The Question of Sacred Forms

[Guest guest]

In a recent letter to the New Indian Express, Mar. 9, 2008, (See below) Swami

Dayananda wrote of a new rapprochement between Hindu and Jewish religious

leaders. This historic meeting, wrote Swami Dayananda, emphasized and

illustrated the importance of honest dialogue between two religious traditions

to resolve seemingly irresolvable differences. At issue was the question of

Hindu worship of " Gods " and " Idols " which, for centuries, Jewish theologians

have found irreconcilable with their own traditions which prohibit idolatry.

 

While one cannot doubt Swami-ji's sincere attempt at honest dialog, he has

overlooked the fact that the focus on Idols in Hinduism, after the Vedic Age

with its emphasis on sacred geometric forms is one of the most inspiring aspects

of the Sanatana Dharma. In her reply to Swami Dayananda, Thea (Patrizia

Norelli-Bachelet) explains the deeper meaning behind these sacred forms and why

Hindus should not so readily capitulate to the criticisms of other beliefs.

 

 

 

 

 

A reply to Swami Dayananda

 

By Thea (Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet)

 

 

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati's article in the 9.3.2008 Sunday edition of NIE, under

the title 'Hindu-Jewish declaration removes misconceptions', caused such

disappointment in me that I feel obliged to present a different viewpoint.

Indeed there are 'misconceptions'; but these are to be found in the Swami-ji's

presentation of Hinduism, more than from any Rabbinate or Vatican source. For

the fact is the focus on Idols in Hinduism, after the Vedic Age with its

emphasis on pure geometric forms, is perhaps the most significant and inspiring

aspect of the Sanatan Dharma.

 

First, let me quote a portion from the Swami-ji's article to

highlight a point I wish to make: 'The Jerusalem meet concluded with a landmark

declaration that Hindus worship " one supreme being " and are not really

idolatrous.'

 

To begin, perhaps Swami Dayananda is not aware of the negative

baggage the word 'idolatrous' carries. For Hindus it could be equated with the

'n' word for Blacks. What astonishes me more than anything is how burdened

Hindus still are with these loaded labels (pagans is another) foisted on them by

invaders and colonisers down the centuries, bearing these extremely derogatory

connotations. One would have trusted that with independence these

'misconceptions' would have been lifted and Hindus would be allowed to hold

their heads high regarding key issues of their belief system. Articles such as

this one, written by a leading exponent of the faith, makes us realise that

there is ever present the need to be 'accepted' - and this by faiths that have

never reached the heights and depths of Hinduism.

 

We read further: 'Hinduism has been perceived by them [the

middle-eastern faiths that eschew idols] as idolatrous and promoting many

gods.The historic declaration made at the summit at Jerusalem on February 18,

2008 sets at rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is idolatrous.' He continues,

'. (T)he crux of the problem was.the worship of forms. When they understood that

no form is separate from Isvara and the particular form enshrined in a temple is

but an altar of worship, they did not see any real issue to contend with.'

 

Though it may appear differently in a cursory reading, Swami

Dayananda has eliminated in this article, and possibly at the summit, exactly

what Hinduism cherishes most: Oneness, no separation, reality as a seamless

whole. Furthermore, this statement places 'worshippers' in a lesser category by

claiming that the idol in a temple 'is but an altar of worship'. We would have

to question what exactly is meant by 'but an altar of worship'. In effect the

Hindu Temple is sublime precisely because it captures what is truest and most

laudable in the Sanatan Dharma in that the sanctum sanctorum, where that alleged

'inconsequential form' resides, is an exact reproduction of the human soul

wherein the Godhead of any particular inclination is nestled. Woe be the day

when this sacred Bhoomi ceases to give birth to those devotees who have had, and

continue to have, this profound experience.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter Eleven, Sr Krishna unveils his

true FORM at Arjun's request: it is the Time-Spirit, Mahakala. But true to the

age in which he lived, for Arjun it is unbearable. He implores his mentor to

return to the form he is used to, that of his beloved friend; and Sri Krishna

obliges. But we learn something extremely important from this narration which is

perhaps missed by most: The 'form' adopted is one of Hinduism's most cherished

concepts. To some extent we find it exquisitely enshrined in Nataraj of the

Cosmic Dance. Will Swami Dayanada 'explain' to the Jewish Rabbinate that this is

a mere figure for the devotee to worship, with no deeper significance?

 

Hinduism has become contaminated by lesser beliefs; the deep and

profound significance of the Idol in each temple has been sullied by this desire

to make the faith acceptable to those who have never had the experience of the

DIVINE MAYA of the Vedic Age, she who is the fashioner of, precisely, Form. What

is overlooked, by one and all it seems, is that in eschewing idols the guardians

of dogma did away with the Divine Mother, creator of all Form. There is an

awakening in the West particularly to this aspect of Reality: the Goddess,

fashioner of Form, among her many other attributes. The result by this wholesale

elimination has been the degradation of women, particularly in those areas where

sacred idols are trampled upon. May Hindus awaken to this conspiracy and resist

the temptation to be 'all things to all men'. The world must open to the Hindu

way, and not the opposite.

 

 

 

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

, Aeon Centre of Cosmology

 

Tamil Nadu, South India

 

For more on Thea and her work see: http://www.aeongroup.com ,

http://www.patrizianorellibachelet.com/ http://www.Matacom.com

 

 

--\

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

 

 

 

 

 

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS - 09 MARCH 2008

 

 

 

Hindu-Jewish declaration removes misconceptions

 

by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

 

 

 

An extraordinary inter-faith meet between Hindu and Jewish religious leaders -

and event with the potential to pioneer a paradigm shift from conflict to

harmony among all religions - took place at Jerusalem a couple of weeks ago. The

historic meet emphasized and illustrated the importance of honest dialogue

between any two religious traditions to resolve seemingly irresolvable

differences.

 

Last year Hindu and Jewish religious leaders, representing the

two oldest traditions in the world, commenced an inter-religious dialogue in New

Delhi. Following that the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the delegation from the

Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha held the second round of inter-religious dialogue at

Jerusalem in February 2008. The Jerusalem meet concluded with a landmark

declaration that Hindus worship 'one supreme being' and are not really

idolatrous. The implications of this are profound in content and far-reaching in

effect. Judaism was born of the complete repudiation of idol worship and

rabbinic literature abounds with denunciations of idolatry in an entire tractate

of the Talmud devoted to this. The importance of this issue in Jewish and other

Abrahamic traditions cannot be overstated. Since its first encounter with these

religions, and due to their incomplete understanding of its Sastras, Hinduism

has been perceived by them as idolatrous and promoting many gods. The Hindus

have for centuries experienced the extremely violent consequence of this wrong

perception. The historic declaration made at the Hindu-Jewish summit at

Jerusalem on February 18, 2008 sets at rest the wrong notion that Hinduism is

idolatrous. The declaration reads:

 

'It is recognized that one supreme being in its formless and

manifest aspects has been worshipped by Hindus over the millennia. The Hindu

relates to only the one supreme being when he/she prays to a particular

manifestation. This does not mean that Hindus worship 'gods' and 'idols'.

 

The Jewish leaders, in so many words, owned their perception of

the Hindu tradition as erroneous and came up with the declaration which the

Hindu delegation could happily accept. This establishes that honest and bold

dialogue can completely reverse wrong views and erroneous perceptions held over

millennia. It emphasizes that leaders of every religion need to be informed

about the basics, vision and beliefs of other religious traditions.

 

In India Hindus not only gave sanctuary to the Jews when they

were hounded out all over the world but also gave them the freedom to pursue

their religion with dignity. Yet their notion, entirely due to a wrong

perception, that Hindus worship many gods without one supreme being and that

they are idolators remained, with the result their theological conflict with

Hinduism was seen as irreconcilable. Now after an honest and open dialogue they

have realised that the accommodating heart of a Hindu is born of his/her

acceptance of one Supreme Being who is invoked in many ways and in many forms by

different faiths including theirs.

 

In fact, the crux of the problem was no doubt the worship of

forms. When they understood that no form is separate from Isvara and the

particular form enshrined in a temple is but an altar of worship, they did not

see any real issue to contend with. They were visibly relieved and thanked the

delegation for removing the wrong perception held for more than two thousand

years.

 

Once the fundamental misconception was removed, the Rabbinate,

not surprisingly, also affirmed the following declaration on the sensitive issue

of the svastika, the sacred symbol for the Hindus.

 

'The svastika is an ancient and auspicious symbol of the Hindu

tradition. It is inscribed on Hindu temples, ritual altars, entrances and even

account books. A distorted version of this sacred symbol was misappropriated the

Third Reich in Germany and abused as an emblem under which heinous crimes were

perpetrated against humanity, particularly the Jewish people. The participants

recognise that this symbol is, and has been for millennia, sacred to Hindus,

long before its misappropriation.'

 

The importance of this affirmation may be understood from the

fact that a Hindu temple in Detroit was vandalised a few years ago by the Jewish

community offended by a huge svastika rangoli at the entrance of the temple.

 

Another critical element in the declaration is the acceptance

that all faiths are sacred and inviolable and that religious conversion is in

itself violence. If all faiths, particularly the Abrahamic family of faiths,

accept this declaration the fundamental cause of religious disharmony will be

gone for good. Several other and significant issues were discussed at the

summit, leading to mutual understanding. Leaders of both religions came out of

the mutually enriching meeting, wiser.

 

I write about this meeting and its outcome because it sets a new

bar for inter-religious dialogue. To ferret out what is common in our traditions

and agree that we have some common ground is not enough; it is not enough to

skirt around tough issues and " agree to disagree " . No, to be beneficial to all,

to foster enrichment rather than impoverishment of our religious traditions,

dialogue must be conducted on the points of intersection of our conflicts with

ruthless honesty. We should have the courage to probe, question, listen and even

agonise if we have to, but never shirk. Above all, the dialogue must be rooted

in the deepest and most comprehensive grasp of the scriptures of the respective

faiths.

 

Dialogue is the ancient Hindu model for promoting mutual

understanding of religious truth and avoiding or resolving conflicts between

faiths. Dialogue between enlightened leaders of the faiths pre vents the

differences among them from spilling on to the streets and turning into

uncontrollable issues. That was how in this ancient nation religious harmony was

conceptualised, promoted and sustained for thousands of years. Now this needs to

be globalised for promoting peace among religions. The only means to conflict

avoidance and resolution is dialogue among different religions. The Global

Foundation for Civilisational Harmony [GFCH] which was inaugurated by His

Holiness Dalai Lama in January 2008 in Delhi, and in which some well-known

religious and spiritual leaders of different faiths participated, has a very

significant role to play to bring about this healthy understanding among

religions. The GFCH needs to organise meaningful dialogue between leaders of

different religious traditions and help remove wrong perceptions arising from an

absence of true understanding of each other's faiths, paving the way for harmony

and mutual respect among religions. All religious faiths and religious leaders

must extend their whole-hearted support to this great initiative.