I need help arguing...!

[aGnani11]

I am currently engaged in a heated debate with my Sikh friend about the practice of murti pujan, or Idol worship. Sikhs, as you may know, are strictly against the worship of any idol, statue, or even physical object. Guru Nanak forbade his disciples in worshipping idols because idols are seen as still part of maya.

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan? What analogies/references can I use that justifies the bhakti/devotion to idols of God? Thanks!!

 

 

 

 

 

--

OM SHANTI.

[Shaktidevi]

I can't provide references, but an observation: humans exist at various levels, that is, physical, astral, and causal. So, in a sense, do idols. In themselves, they are pieces of metal or stone, and we don't worship physical substances, we direct our prayers and devotion to the being represented by the idol. But at the same time, as we relate to an idol and continue prayer and acts of devotion and puja, it becomes "energized" and is then a mode of presence of the deity in the temple or in our homes. It is a link between the divine and human realms, just as our own bodies and minds are the same. Anyway, that's my opinion, and hope it helps a little.

 

Peace, Shakti

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan? What analogies/references can I use that justifies the bhakti/devotion to idols of God? Thanks!!

His only reason for rejecting it is because his guru says its wrong. So it is just a matter of his personal beliefs. There is very little point in trying to convince him that it is allright, as that would require him rejecting his religion. You can explain why you believe it to be right for yourself and leave it at that.

 

We really don't need to defend our beliefs to people of other religions when their only objection is that their religion says its wrong.

 

Besides, they worship the holy book. If a piece of paper can be holy and represent God, then why can't the divine form of the Lord? Their problem is that they do not have information of what Bhagavan looks like, so they are unable to understand how He has a personal form.

[Sephiroth]

 

I am currently engaged in a heated debate with my Sikh friend about the practice of murti pujan, or Idol worship. Sikhs, as you may know, are strictly against the worship of any idol, statue, or even physical object. Guru Nanak forbade his disciples in worshipping idols because idols are seen as still part of maya.

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan? What analogies/references can I use that justifies the bhakti/devotion to idols of God? Thanks!!

 

 

 

--

OM SHANTI.

 

No need to justify anything to anyone.

 

If I were you (and I'm not so I just voice my opinion), I could tell your friend that Sikhism is a belief which born out of interaction between Islam and Hindusm during Moghul period.

 

SO WHY should you, who follows Hindusm which existed for 5,000 years in India, bother about what someone says as recent as 1,000 years ago?

[Guest guest]

 

I am currently engaged in a heated debate with my Sikh friend about the practice of murti pujan, or Idol worship. Sikhs, as you may know, are strictly against the worship of any idol, statue, or even physical object. Guru Nanak forbade his disciples in worshipping idols because idols are seen as still part of maya.

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan? What analogies/references can I use that justifies the bhakti/devotion to idols of God? Thanks!!

 

 

 

Well the use of murti puja is a choice you have in Hinduism. Hindus are not forced to do it or believe in it and we have the freedom to choose. It depends on the sort of person you are, f you want to do murti puja or not. It is a practice in bhakti-yoga. Sikhs and muslims entertain the wrong notion that Hindus believe the murti is God itself. This is not the case. The murti is there to help focus your mind on God. It may be sinful in the Abrahamic religions to worship an idol, but it is not so in Hinduism. We do not believe that God is going to throw us in a fiery hell because we worshiped an image in honour of him. Some Hindu sects such as Arya Samaj reject murti worship due to a verse in the Yajur Veda that speaks against the worships of objects.

 

When you do murti puja you do not worship the object, you worship the spirit (God). By the way the Sikhs have not have images of God, but they treat their scripture just like a murti and many of them bow to paintings of their gurus. Sikhism borrows heavily from Hinduism (Bhakti-yoga, Sewa, Vedanta) and Islam (Sufism) but is only a few hundred years old. Hinduism on the other hand is ever-evolving, ever-growing and has stood the test of time.

[Guest guest]

your correct response should be that you thank your sikh friends advice. as long as people argue about what is best in religion, they move further away from the point. if you had empathised with your friend and realised he was stuck on a religious point that had nothing to do with the greater scheme of things, you both would have been better off.

[Guest guest]

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan?

 

What does that mean?

 

If you are expecting your sikh buddy to agree that idl worhsip is correct, then he is commiting a sin by disagreeing with his Sikh Gurus.

 

Is this what you are looking for? As an example it would like a hare krishna arguing with a mayavadi on a discussion forum and then eventually admitting that mayavada can also be correct.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

There is no need to argue on this issue. Let him say whatever he wants to. Only when you are no conviction and understanding of the essence of religion, then only people's sham opinions will trouble you.

[Guest guest]

 

What does that mean?

 

If you are expecting your sikh buddy to agree that idl worhsip is correct, then he is commiting a sin by disagreeing with his Sikh Gurus.

 

Is this what you are looking for? As an example it would like a hare krishna arguing with a mayavadi on a discussion forum and then eventually admitting that mayavada can also be correct.

 

Cheers

 

that's kind of like saying you shouldn't be arguing with someone whose beliefs are different because convincing him differently is making him commit a sin.

 

However, if that's what you're saying, then I suppose all those fundamentalist religious groups that people argue with, who interpret the scriptures by the letter, shouldn't be argued with, because then we convince them that they're wrong, and then we're helping them to sin against their religious beliefs. An extreme example, I admit. This also includes those fundamentalist groups who resort to violence and mockery against other religions.

[Shaktidevi]

 

What does that mean?

 

If you are expecting your sikh buddy to agree that idl worhsip is correct, then he is commiting a sin by disagreeing with his Sikh Gurus.

 

Is this what you are looking for? As an example it would like a hare krishna arguing with a mayavadi on a discussion forum and then eventually admitting that mayavada can also be correct.

 

Cheers

 

Just a thought: is he actually commiting a sin if he (and the guru) are wrong?

[Guest guest]

Your Sikh friend doesn't agree with Murti puja just because his gurus didn't agree with it. They may have realised God without a murti, but that doesn't mean to say that God cannot be realised through murti puja. As long as you know that the murti is not God but a symbolic representation of God, to help you focus your mind on God. Alot of these Sikhs and Muslims think that Hindus believe that God came down from heaven and turned himself into a statue for worship. It's absurd that they can think that, but this is why they think they are superior.

 

The sikh philosophy is limited to 10 gurus who lived in specific period in history. They believe this is all they need to know. Fair enough. But it doesn't mean that other paths which they did not try out or were unsuccessful practicing are false.

[Guest guest]

 

Just a thought: is he actually commiting a sin if he (and the guru) are wrong?

 

The Guru status is valid only as long as he/she is right in the eyes of the disciple. Once the disciple decides the Guru is wrong, then there is no Guru-disciple relationship anymore.

 

In this case, if the Sikh friend agrees that Murti pooja is acceptable, then the consequence is he has to give up his faith or else he is sinning. Just like an iskcon gentleman cannot be a hare krishna and yet claim chaitanya's ideas are incorrect. The same logic applies.

 

Cheers

[Shaktidevi]

 

The Guru status is valid only as long as he/she is right in the eyes of the disciple. Once the disciple decides the Guru is wrong, then there is no Guru-disciple relationship anymore.

 

In this case, if the Sikh friend agrees that Murti pooja is acceptable, then the consequence is he has to give up his faith or else he is sinning. Just like an iskcon gentleman cannot be a hare krishna and yet claim chaitanya's ideas are incorrect. The same logic applies.

 

Cheers

 

Thanks! Hari OM

[Guest guest]

 

I am currently engaged in a heated debate with my Sikh friend about the practice of murti pujan, or Idol worship. Sikhs, as you may know, are strictly against the worship of any idol, statue, or even physical object. Guru Nanak forbade his disciples in worshipping idols because idols are seen as still part of maya.

 

How can I argue to defend murti pujan? What analogies/references can I use that justifies the bhakti/devotion to idols of God? Thanks!!

--

OM SHANTI.

 

The idea is simple. When we think of the image, we think of God. Our entire mind becomes purified by the thought. How does your Sikh friend feel when he remembers the face of his (presume he) mother? And how when he thinks of a cinema actress? The very thought of the person changes the mental outlook. The reason is that in that image/picture of his mother is placed an entire world of meaning; the brain's recognition and entrance into that pure world is instantaneous. The same goes with the actress or a street woman; the impact is instantaneous. The point here is the power of images. For agnanis like ourselves, the world is full of images to which we have attached meanings irrelevant to God. We try to bring that mind to focus on God by keeping images solely indicative of God.

 

Symbols are in every religion. Guru Nanak is but a name; why does he hold to it? Can I slander it saying it is only a collection of sounds?

 

In any case, this is pointless to argue since either it should be obvious, or your friend should see much more of life to understand the mind and its behaviour. The Hindus are a world and above in the elements of religious practice.

[Guest guest]

 

The idea is simple. When we think of the image, we think of God. Our entire mind becomes purified by the thought. ... We try to bring that mind to focus on God by keeping images solely indicative of God.

 

 

 

And to those who cannot get away from the human image of themselves, the most powerful images with which the mind can fully relate to will also be human. From the all-encompassing Personality of God, we pick the few personal aspects, and from the all-pervading immanence, we pick the few physical features that appeal to us. Thus you have the Murti which to the devotee is the window into Infinity. God is as much in the idol as everywhere, as much possessed of the features I choose to cherish as of others. What is poornam will remain so either way. To quote Sri Ramakrishna, in order to say "I touched the Ganga", I do not have to touch it from Haridhwar to Gangasagar.