Thank you for your posts Agnideva, you raise good points in favour of idol worship. Nothing is ever black and white. Even if Sage Vasista did denounce it, who is to say that he was not being shortsighted about it, even in his great wisdom.
Even if it is true that the Agamic philosophies are the result of spiritual denegeration, we must also accept that we no longer live in the Sat Yuga and thus our sense of spirituality and spiritual expression may not be the purest, but at least it is not non-existent. We still strive to form a relationship with god in our own ways.
In the times of Sat Yuga, maybe there was no need for temples, idols or what have you, because we were born into higher spirituality and meditation was a part of society. Today, whether we like it or not, we live in a materialistisc society and to survive we must partake in it. We must work to earn a living, we must pay our bills and we must be a part of social rituals. We are going through very diffcult time today, with the endless wars, disease and the changes in climate and earth, who knows how bad this Kaliyuga may get. In such a discontended and hectic world, how does one find time to truly surrender to a life of self-introspection and meditation. So whatever time we get to sit and meditate, pray or worship and express ourselves spiritually is all good.
Yet, that said, I do agree with the viewpoint that this is impure, but not that it is bad or wrong. That orthodox idol worship, the worship in temples or even the few hours of meditation we do per day is not sufficient. The few hours we spend in Church, Masjids, Mandirs is not enough. If it indeed was, then we would all be spiritually enlightened and realised maharishis, Buddhas and mahasihhas. No, it took the real great realised souls great penance, devotion and meditation to realise their goal.
The highest, but the most difficult of them is the worship of the living and intellectual spirit through study and self-inquiry; the path of knowledge.
It would be interesting here to make a distinction between what kind of realisations does one attain through devotion and through knowledge.
Love is I believe the highest expression of god, but if I learn to love, will that make me any wiser of the reality of god? Through study of the mind, I can come to an understanding of what reality is, what causality is and perhaps how god pervades reality, but will I come to the same understanding through just cultivating unconditional love only?
It maybe that I attain god, but without understanding of what god is, my relationship with god will always be one of devotee. I will always be in awe of god and there will be a distinction of infinity.
I once read about the different kind of experiences one has with god. One experience is when infinity itself manifests before you, leaving you in complete awe of this infinite power, truly making you understand just how insiginicant you are before this power. You worship it for the rest of your life, thristing for that divine experience again. The other god experience is one where you come to a realization that infinity is one aspect of your own self through inquiry. You come to a deep understanding that this god aspect is indeed you. That you are all of existence. This is a state of supreme bliss and silence, that is completely non-dualistic, it is actually void and nothingness, the state where both existence and non-existence converge.
This is the kind of experience Buddha had.
These experiences actually realise your expectations of god. If your expectation is of an external power, that is what you realise. If your expectation is of god that exists at the core of your being, that is what you realise. So both adivatists and dvatists are right, only the former is a more complete understanding of reality.
Have you noticed how this is said about founders of many religions? Such is said about the Buddha, about Jesus, about Guru Nanak Dev.
You're absolutely right about Buddha and Guru Nanak. I am not sure about Jesus though, Christianity has been dogmatic and intolerant since it's inception and does not recognise other religions. However, Guru Nanak and Buddha did actually say that they were not creating a religion. Yes, it is interesting how the followers have done the opposite.
One thing about Hinduism, I would say, is that it is very understanding. Even if you don’t know any philosophy or theology, you can still be a good Hindu, wouldn’t you agree? Our primary focus is on being a good person in this life, and following dharma to the best of our ability. Dharma is the first of the four aims of life, as you well know.
Yes, that is what I like about Hinduism. But is it enough to just be a moral and good Hindu? I think if you could quantify your spiritual progress, being a good human being may accure you good karma, but not enough to be liberated. This is why I think we have Yoga. There are many different paths to it as you know, but all require absolute devotion. Again, the greatests realized beings greately devoted their lives to spirituality.
I believe that it is our mind that shapes our reality, and being a good and moral human being, will shape a good reality, but it will not liberate you from reality. It may lead to a better life in the present or in the next, but we will continue to come here as long as we have desire according to Hinduism. So, is it not desire that causes us to be moral, in hope of spiritual liberation?
Again, being a good human being does not lead to an understanding of mind or reality. If we continue to understand god and reality external, he will always be external and hence we will always live in the world of duality. This is why I think knowledge and science is very important. At the same time I also think love is important as well. Perhaps, they are like wings of the bird, the bird needs both to fly(Sage Vasista says something like this in the Yoga Vasista)
The belief that the world is illusory has led to another philosophical conundrum in Hinduism. If the entire creation is but an illusion, a veil of maya on the reality of Brahman, then the realization that there is an Ultimate Reality within that illusion is also a part of that illusion. Can an illusion within an illusion be considered reality?
I think illusion is the wrong word. How is our physical world, and our physical lives is an illusion? If I look at a football, I see a football, but it really is an aggregate of atoms, does this mean the football I see is an illusion. No, it just means that the football has many levels of dualistic reality, each which is true, but one reality supercedes all. Likewise, if all of existence is just the projection of the supreme soul, then the supreme is the highest or ultimate reality. But every other reality is not illusion.
Just like my reflection is real. However, if I mistake that reflection for real that is illusion. The material or the gross reality is what they say our mind reflects, so it is our consciousness that creates it, but itself is not animated by our consciousness. This is where I think the distinction between the jivatman and matter begins.
