-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Hinduism really considered idolatry in the Abrahamic eyes?
- Thread starter PVE1
- Start date
Hindus dont believe that the icons are intercessors with God. We believe they represent NO ONE BUT GOD.
One of the aspects of worshipping murthis is that they become 'alive' with a mystic presence. Of course not all jivas can feel this, because on the evolutionary path back to God (I mean soul's evolution, not the other one) there is too much anava (clouded awareness, ego perhaps) for them to feel it. So Hindus aren't worshipping the idol at all, its the mystic presence within the idol. This is truly reflected in the prana pratishta (eye-opening) ceremonies when temples are consecrated.
400 000 people per day visiting Palaniandavar on the famous Hill know this to be so very true and auspicious.
400 000 people per day visiting Palaniandavar on the famous Hill know this to be so very true and auspicious.
A-ManESL
Well-Known Member
Firstly the term "Abrahamic"/"Abrahamic religion" is simply a formal term which has no real essence on the spiritual path. God is God, a symbol for something not contained by any human expression, whether you are following the path of Muhammad(pbuh) or of the Hindu sages. A true follower is all in one, not just Abrahamic but Hindu as well.
Secondly as I recently mentioned on another post, it is only in India where Islam encountered idol-worship of different kind (at least on a substantial level), the views of the Islamic scholars from India, are relevant. Most of the scholars have agreed that the Hindu idol-worship is of a different category then what has been talked of in the Quran. (This also led to Hindu's been given status of People of the Book by Muslim rulers in the past).
The Sufi saint Mazher Jan-i-Janan, was asked by one of his disciples since Hindus worship idols should we condemn as kafirs? Jan-i-Janan wrote back to him a well-studied and well-thought-out reply. He said that Hindus, according to their Shashtras (holy books) believe in God who is nirankar and nirgun (i.e. without form and attributes) and this is highest form of tawhid (i.e. unity of God). As for idol worship, he gives very interesting explanation. He maintains that it is a popular practice as common people find it difficult to imagine a God who is formless and without attributes and they need some concrete object for worship and hence they carve out some shape and see reflection of one Ishwara in it. What they worship, according to Jan-i-Janan, is not piece of stone but one Ishwara through it.
Finally, someone mentioned about wahdatul-wujud (Unity of existence) in this thread. It is not akin to simple panthesim as was mentioned but is a more advanced concept. People who dont understand it fully, liken it to pantheism (which it is not quite the same as). The fact that the Created world is internally linked (and hence dependent upon and has its existence contingent to) God may be found in many Quranic verses, such as "Whersoever you may look there is the face of God", "He is the first, He is the last, He is the outward, He is the inward", "All is from God", etc. Quranic commentators who wish to de-emphasize the link between man and God have throughout history have explained these verses as signifying the transcendent nature of God and commentators wishing to emphasize the link between man and God have explained these as indications of a panentheistic nature.
Regards
nameless
The Creator
A-ManESL, would like to hear the difference between these two kind of idol worship.
What does it mean by 'People of the Book' status? Can a person be a true muslim if he does idol-worship? or worships god in the form of ram or krishna?
Actually there is much more in idol-worship, for those has not practiced it can only understand to this limit. (did not mean the sufi master is ignorant of those, but the explanation is incomplete), his explanation would mean that idol-worshiping people are incapable compared to others.
And isn't the idea of god the 'second person' hears or receives the prayer' the biggest idol? and he decides for us?....... does it really happen? and the heaven, satan, hell-fire etc, it is already full of idols ...
Anyway, these idols is to be encouraged as it can bring good in some indirect manner ....
Last edited:
internationalist
Member
While one form of idol worship considers the idol itself as God, the Hindu form of idol worship considers the idol as a representative of God (rather than God itself). This is what I feel, and I hope A-ManESL can clarify.
WorldCitizen
Member
So basically he defines the term in his own way. Highly off the mark too.
Huh?
He basically lumps Hindu iconography along with religious practices and beliefs of other religions and political systems he views as negative along with "vain imaginings". Fantastic. Triple whammy.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
On the contrary, the Baha'i Faith recognizes Hinduism--as contrasted with certain present-day practices of its adherents--as legitmate and of God!
And yes, the Baha'i Faith is eminently Abrahamic!
Peace,
Bruce
And yes, the Baha'i Faith is eminently Abrahamic!
Peace,
Bruce
Gaura Priya
IRL
Baha'u'llah has never ever mentioned the illegitimacy of using icons in worship for Hinduism... rather, every time he used the word 'idol,' it has always been in the context of the idols of superstitions and vain imaginations.
Also, some Muslims consider Hindus as People of the Book, so it is not a surprise that the Baha'i Faith can also make a claim of 'Hinduism' as one of God's religions that became 'corrupt' over time.
Also, some Muslims consider Hindus as People of the Book, so it is not a surprise that the Baha'i Faith can also make a claim of 'Hinduism' as one of God's religions that became 'corrupt' over time.
Can you stomp on it?
eh? I do not have that picture.
Whatever we use to adore God, in a way or another, are symbols only.
Idolatory is different.
Villager
Active Member
Agreed- if we use anything at all. Abraham had no images. All he had were altars made of uncut stones, to make sacrifices, the habit of his age. Even those were not required of him. So 'Abrahamism' is without any image, or necessary image, at any rate. Abraham's worship was in the mind, in the spirit, and had no external evidence except in what he did.
Agreed, again. But what is it? One cannot suppose that the idols of the ancients, that were made by their own hands, were considered by their makers to actually possess power. They were in effect excuses to do things that the conscience on its own would not permit; or rather, to persuade the less aware that they, the idol makers, could get away with things that were harmful.
It was this harmful abuse, via deceitful persuasion, that was the real objection of Abraham's deity.
Our own minds are the altars provided by Brahman. If one neglects that the Supreme Being is immanent then its effect is worse than assuming that the Supreme Being is only transcendent. The wars and murders and hatred result from such mis-conception.
One's body and one's mind are the idols that people worship.
Villager
Active Member
Agreed. Ultimately, the human choice is between the short term, in which one cheats in order to get advantage at the expense of others; and the long term, in which one forgoes temporary advantage and looks to get advantage along with the advantage of others- which is greater advantage, anyway. Spiritually, there is compromised, accusing conscience in 'short-termism', and intact, peaceful conscience in 'long-termism'.
'Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.'
John Dunne
Gaura Priya
IRL
This has no bearing in the usage of icons and images in worship in India or Hinduism. In Vaishnavism especially, I don't understand what harm is there in utilising an icon representative of God. Inasmuch as God does not have an image or can be constructed mentally thereof, He was blessed enough to give us the image of His archetype for us to worship Him in spirit and in truth.
I agree that it is not necessary. But to believe that God cares whether we utilise icons or worship Him aniconically, is fruitless, in my most humble opinion. At least from what I gather from the Vedic Scriptures.