Hindu Idolatry and the Question of Sacred Forms

[Guest guest]

In a recent letter to the New Indian Express, Mar. 9, 2008, (See below)

Swami Dayananda wrote of a new rapproachement between Hindu and Jewish

religious leaders. This historic meeting, wrote Swami Dayananda,

emphasized and illustrated the importance of honest dialogue between two

religious traditions to resolve seemingly irresolvable differences. At

issue was the question of Hindu worship of " Gods " and " Idols " which, for

centuries, Jewish theologians have found irreconciliable with their own

traditions which prohibit idolatry.

While one cannot doubt Swami ji's sincere attempt at honest dialog, he

has overlooked the fact that the focus on Idols in Hinduism, after the

Vedic Age with its emphasis on sacred geometric forms is one of the most

inspiring aspects of the Sanatana Dharma. In her reply to Swami

Dayananda, Thea (Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet) explains the deeper meaning

behind these sacred forms and why Hindus should not so readily capitulate

to the criticisms of other beliefs.

 

------

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

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

A reply to Swami Dayananda

 

By Thea (Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet)

 

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati's article in the 9.3.2006 Sunday edition of

NIE, under the title `Hindu-Jewish declaration removes misconceptions',

caused such disappointment in me that I feel obliged to present a

different viewpoint. Indeed there are `misconceptions'; but these are to

be found in the Swami-ji's presentation of Hinduism, more than from any

Rabbinate or Vatican source. For the fact is the focus on Idols in

Hinduism, after the Vedic Age with its emphasis on pure geometric forms,

is perhaps the most significant and inspiring aspect of the Sanatan

Dharma.

 

First, let me quote a portion from the Swami-ji's article to

highlight a point I wish to make: `The Jerusalem meet concluded with a

landmark declaration that Hindus worship " one supreme being " and are not

really idolatrous.'

 

To begin, perhaps Swami Dayananda is not aware of the

negative baggage the word `idolatrous' carries. For Hindus it could be

equated with the `n' word for Blacks. What astonishes me more than

anything is how burdened Hindus still are with these loaded labels

(pagans is another) foisted on them by invaders and colonisers down the

centuries, bearing these extremely derogatory connotations. One would

have trusted that with independence these `misconceptions' would have

been lifted and Hindus would be allowed to hold their heads high

regarding key issues of their belief system. Articles such as this one,

written by a leading exponent of the faith, makes us realise that there

is ever present the need to be `accepted' – and this by faiths that have

never reached the heights and depths of Hinduism.

 

We read further: `Hinduism has been perceived by them [the

middle-eastern faiths that eschew idols] as idolatrous and promoting many

gods…The historic declaration made at the summit at Jerusalem on February

18, 2008 sets at rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is idolatrous.' He

continues, `… (T)he crux of the problem was…the worship of forms. When

they understood that no form is separate from Isvara and the particular

form enshrined in a temple is but an altar of worship, they did not see

any real issue to contend with…'

 

Though it may appear differently in a cursory reading, Swami

Dayananda has eliminated in this article, and possibly at the summit,

exactly what Hinduism cherishes most: Oneness, no separation, reality as

a seamless whole. Furthermore, this statement places `worshippers' in a

lesser category by claiming that the idol in a temple `is but an altar of

worship'. We would have to question what exactly is meant by `but an

altar of worship'. In effect the Hindu Temple is sublime precisely

because it captures what is truest and most laudable in the Sanatan

Dharma in that the sanctum sanctorum, where that alleged `inconsequential

form' resides, is an exact reproduction of the human soul wherein the

Godhead of any particular inclination is nestled. Woe be the day when

this sacred Bhoomi ceases to give birth to those devotees who have had,

and continue to have, this profound experience.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter Eleven, Sr Krishna unveils his

true FORM at Arjun's request: it is the Time-Spirit, Mahakala. But true

to the age in which he lived, for Arjun it is unbearable. He implores his

mentor to return to the form he is used to, that of his beloved friend;

and Sri Krishna obliges. But we learn something extremely important from

this narration which is perhaps missed by most: The `form' adopted is one

of Hinduism's most cherished concepts. To some extent we find it

exquisitely enshrined in Nataraj of the Cosmic Dance. Will Swami Dayanada

`explain' to the Jewish Rabbinate that this is a mere figure for the

devotee to worship, with no deeper significance?

 

Hinduism has become contaminated by lesser beliefs; the deep

and profound significance of the Idol in each temple has been sullied by

this desire to make the faith acceptable to those who have never had the

experience of the DIVINE MAYA of the Vedic Age, she who is the fashioner

of, precisely, Form. What is overlooked, by one and all it seems, is

that in eschewing idols the guardians of dogma did away with the Divine

Mother, creator of all Form. There is an awakening in the West

particularly to this aspect of Reality: the Goddess, fashioner of Form,

among her many other attributes. The result by this wholesale elimination

has been the degradation of women, particularly in those areas where

sacred idols are trampled upon. May Hindus awaken to this conspiracy and

resist the temptation to be `all things to all men'. The world must open

to the Hindu way, and not the opposite.

 

 

 

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

, Aeon Centre of Cosmology

 

Tamil Nadu, South India

 

 

 

For more on Thea and her work see: www.aeongroup.com, http://

www.patrizianorellibachelet.com/ http://www.Matacom.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS - 09 MARCH 2008

 

 

 

Hindu-Jewish declaration removes misconceptions

 

by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

 

 

An extraordinary inter-faith meet between Hindu and Jewish religious

leaders – and event with the potential to pioneer a paradigm shift from

conflict to harmony among all religions – took place at Jerusalem a

couple of weeks ago. The historic meet emphasized and illustrated the

importance of honest dialogue between any two religious traditions to

resolve seemingly irresolvable differences.

 

Last year Hindu and Jewish religious leaders, representing

the two oldest traditions in the world, commenced an inter-religious

dialogue in New Delhi. Following that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and

the delegation from the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha held the second round

of inter-religious dialogue at Jerusalem in February 2008. The Jerusalem

meet concluded with a landmark declaration that Hindus worship `one

supreme being' and are not really idolatrous. The implications of this

are profound in content and far-reaching in effect. Judaism was born of

the complete repudiation of idol worship and rabbinic literature abounds

with denunciations of idolatry in an entire tractate of the Talmud

devoted to this. The importance of this issue in Jewish and other

Abrahamic traditions cannot be overstated. Since its first encounter with

these religions, and due to their incomplete understanding of its

Sastras, Hinduism has been perceived by them as idolatrous and promoting

many gods. The Hindus have for centuries experienced the extremely

violent consequence of this wrong perception. The historic declaration

made at the Hindu-Jewish summit at Jerusalem on February 18, 2008 sets

at rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is idolatrous. The declaration

reads:

 

`It is recognized that one supreme being in its formless and

manifest aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. The

Hindu relates to only the one supreme being when he/she prays to a

particular manifestation. This does not mean that Hindus worship `gods'

and `idols'.

 

The Jewish leaders, in so many words, owned their perception

of the Hindu tradition as erroneous and came up with the declaration

which the Hindu delegation could happily accept. This establishes that

honest and bold dialogue can completely reverse wrong views and erroneous

perceptions held over millennia. It emphasizes that leaders of every

religion need to be informed about the basics, vision and beliefs of

other religious traditions.

 

In India Hindus not only gave sanctuary to the Jews when they

were hounded out all over the world but also gave them the freedom to

pursue their religion with dignity. Yet their notion, entirely due to a

wrong perception, that Hindus worship many gods without one supreme being

and that they are idolators remained, with the result their theological

conflict with Hinduism was seen as irreconcilable. Now after an honest

and open dialogue they have realised that the accommodating heart of a

Hindu is born of his/her acceptance of one Supreme Being who is invoked

in many ways and in many forms by different faiths including theirs.

 

In fact, the crux of the problem was no doubt the worship of

forms. When they understood that no form is separate from Isvara and the

particular form enshrined in a temple is but an altar of worship, they

did not see any real issue to contend with. They were visibly relieved

and thanked the delegation for removing the wrong perception held for

more than two thousand years.

 

Once the fundamental misconception was removed, the

Rabbinate, not surprisingly, also affirmed the following declaration on

the sensitive issue of the svastika, the sacred symbol for the Hindus.

 

`The svastika is an ancient and auspicious symbol of the

Hindu tradition. It is inscribed on Hindu temples, ritual altars,

entrances and even account books. A distorted version of this sacred

symbol was misappropriated the Third Reich in Germany and abused as an

emblem under which heinous crimes were perpetrated against humanity,

particularly the Jewish people. The participants recognise that this

symbol is, and has been for millennia, sacred to Hindus, long before its

misappropriation.'

 

The importance of this affirmation may be understood from the

fact that a Hindu temple in Detroit was vandalised a few years ago by the

Jewish community offended by a huge svastika rangoli at the entrance of

the temple.

 

Another critical element in the declaration is the acceptance

that all faiths are sacred and inviolable and that religious conversion

is in itself violence. If all faiths, particularly the Abrahamic family

of faiths, accept this declaration the fundamental cause of religious

disharmony will be gone for good. Several other and significant issues

were discussed at the summit, leading to mutual understanding. Leaders of

both religions came out of the mutually enriching meeting, wiser.

 

I write about this meeting and its outcome because it sets a

new bar for inter-religious dialogue. To ferret out what is common in our

traditions and agree that we have some common ground is not enough; it is

not enough to skirt around tough issues and " agree to disagree " . No, to

be beneficial to all, to foster enrichment rather than impoverishment of

our religious traditions, dialogue must be conducted on the points of

intersection of our conflicts with ruthless honesty. We should have the

courage to probe, question, listen and even agonise if we have to, but

never shirk. Above all, the dialogue must be rooted in the deepest and

most comprehensive grasp of the scriptures of the respective faiths.

 

Dialogue is the ancient Hindu model for promoting mutual

understanding of religious truth and avoiding or resolving conflicts

between faiths. Dialogue between enlightened leaders of the faiths pre

vents the differences among them from spilling on to the streets and

turning into uncontrollable issues. That was how in this ancient nation

religious harmony was conceptualised, promoted and sustained for

thousands of years. Now this needs to be globalised for promoting peace

among religions. The only means to conflict avoidance and resolution is

dialogue among different religions. The Global Foundation for

Civilisational Harmony [GFCH] which was inaugurated by His Holiness Dalai

Lama in January 2008 in Delhi, and in which some well-known religious and

spiritual leaders of different faiths participated, has a very

significant role to play to bring about this healthy understanding among

religions. The GFCH needs to organise meaningful dialogue between leaders

of different religious traditions and help remove wrong perceptions

arising from an absence of true understanding of each other's faiths,

paving the way for harmony and mutual respect among religions. All

religious faiths and religious leaders must extend their whole-hearted

support to this great initiative.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Robert Wilkinson,

 

We have allowed your long mail, without any moderation as a special

case.

 

One can do tons of Cut & Paste the entire internet in this forum, which

we do NOT appreciate, unless you take pains to write your own mail, fair

enough. Further, any story that you post, should have some finer forms

of links with astrology.

 

We do not wish to be drawn into a religious issues at this junction and

hence, any replies or responses or further postings on this subject

would not be allowed. We want to keep our focus centered on astrology

and nothing else.

 

Trust you appreciate our stand. All members are requested to note this

for information.

 

With regards,

 

Sreeram_Srinivas