Murti Puja is not idol worship

[jignyAsu]

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

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

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

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

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

There are, then, few questions that arise:

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeffery D. Long]

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

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

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

There are, then, few questions that arise:

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

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

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

Namaste JignyAsu,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pranam.

[jignyAsu]

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

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

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

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

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

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