 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
Narahari Achar <NACHAR@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU> writes:
> [The deity] can be invoked in almost any object: an areca nut, a
> lump of Turmeric,a lump of clay or even a lump of cowdung as "pillari" in
> kannada,"pilleyaar" in tamil. We invoke bysaying "....bimbesmin sannidhim kuru"
> "Oh Lord, please make your presence manifest in this image ( a lump of turmeric
> or whatever)".
The is a world of difference between a lump of turmeric or cowdung
and a sAlagrAma or the temple mUrti. The former are mere pratIkAs
or symbols in which we request the Divine to manifest Itself to
receive our worship.
This is in marked contrast to the temple image or the sAlagrAma. Take for
example the very word "mUrti", meaning manifestation. What non-believers
think to be just blocks of stone are considered literal manifestations
of God by the devout. There is no need for AvAhana for the sAlagrAma
or the Lord in Tirupati (considered a self-manifested image) for God
is literally and forever present as the image itself. If there is
any AvAhana required, it is to make God's presence even more apparent
to the worshipper.
Even for images sculpted by human hands, as are present in most
temples, once the "netrotsava" ("opening" of the eyes of the image)
is performed, there is no essential difference between the image itself
and the Supreme Divinity, assuming one is a believer in the age-old
tradtions of temple worship.
Irrespective of what name you give to this form of worship, the
temple image is undoubtedly far more than a mere means for concentration,
both practically and theologically. During any Indian temple festival,
particularly in the South where they are most elaborately celebrated,
the devout visit the temple environs to experience the physical beauty
of God in His or Her iconic form. In such an atmosphere, it is as if
the state of Supreme Salvation itself were upon earth (bhUloka vaikuntha).
God is in reality there, residing in the temple, ever-accessible, readily
gracing us and willing to receive our service. This what is described
in some texts as the "arca-avatara", iconic incarnation of God.
To most Hindus in India, the understanding that God is fully present
as the temple icon is firmly ingrained into their psyche; they
are not caught up with worrying about whether it is an inferior
form of worship or not, or whether they are to look past the image
to some esoteric abstraction. To such a temple-going person, the question
"Have you seen God?" that has made many a modern philosopher famous
seems patently absurd.
The mainstream Western religions are inherently opposed to any form
of image worship; it matters not whether we choose to call it idol
worship. To them, the very existence of an image in a temple to which
we offer flowers, incense and prayers is itself an abomination. Why
should we feel the need to apologize for our own beliefs? No matter
what we call it, those who choose to criticize our practices will
still dislike them. To me, idol worship simply means offering
worship to an image which we consider divine. To this extent, Hindus
have for centuries proudly practiced idol worship, and many if not
most traditional Hindus consider it the best form of worship.
Mani
P.S. Not all temple mUrtis are considered by the devout to have
been sculpted by human hands. The images of God at Tirupati (Venkatesvara),
Badri, Srirangam (Ranganatha), Pandharpur (Vitthala), in the sAlagrAma
stones, just to name a few are believed to be God's incarnations themselves,
without any human intervention. Whether we choose to accept this or not,
we should at least properly understand it before we pass judgment on it.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|