Author: Rajeev Srinivasan
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: April 24, 2001
The destruction of the Buddha images
at Bamiyan set me to wondering. What is the origin of all this iconoclasm?
Why is idol worship bad? On thinking things through, I can only find two
reasons: one, that worshipping an idol implies an unreasoning blind faith.
Two, that it is a marketing tactic to differentiate one's religion from
another faith that has gone before.
Let us consider the first, and see
if Hindus or Buddhists are especially guilty as charged of blind faith.
Here is the definition of the world
'idol' from the American Heritage Dictionary on the web:
1. An image used as an object of
worship, a false god
2. One that is adored, often blindly
or excessively
3. Something visible but without
substance
The word is derived from the Greek
eidos, form, and the root weid- in Indo-European, whose derivatives include
guide, wise, wisdom, guise, wit, view, visa, vision, advice, clairvoyance,
idea, history, story.
I suppose the second definition
above is the one that makes logical sense regarding blind faith.
What is an idol? Apparently it depends
on the beholder. When Hindus prostrate themselves before images of their
gods, these are idols. Very bad. When Christians prostrate themselves before
images of the crucified Jesus, Mary or assorted saints, these are icons.
Very good. Idols = bad, icons = good. The impartial observer is slightly
confused by this fine distinction.
There is a crucial issue that all
those who abuse Hindu idol-worship do not quite get. No Hindu is under
the impression that the idol or image is in fact God or the demi-god of
choice. We are perfectly aware that it is only a representation of an idea;
and therefore we do not worship it but the idea behind it. We merely use
it as a means of concentrating our energies in prayer. This distinction
seems lost on the average iconoclast.
Does the image inherently have meaning?
Perhaps not. But does it gain implied meaning? I contend that it does,
through a process of transmutation. The image, through the ritual of consecration,
gains something of the personality of the divine, which the image always
had the potential to carry. This is the theory in Hinduism, because of
Advaita Vedanta, Absolute Monism, whereby everything, every living and
inanimate object, is suffused with the spirit of the One.
How and why do you transmute an
object? Here is what His Holiness the Sankaracharya of Kanchi says, thanks
to my friend Amrita H for the information:
"God exists everywhere. So a question
may be asked why there should be any temples built for Him. We know that
God exists everywhere, but still the idea does not get firmly established
in our mind. If God is merely omnipresent, how can He help us? We all long
for His grace somehow. So we have to worship Him and get His grace. But
how? The Agama Sastras tell us how this should be done. The sun's rays
contain a lot of heat energy. If we keep a piece of cloth in the sun, it
does not catch fire by itself. But if we place a lens and focus the sun's
heat rays on that piece of cloth, after some time we find that the cloth
catches fire. Similarly, electrical energy is everywhere, but in order
to bring it to our daily use, we need to have generators to canalise that
energy and transmission systems to distribute it at the places where we
need it. In the same way in order to get the grace of the Omnipresent Lord,
we have to build temples where we can focus the power of the Lord in a
consecrated idol for our benefit in an easy way.
"So in our country, we find there
are many temples which have been built. in our temples, the idols are installed
and they have divinity infused into them and as such they have a sanctity
about them. [the idol] becomes invested with divinity, and we start performing
abhisheka, archana, dipaharati etc. for that deity; it acquires divine
power and it obtains chaitanya. "
Here is what an observer says, one
who witnessed first-hand the power of the transformation: in Meeting God
-- Elements of Hindu Devotion by Stephen Huyler (Yale University Press),
again thanks to Amrita.
"I had been to Padmapoda, a village
in eastern India, a number of times previously to visit the family of a
close friend. Each time, I had been taken to see the sacred tree that embodies
the local Goddess, Gelubai, the deity of the community. This new experience
was an unprecedented honor: being allowed to witness the ceremony of invocation
in which the dynamic power of the supreme Goddess Chandi was requested
to subsume and transform that of the local deity. It was a very special
ritual, enacted on rare occasions to implore the aid of the Goddess in
overcoming a difficult domestic problem.
". As a middle-aged cultural anthropologist
and art historian who had already spent half my life studying India, I
prided myself on my objectivity. I might feel empathy toward a particular
subject or situation, but as a scholar I tried to distance myself to observe
and take note.
". Despite my resistance, at that
moment, as the fire flared brightly and the spirit of the Goddess was invoked
to enter the tree and be available to the village, I actually felt her
presence. I felt a change in the atmosphere: a palpable sense of power
vibrating throughout the area surrounding the sacred tree. It was a type
of pulsating energy, the strength of which I had never before sensed in
my life. I was completely surprised, overwhelmed beyond any expectation.
In that one moment I, who had come as an observer, had become a participant.
That insight altered and enriched my perception, allowing me to release
decades of self-identity as an objective outsider. By being fully present
and receptive to an experience so different from anything that I had been
raised to understand, my personal and professional life was changed. I
was transformed."
An art historian's rather more prosaic
perspective, from Lives of Indian Images by Richard Davis (Motilal Banarsidass):
". ritual establishment does not
focus upon a dramatic, abrupt transfiguration from inert matter to living
icon. Rather it involves an elaborate sequence of rites that, through repeated
imposition of mantras, powers and substances, progressively constitute
the fabricated object as fully imbued with the attribute of divinity. [An]
analogy used by the Saiva ritual texts that. captures this gradualist ritual
procedure is that of kindling fire. Because Siva is by theological definition
ubiquitous, they say, he is already present, in a latent sense, even in
the raw materials gathered to create the image, just as fire is believed
to be latent in the dry wood or in smoldering embers used to build a fire."
". the rites of establishment commence
with the initial selection of materials. the second phase of establishment
involves the physical fabrication of the image. the third phase., involving
the initial "awakening" of the image, centers around the opening of the
eyes (netronmilana).after its circumambulation, the image enjoys a restful
interlude, dwelling in water (jaladhivasana) for as many as nine nights.
the priest next performs an affusion (abhisheka). after its anoinment the
image is carried into the temple proper, where it is installed in its own
shrine, bathed, dressed and adorned again. Finally the priest performs
full worship (puja) to the image for the first time."
Thus the idol is transmuted from
its base material to a vehicle for the power of the deity, a point of focus
for the energies of the worshipper.
The transmutation of objects happens
all the time: consider a box of paper. This has no special divinity associated
with it. But consider the same paper after it has been printed with a certain
text: lo and behold, it becomes the Holy Bible, notice the capital H. If
someone insults this book, believers get quite upset indeed. In that case,
is the Bible an idol? Especially as it is believed to be the literal truth,
the word of God, and that no word in it may be altered.
Thus, would it be fair to suggest
that Christians worship idols, through the veneration of the printed book
with the alleged word of God in it? Isn't this blind faith in an object
(paper with print marks on it) that has no inherent divinity an instance
of idol-worship?
Christians certainly venerate other
images too: the crucifix, the image of Jesus bleeding on the cross, is
a prime example. Many Christians carry this around their necks and display
this in their homes or cars. Some occasionally kiss it as well. Wouldn't
the divinity attributed to this object, a 'graven image', with no inherent
value, classify it in the realm of idols?
Christians, in particular Catholics,
are inconsistent in their attitudes towards images. If they worship them,
that is fine. If Hindus do, it is some terrible crime. Muslims have gone
one step further in their disdain for images, having summarily banned all
of them. They are at least consistent in rejecting all images.
And, of course, Muslims consider
the Koran so holy that a rumour that a copy had been burnt resulted in
bloody riots in Kanpur and elsewhere recently. And other objects are made
sacred too. I remember a few years ago there was a religious riot in Bangalore
because the municipal corporation merely knocked down a wall at a mosque:
the wall had been built by encroaching on to public land. The very wall
of the mosque had somehow acquired divinity!
If you ask a Muslim or a Christian
why idol worship is bad, they will be hard-pressed to give you a truly
logical answer, other than that it is obviously blasphemous and disgusting.
On further probing, it will turn out that they think so simply because
their holy books say so. By definition, since God is supposed to have spoken
the words in their books, that is a final answer. But consider the following:
Images have three primary functions:
"first, for the instruction of the unlettered, who might learn from them
as if from books; second, so that the mystery of the Incarnation and the
examples of the saints might remain more firmly in our memory by being
daily represented to our eyes; and third, they excite the emotions, which
are more effectively aroused by things seen than by things heard." (quoted
in Richard Davis, Lives of Indian Images)
No, not a Hindu theologian, but
Thomas Aquinas, arguably the cleverest Catholic theologian and philosopher
of all time, speaking out for images! So much for the Christian antipathy
to images -- their most revered philosopher supports images! No wonder
churches are full of bleeding Jesuses, angelic Madonnas, brave saints,
cherubic infant Jesuses, etc.
It is not the image per se, but
that which it represents, that is important. Pretty much what Aquinas is
saying, and what Hindus have always said. Somehow, the idol-busting Semites
never quite figured out that it was not the idol that mattered, but the
idea behind it. At Somanath, at Bamiyan, at Benares, in Goa, Semites tried
to destroy Hinduism and Buddhism by destroying the physical manifestations
of the ideas. Thus, in a bizarre way, they themselves have become crypto-idolaters,
for they are the ones who pay attention to the material objects without
heed to the abstract Truths embodied in them: blind hatred instead of blind
faith, yes, but in principle the same thing.
So I am hard pressed to accept the
argument that somehow Hindus and Buddhists are especially wicked idolaters
who blindly worship objects.
