idols and Icons

[vsdprasad 0]

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.

[theist 1]

Seems to be a natural tendancy to worship some form. People worship all kinds of forms. Female forms of course. Idols are everywhere. Pop culture is an industry that thrives on popping them out. Britney Spears, Tom Cruise. They even come in sets like the Beatles. People gather round attracted by their beauty,talent, wealth and fame, chanting their names and fawning over them, even weeping if one glances their way. And if they get a scarf or some other piece of their paraphenalia they go to pieces and treasure it for years.

 

There are also idols in the form of cars & houses, which people are very concerned about. They polish and wax that car to keep it nice and shiny. They try to direct their love to it. Nothing like toolin' around in a shiny convertible on a sunny afternoon.

 

The old idols of the material world get replaced by newer and newer models in short order though. Their shelf life is not very long. Britney gets old and the Beatles die off. The car gets wrecked and tossed aside.

 

To counter this illusion some religious people try to eliminate the form. Forms are bad. Reality is beyond that.

 

But Krsna is so smart. He simply attracts people to redirect that natural tendancy towards Himself by becoming the Deity on the altar. Ever fresh. And as we offer our love to Him there He starts to reveal Himself everywhere and within everyone as a reciprocation of our love.

 

No idol will love you back. No idol will carry you off into His eternal playground for an eternity of blissful pastimes. And certainly the formless Brahman has no interest in exchanging love with us.

 

Considering these points I am forced to conclude that none stand in opposition to idolatry as much as the humble vedic vaisnavas.