Hindu Scriptural evidence against making and worshipping idols

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Hindu Scriptural evidence against making and worshipping idols
(Purport from the Bhagavat Gita - As it Is, translated and commented on by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada)
Bhagavat Gita 7-22 : Endowed with such a faith, he endevours to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.
Purport: The demigods cannot award benedictions to their devotees without the permission of the Supreme Lord. The less intelligent living entity does not know this, and therefore he foolishly goes to the demigods for some benefit. But the pure devotee, when in need of someting, pray only to the Supreme Lord. A living entity goes to the demigods usually because he is mad to fulfill his lust [for material things]. Devotional service to the Supreme Lord and the worship of a demigod cannot be on the same platform, because worship of a demigod is material and devotional service to the Supreme Lord is completely spiritual.

Bhagavat Gita 7-23 :** Men of small intelligence worship the demigods,** and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

Purport: Some commentators on the BG say that one who worships a demigod can reach the Supreme Lord, but here it is clearly stated that the worshipers of demigods go to the different planetary systerms where various demigods are situated, just as a worshiper of the sun achieves the sun or a worshiper of the demigod of the moon achieves the moon. It is not that everyone, regardless of whatever demigod is worshipped, will reach the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That is denied here, for it is clearly stated that the worshipers of demigods go to different planets in the material world but the devotee of the Supreme Lord goes directly to the supreme planet of the Personality of Godhead.
Bhagavat Gita 7-24: “The ignorant believe that un-manifest Para Brahma (One God) incarnates or takes manifestations, because they do not completely understand My highest, immutable, incomparable, and transcendental existence.”

Bhagavat Gita 7:19-21: “All those who do idol worship, All those who worship demigods are materialistic people.”

Yajur Veda 3:32: “…Of that God you cannot make any images.”

Yajur Veda 32:3: “God is formless and bodiless”

Yajur Veda 40:8: “All those who worship the uncreated things, they are in
darkness, and you’ll enter more into darkness if you worship the created things.”

Rig Veda, Vol.8,1:1: “All Praise are to Him alone”

Rig Veda, Vol.6,45:16: “There is only One God, worship Him.”

2

Yep that is very true. True Hindus don't worship Idols. It is forbidden in their Religion. This whole arrived at time of the Aryans. But most of the hindus will deny these facts.

“na maiN* momin vich masiitaa*N, na maiN* muusaa, na fir'aun!”
*

3

ALI_R...u r right and wrong...

Hinuduism doesn't denounce idol worship. In Hinduism, God is an inexplicable Reality or Phenomenon that is beyond Human sensory perception. But Humans have to relate themseleves to this Reality through some means, which can be anything including idol worship, singing bhajans, doing karma, or simply practicising ur dharma.

Also, ur comments seem to me that u r sold to the AIT. I suggest you to do some research on aurguments that counter AIT. They are equally impressive if not more convincing.

Further, some theorists who propose AIT use biblical time span of the universe. That is the earcth is only 4000 years old and genesis of Human race started with Adam and Eve, which unfortunately make thier case more a "faith" than a "logic".

I wish you the very best!

4

AIT??

The Hindus view of God is somewhat confusing and then again simple.
They only believe in one God but they believe He can take on any form.
He takes on different forms so He can teach us. They believe that God took the form of Krishna, a man who lived on earth 5000 years ago.
I seem to associate him as the founder of Hinduism as Jesus was
Christianity. But some say that Hinduism has no one founder. One of their teachers, Ramakrishna was very interesting. He had visions of Kali, Buddha and Jesus.
Ramakrishna was concerned with the idea that all religions are equally
valid, and all our paths lead to the same goal.

Brahman is the supreme spirit who doesn't change. I guess that would
make him their "God". Brahman has three functions seen as three supreme
gods: Shiva - the destroyer, Brahma - the creator and source of all
creation, and Vishnu - the preserver and keeper of all good things on
earth. Each supreme god also has a female partner, that's where the
goddesses come in. The Hindus gods, and there's alot of them, have
wives.

I basically feel that Hinduism is monotheistic, even though they worship
many gods. They worship many gods, not because they believe there is
more than one, but because there are many ways in which God can be
visualized. Just like the burning bush Moses
saw.

Being a
Muslim I agree that there is only one God.

Khuda hafiz.

“na maiN* momin vich masiitaa*N, na maiN* muusaa, na fir'aun!”
*

5

[li] AIT = Aryan Invasion Theory[/li]
[*] Hinduism is neither monotheistic, nor polytheistic. Hinduism is panthestic.

6

[li] Forgot to say, God is neither a "HE" nor a "She" (or even a "IT"), in Hinduism.[/li]
It is beyond percetibility and hence unclassifiable.

7

[quote]
Originally posted by kumarakn:
[li] AIT = Aryan Invasion Theory[/li]
[li] Hinduism is neither monotheistic, nor polytheistic. Hinduism is panthestic.[/li][/quote]

What you mean by "Theory"? It's a proven thing MR. Or are you denying history?

If you want to form your own Hindu religion then it's nor longer Hinduism it's rather a sect. It's made of traditions and nothing else.

[ul]“na maiN* momin vich masiitaa*N, na maiN* muusaa, na fir'aun!”
*[/ul]

8

Against: http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/myth_aryan_invasion/ http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_link.html http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html http://www.iskcon.com/ICJ/6_1/6_1klostermaier.htm http://voi.org/reviews/rev-aitstal.html

Open ended: http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/aryan.html

For Aryan Invasion: (Sorry for giving u a hate site, I sincerely couldn’t find a better one. Will keep trying) http://www.dalitstan.org/books/bibai/

One piece of advice:

SEEK TO BECOME INTELLIGENT. The resources are available everywhere on the NET..Read every one of them, investigate, analyse and process their content, you will know more about YOUR own history! To start with , just search for "Aryan Invasion, in Yahoo, google)

And another peice of adivce:
If some body tells you something, that contradicts what ur mama-papa told you, stop accusing the person and start learning about the possibility.

Over and out!

GOOD BYE!

9

Mr you don’t need to tell me what I have to read and what not. For your kind information the whole “story” I made up came from a hindu site on the web.
How can I trust these sources when you seem to me a one way person. Your thinking is blocked by your extreme Hindu priest influence. SO might be you start to get off that track and find your own way out. What it really means to be an Hindu.

Basta…

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif

*“na maiN momin vich masiitaaN, na maiN muusaa, na fir’aun!”
*

10

Now I want to know..after analysing that extremist site, where it is stated that Hindu parts were never invaded by Aryans??

“na maiN* momin vich masiitaa*N, na maiN* muusaa, na fir'aun!”
*

[This message has been edited by Ali_R (edited October 13, 2001).]

11

same is true about ‘sex’ of God in Islam but people don’t understand

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/disgust.gif

We oughta be Changez like, don’t we?

12

Originally posted by: Ali.
The Hindus view of God is somewhat confusing and then again simple.
They only believe in one God but they believe He can take on any form.

He takes on different forms so He can teach us. They believe that God took the form of Krishna, a man who lived on earth 5000 years ago.

If you read the depth of Hinduism you find that the source of the Universe is Shakti. The infinite source of energy. This energy doesnt have any shape, size or mass. No gender or colour. As Kumarkn said Incomprehensible.

Brahma, Vishnu And Maheshwara are lower levels of energy and are created by the Shakti. Krishna is an variant of Vishnu (according to the belief, an Avatara or manifestation). (ofcourse some people do believe that Krishna is the Ultimate source of energy). But, the majority view is different.

If you see the pictorial depictions of Brahma, Vishnu or Siva you will find them in meditation, It is said that they meditate on the Energy, called Shakti.

I will try to get the Hindu calendar soon.

13

[quote]
Originally posted by Victory:
**If you read the depth of Hinduism you find that the source of the Universe is Shakti. The infinite source of energy. This energy doesnt have any shape, size or mass. No gender or colour. As Kumarkn said Incomprehensible.

Brahma, Vishnu And Maheshwara are lower levels of energy and are created by the Shakti. Krishna is an variant of Vishnu (according to the belief, an Avatara or manifestation). (ofcourse some people do believe that Krishna is the Ultimate source of energy). But, the majority view is different.

If you see the pictorial depictions of Brahma, Vishnu or Siva you will find them in meditation, It is said that they meditate on the Energy, called Shakti.

I will try to get the Hindu calendar soon.

**

[/quote]

No need for that...

[quote]
I am a spirit living in a body. I am not the body.
The body will die, but I shall not die.

Here I stand and if I shut my eyes, and try to conceive my existence, "I", "I", "I", what is the idea before me? The idea of a body. Am I, then, nothing but a combination of material substance? The Vedas declare, "No". I am a spirit living in a body. I am not the body. The body will die, but I shall not die. Here am I in this body; it will fall, but I shall go on living. I had also a past. The soul was not created, for creation means a combination, which means a certain future dissolution. If then the soul was created, it must die. Some are born happy, enjoy perfect health, with beautiful body, mental vigour and all wants supplied. Others are born miserable, some are without hands or feet, others again are idiots and only drag on a wretched existence. Why, if they are all created, why does a just and merciful God create one happy and another unhappy, why is He so partial? Nor would it mend matters in the least to hold that those who are miserable in this life will be happy in a future one. Why should a man be miserable even here in the reign of a just and merciful God?

In the second place, the idea of a creator God does not explain the anomaly, but simply expresses the cruel fiat of an all-powerful being. There must have been causes, then, before his birth, to make a man miserable or happy and those were his past actions.

Are not all the tendencies of the mind and the body accounted for by inherited aptitude? Here are two parallel lines of existence- one of the mind, the other of matter. If matter and its transformations answer for all that we have, there is no necessity for supposing the existence of a soul. But it cannot be proved that thought has been evolved out of matter, and if a philosophical monism is inevitable, spiritual monism is certainly logical and no less desirable than a materialistic monism; but neither of these is necessary here.

[/quote]

[/QUOTE]

“na maiN* momin vich masiitaa*N, na maiN* muusaa, na fir'aun!”
*

[This message has been edited by Ali_R (edited October 19, 2001).]