A Guru Shishya Conversation!
Though Hindu way of life doesn't support idol worship but
with time it has been embraced by all and with reasons too. Primitive man makes
a scrawl of a head on wall and calls it God. Civilized man shuts his eyes and
imagines an image and calls it God. Both are idols. The difference is not one
of kind but only of degree. Hinduism has the courage to say so. It also has the
humanity to admit within its fold even those who cannot rise above grossly
concrete representations of God. A common illiterate labourer and an
intellectual scholar require different concepts of God to satisfy them. So
Hinduism declares that each can worship God in whatever form that suits his
competence and stage of spiritual evolution.
Since the common mind of man cannot comprehend the
abstractness and transcendence of the nameless and formless version of God,
different idols and images enter the picture. Though these myriad images and
idols may appear to be only symbols each of them points to the Supreme Power
inherent in everybody and it is that One God who is worshipped in the form of
idols and images. We are worshipping God in the idol and not the idol as God.
This fundamental point in the practice of idol worship is the most important
lesson to be learnt about Hinduism. So long as you think it is an idol you have
not got it. People who do not believe in God propose excuses to find fault with
the worship of God through idols and appear to be 'more loyal' than the
religious, by putting forth the argument that God is formless and so should not
be worshipped through idols. God can take any form and so the form of the idol
is good enough for us to worship God.
QUESTION: Is the idol
or icon of a deity itself the deity?
The deity is not just an idol or icon; it is that which has
been invoked by mantras in the image. An idol, by constant worship through
Mantras culled from the scriptures, becomes actually the very deity which has
been invoked into the physical frame, by Mantra-chanting.
QUESTION: A flag is
just a symbol for the nation; it is not the Nation. Does it not mean then that
an idol of a deity is also only a representation and not the 'real thing'? But
the Hindu tradition of giving absolute sanctity to temples and icons seems to
point to the view that the icons themselves are the deities.
The answer to this question has to be carefully absorbed. In
Hinduism the same question may have different answers to different levels of
questioners. From the point of view that there is only one absolute Truth and
everything else is only a manifestation of that Truth, an icon is only a
representation and not the 'real thing'. But from the point of view of a
devotee who needs to worship Divinity in name and form, the images and icons
which have been sanctified by the various mantras and rituals are themselves
the deities that have as much power as the Absolute. So hosts of such
sanctified 'images and idols' should not be cast into the role of just a
'representation' of the Absolute as a flag for the army. It is with this orientation that every
devotee approaches a temple and worships the deity in the temple. In the
beginning his attitude is to assume that the God is in the idol. But the God is
certainly everywhere and so, in due time, the devotee, by the Lord's Grace,
realises that his assumption that the God is in the idol, is actually a truism.
Thus, what starts as an attitude or assumption, even though one may not have a
belief, results in the realisation of the truth and this is far more than just
belief or faith. This is the esoteric significance of idol worship. The
millions of devotees who have benefited by such worship over the centuries both
in their personal homes and in public temples constitute the unique testimony
for the validity of this significance. The flag example is only an incomplete
example.
Thus you see, Hindu way of life, its way of thinking, is
broad enough to admit within its fold even those ordinary mortals who are yet
to mature spiritually, above the grossly concrete representations of God. In
fact the religion goes even one step further. It says, in essence, each
individual can worship God in whatever form that suits his competence, taste,
and stage of spiritual evolution. The strength of Hinduism, writes
Monier-Williams, lies in its infinite adaptability to the infinite diversity of
human character and human tendencies. It has its highly spiritual and abstract
side suited to the philosopher, its practical and concrete side congenial to
the man of the world, its aesthetic and ceremonial side attuned to the man of
the poetic feeling and imagination and its quiescent contemplative aspect that
has its appeal for the man of peace and the lover of seclusion.
The Absolute Brahman, in relation to the material universe,
is called Ishvara. When we refer to Ishvara in His creative aspect, we call Him
Brahma; when we refer to His aspect of sustainer and protector, we call Him
Vishnu; and when we think of Him in His destructive and dissolution aspect, we
refer to Him as Shiva. In each case the power or energy of the aspect is referred
to as the corresponding Goddess. Just as sunlight is inseparable from the sun,
so also is the power (shakti) of Ishvara inseparable from Ishvara and India
naturally worships this power as Shakti, the Mother of the Universe.
QUESTION: But the
practice of deity worship through idols and images seems to throw to the winds
the majestic concept of Impersonality so emphatically asserted in the
Upanishads. How can this be explained?
It must be admitted that all worship is image worship.
Primitive man made a scrawl of a head on a rock and called it God. Civilized
man shuts his eyes and imagines an anthropomorphic image with arms and legs and
calls it God. Both are images. The difference is not one of kind but of degree.
Hinduism has the courage to say so and also has the humanity to admit within
its fold even those who cannot rise above grossly concrete representations of
God. An illiterate commoner and an intellectual scholar require different
concepts of God or Divinity to satisfy them. So Hinduism declares that each can
worship Divinity in whatever form that suits the competence and stage of
spiritual evolution of the worshipper.
