Scriptural injunction against idol worshipping, IMO, is actually warning against worshipping of the fleshy body, which is lifeless and non-intelligent of its own. But the meaning of idol worship, IMO, has got distorted to massive extent. There are indeed huge problems, if one cannot see the world as divine purusha-agnivaisvanara, as the FULL (Yajvanji will say Bhuma) --- else Iswara, Allah, Yawvey, Elohim, and God remain warring entitities in the consciousness.
For the most part I agree with your points in relation to snatana dharma and perhaps explains some of the teachings of Sikh Gurbani philosophically. But even that would be a mistake to overgeneralize, despite protestations to the contrary by Tat Khalsas reformists, since murthi pooja existed in Sikhism, even in Golden Temple as late as 1906. It cannot be said that Sikhs were Advaitins or they were any sect of Islam, but were clearly sanatan and this would be the proper perspective in interpreting Gurmat. The philosophical underpinnings of Gurmat are achinya bheda abheda and not a strict non-dualism. This is a Vaishnav bhakti oriented Dvaita philosophy as well as accepting of non-dualism.
Now, analyzing how that insight plays into actual Abrahamic faiths as a legitimate "interpretation" of their scriptures which has only "become distorted" is another matter.
Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed...) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm
In the oldest Abrahamic scripture in the oldest monotheistic faith, the name for God is given as plural coinciding with spurious and illegitimate texts within the tradition, much like the later Gnostics, who recognized that a range of deities not unlike devatay existed. Rather I support that it's due to proclamation of strict monotheism that hostility to "idol worship" is based rather than any philosophical insight against worship of the ego-identity in the flesh.
In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm[2], considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20
("Have you considered Allāt and al-'Uzzā / and Manāt, the other third?" These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.)
Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans...The subtext to the event is that Muhammad was backing away from his otherwise uncompromising monotheism by saying that these goddesses were real and their intercession effective. The Meccans were overjoyed to hear this and joined Muhammad in ritual prostration at the end of the sūrah... Islamic tradition holds that Gabriel chastised Muhammad for adulterating the revelation, at which point [Qur'an 22:52] is revealed to comfort him,
We have sent no messenger or apostle before youwith whose recitations Satan did not tamper.Yet God abrogates what Satan interpolates;then He confirms His revelations,for God is all-knowing and all-wise. Muhammad took back his words and the persecution by the Meccans resumed. Verses [Qur'an 53:21] were given, in which the goddesses are belittled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses
So even in Islam exists an incident in which their final Prophet admits the reality of goddesses contrary to monotheism. On what scriptural basis can we impose our own interpretations of Advaita? If monotheism is the basis of opposition to idolatry and even the earliest texts leave remnants of belief in multiple divinities, Abrahamic monotheism by it's own scriptural sources is the corruption. The resulting persecutions against other polytheistic faiths is hypocritical and unwarranted rather than any expression of Advaitic insight.
Now you say:
"Iswara, Allah, Yawvey, Elohim, and God remain warring entitities in the consciousness."
Are you equating Allah, Yahweh and Elohim with Iswara and God and then claiming these are warring entities within our consciousness? Isn't that a corruption of the Vedic definition of Ishwara/Paramatman and God/Parabrahm? Because "Allah, Elohim, Yahweh" in these cosmologies are figurative equivalents of the Supreme Absolute Reality. How can they be "warring within us" unless there are fundamental misconceptions in Abrahamic religions? And if you acknowledge there is a war within, are you reducing Advaita to a Zoroastrian division of God versus the Devil as posited in the Abrahamic construction?
if one cannot see the world as divine purusha-agnivaisvanara, as the FULL (Yajvanji will say Bhuma)
This is the pivotal question. Can it honestly be said this is Abrahamic theology intended by their scriptures?4. naaraayaNa paro jyotir-aatmaa naarayaNa: para: |
naarayaNam param brahma tatvam naarayaNam para: |
naarayaNa paro dhyaata dhyaanam naaraayaNa: para: ||
naarayaNa (Naarayana) para: jyoti (is the greatest of lights), para: aatmaa (greatest of souls),
param brahma (is the greatest Brahman), para: tatvam (is the best of essences)
para: dhyaataa (greatest of those who meditate), para: dhyaanam (best of meditations).
"Verily is Sriman Narayana the "Paramaatma."
~Narayana Suktam, verses 4-6
I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies
on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. ~Leviticus 26:30 Bible
This is Abrahamic scriptural injunction, not corruption or misinterpretation. Does this reflect philosophical belief in Bhuma? We interpolate wise sanatan beliefs onto theirs, and honor what we interpret as our own beliefs "in the name of their religions" as a form of self-deceived "unity."
Bookmarks