lly find that the Vedas itself somewhat contradictory. On one hand it refers to one true God, and on the other, it refers to deities that served as prototypes for major images (for worship) later on in the Hindu pantheon. One example would be Rudra serving as a precursor to Shiva (Pearson handout 1999-2000). And therefore it still appears unclear why Dayananada appears adamant on the insistence that the Vedas had indicated to one God. It probably seems that Dayananda had simply interpreted it to his own concept of God. That is, the One, Parameshawra. His interpretation had obviously succeeded, as his Arya Samaj movement had 'caught the imagination of the people' (Arya & Shastri 115). To all his success one could easily dispute Dayananda's belief. One such argument arises; if there is only one God, does it really matter whether one worships any idol form of Him or not? To Dayananda it had mattered, as one author states that if one wished to join the Arya Samaj:"(He) should have no objection to accepting (the non-idol, monotheistic nature and practice) of the Samaj" (Naidoo 39).To some religious philosophers, this type of rigid doctrine was deemed unnecessary. One such proponent for idol worship was Sri Ramkrishna. When one takes into account the philosophy of Ramkrishna, Dayananda's arguments on the dismissal of idol worship seem to fall short to those for pro idol worship. However before one examines Ramkrishna, one should also be aware that Ramkrishna had a knack for never opposing any argument made (let alone opposing Dayananda!), but had an uncanny ability to send the dissenter away thinking twice about his own claim. On such was his opinion on idol worship. Ramkrishna had been born into a Brahmin family, and had practiced idol worship at a very young age. He very early dedicated himself to the adoration of the stone image (puia) both publicly and privately. Still later on, he failed at his job as a Sanskrit teaching assistant beca...
