Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Religion Thoughts On Idol Worship Dayanada and Ramakrishna Thoughts On Idol Worship Dayanada and Ramakrishna Dayananda & Ramkrishna: Thoughts on Idol Worship By: G. Mann The concept of God, gods, and goddesses in Hinduism is such a complex kaleidoscope of philosophies and origins it would be futile to admit of any simple explanation. In the same nature, we see the vast numbers of idols that have come to represent it. Throughout the ages God has been transformed into countless forms in the Hindu pantheon. He/She has been sculpted, painted, aniconicized into symbols and has been represented in nature. However, in doing so, many believe that Hindus have unknowingly transformed the religion into polytheistic form, as one Indian theist states, " (That) polytheism sways the men of this religion (Hinduism)..." (Kapoor 61). If this is so, then it could be viewed that because of the idolization of countless gods and goddesses, Hindus have lost their connection with one true impersonal God. Therefore Hinduism is not monotheistic, but a "lower form of worship" (Kapoor 61). It shall be shown that philosophers such as Swami Dayananda Swami stood firmly against the act of idol worship and had tried to (and succeeded) in many ways to rekindle Vedic Hinduism in the form of the Arya Samaj. While other philosophers such as Sri Paramahamsa Ramkrishna was in no rejection to the act of idol worship and felt that all the spiritual texts led to only one God. From this essay, arguments from both Dayananda who had represented the Vedas and Ramkrishna who chose no particular text, will be examined and ultimately it shall be decided whether iconic worship is at all needed in Hinduism. God almighty according to Hinduism, is the ultimate Reality behind the universe and all the diverse objects, activities and events therein. All laws of nature, all forms of energy, space and time are nothing but the manifestation of God (Balakrishnan 1). Therefore it seems inconceivable to portray God of any form or attribute, to do so would be to depose such an omnipotent being. This is the belief of some philosophers of India, one of who is Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Swami Dayananda began to question his faith in idol worship despite being brought up in an orthodox Shaivite family. It was on the auspicious Shivaratri that he had observed mice lingering around the Shiva Lingam of which was so highly worshipped but which now seemed a helpless image. Dayananda couldn't reconcile the aniconic image of Shiva before him and the Great Mahadeva as described in the scriptures. Dayananda condemned the act of idol worship for two main reasons, both seem to root from his reliance on the Veda. The first of his arguments was that idol worship was never mentioned in the Vedas and so there was no justification for doing so. He stated in a pivotal debate at Kashi Shastrartha that, "None of the vedic texts quoted on the favoring of idol worship…how could they (the rival pundits) show idol worship in the Vedas, when there was none?" (Arya & Shastri 71) And to this, some authors are quick to support, that image making at the time of Vedas was unjustified rather India adopted the form from Buddhists, "The art of idolatry of ancient India (Vedic India) owes its rise to Buddhism" Dayananda's claim had held true. That is, to some extent. It doesn't seem evident that the act of idol worship is clearly stated in Samhita text of the Veda, as one author supports the fact that in the Vedas: We can scarcely get (in Vedas) such things as consecration or installation of sacred objects…(Only in texts) that are affiliated with the Vedas (that is, other texts) can give abundant references to image-worship (Shah 4). That is why we find that upon Dayananda's argument, the Pundits at Kashi Shastrartha had "ultimately side-tracked the issue" (Arya & Shastri 71). Nevertheless, as one examines the Vedas closely, one finds that there is ample evidence that the Vedas do allude to anthropomorphic images of gods and goddesses in the Vedas. For example, 'The body of Agni made of Ayas or of silver or of gold,' or 'the presiding deities of night and dawn having fine sculptures, etc.' (Shah 5). In addition to the Vedas' references all throughout its scriptures of many deities such as Surya (sun ), Indra (air), and Agni (fire), the Brahamanas which are considered to be an integral part of the Vedas and are essentially the "how to" texts of Vedic sacrifice. Dayananda was probably aware of this angle of argument and appropriately so, dismissed that the "Brahamanas were not Vedas, the Vedas meant only Samhita (mantra portion)" (Arya Shastri 67). It seems that only if the Brahmanas are excluded, Dayananda's argument against idol worship seems sufficient. In addition, the second view that Dayananda held profoundly since childhood was that "God was everywhere, He has no shape or form" (Kulageri 1998). Therefore quite fittingly Dayananda had used the Vedas as a source to further prove his view. He had felt that the Vedas were the only significant texts because they were written by richis (Granthas). But more importantly, because they had started with "Om" or "Artha" which to him obviously meant one God. Furthermore, since it stated in the Vedas that, "God is Formless (nirakara) and is Perfect, (and He is) Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient…" there could be no such thing as a manifestation of God, or Avatara (Arya & Sharma 66). Ram, Krishna and any other great incarnations are "not Gods to be worshipped" rather one should only worship one God, what he called Parameshawra or true divine (Arya & Shastri 66). In addition, Dayananda went on to say that Godliness could not be circumscribed within the body of one man (or prophet), and be present at one place (Arya & Shastri 67). So worshipping the former or any other deity is not only against the Vedas but to do so was to him, "irrational behavior" (Arya & Shastri 66). We see that a single God certainly holds true in many other religions such as Islam and it is well known that the British Christians had a great influence on India at the time of Dayananda, especially in areas of religion. Dayananda seems to have felt that a reform had to be made to the 'chaos' of Hinduism. One such author agrees to Dayananda's claim, "The practice of Hindu religion in early centuries of Christian era became somewhat confused and in disarray..." (Balakrishnan 5). This is why Dayananda felt that Hinduism should focus monotheistically to one God. Also because he repulsed at the offensive proclamations from the missionaries about the 'polytheistic' Hinduism as a way of spreading their own faith. As one author states: The Christian missionaries had their own presses and their ceaseless propaganda poured ridicule on the Hindu religion, so much so that the average Hindu began to feel ashamed of his 'inferior' religion" (Arya & Shastri 114). And so, Dayananda appeared on the scene and in many ways ended this widespread inferiority complex of the Hindus. Dayananda argued that if God was indeed 'the One' in Christianity, how could Satan have so much power as to mislead the Son of God, Adam? And the same analogy was made for Islam. Dayananda argued that even though Muslims believe that all is done according to God's wishes and only He is responsible for acquittal and /or punishment, then how is it, that salvation can be rendered in putting complete trust in a Prophet? Therefore from these arguments it is shown that Christianity and other religions were not as 'focused' to one God as they were preached deceivingly so. Dayananda reassured the Hindus that faith in the Vedas was just as powerful a tool to reach the one true God as was any other religion. Dayananda's view was so influential at the time that one author acknowledges: "For he (Dayananada) appeared as sole guarantee against wholesale conversions" (Arya & Shastri 114). Nevertheless, if we take a purely philosophical viewpoint, we naturally 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 because he paid virtually no attention to his course of studies and invested all his enthusiasm in the illumination of religious images and the singing of sacred hymns (Lemaitre 50). However at the same time Ramkrishna knew that above all else that the innumerable gods of Hinduism represented only limited manifestations of the Supreme Spirit. The Infinite, could not be expected to be grasped by the finite intelligence of man (Lemaitre 60). Ramkrishna argued that: These symbolic manifestations, which corresponded to human affinities, help those persons who want to gain release from the world of phenomena...The gods are only the intermediaries of the Source of all Light, of all Wisdom, of all Intelligence which is the One..." (Lemaitre 60). This meant that God could represent anything, a clay figure, a picture, a plant. To the common man who couldn't see God in His brilliance, the deity or image was an exceptional device to start the journey. Although to reiterate Dayananda's view, that if God has been described in the Vedas as being at the same time without form, then why should it matter if a common man pays homage to the One in any way he sees fit? It shouldn't. This is the primary viewpoint of Ramkrishna. So if one is under the influence of Bhakti (love) of God then it doesn't make a difference whether one believes in worship of deities/idols of Him or not; one is still focusing their devotion only to Him. If Ramkrishna had also sought the Vedas to explain this point (and he could have), he would have further denied Dayananda. One author attests to the fact that: The worship of the sun ('God') by means of symbols continued during the subsequent periods and several of them are found described in Vedic literature... (Shah 3) So therefore in contrast to Dayananda's claim, we see that Ramkrishna is indeed justified in his idea that worshipping idols is a path (of many paths) one may wish to take to reach God. The second deliverance Ramkrishna makes is to Dayananda's claim that there is only one God. Although Ramkrishna believed that there is only one Lord (and thus he agreed with Dayananda personally), he also hadn't rejected that others could believe in any "God" they choose, whether it be Allah, Jesus, or Kali. Furthermore he hadn't protested the idea (to contrast Dayananda) that one could believe that God resided inside the image itself. One example that illustrates Ramkrishna's idea is the instance when he and one of his soon to be disciples (M) had engaged in conversation about idolatry. Ramkrishna had said earlier that God could be both formless and form, both manifestations are equally real. The scholar M couldn't understand this, and questioned Ramkrishna in hopes of finding a contradiction in the Master, "But those who should be made to worship the clay image should be made to understand that the clay image is not God, and that while they are bowing down before the image they must remember that they are worshipping God. They must not worship clay." (Isherwood 263-264) "Who are you to teach others? It is the lord of the Universe who teaches mankind. If we need to be taught, he will teach. He knows our inner most thoughts. Supposing it is a mistake to worship God in the image-doesn't he know he alone is being worshipped? He will certainly be pleased by that worship. Why should you get a headache over that?" (Isherwood 264) One finds from this discourse that Ramkrishna didn't care for nuances of proper religious conduct nor had he concerned whether people understood what God really was. This was where he differed from Dayananda. What was really important to Ramkrishna was that one expressed love for God. Whether one is a shaivite, vaishnavite, or shaktist; it did not matter. The 'the source' of all things would be attended to, no matter which idol was worshipped. For instance, just as a mother prepares fish for her five children in different ways, each to their own palate, just so, God is rendered in different ways to different people so they can experience Him in their own way (Isherwood 264). This is why Ramkrishna stands apart from Dayananda. While Dayananda had went to great extents on reforming Hinduism to his Vedic style, Ramkrishna felt that Hinduism was perfect as it was, idolatry and all. One author further supports the view that while: Dayananda thought of saving only a part of Hinduism, Ramkrishna tried to save the whole body of Hinduism, which included idol worship as represented by countless temples, places of pilgrimage...which Dayananda did not deem worth saving, even though these are the life-blood of millions in Hinduism. (Arya & Shastri 23) As shown from the examinations of these two philosophers we ultimately find that idol worship is an integral part of the vast culture and faith of Hinduism. Some immature critics from other religions take the multiplicity of Hindu deities as multiplicity of Gods and change Hinduism as polytheistic. This is wholly incorrect. Hinduism postulates only one God, not only for Hindus but for the entire universe including those following other religions. All that Hinduism does is to provide a number of ways for reaching the ultimate God. While Dayananda could only realize this from his critical interpretation of the Veda, Ramkrishna understood this from his heart. And so, it is not at all surprising that Ramkrishna achieved the phenomenon known as samadhi (blissful inner peace, moksha) in every faith he absorbed. Whether he attained samadhi in Christianity, Islam or Hinduism, he ultimately revealed that God was One and the same. Therefore from the analysis of these two philosophers, it is undoubtedly seen why Ramkrishna's argument would be held far more dearly in a land of secularism. His message stands as fresh and unifying because it applies to all faiths, not just Hindus. While some may argue that Dayananda was a greater exponent of Hindu consciousness for his proclamation of Hindu self pride, it is Ramakrishna who had provided a universal message. In the end, whichever side one decides upon, one cannot deny the effect both sages had on countless numbers of people. That is why they equally stand as among the greatest proponents of Hinduism in the modern age. Bibliography: none Word Count: 2710
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.