This is one of the biggest dilemma to every child whenever he or she is taught about religion. I remember very well when I was a kid and I was introduced to Hinduism, this question arose to my mind and the more I started to think about it, the more I got confused with.
What is God?? Is it someone like a human being who is sitting far from us and controlling this earth? Is it some cosmic energy that controls the existence of all living beings? Does it have a shape or it is formless??
Whatever it is, at the end of the day I'm convinced that no one can answer that question with surety including religious leaders. Whenever you bring up this question, you will get an answer like it all depends on your "shradhdha".. That means they can't prove it but it's my problem that I can't accept their point of view.
So many wars have been fought in the name of God!! And the people who have fought those wars have no clue who is God and how does it look? I've found one interesting observation though!
I think the mandir sanskriti came to Hinduism from around 3rd - 4th century AD. Until then, Hindus were traditionally doing yagna etc... Lord Krishna and Ram lived many thousands of years before that but there is no record of any mandir that goes beyond 3rd century AD. So the question that comes to my mind is were Hindus really worshipping idols from the beginning or this is something that was introduced to Hinduism at a later date?
I tend to think that idol worshipping was introduced to Hinduism after temples were built.. The logic is simple - as these big temples were created, there has to be something in it so that people keep coming and there is nothing better than putting God in it... That's how Hindus became idol worshippers...
There is nothing wrong in worshipping idols in my opinion however it came with a big toll... Idol worshipping made Hindus weak in general and took out most aggression from them. If you read the history in detail of South Asian continent, you will realize why I'm saying so. Even during our Independence movement, the persons who were idol worshippers took side with Gandhiji for non-violence movement whereas there was a class of people who did not believe in non-violence movement and they were proposing violent struggle with English to kick them out of India. If you note who these people were - you will see that most of them were Aryasamajis or Sikhs or Muslims. All them are no idol worshippers!!!
I'm not saying this is absolutely true... There are always exceptions in life but you have to draw some generalizations then you have to conclude that it seems idol worshipping has made Hindus less aggressive over time otherwise Hindus were very aggressive race before 3rd century AD and you can verify it from history... Of course, Hinduism had some influence and struggles in that time due to proliferation of Jainism and Budhdhism but still I think introduction of idol worship is one of the factors in taking away aggression from Hindus...
Jai Hind!
What is God?? Is it someone like a human being who is sitting far from us and controlling this earth? Is it some cosmic energy that controls the existence of all living beings? Does it have a shape or it is formless??
Whatever it is, at the end of the day I'm convinced that no one can answer that question with surety including religious leaders. Whenever you bring up this question, you will get an answer like it all depends on your "shradhdha".. That means they can't prove it but it's my problem that I can't accept their point of view.
So many wars have been fought in the name of God!! And the people who have fought those wars have no clue who is God and how does it look? I've found one interesting observation though!
I think the mandir sanskriti came to Hinduism from around 3rd - 4th century AD. Until then, Hindus were traditionally doing yagna etc... Lord Krishna and Ram lived many thousands of years before that but there is no record of any mandir that goes beyond 3rd century AD. So the question that comes to my mind is were Hindus really worshipping idols from the beginning or this is something that was introduced to Hinduism at a later date?
I tend to think that idol worshipping was introduced to Hinduism after temples were built.. The logic is simple - as these big temples were created, there has to be something in it so that people keep coming and there is nothing better than putting God in it... That's how Hindus became idol worshippers...
There is nothing wrong in worshipping idols in my opinion however it came with a big toll... Idol worshipping made Hindus weak in general and took out most aggression from them. If you read the history in detail of South Asian continent, you will realize why I'm saying so. Even during our Independence movement, the persons who were idol worshippers took side with Gandhiji for non-violence movement whereas there was a class of people who did not believe in non-violence movement and they were proposing violent struggle with English to kick them out of India. If you note who these people were - you will see that most of them were Aryasamajis or Sikhs or Muslims. All them are no idol worshippers!!!
I'm not saying this is absolutely true... There are always exceptions in life but you have to draw some generalizations then you have to conclude that it seems idol worshipping has made Hindus less aggressive over time otherwise Hindus were very aggressive race before 3rd century AD and you can verify it from history... Of course, Hinduism had some influence and struggles in that time due to proliferation of Jainism and Budhdhism but still I think introduction of idol worship is one of the factors in taking away aggression from Hindus...
Jai Hind!
In one of your previous blogs you mentioned that Hinduism was a way of life, not a religion. The conflict arises from this interchanging view.
ReplyDeleteHere is my understanding of history:
All people living in the INDUS VALLEY were referred to as INDUS which later became know as HINDUS. Eventually it got narrowed down to people living east of Indus river. It was not religious, but how they went about their daily lives and survival defined them as Hindus.
The temples were the need of a period in history when the seniors and mature citizens were trying to find a way to assimilate the society, increase social interactions and way to preach ideal human behavior. They presented the stories of RAM and KRISHNA and similar heroes as examples for people to follow - which eventually resulted in hero worship. The lessons to respect nature and wild life eventually resulted in creation of 'symbolic' gods representing different wild animals. The stories of most 'MATA'/KULDEVI are mere mythology to propagate respect for women and different feminine characters. With lack of formal education the common man concentrated on 'rituals' rather than the reason/purpose. That is the reason for rise of idol worship.
It will be far fetched to connect idol worship and aggression. Remember, it takes far greater strength to be non-violent in the face of violence. Violence is the weapon of the weak trying to hide his/her shortcomings in other areas. It is possible that idol worship and religious preaching encouraged a non-violent society and if you look at history every violent invasion has lasted only a few years while non-violent rules have lasted longer periods.
It will also be foolish to discount the non-violent efforts of Gandhiji and his followers - there were violent struggles in all other countries and how many of them succeeded? Compare the results for both kinds and you will see that India's freedom struggle was unique and highly respected. The British were well prepared for warfare (they even fought the 2 world wars with their slave soldiers), but ill prepared for non-violent protests of the uneducated.
Finally there is no conflict between hinduism, jainism, buddhism or any other ism, since Hinduism was never a religion. People following any religion living east of Indus were hindus - until the British created this shorthand concept for divide and rule policy.
All the above is my understanding - I am open to correction. History is always written from the writer's perspective - we never know the writer's motivation or intention. A historian of Maratha region would write about Shivaji's rule differently than a Moghul historian of the same era. Either version could be true.
It is a pleasure to read your views and share the knowledge.
Keep it coming.
There is no one absolutely correct. These are just my views and there is no way to prove one way or the other what actually happened a couple of millenniums ago. The reason I started blogging is to bring "Vichar Kranti" among like minded people and when that happens it becomes huge power.
ReplyDeleteHinduism started as a way if life and then it became religion. Today one cannot separate idol worship from Hinduism. The point is idol worship was not present when it all started as way of life that was later called Hinduism.
The intention is not to prove my case or any other's. So feel free to disagree and keep your comments coming!
Thanks for the post this is very informative
ReplyDelete