Icons and Idols

Richard Davis’ The Lives of Indian Images is a fascinating book which examines an overwhelming amount of interesting topics. It is difficult to condense all the material or to simply choose one topic to discuss. I have decided to focus on the different explanations given for what types of images should be worshiped and why images should not be worshipped. The iconoclasm of the Muslims - such as Mahmud - coming into India was a major theme of this book. The destructions of images was not only due to religious motivations but for many other reasons as well. Yet Muslims are not the only people who “look down” on idol worship. A few weeks ago for another class I read the World Christian Encyclopaedia in which it – fairly derogatorily - describes Hinduism from a Christian worldview. “About 0.5% of Hindus belong to the more intellectual reform movements opposed to polytheism and idol worship which reject belief in incarnations of gods... The vast majority, 98%, popularly called Sanatanists or idol worshippers, believe in incarnations of gods.” (pg 362)

Non-Hindu religions are not the only groups who critique temple Hindu “idolatry.” Davis writes “Even the scholarly Orientalists, generally more sympathetic to Indian culture, figured Hindu idolatry as the product of a historical degeneration from a purer religious past.” (159) Many traditions encompassed within the sphere of “Hinduism” also critiqued such practices. There is a fascinating and succinct discussion of two schools of thought on pages 44-49 of this book. Mimamsas did not agree with the worship of idols because the gods themselves were less important than the performance of ritual. The gods lacked bodies – only existing as sound - and therefore did not need to be fed, why then would one make offerings to an image of something that has no image and thus has no use for the gifts?

The Advaita Vedanta school was not as radically opposed to image worship as the Mimamsas, yet they also had interesting and effective critique of idolatry. Sankara thought the worship of physical objects to be a “distinctly lower level of religious practice than the direct, unmediated realization of oneness with the transcendent brahman” (47) But gods do have the ability to assume whatever shape they wish, and their physical manifestations make it easier for people to visualize the gods in their minds, making them more accessible for devotion. But brahman is ultimately – it its ultimate form – without qualities: formless, pervasive, and incomprehensible. Once one has fully accepted the unmanifestable true form of brahman temple Hinduisms practices become “unnecessary” and “misguiding” (48) Davis concludes this interesting section with: “Sankara’s demotion of image worship as acceptable for persons of limited understanding but inappropriate for those of higher knowledge would provide a convenient and sophisticated indigenous philosophy by which educated Indian intellectuals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries could answer the Western Christian change that Hinduism was an “idolatrous” religion.” (49) In such arguments as these the World Christina Encyclopaedia can find justification.

It is not just these groups that are opposed to idol worship that have different views of what is appropriate forms to worship. Even within bhakti traditions – who generally fall under the 98 percentile discussed in the World Christina Encyclopaedia - there are different views of what is the most appropriate physical form of their lord.

It is interesting to see the differences in what Vaisnavas and Saivas believe to be the most suitable form to construct their gods. Vasnavas favour a very anthropomorphic image. Reasons for this can be found in the Bhagavad Gita. Krisna is much more than a man, he is everything and more. Yet he is possibly too much to handle in his real form as the ultimate. When he revealed himself to Arjuna he was far too terrifying to handle. How could a devotee of Krisna truly love a form that they fear? We see similar sentiments expressed by Rupa in his Bhaktirasamrtasindhu. God cannot properly be worshipped in an abstract form because that is not conducive to love and devotion to the same extent as an attractive, playful anthropormorphic figure such as Krisna is. This argument was also used in many of the narratives of recovery opposing the Muslim iconoclasm in the fourteenth century. “They suggested (though only indirectly) that aniconic form of religiosity such as orthodox Islam did not meet the emotional needs of humans for a loving personal relationship with divinity.” (123)

Saivas on the other hand choose to most often worship Siva in the form of the nonanthropormorphic, nonpartitive, linga. They hold that this form “parallels in its wholeness and abstractness the higher level of Siva’s being, the Supreme Siva “without parts.” Saivas consider anthropomorphic images of Siva... less complete approximations of the totality of Siva’s being.” (30) This appears similar to the Advaita Vedanta and Sankara’s arguments. Therefore even within the traditions considered “idolatrous” by many there are levels of what is most “acceptable.” Most even have subtle inner critiques of the practices imbedded in their justifications. Vaisnavas acknowledge the understanding that Visnu has an ultimate unmanifestable form, but his avatars such as Krisna make him more accessible for devotions.

The ideals expressed here for Saivas and Vaisnavas only represent the “higher” philosophical levels. Excluded from these discussions are the village and rural people - the people of “limited understanding” for whom idol worship is “acceptable,” according to Sankara. Yet it is unlikely they had the privilege and leisure to compose – let alone think about - such responses in defence of their beliefs and devotional practices. This is unfortunate as we only really have one side of the story represented.