The Politics of Iconophilia:

Idolatry, Iconoclasm, and the problem of representing God

[Introduction will be completed in due course – Sunthar]

The discussants in this ‘multilogue’ (samvāda) are Ashok Chowgule (President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad), Arun Garg (), Bharat Gupt (Delhi-based scholar of Abhinavagupta and comparative aesthetics), Mohan Kataria, Carl Vadivelle (a Lutheran Swede converted to Shaiva bhakti and Murugan worship in particular), Rabinder K. Kaul (), Indrani Rampersad (a Trinidadian Hindu journalist?), Philip Miller (), Raja Mylaganam (a Unitarian-Universalist of Hindu background), William Glick (a Jew converted to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and author The Rabbi and Me), Pathmarajah Nagalingam (a Tamil Shaiva Siddhāntin evangelist), Michael Witzel (Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University), and a chameleon who draws his inspiration from Abhinavagupta (Sunthar Visuvalingam).

This thread (links provided to the original unedited posts at the Abhinava forum) focuses explicitly and directly on the fiercely contested status of the religious icon (as an avenue to God or Enlightenment). It begins with the announcement of the publication (2006) of the joint-paper by Sunthar and Elizabeth confronting Hindu idolatry and Islamic iconoclasm in the holy city of Banaras. Sunthar was subsequently exposed to the oeuvre of Bruno Latour (while the latter was visiting professor at the University of Chicago in October 2006)—particularly his essay advocating iconophilia—which not only helps disentangle the various strands of this bewildering knot but also provides the wider backdrop extending the underlying politics of representation to the sciences and the arts. This serendipitous convergence provided the necessary (conceptual and bibliographical) resources to extend the discussion backwards in time to include not only the fierce controversy between Hindus and Indologists over the iconography of Ganesha, but also forwards to cover the “inner conflict” of Islam as it is being played out before our eyes in the Middle East, pitting Sunni and Shia against each other both geopolitically (Vali Nasr, 2006) and theologically (Visuvalingam, 1993). Among the diverse topics touched upon are the notion of ‘uncreated’ (acheiropoete =svayambhū) images, the Lāt Bhairo pillar in Banaras, the status of (pilgrimage to) the Ka’aba, Abraham’s smashing of his father’s gods of clay, the idolatry of the Book, etc. Only those posts relevant for resituating and understanding “iconoclash” in its specifically religious context have been retained in this digest; parallel threads on sexual symbolism in Hindu iconography and mythology, the sacred character of Banaras, Hindu-Jewish dialogue as a whole, the confrontation between the ‘Christian’ West and the Islamic world, etc., have been compiled into separate digests (with some duplication) – to be completed]  I have inserted introductory comments [pending] where needed to contextualize some of the posts [Do let me know if your views have been inadvertently omitted or distorted: this is an evolving archive!]. Having decided to make this archive available to the public, I would like to offer some concise clarifications—a conceptual grid as it were—of my own take on the various perspectives that are under scrutiny in this discussion:

Idolatry:

Iconoclasm: 

Politics:

Iconophilia:  

 

Related threads and articles at svAbhinava (and elsewhere):

 

What Is Iconoclash? Or Is There a World Beyond the Image Wars? (essay by Bruno Latour)

 

The interdiction against representations (essay by Catherine Chalier translated from the French)

 

Idol worship versus Deity worship  (W.L. Glick = Isa Das, chapter 29, The Rabbi and I)

 

Becoming God’s image in the Mirror of (Self-) Recognition - svAbhinava dialogue (Feb 2005 - )

 

The Hermeneutics of Ganesha: Psychoanalysis, Hindu wisdom and transgressive sacrality (svAbhinava dialogue: 2003-04)

 

Between Mecca and Banaras: Towards an Acculturation model of Hindu-Muslim Relations (1991, published 1993: Sunthar and Elizabeth Visuvalingam)

 

Bhairava in Banaras: Negotiating Sacred Space and Religious Identity (1991, published 2006: Sunthar and Elizabeth Visuvalingam)

 

Towards an Integral Appreciation of Abhinavagupta’s Aesthetics of Rasa (2006; sections on “Religious Art as Propaganda” and “Becoming the Image of God”)

 

The compilation will be eventually complemented by others; in the meantime please check out the (incomplete) Abhinavagupta forum-index under the following headings and topics:

                                                                                                  

[Religion:Judaism]

 

Index to threads below on the Iconophilia dialogue:

Visualizing Space in Banaras: Images, Maps, and the Practice of Representation (2006) - Introduction by Martin Gaenszle and Jörg Gengnagel (now available online)

Iconoclash: (exhibition and catalogue by) Bruno Latour on idolatry, iconoclasm, and iconophilia - some preliminary interrogations

"Shiva's Places" (in Benares) - what does it mean to say that an icon is "uncreated" (svayam-bhū)? (Latour)

RE: (LRB debate around) John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt - "The Israel Lobby" (strongly recommended viewing)

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Monotheism versus Polytheism

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Apologizing for Untouchability

Re: Apologizing for Untouchability

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

Re: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

īzvara and bhagavān

īzvara and bhagavān

Re: ishwar and bhagwan [did Aurangzeb demolish Hindu temples for secular or religious reasons?]

Why did Aurangzeb demolish the Kashi Vishvanath temple?

Did Aurangzeb demolish Hindu temples for secular or religious reasons?

 

 

The pilgrimage city of Banaras is widely known as an impressively unique and particularly ancient historical place. For many, however, it is above all a universal, cosmic, and in a sense timeless sacred space. Both of these seemingly contrasting images contribute to how the city is experienced by its inhabitants and visitors to it, and there is a great variety of sometimes competing views: Kāshī the Luminous, the ancient Crossing, the City of Death, the place of Hindu-Muslim encounter and syncretism, the cosmopolitan centre of learning, and the like. The present volume deals with the multiple ways this urban site is visualized, imagined and culturally represented by different actors and groups. The major focus will thus be on visual media, which are of special significance for the representation of space. But these cannot be divorced from other forms of expression which are part of the local “life-world” (Ger. Lebenswelt). All the contributions look at imaginative constructions – both local and exogenous – of the rich topography of Kāshī and show that such constructions are not static but always embedded in social and cultural practices of representation, often contested and never complete. [...]  And last but not least, it should be mentioned that Muslims, who represent about a quarter of the population, have had a significant influence on Vārānasī’s urban culture, and maintain their own – but not entirely different – vision of cityspace (Visuvalingam & Chalier-Visuvalingam, this volume). Thus there are many perspectives on one and the same location, and though the residents of Banaras have a virtually common ethos, there has always been competition in the appropriation of space and its meaning. [...] With these general observations in mind, we will now turn to a brief outline of the structure of this book. The first section deals with aspects of the sacred topography of Kāshī. As is well known and has often been described, Banaras is a place with an extreme density of shrines, above all Shiva lingams, which are grouped in complex mandala-ic patterns. Place is inhabited as well as structured by divine forces. In this section, the focus is on the built environment (icons, temples, wells, graves etc.), their interrelationship, and their role in historically changing ritual practice. In the following section, papers discuss the representation of this sacred topography in maps, i.e., in general, two-dimensional schemas, often combined with illustrative images and texts, which bring out the features seen as most significant. While this depiction of sacred space is at least partly a continuation of traditional techniques, the third section, on pictures and images, moves toward a form of representation which is largely a Western, colonial tradition: frontal views, veduta, panoramas and postcard photography. The last section takes a broader look at everyday spaces, more profane sites, little known social spaces and the processes of appropriation, negotiation and contestation which are involved in the construction of meaning. Thus the last section delves into the “unconscious” dimensions of space, which are usually covered over by the “official”, idealized self-conscious representations by elites. Spaces are never just there; they are subject to social processes. [...] Sacred space is often dense with meaning deriving from different historical layers and different social groups. This is shown in the paper by Elizabeth Chalier-Visuvalingam and Sunthar Visuvalingam which deals with Bhairava, the guardian of Banaras, and more particularly the ritual enactment of the marriage of Lāt Bhairõ to the adjacent “maternal” well. This fertility ritual, featuring a procession through the cityspace, used to be celebrated with “lower-caste” Muslim participation, even as the Hindus used to participate in the marriage of the “decapitated” martyr Ghāzī Miyć. It is argued that the pillar of Lāt Bhairõ, itself an appropriation of an earlier Buddhist icon, has been assimilated to Muslim ritual symbolism in a syncretic manner, and vice versa. Despite a century of more or less peaceful coexistence, the contestation at the sacred ground around the shrine of Lāt Bhairõ erupted into the Hindu-Muslim riots of 1809, which event provided the conceptual model for understanding subsequent communalism on the Indian subcontinent. Even today the site of Lāt Bhairõ is a paradigmatic case of both syncretic harmony and violent conflict. [...]  The papers presented in this volume emerged out of an international academic colloquium held at the Internationale Wissenschaftsforum, Heidelberg, in May 2002. We would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) for the generous funding. The beginning of the colloquium coincided with the opening of the exhibition “Banaras–Representations of a Sacred City” at the Völkerkunde Museum of the von Portheim Stiftung. The exhibition was made possible by the generous help of the director of the Museum, Margareta Pavaloi, and the German-Indian Society (Heidelberg). We would like to thank Niels Gutschow and Axel Michaels for their constant support while we were preparing this volume. Niels Gutschow has kindly contributed many excellent drawings to this book. Finally, many thanks go to Quoc-Bao Do for his invaluable help in typesetting this volume.

Introduction by Martin Gaenszle and Jörg Gengnagel 

Visualizing Space in Banaras: Images, Maps, and the Practice of Representation (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 2006)

You can read the whole introduction in PDF format here (with the kind permission of the two joint-editors of the volume):

http://svabhinava.org/HinduCivilization/MartinGaenszle/BenaresIntro-frame.html

The volume has eventually been published by Otto Harrassowitz (48 euros, TOC appended below), and you can order it directly from their website (search for "Banaras" in the Subject field):

http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/  [ISBN: 3-447-05187-6]

Enjoy!

Sunthar

P.S. I hope to engage some of the other contributions to this volume in subsequent posts to our Abhinavagupta forum...

[Rest of this thread at Ashok Chowgule (Sep 01, 2006)

 

"Re: Dalit leader buries the hatchet with RSS - are the Muslims next?"]

 

Contents

Introduction                                                                                                                                                                                           7

Sacred Topography

Hans Bakker - The Avimuktakshetra in Vārānasī: Its Origin and Early Development                                                                                                                                                                                           23

Ravi S. Singh and Rana P. B. Singh - Goddesses in Kāshī (Vārānasī): Spatial Patterns and Symbolic Orders                                                                                                                                                                                           41

Annette Wilke - The Banarsī Navadurgā Cycle and its Spatial Orientation                                                                                                                                                                                           69

Sunthar Visuvalingam and Elizabeth Chalier-Visuvalingam

Bhairava in Banaras: Negotiating Sacred Space and Religious Identity                                                                                                                                                                                           95

Maps

Axel Michaels - Mapping the Religious and Religious Maps: Aspects of Transcendence and Translocality in Two Maps of Varanasi                                                                                                                                                                                           131

Jörg Gengnagel - Maps and Processions in Banaras: The Debate Concerning the Pańcakroshīyātrā                                                                                                                                                                                           145

Sumathi Ramaswamy - Enshrining the Map of India: Cartography, Nationalism, and the Politics of Deity in Varanasi                                                                                                                                                                                           165

Images

Niels Gutschow - Panoramas of Banaras                                                                                                                                                                                           191

Joachim K. Bautze - Examples of Unlicensed Copies and Versions of Views from Benares: Their Authorship and Identification                                                                                                                                                                                           213

Sandria B. Freitag - Visualizing Cities by Modern Citizens: Banaras Compared to Jaipur and Lucknow                                                                                                                                                                                           233

Social Practice and Everyday Life

Nita Kumar - The Space of the Child: The Nation, the Neighbourhood, and the Home                                                                                                                                                                                           255

Stefan Schütte - The Social Landscape of the Washermen in Banaras                                                                                                                                                                                           279

Martin Gaenszle (in collaboration with Nutandhar Sharma) - Nepali Places: Appropriations of Space in Banaras                                                                                                                                                                                           303

Vasudha Dalmia - Visions of a New Banaras in the Early Twentieth Century                                                                                                                                                                                           325

Contributors                                                                                                                                                                                           349

Index                                                                                                                                                                                           353

 

The letters in parentheses (A) (B) (C), etc., below refer to Latour's categorizations of distinct attitudes towards icons - Sunthar

"Iconoclasm is when we know what is happening in the act of breaking and what the motivations for what appears as a clear project of destruction are; iconoclash, on the other hand, is when one does not know, one hesitates, one is troubled by an action for which there is no way to know, without further enquiry, whether it is destructive or constructive. This exhibition is about iconoclash, not iconoclasm." (Bruno Latour)

This is the best approach to and problematization of this question that I've come across so far

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/cat_icono_chap.html

Iconoclash: Beyond the Image Wars in Science, Religion and Art (by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel)

for Hindus agonizing over whether they are indeed image-worshippers, Buddhists over how to represent Enlightenment, Muslims over the iconoclastic (?) depiction of the Prophet, (deconstructive?) Jewish intellectuals over charges of idolatry towards Israel, Christians divided over the wounded crucifix, rebellious artists over the freeze-framing of their creative flux, skeptical scientists over their tenuous hold on objective reality, and everyone over the politics of representation.

Here are some initial interrogations on this problematic of iconoclash in the light of "Towards an Integral Appreciation of Abhinavagupta's aesthetics" (esp. the section on "Religious Art as Propaganda" and "Becoming the Image of God"):

http://www.svabhinava.org/abhinava/Sunthar-integral/index.php

and the treatment of idolatry/iconoclasm in "Bhairava in Banaras: Negotiating Sacred Space and Religious Identities":

http://www.svabhinava.org/BhairBenares/index.php

    ·        Do the Hindus worship the stone pillar (Lat), acknowledge the abstract axis mundi it embodies, succumb to an ideology of kingship clothed in divine mandate, or celebrate (unawares, a projection of) their own spiritual nature & its unfolding?

    ·        Did the Muslims fell and mutilate the Lat (-Bhairo) because such divine images are an affront to the irrepresentable Allah (A), or out of sheer spite (Schadenfreude) towards what was held most sacred by the Hindu community (C)?

    ·        Were surreptitious Hindu attempts to install the image of Lord Rāma in the Muslim prayer niche a stubborn defense of iconophilia (B) or rather motivated by the same group-psychology (C) as the iconoclastic Muslims?

    ·        Which is more iconoclastic: the Muslim desecration of Hindu images and sacred sites (that can be replaced or replicated) or the modern 'scientific' deconstruction of their meaning (e.g., the iconography of Lord Ganesha)?

    ·        Was Courtright's attempt to understand Ganesha though contemporary hermeneutics a scholarly disguise for Protestant iconoclasm (A), another Indological 'de-meaning' of Hinduism (C), or the unwitting victim of his good intentions (D)?

    ·      Is it possible to (re-) read Courtright's materials and respond to his interrogations constructively so that what had seemed iconoclastic turns out to be an iconophilic (B) appreciation of the aesthetics and semiotics of Hindu iconography?

    ·      By attempting take a 'neutral' stand in the Hindu-Muslim conflict over Lat-Bhairo, have we ourselves unwittingly fallen into the swelling ranks of the 'agnostics' (E) who jeer—tongue-in-cheek—at idolaters and iconoclasts alike?

    ·        Are the Danish cartoonists idolaters because they have (mis-) represented (A) the Prophet (the Wahhabis had already destroyed his Saudi tombs) or iconoclasts because they have insulted the founding and unifying image of the umma (C)?

    ·         Does the anglo-brahmin Jagannāth exemplify the destruction of Hindu idolatry from [without, the unleashing unawares of an already ancient Vedic aniconism, or the self-defeating futility of iconoclasm carried to its extreme logical conclusions]?

    ·        Do the details of the midrashic account of Abraham smashing his father's idols vindicate Latour's project to rewrite Moses' (true intentions behind the) second commandment as "Thou shall not freeze-frame any graven image!"?

Though unable to cover India (China was represented but only insofar as the iconoclastic fury of the Cultural Revolution), the inspiration behind the exhibition was (Bruno's chance reading of a passage, cited at the bottom of his online essay, of) U.R. Ananthamurthy's (Kannada) Bharathipura. He expressed wonder at the unique manner in which the author had managed to capture the (dynamics of the) iconoclastic gesture—in freeze-frame as it were—both from within and without.

Enjoy!

Sunthar

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (12 Sep 2006)

 

Visualizing Space in Banaras: Images, Maps, and the Practice of Representation (2006)]

 

"As is well known from art historians and theologians, many sacred icons that have been celebrated and worshipped are called acheiropoiete; that is, not made by any human hand (see Koerner, Mondszain). Faces of Christ, portraits of the Virgin, Veronica's veil; there are many instances of these icons that have fallen from heaven without any intermediary [like the meteorite Kaaba? -SV]. To show that a humble human painter has made them would be to weaken their force, to sully their origin, to desecrate them. Thus, to add the hand to the pictures is tantamount to spoiling them, criticizing them. The same is true of religion in general. If you say it is man-made you nullify the transcendence of the divinities, you empty the claims of a salvation from above. More generally, the critical mind is one that shows the hands of humans at work everywhere so as to slaughter the sanctity of religion, the belief in fetishes, the worship of transcendent, heaven-sent icons, the strength of ideologies. The more the human hand can be seen as having worked on an image, the weaker is the image's claim to offer truth (see Tintin's prototypical example). Since Antiquity, critics have never tired of denouncing the devious plots of humans who try to make others believe in non-existing fetishes. The trick to uncover the trick is always to show the lowly origin of the work, the manipulator, the counterfeiter, the fraud behind the scenes who is caught red-handed. The same is true of science. There, too, objectivity is supposed to be acheiropoiete, not made by human hand. If you show the hand at work in the human fabric of science, you are accused of sullying the sanctity of objectivity, of ruining its transcendence, of forbidding any claim to truth, of putting to the torch the only source of enlightenment we may have (see Lévy-Leblond). We treat as iconoclasts those who speak of the humans at work -scientists in their laboratories - behind or beneath the images that generate scientific objectivity. I have also been held by this paradoxical iconoclash: the new reverence for the images of science is taken to be their destruction. The only way to defend science against the accusation of fabrication, to avoid the label of "socially constructed", is apparently to insist that no human hand has ever touched the image it has produced (see Daston). So, in the two cases of religion and science, when the hand is shown at work, it is always a hand with a hammer or with a torch: always a critical, a destructive hand. But what if hands were actually indispensable to reaching truth, to producing objectivity, to fabricating divinities? What would happen if, when saying that some image is human-made, you were increasing instead of decreasing its claim to truth? That would be the closure of the critical mood, the end of anti-fetishism. We could say, contrary to the critical urge, that the more humans are, the more human-work is shown, the better is their grasp of reality, of sanctity, of worship. That the more images, mediations, intermediaries, icons are multiplied and overtly fabricated, explicitly and publicly constructed, the more respect we have for their capacities to welcome, to gather, to recollect truth and sanctity ('religere' is one of the several etymologies for the word religion). As Mick Taussig has so beautifully shown, the more you reveal the tricks necessary to invite the gods to the ceremony during the initiation, the stronger is the certainty that the divinities are present. Far from despoiling access to transcendent beings, revelation of human toil, of the tricks, reinforce the quality of this access (see Sarro, de Aquino). Thus, we can define an iconoclash as what happens when there is uncertainty about the exact role of the hand at work in the production of a mediator. Is it a hand with a hammer ready to expose, to denounce, to debunk, to show up, to disappoint, to disenchant, to dispel one's illusions, to let the air out? Or is it, on the contrary, a cautious and careful hand, palm turned as if to catch, to elicit, to educe, to welcome, to generate, to entertain, to maintain, to collect truth and sanctity?" [contrast with the quote from André Breton below - SV]

Bruno Latour, "What Is Iconoclash? Or Is There a World Beyond the Image Wars?"

Original German page for the documentary film website:

http://www.diethede.de/diethede/projects/projects.html

with Google translation (copy-edited below)

Here's the accompanying note, courtesy of Dr. Joerg Gengnagel:

Shiva's Places: Benares, the sacred city at the Ganges in North India, is characterized by thousands of places, at which Shiva is manifest. In most cases he is worshipped with water, fire and flowers in the shape of a stone called linga: In ritual every human being acts as an artist. Many of the enormous stones of Benares are considered as "self-created", others are perceived as still growing. They represent the particular quality of specific places and cannot be shifted. The film presents rituals at 20 such places.

Authors: Christian Bau & Niels Gutschow

Publisher: Verlag Peter Hess, 2006

ISBN: 3-938263-05-9

Format: Hardcover with DVD, 83 min. 120 pages, 82 color photos, 10 color cards

Price: Book & DVD: 19.80 Euro

http://www.diethede.de/diethede/projects/projects.html

Omprakash Sharma (Elizabeth's research assistant) had taken us with Niels, on his first visit to Banaras (we had arranged for him to speak on the Svayambhunāth stūpa in relation to the cosmogony of the Kathmandu Valley at the Bharat Kala Bhavan at BHU), to visit the principal Shiva temples. For example, the linga at the sunken Manikarnikā tank, where the shrine is below the level of the Ganga. I still recall the haunting music resounding through the narrow alleys (galis) that we traced to a coterie of musicians tucked away in a small shrine (Niels was discomfited by constantly having to remove and put back on his field-boots...). It's heartening to see the world enjoy the fruits of this first encounter!

Sunthar

 

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (7 Nov. 06) 

 

"Iconoclash: (exhibition and catalogue by) Bruno Latour on idolatry, , iconoclasm, and iconophilia"]

 

 

 

 

NEWS | THEDE | CREW | P R O J E C T S | FILMS | FRIENDS |

PRODUKTIONSSPIEGEL | Stand: Mai 2006 |

 

CURRENT PRODUCTIONS

 

Shiva's Places

A project by Christian Bau and Niels Gutschow..

 

 

"Therefore the stones let most humans who have reached the age of adulthood pass by without holding them back at all. Those, however, whom they retain against all expectation, they do not generally let go any more. Wherever the stones thrust themselves forward, they draw humans into their spell and gladly make of them perverse astrologers as it were…” Andre Breton

 

Benares - Varanasi

The City of Light has been spoken of since time immemorial. A remarkable glistening light surrounds the visitor. The narrow historical city stretches out in curves parallel to the course of the Ganga. On the opposite bank a shimmering waste of sand, left behind by the tides of the monsoon. Mica and water throw the light back upon the overbuilt high bank. The city shines!

 

In Benares there are thousands of temples, unpretentious buildings, which serve as dwellings for phallus-like stones, lingas that are venerated in the daily ritual as representations of Shiva. Beyond all such associations, the stones are above all Manifestations of Place - Operations of the Gods. There is hence the conception that these stones were not made nor installed by human hand, but emerged “without intervention” [svayambhū]. Once found, they were simply there. Therefore they also cannot be dislocated. Sometimes they are sought several levels below the current city level, as a demonstration of the continuity of place. Usually these stones have a name that produces further associations beyond Shiva, to the cosmos, to mythical events and legendary sages of the primordial times. The daily ritual dedicated to these stones is the expression of a religion of place.

 

The following pictures are downloadable as printable files (15 cm x 10 cm and larger) in 300 dpi. To do this, click on the picture and on opening the page that opens drag the picture to the desktop (MAC) or right-click on the picture and “Save Picture As…” (PC).

 

 

 

 

| die thede | Blücherstraße 7 | 22767 Hamburg |

| Telefon: ++49 40 899 11 61 | Telefax: ++49 40 899 11 35 | e-mail: info@diethede.de |

 

 IMPRESSUM

 

Dear All,

Peace can never come about until every religion deals with the VERY basic concept "One God and Equality Based On the Soul"

And Israel comes to terms with the fact that Judaism has its common roots in India's Vedas.

There is nothing unique in Judaism except its modern expression, i.e., rituals, clothes, etc.

My best to you and yours,

William Glick

www.equalsouls.org   

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JerusalemBenares/message/91] 

 

 

[Response to Sunthar's post (12 Dec 06) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JerusalemBenares/message/89]  

 

Hello William,

The primary intent underlying my post was indeed to provoke interreligious dialogue - particularly between Judaism and Hinduism - by remaining attentive to the (inevitable?) socio-political implications and sustained global repercussions of the underlying frames of representation. Thus following up on our recent joint-paper on "Negotiating Sacred Space and Religious Identity" that focuses on Hindu-Muslim conflict, with Banaras as the paradigmatic case.

Unfortunately, making glib statements regarding the (absolute?) superiority of one (Vedic?) tradition over another (Torah?) will not get us very far towards constructive understanding. Are you, for example, suggesting that the Knesset should start invoking the Veda (as opposed to Moses?) to justify establishing an apartheid policy in the Palestinian Territories and even a caste-system within Israel (say a hierarchy of Ashkenazi over Sephardic Jews...)?

You are welcome to develop your above claim in a reasoned and constructive manner, but only *after* having taken the trouble to first read the essay and the debate to which I provided the links. Your 'reply' (?) was posted immediately, whereas it has taken me and others months (if not years...) even to familiarize ourselves with the issues (let alone digest them properly...).

Thanks.

Sunthar

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (7 Nov 06)

 

"Iconoclash: (exhibition and catalogue by) Bruno Latour on idolatry, iconoclasm,

and iconophilia - some preliminary interrogations"]

 

RABBI: Here are two verses from the Holy Torah that mention idol worship: "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol -- a thing detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands -- and sets it up in secret." [Torah, Duet, Ki Thavo, 27:15] "When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw our fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved." [Hosea IX: 10] Although God so thoroughly condemned the worship of man-made Gods (idols), I have seen that in Hindu temples such images are worshipped. Our conversations have revealed many similarities between Judaism and Hinduism, yet it appears that on this point we strongly differ.

DEVOTEE: The Vedas also are thoroughly opposed to idol worship, but what you have seen in Hindu temples is not idol worship but rather Deity worship. It is very easy to understand how Deity worship may at first appear as idol worship to a person who is unfamiliar with the principle behind this important devotional process. After all, the form of the Deity is crafted by a man out of some kind of material elements, and that form is later worshipped in the temple with devotion. In the Vedas, Deity worship is an extremely important devotional process to help us develop love of God. In fact, it is one of the nine general classifications of devotional service mentioned in Sanskrit in the Vedas. It is said [....Bhagavad Gita 7.5.23]

RABBI: I still do not see the difference. The Torah also says that one should worship the Lord, but the act of worshipping idols as God is condemned. What makes the Hindu's Deity worship any different from the worship of idols so condemned in the Jewish tradition? How can man worship a form that he himself has crafted?

DEVOTEE: The difference is that God authorizes the worship of Deities. For example, if you put mail into an authorized mailbox it will be delivered to the address written on the envelope. But if you drop that mail into some box other than an authorized mailbox, it will not be delivered. Similarly, if you create some form, call it God, and worship it, all according to your own mental concoction, there will be no benefit and your act will be condemned by God. If however, you create a form according to the actual description of God's form given in the revealed scriptures, and if you worship that form according to the rules and regulations given by God in the scriptures, you will achieve excellent results. The result of that worship is love for God.

RABBI: In principle I understand that if God actually authorizes some activity, it must be correct. Still, I have difficulty understanding how a person can learn to love God by worshipping a form that He himself has created. Perhaps my difficulty is that in the Jewish scriptures, I know of no description of God's form that is detailed enough to allow someone to craft a form like it. Also, I am not familiar with any descriptions in the Jewish scriptures about how to worship such a form like a Deity. Such worship is repeatedly condemned as idolatry.

DEVOTEE: The Torah may not give a clear and detailed description of the form of God, but the Vedas do. The Vedas also give a very detailed description of the method of Deity worship. The principle is that if you want to love God, you must be able to develop some personal relationship with Him. As we have discussed several times, the purpose of religion is to develop love of God. Service to God is the symptom and means to that love. In our impure state, we are not qualified to see the original spiritual form of God and to worship Him. By His mercy He has agreed to appear in the form of His Deity. Therefore, the whole process of Deity worship gives us an opportunity to practice serving God. As the devotee renders continuous and regulated service to the Deity according to the methods authorized in the scriptures, the impurities of our heart gradually become cleansed and our natural loving relationship with the Lord is manifest. Without being able to relate to God in some personal way there is no question of learning to love Him, even though He is all pervading and can accept our offering any time or place.

RABBI: Your explanation helps me have a clearer understanding of Hindu Deity worship. As I was listening to your explanation, I remembered one verse I read, along with the commentary of Rabbi Jose. The verse said, "If they be peaceful and likewise many, and they likewise be shorn, then he shall pass away; and though I have affected thee, I will affect thee no more." [Nahum1, 12] [Zohar II, 200b] Rabbi Jose explains this verse thus, "When a people live in peace, and harbor no quarrelsome persons in their midst, God has compassion on them, and rigorous justice is not invoked against them, even though they worship idols. This is in harmony with the verse, "Ephraim is serving idols, let him alone" [Hosea. IV, 17] [Zohar II, 200b] It appears from this verse that the term idol can be used in different ways. Persons who had no faith in God and who were envious of Him performed the idol worship that was condemned by the Lord. They were people who gave up the authorized worship of God for the worship of an unauthorized, man-made idol. It is said, "They consult a wooden idol and are answered by a stick of wood. A spirit of prostitution leads them astray; they are unfaithful to their God." [Hosea IV, 12][Zohar II, 200b] That kind of worship would never lead to love of God. In fact, it could only lead one away from Him, and thus it was condemned.

DEVOTEE: Yes, Rabbi, I agree with you. The Lord is ultimately interested in the spiritual welfare of everyone. He instructs us to do that which is for our ultimate spiritual benefit and He condemns those activities that are unfavorable for us to develop our love for Him. If we serve the Deity according to the authorized process, then we will be spiritually benefited. Otherwise, we will not.

W.L. Glick (Isa Das) "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (chapter 29), The Rabbi and I

I have read with great interest Bill Glick's manuscript, The Rabbi and I and I find it a thoughtful, provocative piece of work. As someone who has worked in the general area of Indo-Judaic studies for a number of years, I find much new material in the manuscript, Glick has culled Judaic mystical literature and found striking parallels in Hinduism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism in particular. Much of what he writes is on the mark. While I remain unconvinced of his central thesis -- that Judaism and Hinduism stem from a common source he calls Vedic -- nevertheless many of the parallels he has unearthed are tantalizing and essentially accurate. Rather than postulate a common source, I might attribute these affinities either to historical borrowing -- indeed, there have been many more interactions between India and Judaic civilizations then is commonly supposed -- or to inherent similarities of the human mind. I commend his manuscript as a thoughtful exploration of a tantalizing theme.

Dr. Nathan Katz, Review of The Rabbi and I

First, I owe everything to my spiritual father my Guru, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, he has so patiently prodded me to take responsibility for my life and share my realizations with others. We offer this book to him on his Appearance Day, August 26, 1997. Next is His Holiness Satsvarupa das Gosvami, my very dear godbrother. When I first heard him speak in Miami in 1974, the words of our Guru poured forth, presented without ego. I knew, here was a spiritual friend and guide to share my life with. [...] On the road, reading was our main pastime. After rereading the Five Books of Moses (the Old Testament) and the New Testament more times than my godbrothers approved of, I became convinced that the spiritual message presented by the Jews was of the same essence as the Vedic tradition I was now exploring. Having married and sharing the wonderful birth and development of our daughter (Abhaya), my wife and I moved back to Miami, to be near our relatives. It was here in Miami that His Holiness Jaya Advaita Swami gave me Hebrew translations of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is and the Srimad Bhagavatam to share with my Jewish neighbors. I was not able to convince my neighbors to read the books, but I became determined to open an inter-religious dialogue based on the similarities I had discovered. Fourteen years of continued study have passed; I have redoubled again and again my belief that the Jewish and Vedic oral traditions are the same. From the time of creation what the Jews call Yeda and the Hindus call Veda, is the root of all spiritual knowledge.

W.L. Glick (Isa Das), Dedication and Preface, The Rabbi and I

Dear Bill,

The confrontation between the iconoclastic and the iconophilic stances has become so acute (even within the sciences as the work of Bruno Latour so well demonstrates) that any committed attempt to bridge this gap in religious perceptions is to be welcomed. All the more so when such a sustained effort is undertaken, with transparent benevolence towards all, by a convert to Hinduism for whom it is apparently a pressing existential question. But will introducing an iconophilic "Deity" as an "authorized" mediator between (Hindu) image-worship and the transcendent (Jewish) God really solve the problem?  To begin with, is the Abrahamic condemnation of "idolatry" simply due to a fundamental misunderstanding?

·         Though there are no doubt fundamental and persistent misconceptions among Christians regarding Hindu modes of worship (and of relating to the transcendent principle), the charge of idolatry has been at the core (with other related issues also revolving around need/superfluity of mediation such as the priesthood, church, etc.) of bloody strife among a new generation of Catholics, thus resulting in the birth of Protestantism. Not only do the Sunnis accuse the Shias of idolatry (images of Husain at Karbala in the bazaars of Tehran, etc.), but the Wahhabis destroyed the Saudi tomb of the Prophet (PBUH) to safeguard the Second Commandment. The Kaaba, which is the universal core of daily Muslim prayer has itself been subject to similar scrutiny and questioning among certain Muslim currents (hadiths note that Mohammed also left some images of Mary, etc., intact when the surrounding idols were originally destroyed).

·         Despite the prohibition of graven images and of depiction of the human form (especially in places of worship), Judaism has nevertheless lent itself to extravagant anthropomorphic representations of God as in the Zohar's speculations on the (precise dimensions of the) "Body of God" (Shiur Qoma). In a videotaped presentation, our late friend, Charles Mopsik, who was steeped in such literature, was impelled to ask his artist wife the ('iconoclastic'?) question: whether we could say that she was "making God," after the theurgic manner in which the Kabbalists who claim that they are restituting his ineffable Name: one of his late titles is The Rites that Make God. As such, this is an inevitable tension that inhabits the Abrahamic religions as much as it does the Indic traditions. For we have noted that both Vedism (including its later Arya Samaj version) and Buddhism were originally averse to graven images not just of the gods but of enlightened human sages.

·         If Moses, as the adopted and favorite son of the Pharaoh (Freud argues, on the contrary, that it is the Egyptian prince who would have adopted the Jewish slaves held in captivity...), had mastered all the pagan mysteries, as tradition affirms, surely he was in the best position to appreciate the true meaning and value of image-worship. Or are we to assume that the ancient Egyptians were simply idolaters whereas we Hindus have remained Deity-worshippers from the beginning? And already long before Moses, the Pharaoh Akhenaton would have woken up one fine morning to realize that Egyptian polytheism —of which he was himself the apotheosis—had been one dreadful civilizational mistake? In the same way that Buddhism owes so much (karma, etc.) to the Vedism it rejected, Judaism probably owes most to (its radical re-reading of) Egyptian esotericism combined with Mesopotamian (Noah's ark, etc.) traditions (Abrahm in Ur). The parallels with Hinduism, where indeed proven valid, would thus be due more to the religious commonalities across the urban network that constituted the mercantile civilization that once extended from the Indus-Sarasvatī to the Nile.

·         In conclusion, the affirmation that Ultimate Reality is beyond all representation could just as well have resulted in and served to legitimize a profusion of deities as it has in Hinduism and Buddhism (despite the negation of God). As the Rabbi demurs: why was there no similar "authorization" of Deity-worship" in Judaism? The central and binding prohibition of images in Judaism and Islam must therefore be attributed to other concerns regarding the politics of mediation and it is this question that we ought to be addressing. What is it that Moses (and subsequently Mohammed) was really attempting to guard against when he banned idolatry on the pain of death? Are we worshipping far more dangerous and sophisticated idols while imagining ourselves to be supreme iconoclasts who have long since evolved, beyond silly arguments with dumb gods graven in wood and stone, to smashing all inherited forms of common (not just religious) belief (ą la Derrida?)?

In 1971, I too had welcomed Swami Prabhupada arriving from Moscow at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, and subsequently attended his discourses in various places. After his departure, I arranged for his Anglo-Saxon converts to speak on Gaudiya Vaishnavism at our local Murugan (Kārthikeya) temple. Their repeated characterization of Lord Krishna as sweet ghee compared to the sour milk of "demi-gods" like Shiva was taken in good humor by the Tamil audience as a symptom of their intoxicating devotion to their ultimate Deity, and perhaps the tacit recognition, like Rabbi Jose, that when we have so many (quarrelsome?) gods (33 million?) some sort of pecking order has to emerge (democratically?) to keep the peace...;-)

Best wishes,

Sunthar

P.S. How is it, then, that when all mailboxes and postmen (communication problem?) have been demolished in the Holy Land such that Jews and Muslims may likewise send their prayers directly to the formless God, we seem to be still left with TWO fratricidal Deities who are destroying the peace....not just their own but of the whole world?

 [Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (01 Dec 06)

 

"Shiva's places (in Benares): what does it mean to say that an icon is 'uncreated' (svayambhū)?  (Latour)" 

 

Response to William's post (13 Dec 06)

 

RE: (LRB debate around) John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt - "The Israel Lobby" (strongly recommended viewing)] 

I have a major problem with the way the Rabbi objects to idol worship.

He refers to a book to explain his objections to idol worship - meaning that the book has instructed him to behave in a particular manner. And it means that he is not using his intellectual faculty to determine the merit of what the book says.

The latter is clear when after the devotee explains the meaning of idol worship, the Rabbi refers to the same book to say that perhaps idol worship is not so bad at all! Now, if there was a proper study, based on an intellectual analysis, the Rabbi would have understood idol worship in its true meaning even before the dialogue took place.

In this context, what Mahatma Gandhi had to say is of prime importance.

He says: "My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired....I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense." (Mahatma Gandhi, Young India, October 6, 1921, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol XXI, p 246.)

The Rabbi says: "Rabbi Jose explains this verse thus, "When a people live in peace, and harbor no quarrelsome persons in their midst, God has compassion on them, and rigorous justice is not invoked against them, even though they worship idols." “So the ultimate test of the validity or otherwise of idol worship is: Does the worshipper say that his idol has told him to convert those who do not worship his idol or that the latter are bound to go to that place where one is eternally barbecued?

Suntharji writes: "Not only do the Sunnis accuse the Shias of idolatry (images of Husain at Karbala in the bazaars of Tehran, etc.), but the Wahhabis destroyed the Saudi tomb of the Prophet (PBUH) to safeguard the Second Commandment."

I did not come across this action before. Can Suntharji give a reference where it is recorded?

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

[Response to Suntharji's post (16 Dec 06)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3998] 

You'll find the relevant discussion of iconoclasm as a powerful, historically sustained, impulse already tending to 'deconstruct' Islam from within (as opposed to being simply directed outwardly at surrounding pagan practices), in our joint-paper "Between Mecca and Banaras: Towards an Acculturation Model of Hindu-Muslim Relations" (published in Islam and the Modern World by the Jamia Millia Islamiya) at:

http://svabhinava.org/deathsex/default.htm

Hence, beneath the triangular politics of shifting alliances between Hindus, Sunnis and Shias in India are recognizable the tensions and interplay of the respective principles of hierarchy, egalitarianism and transgression, which continue to operate even beyond, and independently, [p.61>] of these traditional but once fluid religious identities. The return (raj’a) of the Mahdi, accompanied by the resurrection of Husain and Jesus, will be heralded by the outward manifestations of extreme promiscuity and transgressions of sacred norms, precisely what used to happen even within a religious context in the Islamic festivals of Ghāzī Miyć and Muharram, for the Mahdi "will demolish whatever precedes him just as the Prophet demolished the structure of the Time of Ignorance (al-Jahiliyya—the period before Islam)" (Momen 1985:169). While, on the one hand, the conservative streak of Wahhabi iconoclasm already inherent in Islam would reduce the Ka’ba stone to a mere unifying symbol, the radical Shi’ism of the Carmathians, on the other hand, had already sought in 930 C.E. to eliminate the symbol altogether and thereby render the Meccan pilgrimage itself wholly superfluous (Jambet 1990:18-23).

The (would-be) Wahhabi iconoclasm against Shia shrines (and the tomb of the Prophet himself) is thus inherent in the very logic of Islam. Graham (1983) focuses on the fundamental opposition between pervasive ritualism and ‘reformationist’ iconoclasm in Islamic orthopraxy without attempting to resolve this apparent contradiction in terms of an inherent ‘project’ presiding over the ‘final’ revelation. I outline a dialectical understanding of the thin vacillating line separating (commemorative or decorative) symbolism from idolatry in the Abrahamic tradition in terms of the unifying egalitarian ideal that would have been encoded into monotheistic iconoclasm. [note #10]

Sunni attitudes towards Shia "innovations" in doctrine and practice, including (charges of) reversion to idolatry, are presented in a very readable way by Syed Vali Reza Nasr in his recent book, The Shia Revival: How conflicts within Islam will shape the future (strongly recommended). Vali is an expert on Islamic fundamentalism in South Asia (particularly on Maududi and the Jama'at i-Islam, which has been the ideological impetus and inspiration for similar political movements across the Middle East...), and has been consulted by Bush, Rice, and other policy-makers after the release of this book, which argues that it is in the interests of the United States to accommodate the irresistible rise of the Shia crescent across the Middle East. I knew Vali (I've also met his father Seyed Hosein Nasr several times...) at Tufts Univ., while we were at Harvard, and he had given a very sympathetic reading to our above essay (acknowledged in footnote #2).

Regards,

Sunthar

P.S. But isn't the Hindu Devotee also arguing that his Deity-worship is not idolatry because it is likewise "authorized" by his own book...so we seem to be down to my Book (Veda or Torah) is more "authoritative" than yours...and apparently both books were "authored" by (the same) God (but the "orthodox" believe the Veda is 'svayambhū' despite the claims of so many rishis to authorship of various hymns....maybe He just plagiarized from all over the place?).

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (13 Dec 2006)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/3992]

The reference which Ashokji seeks can be found in Reza Aslan's book, "No God but God" (William Heinemann, London, 2005), pp 243-244. Describing the rise of Wahhabism, Reza Aslan states

"Abd al-Wahhab's holy warriors burst into the Hijaz, conquering Mecca and Medina, and expelling the Sharif. Once established in the holy cities, they set about destroying the tombs of the Prophet and his Companions, including those pilgrimage sites which marked the birthplace of Muhammad and his family. They sacked the treasury of the Prophet's Mosque in Medina, and set fire to every book they could find, save the Quran. They banned music and flowers from the sacred cities and outlawed the smoking of tobacco and the drinking of coffee. Under penalty of death they forced the men to grow beards and the women to be veiled and secluded."

Carl Vadivella Belle

[Response to Ashokji's post (16 Dec 06) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4000]

 

"The Third World does not need ivory-tower scholars answerable to the academic guild but socially committed intellectuals - who engage in responsible discourse, who are responsive to the real world of the masses and their condition, and are accountable to society at large." George Soares Prabhu.

The author of the quote above, an Indian Jesuit, and earlier, Heinrich Zimmer, the German Indologist have suggested more interesting understandings  of 'idol worship' than offered here thus far. George Soares Prabhu, when critiquing the references to idol worship in Isaiah and condemning the manner in which Isaiah had been used out of its context, and in a derogatory manner, against Hindu worhippers in India, offered that the sculpture (idol) is itself a text just like the psalm and it is in the 'reading' of the sculpture that worship takes place.  Zimmer for his part described the experience of interacting with sculpture as an activity of worship which later came to be called active imagination (in a more general sense) by Carl Gustav Jung and Marie Louise von Franz. [Active imagination, I am told, also takes place in the worship of Shiva where the worshipper follows the words of a song.] Sadly, most are prevented by anti-Christian and anti-Western sensibilities from reaching for these writings. 

Regards, Rajan

Raja Mylvaganam

[Response to Ashokji's and Sunthar's post ( Dec 16, 2006) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4000]  

Granted that Hindu icons are elaborated in the manner of a "text" such that (true) worship requires a (correct) "reading" (that derives from a semiotics of the iconographic system as a whole?), one may nevertheless ask:

·         How come there's not a single Hindu website that offers a coherent reading of Lord Ganesha instead of divergent ad hoc explanations of individual traits that indeed seem to bespeak of an (over-?) active imagination? Paul Courtright began his talk at the Chicago Univ. Divinity school by recounting how he had begun his researches by inquiring of devotees about the iconography without receiving any satisfactory responses (so much so that he had to turn eventually to psychoanalysis, anthropology, and the Vedic sacrifice, for answers...I don't doubt his sincerity because my interrogations on the vidūSaka ran against the same opaque wall). If such (blind?) worship isn't idolatry....what is?

·         Considering that Jewish (and Shia) tradition has elaborated such multifaceted hermeneutics of the Torah (and the Koran), often audacious in their latitude of interpretation, how come these iconoclasts were not sophisticated enough to read pagan images as visual texts engraved so eloquently in stone? Especially, when they indulge in parallel imagery and even anthropomorphisms. Perhaps they were consciously rejecting the subtexts that they could rather read only all too well?

·         If Jesuits, like Prabhu, (and Unitarian-Universalists?) indeed advocate a genuine appreciation of Hindu image-worship (because of their being themselves subject to Protestant charges of idolatry?), how come Catholics (with the Pope himself leading the charge...) persist in attempting to convert the heathen from their blindness (even arrogating, like de Nobili, the role of the brahmin)? Or is the learned idolatry (?) of one's own Book superior to the iconophilia of wood and stone?

Are we then left with Hindu worshippers who can't read their gods, professional Jewish decipherers who reject any texts embedded in fetishes, and "psalmodists" for whom all icons must ultimately herald the glorious coming of Christ?

Regards,

Sunthar

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (Dec 18, 2006)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4003]

At the risk of diving in over my head, I believe that the Jewish exegetes who gave such loose rein to their interpretations conceived the Deity as a "text" [both oral and written] and not as a figure with remotely human physical characteristics.

(About the Jewish conception of the Deity as a written text, one has only to look at the laws and practices involved in the handling of a Torah scroll.)

As for the Shiites, their Holy Imams might be viewed by persons from an Indological context as Avatars or man-gods. Indeed, in my personal experience among Shiites I can see where they might perceive the Imam was a great - and perhaps even greater than the Prophet himself - but that would/could never be articulated ...

[Philip E. Miller]

[Response to Rajan's (December 18, 2006) an Sunthar's (Dec 20, 2006) posts at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4008]

Hello Philip,

Over and above those physical descriptions of God cited by William Glick, there are extraordinarily vivid and detailed descriptions of his Body in the Kabala. You are right that this does not imply an endorsement of anthropomorphic icons. Why the (apparent) contradiction?

God, even as Text, can't be touched with the human hand, and one needs to use those sticks tapering into artificial hands to follow the lines on the page. Curiously enough, the fear is not so much of the Rabbi soiling the Book but rather of our being polluted by the latter...

The Imams (and the Prophet himself...) were indeed presented as avatars of the god Vishnu to (converted) Hindus. Nevertheless, Shia rulers (unlike the Nawabs of Awadh) were often more iconoclastic towards the Hindus than their Sunni counterparts (sometimes from the same family).

What I'm trying to get at with all these (self-?) contradictory questionings is that there might be something crucial indeed missing from our framework of analysis, and it's perhaps primarily not what we (including Bruno...) think it is.

Glad to have you jump into the fray!

Sunthar

> 

[Rest of this thread at Newcomb (March 12,2005) and Sunthar V. (Jan 2, 2006)

 

"Rewiring religious traditions, semantic webs, and neural networks - 'representing' (the Unity of) God on the Internet!"]

I would like to respond to the following paragraph in Suntharji's message:

How come there's not a single Hindu website that offers a coherent reading of Lord Ganesha instead of divergent ad hoc explanations of individual traits that indeed seem to bespeak of an (over-?) active imagination? Paul Courtright began his talk at the Chicago Univ. Divinity school by recounting how he had begun his researches by inquiring of devotees about the iconography without receiving any satisfactory responses (so much so that he had to turn eventually to psychoanalysis, anthropology, and the Vedic sacrifice, for answers...I don't doubt his sincerity because my interrogations on the vidūSaka ran against the same opaque wall). If such (blind?) worship isn't idolatry....what is?

In some ways, the answer to the first question is provided by the quote of Fr George Soares Prabhu, provided by Raja-ji, which is as follows:

"The Third World does not need ivory-tower scholars answerable to the academic guild but socially committed intellectuals - who engage in responsible discourse, who are responsive to the real world of the masses and their condition, and are accountable to society at large."

Seems to me that the responsibility of the unavailability of the website should really lie with the academics profession to teach Hinduism. The devotees, and even the Hindu scholars residing in India, would not be sufficiently computer savy to undertake a task. At the same time, let us not fail to notice that these academics often project Hinduism in an unfavourable light.

Also, there are now Hindus who are doing what Suntharji wants to see. The work may not appear to be professional in terms of aesthetics, etc. Sometimes the sites do not have the idioms that are popular in academics. However, instead of encouraging such work, many of the senior academics dismiss such happenings as ones who are propagating Hindutva (in political terms), etc. Those working on the sites may well be ardent proponents of Hindutva - but can their academic work not be evaluated in academic terms? Also, by the same logic, dismissing the work of these senior academics as being political is equally valid. In context of the controversy about the California textbooks, Prof Witzel has clearly stated that he is fighting a war against the Hindutvavadis.

Coming to remarks by Prof Courtright. The question is did he ask the right persons? And secondly, he says that the answers are not satisfactory. Could it be that he did not hear what he wanted to hear? In which case, his was not an honest inquiry.

A request to Raja-ji. Can he provide us with the source of the quote from Fr George Soares Pradhu? It does conform to the intense discussion that is taking place about who should be teaching Hinduism in academics.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

 [Response to Suntharji V. (Dec 21, 2006)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4008]

The above interrogations of mine ought to be replaced within the larger original context of this thread, which is the (seemingly) irreconcilable opposition between iconophilia / iconoclasm. What is (the definition of) "idolatry" and has it ever existed anywhere? If it simply means the cultic use of graven images, then the worship of Ganesha (or even the "aniconic" Shiva-Linga, etc.) would amount to idolatry. As the related interrogations (not cited above) and examples should have made clear, this is not simply a conflict between the monotheistic religions and Hinduism, but is also internal to each of the Abrahamic religions taken separately and vis-ą-vis each other. My questioning is intended to show that our attempts at "reconciliation" so far are unsatisfactory (which is quite different from my accusing Hindus of "idolatry" or defending from against that charge). To come back to your specific objections above:

·         The attempt to defend Hindu iconophilia by approaching the image as a *text* does not really succeed, because we have no available explanations of these "texts" (all we have are traditional prescriptions, written or unwritten, as to how the deity should be depicted: attributes, posture, etc.). Courtright's book, whether we accept his interpretations or not, is indeed an attempt to read Ganesha as a text (but a "reading" that implicitly calls his worship into question, e.g., as fulfilling unconscious psycho-sexual needs...)

·         My reference to a website was simply because we would all have been in the position to visit the pages and evaluate for ourselves. But an "authoritative" book (to quote Isadas) would do just as well, even if in Hindi, Tamil, or Sanskrit, and published by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (the point is I'm unaware of any such *comprehensive* explanation of the iconography of Ganesh). Considering the furor raised by Courtright's (understanding of) Ganesha and the energy expended online around it, I would think that the simplest refutation would have been to create such a site to educate the global public as to how Hindus interpret his various traits (after all, Vishal, Kalavai, Sankrant, and others, did take the trouble to point out online all the errors and illogicalities they could find in the book).

·         It is indeed possible to refute the charge of idolatry (or the "fear of representation" in general) by treating images, paintings, etc., as (religious) "texts" that not only have sophisticated (layers of) meaning, but also produce lasting and renewed effects on the worshipper or prepared perceiver. This is waht Latour has done so brilliantly for paintings of the Resurrection of Christ or the Annunciation of the Virgin:

"How to be iconophilic in art, science, and religion"

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

 (I had actually been planning to introduce these essays only later...)

But I have yet to see similar exegeses of Ganesha, the Shiva-Linga, etc., by apologists for Hindu "iconophilia" (other than banal appeals to Jung, etc....why not then Freud, Lévi-Strauss, Dawkins, etc.?)

·         There is indeed (sometimes a virulent) antipathy towards Hindu sensibilities among Western (and anglo-brahmin Indian) scholars but this is *not external* to the problematic that we are attempting to get a grip on here together. Since you have dragged in Witzel, it's pertinent to take note that he takes explicit pride in being a "descendant of Martin Luther" and that it is the ("secularized" prolongation of the) iconoclastic stance that delights in the destruction of deep-rooted beliefs cherished by "gullible" Hindus. The urge to "deconstruct" even the secularized idols of the Enlightenment, unleashed by Jacques Derrida (some still argue whether he is religious or atheistic at heart...), might perhaps also be understood as the iconoclastic attitude being turned upon itself...

·         Given the fundamental incompatibility between the iconophilic / iconoclastic stances, it would seem impossible to resolve our central question without defaulting one side. Richard Dawkins, for example, would not just default but culpabilize Abrahamic monotheism (since idolaters are typically accused of worshipping "false" gods) for suffering from the *God Delusion*. Many Hindus might be tempted to adopt his arguments as a tactical maneuver (for he is quite lenient with Buddhism, Confucianism...and plausibly, but to a lesser extent, Hinduism?), but this is a "trap" that would end up dismissing religion itself (including Hinduism, which otherwise shares many features with the Abrahamic religions) as the "Root of all Evil" (his popular documentary). To avoid this, Latour gently taxes Moses with a misleading formulation of the Second Commandment (please read his essay carefully and also the whole of this thread again) that has had the most tragic consequences for world history. My central doubt here is to whether Moses - and Akhenaton - before him could have indeed "misread" the "graven texts" of pagan (Egyptian) iconophilia?

If we wish to make headway, I'd invite everyone to (at least temporarily) bracket aside their specific religious or secular affiliations so as to grapple with the core conceptual issue. We might then be in a better position to appreciate what is really at stake for each of the parties to this multi-logue (samvāda).

Regards,

Sunthar

 [Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (Dec 18, 2006)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4003]

Sunthar,

I occasionally read—such as on this holiday—your usually too long messages (often presented without any paragraphs, which is especially annoying on the net).

You have increasingly fallen prey to Hindutva beliefs, allegations,  and defamations. Today's case is especially amusing.

Since you have dragged in Witzel, it's pertinent to take note that he takes explicit pride in being a "descendant of Martin Luther" and that it is the ("secularized" prolongation of the) iconoclastic stance that delights in the destruction of deep-rooted beliefs cherished by "gullible" Hindus.

FYI, I have never claimed descent from Martin Luther.

The rest thus does not apply.

(I know how this rumor originated, but I leave it to you to find out, since you seem to have all the time in the world. It is a creation, if viewed very charitably, caused by the bad state of memory  of one of your sources. Or actual, intended defamation. There is plenty of evidence on the net for the latter.)

I sum:

·         Check your sources before writing, or you become an accomplice!

·         Never trust any Hindutva source blindly!

Happy holidays,

Michael

 

[Response to Ashokji's and Sunthar's post (Dec 25, 2006) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4010]

Michael,

Thanks for the timely clarification that I shall forward to the relevant lists so that the "quote" is not repeated by others. I recall having read it as a citation (i.e., within quotation marks) somewhere. The closest I could find just now (Google) is:

"Witzel has declared proudly on various Internet lists that he is a descendant of Martin Luther, the medieval German founder of Protestant Christianity, who also said that ‘music is the invention of Satan’."

http://www.vigilonline.com/downloads/Dossier_on_Witzel.pdf

I had simply taken it then to mean a "spiritual" inheritor of such an (iconoclastic) outlook, and saw no problem per se with that. In any case, the attribution may be retracted with little impact on my main point about mindsets (which is also made by others like Latour).

Best wishes for the holiday season from Elizabeth and myself as well!

Sunthar

P.S. You are certainly not obliged to read (as far as I can see the paragraph breaks are intact in what I get back and on archives online) any of my postings (even the shorter ones) to this list, though in this case I'm glad you caught the reference in time to be able to refute it.

Dear Sunthar,

Yes, why the contradiction! The pre-Zoharic "Merkavah" Mysticism dealt with fabulous anthropomorphism, but this was arcane lore restricted to certain persons. In the period between the Amoraic (4/5th centuries of the Common Era) and the Geonic (9th century) there is something of a "black hole" in Jewish history where hard data (in Hebrew or Aramaic) are hard t come by.

A sect of Jews did arise in this between period. Called the Karaites, they were literalists, and they rejected any post-Biblical interpretation of Scripture (read: Talmudic) [other than their own, of course!]

And they rejected mystical speculation and fantastic anthropomorphisms. (There is evidence, however, that in later centuries certain mystical/Kabbalistic notions were adapted, but this was in a very limited manner.) 

As for an apparent contradiction, I can only suggest that these were tolerated because they were never objects of worship or veneration.

Someone might draw a Sephirotic Tree and use it as a meditational or teaching aid. But no Sephirotic Tree ever assumed a ritual status as, say, a Yantra or Mandala.

They were, if you will, something of a mind-game - How the finite mind attempts to conceptualize the Infinite.

(On a personal note, I would like to say how stimulating and enjoyable I find this Group!)

Philip

[Response to Sunthar's post at (Dec 20, 2006)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4009] 

Dear Philip,

Yes, this fundamental contradiction between anthropomorphic imagery (the figure of the angel Metatron in the Merkava literature is an excellent example) and iconoclastic rigor will remain baffling so long as the latter is derived from a generic "fear of representation" (as the Scottish Protestant anthropologist, Jack Goody, frames the issue...and which also governs Latour's discussion in the essays I've referenced so far) across the various religions (including Buddhism and Platonism).

To address this adequately we have to understand iconoclasm as a (global) "project" rather than as a misunderstanding of pagan worship, and then try to figure out what kind of (mis-?) "reading" of graven (sub-) "texts" is involved in the pursuit of such a collective project: note that iconoclasts were once a tiny embattled minority in Israel, and Akhenaton is even credited with unleashing a "counter-" religion (of sorts). A good way to begin would be to start thinking about how exactly (the "idols" of) Hindu gods are worshipped in practice and classified in representation: can we have polytheistic image-worship without a pantheon, and what does the latter entail over and above mediation with some divine principle(s)?

I did offer my own interpretation of the iconoclastic midrash over lunch with Bruno, and hope to present the same, but with a more elaborate exegesis, here in due course...

Regards,

Sunthar

P.S. I hope you won't object to my sharing our exchange, especially given the continued effort involved, with our other friends on these lists.

[Rest of this thread at Ashokji and Sunthar V. (Dec 25, 2006)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4010]

> 

> 

Before I begin, let me clarify that my interest in Hinduism relates to the socio-political aspects of the issues concerned, and not the pure academics. I like to think that I am conveying to the non-academics the pure academic issues in terms that the non-academics understand.

At the beginning of the message Suntharji says that he neither accuses 'Hindus of "idolatry" (nor) defend them against that charge.' Later on he says: 'It is indeed possible to refute the charge of idolatry....." To my mind the issue now becomes what is wrong with idolatry? I know that many of the sants [‘saints’] in Hinduism do not wish to say that Hindus are idol worshippers. This is because the term is somehow considered to be a negative characteristic. This is influenced by the pronouncements in the Bible and the Koran that idol worshippers are destined to that place where one is eternally barbecued.

In my socio-political perspective, I would say that Hindus are indeed idol worshippers, but would like to ask how does this make them cause harm to anyone else, or even to themselves. Christians and Muslims would say that they are NOT idol worshippers, but have they not caused harm to others by using various verses in their holy books? Here I think the following quote of Fr George Soares-Prabhu is relevant:

"Whether mediaeval as distinct from modern Hinduism was 'exclusivist' or not, it was certainly not intolerant in the way that Christianity and Islam were. Hindu sects may have thought of themselves as superior to other sects, in that they possessed the 'true' interpretation of the Vedas, but (unlike Christiani­ty and Islam) they rarely felt the need to eliminate them! There is nothing in the history of Hinduism or Buddhism to compare with the obsessive ferocity of Christianity and Islam in their persecution of other religions or of dissi­dent groups within their own religious tradition. "The three Judaic reli­gions," comments Toynbee, "have a record of intolerance, hatred, malice, un­charitableness and persecution that is black in comparison with Buddhism's [and, I would add, Hinduism's] record.

(George M Soares-Prabhu, S.J., "Religion and Communalism: The Christian Dilem­ma", Responding to Communalism: The Task of Religions and Theology,

S Arokias­amy (ed), Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, Anand, 1991, p 143. Arnold Toynbee from Change and Habitat: The Challenge of Our Time, Oxford University Press, Lon­don, 1966, p 167.)

The extensive discussion on idolatry, I think, has to make a qualification that idolatory is not harmful for anyone.

During the time of the controversy on California textbooks, one of the issues on which the Hindu groups asking for change were criticized (even by those who are very sympathetic to Hinduism) was for claiming that Hinduism is NOT polytheist. The reason is that the recipient of the information on Hinduism, namely school children, consider that polytheism is bad. So, in the context of the textbooks, and given the generally accepted meaning of the word polytheism, what the Hindu groups tried to do was perfectly legitimate. They were working within the environment created for them, and doing the best that is possible. To teach the various nuances of the words 'monotheism' and 'polytheism' is the task of the academics.

Suntharji also says that organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad should have a website dealing with the issues of the image of Ganesh, idolatry, etc. Being a strong activist of the VHP for the last 15 years, I would like to explain that the organization is to mobilize the Hindu masses as Hindus in a positive way. We are a link between the dharma-gurus of Hinduism and the people. Such type of work is always done in an environment where emotions play a very large role. In fact, I consider that even a medium dose of intellectualism is counterproductive. So, to expect the VHP to undertake the task that Suntharji is expecting is not realistic.

At the same time, why do we not ask academics who teach Hinduism to undertake this task? When looking at issues relating to Christianity, do the academics refer to the websites promoted by the Vatican, or do they refer to the other academics? Such websites have to have an idiom that is in conformity to the academic standards, and a mass-based organization will never be able to do so. Also, to merely say that the answer given by someone is unsatisfactory (as Prof Courtright has done) does not lead anywhere, unless it is said why it is unsatisfactory. Only then we can have a reasoned discussions.

It is a Hindu tradition that when one deals with a subject one needs to fully understand the same. So when Madhvacharya made a critique of advaita, he first set out his understanding of advaita to give an opportunity to the proponents of advaita to appreciate that he knew what it is all about in the way they understood it. I am told that this is one of the best exposition of advaita. He then went about to say why he thought that it was not as good as his own philosophy.

Similarly, I think it was Adi Shankaracharya who is said to have immersed his soul in the body of a married person to be able to talk about the relationship between a man and his wife.

Sorry for the rambling post. But this is the best I could do. I am also not able to give the exact reference to the previous post on Abhinavagupta, and I would request Suntharji to do the necessary additions.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

[Response to Sunthar's post at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4010]

Ashokji: This is an extremely thoughtful and right on the button response. I have been thinking lately - why don't Hindus start a movement to assert murti [image - SV] worship. I don't use the word idol because of the denotative and connotative meanings associated with that in the Abrahamic traditions.

But you are right - Hindus need to stop retreating into a corner under Abrahamic pressure about polytheism and murtis.

[Indrani Rampersad]

[Response to Ashokji's post (Dec 26, 2006) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4014]

·         Ashokji has indeed hit the nail on the head by asking very simply "what's wrong with being an idolater?" Let's concede, for argument's sake, that Hindu worshippers have absolutely no clue as to what the murti means or even of the possibility that it might be a "text" of a sort, that they have no privileged "experience" while adoring Ganesha that might be distinguishable from praying before a different idol in their circumambulation; and that the creators of such iconographic figures were not that much wiser and were perhaps manipulating the masses (Vivekananda's "tyranny of the sages"?). How does this harm any other religious community?

·         Rabbi Jose urges his flock to let idolaters be when they are not disturbing the peace. But how is it then there has been relatively little large-scale violence due to religious differences in pre-Muslim Indian civilization, not only between worshippers of different "false" gods, but also against atheists like the Buddhists, or against Jews who had relatively high socio-ritual status (and had more to fear from rival "iconoclasts" like the Portuguese in Kerala)? If “keeping the peace" is a primary criteria (Rabbi Jose) has not iconoclastic intolerance been the much larger culprit, even in Europe?

·         Attempts to vindicate image-worship by demonstrating that it isn't "idolatry" (but rather text-reading, gaining privileged experience, maintaining socio-ritual bonds, etc.) are largely side-stepping Ashokji's straightforward question. Moreover they assume that the perpetrators of iconoclastic faiths would have done otherwise if they had not "misunderstood" such surrounding or inherited practices. Since killing or maiming the infidels would not save their souls, it would be more akin to eradicating or at least quarantining a (mad holy cow?) disease from infecting the faithful.

But why have otherwise astute and pious Abrahamic souls persisted in considering idolatry a dangerous disease? This indeed is the question that both pagans and iconoclasts alike need to join hands to answer constructively!

Sunthar

> 

[Rest of this thread at Philip (21 Dec) and Sunthar (25 Dec) at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4011]

Dear Group, 

Here is a quote from Raphael Patai, which gives us further food for thought concerning the similarities of Jewish and Hindu philosophy:

"yihudim-Unifications," the Kabbalistic and Hasidic tradition requires of the believers to recite a yihud ("unification") spelling out the purpose of the prayer about to be recited or the mitzva about to be preformed, namely the unification of God and the Shekhina . This shows that these brief declaratory statements called yihudim were (and among the Hasidim and the tradition-bound Sephardi and Oriental Jews still are) recited many times a daily, and thus indicate that the Shekhina, and feminine aspect (or "person") of the Godhead was (and is) a living reality in the belief system of considerable contingents of the Jewish people.

Raphael Patai from his book, The Hebrew Goddess

Raphael Patai (1910-1996) was a Hungarian-Jewish ethnographer and anthropologist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Patai

[William Glick]

 

4) Though the figure of Lilith, the dark side of the Shekhinah (or the "Hebrew Goddess"), figures prominently in the (esp. magical writings of) the Kabbala, why isn't she worshipped by the patriarchs in temples like the Hindu Durga?

Sunthar V., "RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?" (17 Dec. 2006)

Hello William,

For the practice of "unifications" (yihudim) of the male and female aspects of the Godhead - often conceived of as twins (as in the radical Yāmala tantras) - see Charles Mopsik's essay on "Union and Unity in Kabbala" (Between Jerusalem and Benares). In the comparative essay I attempted with Elizabeth's paper on the same theme in Hindu Tantrism, I provide more parallels while emphasizing the radical opposition between the two traditions as regards the "politics" of unification.

Patai himself (I used his Hebrew Goddess quite extensively for my own contribution...) cites various instances of attempts to introduce images of the (pagan) goddess (Asherah) - along with cultic pillars - into the Jerusalem temple, and their being subsequently destroyed as relapses into idolatry. Any serious rapprochement must necessarily account for both the convergences and the contrasts in order to be convincing. This example only serves to further highlight our problem.

Regards,

Sunthar

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (Dec 27, 2006)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4015]

Thank you Indraniji for your compliments. I hope I have given an indication of the type of discussions that take place in arenas outside the strict academics. Ultimately, it is necessary to translate the academic discussions at the mass level for academics to be meaningful to the needs of the society.

I, however, do not agree to use the term 'murti' instead of 'idol'. First, the former is derived from Sanskrit, and is not used outside academics in the English language. So, one will have to first indulge in an exercise of explaining the meaning of the word 'murti' and why is it different from 'idol'. In any case, if the word 'idol' has been misinterpreted, the correct approach is to rescue it. Just as Hindus will object to giving up their holy symbol of Swastika because it was misused by Hitler, the same should be applied in other areas.

Namaste. Ashok Chowgule

 [Response to Indiarniji's post (Dec 28, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4015]

Raphael Patai was a major figure in a specifically Judaic approach to anthropology, but he was clearly a product of his times. His father was a major figure in Zionism in Hungary before World War II, and Raphael Patai carried much neo-colonialist baggage with him.

Charles Mopsik, on the other hand, was clearly a profound scholar of religion, and especially mysticism. His death at a young age only several years ago has left a great hole.

I admit up front I have not read the Mopsik article mentioned [and I do intend to do so], but my gut feeling is that whatever Mopsik wrote about the Shekinah, unity and union, would be more compelling than what Patai wrote decades ago.

On another issue, I want to weigh in on another issue - and since this Group has such a volume of postings, I want to apologize in advance if I overlooked in earlier postings the issue I want to bring up now.

Persons are differing over the words "idol" and "murthi." I would like to suggest that (1) the use of "idol" was used to describe those images of Indic devotion by Europeans, largely iconoclastic Protestants. The word was used because these European Protestants perceived Indic worship in Old Testament terms, which is both negative and demonizing.

These same European Protestants perceived the Roman Catholic veneration of saints and relics and the Eastern Orthodox veneration of saints and icons as idolatrous.

"Idol" is a loaded term. One person may use it "neutrally" to describe any image of veneration, and another person may read it and perceive it negatively.

Yes, "murthi" is a Sanskrit word. But that should not disqualify it from being a technical term used by scholars to describe "neutrally" images of Indic veneration.

Indeed, I believe the use of the Sanskrit term ought to be adopted for scholarly discourse.

Merely my two paras.

Philip

[Response to Ashokji's post (Dec 29, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4017]

I do agree with Miller's explanation because Hindus who are living in the west have to deal with the western context of idol. The word does not seem to have that much weight in India for I have seen so many Hindu texts in English translations using this word. But the connotative meaning of the word does endow it anything positive for us to use. Hindus cannot translate away their identity. Terms like dharma cannot mean religion and similarly a murthi is not an idol. There are some terms that should not be translated because too much is lost in the process.

[Indrani Rampersad]

[Response to Philip's post (Dec 30, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4021]

Subject:

 RE: "Idol worship versus Deity worship" (Isa Das) - is Mosaic iconoclasm based on a simple misunderstanding of pagan iconophilia?

From: Ashok Chowgule

Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 11:23 PM [Abhinava msg #4023]

To: Abhinavagupta@yahoogroups.com

Philipji has rightly said that the word 'idol' is a loaded term. In general understanding it is viewed as something negative, just as the term 'polytheism' is. It is my understanding that even in academic arena these two terms are used in a negative context. So, to use it in context of strictly outside academics, as in case of textbooks or travel articles related to Hinduism, there can well be a problem.

I am personally all for using the terms 'idol worship' and 'polytheism' to describe Hinduism, provided that the academics make a serious effort to disabuse the present generally accepted meaning of the terms.

Namaste. Ashok Chowgule

 [Response to Philip Miller's post (Dec 30, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4021] 

Dear Friends,

In continuation of the discussion on polytheism versus monotheism where Shri Chowgule and others had suggested that polytheism and 'idol' worship is nothing to be apologetic about, I shall like to report that:

You would be glad to know that I spoke in the Seminar in Delphi, Greece July 1-6,on the topic of The Role of the United Nations in the 21st century. I was asked to speak at the Round Table on Religion and Culture along on July 5, where the keynote speech was given by Christodoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, and the speakers included Grand Rabbi of Paris Rene-Samuel Sirat, Komotini Mufti Meco Cemali, and Corfu’s Catholic Archbishop Yiannis Spiteris.

In the course of my talk as a counter to the Bishop Spiteris's suggestion the Christian Church needs to have a better dialogue with the polytheistic religions I suggested that this whole approach of regarding the Hindus and other Indic religions as worshippers of many 'gods' as distinct from worshippers of one God should now be abandoned, that the ignorantly created division between monotheism and polytheism was a colonial hangover.

I briefly expanded upon the fact that the 'unity of Divine' underlay the various manifestations of the Divine as 'gods' and this was contributive to the process of searching for God and realizing the Truth which was one and not many, according to the Indian philosophical texts.

The problem of the ineffable Ultimate One reality seen as diverse and as an image/icon/idol/anthropomorphic 'murti' and vice versa had been solved in India thousands of years ago while the other faiths of the world were still struggling or refusing to find an answer and hence are unappreciative of the idol worshippers and polytheists.

 I cited Chandogya Upanishad, 6-2-1 - "Ekam eva advitiyam", "One only without a second" and other texts.

I ended the presentation with opening lines of Ishopanishad "Ishaavaasyam idam sarvam ..." that one and only Divine pervades the Universe and that humans should partake of what he gives and not covet the portion of others.

The argument was widely appreciated and reported in the foremost daily of Greece:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=71813

Associate Professor Bharat Gupt of Delhi University visibly surprised some of the representatives of the monotheistic religions with his gentle reminder that believers in polytheistic traditions also embrace the unity of the divine, citing an apt quotation from the Upanishads as evidence.

I think it is time to assert that the myopia lies with the Abrahamic faiths and not with faiths and philosophies of Indian origin.

Regards,

Bharat Gupt

[Response to Ashokji's post (31 Dec 06) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4023]

 

Here are some interrogations intended to carry this discussion further (by displacing some coordinates...and eventually its center of gravity) instead of going around in circles:

·         If the term "idol" has such a pejorative connotation within the Abrahamic legacy and Western (= contemporary?) civilization as a whole, this has ultimately little to do with one's choice of words, but the opprobrium attached to the practice of worshipping graven images. Calling the latter by the venerable Sanskrit term (mūrti...pratīka or the like) isn't going to change anything, if attempted vindications of "idolatry" (as a valid, beneficial, intelligible mode of worship) fail.

·         Nor are such apologetics for mūrti worship going to win over significant numbers of one's Abrahamic interlocutors, if Hindus do not address the primary (even if rarely explicit socio-) religious concerns that prompt the iconoclastic attitude and gesture. If the ineffability of the Ultimate Reality could have favored its approach through the unlimited diversity of specific forms of (Hindu) deities ("polytheism"), wouldn't "idolatry" have been found offensive for wholly other reasons?

·         Since the label "idol" was used negatively, even to demonize, already in its original Old Testament and later Christian/Muslim contexts to anathematize coreligionists who had (apparently) 'strayed' from the right path, the onus is upon apologists for image-worship to demonstrate that Hindu iconophilia is a sui generis phenomenon that has been simply misunderstood, and upon (not just Abrahamic) iconoclasts to prove that they have understood only too well.

Sunthar

> 

[Response to Bharat's post (Dec 31, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4024]

http://www.religionnews.com/press02/PR122106D.html

[courtesy of Sugrutha at Akandabaratam (Dec 31, 2006)]

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Vikram Masson

navyashastra@...

(201) 674-2065

www.shastras.org

 

Navya Shastra Apologizes for Untouchability

 

Troy, Michigan, USA --December 20, 2006—

Navya Shastra, the international Hindu reform organization, has issued an apology to the Dalit communities of India. The organization issued the apology after consulting with Hindu activists and its own Dalit members.

 

STATEMENT OF APOLOGY

We, at Navya Shastra, deeply regret and apologize for the atrocities committed on the sons and daughters of the depressed communities of India, including the tribals, the "untouchables" and all of the castes deemed as low.

We shamefully acknowledge that the ideals of varna and its practical manifestation in castes (jĆtis), promoted and encouraged the notions of inequality, lesser and greater, high and low, superior and inferior among human beings. An ideal that does not aspire for equality of human beings is not worthy of being an ideal.

Caste and varna have relegated many to a degradingly low status. This was a divisive, inhumane and a ruinous social construct. Navya Shastra fully recognizes this and rejects unequivocally as heinous and despicable varna and caste together with all Shastras and theories that endorse them or support the unjust and demeaning social hierarchy that these imposed on the Indian society. Navya Shastra understands that all Hindus cannot be equals when such theories are still amidst us.

We ask for forgiveness for what our forefathers did in the past to directly and indirectly contribute to any and all indignities heaped by one human being upon another in the name of Dharma and God, and which some among us continue to do even in this enlightened era.

The depressed and lowest castes have been the keepers and protectors of our oldest and most ancient traditions and wisdom. They have kept in practice the traditions that have become foundational to what we call "mainstream" Hinduism today. Some of the tribal languages, spoken even today, have provided the substratum for many of the spoken and classical languages of India. Most of our mainstream indigenous medicinal, agricultural, craftsmanship and other knowledge systems owe their origins to the knowledge and practices that have been propagated and retained within these castes over millennia. The folk performing arts were and are the main sources of input into the classical and popular art forms.

We want to celebrate and fete all these traditions on this day, and pay homage to them. These traditions form the very foundation on which the Indian civilization stands today.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion by journalist Bhaskar Dasgupta on the apology

 

http://piquancy.blogspot.com/2006/12/untouchable-apology.html

 

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

An untouchable apology

The untouchables of Hinduism are a wretched lot. For hundreds and thousands of years, this group of people have been forced to inhabit the bottom end of the Hindu totem pole. While it is not at the level of genocide, it is an institutionalised social discrimination over a very long period of time. When I read a press release from a Hindu reformist group apologising to the Untouchables for the deep seated discrimination, it struck a chord in my mind and I wanted to write about it, as well as share in this apology. For example, only recently there was a big brouhaha when a temple in India refused entry to dalits (who are also Hindu) simply because they were of a lower caste. In this day and age!!! I was so furious and when I complained bitterly that none of the mainstream Hindu organisations or leaders in India did anything, I was accused of patronising them. These so-called Hindu organisations are very quick off the mark when absolutely silly things go on, but when there is clear cut painfully evident confirmation that there needs to be reform, they are nowhere to be found. This is absolutely ridiculous and a clear example of intellectual incoherence at best and incompetence at worst. But I digress.

Apologies are very strange and at the same time, very human. It is extremely powerful and at the same time, looked upon with deep cynicism. It is also extremely difficult to do so, while there is nothing like this to draw the teeth out of any angst ridden situation. Just ask me, I have to apologise regularly to my sister. But this apology is one, which is valid on so many different levels and this is an apology to the untouchables of Hinduism.

The basics of this religiously mandated behaviour are well known and I will not spend too much time on going deeper into the intricacies of this. Other than saying that the idea of difference and discrimination was institutionalised despite a huge amount of debate on what this differentiation meant. On one hand, there were statements effectively saying that everybody is born the same, while on the other hand, there are statements in religious books talking about how some are born from the head and some from the foot. Irrespective of what the religious justification is, one found that there are literally thousands of groups who consider themselves different from other groups. This groupism extended to bans on intermarriage, taking meals together and even extended to group dedicated watering holes and wells.

Quite a lot of Hindu reformers ranging from Swami Vivekananda, Mahatama Gandhi, Guru Rabindranath Tagore, Dayananda Saraswati, etc. kept a strong pressure on changing this religious practise, but even when India became independent, this was still present. The then leader of the untouchables, Shri Bhimrao Ambedkar, a brilliant lawyer, even incorporated caste based reservations into the constitution, to provide them with the leg up. As it so happens, this is something which I disagree with, because this has institutionalised discrimination and is not leading anybody anywhere towards the true equality in the eyes of the state and citizens, but that's beside the point. Discrimination was outlawed by the Indian constitution in 1936, but little has changed for the 300-400 million people who belonged to the Untouchable Castes of India. I am also conscious of the fact that calling it 'the caste system' is dangerously simplifying it, as the actual theological aspects behind the differentiation is much more complex.

What is also beside the point is that all other religions and cultures have had the same groupism and differentiation and were trying to create a separate identity through religious or cultural factors. Whether we are talking about the Japanese way of looking at the difference between the samurai and peasants, the difference between the faithful and the dhimmi, the difference between Catholics and Protestants, the difference between white and black skin, the difference between Christian and pagan, you name it, discrimination has occurred all the time and everywhere. And yes, just because it happened in other religious, regions and cultures, it just tells me that it is pretty much human. This is, however, neither an excuse nor a reason to stop trying to rip out this disgusting practise.

But what good is an apology? We have to address the cynics in our midst as well, because I have seen this form of visceral reaction from both sides. The side of the Hindus, who totally refuse to accept that this happened and go off into theological arguments and ignore the real life actions around discrimination. The other side are the Dalits, who would be happy to tear down the entire country to satisfy their rather strange desire for revenge. Both extremely simplistic in the extreme and frankly not worth talking to or about, but then, that's what happens to fanatics. Their feet are planted firmly in the air! But this is not for the fanatics, they won't listen anyway, it is for the vast majority of Hindus, people who have a social conscience, care about their culture and are conscious of a vast historical injustice done to a whole group of other people. And it is not a simple binary equation, high class Brahmins discriminating against lower class dalits. It happens on every group intersection, so there is no point in getting up on the high horse about just one group.

An apology is a very good means to bring things out in the open. Hiding behind a religious tract or pointing at other instances does not change the situation on the ground. Every Hindu has to be open about this discrimination, and understand what this has done to us, our culture, history and reputation. No longer! This apology means that we understand and accept the fault. Not only that, but an apology actually provides the impetus or the foundation to do something about it.

This is the other good thing about an apology for the cynics out there. Once one has gone through the cathartic process of apologising, one can start to address this issue, if only by small measures. If a friend says something demeaning about a lower caste person, even a raised eyebrow is a small but significant step in telling people that this form of behaviour is not appropriate. One will definitely ask me the question if somebody might actually accept the apology? I am afraid this is the wrong question. When Tony Blair apologised for the British role in Slavery, he did not do it because he was worried whether anybody might or might not accept it. He did it because this was the right thing to do. Despite the fact that I am personally not responsible for this reprehensible and horrible historical fact, as a Hindu and as a human being, it is but right to apologise. As a Hindu, I hold responsibility to my religion, my nation, my society, my government, and indeed to my children as well. An apology can, in a small way, lead towards making the world a fairer place.

The Hindu Reformist group, Navya Shastra, who actually made the public apology, also invited a whole host of other Hindu luminaries to join in this effort. I am not sure how far this went but it should be remembered that this caste based discrimination is not simply religiously mandated, but also socially mandated. Hence besides religious figures, cultural and social figures need to be brought into this as well. In many ways, an appeal by one of the Bollywood actors may actually provide more push to changes in behaviour, rather than very many Hindu religious leaders combined. But still, more luminaries joining in to complain, apologise and push Indians to remove this distressing social condition is good.

So here it is, I fully endorse and join Navya Shastra, in apologising to the other castes, for what I and my forefathers may have done and promise that I will raise my voice against this disgusting practise, and hopefully help remove this by my words as well as my behaviour. At the UN World Conference on Race (WCAR) held August 31-September 8 2001 in Durban, South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki said:"…there are many in our common world who suffer indignity and humiliation because they are not white …These are a people who know what it means to be the victim of rabid racism and racial discrimination. Nobody ever chose to be a slave, to be colonised, to be racially oppressed. The impulses of the time caused these crimes to be committed by human beings against others." And while there was quite a hullabaloo about whether 'casteism' is appropriate in this race conference, this is quibbling over details. Discrimination existed, it exists and it behoves us to address it. May this apology be a first start to a better implementation of religion!

It's an excellent development.

Gandhiji was limiting his condemnation to Untouchability.

Navya Shastra is now rejecting the varna doctrine itself. 

So deeply embedded is this toxic doctrine in Hindu corpus and discourse, and for so long, that its rooting out would require no less than a thoroughgoing reconfiguration / re-structuring of Hinduism.  It's a long haul.  The theological and philosophical critiques must sharpen and deepen.  The Sankaracharyas and the likes would have to oblige or be discarded.  At stake is not only the future of Hinduism, but the role of India on the world stage. 

Anbudan

ARUL

http://anbudanarul.blogspot.com

How far can one go in "reforming" Hinduism through "regretting" the caste-system (as an illegitimate accretion?) without interrogating the religious sanction that such "apartheid" has received from the practices of polytheistic image-worship?

·         The lowest castes were barred entry into nuclear Hindu temples (in the same way that most worshippers could not access the sanctum sanctorum...) because the (not just Vaishnava) deities (such as Lord Jagannātha) were surrounded by the same taboos of ritual purity that were enforced to maintain scrupulously the maximum distance between the brahmin and the untouchable.

·         The Hindu pantheon was itself structured around this ritual opposition such that the pure central deities (such as Kashi Vishvanātha) were vegetarian while those of the untouchables such as Karuppan ("Blackie") and Bhairava ("Scary") were invariably carnivorous and relegated to the lowly role of "protectors" more readily accessible to those who were otherwise barred entry into the brahmanical temple to worship their superordinate divinities.

·         Image worship when assiduously and single-mindedly applied by "unauthorized" elements could even be most counterproductive: hence, when the untouchable Ekalavya created and adored a self-fashioned mūrti of the martial arts guru Dronācārya, the latter obliged his (unacknowledged and hence) presumptuous devotee to cut off his own thumb as an offering to his proud brahmin preceptor (so as not to be able to wield his bow against Drona's protégé, Arjuna).

·         Isn't this why Dalit movements (such as those led by Ambedkar, Periyar, etc.) not only denounce the caste-system but are taking the logical step of forcing their entry into Hindu temples or converting to Buddhism (Islam, or Christianity)?  

Shouldn't a "new religion, art, and science" (Navya-Shāstra) of iconophilia set about systematically "redefining" Hinduism itself, such that the desired "reforms" would largely follow as a consequence of a fresh understanding of the past?

Sunthar 

Dear Sunthar, your wonderings are valid.

How far can one go in "reforming" Hinduism through "regretting" the caste-system (as an illegitimate accretion?) without interrogating the religious sanction that such "apartheid" has received from the practices of polytheistic image-worship?

 There is no stopping with regretting. Everything is relooked, interrogated and questioned. That has been made clear:

"...rejects unequivocally as heinous and despicable... together with all Shastras [scripture - SV] and theories that endorse them or support the unjust and demeaning social hierarchy that these imposed on the Indian society. Navya Shastra understands that all Hindus cannot be equals when such theories are still amidst us."

This means that there is no place for any kind of religious sanctions for 'apartheid' even in temples, priesthoods, icon worship, and monasteries. Any such shastra, verse, or theory is rejected. You know what that entails!

 * The lowest castes were barred entry into nuclear Hindu temples (in the same way that most worshippers could not access the sanctum sanctorum...) because the (not just Vaishnava) deities (such as Lord Jagannātha) were surrounded by the same taboos of ritual purity that were enforced to maintain scrupulously the maximum distance between the brahmin and the untouchable.

All temples should have access for all, including non Hindus and tourists too, though some sort of attire code may be necessary or else the sun worshippers will be there too. I have suggested that there be 'open days' where all devotees can enter the mulasthānam [sanctum] and perform abishegams [ritual adoration of the image] like in Kasi, but of course there is the practical problem of so many people entering the sanctum. There was another suggestion that all temple entrants be sprinkled with 'holy water' so that all are considered 'purified' and there is no need for subsequent cleansing rituals which itself is demeaning.

 * The Hindu pantheon was itself structured around this ritual opposition such that the pure central deities (such as Kashi Vishvanātha) were vegetarian while those of the untouchables such as Karuppan ("Blackie") and Bhairava ("Scary") were invariably carnivorous and relegated to the lowly role of "protectors" more readily accessible to those who were otherwise > barred entry into the brahmanical temple to worship their superordinate divinities.

All these stories of herbivore and carnivore gods arose in the Puranas. Gods are bodies of light and do not eat. Period. There is no place for these shastras and legends anymore.

 * Image worship when assiduously and single-mindedly applied by "unauthorized" elements could even be most counterproductive: hence, when the untouchable Ekalavya created and adored a self-fashioned mūrti of the martial arts guru Dronācārya, the latter obliged his (unacknowledged and hence) presumptuous devotee to cut off his own thumb as an offering to his > proud brahmin preceptor (so as not to be able to wield his bow against Drona's protégé, Arjuna).

Yes, we have to make clear that only the agamically authorized murthis should be worshipped in temples. The Mahābhārata is not an āgama [scripture] and therefore is no authority on Hindu worship. Even an āgama, if there is any discrimination, than that verse is to be rejected unequivocally. The press release makes clear that Hindus are unshackled of shastras. We are free.

 Shouldn't a "new religion, art, and science" (Navya-Shāstra) of iconophilia set about systematically "redefining" Hinduism itself, such that the desired "reforms" would largely follow as a consequence of a fresh understanding of the past?

 It's not a new religion. It's giving up old incongruous elements and giving in to sensibilities. Let us redefine as we go along. It's going to take a while. Give us your suggestions too.

Regards.

Pathma

 

[Response to Sunthar's post (Dec 31, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4027]

Pathma,

Good thought.

But there may be need for caution on the following point:

I have suggested that there be 'open days' where all devotees can enter the mulasthanam and perform abishegams like in Kasi, but of course there is the practical problems of so many people entering the sanctum.

I recall no lesser a personality than Maramalai Adikal specifically arguing against adopting the practice of devotees streaming into the mulasthanam.  

However, let's first see the priesthood opened up to ALL suitably qualified (by merit, NOT by birth) and restoring grace to the mulasthanam by bringing back prayers in Tamil.    

Anbudan

ARUL

http://anbudanarul.blogspot.com

I recall no lesser a personality than Maramalai Adikal specifically arguing against adopting the practice of devotees streaming into the mulasthanam.

Dear Arul, 

I'm curious why he said that, and why your caution? Admittedly there might be some crazed ones that may deface of defile the murthy.

I'm all for priesthood opened for all including non Indian Hindus, and pujas in Tamil, as well as in Hindi or in any language of the local community. There are Hindu chants in Balinese as well as in Thai. I hope overseas Hindus write prayer chants in the language of their resident countries; in English, Spanish or whatever. We could also mix and chant, in Sanskrit, Tamil, English etc. I do that daily! If one is praying to God mentally the language used would be one that is usually spoken by the native, and by the English educated ones it would normally be in English and that is perfectly acceptable.

Regards.

Pathma

 

 

On one occasion, when the sages could not agree as to which of the three gods—Brahma, Vishnu and Siva—was best entitled to the worship of Brahmanas, the sage Bhrigu was sent to test these gods. He first went to the abode of Brahma and, on approaching him, purposely omitted an obeisance. Upon this the god reprehended him severely, but was pacified by apologies. Next he entered the abode of Siva in Kailasa, and omitted as before, all tokens of adoration. The vindictive deity was enraged and would have destroyed him, had not the sage conciliated him by mild words. According to another account, Bhrigu was coldly received by Brahma and he therefore cursed him that he would receive no worship or adoration; and he condemned Siva to take the form of a Linga, the Phallus, as he got no access to the deity who was engaged in private with his wife. Lastly, he went to Vishnu and finding him asleep, he boldly gave the god a kick on his breast which at once awoke him. Instead of showing anger, however, the god arose and, seeing Bhrigu, inquired tenderly whether his foot was hurt and then began to rub it gently. [He declared that he would cherish Bhrigu’s footprint on his chest as the auspicious Srivatsa.] ‘This’, said Bhrigu, ‘is the mightiest god; he overtops all by the most potent of all weapons—kindness and generosity.’ Vishnu was therefore declared to be the god who was best entitled to the worship of all.

Of the Seven Rishis, Who was Narendranath? (Ramakrishna Mission)

 

After testing Lord Brahma, Bhrgu Muni went directly to the planet Kailasa, where Lord Siva resides. Bhrgu Muni happened to be Lord Siva's brother. Therefore, as soon as Bhrgu Muni approached, Lord Siva was very glad and personally rose to embrace him. But when Lord Siva approached, Bhrgu Muni refused to embrace him. "My dear brother," he said, "you are always very impure. Because you smear your body with ashes, you are not very clean. Please do not touch me." When Bhrgu Muni refused to embrace his brother, saying that Lord Siva was very impure, the latter became very angry with him. [...] Of course, Lord Visnu is all-merciful. He did not become angry at the activities of Bhrgu Muni because Bhrgu Muni was a great brahmana. A brahmana is to be excused even if he sometimes commits an offense, and Lord Visnu set the example. Yet it is said that from the time of this incident, the goddess of fortune, Laksmi, has not been very favorably disposed towards the brahmanas, and therefore, because the goddess of fortune withholds her benedictions from them, the brahmanas are generally very poor. Bhrgu Muni's touching the chest of Lord Visnu with his foot was certainly a great offense, but Lord Visnu is so great that He did not care. The so-called brahmanas of the Kali-yuga are sometimes very proud that they can touch the chest of Lord Visnu with their feet. But when Bhrgu Muni touched the chest of Lord Visnu with his feet, it was different because although it was the greatest offense, Lord Visnu, being greatly magnanimous, did not take it very seriously. [...] "You are so pure and great that the water which washes your feet can purify even the places of pilgrimage. Therefore, I request you to purify the Vaikuntha planet where I live with My associates. My dear father, O great sage, I know that your feet are very soft, like a lotus flower, and that My chest is as hard as a thunderbolt. I am therefore afraid that you may have felt some pain by touching My chest with your feet. Let Me therefore touch your feet to relieve the pain you have suffered." Lord Visnu then began to massage the feet of Bhrgu Muni.

Swami Bhaktivedānta Prabhupada, "The Superexcellent Power of Krishna"

 

Even at the height of the bhakti period, the image of Brahmā as the third member of the Hindu Trinity did not as a rule receive worship in temples, which the Purānic myths account for through a curse that devalorizes this ‘arrogant’ creator-god before Vishnu and Shiva as the supreme objects of devotion. The real reason, however, is that the prior brahmanical ideology that still underpins Hindu bhakti accords no independent status or even reality to the gods who were mere cogs in the sacrificial machinery. Though Maitreya, the vidūshaka in the "Little Clay Cart" (Mrcchakatikā), complies with his brahmin friend’s wish to leave the offerings at the crossroads for the goddesses, he makes it a point to complain: "What’s the use of worshipping the divinities? They don’t listen anyway!" The ‘prohibition’ of images is not peculiar to the monotheistic cultures (it’s not just the Catholics in Europe but even the Muslims in India who have found ingenious ‘theological’ solutions to get around the interdiction). It may be recognized as a powerful (not just Western) tendency, already within a pagan context, in a philosopher-mystic like Plato: art as being engrossed in the shadow of an already ‘imaginary’ world in the (allegory of the) Cave.

Sunthar V., "Towards an Integral Appreciation of Abhinavagupta's Aesthetics of Rasa" (Evam 2006)

 

Hello Pathma,

The real question I'm raising is whether the pure/impure opposition is an apartheid (= 'apartness' in English) ideology that has crept unawares into the socio-religious order deployed around the nuclear temple, such that Hinduism may now be "reformed" of such unwarranted historical accretions, or is rather constitutive of image-worship such that the only way out would be by redefining the tradition around a radically different framework by (re-) starting from first principles:

·         Communal worship of the anthropomorphic image in the temple consists primarily in treating the god(ess) as if (s)he were a human being, e.g., by feeding it various delicacies. The only difference is that a large portion of these offerings is returned to the worshippers to be consumed as tokens of favor (prasād), or even as partaking, in some way, of the divine essence. Hence, it is of fundamental importance that (public) meat offerings not be made at temples where the community is primarily vegetarian. The priests officiating within the sanctum have always been brahmins, for the same reason that they are the only ones from whom all castes could accept food (hence they were the cooks at weddings, etc.).

·         For Abraham, God made Man in his own (no more than) Image, which allows humans to approach and assimilate his divine attributes but without, strictly speaking, presuming to be gods themselves or assuming their prerogatives. Hindu "idols" are not just fed, but also bathed, clothed, ornamented, get married, taken for rides around the temple compound, enjoy being swayed in a swing, put to sleep, woken up in the morning, and (at least in some instances) die and are reborn (as would be the case of the wooden 'tribal' image of Lord Jagannātha during the nava-kalevara ceremony). No harm to parents playing with Barbie dolls, but what if the worshipper is jet black and the pure blonde "idol" wears a sacred thread?

·         The caste-hierarchy is inscribed into the very iconography of the gods: thus, the charming insignia (srī-vatsa) indelibly inscribed upon Lord Vishnu's breast is but the mark of his subordination to (the values of purity incarnated by) Bhrigu, the archetype of the pure brahmin. If the 'arrogant' Brahmā does not receive any worship at all, it's because the brahmanical orthodoxy already has the Vedic sacrifice which is prior to and remains independent of bhakti, which largely serves (even when it claims to be "anti-brahmanical"...) to generalize the sacrificial order, unawares, to rest of Hindu society including the outcastes (just as Christianity has served to propagate Mosaic monotheism among the "anti-semitic" gentiles...).

·         The shared ideal of ritual purity which is the social basis of the caste-system (rather than the other way around...) underlies even the yogic and other spiritual practices undertaken by the individual (including Shaiva Siddhānta) aspirant in solitude, such the rituals (homa, etc.) gestures (nyāsa), breathing exercises, stances (mudrā), meditations, etc., are understood and experienced as "purifications" (zuddhi). Ultimately, the (brahmin) body itself is impure and therefore merits disgust (zaucād svānga-jugupsā - Yoga Sūtra): since (temporary) defilement is unavoidable in real life, certain occupations (washerman, barber, sweeper, butcher, tanner, midwife, funerary specialist, etc.) become permanently impure.

·         Other religious traditions do also resort to the practice and vocabulary of the pure and the impure: worship at the Jerusalem temple required purification and the priestly class of Cohens were set above other Jews (despite the egalitarian Mosaic ethos...), and sweepers were considered unclean (not just in India) across the whole Muslim world. But nowhere else has this ritual opposition served as the deliberate, explicit, and self-conscious basis for constructing, articulating, enforcing, and experiencing the social order as in Hinduism. Polytheistic image worship - in its practical details, organization of pantheon, designation of rights, etc - reflects, sanctions, and reifies this sacrosanct (not just caste-) hierarchy.

·         Does it make sense to continue worshipping in a temple whose sanctum is no longer "pure" (which is why it was accessible only to the brahmin priests)? Sure, there were always (peripheral) shrines to impure deities (such as the eight "mother-goddesses" = ashta-mātrkā) whose officiants were always from the lowest castes, and these were endowed with (tantric) power (even for the king and the brahmins). But their worship, organization, and very existence had no meaning except in (a dialectical) relationship to the pure nuclear temple. If Abhinavagupta adores Bhairava as being "beyond pure and impure," he achieves this by redefining (not rejecting in the modern sense) the notion of purity!

·         The controversy over whether (unintelligible) Sanskrit or the (familiar) vernacular should be used in the temple rituals has a parallel in the fierce "quarrel of rites" between the Dominicans and the Jesuits within Catholicism. Here, as Bruno Latour has so eloquently shown, we are dealing with the idolatry of language (= Latin), which becomes a curtain veiling the Christ instead of communicating the 'good tidings' (of the evangelist) to (would-be Chinese and other) converts. However, the problem today and for Hinduism in particular, is not so much of translating into (Sanskritized?) Hindi, Tamil, English, Spanish, etc., but that the very "language" of polytheistic image-worship has become opaque to the modern mind.

If Hindus are now all declared to be "equal individuals" and public worship as simply expressing an inner 'spiritual' attitude towards a wealth of (arbitrary?) images as mediators, would we not have converted to 'Catholicism' in all but name?

Sunthar

P.S. So which would you prefer: poor brahmins exercising the "tyranny of the sages" through the "gods on earth" (bhū-deva) or the "manufactured consent" (Chomsky) that now allows rich Americans to rampage "freely" around the globe?

P.P.S. Please send me a bio-note providing relevant details of your religious and personal background, so that I may complete the online digest being compiled from this thread (and also our earlier one on the Shiva-Linga).

 

[Rest of this thread at Ashok Chowgule (Dec 31, 2006)]

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4029]

 

I get an impression that Suntharji is saying that idol worship has caused the fossilization of the caste system, to the extent that the lower castes are not allowed entry into the temples. Given that today this prohibition is restricted to a very small proportion of the temples in the Hindu system, the contention does not stand up to empirical evidence. Even if one assumes that say 100 years ago the majority of the Hindu temples denied entry for the lower castes, the position today is hugely different, and one can see that reforms do take place within the Hindu tradition.

In this context, one of the least studied social phenomena is the Patit Pavan movement initiated by Veer Savarkar when his movements were restricted to an area around the town of Ratnagiri in the 1930s. He established a temple where entry to all was permitted and he and his followers organized dining programs where all the castes would sit together. It does need to be mentioned that neither Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar nor Mahatma Gandhi ever visited the temple or participated in any of the programs. It also needs to be mentioned that many people in the Congress party objected to Veer Savarkar's project.

Here it is pertinent to point out that those who say that they abhor idol worship, namely Christians and Muslims in India, have a 'flourishing' caste system, and their hierarchies think that the Hindu society should grant their 'dalits' special benefits!

Secondly, we need to investigate more about the organization Navya Shastra and its relevance in reforming Hinduism. I have had email exchanges with the President, Vikram Masson, in the past. It is my impression that the organization exists only on paper and on the internet. I do not think that they have any grassroots presence, especially in India. I may well be wrong, but I have not heard them organising any events in India to take their objectives forward. I also know that many of the 'office bearers' were quite happy at the arrest of the Kanchi Shankaracharya. I did point out this out to Vikramji and I have yet to see them apologizing for the glee that they felt with respect to the tribulations of this important institution of Hinduism. The present Shankaracharya is continuing the tradition set by his predecessors to do away with the evils of the caste system - something that the Navya Shastra says its objective is.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule.

[In response to Suntharji's post (Dec 31, 2006), available at:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4027]

·         I'm not saying that "idol worship caused the fossilization of the caste-system," much less that the latter is derived from the former. What I'm saying is that both the divine pantheon and the caste-order are governed by the pure / impure opposition (as attested in the Puranic accounts I cited from learned Hindu authorities), which is conceptually and historically prior (and is already expressed in the manner in which Vishnu and Shiva, for example, relate to the conservative and destructive poles of the Vedic sacrifice): this is what allowed the religious and social dimensions to be so well  articulated (even seamlessly at times) as to reinforce each other. The recent and increasing admission of the lowest castes into nuclear temples would seem to favor a more 'egalitarian' representation and experience of Hinduism, but the question is what is this "new" worship all about? Is it (still) efficacious (was it not so in the past)? How does it transform the devotee?

·         Caste does exist as an empirical reality among Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists (among the Newars) in that their (sub-) communities observe rules relating to marriage, commensality, communal worship, etc., comparable in significant ways to those practiced normatively by Hindu jātis. However, the (caste-) "system" does not exist as such among them, in that it is not sanctioned by their religious traditions (e.g., separate mosques but no hierarchy within a single congregation...), and they do not represent - much less legitimize - such behavior through the Vedic (varnāshrama) dharma. Since none of these communities have been economically or politically self-sufficient vis-ą-vis the surrounding Hindu order, there is no way they could have survived in India except by adapting to the all-pervasive paradigm of caste (so much so that distinctions between 'noble' and 'vile' Muslims is sanctioned even by the law-code of the pious Aurangzeb...).

·         Ambedkar saw the Hindu pantheon as sanctioning, reinforcing, and divinizing the caste-order that had resulted from others imitating the purity-rules of the brahmins (which is why he launched the neo-Buddhist conversion movement among the Dalits...), so why would he be motivated to participate in Sarvarkar's experiment at initiating a more "egalitarian" version of Hinduism (even if he shared those socio-religious prejudices that see Muslims as a potentially traitorous fifth-column in the future Indian Republic...). Gandhi was against untouchability (rather than anti-caste per se...) but for him Ram and Allah were synonyms, so why should he have endorsed and thereby legitimized a 'Hindutva' project in the narrow ('anti-minority') sense of the term? Many high-level office-holders in the 'secular' Congress were committed to Hindu orthodoxy (like those behind the cow-protection agitations...), and might have been prompted by more than just inter-party rivalry.

·         Beyond all such (facile?) public announcements of condemnations, apologies, and wishful thinking, I'm just as curious as you are to learn what the founding principles of a "new" (navya) scripture (zāstra) would consist of and in what way this "reformed" religion would still be entitled to call itself "Hinduism." Such a project would not carry conviction (even among non-Hindus), unless it provides a fresh understanding of Indian civilization, isolates all that has been of positive and unique value in the Hindu (= non-brahmanical?) approach, and shares some insights as to how these redeeming features may be carried over and extended into the future, potentially even beyond India's borders...

Regards,

Sunthar

[Response to Ashokji's post (Dec 31, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4028]

 

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (Jan 6, 2007)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4033]

My intervention here is to look at the issue from the persepctive of the masses - both Hindus and non-Hindus. I agree with Suntharji when he says: "However, the problem today and for Hinduism in particular, is not so much of translating into (Sanskritized?) Hindi, Tamil, English, Spanish, etc., but that the very "language" of polytheistic image-worship has become opaque to the modern mind." The modern mind here is one that is influenced by the language of the west, and here I mean the meaning of the words that are generally used in the mass communication. For the Hindu worshipper of the idol/murti, the meaning is very much different than for the non-Hindu.

For fifty years in her life, my sister thought of the Shiv Ling as nothing but an idol, until she read somewhere that it was a phallic symbol. Similarly, if the Hindu mind did think it was a phallic symbol, would not there be a huge embarrassment for so many people (the ladies in particular) when the touch it? The academics should not project their thinking on the people, but try and understand the people.

In the very next sentence, Suntharji says: "If Hindus are now all declared to be "equal individuals" and public worship as simply expressing an inner 'spiritual' attitude towards a wealth of (arbitrary?) images as mediators, would we not have converted to 'Catholicism' in all but name?" And this is where the political problem comes, and the need to make the covert deny his heritage, even if the heritage has done nothing to him to hate others.

In such types of conversions, therefore, there is a need to erase the past from the mind of the convert, and to do it he/she has to look at this past in a negative manner. Mahatma Gandhi said: "Conversion brings about deep disdain for one's old religion and its followers, i.e. one's old friends and relatives. All these does great harm to the country." (Mahadev Desai's "Day to Day with Gandhi", Vol VII, p 184.)

So, idol worship has to be projected as something bad, and hence the opaqueness. Tricks used are to throw the stone idol into the water and the target for conversion sees it sink. And then the wooden cross is thrown in the water, and the target sees it float. (I understand that recently some of the Hindu activists have started to counteract this by using the fire test, instead of the water test!)

While discussing the issues within an academic framework, it is necessary to consider what is happening at the street level. Otherwise, the academics will not understand what is happening or, worse, misinterpret the meaning. Sir Vidyadhar Naipaul said:

The Hindu temples of earlier time were not disfigured just for fun: something terrible happened. The civilization of that closed world was mortally wounded by those invasions. People need to be more reverential towards the past. The old world is destroyed. That has to be understood. The ancient Hindu India was destroyed. If people just acknowledged history, certain deep emotions of shame and defeat would not be driven underground. We should simply try to understand this passion. It is not an ignoble passion at all. It is men trying to understand themselves. Do not dismiss them. Treat them seriously. Talk to them. The tendency to whimsically interpret religion or history at the street level will keep on increasing as long as you keep on saying it is wicked and that they are wicked people. If we wish to draw the battleline, then of course, you get to battle. If you try to understand what they are saying, things will calm down.

('The truth governs writing', Sadanand Menon, The Hindu, July 5, 1998.)

Namaste

Ashok Chowgule.

[Response to Suntharji's post (Jan 6) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4033]

In the post to which you are responding, I am dialoguing not with an iconoclastic Christian, who affirms that idol-worship is evil, but with a devout Hindu who wants to strip away the (determinations of the) evil caste-system from murthi-pūjā. What I'm telling him is that if you implement the latter project rigorously (as regards iconographic details, spatial organization, ritual activity, etc.), there might not be much left worth worshipping in the Hindu temple. Of course, if we admit that the caste order, with the brahmins at it head, did also play a positive and constructive role in Hindu civilization, there might be other, creative, ways of transforming the system, without adding even further to the confusion by tearing everything down....

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (6 Jan 07)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4034]

I am surprised that Suntharji thinks that he applies the label 'Hindutva project' to Veer Savarkar's Patit Pavan movement. It was a movement to address the issues relating to the fossilization of the caste system, which I think is also what Dr Ambedkar wanted. When he wanted to convert out of Hinduism he said that yy joining Islam or Christianity, the Depressed Classes would 'not only go out of the Hindu religion, but also go out of the Hindu culture....Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize the Depressed Classes'. (D H Keer, Dr Ambedkar, Life and Mission (2nd ed.), pp 278-9, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1962. Cited from The Times of India, July 24, 1936. Quoted in Representing Hinduism - The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity, V Dalmia & H von Stietencron (eds), "The Personal Law Ques­tion and Hindu Nationalism", Dieter Conrad, pp 320-21, Sage Publications, Delhi, 1995.)

One of the tragedies in the post-independent India is that movements like Patit Pavan have not been studied, even from the political angle to say that it caused more harm than good. This is because the terms used for debates were outside the parameters of the terminologies used by the Hindus. So, there was not a proper understanding of what is happening even today.

RE: Beyond all such (facile?) public announcements of condemnations, apologies, and wishful thinking, I'm just as curious as you are to learn what the founding principles of a "new" (navya) scripture (zāstra) would consist of and in what way this "reformed" religion would still be entitled to call itself "Hinduism."

I presume that this comment was made in response to what I have said about Navya Shastra. What their founding principles are is something that they have to say. And then they also have to say how they will take these public announcements to the masses.

As far as the VHP is concerned, we do not recognize the caste identity of any person in our dealings with him. What we are concerned is whether he requires any help and what type. And we make an endeavor to do something about them depending upon our organizational capability.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

[Response to Suntharji's post (Jan 8, 2006) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4028]

I think Suntharji has put the issues in the correct perspective, even though he has narrowed the scope of discussion. I also agree that this narrow scope does need a proper deliberation.

He has rightly said that there is an opprobrium to the practice of worshipping graven images, irrespective of whether it is called idol worship or 'murti puja' (the Sanskrit term for idol worship). The origin of this opprobrium has to be do with the texts of the Abrahamic religion, particularly the second commandment in Exodus. Worshipping graven images was the standard procedure in all the pre-Abrahamic religions, and to the best of my knowledge this did not make these people evil. So, the discussion does come down to the question that I had posed earlier that those who place the opprobrium on worshipping graven images should be asked to establish how these worshippers become bad - based not on what their holy texts say but on the basis of any of the textual pronouncements of the worshippers or their actions based on their saying that their idol has asked them to do such a thing.

In this context, I respectfully disagree with Suntharji when he says: "the onus is upon apologists for image-worship to demonstrate that Hindu iconophilia is a sui generis phenomenon that has been simply misunderstood....." This is equivalent of saying that one accused of a crime has to prove his innocence rather than saying that those who have accused him of the crime has to prove his guilt.

For far too long there has been intense debate on the terminologies in Hinduism. These have been futile, because the two sides say the same thing, and there is no forward movement. It is my feeling (and I may well be paranoid in this respect) that the objective of this debate is to move away from discussing the substantative issues relating to the content (or the meaning) of the terms. When someone says that the term Hinduism is a creation of the British, I say that this does not matter, and what we should really be discussing is the content of Hinduism. Labels have to be used when you have the concept of the 'other'. Prof Margaret Chatterjee wrote:

'Because Hinduism is a non-institutionalized religion it does not face the problem of defining itself vis-ą-vis "the other".'

("Reflections of Religious Pluralism in the Indian Context", Hindu-Christian Studies Bulletin 7 (1994), pg 2.)

The present Sarsanghachalak (Chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh wrote as follows some twenty years ago in his essay "Why Hindu Rashtra?", when he was the Joint General Secretary: "This unbroken flow of national life, earlier known as Bharat, became famous as 'Hindu' in modern times. Like the holy waters of the Ganga assuming different names - Bhagirathi, Jahnavi, Hoogly, etc. - at different points and flows on with innumerable streams join­ing it and enriching it, so also the course of Hindu Rashtra symbolized one and the same life-stream even while assuming different names and assimilating and getting enriched by various currents and influences during its evolution­ary process. As such, calling it 'Bharatiya' instead of 'Hindu' does not change its content or purport in the least. Therefore, those who suggest this change in the belief that they are presenting a more liberal concept are under some serious illusion. Also, giving up the term 'Hindu' today, being unable to face the storm of malpropaganda, would be tantamount to conceding surrender before the erstwhile deceptive British policy which sought to dub Hinduism as communalism and pervert its real connotation. It would be a grave insult to Swami Vivekanand, Mahayogi Aurobindo and Lokmanya Tilak who eulogized this nation as Hindu Nation in clear and glowing terms. It will also push Mahatma Gandhi into the ranks of 'communalists' as he too had said in a challenging tone: 'Hinduism is a relentless pursuit after Truth. And if today it has be­come moribund, inactive, irresponsive to growth, it is because we are fa­tigued; and as soon as the fatigue is over, Hinduism will burst forth upon the world with a brilliance perhaps unknown before.'"

Please permit me to give another example of going beyond the terms. In India, anyone will understand when you say that you wish to see the ushering in of Ram Rajya. However, if I were to tell Englishmen that they should work towards having Ram Rajya in their country, they will look blank. The term that would be appropriate to use is 'return of Camelot'. In both cases, the content of the terms are largely the same.

Wishing you all a happy and prosperous new year.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule.

[In response to Suntharji's post (Dec 31, 2006), available at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4026]

In the post to which you are responding, I am dialoguing not with an iconoclastic Christian, who affirms that idol-worship is evil, but with a devout Hindu who wants to strip away the (determinations of the) evil caste-system from murthi-pūjā. What I'm telling him is that if you implement the latter project rigorously (as regards iconographic details, spatial organization, ritual activity, etc.), there might not be much left worth worshipping in the Hindu temple. Of course, if we admit that the caste order, with the brahmins at it head, did also play a positive and constructive role in Hindu civilization, there might be other, creative, ways of transforming the system, without adding even further to the confusion by tearing everything down....

[Rest of this thread at Sunthar V. (6 Jan 07)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4034]

The "iconographic details, spatial organization, ritual activity, etc." has to be viewed from the perspective of the Hindu worshipper and not be given any meaning other than what he/she thinks. In particular, it would be absurd to use the type of psycho-analysis used in connection with Shri Ganesh. I think it was in the "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Caroll that one of the characters (I think it was the Queen) who said "When I use a word, the meaning is what I chose it to mean, nothing more and nothing less." (Please pardon me if there is a paraphrasing, but I am using my memory here.)

Is it possible to catalogue what the Hindu worshipper thinks? I can well imagine that there would be some pitfalls in trying to enumerate by means of interviews/surveys, because there may well be some major differences in say the ritual activities. But one has to understand the sublime intentions that the Hindu worshippers has when he/she goes to the temple. It should be appreciated that Hinduism is the oldest surviving civilization, and for a Hindu this civilization is something that he actively lives and is surrounded by it. He has a subconscious meaning of various things he is dealing with. He will not be able to understand the meanings that others put when they use a perspective outside his own civilizational norms. Often, particularly the educated person, goes on the defensive on some issues, like it happened with the Brahmo Samaj in the early 19th century, when they said that Hinduism is NOT polytheist, because the word polytheism was attached a big negative connotation. In the end, he is confused because his mind is told that there are many negative features that have been attached to Hinduism, while his heart says that this is wrong.

What he did not understand is that the debate had a political intention - namely to convert the Hindus - and not a theological angle - namely to understand what Hinduism is really all about. He was responding from the latter perspective. So, a political answer to the issues relating to murti/idol worship is, as I have said in the past, "Yes, Hindus worship murtis/idols. But what have we done wrong?"

Secondly, Suntharji is right when he says, "Of course, if we admit that the caste order, with the brahmins at it head, did also play a positive and constructive role in Hindu civilization, there might be other, creative, ways of transforming the system, without adding even further to the confusion by tearing everything down...."

This is what Abbe Dubois had to say on the caste:

I have heard some persons, sensible in other respects, but imbued with all the prejudices that they have brought with them from Europe, pronounce what appears to me an altogether erroneous judgement in the matter of caste divi­sions among the Hindus. In their opinion, caste is not only useless to the body politic, it is also ridiculous, and even calculated to bring trouble and disorder on the people. For my part, having lived many years on friendly terms with the Hindus, I have been able to study their national life and char­acter closely, and I have arrived at a quite opposite decision on this subject of caste. I believe caste division to be in many respects the chef-d'oeuvre, the happiest effort of Hindu legislation. I am persuaded that it is simply and solely due to the distribution of the people into castes that India did not lapse into a state of barbarism, and that she preserved and perfected the arts and sciences of civilisation whilst most other nations of the earth re­mained in a state of barbarism. I do not consider caste to be free from many great drawbacks; but I believe that the resulting advantages, in the case of a nation constituted like the Hindus, more than outweigh the resulting evils.

(Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, Abbe Dubois, Rupa & Co., pp 30-31.)

Let us understand that the Abbe did not come to India to project a sympathetic view point about Hinduism and the Hindus. He came to India to convert the Hindus.

Given this situation, we need to understand why there are so many caste strifes in our country. To appreciate the situation at the ground level, we need to classify which castes are fighting with each other. Is it the Brahmins versus the Dalits, for example? The empirical evidence is clear here - it is rare that the Brahmin is involved either as an aggressor or as a victim. And where he is involved, it is more likely that he is the victim. The media and the intellectuals (mischievously, I think) report that 'upper castes' are persecuting the Dalits. While technically this is correct, in the sense that the aggressor is indeed a caste higher than the Dalit, the meaning that is sought to be given by using the term 'upper caste' is that the aggressor is the Brahmin, or perhaps a Kshatriya.

The next question is why are these lower castes fighting each other. In a very large number of cases, it has to do with who is to get a larger share of the benefits that the government is dispensing through their various social and economic schemes. Being limited, the fight is to get a large share of the pie.

The political angle is very apparent when the present Prime Minister recently said that the issues related to Dalits is equivalent of apartheid. This goes completely against the confirmed Government of India policy, enumerated since the time when his own party was in full control of the parliament.

Then we have one of the ministers in Delhi, namely Mani Shankar Iyer, recently said: "Sudra Rajyam established in 1967 in Tamil Nadu had succeeded in overthrowing the Brahmin Rajyam, which is a major milestone in the development of society". It would be interesting to know from Maniji when, during the post independence period, was there a Brahmin Rajyam. The tragedy for a sane discussions in India is that there will be none amongst the intellectuals in India who will take up cudgels with Maniji on this issue. It will be left to the Hindu activists, who are mostly working at the ground level.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

Response to Suntharji's comments attached to Ashok Chowgule's post (Jan 7, 2007) at

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/40335]

 

I would like to add a humble observation to the ongoing debate on idolatry: the word bhagavān in Hindi is translated to God in English. It gives an impression that there is a multitude of gods in Hinduism. Is there an equivalent translation for the word īzvara. Even in Hindi are bhagavān and īzvara one and the same? Are there multiple īzvaras among Hindus? Do not all bhagavāns bow to a higher being, that is, Īzvara? I believe something important is being lost in the translation.

Regards

Arun

Hello Arun,

Translating 'īzvara' (also 'īza') as 'God' would be appropriate in most contexts, for it is traditionally derived from the Sanskrit root (īz) meaning 'to control' (or 'to govern' as in 'jagad-īza' = 'Lord of the World'), and as such tends to imply that there is only one such (supreme) Being. Though sometimes preferentially used as an appellation of Lord Ziva (as opposed to Brahmā or even ViSNu), it is often used generically without favoring any particular divine form, and thus could extend to Allah in a context where Hindu/Muslim distinction is of no relevance (as often in the case of Gandhi).

'Bhagavān' on the other hand is an honorific (adjective as opposed to noun) meaning 'possessed of' (-vat) of 'blessedness, auspiciousness, good fortune,' etc. (bhaga-). As such, it may be multiplied (= many) as a prefix even to persons (e.g., Rajneesh), especially a prosperous and benign king, as much as to a specific god (tending then to accentuate his personalized aspect). In the case of the Bhagavad-Gītā, which is often translated as the "Song of God," Bhagavān could just as well apply to the Book itself as being full of blessings (to mankind).

Relevant to our discussion on idolatry/iconoclasm is that our image of 'īzvara' as 'controller/ruler' is implicitly derived from the (hegemonic) power of the (human) king. Thus, Abhinavagupta resorts to the unimpeded will of the sovereign in order to clarify the notion of ('individual') 'autonomy' (svātantrya) achieved by identifying oneself with/as Īzvara (Ziva). The problem here, at the political level at least, is that there have always been multiple claimants rivaling for and declaring themselves as 'emperor' (cakravartin or bādshāh) over the whole of the Indian subcontinent.

A major consequence and implication of the iconoclastic stance is the utter rejection of this identification of God with a human sovereign (or vice-versa). Hence, the Jews refused to pay obeisance to the (otherwise religiously tolerant) emperor (despite Rome's willingness to accommodate their faith and particularisms). It is this political dimension of (the opposing) religious systems that impelled the Romans to destroy the Jerusalem temple (in the same way that Aurangzeb, much later, leveled the Vizvezvara ('Lord of the Universe') temple in Kāshi (Banaras).

Regards,

Sunthar

P.S. It's however worth remarking that the anthropomorphic depictions of the 'transcendent' God found in Judaic texts, often endow him with all the attributes of a King... 

[Rest of this thread at Chowgule (Jan 7, 2007)

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Abhinavagupta/message/4037]

 

Towards the end of his comments on the observations of Arunji, Suntharji says:

"It is this political dimension of (the opposing) religious systems that impelled the Romans to destroy the Jerusalem temple (in the same way that Aurangzeb, much later, leveled the Vizvezvara ('Lord of the Universe') temple in Kāshi (Banaras)."

I do not know anything about whether politics was involved in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, but it was definitely not the case with Aurangzeb's destruction of the temple of Kashi Vishwanath and many others like the temple at the Krishna Janmabhoomi. I am enclosing an article on the subject. I received it recently, but I do not have either the author or the source. So, I am posting the full article here, and I would like to seek the indulgence of the moderator.

Namaste.

Ashok Chowgule

Why did Aurangzeb demolish the Kashi Vishvanath temple?

Moghul emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir (r.1658-1707) is an icon of Islamic iconoclasm in India. His name counts as synonymous with destruction of Hindu temples, though he also levelled many Hindu human beings. Yet, the dominant school of historians would like to salvage Aurangzeb's reputation.

Percival Spear, co-author (with Romila Thapar) of the prestigious Penguin History of India, writes: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares."1 This claim, warhorse of the "secularist" school of history-rewriting, provides us with an excellent case study in the ongoing historians' conflict in India.

What are the facts? The official court chronicle, Maasir-i-Alamgiri, fills many pages with items like this "His majesty proceeded to Chitor on the 1st of Safar. Temples to the number of sixty-three were here demolished. Abu Tarab, who had been commissioned to effect the destruction of the idol temples in Amber, reported in person on the 24th Rajab, that threescore and six of these edifices had been levelled with the ground."2 It says in so many words that Aurangzeb "ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices". Moreover, it records: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed", etc. Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance can be deduced from his actual policies, known to us through his own chronicles as well as other sources.

And, to close a loophole favoured by evasive secular apologists when their whitewash fails, his policies were not a deviation from "true, tolerant" Islam by an idiosyncratic fanatic, but were seen by his contemporaries as pure Islam in full swing. Aurangzeb was a pious man full of self-discipline and eager to be a just and truly Islamic ruler. One of his officers wrote a collection of anecdotes, the Abkam-i-Alamgiry, showing the humane and incorruptible character of Aurangzeb. It carries anecdote titles like: "Aurangzeb preaches humility to an officer", "ability the only qualification for office", or (about a case where a governor had ordered an execution of a man without the required proof of his guilt) "trials to be held strictly according to Quranic law".3 Aurangzeb was a good man and a good Muslim, and his oppression of Hindus was not due to an evil personal trait but to his commitment to Islam.

About Benares/Varanasi, we learn from the Maasir-i-Alamgiri: "News came to court that in accordance with the Emperor's command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banaras".4 Aurangzeb did not just build an "isolated" mosque on "a" destroyed temple. He ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, and had mosques built on a number of cleared temple sites. Till today, the old Kashi Vishvanath temple wall is visible as a part of the walls of the Gyanvapi mosque which Aurangzeb had built at the site. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them; among them, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura and the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujarat. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not in 5 figures.

This is how Indian secularists deal with this episode: "Did Muslim rulers destroy temples? Some of them certainly did. Following the molestation of a local princess by some priests in a temple at Benaras, Aurangzeb ordered the total destruction of the temple and rebuilt it at a nearby site. And this is the only temple he is believed to have destroyed."5 This story is now repeated ad nauseam, not only in the extremist Muslim press (Syed Shahabuddin's Muslim India, the Jamaati-Islami's Radiance) and in the secularist press (e.g. Sunday, as quoted) but also in academic platforms by "eminent historians".6

JNU historian Prof. K.N. Panikkar offers a more political variation on the theme that the Kashi Vishyanath temple was destroyed to punish the temple priests for breaking purely secular laws: "the destruction of the temple at Banaras also had political motives. It appears that a nexus between the sufi rebels and the pandits of the temple existed and it was primarily to smash this nexus that Aurangzeb ordered action against the temple."7 The eminent historian quotes no source for this strange allegation. In those days, Pandits avoided to even talk with Mlecchas, let alone to concoct intrigues with them.8

The fountainhead of all these rumors about Aurangzeb's honorable and non-religious motives in destroying the Kashi Vishvanath temple is revealed by Marxist historian Gargi Chakravartty who quotes Gandhian politician B.N. Pande, introducing the quotation as follows: "Much has been said about Aurangzeb's demolition order of Vishwanath temple at Banaras. But documentary evidence gives a new dimension to the whole episode:"9

What follows is the story launched by the late B.N. Pande, working chairman of the Gandhi Darshan Samiti