PDA

View Full Version : Murthi/Idol Worship



satay
31 March 2006, 10:47 AM
"There is no reference to worship of idols in the Vedas. The Puranas and the Agamas give descriptions of idol-worship both in the houses and in the temples.

Idol-worship is not peculiar to Hinduism. Christians worship the Cross. They have the image of the Cross in their mind. The Mohammedans keep the image of the Kaba stone when they kneel and do prayers. The people of the whole world, save a few Yogis and Vedantins, are all worshippers of idols. They keep some image or the other in the mind.

The mental image also is a form of idol. The difference is not one of kind, but only one of degree. All worshippers, however intellectual they may be, generate a form in the mind and make the mind dwell on that image.
"


Excerpt from All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda

satay
31 March 2006, 10:50 AM
In fact, I would say that you can not not do "idol" worship.

Even if you are trying to not put a cross on the wall or on in your church, still you are worshipping the idol. Mere fact that going to church or masjid makes you feel a bit more spiritual means that that church or the building itself is an idol for you!

Christians always counter with "well, we don't bathe our crosses or put flowers on it"...

Well, why not! You should!! It feels good to do so...don't miss out of that opportunity...:)

satay

Namo Narayana
01 April 2006, 09:35 PM
In fact, I would say that you can not not do "idol" worship.

Even if you are trying to not put a cross on the wall or on in your church, still you are worshipping the idol. Mere fact that going to church or masjid makes you feel a bit more spiritual means that that church or the building itself is an idol for you!

Christians always counter with "well, we don't bathe our crosses or put flowers on it"...

Well, why not! You should!! It feels good to do so...don't miss out of that opportunity...:)

satay

Satay, very nicely pointed out. i think christianity or islam is wasting time by saying idol worship is wrong. they are creating unnecessary diversion to their spirituality (if such a thing exists ). hindu way of philosophy doesnt worry about these kind of unnecessary egoistic statements. basically these religions deposit ego in the mind of their followers. hindus are more tolerant because hinduism doesnt install ego in the mind. i am not saying 100% atleast a great majority.

Idol is a symbol of hope and love, inspiration. If you are born a human, you are susceptible to create an idol or icon . it only makes your life easier.

you can instantly bring your confidence and cheer by looking at the site of your icon or favorite deity. you might see a budding sportsperson getting inspiration looking at picture of a legend in the sport. you can keep on writing about this.

i think indians should barely give thought to what other religionists talk about hinduism. But i am not saying that we should tolerate the depictions of california text book society kinda issues. there are lot of people who try to trounce hinduism use caste , idol worship, poly theism as main criteria to irritate a hindu. but these people fail to understand the psychological aspects of hinduism.

Hinduism is not a mere teachings as other religions are. It is a universe. it is a complete package for people of all walks of life and level of thinking and age included. Hinduism has science built in it. it is devised on science and psychology and anthropology or any LOGY you may want to include, analogy barring. :)

Hindus should not be worried about polytheism or caste or any other BS dished upon them. Today in america the christians call themselves in atleast 10+ denominations. A follower of particular denomination scorns at the other. I have witnessed it. It was very funny. Person A says he worships the holy spirit. The other says he worships the Jesus. Oh what not. it only makes me feel christianity is just evolving and finally come a full circle to prove earth is round and will find itself redundant and all its transformation has been already told upon in Hinduism.

Ram
02 April 2006, 01:45 PM
"There is no reference to worship of idols in the Vedas. The Puranas and the Agamas give descriptions of idol-worship both in the houses and in the temples.

Idol-worship is not peculiar to Hinduism. Christians worship the Cross. They have the image of the Cross in their mind. The Mohammedans keep the image of the Kaba stone when they kneel and do prayers. The people of the whole world, save a few Yogis and Vedantins, are all worshippers of idols. They keep some image or the other in the mind.

The mental image also is a form of idol. The difference is not one of kind, but only one of degree. All worshippers, however intellectual they may be, generate a form in the mind and make the mind dwell on that image.
"


Excerpt from All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda

Symbolic worship is bad, damn bad...but what else do you worship since you do not know God? A sound, a picture, a idol, even an abstract idea-- all these are idols. The supreme being is beyond human ideas. Hinduism rightly identified this problem and allowed people to engage in many kinds of practices. Do whatever that makes you feel spiritual and God loving - rest are just bookish and superstitions. If an idol is what that makes you feel spiritual, that is the best for you.:)

Ram
02 April 2006, 01:47 PM
Today in america the christians call themselves in atleast 10+ denominations. A follower of particular denomination scorns at the other. I have witnessed it.

What about the other 1990 denominations?:p

Prasanthan
05 April 2006, 08:23 PM
I do not practice idol worship. But they say that idol worship is insulting God by portraying them using human materials and terms. But what about the idea of representing God with three letter words? Describing GOd with human words like "omnipresent", etc? Why do we have these petty differences in what we view as "idols". There is no way to properly describe God because we are humans, and as such it is called human interpretation. Why is it that interpretation by means of literature or audio is deemed proper, but visual interpretation is not so? When I look at an image of a deity, I do not worship it, but it reminds me of the many aspects of God, in one of the ways humans have interpreted them.

satay
11 August 2006, 03:30 PM
Who wants to stop me from offering milk to shivalingam? :p

orlando
16 August 2006, 05:15 AM
Who wants to stop me from offering milk to shivalingam? :p

I am not sure if the following statemente is made in Shiva Purana or in Linga Purana:one can worship Shivalingam only after the initiation and with the permission of a guru.
I suppose that you are already initiated from a true hindu guru.
If it is not so,the shaivites puranas don't allow you to worship Shivalingam.
Om Namah Shivaya!
Jai Shiva Shankara!
Hara Hara Mahadeva!

Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
16 August 2006, 05:54 AM
There is no such rule - in the path of Bhakti. The rules exist only for performing specified Karmas and rituals - which are usually of materialistic scope. No one cares for what puranas say - they contradict themselves repeatedly.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 03:11 PM
Would you mind if the stone were replaced with say an animal bone? If you cant accept this, then it means you consider something in the stone to be important or divine. So it means it is more than a 'symbol'. If only a symbol was needed we could use anything - why a particular stone?

No Hindu would bring some stone from the street and start worshipping it. The fact that there are some prescribed means for instalation and worship mean that the stone is more than a mere 'symbol'. The specfic ways make us see God in the symbol, whereas if we substitute something irrelevant we dont get the feeling. Could we allow the temple idol to be replaced by any material?

Various metals are used symbolically in idols.

For eg: Gold refers to pure consciousness. silver to akasa, and copper to vayu tattva and so on. Hindu idol worship seen at temples is based on the Hindu model of the universe, as indicated in the Sankyan system. The temple at Palani of Lord Shanmugha is typically said to have been installed by Siddha Boganatha, and is said to be comprised of many elements and have a deep spiritual significance. It is just not mere idols worship but related to cosmological involution which is the goal of Yoga.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=7039&postcount=79


With regard to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada., answers:




There are various reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning the origin of the Black Stone, but most of them are of doubtful origins. In Islam, we should not base our belief on sources which we cannot verify one hundred percent. The only fact that we can certainly establish is that it was put there by Prophet Ibrahim and Isma’eel (peace be upon them both) by the order of Almighty Allah, and the purpose of it was to indicate the beginning of Tawaf (Circumambulation of the Ka`bah).

Thus we as Muslims do not attach divine power to the stone. As `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said: “You are just a stone that does not benefit or harm anyone, and if I had not seen the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) kissing you, I would have not done so."

So, we are simply touching or kissing the Black Stone in order to honor us with association with the great Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); it does not imply any reverence whatsoever.
Peace.

Skill.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 03:15 PM
The Mohammedans keep the image of the Kaba stone when they kneel and do prayers.

Excerpt from All About Hinduism by Sri Swami Sivananda


Hello satay.

We are not call Mohammedans, but muslim.


Ans. Kaaba is the Qibla i.e. the direction Muslims face during their prayers. It is important to note that though Muslims face the Kaaba during prayers, they do not worship the Kaaba. Muslims worship and bow to none but Allah. Allah says: "We see the turning of your face (for guidance) to the heavens: now shall We turn you to a Qiblah that shall please thee. Turn then you face in the direction of the Sacred Mosque: wherever you are, turn your faces in that direction." [Al-Qur'an 2:144]

For instance, if Muslims want to offer Salaah (Prayer), it is possible that some may wish to face north, while some may wish to face south. In order to unite the Muslims in their worship of the One True God, Muslims, wherever they may be, are asked to face in only one direction i.e. towards the Kaaba. If some Muslims live towards the west of the Kaaba they face the east. Similarly if they live towards the east of the Kaaba they face the west.

Peace.

Skill

satay
26 August 2006, 04:02 PM
Hello satay.

We are not call Mohammedans, but muslim.
Peace.

Skill

Yes, but in india we also call muslims Mohammedans. It is not a derogatory term. I think it just means followers of Mohammad the prophet of islam.

Skillganon
26 August 2006, 04:13 PM
Yes, but in india we also call muslims Mohammedans. It is not a derogatory term. I think it just means followers of Mohammad the prophet of islam.

I respect that.

but it is more respectful to call by what the adherant of that religion calls themselve. i.e. Muslim.



[Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (in Islam).] (Al-Baqarah 2:136)

TruthSeeker
28 August 2006, 07:22 AM
With regard to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada., answers:




There are various reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning the origin of the Black Stone, but most of them are of doubtful origins. In Islam, we should not base our belief on sources which we cannot verify one hundred percent. The only fact that we can certainly establish is that it was put there by Prophet Ibrahim and Isma’eel (peace be upon them both) by the order of Almighty Allah, and the purpose of it was to indicate the beginning of Tawaf (Circumambulation of the Ka`bah).

Thus we as Muslims do not attach divine power to the stone. As `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said: “You are just a stone that does not benefit or harm anyone, and if I had not seen the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) kissing you, I would have not done so."

So, we are simply touching or kissing the Black Stone in order to honor us with association with the great Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); it does not imply any reverence whatsoever.

Peace.

Skill.

What about the Moon and the star symbol associated with Allah? ( can be seen on every Islamic flag). Now you are going to say Islam has nothing to do with the moon. Then why are muslims observing the "moon sighting" for Ramadan?( and other times). So the symbol "moon" is divine for muslims and represents Allah.

So Allah is indeed the "moon god" of pre Islamic Arabia. This moon god is
Soma, which is Shiva, who carries it on his hairlocks. Shiva does not mind murti puja, which is a kind of preliminary meditation..;)

TruthSeeker
28 August 2006, 07:33 AM
The Chandrama and Naxatra(moon and asterism) are symbols for the Atarva veda. So Islam is an offshoot of Atarva veda ~ perhaps a distorted (or authentic) one. I have even seen one nADi grantha referring to a muslim ( a nice gentleman known to me) as a Atarva veda Brahmana. ( that means caste is common to all people in the world regardless of whether you accept or not) :)

sm78
28 August 2006, 07:33 AM
Allah is Shiva in pre-islamic arabia, who has a half-moon on his head.

sm78
28 August 2006, 07:37 AM
So Islam is an offshoot of Atarva veda...
Islam is a dogma created by prophet muhammad towards the later half of the 1st mellinium.

The religion that existed before muhammad introduced Islam may have been a offshoot of Atharva vedic culture.

sarabhanga
28 August 2006, 10:32 AM
iDa indicates “fire” or agni in the yajus.

iLA indicates “vital spirit” or atman in the Rk.

And iDA or ilA indicates “immortal draught” or “sacred word” (i.e. gaÑgA or sarasvatI) throughout the veda.

In most later texts (including the mahAbhArata) ilA simply indicates either “the heavens” or “the earth”.

iDA or iLA is the daughter of manu (i.e. “man thinking on and worshipping the Gods”), and the consort of budha (i.e. “wisdom”) and the mother of purUravas (i.e. the progenitor of Ayu, and all of the sons of yayAti ~ including yadu and druhyu and turvasu and pUru and anu, along with bharata and kuru and dhRtarAshTra and pANDu).

The expression of “iLA-iLa-iLA-iLa-iLA” is very ancient formula for salvation. ;)

orlando
30 August 2006, 11:17 AM
By http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu_home/1994/msg00024.html
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 11:16:00 -0500 (EST)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

idols and Icons:
The Misrepresentation of Hinduism in the Press
By David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri)

There are a number of terms that are applied to Hinduism in the Press,
not only in the West but in India itself, which foster a negative
image of it. Hindus are routinely called worshippers of idols,
polytheists, and various other denigrating stereotypes, which do not
reflect any intelligent examination of the religion itself but what is
often an intentional campaign of misrepresentation and distortion.


All the religions of the world - with the general exception of
Protestant Christians, Muslims and Jews - use some sort of images or
statues in their religious worship. Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox
churches abound with statues, paintings and pictures of various types.
Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto groups use them as well. Native
American, African and Asian religions abound with them. The ancient
religions of the entire world from Mexico to Greece, Egypt, Babylonia,
Persia, India and China used images, as archeology so clearly reveals.
The use of images appear as an integral part of human religious
practices and no universal religion could be regarded as complete
without them. Even many Protestant Christians have pictures of Jesus
in their house or church, and Muslims often have pictures of their
religious or political leaders, occasionally even depictions of
Mohammed.

However, there is a strange dichotomy in how such religious imagesare
judged. When they are part of the Christian tradition they are called
icons and classified as works of art and regarded as sacred in nature.
When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they are
called "idols," which is a derogatory term that indicates not the
sacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American and
African images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayas
of Central America - which built great pyramids and had many great
cities - they are lumped along with so-called primitive art.



An image of Christ as the good shepherd is called an icon and viewed
with respect. An image of Krishna as the good cow herder - which is a
similar image of the Divine as watching over the souls of men - is
called an idol, which encourages one to look down on it. This is
prejudice and negative stereotyping in language of the worst order.
What Christian would accept calling a depiction of Christ an idol?
Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press
of Christian countries? What Christians in India would accept it?
And would not the govemment and news media of India change the
language in their favor? Yet Hindus routinely accept that
depictions of their deities - who represent as high a standard in
consciousness and ethical behavior as Christ - are demeaned as idols.
The news media of India does this commonly, which encourages the
Western news media to continue in this practice, which is part of
their negative depiction of Hinduism.

To call such images as idols implies that those who worship them
practice idolatry or take the image itself as a God. This adds yet
more prejudice and error to this judgement. The use of an image -
whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply belief in the
reality of the image. That we keep a photograph of our wife and
children at our work desk does not mean that we think our wife and
children are the photograph. It is a reminder, not a false reality.

Moreover, the use of the term idol inflames the sentiments of
anti-idolatry religions like Christianity and Islam, as both the Bible
and the Koran, at least in places, instruct their followers to oppose
idolaters and smash their temples and images. The use of the term
idol in the press, particularly in the Indian press, is thus careless,
insensitive, inflammatory, and communal. It should be removed in an
effort to promote greater understanding and good will between
religious groups. The use of such terms indicates that the news media
of India uncritically and unnecessarily uses terms that encourage
anti-Hindu attitudes. It is a hold over from the British rule in the
intellectual sphere, even though the British have long left the
country. What majority community in the world is so unaware of its
new media to allow such practices to continue? Yet this issue only
reflects many other prejudicial terms like Hindu chauvinism, Hindu
fundamentalism, and Hindu militancy which the often anti-Hindu Indian
news media frequently uses, while at the same time not using them in
regard to Islam and Christianity, even when they are much more
appropriate relative to the exclusivistic attitudes and greater
intolerance of these belief-oriented religions.

Using such terms as idols, the news media is not fostering
communication but promoting discrimination and violence. Such abuse
of language should be challenged and replaced wherever it is found,
whether relative to Hindus or anyone else.


[ Above article was given to Hindu Students Council (An International
Forum To Provide opportinity to learn Hindu Heritage) for publicity]

Skillganon
02 September 2006, 08:38 AM
What about the Moon and the star symbol associated with Allah? ( can be seen on every Islamic flag). Now you are going to say Islam has nothing to do with the moon. Then why are muslims observing the "moon sighting" for Ramadan?( and other times). So the symbol "moon" is divine for muslims and represents Allah.

As for the picture of the crescent moon, which some Muslims use as a symbol, this is due to the fact that the crescent marks the beginning of the Islamic months. Since the Muslim calendar is a lunar one - and not a solar one - some Muslims started using the crescent moon as a symbol on the flag, for instance. There is no doubt that the crescent moon has no significance other than this. It is not a “holy symbol”. This is because Islam does not believe in any “holy idols” or symbols to be worshipped!

The Qur’an says what means:


*{They ask you concerning the new moons. Say: They are but times appointed for [the benefit of] men, and [for] the pilgrimage … … …}* (Al-Baqarah 2:189)
[quote]
So Allah is indeed the "moon god" of pre Islamic Arabia. This moon god is
Soma, which is Shiva, who carries it on his hairlocks. Shiva does not mind murti puja, which is a kind of preliminary meditation..;)

There was no idol called “Allah”, though all the lesser gods of the Makkan pagans were represented by idols. As the Qur’an says, they claimed what means:


*{We only serve them [the idols] in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah.}* (Az-Zumar 39:3)

So the pagan Arabs believed in Allah as the Supreme Ruler of the universe, while praying to their lesser deities. Whereas Islam teaches that no one deserves our worship and prayers except Allah, Who is the Sovereign Creator and Cherisher of the universe.


Also Read this:

Among His Signs are the Night and the Day, and the Sun and the Moon. Do not prostrate to the sun and the moon, but prostrate to Allah, Who created them, if it is Him ye wish to serve. (Quran 41:37)

Anywayfor a detail refutation to Dr Morey's Moon-God refer to "Robert Morey's Moon-God Myth" by Shabir Ali. You can google it out on the net.

Peace Skill.

Sudarshan
02 September 2006, 11:20 AM
Namaste Skill,

Quran will say a lot of things denying its association with the moon. Muhammed similarly blew a lot of hot air, by claiming himself to be the last prophet ( he thought rest of the humanity were idiots, eh?). He claimed that Shariya law was universal and applicable accross all times. We found in practice that this law was impracticable and will never be practicable in future - any country that has a sizeable muslim popuiation always remain active volcanoes, unless it is an Islamic state. In an Islamic state there is not much problem because minority is just crushed down by the laws and there is peace. In other nations, muslims cannot remain peaceful and Islam is incompatible with democracy - this religion is outdated for the modern generation. Time to replace it with more peaceful religions and those that go along with democracy.

Skillganon
02 September 2006, 06:35 PM
Namaste Skill,

Quran will say a lot of things denying its association with the moon. Muhammed similarly blew a lot of hot air, by claiming himself to be the last prophet ( he thought rest of the humanity were idiots, eh?). He claimed that Shariya law was universal and applicable accross all times. We found in practice that this law was impracticable and will never be practicable in future - any country that has a sizeable muslim popuiation always remain active volcanoes, unless it is an Islamic state. In an Islamic state there is not much problem because minority is just crushed down by the laws and there is peace. In other nations, muslims cannot remain peaceful and Islam is incompatible with democracy - this religion is outdated for the modern generation. Time to replace it with more peaceful religions and those that go along with democracy.

Thanks for you compliment. :hug:

Do you a (appropriate) question?

Sudarshan
03 September 2006, 05:31 AM
Thanks for you compliment. :hug:

Do you a (appropriate) question?

Yes, I have a question.

I want to come to Mecca. I want to build a big temple dedicated to Lord Ranganatha in that city, and promote Srivaishnavism in Mecca. Am I allowed to do that?

explorer_of_the_mind
18 March 2007, 08:12 PM
Here's my perspective on the use of imagery in religion. I was raised a Catholic Christian, so I never had a problem with having religious art or icons. In fact, at the Latin rite church I went to, the inside of the church was lined with statues of saints on each side, and at the end of mass we would kiss a relic of Saint Jude, because it was thought to confer blessings. Conservative Protestants would often criticize Catholics as "idol worshipers" when in fact this was not the case. So in that sense, as a former Catholic I sympathize with the Hindus when they are so harshly criticized for having religious imagery, because Catholics have had to deal with the same criticism. I think a lot of fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants put the Bible on such a high pedestal that they nearly turn it into an idol. There is even a term for this; it is called "bibliolatry." So they have no right to admonish anyone for being "idolaters" because they are engaging in hypocrisy.

As a person who practices Buddhism, I have no problem with having a Buddha statue in my room. I think a religion without any artwork or imagery is a rather dull one. Even muslim mosques will have Arabic calligraphy of quotes from the Quran on them; but there is nothing wrong with this at all. Religious art is part of what makes religions so rich.

Jigar
19 March 2007, 10:38 AM
Namaste,
Similar to how christians create a Nativity scene on their lawns at christmas time, I created my own Temple of idolotry from my perspective of religion. I took the liberty of collecting art from the web and recreating it into a Mandir that I would like to share and welcome you all into:

Welcome to Krshna Bole Ram Mandir: I call it Jagdish. The petri dish of life. Jag meaning life.

1. I call this entrance the Abode:
http://img78.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abodepj9.jpg

2. I call this place Tirupathi:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abrahmanfl1.gif (http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=abrahmanfl1.gif)
http://img54.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tirupativm7.gif

3. Hanuman Mandir:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hanumanjiot8.jpg

4. jaiselmar - Dharmic temple for women:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jaiselmarkt9.gif

5. Diwal:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diwalpw1.gif

6. Conservatory:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=conservatoryrx8.jpg

7. Right Wing:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rightwingqg9.gif

8. A Mandap
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=auburnhillsmandapahmml1.gif

9. Laxmi Quarters:
http://img95.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lakshmiquartersmy7.gif

10. Parvati Nara:
http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=parvatinarralx9.jpg

11. The Agra Wall:
http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=agrawallhd3.gif

12. Kali Steppes:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kalisteppesur6.jpg

13. The Pawan Citadel with a banyan tree:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pavancitadelwd8.gif

14. Krshna Bole Ram Mandir:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=krshnabolarammandirlr8.gif

15. Cephalonautica:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cephalonautqt4.gif

16. Shivas gate: ( this artistic picture disturbs me. Someone tell this is Not Shiva conquerring over Krshna while he rests.)
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shivasgateyt8.gif

17. Sai Babba Singh:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=saibabbasinghmu2.jpg

18. The Garuda:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garudeav2.jpg

19. Vishnu Dinah:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vishnudinahtk7.gif

20. Gudarwa:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gudarwaxz4.jpg

21. ROM:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=romxn5.gif

22. Bonne:
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bonneda7.jpg

23. :Swastika
http://img481.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swastikexm7.jpg

24. http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=meesakyonso5.jpg


Swas Tik hai,
Jigar

Eastern Mind
16 September 2007, 09:21 PM
This thread hasn't been posted on lately, but I read the whole thing and never did I find any other explanation besides idols as being symbolic. To me its not symbolic at all. Inside that murthy, especially at puja times when called to do so, I believe exists a vibration, of the Deva or Mahadeva that the idol was made for. This vibration is built up collectively by devotees worshipping in true bhakta sincerity. The vibration is as real as we are. I believe Lord Ganesha can see me better than I can see him, through the eyes of the sacred murthi. A devotee noticing the deity wink at him, or shrug, or even dance, or change form isn't some sort of hallucination, its real. At kumbabishekams, why would the priests have an eye-opening ceremony? This is all within mystical beliefs about the temple, and what it can do. Its a mystical place where magic happens, and prayers are answered, a lot more than just a place to be peaceful, and have the 'symbol' have you reflect on the His being.
Aum Namashivaya

atanu
17 September 2007, 02:36 AM
This thread hasn't been posted on lately, but I read the whole thing and never did I find any other explanation besides idols as being symbolic. To me its not symbolic at all. Inside that murthy, especially at puja times when called to do so, I believe exists a vibration, of the Deva or Mahadeva that the idol was made for. This vibration is built up collectively by devotees worshipping in true bhakta sincerity. The vibration is as real as we are. I believe Lord Ganesha can see me better than I can see him, through the eyes of the sacred murthi. A devotee noticing the deity wink at him, or shrug, or even dance, or change form isn't some sort of hallucination, its real. At kumbabishekams, why would the priests have an eye-opening ceremony? This is all within mystical beliefs about the temple, and what it can do. Its a mystical place where magic happens, and prayers are answered, a lot more than just a place to be peaceful, and have the 'symbol' have you reflect on the His being.
Aum Namashivaya


Namaste EM,

This vibration is built up collectively by devotees worshipping in true bhakta sincerity. I fully agree. This is spirituality.


Spandan is all that we can see or perceive. As spandan, a murti -- a form, which is very ancient is more true than my existence in this body, which has existed only a few years.

Behind all this is the eternal consciousness. When a christian or muslim says that this body is temple of Lord, he should also understand that a murti is also temple of consciousness. When a picture of Jesus on cross or of crescent moon can evoke auspiciuos consciousness, a murti also does so.

A guru has said that christians are greatest idolators since most of them worship the body and not the spirit.

Om

PaneerTikka
30 December 2007, 09:03 AM
Just want to re-iterate that Hindus do not worship "idols". We do puja to murtis.
This word is used to denigrate the Hindu religion by Christian/Abrahamic religions. As wiki says "Idolatry is a major sin in the Abrahamic religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion) ....usually defined as worship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worship) of any cult image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_image), idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea), or object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28philosophy%29), as opposed to the worship of a God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)."

So by its very definition it criticizes a Hindu form of worship. It is strange that even learned Hindus use this term. As Hindus we need to challenge the word "idol" wherever it is used. The correct word is murti.

sarabhanga
30 December 2007, 10:34 PM
By its very definition it criticizes a Hindu form of worship. It is strange that even learned Hindus use this term. As Hindus we need to challenge the word "idol" wherever it is used.

Namaste PT,

Idol comes from the greek eidōlon, meaning “form, shape, or image”.
An idol is “an image or representation of a god or divinity used as an object of worship”.
An idol may be any object of extreme devotion, but especially a statue.

Icon comes from the greek eikōn, meaning “likeness, similitude, or image”.
An icon is “a sign with some factor in common with the object it represents”.
An icon may be a portrait or picture, a statue, or even a realistic description in writing.

Both terms indicate “a likeness”, and both are entirely applicable to the hindu understanding, although idol actually has more exactly the same meaning as mūrti.

In christianity, however, the term icon is used for “an image of jesus or a holy person that is venerated in the orthodox church”, whereas an idol is “a false god”, and thus “a counterfeit, sham, impostor, or pretender”, “an image without substance, a reflection, or a phantom”, “a fantasy, a false conception, a misleading notion or fallacy”.

An icon is defined by christians as a christian (thus, and ONLY for this reason, “true”) image, while an idol is defined by christians as a non-christian (and thus “false”) image.

While it may dominate, the christian perspective does NOT have sole rights to the english language. Many people today consider god (the very essence of good) as a dirty word, and it is mainly the prevailing christian attitude to this sacred essence which has tainted the popular understanding. But I will not cease from using the term “god”, and equally I will continue to use the terms “idol” and “icon” and “mūrti” as virtual synonyms.

Idolatry is considered a major sin in the abrahmanic religions, but it is traditionally considered as a major virtue in brahmanic religions ~ so why should we be at all concerned?

Don’t challenge the word ~ rather, challenge the perverted popular interpretation of that word!

devotee
31 December 2007, 06:25 AM
What is idolatory ?

Idolatory means worshipping the idol. Any person who is of normal prudence can understand that an idol ( made of non-living
matter) is not capable of doing anything .... So, why worship idol ? The person must be an idiot who does so. Let's understand this fact once & for all --- NOBODY WORSHIPS IDOLS ! A person always worships divinity / God. The choice of idol is for ease of concentration & for ease in relating to God. Every Hindu understands this & there is no explanation needed. For Hindus, God is omnipesent ... in each & every particle & even in space.
There is nothing in this world which is not His manifestation. So, he has no confusion at all. The problem lies in Abrahamical theory of God.

According to this theory :

1. God is a Jealous God.
( I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. : Ref : Exodus 20:2-17)

Now, if you mark God's words here, it reflects his "Need" to be worshipped ... not only that .... he is ready to punish those who don't worship Him only. He is not ready to accept any other God being worshipped.

2. God is biased. He prefers the Israelites to everyone else. God brought the Israelites out of Egypt "by war ... and by great terrors." Deuteronomy 4:34

3. God asks to destroy the altars, images, and places of worship of those with different religions. Deuteronomy 7:5. Burn and "utterly detest" the religious symbols of other faiths. They are an abomination to God. If you bring such an image into your house you will become "a cursed thing like it." Deuteronomy 7:25-26

There are so many examples & I think there is no need to reproduce all of them here. Similar references are there in the Q'uran too ( See Immunity 9.5 etc.).

The birth of Abrahamical religions as Judaism was under the tyrant rulers of Egypt, the Pharaohs ( in fact, the Bible mentions a particular one). They were earlier called Hebrews & later on Children of Israel or simply Israel. It is worth remembering that the Pharaohs were worshippers of idols.

These people ( the Israel) who were largely Monolators had to flee from Egypt & find a place to settle & form a new Nation. This is the time Moses has the vision of God & God reveals Laws (Known as Laws of Moses) to him. He also assures that if his people follow the Laws, He (God) would help them in exodus & to settle at a new location etc. Now, it is to be understood that getting a land to settle down & build their Nation was not an easy task because they had to fight the aborigin tribes for this. These tribes were also idolators called Pagans.

Now, we can see that for the people of this new faith had a big question of survival before them. They must Kill to survive or perish. The situation was that everyone except people of the new faith was idolator. So, there was a great need to give religious sanction to Killing & also instill fear in their own people to stop any conversion to Pagans/idolators. It was also necessary to instill in them a belief they were especially chosen ones by God Himself so that there will be unfailing cohesion among them & unfailing resolve to fight together even at the cost of one's life.
Therefore, the laws which despised idolatory & which sanctioned killing of idolators & destroying their countries were their historical requirements of the time when these laws were written & there was nothing wrong in it. Even in Hinduism, Lord Krishna exhorts Arjuna to kill his own borthers, elders & even teacher .... so sanction for killing is given which is justified in a particular time & place combination. If we understand this & then read the above quotes & quotes of Q'uran we can understand the relevance of those laws.

We must understand without any doubt that all scriptures are written by men & that no scripture was written by God. So, in every scripture, there is some scope of contamination depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment. Therefore, there must be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures with change of time & environment. When we fail to allow this, we are caught in a situation like the Talibans & other religious extremists.

Bob G
31 December 2007, 02:59 PM
We can knock ourselves out trying to spell out everything that has apparently gone wrong with various religions. (including the Abramhamic ones) I pose the question of how could anything really be going wrong if one really has (as much as humanly possible) a non-dualistic perspective? Thus those things from various human points of view that have gone wrong...can not really be going wrong in what could be called a non-dualistic-God point of view.

Further, all of these things going on are related to or tied to energies in flux, energies that are playing out according to laws that are of an unbreakable nature, that is if one really believes in divine order and non-dualism - which to me includes relative manifestations or relative dualistic happenings going on under Its umbrella so to speak; otherwise what do we have but a reality of independent and irreconcilable dichotomies?

Devotee, when you say:
"Any person who is of normal prudence can understand that an idol ( made of non-living matter) is not capable of doing anything" Seems to be a kind of a double-take like statement to me because you then proceed to recognize that, "A person always worships divinity / God".

Anyway, different forms of matter including "idols" formed of wood, metal, ceramic, etc. can or may be (mystically like) charged with different and or varying degrees of energy and thus are able do things; I believe the Devas and Mahadevas if they choose, can easily charge up various material forms for the purpose of tranfering energies through such mediums, which is not unlike the fact that a human being can take a strong magnetic field and tranfer some of it to ferrous type metals and then do things with same.

Lastly, incredible numbers of permutations have taken place in the Abramhamic traditions yet I think most people of those faiths would agree that they all started out with "let there be light", or "in the beginning was the Word". Incredible numbers of permutations have also taken place in many eastern traditions that have many sects and sub-sects that often disagree among themselves about key teachings or even major beliefs. One might ask themselves how much time they have to spend in spelling out all of these differences that have taken place through the permutations in both the "western" and "eastern" traditions? In only speaking for myself, I know that I'm quickly running out of time.

devotee
31 December 2007, 08:20 PM
I pose the question of how could anything really be going wrong if one really has (as much as humanly possible) a non-dualistic perspective? Thus those things from various human points of view that have gone wrong...can not really be going wrong in what could be called a non-dualistic-God point of view.

Namaste dear Bob,

I didn't say whether anything went wrong or right. Please mark this sentence written in that post : "Therefore, the laws which despised idolatory & which sanctioned killing of idolators & destroying their countries were their historical requirements of the time when these laws were written & there was nothing wrong in it."
I just stated that scriptures are prone to contamination due to factors of level of realisation of the writer, the time & the environment & we must consider these things in mind before taking everything as the word of God. The problem starts when anything written in a book is labelled as the Final Word of God .... any statement against that becomes a blasphemy ... any utterance of dissent becomes a reason for shedding blood !


Devotee, when you say:
"Any person who is of normal prudence can understand that an idol ( made of non-living matter) is not capable of doing anything" Seems to be a kind of a double-take like statement to me because you then proceed to recognize that, "A person always worships divinity / God".

I think I was clear in explaining the above but ... ! :lol:

It is not a double-take like statement. Are you really worshipping just the idol ... do you keep in mind that idol is just an idol when you worship ? Actually, I wanted to post simultaneously on why there is a need of an idol & upto what stage ... however, I felt that may not be required here ... this being a Hindu-specific forum. Anyway, I only wanted to highlight that idol is just a symbol which helps in concentration ( & later on meditation) & also helps the devotee to relate to a form mentally/psychologically.


Anyway, different forms of matter including "idols" formed of wood, metal, ceramic, etc. can or may be (mystically like) charged with different and or varying degrees of energy and thus are able do things

That is your belief & I am sorry to say that is erroneous. First of all, there is nothing which already is not It (the Ultimate) ... "you" can't charge anything with any "extra energy" from "outside" ! They (idols) cannot be made to do things ... if that was possible, the deity in Somnath Temple would have defended "himself" or the devotees from the onslaught of the invaders. That is what happend when prophet Elijah asked the idolators to exhort their idols to show miracles. Dayanand Saraswati refused to worship idols when he saw that Shiva's lingam could not stop even the mice from desecrating the offerings.


I believe the Devas and Mahadevas if they choose, can easily charge up various material forms for the purpose of tranfering energies through such mediums, which is not unlike the fact that a human being can take a strong magnetic field and tranfer some of it to ferrous type metals and then do things with same.

You started with Non-duality & are now making this statement ? I am surprised ! How can the above statements be made in Non-duality ? "Who" can charge "what" with "what" ?

Most humbly,

devotee

sarabhanga
31 December 2007, 08:38 PM
Namaste Devotee,

Idolatry comes from the greek eidololatria ~ eidolon (image) + latreia (worship or service) ~ thus indicating the “worship or service of images”.

A potent image represents very much more than its material medium ~ but of course there is little value in such an image for one who is blind.

Nobody actually worships the inert matter of a divine image. And only a child or a fool would assume that the worshipful service of an image of god is actually intended for the manifest image rather than the unmanifest deity invoked within, which is the true object of devotion. When a lover beholds an image of their beloved, the material nature of the medium becomes totally irrelevant, and the two are reunited in a spiritual sense.




These people (the Israel), who were largely Monolators, had to flee from Egypt.

I assume that monolatry is “worship of the one”, which has always been the way of hindu dharma (no matter what christian authorities might suggest)!

The advaita philosophy of hinduism was transported to the west, where it has been interpreted mainly by philosophers with a dvaita perspective. So it is no surprise that adharma and avidya has resulted! But it is not the original words that are faulty, only the subsequent interpretations and translations, every one of which MUST involve the personal interpretation of the translator, which then becomes its own dogma, denying and limiting other possibilities, and perhaps even turning the original truth on its head!

The avidyavidyA of advaita has quite simply become avidyAvidyA (pure avidyA) after interpretation by dvaita theologians.




These tribes were also idolators called Pagans.

In a pre-christian context, the term “pagan” indicates no more than “villager or rustic”. And the whole of India is (even today) filled with such idolatrous pagan villages! The words are true, but the christian interpretation is false. :(




We must understand without any doubt that no scripture was written by God.

This is NOT true of the original veda.




In every scripture there is contamination … therefore there must be scope for correction … When we fail to allow this, we are caught in a situation like the Talibans & other religious extremists.

sanAtana dharma is (by definition and reality) eternal, whereas other (non-eternal) dharmas are established from texts which were written down by learned scribes (based on earlier sources) from the beginning. And if no written script had ever been developed (no phoenician, no aramaic, no brahmi, etc.), the veda would still exist, just as it had existed in a fixed oral (and aural) tradition for thousands of years before those scripts were invented.

There would be no bible without writing, but the vedas would surely remain.

sarabhanga
31 December 2007, 10:20 PM
That is what happend when prophet Elijah asked the idolators to exhort their idols to show miracles. Dayananda Sarasvati refused to worship idols when he saw that Shiva's lingam could not stop even the mice from desecrating the offerings.

Namaste Devotee,

The greatest miracles are wrought in the minds of those who are devoted to the worship, and such miracles (which are not merely illusions, but rather the removal of previous delusions and misapprehensions) may go unnoticed by those who remain lost in their own deluded reality.

And, once the offering has been made, why should anyone care if mice share in the ucchiSTam, which is destined for rudra? And since the chief rudra is gaNesha, the presence of his vAhanam is to be expected. So, if it is true that svAmI dAyAnanda stopped worshipping the shivaliÑgam because shiva will not quibble over the sharing of his discarded remnants, then he was sorely misguided!

devotee
31 December 2007, 11:35 PM
Namaste sarbhanga,

I don't know if your miquoting & twisting of my statements is deliberate on your part or whether it is my fault ! You have tried to take "your twisted meanings" from my posts which I feel is not fair. Please stick to what I have offered in my post & don't try to brew unintended meanings out of them. Please also bear in mind that the subject we are dealing with in these posts is by its nature of discord & dispute & we must not create dispute & discord whether there is none.

Can you show me sir, where I said these :

a) the ancient egyptians were all idiots ruled by ignorant tyrants !
b) the original inhabitants of the land now called “israel” were also idiots ?
c) And the whole of India is (even today) filled with such idolatrous pagan villages!
d) Which means that most of the hindu population is (by your definition) like the taliban

Dear sir, you are free to disagree to what I say but you should not thrust your words in my mouth.
-----------------------

Now coming back to clarification :

a) I never said that all Pharaoh were tyrants. It was one of the Pharaohs who was defeated by God by sending plagues ( this is as per the Bible). Moreover, who are we to decide whether Pharaohs(s) was/were tyrant or not. We must see things from Jews' point of view to understand the psyche of people who had to resort to exodus. After all, no one leaves his existing cosy "home" in search of a new, safer home for fun !

b) "You have swallowed the judaeo-christian propaganda, hook, line and sinker!" It is true that I have relied on Jewish & Christian writings because Exodus certainly did't happen in the time of all-acceptable recorded history. If you have any other better reliable source which can be considered more authentic & which contradicts my statement then please educate me !

c) "This is not true of original Veda" ====> Being a Hindu by birth & faith I would like to be proud of this statement & should be. However, whatever you say is not the Truth. Vedas is compilation of "Richas" of many Rishis over thousands of years. They were not written, spoken or realised in a single day. In Vedas we see evolving of Hiduism as a religion from Nature worshipping to Non-duality & that shows that the understanding of "What Is" didn't happen in one day.

... and please firgive me. This is a highly debatable & controversial issue & can hurt sentiments. I beg to bow out of this issue.

d) "There would be no bible without writing, but the vedas would surely remain" --- Bible has been written over thousands of years ( Torah in 600 BC to present day Bible in the first Millennium & even later ) & most part of it has been transmitted orally. In fact, a large part of Torah is not written. So, I don't think it is correct to state that "There would be no Bible without writing".

sarabhanga
01 January 2008, 04:10 AM
Namaste Devotee,

I have not misquoted you ~ these are your own words!




Why worship an idol ? The person must be an idiot who does so.

Let's understand this fact once & for all --- NOBODY WORSHIPS IDOLS !

It is worth remembering that the Pharaohs were worshippers of idols.

The birth of Judaism was under the tyrant rulers of Egypt, the Pharaohs.


Since only any idiot would worship an idol, and “the pharaohs were worshippers of idols”, you are implying that the rulers must be idiots. And you have stated that the rulers of ancient egypt (the pharaohs) were tyrants. Therefore, you are in effect saying that the pharaohs were idiots and (at least one) was a tyrant. And the people of ancient egypt would have shared the idiotic practices of their pharaoh, with most worshipping their pharaoh as god’s prime representation on earth (just as the christians with their christ jesus).

The majority of india is filled with countless rural villages, and the majority of their population is non-christian. Therefore (using the original non-sectarian understanding of “pagan” ~ i.e. a rustic or a villager) the majority of india is surely pagan. And (using the original understanding of “idol”, untainted by ignorant iconoclasm) the majority of india is surely idolatrous. In truth, this is no insult to anyone. It is only a judaeo-christian understanding of the terms that makes them pejorative.

Since most hindu’s do NOT consider that the vedas have been seriously contaminated, and most hindu’s would NOT like to see the vedas corrected, and might appear from your comment that anyone who thinks like this is a religious extremist akin to the taliban. In which case, most hindus actually have views that are just like those of the taliban and other religious extremists.

I agree that the vedas were revealed to various rishis over a long period of time, but they are songs which have been sung for thousands of years, learned by heart as a sacred tradition and passed over countless generations from father to son (with no mistakes allowed). And the songs are virtually self-composed from the very nature of sanskrit language and the natural history of reality itself (the two are intimately bound).

The pentateuch certainly has an oral tradition, but I believe that the tradition actually began in the fold of ancient hinduism. And the “new” testament was surely based on translations of vedantic texts, causing exactly the same kind of philosophical revolution as that delivered by the original upanishads when they were originally composed (at least 600 years earlier).

There would certainly be no gospels or new testament if writing had not been invented; and, although the orthodox pentateuch (the pañca-abRMha-mantra, so to speak) would survive in the rabbinical community, I was particularly referring to the christian “bible”.

devotee
01 January 2008, 04:38 AM
Namaste Devotee,

I have not misquoted you ~ these are your own words!

I have been talking about the meaning of the word “idol”, and it is your definition of “idol worship” that is causing the mischief.



Namaste Sarbhanga,

Sorry, those are not my words. You have not understood the meaning of what I wanted to say by, "Why worship an idol ? The person must be an idiot who does so. .... Let's understand this fact once & for all --- NOBODY WORSHIPS IDOLS !"

I would have bettter appreciated your approach if you had asked me what I meant by that as BOB had asked. It has very much astonished me as I guess you are a Sanyasin ... & I expect a sanyasin to be unbiased.

If I meant that all those who worship idols are idiots then why on earth shall I say, "NOBODY WORSHIPS IDOLS" in such bold letters ? Don't these two sentences contradict each other ?

Just re-read my two sentences & try to understand what it says. It simply says that anyone who apparently worships idol is worshipping the divinity through the symbol of the idol. The idol without one's focus on greater/powerful divinity cannot do anything. Let me make it more clear by an example : I am worshipping Shiva Lingam. Do I think that the particular shape of the stone has powers of God & I am worshipping the stone ? No ! Shiva Lingam is only a symbol for my ease of worshipping .... I am basically worshipping Lord Shiva ( whom I can worship even without the Lingam) & who does not necessarily have even the shape or size of the Lingam.

.... Everything what you have written is based on your incorrect interpretation of my post. I hope that clarifies the matter.

Again, how can you assume that I was referring to New Testament ? Is "Exodus" part of New Testament ? ?

devotee
01 January 2008, 04:58 AM
Since most hindu’s do NOT consider that the vedas have been seriously contaminated, and most hindu’s would NOT like to see the vedas corrected, and it is clear from your comment that anyone who thinks like this is a religious extremist akin to the taliban, most hindus actually have views that are (in your stated estimation) just like those of the taliban and other religious extremists.

Dear sir, how did you aquire rights to speak for most hindus ? Please tell your personal views on the issue. Hindus have been debating various issues through Shastrarths since ages in quest of the Truth. .... and they never became Taliban like. The character of Hinduism doesn't nurture extremism but tolerance. Hinduism has many seemingly contradictory philosphies & all are accepted within it. Hindus have been bold enough to cast aside those beliefs which were not found relevant with changing times. One such example is rigid caste-system mentioned in "Manu-Smriti" ---- which is hardly followed by all Hindus in toto today. As for Vedas, let me assure you that 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas !

sarabhanga
01 January 2008, 07:16 AM
Namaste Devotee,

Why worship an idol ? The person must be an idiot who does so.
Let's understand this fact once & for all --- NOBODY WORSHIPS IDOLS !

It is worth remembering that the Pharaohs were worshippers of idols.

Let me reconsider this. I entered this discussion in response to Paneer Tikka’s claim that the word “idol” should be expunged from the language, and refuting that idea has been on my mind in subsequent posts. But if the Pharaohs worshipped idols in the same sense as the murti puja of Hinduism, why is it important in this discussion to remember that the Egyptian Pharaohs were “worshippers of idols”, just like Hindus??

O.K. On re-reading, perhaps you are saying that a tyrannical Pharaoh also happened to worship idols, and this might explain the Judaeo-Christian dislike for all idol worshippers. :)

I am sure there is more to the story than that! And it has more to do with the adoption of a strict Advaita (i.e. Upanishadic) philosophy, which insists that the only true image of God is actually beyond any possibility of description, and which therefore considers that ALL images of God are false. More and more iconography and external ritual crept back into Judaism over time, and the Christian rebellion was reasserting the pure Advaita perspective resurrected by Jesus and his followers. And this was again masked over time by layers of external ritual and symbolism in the Catholic Church, which was again swept away by the Protestant Reformation, which demanded more Advaita (at least in outward appearances).

You may not have been referring to the New Testament, but when I claimed that the Bible could not exist without the invention of writing I was referring to the Bible as it is (not particularly the core Judaic chapters). And the comment has no connexion with anything you have said about Exodus! Rather, I was responding to your comments about the corruption of all scripture and the necessity of revision.

And on the matter of revision, of course the interpretations are subtly revised and represented for new generations and new situations, and that is why the corpus of Hindu texts is so vast, with layers and layers of coherent reinterpretation of exactly the same theme. But the original Veda (i.e. the Rigveda Samhita) should never be altered. Indeed, no sacred text should ever be altered, but that does not mean that new additions are not allowed. The library of hindu scripture is not closed for new revelations, but the preexisting corpus is inviolable and fixed, and any new candidate for scriptural status may take centuries before it is accepted as a veritable scripture.

The Rigveda has grown only by a few additions, but nothing originally there has changed from the beginning.

I apologize for my part in any confusion.

sarabhanga
01 January 2008, 09:06 AM
As for Vedas, let me assure you that 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas !

Hinduism is (by definition) based on the Vedas, and ALL subsequent Hindu scripture considers the Veda as inviolable. And all Hindus should likewise consider the Veda in the same sacred light.

Hindus have always been debating interpretations of the Veda, but no Hindu has ever suggested that the Veda itself is corrupted and needs to be revised without being considered as a heretic.

And you have remarked that refusal to admit corruption of the Veda will lead to a Taliban-like situation, and that anyone who does not agree must be a religious extremist!

New generations have always embraced new interpretations, but the Veda itself never changes.

Smriti is (by definition) quite different to Shruti (i.e. the Veda). Smriti texts are the collection of what is remembered by a range of human teachers, and these are variously relevant for different situations. The Shruti, however, was directly revealed to the Rishis, and its composition remains eternally fixed.

And if (as you claim) 90% of Hindus are ignorant of the Vedas, how could the majority of Hindus seriously believe that the Veda has been corrupted and needs revision, since only 10% of Hindus have any understanding of the Veda’s content ??? And if those who know nothing of the subject insist that the Veda is corrupt, why should those who do understand the Veda (or at least hold it as sacred) pay any attention to their claims?

Bob G
01 January 2008, 09:40 AM
For anyone interested,

One could go to a Hindu website such as that under the address of www.himalayanacademy.com (http://www.himalayanacademy.com) , use the pull down menu where it says "Hindu Basics", then scroll down to the "God and Gods" section, and then in that section scroll down to the paragraph named, "Communicating with the God and the Gods" to see what a well recognized Satguru has to say about the meanings and use of "idols" and temples.

Om

devotee
01 January 2008, 09:50 AM
Dear Sri sarabhanga,

I just appreciated your appraoch & you have again floored me with your fabricated & distorted quotes by this one !

Will you please take note of what I said in my original post ? :


" We must understand without any doubt that all scriptures are written by men & that no scripture was written by God. So, in every scripture, there is some scope of contamination depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment. Therefore, there must be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures with change of time & environment. When we fail to allow this, we are caught in a situation like the Talibans & other religious extremists".

It is your distorted interpretation that I meant that "Vedas are corrupted & needed revision". My dear sir, I used the phrase, " there is some scope of contamination depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment". Moreover, Hindus regard Vedas as infallible that doesn't mean that there was no need of correct interpretation. The need for such correct understanding has been suggested by none other than Lord Krishna Himself ! For better appreciation pl. see what Lord Krishna said in Bhagwat Gita regarding Vedas ---> "Arjun, those who are full of worldly desires and devoted to the letter of the Vedas, who look upon heaven, as the supreme goal and they argue that there is nothing beyond heaven are unwise. They utter flowery speech recommending many rituals of various kinds for the attainment of pleasure and power with rebirth as their fruit. Those, whose minds are carried away by such words, and who are deeply attached to pleasure and worldly power, cannot attain the determinate intellect concentrated on God." ( Ref: Gita, 2.42 to 2.46)


And you have remarked that refusal to admit corruption of the Veda will lead to a Taliban-like situation, and that anyone who does not agree with your assessment must be a religious extremist!

Where did I say this ? Where did I say that Vedas or any scripture should be revised ?? You have spoiled my post & my efforts which was towards clarifying the reasons behind despising "idolatory" in all Abrahamic religions.

"how could the majority of Hindus seriously believe that the Veda has been corrupted and needs revision, since only 10% of Hindus have any understanding of the Veda’s content ???" ----> Now I have serious doubts on your intentions. Where did I say that, my dear sir ???

What is in your mind, sir & why ? If you have any enmity towards me & you want that I should not post here, please say that in clear terms. I don't understand your unreasonable hostility.

saidevo
01 January 2008, 10:33 AM
One of my earliest posts in HDF was about the ubiquity and invincibility of icons in the modern day life: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=441

I love and adore icons, and idols/images/murtis. For me they are not just representative. They are real, powerful, even identical. They are real, powerful and identical like the photographs, roadsigns or the icons in my computing world: real because I understand better and have a taste of experience of the reality with them; powerful because they express the reality in a way that I can understand and use; and identical because I have not seen and experienced the reality myself in another way.

My eyes begin to get moist when I look at a divine idol with the necessary devotion; when I watch a puja in a temple, TV or at home; when I watch a Karnatic/devotional/even some (Tamil, specially songs of Kannadasan) movie songs are shown/performed on the TV; when reading about devotees' experiences with their gurus (such as with Kanchi Paramacharya, Sathya Sai Baba, Ramana Maharshi, etc.); when I do something divine with exquisite care.

For all that I am an Advaitin at heart! I can understand--and to some extent realize mentally, though not experientially--the unity of the Absolute Truth behind every single atom in the universe. I also can have a fairly good idea--though I may not be able to present it well in words or thoughts--that a better part of this Absolute Truth is unmanifest.

My wish and prayers would be that like Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi and Kanchi Paramacharya, I should be able to remain in Advaita and yet partake and appreciate all the divine paraphernalia, when some day in some birth I become Self-Realized like them.

sarabhanga
01 January 2008, 07:54 PM
Where did I say that Vedas or any scripture should be revised ??




We MUST understand WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that ALL scriptures are written by men & that NO scripture was written by God. So, in EVERY scripture, there is SOME SCOPE OF CONTAMINATION depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment.

This is NOT true of the original Veda.

Sanatana Dharma is (by definition and reality) eternal, whereas other (non-eternal) Dharmas are established from texts which were written down by learned scribes (based on earlier sources) from the beginning. And if no written script had ever been developed (no Phoenician, no Aramaic, no Brahmi, etc.), the Veda would still exist, just as it had existed in a fixed oral (and aural) tradition for thousands of years before those scripts were invented.

The Vedas were revealed to various Rishis over a long period of time, but they are songs which have been sung for thousands of years, learned by heart as a sacred tradition and passed over countless generations from father to son (with no mistakes allowed). And the songs are virtually self-composed from the very nature of Sanskrit language and the natural history of reality itself (the two are intimately bound).

Of course, the interpretations are subtly revised and represented for new generations and new situations, and that is why the corpus of Hindu texts is so vast, with layers and layers of coherent reinterpretation of exactly the same theme. But the original Veda (i.e. the Rigveda Samhita) should never be altered.

Indeed, no sacred text should ever be altered, but that does not mean that new additions are not allowed. The library of Hindu scripture is not closed for new revelations, but the preexisting corpus is inviolable and fixed, and any new candidate for scriptural status may take centuries before it is accepted as a veritable scripture.

Smriti is (by definition) quite different to Shruti (i.e. the Veda). Smriti texts are the collection of what is remembered by a range of human teachers, and these are variously relevant for different situations. The Shruti, however, was directly revealed to the Rishis, and its composition remains eternally fixed.

Hinduism is (by definition) based on the Vedas, and ALL subsequent Hindu scripture considers the Veda as inviolable. And all Hindus should likewise consider the Veda in the same sacred light.

Hindus have always been debating interpretations of the Veda, but no Hindu has ever suggested that the Veda itself is corrupted and needs to be revised without being considered as a heretic.

New generations have always embraced new interpretations, but the Veda itself never changes.




Therefore, there MUST be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures with change of time & environment. When we fail to allow this, we are caught in a situation like the Talibans & other religious extremists.

If you are speaking of the Smriti, and interpretation of the Veda, then I agree; but if you are referring to the Shruti, and the actual verses of Veda, then I strongly disagree!

You state that, “In EVERY scripture, there is SOME SCOPE OF CONTAMINATION”, but perhaps by the proviso, “depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture”, you were actually excluding the Rishis and their original revelations, the Vedas (?).

Although, the preceding definitive statement that, “We MUST understand WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that ALL scriptures are written by men & that NO scripture was written by God” made me think that the Rishis and the Vedas were NOT excluded from the problematic ideas of “corrupted understanding” and “correction”.

The need for correct understanding has certainly been suggested by the Gita (indeed, the whole dialog is regarding that fundamental theme).

“Ignorant men, supposed followers of the Veda, consumed by lust and desirous of heaven, resultant good births and the fruits of action, advocating diverse elaborate rituals, seeking enjoyment and opulence, they say there is nothing greater than those flowery words. For those who are attached to enjoyment and opulence, who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for true Wisdom never arises.”




“only 10% of Hindus have any understanding of the Veda’s content” ~ Now I have serious doubts on your intentions. Where did I say that, my dear sir ???

My statement was a result of simple mathematics!



As for Vedas, let me assure you that 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas !

And 100% minus 90% equals 10% !!!

I have simply changed “90% ignorant” into its opposite component, “10% knowing”. But it was you who first claimed that “90 % of Hindus don't even know what is written in the Vedas”, so please don’t blame me for your own statistics.

I know nothing of you beyond this brief exchange, and I have no enmity nor any particular agenda regarding you.

devotee
01 January 2008, 09:38 PM
Dear Sarabhanga,

Before reacting in the manner, you did, you should have tried to read the text carefully. Let me repeat again :

i) I said, " All scriptures are written by men & no scripture was written by God". Do you have any problem in understanding this sentence ? Can you name any text which was "written" by God ?

2) Further I said, " So, in EVERY scripture, there is SOME SCOPE OF CONTAMINATION depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment". ==> When God has not written any scripture then whether there would be "scope of contamination" depending upon the level of understanding of the Truth by the writer or not ? Please mark the word, "Scope". What do you find wrong in it ?

3) "Therefore, there MUST be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures with change of time & environment. When we fail to allow this, we are caught in a situation like the Talibans & other religious extremists." ===> When there is a scope of contamination then there must exist a scope of correction in understanding. Please, please mark the words, "Correction in understanding of scriptures" ... it is not saying "correction of the scriptures" ---> which is your own twisted interpretation.

... and for record, I never mentioned the name of the Veda, it was you who dragged Vedas into this . If you want I can discuss with you on where correction in understanding of Veda is needed but with your excellence in twisting every word of my post, please forgive me.

4) I only said, " 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas " ===> Is there any problem in this sentence ? Does it mean that 90 % Hindus consider Vedas to be corrupted & want a revision in the vedas ? How can you thrust your own meaning here ?

5) Contamination in expressing Truth is inevitable as Truth cannot be expressed. Let us consider the highest placed Mantra of Non-duality, "I am That" ==> As soon as it is spoken, it gets contaminated because it is spoken from a position where there is "I" which is proclaiming to be "That" ... which is duality !

sarabhanga
02 January 2008, 09:23 AM
Where did I say that Vedas or any scripture should be revised ??




We MUST understand WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that ALL scriptures are written by men & that NO scripture was written by God. So, in EVERY scripture, there is SOME SCOPE OF CONTAMINATION depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment.

You have certainly said that every scripture is potentially contaminated, but I could agree only if “every scripture” particularly excludes the Rigveda, which existed before human writing and (as a written text) has always had the accurately recalled spoken word as a template.




Can you name any text which was "written" by God ?

As I have tried to explain, the Rigveda (especially) was divinely composed long before it was ever written by humans!




All scriptures are written by men.

No scripture was written by God.

In every scripture, there is some scope of contamination.

There must be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures.

Scriptures are prone to contamination.

In a Hindu forum, when someone mentions “the scriptures”, “all scriptures”, “every scripture”, it would generally be assumed that the Vedas were included on the list, as the foundational scriptures of Sanatana Dharma (the very FIRST Word of God, not necessarily the last).

In response to your comments about ALL scripture, I replied that “most Hindus with some understanding of the Veda do NOT consider that the Veda has been seriously contaminated.”

Your reaction to my mention of the Vedas was clear:

“As for Vedas, let me assure you that 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas !”

And, “How did you aquire rights to speak for most Hindus ?”

I might equally ask how you acquired the rights to speak for 90% of Hindus !

And, if some Hindus are ignorant of the Vedas, it is not their opinion of the Veda that I was considering when I said that most Hindus regard the Vedas as uncontaminated and inviolable.




I only said, " 90 % of Hindus don't even know what is wriiten in the Vedas "


To justify my claim that most Hindus consider the Vedas as “uncontaminated”, against your retort that 90% of Hindus are ignorant of the Vedas, I simply noted that if I am wrong (and it is not true that the majority of Hindus think the Vedas pure) then it must be the case that the majority of Hindus actually doubt that the Vedas remain uncontaminated. And I remarked that it certainly cannot be true that the majority has serious concerns about the correctness (or otherwise) of the Veda, since by your reckoning only 10% of Hindus have any sure idea of what is actually in the Vedas!

“I am that” is correctly spoken only by one’s self to the one and only Self ~ which is perfect non-duality.

Bob G
02 January 2008, 09:27 AM
...If I may interject here?

I don't see the permutations of the original or of the Source as really being able to reach back to "contaminate" the original. But yes, after time we now have all sorts of permutations going on or taking place, many of which might be taken for the original...

Om

325

devotee
02 January 2008, 10:47 AM
My dear Sarabhanga,

I don't see any merit in going any further on this discussion with you. You have not only misundertood my views but are steadfastedly trying to defend your deliberate distortions. You are repeatedly doing it inspite of my sentence-wise clarification of my original post. This is not the way I am used to engaging in discussion. ... and I don't bother what you make out of it. You are master of your mind & time & you are free to think the way you want.

However, I do have doubts whether you have actually read Rig-veda which you are so vehemently trying to defend without any attack intended on it (Or, do you want to say that you are more Hindu than I am ?). With due respect to Rig-Veda, if you have read it you would certainly find many verses which are hard to accept as "divinely composed" as you claim. Moreover, if everything in Rig-Veda is so pure & the final word of God then Lord Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner for not only criticising the people who follow Veda by letter but also comparing it ( the Veda) as a small pond compared to vast expanse of water-body of the Truth.

Anyway, this is a very sensitive issue & I certainly won't like to discuss especially with you any further on this. Please do me a favour & don't react to my posts in future. I promise that, on my part, I won't react to your posts in future.

May be you have felt hurt by my saying "All Scriptures" ... which (I maintain) is the Truth but because you are feeling hurt by saying that, I must apologise for that.

Thank you & good bye !

satay
02 January 2008, 03:01 PM
Namaskar Devotee, Sarabhanga and others,


With due respect to Rig-Veda, if you have read it you would certainly find many verses which are hard to accept as "divinely composed" as you claim. Moreover, if everything in Rig-Veda is so pure & the final word of God then Lord Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner for not only criticising the people who follow Veda by letter but also comparing it ( the Veda) as a small pond compared to vast expanse of water-body of the Truth.


I think that this would be a great topic to discuss. Wouldn't you agree?

We can start a new thread in the Vedas forum. I know everyone here will really enjoy this discussion.

We can now put the murthi/idol thread misunderstandings to the rest and start on this new topic fresh like this new year. :)

sarabhanga
02 January 2008, 07:23 PM
Devotee,

I have not deliberately distorted anything here. You have completely ignored my repeated clarifications, and you have repeatedly implied personal insult, while I have been talking about words and their implications.

A reasoned discussion of conflicting viewpoints is impossible if the differences are taken personally.

In advaitam, no separation is accepted and all differences are logically reconciled without emotional attachment. In the realm of dvaitam, however, divisions and differences are taken personally, and that is indeed the source of all suffering in the world.

advaitavAda is de facto immortal conjury, while dvaitavAda is de jure mortal injury.




Do you want to say that you are more Hindu than I am ?. With due respect to Rig-Veda, if you have read it you would certainly find many verses which are hard to accept as "divinely composed".

It is very easy to make such pronouncements without providing any evidence. I would be interested to see even a single verse of the Rgveda mantrasaMhitA that was doubtfully of divine nature and more likely a mundane contamination. A new thread in the Vedas section would be appropriate for this. But it is not human translations and interpretations that we should particularly discuss, for the key issue is the saMskRtam of the Rgveda itself.




Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner.

Lord kRSNa certainly does not criticize anyone for following the Veda, only those who follow it blindly, with desire for the fruits.

Ignorant men, supposed followers of the Veda, consumed by lust and desirous of heaven, resultant good births and the fruits of action, advocating diverse elaborate rituals, seeking enjoyment and opulence, they say there is nothing greater than those flowery words. For those who are attached to enjoyment and opulence, who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for true Wisdom never arises.

The Veda is the very FIRST Word of God, and certainly not the last.

“I am that” is correctly spoken only by one’s own true self to the one and only self of all truth ~ which is perfect non-duality.

Standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19370&postcount=2), there can be no injury.

devotee
03 January 2008, 03:21 AM
Devotee,

I have not deliberately distorted anything here. You have completely ignored my repeated clarifications, and you have repeatedly implied personal insult, while I have been talking about words and their implications.

A reasoned discussion of conflicting viewpoints is impossible if the differences are taken personally.

In advaitam, no separation is accepted and all differences are logically reconciled without emotional attachment. In the realm of dvaitam, however, divisions and differences are taken personally, and that is indeed the source of all suffering in the world.

advaitavAda is de facto immortal conjury, while dvaitavAda is de jure mortal injury.


It is very easy to make such pronouncements without providing any evidence. I would be interested to see even a single verse of the Rgveda mantrasaMhitA that was doubtfully of divine nature and more likely a mundane contamination. A new thread in the Vedas section would be appropriate for this. But it is not human translations and interpretations that we should particularly discuss, for the key issue is the saMskRtam of the Rgveda itself.


Lord kRSNa certainly does not criticize anyone for following the Veda, only those who follow it blindly, with desire for the fruits.

Ignorant men, supposed followers of the Veda, consumed by lust and desirous of heaven, resultant good births and the fruits of action, advocating diverse elaborate rituals, seeking enjoyment and opulence, they say there is nothing greater than those flowery words. For those who are attached to enjoyment and opulence, who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for true Wisdom never arises.

The Veda is the very FIRST Word of God, and certainly not the last.

“I am that” is correctly spoken only by one’s own true self to the one and only self of all truth ~ which is perfect non-duality.

Standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19370&postcount=2), there can be no injury.

So, this post has declared you free from all faults, standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam. You have not distorted anything. It was all my figment of imagination & result of my immaturity. I think, now you are happy ?

... but dear sir, I really don't want to discuss anything further with you. Why don't you find someone who is as holy as you are ?

sm78
03 January 2008, 08:07 AM
everything in Rig-Veda is so pure & the final word of God then Lord Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner for not only criticising the people who follow Veda by letter but also comparing it ( the Veda) as a small pond compared to vast expanse of water-body of the Truth.

This seems all right as it is said that only a very small fraction of the vedas has been revealed to mankind. I think it is one of the smritis and even many kalpas is not enough to completely go through any one veda. ;)

However the traditional understanding is that, it is the sound of vedas and not the meaning we make out of its verses, that is so pure. All intellectual knowledge, darshanas and such are vedangas not veda.

Bob G
03 January 2008, 05:08 PM
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=329&d=1199401517

yajvan
03 January 2008, 07:00 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

This seems all right as it is said that only a very small fraction of the vedas has been revealed to mankind.
However the traditional understanding is that, it is the sound of vedas and not the meaning we make out of its verses, that is so pure. All intellectual knowledge, darshanas and such are vedangas not veda.

Namaste and hello singhi,

I would like your opinion on this...as you mention a small part of the Ved has been revealed. Do you think:
A. it is all available, yet we have lost the written portion just due to time and being in kali yuga, where the ved is not being 'refreshed' by seers (rishis) or;
B. A small part was revealed and that was the plan of record i.e. ~ limit the access.

I ask, as I think the truth is there for all, yet the vision of the rishi's as I read who they are , are not the average sadhu that realizes the SELF and all the vedas are at his/her disposal.

Any thoughts? And... the sound of the vedas. Yes, my teacher has talked much about this, that is:

All my readings and my instruction clearly point to reading is fine, but hearing is essential. To think one will grasp the wisdom of the Veda's (in this sense I am discussing the mantra's themselves, the samhita) by reading them is a noble cause, which will only bear some fruit.

The mantra's of the veda's touch three worlds as the risi's would say:
sabda - this sound/vibration - rest and activity of the meter is of key import
artha - meaning
Shakti - the inherent energy within the sound - it's power to transmit Bhuma, fullness; note the mantra's in the Ved are known as Brahman.

So, proper chanting & hearing of the Vedas are vital to the transmission of its Bhuma , fullness of understanding and culturing ones consciousness. This discipline as I understand it is called siksa ( sheek -sah). This siksa is vital. In conventional terms the word means education and learning ( and I then would be the sisya, or student, of siksa). Proper siksa brings out the fullness of the ved. Just as the proper use of a japa-mantra brings its fruits, like that.

Siksa is concerned with proper chanting and the applicaiton of syllables, sound, meter, strength, even-ness (sama) and the connection of these sounds, not to mention intonation and pitch . This is why the samhita's have been handed down from teacher-to-student, as the sudent learns these subtlety's from the master via listening. As my teacher has said, the devata are found witin the silence (samdhyA) of the mantras.


As with sama ved, its all about chandas.


Any additions on this is would be insightful knowledge and a boon to all that read it.

pranams

sm78
03 January 2008, 09:40 PM
Namaste,

I mean it in the sense of B. In this Yuga we have further lost the proper understanding of what was revealed. I am no scholar and so don't know the pramanas to support B. However I was just parroting Harsha Ji's words.

atanu
04 January 2008, 04:39 AM
Namaste SM,

I think I like to differ here.

That is full and This is full. When we do not see the fullness that does not mean that the fullness is kept hidden. Vedas themselves say how Brihaspati or Indra frees the Vedas out of clutches of asuras. When the comprehension is hidden beneath the asuric proclivities, Vedas may be said to be hidden.

On the other hand, Upanishads do explain that even after long study of Vedas, it remains hidden as if. Examples are there with Narada, Svetaketu, Indra and many many others.

The fullness is there everywhere at all times. The mind fails to see. If the Vedas are hidden, then how some people say that Vedas are hidden? Have they seen the hidden portions?

YMMV (no entertainment for Vak Devi, I hope).

Om

sm78
04 January 2008, 06:06 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Everything known and unknown expressed by one syllable of the supreme sound. Yet there can be no finite number of mantras which exhausts all that is to be known about that ~ certainly not 10 mandalas of rk veda known to us.

The link of the POV I was referring to. I don't think there is any disagreement its just the context.
http://kamakshi16.tripod.com/brahmana.html

atanu
04 January 2008, 09:45 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Everything known and unknown expressed by one syllable of the supreme sound. Yet there can be no finite number of mantras which exhausts all that is to be known about that ~ certainly not 10 mandalas of rk veda known to us.

The link of the POV I was referring to. I don't think there is any disagreement its just the context.
http://kamakshi16.tripod.com/brahmana.html

Namaskar Singhi,

Yes. There can be infinite number of mantras: as many beings there are multiplied by the same numbers and then again and again, since each being worships every other being.

Yet as you said, there is ONE syllable that stands for all this.

Om

Rajalakshmi
04 January 2008, 11:13 AM
This seems all right as it is said that only a very small fraction of the vedas has been revealed to mankind. I think it is one of the smritis and even many kalpas is not enough to completely go through any one veda. ;)

However the traditional understanding is that, it is the sound of vedas and not the meaning we make out of its verses, that is so pure. All intellectual knowledge, darshanas and such are vedangas not veda.

What are we going to do with the rest of the vedas even if we get them? Any amount of vedic learning is not sufficient to get Atma darshana. For the most eligible, only the twelve verses of mANDUkya are sufficient to know the truth. For the rest of us, we have the dashOpanishads and some other principle ones. To even simply the matters, bhagavAn has given the right instructions through Arjuna - bhagavad gIta is complete shAstra in itself.

Rajalakshmi
04 January 2008, 11:25 AM
However, I do have doubts whether you have actually read Rig-veda which you are so vehemently trying to defend without any attack intended on it (Or, do you want to say that you are more Hindu than I am ?). With due respect to Rig-Veda, if you have read it you would certainly find many verses which are hard to accept as "divinely composed" as you claim. Moreover, if everything in Rig-Veda is so pure & the final word of God then Lord Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner for not only criticising the people who follow Veda by letter but also comparing it ( the Veda) as a small pond compared to vast expanse of water-body of the Truth.


devotee,

Can you please bring up the 'unholy' verses of Rigveda? Vedas are not supposed to be read literally...

Lord Krishna has not asked any people to disregard the Rigveda. Every word of the veda is sacred. Vedas are treated like a pond because they are aparA vidyA, while Atma-jnAna is called parA vidyA( Mundaka Up says this) . Krishna has only said that one should not be content with just getting knowledge of the vedas ( by becoming a paNDita) but must use the veda to go beyond its words and realize the truth embedded in vedas. In this respect, vedas are like small pond.

devotee
06 January 2008, 01:09 AM
Namaste Rajlakshmi & all who took part in this discusion,

I decided to put an end to the unintended controversy my post created by going silently. However, I feel I must clarify my statement on Rigveda before I go. This is my last try, I hope it is successful.

Let's again see the original post wherein it all started & I said :

"We must understand without any doubt that all scriptures are written by men & that no scripture was written by God. So, in every scripture, there is some scope of contamination depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment. Therefore,
there must be scope for correction in the understanding of the scriptures with change of time & environment".

This has been claified in my post in the thread, " Feedback at the time of departure" in feedback section. Just to clarify every sentence again :

a) The statement says, " All scriptures are written by men". ==> I think there should be no controversy in this statement ( writing was invented much later than revelation of some of the ancient scriptures, like Rigveda).

b) "In every scripture, there is some scope of contamination" ==> It talks about just "scope" i.e. the probability of contamination & doesn't declare that any scripture is contaminated.

c) "Depending upon the level of realisation of the Man who wrote the scripture, the time & the environment" ===> The level of realisation has been different in different times & to different people & that is why we have so many religions. This has seen the evolution from "Nature Worship" of various gods for asking for favours to Non-duality. It can be broadly classified into two categories : Duality & Non-duality. IMHO, Non-duality is the pure reality/ The Truth ... the Ultimate. All other realisation either of Mono-god or Many- gods are not the final & the ultimate ... & therefore, they cannot be called The Pure Reality/The Truth or the Ultimate. So, if the level of realisation is not the highest, i.e. Non-duality ... that realisation is not the ultimate Truth. By definition, "contamination" is the element of impurity in a pure substance. Therefore, all realisations which are paths of duality are contaminated.

Now, if that part is clear, we can see, how the contamination has scope to enter the scriptures & our understanding :
i) The Realisation is not of the highest order i.e. anything less than the Non-duality.
ii) The person who realised didn't write the scripture & therefore the contamination has scope to enter in these ways :
a1) The limitation of words to express the exact "thing" which was realised & therefore whatever was realised was not exactly expressed
b1) The limitation of understanding of the person who heard what was expressed because time changed & so meanings of several words
changed
c1) The limitation of expressing in writing what the writer understood
d1) The limitation of understanding by person(s) who read the scripture through text because time again changed & so many words
changed their meaning in that time-gap.

( Please note that words are born with a specific root but they aquire different meanings with passage of time. So, correct understanding of etimology & semantics is necessary to understand correctly what is exactly intended)

During discussion Sarabhanga felt that the words, "All Scriptures", included Vedas too & so all these misconceptions arose. Later on, I also stated
the following :
" With due respect to Rig-Veda, if you have read it you would certainly find many verses which are hard to accept as "divinely composed" as you
claim. Moreover, if everything in Rig-Veda is so pure & the final word of God then Lord Krishna must be regarded as a great sinner for not only
criticising the people who follow Veda by letter but also comparing it ( the Veda) as a small pond compared to vast expanse of water-body of the
Truth. "

Please note the words used here, "Pure & Final Word of God". If Rig-veda were the "final word" of God, why would there be any revelation later on ? That would put vedanta into into a lesser category & also useless.

Most part of Rigveda talks on offering sacrifices to various gods. It also talks at length on the virtues of "Soma" etc. This realisation, IMO, is not of the level of Non-duality & hence has impurity to that extent. However, this statement doesn't lessen the importance or holiness of the Rigveda. All worshippings are possible within duality only ... are they unholy ? Actually, the idea of holiness or unholiness has meaning within Duality only. It has no meaning in Non-duality. Moreover, it has to be seen that not the literal meaning but the power hidden in the words/sound of the Richas are more important. In fact, IMO, the words are not that important ... otherwise for people who cannot pray in Samskrit ... is their prayer of any lower value ? Is the person who is dumb & cannot recite Mantras, unfit to pray ? .... will his prayer not be accepted ? I don't think so. IMHO, the Shraddha/devotion is more important than the words or the rituals in path of devotion.

If this doesn't clarify the things, please forgive me. I have tried to make things as clear as I can. If there is a difference of opinion, that is quite ok, after all, they are just opinions.

sarabhanga
20 January 2008, 02:49 AM
The problem lies in Abrahamical theory of God.

Namaste Devotee,

I agree !

devotee
20 January 2008, 09:28 PM
Namaste sarabhanga,


Namaste Devotee,

I agree !


Now I see the yogi's compassionate heart ! Thanks a lot ! :)

Regards

Sagefrakrobatik
21 January 2008, 05:26 AM
Would it be possible to have a Hindu temple with no idols.

satay
21 January 2008, 08:36 AM
Namaskar,


Would it be possible to have a Hindu temple with no idols.

There are arya samaj 'temples' with just the havan kund in the middle.

yajvan
21 January 2008, 10:23 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Would it be possible to have a Hindu temple with no idols.

Namaste S,

In the final analysis, you are the temple.

pranams,

Agnideva
21 January 2008, 12:29 PM
Namaste Sage,


Would it be possible to have a Hindu temple with no idols.
This is a very good question.

The tradition of temples, images, and the entire culture surrounding temple worship in Hinduism comes to us from holy texts know as Agamas. In the Agamic tradition, the focus of external worship is the Divine Image (Murti) and it is not possible to have a temple without a Murti, which is the gross body of Deity. One may, however, have a non-iconic abstract form of Deity such as the Shiva-Lingam, Shaligrama, Sri-Chakra or other Yantras (mystical diagrams) in place of an anthropomorphic image.

By contrast, in the pure Vedic tradition, the focus of external worship is not an image, but the ritual fire and the fire altar (havan kund). Oblations are offered into the Holy Fire in the Vedic tradition, whereas in the Agamic tradition, oblations are offered onto the Divine Image. Today, both traditions are carried out in Agamic temples. The Arya Samaj (founded in 1875) is possibly the only branch that represents the pure Vedic tradition today, and that too by excluding (or trying its best to exclude) everything Agamic.

Philosophically speaking, as Yajvan has alluded to, the body is the temple, the Atman is the Divine Image, and the mind and senses are the oblations. In temple construction theory also, which is guided by Vastu Shastra, the temple reflects the human body and the central shrine (garbha-grha) housing the principal Deity represents the cavity of the heart.

Aum Namah Shivaya.

Nuno Matos
21 January 2008, 12:42 PM
Namaste Agni Deva,


Nice to see a post from you!

Agnideva
21 January 2008, 03:54 PM
Namaste Agni Deva,
Nice to see a post from you!

Namaste and thank you, Nuno. I know it's been a while ... I'm trying to make a slow comeback here :).

aatma
14 May 2008, 10:21 AM
This is what i see as most logical:

Stages in spirituality can be campared to stages in one's academic education. First, you learn the alphabet, then, gradually, you move up from there to higher levels. Murti or idol worship is like the ABC's. Its the first stage in worship. But must we remain there for the rest of our lives? we must move up the ladder of spirituality. Just like an infant requires objects to help them count for example, so too, people in the first stage of spirituality may feel the need for some sort of symbol. Those who have the ability to contemplate on God's divine existence without a symbol, are in a higher realm. Nothing is wrong with contemlating on a picture or murti of Ram, Krishna, or Lakhsmi however, what i see wrong is- people often get caught up in this symboli worship and forget what the symbol represent. that's why i choose to recognise God as omnipresent, not restricted to one idol or murti, but ever-present and all pervading. A murti is simply a reminder of an aspect of the Supreme. Its not meant to be Worshipped AS God..
Namaste

Indra
14 May 2008, 02:17 PM
This is what i see as most logical:

Stages in spirituality can be campared to stages in one's academic education. First, you learn the alphabet, then, gradually, you move up from there to higher levels. Murti or idol worship is like the ABC's. Its the first stage in worship. But must we remain there for the rest of our lives? we must move up the ladder of spirituality. Just like an infant requires objects to help them count for example, so too, people in the first stage of spirituality may feel the need for some sort of symbol. Those who have the ability to contemplate on God's divine existence without a symbol, are in a higher realm. Nothing is wrong with contemlating on a picture or murti of Ram, Krishna, or Lakhsmi however, what i see wrong is- people often get caught up in this symboli worship and forget what the symbol represent. that's why i choose to recognise God as omnipresent, not restricted to one idol or murti, but ever-present and all pervading. A murti is simply a reminder of an aspect of the Supreme. Its not meant to be Worshipped AS God..
Namaste

Its like with saints in christianity. Often Protestants confuse our saint "worship" with the worship of god, they accuse us (orthodox christians and catholics) of idol worship but saints are just vehicles, they are ambassadors of god while we watch the icons of saints and pray to them we worship god, we dont worship the saints as we worship god. the orthodox christian pantheon is full of saints, angels, archangels, devils etc... its similar to hinduism, the god trinity is similar to trimurti and the other gods in hindu pantheon are similar to angels and saints... i think indian christians could blend hinduism with christianity and include hindu gods in their pantheon, hindu gods could be angels, archangels or saints, and god is the supreme, the president and prime minister....

saidevo
14 May 2008, 09:02 PM
Namaste aatma.



This is what i see as most logical:

Stages in spirituality can be campared to stages in one's academic education. First, you learn the alphabet, then, gradually, you move up from there to higher levels. Murti or idol worship is like the ABC's. Its the first stage in worship. But must we remain there for the rest of our lives? we must move up the ladder of spirituality. Just like an infant requires objects to help them count for example, so too, people in the first stage of spirituality may feel the need for some sort of symbol. Those who have the ability to contemplate on God's divine existence without a symbol, are in a higher realm. Nothing is wrong with contemlating on a picture or murti of Ram, Krishna, or Lakhsmi however, what i see wrong is- people often get caught up in this symboli worship and forget what the symbol represent. that's why i choose to recognise God as omnipresent, not restricted to one idol or murti, but ever-present and all pervading. A murti is simply a reminder of an aspect of the Supreme. Its not meant to be Worshipped AS God..


1. You learn the alphabet as a child, yet you cannot afford to forget them, howevermuch you grow and mature in knowledge: they become the substrata of all your efforts at knowledge. This is the reason that in Hinduism, vAch is given the status of a goddess (Sarasvati) and AUM (the single syllable or letter) is given the status of Brahman. Can you write or say anything, even as the most accomplished sAdhu or scholar without the use of alphabets? This does not mean that you are always get caught in the alphabets, only means that they are the substrata in the gross manifestation of knowledge.

2. God is omnipresent, alright, but then would you meditate or pray from your bathroom for that matter? God, like the energy of electricity and magnetism is omnipresent, but just as the bulbs draw that power into light, God's images draw His power into light that illuminates the Truth in the devotee's mind.

3. Even jIvanmuktas pray to mUrtis, receive temple prasAdas and wear religious marks. Vyasa Maharshi gave us Vedas as well as Puranas, specially the Bhagavata. Narada Maharshi told him that Vyasa's enlightenment was complete only after he composed the Bhagavata, which is a bhakti kAvyam.

4. A better way to view the so-called idol worship is to treat it as your parents. You might become wiser, wealthier, more powerful, rich and enlightened than your parents but you can never outgrow them in age! They always remain with you; even after their death you do pay homage to them annually. Only in this case here, God in the form of mUrtis is your parents and will never be 'dead' in that form.

Any abstract power in this universe becomes useful only when it is channelized: you can't listen to your preferred music without iPod or mp3 player; watch pictures without a TV; talk without a mobile phone; access the Internet without a PC, modem and mouse; even as you grow up and become a techie you still use such devises--perhaps much more downsized and far more powerful.

5. We will be pursuing a mirage if everyone of us just think that we shall move up the spiritual ladder and automatically become a jnAni in this birth. If one is destined to be so, the symptoms will be known much earlier. Only bhakti is the surest path to enlightenment for everyone in this Kali Yuga.

saidevo
14 May 2008, 09:37 PM
Namaste Indra.



i think indian christians could blend hinduism with christianity and include hindu gods in their pantheon, hindu gods could be angels, archangels or saints, and god is the supreme, the president and prime minister....


'Hindu gods could be angels under the Christian trinity?', ha ha ha! You perhaps unwittingly give ideas to the missionaries who are already saying that it was Jehovah who taught Shiva and the other Hindu Trinity.

Suppose for argument sake, if you have Hindu god images in a church, will the Christian priests worship them with daily ablutions, decoration and chaning mantras? Or will they appoint Hindu priests for this task? Beware, if they do it, Hindu gods will become more popular and the Church-going Christians will forsake the Cross and Christ for the sake of the more appealing Hindu rituals! Since they can't do it this way, the missionaries are now into what they call 'inculturisation'--following local customs and culture in churches: this would mean worshipping Jesus with such phrases as 'Amen (or Aum), JesusAya namaha!' and it has already started: the Christian priests wear saffron skirts, grow long hair (why not a tuft at the end of it?), call their churches ashrams, etc.

It is like your saying, for example, that the pant as a Christian outfit is superior to the Hindu dhoti. If you want to combine these two, try wearing your pant over a dhoti! Whereas a Hindu will easily wear a dhoti over a pant, just like the Christian Fathers and Brothers wear a skirt over their pants.

I understand your dilemma of being stuck in Christianity and trying to grow out ot it in the Hindu ways, but you can't have the cake and eat it too.

There cannot be a Universal Religion, only Universal Spirituality through niyama, anuShTana and yoga (not in the Dattaswami way).

satay
15 May 2008, 12:12 AM
Admin Note

Thread closed for review.