Hindus believe in the a single God, the Brahman, the three aspects of which are represented by the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. In addition they have a sizeable collection of lesser Gods, or celestial spirits, each signifying some aspect of life or nature. They also install images of these gods and pray to them, much like the Muslims pray facing the Kaba or the Christians pray in church. The concept is the same - that in praying to the image none of them is actually worshipping the “image” itself. It is only an abstraction of the God that it is supposed to represent.
Does this make Hindus guilty of idolatory? If yes then why are the people of the Abrahamic faiths absolved of the same? If not, then how come Hindus are considered idol worshippers?
First off, it’s hard to generalize anything about Hinduism. It wasn’t until the British came that there was even the idea of a single entity called Hinduism- the reality is that there is an unbelievable variety of practices and beliefs that sometimes share only a couple lonely texts. There is no central religious authority, main leader, or set group of holy books. It’s a very different thing than the religions found in the West.
In most sects, the idols serve to focus your mind and remind you of the god. But they are a little different than an Orthodox Ikon or the Kabaa. A central part of worship involves caring for the idols- feeding them, providing them with resplendent clothes- sometimes even aiding in their romantic ventures (one ceremony involves leading a celestial couple in a romantic boat ride, and then having them retire to the temple’s special wedding chamber). But all of this is FAR far more symbolic than how we are used to thinking of religion. You don’t see a lot of Hindus trying to prove their myths actually physically happened like you see Christians trying to do. There is to some degree or another an acknowledgment of the power of metaphor in worship. It’s all just a very, very different thing.
I think you are going to have trouble with this thread, because what you are doing is applying the paradigm of one religion to another. An idol of Krishna is not the same in religious meaning or social meaning as the golden calf.
As for Hindus being considered idol worshippers, maybe it’s worth looking at who is making that claim. I can’t think of any good reason to even be concerned if a specific group of people is “worshipping idols” or not. Chances are the people making these statements are promoting their own religions. Outside of that, being an idol worshipper is a pretty neutral thing.
Do you remember the Ganesh-drinking-milk outbreak in 1995? That was a global phenomenon that was far from symbolic. People genuinely believed Ganesh statues were absorbing milk.
A bit like the moving statues of the Virgin Mary in Ireland. Which makes me think: it that “idolatry” too?
I’m not sure if this is relevant to the topic at hand, since we are judging Hindus by another yardstick. I remembered reading a book called Lord, find me a parking place which gives an interesting treatment of what is considered as “idolatry” for Christians.
Basically, you are committing idolatry when you think of God as someone whom you try to manipulate to do what you want by doing good stuff and behaving piously – treating him like a vending machine, so to say.
So I’m not sure how to apply this concept to the Hindus.
Even Sven has made a very good point regarding the non-uniformity of Hindu belief. Each Hindu is free to think of his or her particular belief how he wants to, so this:
… is not necessarily true. In fact, your use of the word “God” there, makes it almost certainly untrue.
I’d rephrase it this way: Some Hindus characterise their religious belief in terms of belief in a single conscious entity, the Brahman, that encompasses the entirety of creation. Aspects of this entity might be reflected in worship of individualised manifestations of various gods and other supernatural beings as well as worship of actual people, other living things, and non-living things.
On the other hand, I would say that most Hindus, the ones who have not been exposed to complex religious dogma, simply believe in lots of gods. In other words, actual polytheism, rather than thinking that they are worshipping aspects of one god.
One thing to note, that when a Hindu worships an idol, it is generally believed that not only does the idol represent what he or she is worshiping, but for that period of time is actually occupied the entity that he or she is worshipping. Most actual rituals begin with the invocation of the god, which is intended to bring the god into literal being in the form of the idol being worshipped, so, for that time, the idol is the god.
This can be done not only with an idol, but anything, including a young girl, a calf, a tree, a rock, or a pile of dirt. You will see all these things being worshipped in India.
Another thing to take into consideration is that in Hindu belief, every one and every thing is divine. There is no existential difference between you and a god. You are god. The answer to the question, “What is god?” is tat tvam asi – “thou art that.”
While there may not be a central religious authority, don’t the “shankaracharyas” somewhat fill that role?
AFAIK the vedas and upanishads, especially the Geeta, are certainly considered holy
True, but from the worshipper’s point of view, he is actually feeding and clothing the god who he has requested to reside in the idol. As acsenray says the worshipper believes that god is occupying the entity.
Are you saying that when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf they were actually exhibiting their faith in the idol itself and not a god that they thought was represented by that idol? It is rather difficult to believe that any sane person at any time would worship an idol alone and by itself. And if that is not true, then the shape of the idol, whether it be in the form of a human, animal or anything else, does not really matter.
The subject of discussion here is not what most ordinary people do or believe in. Not being aware of the fundamental concepts of their religion does not alter the philosophy or tenets of that religion. It may be quite true that a common Hindu has little or no idea of Brahman etc. But that does not change the fact that the Hindu relgion is essentially, maybe even more, monotheistic at the core than any other relgion.
I’m not Hindu. I don’t claim to speak for Hinduism.
While the Vedas and Upanishads are important (and indeed, “Hindu” is usually defined as “one who accepts the authority of the vedas”) they aren’t quite an equivalent to the Bible or Koran or Torah. For one, the gods of the vedas are rarely worshipped nowadays and most of the ceremonies described are no longer practiced. Shiva and Vishnu either don’t appear at all or appear in barely recognizable forms. The Vedas are odd foundational texts.
And in any case, there is still infinite variety. Sometimes Hinduism resembles the formal sacrifice-based religion with big honking mideast connections (look at some of the crossover in terminology with Zororastrianism) of the Vedas. Sometimes, it looks more like local animism, perhaps with a few name changes for the more important local gods. Sometimes it’s a philosophy with spiritual components, divorced from the mundanities of belief or disbelief but still useful for thinking about and understanding life. Sometimes it’s a superstition. Sometimes it’s a cultural practice, inextricable from the time and place you grew up.
And this shows up on a daily basis. Most of my Hindu friends believe Krishna showed up in the 1800’s and walked around, and that their guru is his direct disciple. My non-believing bosses (they make fun of their religious friends and have to run around putting up religious posters when their family visits) told me in all seriousness that Lakshmi would help me get a better job. I went to a home once that was decorated with posters of Jeus, Buddah and Mecca. I asked the Hindu owners about it, and they said they didn’t really differentiate.
Of course. But that belief can exist on different levels. You are feeding the god that lives in the idol. You are feeding the concept embodied by that god. You may be feeding a physical object (a river, a mountain). You are also feeding Brahma. And perhaps yourself. It all makes transubstantiation look like philosophical child’s play.
The Israelites worshipping the golden calf were a bunch of punks showing they didn’t think much of Moses and didn’t have faith that would last longer than a few days. The Judaic ban on idols is based on the fact that that is what the local competing religions did, and it’s important to differnetiate yourself- especially when the local religions are polytheistic ones that would be happy to swallow up your god.
How can you define a religion outside of what it’s practicianers believe? Especially a religion without a 'litmus test" like, say, Christianity has (do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Yep? Your a Christian. Nope? Your something else.) I’ve been told that everybody is born Hindu until they start believing in something else. I’d venture that the temple-town Brahman is just as unaware of what Hinduism is as the village shaman. The temple-town Brahman has no idea what goes on or what gods are worshipped at the Dalit shrine down the street. The Dalits are technically forbidden by the Vedas from even hearing a word of the Vedas- but Hindu Dalits sure do worship something.
This isn’t a Judaic religion. You can’t easily map Judaic religious concepts on to it.
Hinduism has no “essence” outside of what individual Hindus believe. That’s the basic characteristic of Hinduism. There is no standard by which an individual Hindu’s belief can be labelled erroneous. There is no such thing as heresy in Hinduism.
Furthermore, what you are describing as the “core” of Hindu belief is an overlay that has been added to the religion. Hinduism developed from the ground up. First came what “ordinary” people believe. And then came the complex religious dogma of scholars and philosophers. What you describe as the “fundamental concepts” can just as easily, and just as accurately, be described as elitist noodling.
As has been mentioned, the status of the Vedas in Hinduism is not the same as the status of the Bible in Christianity. Hinduism does not flow from the Vedas. Indeed, “Vedic religion” is often treated as a completely different religion from Hinduism. Hinduism is an amalgamation of hundreds or thousands of local religious belief,s and Vedism is only one, and in terms of tangible influence, not necessarily one of the most important, of the sources. Yes, Hindus revere the Vedas, but most don’t read them and, generally speaking, it does not give much of an indication of what Hindus do believe. For the most part, the only relevance of the Vedas is that they offer the formulas for invocation of the gods. As such, they are treated more as a manual for ritual practices rather than as the final word on belief.
What you quote from might or might not be describing a kind of monotheism. The matter is exemplified over the question of whether it is accurately labelled a “single god.”
There is no source, recognized by Hindus universally, that is authorized to state what Hindus must believe. Taking the totality of Hindu scriputres, there are thousands of verses and many of them are contradictory. They are holy books, yes, but none of them are the infallible words of god.
The Kaaba is not an idol and Muslims aren’t praying to it. Indeed, the reason it is so important to Muslims is that it is empty of idols. That is, it once held idols of various deities, and Muhammad emptied it since he didn’t hold with the idea of idolatry, nor the idea of polytheism.
The practice of some Christians in facing statues, icons or even crosses etc while praying does not always get a free pass. Indeed, it is held to be idolatry by some Christian groups and was a major issue in Byzantine times and in the Reformation. Google “iconoclasm” for more info.