 |
||
|
||
| 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?
>
> It is precisely because of this reason (the form of the murti not being
> important) that there exist so many different shapes and forms! If it
> were important, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that there would have
> been only one (at least of each kind)?
Just because there are many forms does not mean the form is unimportant.
How did you get such an idea? A particular form is the result of a
R^ishhi having seen the Lord due to his intense concentration or tapas.
For eg, when doing japa of a mantra the form of meditation _must_ be the
one in the dhyAna shoka only (unless the guru explicitly says
otherwise). Why? It is because the mantra is the verbal representation
of the Lord in the form described by the shloka. The mantra is no
different from the Lord described by the form in the dhyAna shloka.
Also mUrti-s in temples are always made by experienced craftsmen who
take special care not to make any mistakes in their carvings. Tha
Agama-s also say that the mUrti invoked into a carving which is
incorrect will lead to disastrous results.
However a point to note is that just carving the vigraha in the
prescribed fashon is _not_enough according to the Agama-s. It does not
make the vigraha the Lord. Proper AvAhanaM (invoking) is also necessary.
After that the vigraha is no different from the Lord. Typically only
persons of high spiritual calibre are involved during the invocation
ceremony.
> > 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?
> >
>
> Each of the murtis has a lot of history associated with it. There could
> be any number of reasons why one particular temple is held to be more
> sanctified than others. Maybe someone's wishes were fulfilled
> (by coincidence or by divine grace) when he/she prayed at a particular
> temple
> and that has become a family tradition.
That may be your opinion. However, that's not what the Agama-s say (at
least for some cases). For eg, the aruNAchala hill is Lord shiva
himself. Thus say the skanda, shiva purANa-s. No invocation of any sort
is required. The various shakti pITha-s are the devi herself and no
invocation is required.
Ramakrishnan.
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|