 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
> robert.harder@real.net.au (Robert Harder) writes:
> > Maybe I have missed the point of the original posting, but as a
> > Hindu I have been told that the substance or shape of the murthi
> > is fairly irrelevant. The important step in making it a channel
> > to God is the enlivening of the murthi by a special ceremony.
>
> It is precisely this kind of misinformation that Hinduism
> needs to safeguard against. This strikes at the very heart
> of temple worship; if the form of the mUrti is not important,
> why take the trouble to install the image in a temple? Why
> give any special sanctity to the ancient images we have in
> our holy shrines? Why lend any validity to our saints'
> rapturous descriptions of the physical beauty of the Lord's
> temple mUrti?
>
> Frankly, you have been lied to.
Though I agree with many of the points you have made on idol worship,
you are speaking in a very misleading manner by not really understanding
Mr. Harder's point.
> The unique characteristics
> of each mUrti are very relevant. Some mUrtis we believe to
> be the very descent into material substance of God Himself,
> on His own volition; others have been consecrated by humans,
> usually according to strict guidelines in the manuals of
> temple worship (Agamas).
>
There are times, for example when the "sannidhi" (inner sanctum) of the
deity in the temple is to be cleaned, when the "power" in the idol (ie, the
deity who has graciously consented to be present in the idol) is "transferred"
elsewhere. During this period of time, the deity is *absent* in the idol in the
sannidhi. The idol is no longer "holy." After the acts/rituals pertaining to
the cleaning ceremony has taken place, the deity is again invoked into the idol
and the idol becomes sanctified again. These are the ceremonies that took place
in a Shiva temple in Madras. I can provide some more details regarding the
ceremony if you so like.
[..]
> There is no place in our ancient manuals of worship where
> these particularized manifestations of the Lord are declared
> irrelevant, or declared to be means of concentration. In
> other words, the image is not a "channel to God" -- the image
> is God Himself, in His most gracious and worshippable form.
>
But I have heard this [perhaps in the Srimad Bhagavatam, must check this up],
"O lord, thou art omnipresent! Forgive me for seeking you only in
pilgrimage spots!"
> Mani
>
-Kartik
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|