting his version of post-modern monism in the name of Hinduism, but was held back by the reality that Hinduism as it existed was just too bhakti-oriented to serve as a vehicle for his impersonalist ideology. This is one of the reasons why he downplayed deity worship. Failing to rid the Hindu consciousness of that "embarrassing" custom, the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Maths have continued to support it, recognizing the reality that lay Hinduism's inherently devotional practices makes it unlikely that ordinary Hindus will be able to relate to them otherwise.

But in spite of this, the ongoing attempts to downplay archana remain. The Hindu American Foundation, for example, quoting from Swami Chinmayananda, try to rationalize different aspects of deity worship to make it less offensive to the Hindu diaspora crowd raised on Western concepts of religion. According to them, we light lamps for the deity to "relieve our ignorance." And we move the offered lamp in a circular motion to symbolize the ongoing motion of the world and time. Krishna is blue because blueness symbolizes the infinite, and similarly Lakshmi's sitting on a lotus symbolizes something else. All these attempts to water down Hindu iconography and tradition are only appealing to people with atheistic or impersonalistic frame of mind who, due to their non-devotional interests, are somehow intoxicated with the idea that they are jnaanis. Real jnaanis are bhaktas, and they don't need these kinds of pseudo-scientific rationalizations to explain centuries of culture and scriptural practice.



But I am not one of those people, and I am willing to count myself a member of the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda movement while maintaining a critical stance, and not always agreeing in every respect with everything that Swamiji ever said. I see far more continuity than difference between the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda with traditional Hinduism than either you or the lay followers that are your pūrva pakṣa tend to grant.

As a scholar with an academic background, you have the ability to practice a religious tradition and yet mentally set yourself outside it in order to scrutinize it. This is useful when you have to discuss the tradition with other scholars - you can't seem like too much of a fanatical insider because you will lose intellectual credibility. However, it also means that you can reinterpret its traditions in the light of your own biases, and possibly fool yourself into believing that you are seeing it as it truly is. Thus, you may have views that are slightly different from those of the Ramakrishna monks whom you follow, but the reality is that most Ramakrishna followers whom I have met don't think as you do on this point. To them, deity worship is an affectation which can be dispensed with by one who has supposedly attained some "higher" level of realization.



I think corrections need to be made (and I have contributed in a small way to making them in my own work) to some of the oversimplifications of the representation of Hinduism that have occurred based on people's readings of Swami Vivekananda. But I don't think we need to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Where you and I probably disagree is that I think there really is a baby there (in Swamiji's teachings), whereas you probably think it's just all bathwater. Again, your argument is fine, I simply don't recognize myself as the target you describe.

I honestly don't see what Swami Vivekananda has contributed that people find so fascinating. If I want to learn Advaita, I would go straight to the writings of reputable scholars who were trained in that sampradAya. If we believe what Mahendranath Gupta (aka "M" one of Ramakrishna's biographers, if not his chief biographer) has to say about the subject, Ramakrishna was not really a Advaitin scholar, but rather more of a tantric of sorts, and Swami Vivekananda appears to have introduced more Advaitic elements into Ramakrishna's teachings in order to bring them in line with his own views. As far as I can see, people like Swami Vivekananda because he was charismatic, was trying to inject humanistic and rationalist sentiments into a Hinduism that was not appealing to a Western-educated audience, and because he did this by modifying Advaita (which is already appealing to people of atheistic/agnostic dispositions) and watering it down to give it more popular appeal.

regards,

Sudas Paijavana
21 July 2013, 12:51 AM
Namaste,

This thread has gotten more than 25,000 views! That's more than the population of Palau!! Awesome!!

Viraja
21 July 2013, 07:13 AM
Jnana marga is not bhakti marga:

As much as I know, the 2 paths are very different. Jnana need not have a foundation on bhakti marga.

When a renunciate concentrates on his breath and practices breath control using his ida and pingala nadis, the kundalini is supposed to rise up gradually and reach his Sahasrara chakra which is the ultimate destination when he is supposed to have fully self-realized. This corresponds with yogic practices/kriya yoga, etc and is not bhakti-yoga.

Why is there a path that does not have bhakti as its foundation?

Because all are not suited for bhakti, as all are not suited for yogic path either.

Omkara
21 July 2013, 07:28 AM
Jnana marga is not bhakti marga:

As much as I know, the 2 paths are very different. Jnana need not have a foundation on bhakti marga.

When a renunciate concentrates on his breath and practices breath control using his ida and pingala nadis, the kundalini is supposed to rise up gradually and reach his Sahasrara chakra which is the ultimate destination when he is supposed to have fully self-realized. This corresponds with yogic practices/kriya yoga, etc and is not bhakti-yoga.

Why is there a path that does not have bhakti as its foundation?

Because all are not suited for bhakti, as all are not suited for yogic path either.

This is a common misunderstanding, propagated by Neo-hindu teachers like vivkeananda. In my view, NO form of yoga is possible without Bhakti. These misconceptions generally stem from a lack of understanding of what bhakti actually is. i would recommend these articles-
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?12-Devotion-and-Emotion
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?90-Bhakti-Yoga
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?89-Jnana-Yoga

Lord krishna states that Jnana is a product of bhakti-
tesam satata-yuktanam bhajatam priti-purvakam
dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te

“To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the intelligence by which they come to Me.” (BG 10:10)

Viraja
21 July 2013, 08:08 AM
This is a common misunderstanding, propagated by Neo-hindu teachers like vivkeananda. In my view, NO form of yoga is possible without Bhakti. These misconceptions generally stem from a lack of understanding of what bhakti actually is. i would recommend these articles-
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?12-Devotion-and-Emotion
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?90-Bhakti-Yoga
http://www.dharmacentral.com/forum/content.php?89-Jnana-Yoga

Lord krishna states that Jnana is a product of bhakti-
tesam satata-yuktanam bhajatam priti-purvakam
dadami buddhi-yogam tam yena mam upayanti te

“To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the intelligence by which they come to Me.” (BG 10:10)

Namaste Omkara,

I will go through the links you provided.

However, I am to say here that my thinking is not influenced by Swami Vivekananda.

Even in the teachings of Sri Ramalinga Adigalar, he has said that praying to or practicing bhakti to a god with form is not necessary. I believe Sri Ramalinga Adigalar practiced vigorous yoga to reach his end of merging with god.

Jeffery D. Long
21 July 2013, 08:56 AM
Namaste,

This thread has gotten more than 25,000 views!

That's more than the population of Palau!!

Awesome!!

Regards,
Paijavana

Thank you, Sudasji, for pointing this out.

I think it proves that people enjoy thoughtful discussion, where disagreement is not accompanied by enmity, but all sides are involved in a friendly search for the truth.

I hope to see this thread continue in this manner.

Another contribution from me will need to wait for a couple of days (as with the thread on Swami Vivekananda to which I have been asked to supply some more information). But I will respond in greater depth soon to what Philosoraptor and others have posted.

Just a brief comment for now: I think we should be cautious not to lump the views of all lay followers of Swami Vivekananda in with his own views, and we should also be aware that Swamiji himself expressed different views at different times of his life and in different contexts. (News flash: Thoughtful people sometimes change their minds, and there is no shame in this.)

With pranams and best wishes to all.

philosoraptor
22 July 2013, 09:52 AM
Pranams,

There is nothing like "not being suited for bhakti." Anyone who is a jIvAtmA is, by the very fact of being a jIvAtmA, capable of rendering devotional service, especially if he has the fortune of being in a human body. Whether one chooses to worship the parama puruSha nArAyaNa, or an anya-devata, or even some non-Vedic deity, the underlying common denominator is the acknowledgement of a higher power than one's self, and the willingness to beseech that power for one's own benefit, whether that benefit be material or spiritual in nature.

Someone who states that he is "not suited for bhakti" is merely saying in effect that he refuses to acknowledge the existence of a higher power, and/or that he refuses to worship or surrender to that higher power. There are different labels we use to describe the different categories of people in this group: atheists, agnostics, deists, impersonalists, undecided, etc.

Note in this regard that "not being suited" or "not being capable" of doing bhakti-yoga is NOT the same thing as not being suited/capable of doing bhakti. Bhakti-yoga is a specific path of devotion that is based on the shruti-s (at least as far as Sri Vaishnavas are concerned), and has very specific qualifications that one must meet. But this does not mean that other paths are without bhakti. Omkar is quite correct in pointing out that both karma-yoga and j~nAna-yoga have a devotional basis, and are not so different from bhakti-yoga as modern free thinkers are quick to claim. In bhagavad-gItA, which discusses these points quite extensively, both karma-yoga and j~nAna-yoga are spoken of in relation to a higher entity, for whose pleasure one carries out the authorized works (karma-yoga), or on whom one must meditate in order to obtain the fruits of j~nAna-yoga. Again, I have posted some evidence discussing this, and I suggest that all readers review those pramANa-s. The point here is, there is no "non-devotional" path endorsed by the vedAnta, if by devotional we mean the generic sense of worshiping a higher entity.

I also agree with Sri Jeffrey Long's observation that thoughtful discussion without enmity is desirable for this forum, with the implicit understanding that we are all searching for truth.

regards,

Jeffery D. Long
28 July 2013, 01:14 PM
Namaste!

I have finally had time to respond in detail, as warranted, to this thread, but have decided to post my response on another thread (the one on Swami Vivekananda) due to the fact that the conversation has wandered somewhat away from the original topic of this thread (murti puja) and into the interpretation and evaluation of the teachings of Swami Vivekananda: a topic more appropriate to the Swami Vivekananda thread.

For the convenience of anyone interested, here is a link to my posting on that thread: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11772&page=3

Necromancer
29 July 2013, 12:29 AM
Thank you, Sudasji, for pointing this out.

I think it proves that people enjoy thoughtful discussion, where disagreement is not accompanied by enmity, but all sides are involved in a friendly search for the truth.

I hope to see this thread continue in this manner.

Another contribution from me will need to wait for a couple of days (as with the thread on Swami Vivekananda to which I have been asked to supply some more information). But I will respond in greater depth soon to what Philosoraptor and others have posted.

Just a brief comment for now: I think we should be cautious not to lump the views of all lay followers of Swami Vivekananda in with his own views, and we should also be aware that Swamiji himself expressed different views at different times of his life and in different contexts. (News flash: Thoughtful people sometimes change their minds, and there is no shame in this.)

With pranams and best wishes to all.
Namaste.

I think it proves conclusive evidence that we are being overrun by slurp spiders. :logic:

Aum Namah Shivaya

jignyAsu
29 July 2013, 07:54 AM
For the convenience of anyone interested, here is a link to my posting on that thread: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=11772&page=3


Dear Jeffrey sir, that was indeed a good post offering several insights. I would like to discuss a few points over here though, as such opinions about icon worship as propogated by Swami is held by quite a few Hindus today.



The only serious defense I might give of Swami Vivekananda’s comment at another point to the effect that murti puja is for those of lesser capacity would be to invoke a distinction between those who require such activities as murti puja for their spiritual evolution and those advanced souls who engage in it purely out of delight in the manifold forms of the Supreme Lord.


The difference in opinion as I see here is not about considering what is a better way of worship but its about how one perceives a Vigraha. In Swami Vivekanand's example, the king is actually not inside the picture and every painting is equalent. Going by this analogy, one would say that Vigraha is nothing but a symbol and there's no kind Lord abiding in.

It is true that many naive average Hindus can lack the wisdom that GOD is not only inside the Vigraha. However, when it comes to Vedantis like Sri Ramanuja and several saints and acharyas, the knowledge that God pervades everywhere is but a basic. They are not going to be surprised at all by the fact that God appears elsewhere to them and still their interactions with God were mostly inside the temples.

There are, then, few questions that arise:

1. How is a Vigraha that is installed with the Vedic agamas, central to all Hindus, different from say, a picture of a Lord painted by a random artist (which has its own importance).
2. To a person that has realized that God is not only in Vigraha, how does he perceive a Temple and say, a house of ill fame or sitting before the Lord in His Archa form and sitting in a bar?
3. Does this analogy as given by the Swami represent the majority of our Hindus, thousands of whom have sacrificed their lives in saving temples from the heartless Mugal invadors.
4. How was/is it possible for a Vigraha to attract millions of Hindus who would have otherwise remained agnostic or undecided, if it is like any picture.

Please note that saying that "God is not only in Vigraha" is not the same as how Swami puts it over here. The difference is further perceived by understanding that the answer was provided to convince the westerners who saw Vigraha worship as nothing but ignorance.

Please also note that my attempt is not show that any Swami is anti Hindu but only to show that the statement is not a good representation of the Hindu thought.



......at a time when many westerners not only are not repelled by, but are even attracted by, the beautiful imagery used in Hindu worship....


I would like to hear more about this. Do you think that westeners are getting out of the notion that worship Vigrahas are uncivilized? And I am not taking about the converts who have accepted Hinduism by heart, but about the general agnostic or religious audience.

Jeffery D. Long
01 August 2013, 08:31 AM
Dear Jeffrey sir, that was indeed a good post offering several insights. I would like to discuss a few points over here though, as such opinions about icon worship as propogated by Swami is held by quite a few Hindus today.

The difference in opinion as I see here is not about considering what is a better way of worship but its about how one perceives a Vigraha. In Swami Vivekanand's example, the king is actually not inside the picture and every painting is equalent. Going by this analogy, one would say that Vigraha is nothing but a symbol and there's no kind Lord abiding in.

It is true that many naive average Hindus can lack the wisdom that GOD is not only inside the Vigraha. However, when it comes to Vedantis like Sri Ramanuja and several saints and acharyas, the knowledge that God pervades everywhere is but a basic. They are not going to be surprised at all by the fact that God appears elsewhere to them and still their interactions with God were mostly inside the temples.

There are, then, few questions that arise:

1. How is a Vigraha that is installed with the Vedic agamas, central to all Hindus, different from say, a picture of a Lord painted by a random artist (which has its own importance).
2. To a person that has realized that God is not only in Vigraha, how does he perceive a Temple and say, a house of ill fame or sitting before the Lord in His Archa form and sitting in a bar?
3. Does this analogy as given by the Swami represent the majority of our Hindus, thousands of whom have sacrificed their lives in saving temples from the heartless Mugal invadors.
4. How was/is it possible for a Vigraha to attract millions of Hindus who would have otherwise remained agnostic or undecided, if it is like any picture.

Please note that saying that "God is not only in Vigraha" is not the same as how Swami puts it over here. The difference is further perceived by understanding that the answer was provided to convince the westerners who saw Vigraha worship as nothing but ignorance.

Please also note that my attempt is not show that any Swami is anti Hindu but only to show that the statement is not a good representation of the Hindu thought.

Namaste JignyAsu,

I really appreciate this posting of yours. As I mentioned also in my discussion with Philosoraptor, I am personally more in line with traditional Hindus than with Swami Vivekananda on this particular issue. (And I would add as an aside that, contrary to the view put forth by one member suggesting that I am incapable of differing from the teaching of Swami Vivekananda, I would cite this issue as a counter-example.) My reasoning here does not come from a traditional Hindu upbringing, because I did not have that, but because of some very powerful darśan experiences that I have had that only make sense to me if there is a real presence in certain murtis that is distinct from the fact that you mention that the divine presence is everywhere and in all things.

I believe our best guide to understanding this (and to addressing the specific questions you have raised) is the thinking of the traditional Hindu ācāryas, such as Sri Rāmāṇuja, who have written on this topic.

Clearly, even when Swami Vivekananda defended murti puja (as in the famous story of the portrait) his conception was only of what we might call "mere symbolism" rather than the fully developed theology of Vigraha. The principle I believe he was ultimately defending on this occasion was not so much murti puja as respect for the religious practices of others: enjoining the king, not to see the rightness of or to practice murti puja, but to refrain from preventing others from doing so and from belittling their practice.


I would like to hear more about this [more openness among westerners to murti puja]. Do you think that westerners are getting out of the notion that worship Vigrahas are uncivilized? And I am not taking about the converts who have accepted Hinduism by heart, but about the general agnostic or religious audience.

I think the view of the wider population is mixed. There are still many conservative Christians who would absolutely reject murti puja as an acceptable way to worship and are even critical of their fellow Christians (e.g. Roman Catholics) who do something similar to murti puja. And there are also many non-religious people who look down on all religious practice and would see murti puja as being particularly "primitive." So this negativity has not disappeared. But that segment of the population that is open-minded about learning from diverse cultures and religions has grown considerably since the time of Swami Vivekananda, and I find that, far from being turned off by murti puja, they find it very beautiful (but would tend to interpret it as a kind of symbolic practice, in line with Swami Vivekananda's teaching--having what Philosoraptor would call an "atheistic" mindset, in spite of a generally more open-minded attitude).

Progress is slow. But that does not mean it is not occurring at all.

Pranam.

jignyAsu
01 August 2013, 10:18 AM
I am personally more in line with traditional Hindus than with Swami Vivekananda on this particular issue. .....but because of some very powerful darśan experiences that I have had that only make sense to me if there is a real presence in certain murtis.

Namaste Jeffery. I thank you for taking the time to reply and I am happy to know your divine experiences. Indeed one shudders to even think about how would it have been, if India was devoid of all her temples and Vigrahas and God had said - find Me yourself.

In Srivaishnavam, we say that out of all the Avatars of the Lord, His Archa form is the best, being so accessible and that too to even a person like me.


But that segment of the population that is open-minded about learning from diverse cultures and religions has grown considerably since the time of Swami Vivekananda, and I find that, far from being turned off by murti puja, they find it very beautiful .....

Progress is slow. But that does not mean it is not occurring at all.


Indeed. Infact Hinduism is the only religion that accepts several states between 1 and 0. It is kind of easy for us to understand this.