Images Related to Religion?

In his book Davis attempts to do two important things with divine images and icons. First, he uses the device symbolism to intelligently connect it with theological implications. In this argument what he argues is that the images represent God in its transcendent (evoked through specific rituals) and immanent (as illustrated in poetry and epics) forms. What is particularly interesting is he shows that through ritual and location combined with history these images are actually evaded by the deity to answer to specific requests that are owed because of the special treatments (dowries, bathing and feeding) the image receives.

Second, Davis argues that place and history play a very important role in evoking the deity as well as making the powers of ritual stronger. This argument assumes that images are related to specific myths, cultures, history, time and place and to take them away from this is to deemphasize the specific role that the image is suppose to play. In addition, Davis speaks of specific elements, such as trees etc as being auspicious and relating to rituals that are centric to the awakening of the deity. This he shows is parallel to the infinity of god that pervades the finite world in order to lead believers towards the oneness of God.

In his arguments, Davis seems to connect religion and myth/culture/history together. This implies that religion and myth correlate with one another. In its general sense myth is a symbolic story of the sacred often depicted in art form. Whereas religion, is reaching a state of elevation in which a specific ideal is reached. With regards to Hinduism, the ideal that is reached is the oneness of the world in which God creates the cosmos within his very being. What Davis does is imply that myth is needed in order to be religious. However, can it not be assumed that myths are cultural studies that relate individuals to the framework of what religion is, but does not encompass the wholeness of religion itself? More specifically, does religion need to be reached through myths, or is there a way in which religious ideals can be realized without it? This would suggest on a broader scale that religious ideals is not culture specific but rather universalistic. This would mean that religion can be experienced by all regardless of specific history or regions.

Another thing that Davis implies in his argument is that the true benefits or enjoyment of images and icons are specific to the believers in specific regions. This assumes that art is not just constructed for the benefit of individuals, but more specifically designed for the attainment of specific goals. For example, whether the art works to keep people satisfied with their current condition in the world, or whether there be political or economical reasons behind it totally depends on the regional history, time and place the image or icon was created in. Much like how mandalas are created for specific religious gains so are images and icons. In this respect, the amount of love and affection that one shows towards the deity through ritual and various dowries is a reflection of not only the bhakti path but also a detection of how religious an individual is. To know the specific rituals and religious symbols well enough to conduct these rituals and reap the benefits, is entirely up to a certain amount of expertise of a specific culture determined by boundaries. Much like how North Indians differ in ritual practices from that of South Indians.