IDOLATRY AND DOGMATISM: THE VEILS OF MAYA
By David Frawley

Idolatry and Art

The use of images is part of an artistic approach and rendering of our relationship to the Divine. For this sculpture uses statues, painting uses colored surfaces, music uses sound, and poetry uses verbal images. To deny these things as idolatry is only to banish art from our relationship with the Divine. For this reason aniconic traditions have generally remained artistically sterile.

Where for example can we find great religious sculpture or painting among orthodox Muslims or Protestants? Both the Bible and the Koran, though they reject graven images, abound with poetic images, which are responsible for much of the beauty of these books. If a poetic image is acceptable, why not a formal image? Is not a picture worth a thousand words? Why is a poetic form of art allowed as religious but not a plastic form like painting and sculpture?

In fact it could be argued that the literalism of certain religious traditions in worshipping their books has only occurred because they deny the use of images. The book becomes a substitute image to fill that aspect of universal aspiration which requires an object to worship.

Traditions that reject art and the use of images, which are used in most spiritual approaches, are limited and incapable of representing the full aspirations of humanity. Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma or a universal tradition includes all forms of art as valid approaches to the Divine or truth. It has music, dance, poetry, drama, sculpture, painting, architecture, not as ends-in-themselves but as different languages of worship. Yet this has not prevented it from developing formless approaches as well, which it has developed through formless meditation methods to a degree largely unparalleled in aniconic traditions.

There are many great teachers and Truth cannot be limited to a single person, however great he or she may be. To insist that God has only one Son or that he has a final prophet is itself a form of idolatry - an attempt to limit ultimate Reality to what is only an appearance in time and space. We are all sons of God and we are all potentially God-realized sages.

Whatever good or evil that has existed in any human being exists in each one of us. Whatever potential of greatness that has existed in any human being belongs to us. To set up limitations around our inner potential is not only to limit humanity but to deny the immanent Godhead.

Hinduism holds that the individual, you or I, is the most important thing. The teacher is only an aid and a guide to our own Self-realization. Hinduism does not sacrifice the sacred nature of the individual for any prophet or savior, however great, but directs each one of us to our own Self-realization as the highest goal.

The very religious groups who have most condemned other beliefs as idolaters have themselves been the most guilty of dogmatism, an authoritarian insistence upon the sole truth of a belief that does not allow any objective examination, much less any other point of view. For this reason they have tended to suppress any criticism against them.

Dogmatic beliefs use the specter of idolatry to condemn those who think differently. But idolatry and dogmatism are actually the same thing, the limitation of truth to a particular form, person, judgment or idea.

Exclusivism in religious belief - that our God, savior or holy book alone is true - is itself idolatry, the limitation of truth to a form or construct in the realm of time and space. Unless we transcend the idolatry of dogmatism and exclusivism in religion, it is not spirituality we are following but some divisive creed which breeds conflict and can never lead us to peace.

To do this we must recognize all the various ways human beings have used to approach the Divine, the Infinite and Eternal, and allow for their free exploration, which must overflow the boundaries of any particular religion, whether they use images or not. We are not children that religion must threaten or cajole to keep in line.
We are intelligent beings, centers of cosmic awareness, with the potential of all the universe. If we treat ourselves like children or animals to be herded in a particular way we only stifle our deeper consciousness. However, if we recognize our true Self and provide it a rich field in which to grow and the freedom to discover, then there is not limit as to how much each individual can flower in Truth, even those considered to be ignorant or evil. This requires faith in God as dwelling in human beings, not in God as apart from ourselves, who being separate from us can never uplift us.

Hinduism and Idolatry

As a universal tradition, Hinduism contains within itself a place for all forms of worship from the most basic ritual to the highest meditation. This includes worship with and without form - whatever may be valid for different human temperaments and stages of development. Therefore Hinduism employs abundant forms of all types, as well as every sort of formless meditational approach. Most Hindus use images in their religious worship and most Hindu temples contain many of them.

This abundance of forms has been criticized by aniconic (anti-idolatry) traditions not as a universal approach, but as the idol worship of primitive people. They associate Hindu images with the idolatry and perversion that was charged against the Pagans by the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The idea is that whoever uses images in religious worship is somehow immoral, perhaps a worshipper of the devil, and does not know there is only One God.

Image worshippers may be lumped together with criminals, perverts, or whoever at the moment is regarded as representing deviant behavior in society, as if the use of images led to moral depravity. Such ideas are prejudice, if not bigotry, and are akin to racism and its negative stereotypes. People who hold them never take the time to communicate with so-called idolaters and find out what they are really doing (and discover that they are also human beings, often with more love and tolerance than the religious zealots who attack them).

Not surprisingly the charge of idolatry is often leveled as part of a campaign of conversion, invasion and conquest. It has been used as an excuse for smashing statues, robbing and demolishing temples, for plunder and genocide, all conveniently done in the name of God. Such a God is but a personification of intolerance and his worship is built on the blood of innocent people.

Anti-idolatry religions have not only been opposed to the use of images, they have often regarded it as a virtue to take offense at the use of images by those outside their religion. They have at times made it their divine right to interfere with the religious practices of others, if such practices involves the use of images, and to force others to worship God in the correct (their) way. They often spend more time criticizing the idolaters than seeking God.

Western missionaries through time, and Christian fundamentalists today, have used a charge of idolatry to misrepresent Hinduism and other Pagan religions. Such people are passing on superficial distortions which are intellectually misinformed, if not dishonest. They never mention that the images are looked upon only as vehicles or communication devices, not as real in themselves.

Their statements would be equivalent to Hindus calling Christianity a religion of human sacrifice for the holy communion ritual of drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. Hindus use various images in their religious worship - which may include statues and pictures, anthropomorphic forms of deities, and great teachers and avatars who may be regarded as the Divine in human form.

Hindu worship consists of burning incense, lighting lamps, reciting prayers and singing devotional songs around these sacred images. Some of these objects of worship are representational. Others are symbolic and geometric, like yantras and mandalas. Some are places like sacred mountains and lakes, where Gods or sages project their influence. All things in the universe are objects of worship once we recognize the sacred presence which pervades all things.

Hindu images of Gods and Goddesses have supernatural characteristics to show their higher reality. Deities may be depicted with several heads, many arms, and various unusual weapons and adornments. Occasionally they may have animal characteristics, like an animal head or body. Some in fact are depicted as animals.

Sometimes they are shown with frightening features like fangs, adorned with serpents, or standing on corpses. Such forms may appear strange to anyone who is ignorant of mythic symbols or the imagistic vision of the higher mind. Yet to a deeper vision - which anyone can come to by a little open-minded study - these images are the great archetypes of life, the embodiment in form of the great truths of the Eternal and the Infinite, in which our ordinary mental constructs must be broken down.

Those who make the charge of idolatry against such use of images only demonstrate their ignorance of symbolic language and mythology. Not surprisingly, strongly aniconic traditions are usually opposed to mysticism altogether, and have stifled art as well.

Such a worshipper of images was Paramahansa Ramakrishna, whom many Westerners have been inspired by. Ramakrishna was a priest at a Hindu temple and worshipped the Divine Mother in the form of Kali, who has a terrible form replete with fangs and a garland of skulls. Let those who are opposed to the use of images show among their members a being of such spiritual realization of Ramakrishna.

We should note that religions that use images have not historically been more violent or sensual than those who deny them. Hindu and Buddhist communities contain a strong ascetic tradition, as well as an emphasis on non-violence, even though these traditions use images.

Image-denying religions, on the other hand, have been guilty of violence and destruction perpetuated in the name of destroying idols and converting heathens and infidels through various crusades and holy wars. The non-use of images has obviously not increased our human sensitivity or respect for other cultures.

All religions use images and forms to some degree. Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christianity use images, icons and statues, as an examination of most churches will reveal. Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and Shinto groups use them as well. Native American, African and Asian religions abound with them. The ancient religions of the entire world from Mexico to Greece, Egypt, Babylonia, Persia, India and China used images, as archeology so clearly reveals. The use of images therefore appears as an integral part of human religious practices and no universal religion could be regarded as complete without them.

Most Protestants and Muslims deny the use of all images as idolatry and accuse the Catholics of idolatry for their use of images. No statues or images adorn their churches or mosques. Yet we do find that many Protestants have a picture of Christ, or at least wear a cross, which is still a usage of images and symbols. Muslims worship Mecca and a special rock placed there.

They pray only in the direction of Mecca, which is the limitation of the Divine to a place. They similarly regard mosques as sacred places. Many Muslims pray at the tombs of their saints. Muslims often have pictures of their religious or political leaders (note the worship of Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran), sometimes those of Mohammed, perhaps with his face veiled. This is also a use of symbols. Both Protestants and Muslims regard their holy books, the Bible and Koran, as literally the Word of God. This is also a worship of objects.

However, there is a strange dichotomy in how religious images are judged. When they are part of the Christian tradition they are called "icons" and classified as works of art and sacred in nature. When they are part of non-Christian or pagan traditions they are called "idols," which is a derogatory term that indicates not the sacred but mere superstition. In the case of native American and African images, even when done by a culture as advanced as the Mayas of Central America - which built great pyramids and had many great cities - they are lumped along with so-called "primitive" art.

By this logic what makes for idolatry is not the use of representational forms in worship, but only the use of non-Christian images, which is obviously a prejudice. An image of Krishna as the good cowherder is on par with that of Christ as the good shepherd, the Divine as the caretaker of souls. To make one into a superstitious idol and the other into a sacred image is hypocritical and intolerant. It is like saying that only spices used in American cooking are legitimate spices, while those used in Indian cooking are food adulterants!

What Christian would accept a depiction of Christ being called an idol? Would Christian religious leaders approve of it in the press of Christian countries? Yet Hindus and other non-Christians routinely accept that depictions of their deities - who represent such high truths as Self-realization - are demeaned as idols.

To call such images idols implies that those who worship them practice idolatry or take the image itself as a God. This adds yet more prejudice and error to the judgement. The use of an image - whether we call it an icon or an idol - does not imply belief in the reality of the image. That we keep a photograph of our wife and children at our work desk does not mean that we think our wife and children are the photograph.

The use of the term idol inflames the sentiments of anti-idolatry religions like Christianity and Islam, as both the Bible and the Koran instruct their followers to destroy idolaters and their temples. The use of the term idol is thus careless, insensitive, and potentially inflammatory. It should be removed in an effort to promote greater understanding and good will between religious groups.

Belief as Idolatry

Idolatry and the Book

One may confuse Truth which is unlimited with any number of limited things, not merely graven images. Books, names, personalities, and institutions can be invested with the illusion that they are the Truth. To identify any statement with Truth is idolatry. Truth is more a matter of how something is said than simply what is said. To insist that any statement is literally true does not even work in ordinary communication, much less deeper levels of poetic and religious discourse. In fact literalism itself is nothing but idolatry, the identification of Truth with a limited object.

The written word itself is the first of all idols because as the most evident form used in human communication, it is the foundation of all other dogmatic constructs. To make any statement literally true is to invest words, which are inherently limited and capable of a number of interpretations, with Absolute Truth. The idolatry of the word, idea, name or book, is perhaps the worst of all idolatries. It confuses reality with the most empty of things, a mere verbal representation.

Verbal constructs are less real than ordinary realities. For example, the word tree is far less real than an actual tree. So too, the word God is not only less real than God, but less real than any actual object. It is certainly far less real than even one human being. To sacrifice even one living human being for such a mere concept is not only a sin against God, it is a sin against life.

To identify God or Truth with a particular name or statement is to fall not only from spiritual reality but to alienate ourselves from the world of Nature. For this reason Vedic texts emphasize that Truth is found where all speech turns back, and that it is different than anything in this world which people can perceive as an object.

Many religious groups insist that their book is literally the Word of God. They have identified God's word with a material thing, a mere book, which is words printed on paper. How can the Infinite and Eternal Reality have speech or words? God is not a physical person who has a mouth. His Word is merely a metaphor for his creative intelligence. This Word is a vibratory state of awareness, not something that can be found in any dictionary or made into any dialect. The Word of God cannot be captured on a piece of paper. Even the words of a great person cannot be reduced to a single book.

To regard an actual book as the word of God is a form of idolatry. This worship of a book creates literalism, or taking all statements, however metaphorical, as actual facts: like the Christian belief that the world was created 6000 years ago because this is the age of the lineages of the prophets given in the Bible since the time of creation. It creates dogma - the idea that something is true merely because it is in a book that is said to be the Word of God.

A book itself does not say anything. It has to be read and interpreted. Usually any book is capable of various interpretations. Scriptures, which are written in archaic and symbolic languages, as well as being the diverse works of many authors, time periods, and points of view, are capable of any number of interpretations as is obvious by the disagreement of Biblical scholars.

A book is a passive object which if used properly can yield knowledge, but if used improperly can yield half-truth or even falsehood. We could compare a book to a musical instrument. The person who plays it is more important than the instrument itself. The worship of books is the product of a period of illiteracy when a book was something rare and valuable, and when people could often afford to have only one book. After the modern information revolution, this worship of books appears quite regressive and can no longer be sustained by any thoughtful person.

The Idolatry of a Name

The foundation of all material things is the naming process. Through names we discriminate forms. The name creates the idea of external reality. It divides us off from the Divine or nameless Truth. The Divine transcends all names. To insist that only one set of names for God is correct is another form of idolatry or materialism.

Hindus do not mind if Brahman, their main term for the Divine, is called God, a Western and generally Christian term. However, Christians object if Hindu terms like Brahman or Ishvara are used for God, even though they mean much the same thing, the Supreme Being. Muslims do not allow Sanskrit names for God, though such things are not fundamentally different in meaning than Allah, or Persian Khuda.

Those who refuse to accept God called by the same type of name in another language are only demonstrating their ignorance of what the Divine really is, the Unlimited. They are showing that they have never really experienced God but are content with a mere word as indicating that Absolute Truth.

Emotion in the Depiction of God

The Biblical and Koranic God, even though regarded as beyond representation, is often portrayed as having human emotions. He is said to be jealous, vindictive, wrathful or vengeful. He has his favorite or chosen prophets and people, as well as his enemies whom he punishes with natural disasters like plagues, floods and earthquakes.
He talks with people and even interferes with human affairs and political matters, functioning as a judge noting the good and evil of people, giving them rewards and punishments of an often tyrannical order.

Such a God appears as a person with some common, and not entirely noble human feelings. He appears as a personification of anger and wrath, or as representing the ego of certain people. Such a God appears to be the confusion of the Divine with a particular mental or emotional formation, which is material and transient. It is very convenient to put God on our side and make those who think differently than us followers of the Devil, but there is nothing particularly spiritual, sensitive or even humane about it.

The Divine as a transcendent reality no more possesses anger and jealousy and is no more a judge, than he is a person with hands and feet. If one rejects the idea that God can have any image or human representation, then certainly God cannot have any human emotions or partialities either. Therefore he can have no only Son, final prophet, or one scripture, as these are all material limitations which no Spiritual Reality can be attributed with.
Yet if God can metaphorically be described in symbols and images, his traits can be metaphorically described through emotions. Saying that God is jealous can be a metaphor for indicating that only the eternal endures and whatever transient thing we are attached to must be taken away from us by the force of time.

To say that God is a stern judge be a metaphor for saying that the law of karma, which is a product of Divine wisdom and natural law, is the real giver of good or bad results, which cannot be altered by human wishes. Such metaphors should never be taken literally or we destroy their real meaning.

Hindu deities like Shiva and his wife Parvati have such terrible forms and emotional expressions to express their transcendence of the human condition and its dualities of high and low, good and evil, but these are never taken literally. And they are never made the basis of holy wars and ethnic cleansings in the name of religion.