 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
I am glad that you have come around to the traditional
viewpoint; now we are agreed -- the very images we use
in worship are indistinguishable from the Deity Itself.
Please note that what you wrote above is very different
from your first article that started this entire discussion.
Originally, you took the position that the temple image was
"merely a means for concentrating on the IMMENSE." We now
have agreed that whether it is through invocation (AvAhana)
or direct incarnation (svayam-vyakta), the Deity is fully
present in and as the object of our worship.
We can play semantic games and avoid the term "idol worship";
if that is what you prefer, go ahead. However, in light of
our agreement that
a) Unlike Christianity, we believe that the image is
the very manifestation or presence of the Deity
b) Once the Deity's presence is invoked, or once the
Deity has manifested itself, the image or substance
to which we offer worship is itself Divine
c) Traditional Hindus offer their worship directly in the
presence of the Divine image, not looking past it to some
ethereal essence
I fail to see how this can be called anything other than
image or idol worship.
The idol is divine and we worship It. This does not mean
that God is limited *only* to the idol, but that God chooses
to manifest Itself as the idol to lovingly grace us.
I do not find this wrong, nor do I find this distasteful.
What is distasteful is revising Hindu worship patterns out
of a sense of inferiority and claiming that the temple image
is a mere "means of concentration." Presumably the next step
is to say that the temple image is a mere block of stone
that does not deserve our worship.
Mani
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|