These notes were compiled as a result of the author’s personal study. Permission is granted to reproduce them for non-commercial purposes and for promoting an understanding of Hindu Dharma from an

insider’s perspective. Popularly and normatively held views are emphasized. To let the Hindu tradition speak for itself, works by modern Indologists and outsiders to the tradition are largely ignored except when they are consistent with a Hindu’s self-understanding of his faith.

Rev. A: 10 October 2022

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION - CAN WE DESCRIBE ‘GOD’ COMPLETELY? 7

1.1 Non-Hindu Traditions on the Nature of God 7

1.2 Parable of the Elephant and the Six Blind Men 9

1.3 The Hindu Viewpoint on God: Brahman, the One in Many and the Many in One 10

1.4 A Note on the word ‘Brahman’ 12

1.5 The Meaning of ‘OM’- the Most Meaningful Name of God 13

1.6 Other Names of Brahman used Commonly by Modern Hindus 17

2.0 THE TWO ASPECTS OF BRAHMAN –(SAGUṆA AND NIRGUNA): 18

2.1 The Meanings of the Word ‘Guṇa’ 18

2.2 The Two Meanings of Nirguṇa Brahman and Saguṇa Brahman 18

2.3 Does Brahman have a Form? Sākāra (With a Form) and Nirākāra (Lacking a Form) Brahman 19

2.4 Nirguṇa Brahman and the Five Levels of Saguṇa Brahman 20

2.5 Relationship between Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman 21

2.6 Comparison between Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman 22

2.7 Which Aspect is Superior – Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman? 23

3.0 NIRGUṆA BRAHMAN - PARABRAHMAN 25

3.1 The Transcendence of Nirguṇa Brahman in Hindu Scriptures: 26

3.2 The Positive Attributes of Nirguṇa Brahman 27

3.3 Is there Nirguṇa Brahman in History Centric Abrahamic Religions? 28

4.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS ĪSHVARA OR BHAGAVĀN 30

4.1 The Concept of Trimūrti: Tripartite Division of Īshvara 31

4.2 Who are the Devās (or Devatā) and Devīs? 32

4.3 Relationship between Devatās and Brahman 34

4.4 Doctrine of Adhikāra and Different Perceptions of Brahman 39

4.5 The Symbolism of the Forms of Īshvara & Devas 40

4.6 The Gender of Īshvara: Devī or Īshvarī 43

4.7 Animals as Devas 48

4.8 Is Hinduism Polytheistic or Monotheistic? 51

4.9 Hindu Conception of God in the Eyes of Non-Hindus 53

4.10 Īshvara and the Creation 55

4.10.1 Brahman as the Origin and Support of the Universe 55

4.10.2 Īshvara is the Sustainer of this Entire Universe 57

4.10.3 The Creation is a Part of Īshvara and Contained within Him 60

4.10.4 Īshvara is the True Lord of the Universe 61

4.10.5 Universe Derives its Properties from Īshvara 62

4.10.6 Perfect Īshvara is not Tainted by the Universe’s Imperfections and Transcends it 63

4.10.7 The Universe Dissolves into Brahman at the End of its Life and then Emerges again 64

4.10.8 Īshvara is Within and Outside Everything 65

4.10.9 Īshvara is Omniscient, Witness and the Giver of Fruit of our Karma 66

4.10.10 Īshvara Reveals the Vedas 67

4.10.11 He is Unequalled and Unique in the Universe 67

4.11 The Vyūha Doctrine of Pāṅcharātra Vaishnavism 68

4.12 The Eternal Body of Shiva in the Shaiva Āgamas 72

5.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS ANTARYĀMĪ 73

5.1 Attributes of Brahman as Antaryāmin 74

5.2 Brahman as Antaryāmī in Vishishtadvaita Vedānta 81

5.3 Interiorization of Brahman and all Devatā-s in one’s Body and Soul 83

5.4 Interfaith Perspectives: Antaryāmī in other Religions 87

5.5 Brahman as Antaryāmī as well as Enveloper 89

6.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS VIBHŪTI-S 91

6.1 Relationship between Vibhūtis, Avatāras and Mūrtis 92

6.2 Are Vibhūtis Gender Specific 93

6.3 Guru, Parents and Atithis as Vibhūtis 94

6.4 Guidelines for worshipping Īshvara as Vibhūti 94

7.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS AVATĀRA (OR VIBHAVA) 97

7.1 Why does Brahman take an Avatāra? 98

7.2 Distinction between Avatāras and Humans 101

7.3 Types of Avatāras 101

7.4 Avatāras of Various Devas and Liberated Souls 103

7.5 Rejection of Avatāras or the Doctrine of Avatāras by certain Hindus 106

7.6 Interfaith Perspectives: Avatāras versus Prophets 107

7.7 Objections Against the Doctrine of Avatāras and Responses: 107

8.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS MŪRTI 111

8.1 Two Viewpoints about worshipping Mūrtis 111

8.2 The Concepts of Pratīka, Pratimā, Mūrti, Archā, Vigraha 113

8.3 Are Hindus ‘Idolators’? Idols versus Mūrtis 115

8.4 Importance of worshipping Brahman through Mūrtis for Hindus 117

8.5 Is Worshipping Mūrtis inferior to other forms of Worship? 122

8.6 Upāsanā versus Pūjā 127

8.7 Arguments For and Against Worshipping Mūrtis 129

8.8 Idolatry in Other Religions and in Nirguṇa Hindu traditions: 135

8.9 When Mūrti Pūjā becomes a Fetish 142

9.0 THE THEOLOGY OF HINDU APPROACHES TO REACH THE DIVINE 145

9.1 A Three Step Model: From Saguṇa Sākāra to Nirguṇa Nirākāra 146

9.2 Worshipping Nirguṇa (Attributeless) and Nirākāra (Formless) Brahman 147

9.3 Interfaith Perspectives: Do Abrahamics worship a Formless and Attributeless God? 151

9.4 Worshipping Saguṇa and Nirākāra Brahman: Divinity With Qualities/Attributes but Without a Form 152

9.4.1 Saguṇa-Nirākāra in Jnāna Yoga 153

9.4.2 Saguṇa-Nirākāra in Later Dhārmic Traditions 157

9.5 Is Worshipping Formless Brahman Superior To Worshipping a Form of Brahman? 160

9.6 Worshipping Saguṇa and Sākāra Brahman and the Concept of Iṣhta Devatā 162

9.6.1 Ishta-Devatā 162

9.6.2 The Major Ishta-Devatās and the Traditions (Sampradāyas) of Worship 165

9.6.3 Smārta Sampradāya and Panchāyatana Worship 166

9.6.4 Shaṇmata Sampradāya 166

9.6.5 Ekāyatana Mode of Worship 166

9.6.6 Relationships with Saguṇa Sākāra Brahman 167

9.7 The Concept of Ishta-Devatā and Hindu Pluralism 168

9.7.1 Analogy of Many Rivers Merging into the Ocean 169

9.7.2 Do Not Keep Changing the Ishta-Devatā 169

9.7.3 Respecting Devatās other than One’s Ishta Devatā 169

9.7.4 Sectarianism in Hindu Dharma 169

9.8 Worshipping Non-Brahman 176

9.8.1 Results of Worshipping something other than Brahman: 176

9.8.2 Rivers not leading to Brahman: Doctrine of Adhikāra and one’s Deity 177

9.8.3 The ‘Correct Way’ of worshipping Devatās other than Brahman: 179

9.8.4 Worship of Non-God in other Religions 180

10.0 INTERFAITH PERSPECTIVES 182

10.1 Hindu ‘Polytheism’ and Hindu Tolerance of Diversity: 182

10.2 Hindu Dharma as the only ‘Monotheistic’ Spiritual Tradition 184

10.3 Reconciling the Spiritual Visions and NDE of Followers of Different Religions 186

10.4 Distortion of Hindu concept of Brahman by Christian Fundamentalists 187

10.5 Comparison of Brahman/Īshvara with the Abrahamic ‘God’ 189

10.6 Comparing Hindu Theology with Abrahamic Theology 190

10.7 A Hindu Critique of God in Abrahamic Religions: 192

10.8 Rejecting the Abrahamic Notion of the Devil 195

11.0 ATHEISM AND HINDU DHARMA 199

11.1 Atheist Arguments & Hindu Responses to Atheism 200

11.2 God and the Problem of Good and Evil 203

11.3 Can an Atheist be a Good Hindu? 204

11.4 Are Miracles a Proof of the Existence of God? 205

12.0 CONCLUSIONS 206

BIBLIOGRAPHY 207

1.0 INTRODUCTION - CAN WE DESCRIBE ‘GOD’ COMPLETELY?

Scope: The purpose of this document is to describe the nature of the Divine from a Hindu viewpoint, and compare this viewpoint to that of other religions. The document also explains how the Hindu conceptions of God lead to different ways in which Hindus worship God.

The Bhagavad Gita is often regarded as a summary and a synthesis of all the major philosophies of Hinduism. Therefore, this scripture will form the major basis of our discussion. To avoid verbosity, we will refrain from stuffing our discussion with an excessive number of quotations from other Hindu scriptures. Only a few individual scriptures will be referred to for illustrative purposes. There is also no dearth of secondary literature on how Hindus interpret and worship God. By and large, etic literature presenting outsider, alien perspectives of Hindu Dharma will be ignored except for short citations. The emphasis is on emic (insider viewpoint) literature including the sacred Hindu texts, beliefs and practices so that the Hindu tradition can speak for itself, using its own vocabulary and concepts.

1.1 Non-Hindu Traditions on the Nature of God

The scriptures, teachers and followers of different religions make different claims about Divinity. The claims of one religion often contradict the claims of another religion.

• Christian Viewpoint: Christians say that there is One God who sent many prophets and revealed the Bible to humanity. Then, He sent His only son Jesus Christ to take away our sins. Therefore, Christians see God through the history of their community as recorded in the Bible. According to the Bible, a unique event in human history was the descent of Jesus, the only begotten son of God, in Palestine. Jesus was the perfect person and he set the gold standard on what is good and what is bad. To go to heaven, we must believe in what the Bible says about human history, especially the fact that Jesus is the only son of God. No one can get Salvation unless they follow these Christian doctrines and their view of history. Therefore, non-believing Christians and non-Christians all automatically go to everlasting hell after their deaths, although Catholics believe that Hell is a temporary purgatory and eventually all will go to heaven. Christians believe that it is a sin to worship God through idols. Since the earth is a special planet to which God sent Jesus, the Universe is geocentric. Human beings are said to sin because they get tempted by the Devil, who is an antiGod creature, so to speak. The Devil is also created by God, and his task is to tempt people so that those who are firm in faith are separated from those who are not. Christians worship the Biblical God and his only son Jesus Christ so that they may reach an everlasting heaven after their deaths. In this palace like heaven reside God and Jesus in whose company the limited number of successful Christians will become permanent residents. Many Christians also worship Saints and Angels for worldly benefits. They also believe that these Saints as well as Jesus can intercede on their behalf so that they can enter heaven.

• Jewish Viewpoint: Jews believe that they are a special people ‘chosen’ by God who revealed the Old Testament of the Bible to the Jewish Prophets. Jews reject the Christian claim that Jesus was the only son of God, and they also reject the New Testament of the Bible which contains the teachings of Jesus Christ and his followers. Jews also believe that idol worship is a sin. Like Christians, Jews also understand God through the history of His ‘chosen people’, i.e., the Jews themselves. Jews believe that God promised them the land of Israel forever.

• Islamic Viewpoint: Muslims believe that their God, who they named Allah, did send the Jewish Prophets. But unlike Christians, they do not believe that God has any son or daughter. They consider Jesus too as a prophet. Muslims believe that the Bible was polluted by human beings and therefore God sent His last prophet named Muhammad to reveal the Koran in Arabic. There will be no more scripture revealed and no new prophet will be sent till the Universe ends. The Mosque in Mecca is constructed around a cubicle structure called the Kaaba, which is said to have been the first mosque of humanity. At one of the corners is kept a black stone encased in silver. Muslims believe that this stone fell from the heaven to the earth. All non-Muslims or anyone who does not believe in Allah and Muhammad will go to everlasting hell after their deaths. Some Muslims also believe that it is acceptable to attack and kill non-Muslims because they do not accept Muhammad and Koran as Divine. The Devil (‘Shaitān’) plays a similar role in Islam as the Devil in Christianity. The goal of Muslims is to reach an everlasting heaven after death. This heaven is the opposite of the desert wastes of Arabia – it is like an ever-green garden with underground channels of water, fruit laden trees, ever-flowing cups of wine served by beautiful damsels and boys etc. Many Muslims also worship other supernatural figures called Jinns, and at the graves of dead holy men for getting mundane rewards (like success, or children) while others ask for the same things from Allah.

• Buddhist Viewpoint: Buddhists do not believe in a God or in the devil. Buddha neither confirmed nor did he deny the existence of God. Buddhists believe that the presence or absence of a God is not required for final Moksha. However, many Buddhists worship the Buddha, and several Buddhists worship Hindu Deities as well. Buddhists also believe in the law of Karma and in rebirth but emphasize that God is not required for the functioning of these two. Moksha in Buddhism means going out of existence, or becoming nonexistent (Nirvāṇa). In Sri Lanka and S E Asia, many Buddhists also worship Hindu Deities like Brahmā, Sarasvatī and Vishnu.

• Jain Viewpoint: Jains are atheists in theory, but most of them worship God like Hindus in actual practice. The universe is beginning-less and is eternal even though it keeps changing all the time according to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no need for a God to create it or to destroy it. Jains worship their 24 teachers called Tirthankaras but they are worshipped only as realized Sages and not as gods. Most Jains worship Hindu Deities like Ganesha, Sarasvati, Lakshmi etc.

• Sikh Viewpoint: Sikhs say that God is formless and can be worshipped perfectly only in the way that their ten Gurus starting with Guru Nanak (born 1469 CE) taught – by chanting His holy names and through devotion and love. According to Sikhs, God does not incarnate, He does not have any form and idol worship is futile. The Deities of Hindus are acknowledged as creations of that one God. Like Hindus, Sikhs too believe that people of all faiths can attain Moksha. There is no concept of a devil in Sikhism.

• Chinese and Japanese Religions: Followers of Chinese religions worship ancestors. They also worship Buddha if they subscribe to Buddhism. Followers of Shintoism also worship different nature spirits and also extra-terrestrial gods. Several Hindu Deities reached China, Korea and Japan through the medium of Buddhist missionaries and are worshipped by these nations in a somewhat morphed form.

1.2 Parable of the Elephant and the Six Blind Men

Hindu Sages say that all the above views are only partially correct. According to Hindu scriptures, the Universe is infinite in extent and is billions of years old. Moreover, there are billions of Universes, and many which are being created and destroyed at any given point of time. To see God through the lens of our history is therefore like studying an ocean from a drop of sea water. We should keep in mind that the Universe is not Geocentric. Rather, it is Theocentric or God centered.

We human beings have only a limited understanding, a limited knowledge and a limited imagination. God is so awesome, He is so unique, so infinite that we cannot describe Him completely, cannot imagine Him completely and cannot think about Him completely. God is much more than what we say about Him, what we imagine about Him or what we can think about Him. Hindu Sages narrate a parable to explain how people who claim to know God completely are only partially correct.

Once, six men who were born blind were brought to an elephant and were asked to describe it. The blind men surrounded the elephant and touched different parts of it.

The first blind man touched the tail of the elephant and said, “The elephant is like a rope.”

The second blind man touched the leg of the creature and said, “The elephant is like a pillar.”

The third gentleman touched the trunk of the creature and said, “The elephant is like a snake.”

The fourth person who had touched the body of the elephant said, “You are all wrong because the elephant is like a wall.”

The fifth person, who happened to touch an ear of the elephant asserted that everyone else was wrong because it was actually like a fan.

The sixth person caught hold of a tusk and said, “How can you say that? I am sure the elephant is like a sharp spear.”

The six blind men kept arguing with each other, refusing to agree to one another because each of them was sure that he alone knew the true character of the elephant!

The moral of the story is that although the truth is one, everyone describes it partially, in his or her own way from a different angle. But when we take all perspectives into account and harmonize them, we get the complete truth. In a similar way, people who fight with each other on the nature of God are like these blind men. Perhaps, all these different views are different aspects of the same truth or parts of the same truth. The fact is that just like the blind men could not see the complete elephant, we cannot see or hear or taste or touch or smell God in entirety. Therefore, we cannot make dogmatic assertions about what God is and what God is not and summarily reject what others have to say.

To know God, we must experience Him in totality. Just as we cannot know the taste of a banana without eating it, we cannot know God without experiencing Him.

1.3 The Hindu Viewpoint on God: Brahman, the One in Many and the Many in One

The concept of God in Hindu Dharma is the most complex of all and admits of a great deal of variety in how God manifests and how God can be worshipped.

In Hindu Dharma, the Divine is often referred to as ‘Brahman’ which means the ‘Greatest’ or ‘Supreme’. Hindu tradition recognizes Brahman as an eternal, omnipresent, unchangeable, infinite, omniscient Soul (Nirguṇa Brahman) but it also allows us to worship Brahman in many beautiful forms (Saguṇa or Sākāra Brahman). In a Pew Foundation survey of almost 25,000 Hindus in India across social classes, level of education, financial status or geographical location, 29% of the Hindus questioned said that there is only One God, another 61% said that there is One God but with many manifestations. Of the remaining 10% Hindus, 2% were atheists whereas 7% believed that Hinduism was a polytheistic faith. However, Hindus who regarded their faith as very important in their lives were more likely to believe in One Divinity with many manifestations whereas Hindus for whom religion was not very important in their lives were more likely to believe that Hinduism is polytheistic. In short, 90% of the Hindus regard their faith as advocating only One Divinity even though most of them also allow Him to take on multiple Forms.

And a lack of commitment to Hinduism is likely to make the Hindu believe that his or her faith is polytheistic.

Most Hindus believe that simply out of compassion, Brahman assumes different forms and becomes more accessible to humans, who would otherwise find it difficult to worship a formless Divinity. These Forms are a part of Brahman and they represent different functions or aspects of Brahman. These forms are called Īshvara. In its role as the Īshvara, Brahman performs the functions of creating, sustaining, transforming and dissolving the Universe. The word Bhagavān is also used in lieu of Īshvara. The three words (Brahman, Bhagavān and Īshvara) are often used interchangeably or to refer to the Divine in general terms. We will use all these three words because of their widespread use by the Hindus today.

Īshvara can incarnate further in human or non-human forms for upholding Dharma, vanquishing evil, for setting an example for humans or for the sake of teaching wisdom to humanity. These forms are called Avatāra-s. Again, the main reason for Brahman or Īshvara assuming Avatāra-s is compassion for humanity.

Saguṇa Brahman is also present in its Antaryāmī aspect in which it dwells inside the entire creation as the witness, as the controller and as the unifying thread.

The entire creation is reflection of the grandeur of Brahman, but those living and non-living entities that are endowed with beauty, power, glory and so on are especially representative of Brahman. These entities (e.g., the Sun) are called the ‘Vibhūti-s’ (or manifestation of powers) of Brahman.

Lastly, the all-pervading Brahman makes Itself more accessible to the worshipper by abiding within the sacred and sanctified image, or the Mūrti or Vigraha.

Therefore, Hindus worship the One Infinite Brahman that manifests itself in many ways, and is the infinite and complete Divinity underlying all the Īshvaras, Avatāras, Vibhūtis and Mūrtis, Who is outside everything, and Who is also present inside everything as the Antaryāmin.

A simpler way to summarize the above Hindu conceptions about the Divine are that In Hindu Dharma, we conceive the Divine in these three ways:

1. Saguṇa-Sākāra (Endowed with good qualities, and with a Form or Forms): In this approach, the Lord has a ‘Personality’ like a human being. He is regarded as possessing numerous noble qualities like compassion, love, truth etc., to an infinite extent. Moreover, the Saguṇa-Sākāra Divine is said to have Forms through which the worshipper can approach the Lord and easily establish a personal relationship (as a Mother, Father etc.), offer praise in very concrete terms (E.g., ‘O Krishna! Your blue color is more beautiful than that of a clear sky on a sunny day), make icons or images of these Forms to offer worship as if the Lord is present in that image. Some Hindus treat these Forms as eternal whereas most Hindus consider these Forms that the Lord assumes at will temporarily for

the convenience of His devotees. This conception includes Mūrti/Vigraha, Avatāra and Īshvara/Bhagavān mentioned above.

2. Saguṇa-Nirākara (Endowed with good qualities and formless but without a concrete Personality): In this approach, the Lord is assumed to be a formless Ātmā that pervades the entire Universe, is present everywhere, and is endowed with numerous noble qualities like compassion, love, truth etc., to an infinite extent. Hindus who follow this approach worship the Divine through meditation within their heart, or as the Supreme Ātmā that is invisible, eternal and unchangeable. This conception includes Antaryāmī and also sometimes Īshvara/Bhagavān and Brahman.

3. Nirguṇa-Nirākāra (Indescribable Nature and formless, without any Personality): Hindus who adopt this approach state that all adjectives like ‘loving’, ‘compassionate’ etc., are insufficient to describe the Supreme Lord because He is completely unique and different than anything we know. Obviously, such a Divine cannot have any form because He who has a form can always be described in concrete terms. This conception of the Divine includes Parabrahman and is often simply referred to as Brahman. The Nirguṇa-Nirākāra conception of the Divine is unique to Hindu and derivative Sikh tradition and treats the Divine as a Principle, rather than as a Personality. The Abrahamic God, although formless, is considered to be an entity that resides in the heaven and rules the universe from there. Therefore, the God of the Bible and the Koran does not meet the Hindu criteria of Nirguṇa-Nirākāra.

1.4 A Note on the word ‘Brahman’

The word Brahman must be distinguished from ‘Brāhmaṇa’ denoting one of the four social classes of Hindus (the other three being Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra), and ‘Brahmā’, the Creator aspect of Īshvara. The final ‘n’ of Brahman is silent when the word is spoken, and the spelling used here is more of an academic convention in English. The phonetic nature of Indian scripts prevents any confusion between these three words but the phonetics of English (Roman) script are not adequate to depict these three words without creating confusion. Hence this clarification is given here.

All the three words are derived from the same Sanskrit root. The Upanishads and Purāṇas define Brahman in the following words –

“It is called the Supreme Brahman (para brahman) because it grows (bṛhati) and causes (the Universe) to grow (bṛhmayati).” Atharvashiras Upanishad 4

That which is immense (brihatvaat), all pervading (brimhaṇatvaat), the refuge and support of all that exists is called Brahman. Linga Purāṇa 1.70.16

Radhakrishnan elaborates4 the etymological meaning of Brahman –

“The word used in the Upanishads to indicate the supreme reality is Brahman. It is derived from the root bṛh. ‘to grow, to burst forth.’ The derivation suggests gushing forth, bubbling over, ceaseless growth, brhattvam. Shankara derives the word ‘Brahman’ from the root, bṛhati to exceed, atishayana and means by it eternity, purity. For Madhva, Brahman is the person in whom [good] qualities dwell in fullness, bṛhanto hy asmin gunāḥ. The real is not a pale abstraction, but is quickeningly alive, or powerful vitality.”

Ramanujacharya also defines Brahman in the following words, emphasizing the ‘Saguṇa’ aspect:

“The Highest Being Who is the Ruler of all; Whose nature is the opposite of all evil; Whose purposes come true; Who possesses infinite number of auspicious qualities like knowledge, blessedness and so on; Who is All-Knowing, Almighty, supremely Merciful; from Whom the creation, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe result – He is Brahman (The Supreme God).”

Shri Ramanujacharya (1017-1137 CE) in Shribhashya 1.1.2

As we shall see later, the two different definitions of Brahman, (Shankaracharya vs.

Ramanuja/Madhva) result from the different philosophies that these three Acharyas of Vedanta espoused.

In this document, we will avoid using the word ‘God’ and will use the word Brahman’ unless other

words including God fit the context better.

1.5 The Meaning of ‘OM’- the Most Meaningful Name of God

substratum in all the four Dharmas. All Hindu prayers start with the utterance of ‘Om’ because it is considered the best name or the ‘Sound Form’ (Shabda-Brahman) of God. It represents Brahman in its totality in both of its two aspects and in all of its six levels (Nirguṇa Brahman, Īshvara, Avatāra, Antaryāmin, Vibhūti and Mūrti). The recitation of the Hindu Holy scriptures is also always started with the utterance of ‘OM’. The ‘O’ sound is elongated, and a short silence should follow ‘M’. The recitation of OM is done with great concentration, thinking of God, and with eyes closed.

‘Om, Tat, Sat’ – this has been taught as the threefold designation of

Brahman. By this, the Brahmins, the Vedas, and the sacrifices were created in ancient times. Gita 17.23

I am the sacred syllable ‘Om’. Gita 9.17

‘OM’ is a sacred sound in all the four Dharmic traditions – Hindu Dharma, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism and is probably derived from the Yogic traditions forming a

The figure below shows how OM is written in different scripts used in three of the four Dharmic traditions–

Devanāgarī Tamil Gurumukhi Telugu/Kannada Tibetan

In reality, ‘Om’ is a combination of three letters - A, U and M. These three letters are found in the three major forms of Īshvara – Brahmā, Vishnu, Mahesh (Shiva). The silence at the end of each utterance of ‘AUM’ denotes the invisible, ineffable aspect of Nirguṇa Brahman.

‘AUM’ and the Sanskrit Alphabet: The alphabet of Hindu languages starts with the letter ‘A’, followed by all the vowels. Then, we have a set of 25 consonants called ‘contact consonants’ (sparsha vyanjana – because they are uttered by the contact of the tongue, teeth, lips, palate etc.) that end with the letter ‘M’ whose utterance involves a complete contact of the two lips. The letter ‘M’ itself is followed by eight (8) other consonants that are uttered from within (ya, ra, la, va, sha, ṣha, sa, ha – called the antahstha and uṣhma consonants) and are not pronounced by the contact of the tongue, teeth or the lips. So, in short, recitation of ‘AUM’ represents the entire alphabet from ‘A’ (the first vowel) till ‘M’ (the last ‘contact’ consonant), and the silence after its utterance stands for the 8 interior consonants. This parallelism between the Hindu alphabet symbolizes that Om (or Brahman) encompasses all that can be described by the vowels and consonants, and It is also the silence within us and beyond these letters. This is perhaps beautifully stated in the Gita in the following words:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

“I am the Atman present in the heart of all creatures. And I am also the beginning, the middle and the end of all things.” Gita 10.20

‘AUM’ and ‘Brahman’: Whenever we pray to any form of Brahman, we must always first say ‘AUM’. Saying AUM at the start of every prayer means that Brahman is One, and all the Devatās and Devīs are the different forms of that one Brahman.

Gaṇapati and ‘Om’: Classical Hindu Dharma, as it is practiced today, involves a prolific use of Mūrtis or Divine Images (dealt with in greater detail later). Hindu worship always starts with the recitation of ‘Om’, and the first Deity or Mūrti worshipped is that of Gaṇapati (aka Gaṇesha) – the beautiful elephant headed Deity of the Hindus. One of the reasons sometimes given for this parallelism is that Gaṇapati Himself is the solid or the manifest form of Om. This is quite clear from the picture shown.

Interfaith Perspectives: Is Om the same as ‘God’ or ‘Amen’ in Christianity?

Om (or Aum) is a very special name of Brahman that cannot be replaced with any other. Malhotra criticizes this tendency to think that all the names of God are equal from a spiritual perspective. He says –

“Nowhere is the question of non-translatability [of dharmic terms into English] more crucial than in the English transliteration of the sound and symbol Aum. The importance of Aum has long been recognized, even in the West, where yogic practices try to preserve this original sound. Aum has been the subject of extensive and deep enquiry and practice in every system of Hinduism, including Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Tantra, Sri-Vidya, Patanjali’s Yoga-Sutra. Sabda-Brahman, Nada-Brahman and Nada-Yoga, as well as various grammarian schools, sphota theory etc. Numerous Vedic mantras contain Aum…. A common, yet erroneous practice, especially in ‘Christian Yoga’ circles, is to replace Aum with Amen or Jesus. The mantric aspect of Aum cannot be replaced by synonyms. Aum is the vibration of Ishwara, unmediated by the conditioned mind. Patanjali calls Aum a spokesperson (‘vacakah’) of Ishwara. Hence, the experience it brings about cannot be generated by an alternative sound such as the sound of another name for God…..

… One medicine generally cannot be substituted for another; each has its unique properties and is applicable in certain situations to produce specific results. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi explained numerous times that each bija-mantra ‘is a sound whose precise effects are known.’ Universal applicability means that under a given set of circumstances a specific practice produces the same results. Replacing one bija-mantra with some other arbitrary sound changes the inputs, as it were, and in science this would naturally mean a change in the outputs as well.”

Indeed, the name ‘AUM’ or ‘OM’ must not be substituted by any other names of Brahman or God. There are entire Hindu scriptures (e.g. Māndūkya Upanishad) that expound the significance and deep meaning of Om. Political correctness must never be a substitute for true understanding in these matters.

The relevant passages of the Upanishad may be cited below-

‘Aum’, this syllable is all this (world)! Its further explanation is like this – all that is past, present and future is indeed Aum. And whatever else is beyond the three times, that also is indeed Aum. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 1

With respect to syllables, Aum is this Ātman. With respect to the letters, it has quarters comprised of letters. The quarters are the letters are ‘A’, ‘U’ and ‘M’. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 8

The first letter ‘A’ is the Vaishvānara, situated in the waking state, because of obtaining (or it is all-pervading) and because of being the first. He who knows this indeed fulfills all desires and becomes the first. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 9

The second letter ‘U’ is Taijasa, situated in the state of dreaming, on account of it being ascendant or because it is in between. He who knows this increases his flow of knowledge

and becomes equal to all. No one who does not know Brahman is born in his lineage. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 10

The third letter ‘M’ is Prājna, situated in the state of deep sleep, so called because it measures and because it is the final end. He who knows this is able to measure all, and absorb everyone in himself. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 11

Without any letter, not engaged in any ordinary interactions, with no connection to all relative existence, tranquil, auspicious, one without a second is the fourth – thus Aum is Ātman alone. He who knows this enters with his ātman into the Ātman. Māṇdūkya Upanishad 12

Om in Other Dharmic Traditions and Religions:

Although Jains and Buddhists are atheists or agnostics (theoretically), Om has a hallowed status in their traditions too and is recited at the commencement of ceremonies. This is perhaps a result of the importance of Yoga (meditation) in these religions which they have borrowed from the pan-Indic heritage. Om plays a central role in Yoga practices. But only the Hindu tradition has retained the proper original context and meaning of Om because it has not ejected Divinity out of spiritual practices.

In Sikhism, ‘Ik Omkar’ (One Om) is prefixed before every recitation of the holy scripture and its use is clearly borrowed from Hindu Dharma. Sikhs often emphasize the distinctiveness of Sikhism from Hinduism and argue that the first Sikh Guru Nanak founded a separate religion because the Sikhs worship ‘Ik Omkar’ and not ‘Om’. This explanation is disingenuous because the original manuscript (called the ‘Harsahai Pothi’, lost in a train robbery in 1970, but Photostat of its relevant pages are still existing) of Sikh religious hymns from the time of Guru Nanak starts with ‘Om’, and not ‘Ik Omkar’. Clearly then, Ik Omkar is a later innovation. Moreover, Om is extolled in the Ādi Granth, the sacred scripture of the Sikhs, in the same way as it is praised in the Hindu scriptures. It is stated that ‘Omkar created the Vedas’ (Ādi Granth, Mahlu 1, Dakhani Omkaru) among other things.

The first Surah or chapter of the Quran (and therefore the entire Muslim holy book) starts with the words ‘Aleph Lam Mim’ meaning the letters ‘A, L, M’ in the Arabic alphabet. Several other chapters of the Quran too start with these words. No one really knows what they mean and there is no conclusive theory accepted by all Muslim scholars. However, Swami Ram Tirth (1873-1906), an influential Hindu monk from Gujranwala (now in Pakistan) had explained that in Arabic grammar, ‘L’ would become a ‘U’ when preceded by A and followed by M (e.g., the Muslim name Shamsaldin is pronounced as Shamsuddin). There, the Quran, according to him too starts with ‘AUM’ or ‘Om’.

Summary of the Meaning of ‘Om’

The figure below summarizes the importance of AUM or OM in Hindu Dharma.

1.6 Other Names of Brahman used Commonly by Modern Hindus

When Hindus utter the name of any particular Form of Brahman, they frequently prefix the word ‘Bhagavān’ to it. For example, Bhagavān Krishna, or Bhagavān Shiva and so on. In everyday conversation and other usage, Hindus simply refer to Brahman by the following words: Prabhu (‘master’), Īshvara (‘Lord’), Bhagavān, Deva and so on without much regard to which particular aspect of Brahman is being referred to.

All these different names represent different attributes of Brahman and have rough English equivalents, although it is always better to use the Sanskrit original. However, unlike these names, the name ‘Om’ is considered non-translatable even in Sanskrit.

2.0 THE TWO ASPECTS OF BRAHMAN –(SAGUṆA AND NIRGUNA):

In Hindu Dharma, God is often referred to as ‘Brahman’ which means the ‘Greatest’ or ‘Supreme’. Hindu tradition recognizes Brahman as an eternal, unchangeable Supreme Ātmā (Paramātmā) but it also allows us to worship Brahman in many beautiful forms.

Many Hindu scriptures and Sages say that Brahman exists in two different aspects which are sometimes further classified into five different levels. These two different aspects in which God exists are ‘Saguṇa’ and ‘Nirguṇa’. Both Saguṇa and Nirguṇa Brahman are aspects of one and the same Brahman or God. They are like two sides of the same coin.

2.1 The Meanings of the Word ‘Guṇa’

The word Nirguṇa means ‘Devoid or free of Guṇas’ whereas the word Saguṇa means ‘endowed with or associated with Guṇas’. The word ‘Guṇa’ itself has two major meanings –

1. Guṇas are the three constituents of the material universe. These three strands, according to the Samkhya school of Hindu Philosophy (Darshana) are Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. These three terms again have no modern equivalents, but may be equated roughly to intelligence, energy and matter.

2. Guṇa also means ‘quality’, like ‘goodness’, ‘color’ and so on.

Because the word Guṇa itself has a dual meaning, the result is that both the words Nirguṇa and Saguṇa have two meanings each.

2.2 The Two Meanings of Nirguṇa Brahman and Saguṇa Brahman

When we consider the first meaning of the word Guṇa (the three constituents of the material universe), then the phrase ‘Nirguṇa Brahman’ means that Brahman is non-material, and instead it is a purely spiritual entity. It is also means that part of Brahman which is not engaged in any sort of interaction with the material universe which is comprised of the three guṇas (sattva, rajas and tamas). Brahman in this aspect is completely devoid of a form and is therefore ineffable and imperceptible. Similarly, the word ‘Saguṇa Brahman’ now means Brahman that is engaged with the universe as the creator, sustainer or destroyer, or as the indwelling Antaryāmin, or as an incarnation (Avatāra) or another manifestation like the Vibhūti, or that which takes up Its abode within a Mūrti that is being worshipped. Nirguṇa Brahman is necessarily without a form (nirākāra) whereas Saguṇa Brahman is typically with a Form (Sākāra). Of course, it is not necessary that Saguṇa Brahmana must take a Form because it can perform its

functions engaged with the three guṇas even without taking its own form.

When we consider the second meaning of the word ‘Guṇa’ (‘quality’), then the phrase ‘Nirguṇa Brahman’ is taken to mean that Brahman is devoid of any negative qualities, and that it is pure, and uncontaminated. Likewise, the phrase ‘Saguṇa Brahman’ is interpreted as Brahman that is endowed with numerous positive and auspicious qualities (‘kalyanaguṇas’) like infinite power, infinite bliss and so on. When the two aspects of Brahman are defined with this meaning of guṇa in mind, Brahman may or may not have a form. So, Saguṇa Brahman can be Nirākāra (formless) or Sākāra (with form). Likewise, Nirguṇa (‘devoid of all bad qualities’) Brahman can also be Sākāra as well as Nirākāra.

As stated above, the ancient Hindu tradition does not draw a sharp line between Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman. The Upanishads depict Brahman as a Divinity that is transcendent to the universe, is involved in the cosmos and is formless, is ineffable and mysterious and yet, is also endowed with several good qualities. What the most ancient Upanishads do not accept is that Brahman can have a form. For them, the universe itself is a form of Brahman. The subsequent distinction between these two aspects of Brahman is due to the influence of the school of Advaita Vedānta of Shankaracharya.

2.3 Does Brahman have a Form? Sākāra (With a Form) and Nirākāra (Lacking a Form) Brahman

The above definitions of Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman reflect the actual situation in the most ancient Hindu scriptures and philosophy. However, most lay Hindus simply take Nirguṇa Brahman to mean ineffable and formless aspect of Brahman (Nirākāra), and Saguṇa Brahman to mean Brahman with a Form (Sākāra) that they worship. In other words, Saguṇa Brahman is taken to mean the manifested Divine, whereas Nirguṇa Brahman is taken to mean the Formless/Non-Manifest Divine. When we worship Brahman in its Formless nature, we are typically worshipping its ‘Impersonal form’. And when we worship it with a form such as Shiva, Devi, Vishnu etc., we are worshipping its ‘Personal’ form.

But how can the same Brahman exist as a Formless entity and yet have a form? Hindu saints explain

invisible and has no fixed form even though we can feel it. In a similar manner, the same Brahman can exist in numerous forms. As Parabrahman (or Nirguna Brahman) and also as Antaryāmin, it is invisible, and has no form (i.e., it is Nirākara). As Īshvara, it is invisible ordinarily, but has a fixed form. As Avatāra, it is visible only during the duration of the Avatāra’s presence in our midst, but not thereafter, even though it has a fixed form. As Mūrti, it has a fixed form and is visible till it falls apart. As Vibhūti, it is visible but it may or may not have a fixed form. But nevertheless, all of them are different aspects of the same Brahman.

As to why the Formless Brahman takes a Form, Hindu Sants have declared:

There is really no difference between Saguṇa and Nirguṇa Brahman. The Munis, Puranas, Wise and the Vedas sing that the that very Brahman which is without Guṇa, has no form, no characteristic and is unborn – that same Brahman becomes Saguṇa out of love for his devotees. Tulsidas’ Ramacharitmanas

Indeed, in connection with every aspect of Brahman that has a Form, the scriptures reiterate that the Formless, Nirguṇa Brahman has assumed that Form purely out of love and compassion for Its devotees. At least that is the view of the dominant Hindu philosophy of Bhakti.

2.4 Nirguṇa Brahman and the Five Levels of Saguṇa Brahman

The Nirguṇa Brahman and the five different levels of Saguṇa Brahman are described below in brief and are discussed in later chapters in much greater detail -

1. Nirguṇa Brahman or Parabrahman: At this level, Brahman is the Supreme Being that is infinite in space and time (‘Anantam’) and is superior (‘Para’) to the Creation. Nirguṇa Brahman also includes all the other five levels of Saguṇa Brahman below as Its aspects or components. It is the unchanging and eternal Reality (‘Sat’), the Universal Consciousness or the Life of the Universe (‘Chit’) and an ocean of true happiness and bliss (‘Ānanda’). Therefore, Parabrahman is also referred to as ‘Sat-Chit-Ānanda’ (or Sacchidānanda in short). Parabrahman cannot be described completely, He cannot even be imagined or thought of completely in the mind.

2. Īshvara or Bhagavān: At this level, the emanations (vyūha) of the Parabrahman preside over the functions of creation, preservation, and destruction of the Universe. The Divine at this level also reveals the Vedas, the holiest scriptures of Hindus. He oversees our Karma, and gives the fruit of our Karma and so on. We can pick and choose one of the Forms of Ishvara as our preferred form (‘Ishta-Devatā’) and then worship the image or ‘ vigraha’ of that form.

The relationship between Īshvara and Brahman and also the main Forms of Īshvara worshipped by Hindus are given in the diagram.

3. Avatāra or Vibhava: At specific times, Īshvara manifests (‘vibhava’) or incarnates. Divine personalities like Rama and Krishna represent such earthly incarnations (avatarās) and are widely worshipped. On numerous occasions in history, the various forms of Īshvara have manifested to restore Dharma, to set an example for humanity and to eliminate wrong-doing and wrong-doers. Of all the Forms of Īshvara, Vishnu takes on the most Avatāra-s because He is the sustainer and preserver of the Universe.

4. Antaryāmī: Brahman resides in the heart of all human beings as the inner controller (antaryāmī). In fact, Brahman as the Antaryāmī is immanent (resides within) in the entire universe. It can communicate to us in our dreams, in our conscience, while we meditate and so on. We see It inside us typically as our ‘Ishta’ or the our chosen/preferred Form to worship the Divine. In this mode, Brahman can also ‘possess’ a worshipper and make him a medium of His communication. Enlightened personalities who completely surrender their ego, heart and soul to God become like His Master’s Voice, and their words are taken by believers as Divine Will.

5. Vibhūti: Brahman abides with the entire universe and therefore all living and non-living entities reflect Brahman’s glory, power, love, beauty and energy. In other words, the universe is a ‘Vibhūti’ of Brahman. However, only the most spiritually advanced can see Brahman in the entire creation. Therefore, Hindu scriptures recommend that beginners should start perceiving the glory of Brahman in the ‘best in class’ type entities. For e.g. the river Ganga among all rivers, king among all men and so on. These best in class items are then said to be ‘vibhūtis’, or manifestations of Brahman’s glories.

6. Vigraha or Mūrti: Finally, and most important for the majority Hindus, is the descent of Īshvara into the world as an ‘image’ out of compassion for us. The term Archāvatāra is used to refer to this “image incarnation.” It is the form in which the Īshvara makes Himself accessible for worship to his ordinary human devotee who cannot fathom His higher aspects and do not have access to a spiritual guide (Guru). The image is like a telescope, through which we can see the distant Heavenly Body more clearly and closely. The image (just like the telescope) is not Brahman as such, but a means through which people who have a limited insight and vision can see God more closely. Or we may liken the image as a software icon on our desktop, which is not the software code itself, but which when clicked, makes the software accessible to us for use.

Interfaith Perspectives: Because of these many levels in which Brahman can communicate to us, Hindu Dharma does not believe in prophets chosen by It, except the first Sages to whom It reveals the Vedic scriptures at the beginning of the creation. Anyone can establish a live connection with Brahman by being pious and spiritual, and with the assistance of other spiritually enlightened teachers called Gurus.

2.5 Relationship between Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman

No Hindu considers the two aspects of Brahman as two completely separate entities, whatever his or her understanding of what they mean may be. They are like two sides of the same coin, or like day and

night, complementing each other, and making a single whole Divinity. The Bhagavad Gita summarizes both the natures of Brahman beautifully in these verses:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Brahman appears to have the qualities of all the senses, and yet is without any of the senses. Brahman is unattached, and yet supports all. He is free of all the guṇas of Prakriti even while enjoying them all. He is without and within all beings. He is unmoving and also moving. He is too subtle to be perceived with the senses. He is far and yet He is near. He is indivisible and yet He seems to be divided among beings. He should be known as the nourisher of all creatures, as well as their Devourer, and also as their Creator afresh. He is the Light of lights, devoid of all darkness. He is the Knowledge, the Object of all

Knowledge and the Goal of all Knowledge. He is seated in the hearts of all. Gita 13.1417

What is at dispute among the Hindus is whether Brahman can have a form or not, and whether it is the Nirguṇa or the Saguṇa Brahman that is primary (with the other being secondary) aspect of Brahman. However, most of these debates date from later developments in Hindu Dharma. As stated above, the ancient Upanishads and other spiritual scriptures do not consider this controversy. The Upanishads assume Brahman as a formless Divinity (and the Brahmasutras, that present their teachings in a systematic form, reject any body of Brahman), followers of many other sophisticated philosophies like Vaisheshika preferred to worship Brahman as Shiva and so on. The view that is upheld by a majority of modern Hindus is that Nirguṇa Brahman represents a higher aspect of Brahman although worship of Saguṇa Brahman is sufficient to get Moksha.

2.6 Comparison between Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman

The difference between the two may be tabulated as follows:

Nirguṇa Brahman Saguṇa Brahman

That aspect of Brahman that cannot be described in words as possessing any distinguishing or special qualities. That aspect of Brahman that is associated with an infinite measure of wonderful qualities.

Meditated upon as a Formless and Impersonal Atman (Supreme Soul). Generally worshipped in many Forms as a Personal Deity (Ishta-Devatā).

Has no connection to the Guṇas of

Prakriti. Ruler of the Gunas of Prakriti.

Other names are simply Brahman, Parabrahman, Paramatman. Can exist at five different levels: 1.Īshvara, 2.Avatāra, 3.Antaryāmin and 4.Vibhūti, 5.Vigraha/Archa (Mūrti).

All Hindus accept and worship Nirguṇa Brahman. A few Hindus and Sikhs do not worship any forms of the Saguṇa Brahman. They say that Saguṇa merely means that God has many wonderful ‘qualities’ (another meaning of the word ‘guṇa’) and Nirguṇa means that God does not have any negative qualities and is not comprised of any ‘guṇa’ or strand of Prakriti. They also say that God does not need a ‘form’ to perform his roles at the five levels of Saguṇa Brahman.

Most Hindus consider Nirguṇa Brahmana as a superior aspect of Brahman. A few Hindus think that Saguṇa Brahman is a superior aspect of Brahman. They believe that the Form of God is eternal. For them, the word ‘Nirguṇa’ merely means that God does not have any negative qualities and not that God does not have any form.

2.7 Which Aspect is Superior – Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman?

The ancient scriptures of Hindu traditions, namely the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the ancient Puranas do not advocate the superiority of Nirguṇa Brahman over Saguṇa Brahman or vice versa. However, the Āgama scriptures compiled in the first millennium C.E. and later appear to teach sometimes that Saguṇa Brahman is superior.

Vedānta, the pre-eminent school of Hindu theology has numerous different traditions which take different stances on this matter. The oldest surviving school, that of Advaita Vedanta, which is associated with Ādi Shankaracharya (7th cent. CE) upholds the superiority of Nirguṇa Brahman over Saguṇa Brahman. This viewpoint is elaborated in the following words-

“Worship of a God who is not also the Absolute is idolatry, and a mere Absolute, who is characterless and irresponsive, is not better than matter. The Vedanta therefore accepts the Supreme Being as both Personal and Impersonal. When the votary in the course of his spiritual development becomes de-personalized on achieving the elimination of his egobased body-mind, he will be able to understand the true Impersonal. Till then, that is, so long as he is a person, the Impersonal and the Absolute can only mean for him a Personal Being who is much more than what he, a person, has grasped or can grasp of Him. To illustrate, the Impersonal-Personal Divine of the Vedanta is the ocean, and the God of adoration of the devotee is like a big field or backwater into which the water of that ocean has flowed. The many deities that form the object of worship of Vedantism are like these tanks and backwaters in the analogy. There are so many manifestations of the PersonalImpersonal Sat-chit-ananda in the thought structures of those who adore Him, or are forms adopted by Him for the achievement of cosmic purposes in His world-play…”

In contrast, most of the other schools of Vedanta, notably the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta associated with Ramanujacharya and the Dvaita Vedanta associated with Madhvacharya, argue the opposite.

Arvind Sharma summarizes this controversy in the following words –

“A lot of philosophical controversy in Hinduism centers on whether Brahman, the ultimate reality, is itself nirguṇa or saguṇa. Hardly any school denies that it possesses both these aspects; rather, the battle rages over the issue of which of the two is primary. Some of the schools which favor the view that Brahman is saguṇa – more like a personal God –

interpret the term nirguṇa differently so as to accommodate it within their system. Then, the word nirguṇa is understood not as meaning that Brahman possesses no attributes whatsoever but rather that Brahman possesses no evil attributes. Or else the word nirguṇa is taken as representing the impersonal power of God, in the sense the president exercises the impersonal powers of the presidency. Similarly, scriptural passages which apparently seem to accord primacy to saguṇa Brahman are reinterpreted to represent a penultimate formulation by those who regard nirguṇa Brahman as supreme.” 10

It might be added that the true cause of this controversy is over whether the Brahman with a form is superior or whether it is Brahman without a form that is superior. Ignoring these controversies, this section of the document is closed with the following beautiful words of a scholar on the Hindu conception of Brahman-

“…Hinduism teaches that God is not only infinitely higher than ourselves but also infinitely near to ourselves. He is nearer to us than our hands and feet. For He is the soul of our souls. He lives in our hearts. He is the canvas on which we shine as painted pictures. He is the very ground of our being.”

3.0 NIRGUṆA BRAHMAN - PARABRAHMAN

Parabrahman is normally described in the Hindu scriptures as a formless, mysterious and indescribable aspect of Brahman that is above the Universe and superior to it. Parabrahman is represented simply by silence, or by OM. It is not worshipped in the form of any mūrti and is described most commonly in negative terms. Typically, when the word ‘Brahman’ is used, it denotes Parabrahman or Nirguṇa Brahman.

Swami Bhaskarananda describes the Hindu concept of Nirguna Brahman very eloquently in the following words (pp. 66-68)–

“If we ask, “Who was there before creation?” then the logical reply will be that only the creator, or God, was there. But if we ask, “What was God like before creation?” then Hinduism’s reply will be that God was in a transcendental state of existence before creation. The word “transcendental” means that God’s existence was beyond our time, space and causation. Hinduism holds that when God created the world he created time and space along with it. His pre-creation existence must, therefore, have been beyond time and space since they pertain only to this world…..

….God’s pre-existence must have been transcendental existence, because God then did not belong to the time and space pertaining to this world. God’s existence in that state may be called the True State of the Existence of God. In that state God is beyond all limitations imposed by time, space and causation. God in that transcendental state is eternal, infinite and changeless.

In Hinduism, God in this transcendental state of existence is called Nirguna Brahman, the Supreme Spirit, the Supreme Brahman, or the Impersonal and Attributeless God.

Nirguna Brahman cannot have a personality. Personality is a limitation. Being devoid of a personality, Nirguna Brahman is also beyond sex. Neither the pronoun “He” nor “She” can be used to denote Nirguna Brahman. The Vedas use the Sanskrit neuter pronoun Tat, the counterpart of the English word That, indicating that Nirguna Brahman is neither male nor female.

Transcending space, Nirguna Brahman is Infinite. Transcending time, Nirguna Brahman is Timeless or Eternal. Free from the ceaseless change generated by causation, Nirguna Brahman is Changeless.

Attribute or quality is a factor of separation. For example, the power of burning is a quality of fire. It separates fire from water, which lacks that quality. As Nirguna Brahman is One, Indivisible and Infinite, It cannot accommodate any kind of separation within Itself. Therefore, Nirguna Brahman must be attributeless, or free from all qualities.

Hinduism also uses the expressions “Absolute Truth,” “Consciousness,” and “Infinite Bliss” to mean Nirguna Brahman. But no matter what epithets are used, Nirguna Brahman can never be adequately described by the finite words and expressions of our world of limitations. Nirguna Brahman is indescribable. The great Hindu saint and philosopher Shankaracharya says that Vedic statements such as Sat-Chid-Anandam – ‘Brahman is Eternal Existence, Absolute Knowledge and Infinite Bliss” are only hints about the nature of Nirguna Brahman. They are never the description of Nirguna Brahman.”

Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa said very colorfully that everything that is spoken by human mouths is contaminated, but Brahman alone is pure because no one can really describe It.

3.1 The Transcendence of Nirguṇa Brahman in Hindu Scriptures:

Hindu scriptures describe Brahman as an entity that has an unfathomable nature which cannot be understood or perceived completely. Some passages from the Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures are given below to describe Parabrahman:

It is different from the known, and different from the unknown. Sāmaveda, Kena Upanishad 1.4

It is neither coarse, nor fine; neither short nor long. Yajurveda, Katha Upanishad 1.3.15

That heavenly person is without body, he is both without and within, not produced. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.1.2

Brahman is that from which all speech, with the mind, turns away unable to reach it. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Upanishad 2.9

That under which the year revolves with its days, the gods worship that as the light of lights and as life immortal, That in which the people of all the five regions of the Earth and space are established, that alone I regard as the Soul; know that Immortal Brahman, I too am immortal (=reference to Divinely enlightened). Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad. 4.4.16-17

He is not apprehended by the eye, not by speech nor by other senses, not by penance nor by good works. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 3.1.8

Of thousands of humans, hardly anyone strives for perfection. Even among those who strive and have become perfect, hardly anyone knows Me in truth. Gita 7.3

I know the past and the present as also the future beings, but no one knows Me! Gita 7.26 This entire Universe is pervaded by My unmanifested form. All beings reside in Me, but I do not abide in them (i.e., I am not exhausted by them). Gita. 9.4

A Vedantic example given to explain the transcendent nature of Nirguṇa Brahman is that It is like the sun, which causes the day and night, but is itself beyond the night and also the day as we understand it conventionally.

Shankaracharya narrates a beautiful parable from a lost Vedic scripture on how Nirguṇa Brahman is best described by silence –

Parable of Bāhva and Vāshkalin:

When Bāhva was questioned about Brahman by Vāshkalin, he explained it to him with silence. He said to him, “Learn about Brahman, my friend,” and became silent. Then, on being questioned about Brahman the second and third questioning too, he replied, “I am teaching you indeed, but you are not trying to understand. That Ātman is silence.”

All Hindus worship Brahman as Parabrahman or at least acknowledge it as an aspect of Brahman. Most Hindus following certain schools of Vedānta also believe that Brahman in its Parabrahman aspect is Supreme or superior to all the other aspects of levels of Brahman. However, a few Hindus believe that the Parabrahman aspect is subservient to the Īshvara aspect of Brahman.

3.2 The Positive Attributes of Nirguṇa Brahman

The fact that Nirguṇa Brahman is transcendent and unfathomable does not mean that It does not have any positive attributes, or that It cannot be described in positive terms. The Upanishads themselves do not distinguish sharply between these two aspects of Brahman, and therefore, describe It both negatively (as shown above) and positively.

However, the point to be noted is that these positive indications of Brahman are of a more eternal nature, and do not have to assume a connection of Brahman with anything in the Universe. Swami Sivananda has narrated a beautiful parable called “Crow on the House-Top” to explain the concepts of

Nirguṇa and Saguṇa Brahman –

“A man came to a village and asked another man standing at the cross-roads: ‘Friend, which is the house of Mr. Iyer?” ‘See that house on the top of which a crow is sitting? That is the house of Mr. Iyer,” replied the second man. The first one went away. He returned after a week and was bewildered to find that no crow was sitting on the top of any house. He again asked a bystander: “Which is the house of Mr. Iyer?” He replied: “That house with three storeys, which is built of stones – that is Mr. Iyer’s house” Since then, he never had any confusion about the house indicated.

Shastras speak of God or Brahman as the Supreme Origin of the universe: “Yato va imani bhutani jayante”. But this is not enough. For, there are times when there is no creation at all. Hence, this is not a permanent definition of Brahman. Therefore, they give Eternal Indications like “Satyama Jnanam Anantam Brahman,” etc. By following these indications, no one can ever miss to attain the Goal, viz. Brahman or God.”

It was noted above that Adi Shankaracharya considered even the designations of ‘Sat-Chit-Ānanda’ as denoting the Saguṇa Brahman. However, that is a view peculiar to Advaita Vedanta (and popularized in recent times by the followers of Hindu saints like Swami Vivekananda).

Most of the other Hindu spiritual traditions believe that the highest Brahman or even Nirguṇa Brahman has positive qualities that constitute Its very nature. For example, the followers of Pancharātra Vaishnavism emphasize that Parabrahman definitely has positive attributes that are six in number. These six attributes are reflected in the word ‘Bhagavān’ that is used by them for Parabrahman. Bhagavān means ‘He who is endowed with ‘Bhaga’’ where the word ‘Bhaga’ denotes six things. According to a verse in the Vishnu Purāṇa the six wonderful qualities which are majesty (aishvarya), knowledge (jnāna), glory

(yashas), splendor (shrī), dharma and detachment (vairāgya).

3.3 Is there Nirguṇa Brahman in History Centric Abrahamic Religions?

The one big difference between the notions of Abrahmic God and Brahman is that the former is always perceived through human history and assumes that the Universe is geo-centric. Therefore, from a Hindu perspective, Abrahamic God is always conditioned and constrained by the history narrated in the Bible or in the Koran; and he can be understood only through His son Jesus or through His prophets like Muhammad. In short, the Abrahamic God can never equal Nirguṇa Brahman even though the followers of these religions do not worship what they call ‘idols’.

Rajiv Malhotra discusses the difference between the ‘History-Centric’ (a term very aptly coined by him) Abrahamic religions and the Dharmic traditions in the following words –

“In the Judeo-Christian traditions, revelation comes ‘from above.’ It is initiated by God, and its content is strictly God-given. Human receptiveness is required, but this alone is insufficient. God is transcendent and must personally intervene in history from without in order for human beings to discern the truth. The bedrock of such religions is this historical event. This leads to an obsession with compiling and studying the historical details of such interventions and makes them what I call history-centric.

The dharmic faiths do not depend on historical events in the same manner or to the same degree as the Judeo-Christian religions. The dharmic traditions posit that truth is not located ‘out there’ in a heaven, accessible only through the rare intervention of prophets, but resides as the indivisible Self within each person, animal, plant, and indeed each tiniest particle. Theistic dharma traditions such as Hinduism see humanity as a manifestation of God…Endowed with the potential for achieving, in this very life, the state of sat-chitananda – blissful knowledge of, and unity with God – anyone may explore and discover autonomously the meaning of our existence. An array of embodied approaches such as yoga, shorn of any historical grand narratives or institutional authority, is available to aid the seeker. The path of embodied knowing begins with the sublime idea that humankind is divine, and this is one of India’s greatest gifts to humanity.”

Malhotra argues that these organized religions constitute a ‘history club’ (ibid, p. 59) and one must be a member of this club to understand God’s true purpose and attain salvation. But seen objectively, many of the debates on the so called God directed history that have generated violent controversies in these religions, are actually quite trivial from a Dharmic spiritual perspective. Malhotra quotes the great Hindu mystic Sri Aurobindo to this effect –

“Such controversies as the one that has raged in Europe over the historicity of Christ, would seem to a spiritually-minded Indian largely a waste of time; he would concede to it a considerable historical importance, but hardly any religious importance; for what does it matter in the end whether a Jesus, son of the carpenter Joseph, was actually born in Nazareth or Bethlehem, lived and taught and was done to death on a real or trumped-up charge of sedition, so long as we can know by spiritual experience the inner Christ, live uplifted in the light of his teaching and escape from the yoke of the natural by that atonement of man with God of which the crucifixion is the symbol? If the Christ, God made man, lives within our spiritual being, it would seem to matter little whether or not a son of Mary physically lived and suffered and died in Judea. So too the Krishna who matters to us is the eternal incarnation of the Divine and not the historical teacher and leader of men.”

To conclude therefore, it does appear, from the Hindu perspective, that Abrahamic religions lack an understanding and conception of the Parabrahman, or a Supreme Nirguṇa Brahman who transcends space and time in the true sense.

4.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS ĪSHVARA OR BHAGAVĀN

Speaking of Īshvara, Swami Bhaskarananda (2002: 68-69) comments –

“When man tries to think of the infinite Brahman with his finite mind, he unknowingly projects the limitations of his finite mind on Nirguna Brahman. As a result, Nirguna Brahman appears to become finite to him. The human mind can never think other than in human terms. It unknowingly projects human characteristics or qualities on Nirguna Brahman. Thus the impersonal Nirguna Brahman acquires a personality very much resembling a human personality, no matter how glorified. Impersonal Nirguna Brahman appears to become Personal Brahman or Personal God. In reality, Nirguna Brahman does not undergo any change or modification whatsoever. Personal God is no other than Impersonal God or Nirguna Brahman experienced through the veil of time, space and causation.”

On the word Īshvara meaning ‘Lord’ or ‘Ruler’ of the Universe, he says:

“Īshvara is also the originator and upholder of the eternal moral order in this world. This moral order or basic law, which is called Rita in Sanskrit, maintains the regularity and orderliness of everything in this universe including the stars and planets.”

What we should keep in mind is that Brahman is infinite and only a fraction of Its power is needed to deal with the Universe. The Bhagavad Gita says:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

By a small part of Myself, I am present in the Universe and support the entire Creation.

Gita 10.42b

Therefore, many Hindus consider Īshvara as a lower aspect of Brahman than the Parabrahman. They also believe (following what many Purāṇas say) that there is not just one but several Universes, each of which is created with an individual big-bang. And there is a separate Īshvara for each of these Universes.

The word Bhagavān is frequently used by Vaishnavite Hindus to denote this level of Brahman, although it clearly applies to Nirguṇa Brahman as well. This word is very meaningful because it means that Īshvara is endowed with ‘Bhaga’ or the six attributes that we have listed above.

The predominant use of ‘Īshvara’ and ‘Bhagavān’ by modern Hindus has historical reasons:

Two thousand years ago, in the Puranas, divinity was finally personified and given the form that we are very familiar with now. In fact, The Gita plays a key role in the shift. In the pre-Gita period, God was a concept. In the post-Gita period, God became a character in human affairs.

The old abstract words – purusha, brahman, prajapati, atma – were gradually overshadowed by two new words: ishwara and bhagavan. Ishwara referred to the seed of divinity and bhagavan referred to the fully developed tree of divinity, laden with fruits and flowers. Ishwara is associated with Shiva, the hermit, whose marriage to Shakti creates the world. Bhagavan is associated with Vishnu, the householder, whose awakening results in creation and whose slumber results in dissolution. Between awakening and sleeping, Vishnu takes many forms to walk the earth, including that of Krishna. The Puranic Shiva and Vishnu presuppose

the existence of the Goddess, who is nature, hence mother of humanity as well as culture, daughter of humanity.

We might add here that Pattanaik’s contrast between Īshvara and Bhagavān is exaggerated, and the two terms and used interchangeably for both Vishnu and Shiva, and also for Brahman by Hindus these days. Regional preferences however do exist, and Bhagavān is perhaps used more frequently than Īshvara by north Indian Hindus whereas Īshvara is perhaps used more often by south Indian Hindus.

4.1 The Concept of Trimūrti: Tripartite Division of Īshvara

Most Hindus believe that in its aspect as the Īshvara, Brahman exists in three main forms:

• Brahmā for creating the Universe,

• Vishnu for sustaining and nourishing it, and

• Shiva (or Mahesh) for dissolving it at the end of its life so that it can be created anew.

In summary the Trimūrti represents the ‘Generation’, ‘Operation’ and ‘Dissolution’ (G-O-D) functions of Brahman.21

Each of these great Deities (Devas) of the Hindu trinity exists as a pair of male and female. The female part of each pair is often united into ‘Shakti’ (power) or Devi who is the Mother of the Universe. The passage below is said to be the first mention of the trinity in Hindu literature. It declares that all these Deities are manifestations of the same Brahman, and that worshipping any of them eventually leads to the Supreme Purusha or Brahman.

Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are aspects of One Supreme Being:

“They said: ‘Revered one, you are the teacher, you are the teacher indeed. What has been said by you has been duly understood by us. Now kindly answer a further question of ours. Fire, air, sun, time, whatever it is, breath, food, Brahma, Rudra (Shiva), Vishnu- some meditate upon one, some meditate upon another. Tell us- which one is the best for us?’ Then he replied to them: “All these are merely the manifest/frontal forms of Brahman, the Immmortal, the Formless. To whichever form each man is devoted here, in the realm of that deity does that man rejoices.

For it has been said- “Indeed, this whole(comprising of all the Devas) is Brahman. Indeed, these, which are Brahman’s manifest forms that one meditates on, worships and discards (when he transcends them). For by meditation upon these forms, one moves into higher and higher realms. And when all things perish, he attains unity with the Purusha!” Maitrāyanīya Upanishad 4.5-6

The picture on the right is a sculpture of the Trimūrti carved in the Elephanta Caves, off the coast of Mumbai in India. These caves were carved into beautiful images of Hindu Deities by the Rashtrakūta kings more than 1000 years ago. The sculpture in question depicts Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiva as parts of the same great Brahman.

The bodies of the Trimurti are not composed of the usual ‘stuff’. According to some Hindu philosophers, the bodies of Īshvara are comprised of a material that lasts billions of years. In fact, some Hindus who consider Saguṇa Brahman as the ultimate aspect of Brahman also believe that Īshvara’s body survives even the dissolution of the Universe.

A minority of Hindus however believe that Brahman cannot take any forms, and he performs his role as Īshvara without taking on the forms of the Trimurti. They argue that no form is permanent, even if it is the form of Brahman. Only the formless Brahman is permanent. Therefore, these forms are not of Brahman, but are created by him for specific tasks and are different from Brahman, or that they are never created in the first place at all. These Hindus belong to the traditions of

the Arya Samaj, or to the tradition of Nirguṇa Bhakti saints like Kabir. Sikhs too do not agree that Brahman can take forms.

4.2 Who are the Devās (or Devatā) and Devīs?

Hindus worship Brahman in many different forms or the ‘Devas’ if they are masculine, and ‘Devis’ if they are feminine. These Devas dwell not only in Heaven but also in other realms. Hindu scriptures divide the Universe into three realms, each of which has 11 major Devas (making a total of 33). Brahman is then said to be the Supreme Deva or the 34th Deva who is over and above them. In later times, the number

of the Devas increases to 330 million! In reality, Brahman is infinite, and therefore, the number of Devas is also infinite.

The word ‘Deva’ literally means ‘divine, shining, giver (of peace, wisdom, light, knowledge etc.)’. The word is used to denote: 1. Brahman in both its aspects

2. Its forms of the Trimurti

3. Other forms of Trimurti and other Divinities, e.g. Ganesha

4. Souls that have attained an elevated status due to their past good Karma, e.g. Indra in heaven 5. ‘God-like’ Sages

6. Great Hindus including one’s own Guru

7. Natural powers.

8. Deities to Whom Vedic verses are addressed.

9. Subject matter of the verses of the Vedas.

It may be noted that we can worship any of these Devas. Hindu Dharma does not consider worship of any of these types of Devatās as a sin. However, it is recognized that worshipping different types Devatās has different results. Most Hindus believe that worshipping Devatās 2-8 above eventually leads us to No. 1, i.e., Brahman (see the quotation from Maitrayaniya Upanishad 4.5-6 above), directly or indirectly. Johnsen captures the Hindu understanding of the unity of Brahman together with the multiplicity of the names and forms of Devas in the following words:

“..the point is not to choose a name for God and then claim that anyone who calls God by a different name is wrong. For Hindus the point is to enter into a living relationship with the Supreme till you feel its breath in your breath. Till you feel enveloped in the allencompassing embrace of the infinite wisdom out of which this universe emerged.

There are no false gods according to Hinduism. At least not if your prayer to that god is sincere. Whatever form of the divine you worship, even if it’s a man with an elephant’s head, the one all-pervading Being who loves you more than you can possibly imagine will use that form to guide you to Her.”24

The Devas, when they are the residents of heaven (no. 4 above), are not necessarily considered moral ideals or exemplars. There are in their exalted positions merely due to their past good Karma. But when they are in heaven, they are still subject to the laws of Karma and to Dharma. There, they can still continue to strive towards achieving Moksha. But ordinarily, when their good karma is exhausted, they are reborn as human beings on earth. The Devas have a limited ability to bestow favors. Therefore, humans who desire temporary rewards (like prosperity, children etc.) can propitiate them by performing Vedic ceremonies (Yajnas) or other forms of worship. However, if the Devas are worshipped not on their own terms as distinct from Brahman or merely for the temporary benefits but rather as a Vibhūti (or glorious

manifestation) of Brahman, then that worship can lead us to Moksha. But we should always remember that there is only One Brahman Who is Infinite and has become Many and It is the Supreme Devatā.

4.3 Relationship between Devatās and Brahman

The word Devatā can of course refer to Brahman itself. But what is the relationship of other Devatās to Brahman? Hindu Sages explain this in the following ways.

Devas are Like the Chiselled Facets of the Same Diamond: The different Devatās are like different chiseled facets of the same gem. When we look at a diamond from a particular direction, then depending on where the light is falling from, only one facet may shine brightly. Similarly, these different Devatās are different facets or manifestations of one Brahman – sometimes we see one facet and at another times we see the other facet. However, we should keep in mind that all these facets have at their base the same beautiful diamond. Admiring the glitter of one facet is a way of admiring the entire gem. But only a foolish man will say that no other facet of the gem will glitter other than the one that is shining right now.

Different Devatās represent Different Natures or Functions of the same Brahman: A single person may have different names representing his different qualities and relationships and therefore that person can be called out but all these names. E.g., A boy named Shyam is addressed as ‘son’ by his parents, ‘brother’ by his siblings, ‘Dad’ by his kid, ‘husband’, by his wife, ‘master’ by his servants, and has nicknames like ‘handsome’ because he is pleasing in appearance, ‘Yankee’ because he is from New York and so on. Similarly, the different names of Brahman represent his different natures and relationships to us. God is infinite and therefore, we cannot put a limit on his names. If we say that God answers only when addressed by one particular name, then we are limiting him, and are trying to control his freedom because of our own human limitations.

The following passages from the Puranas illustrate why the different attributes of the same Brahman are reflected in Its different names:

Meanings of the names of God: From Vāyu Purāṇa

He is called 'Atman' because whatever He attains (apnoti), takes up (adatte) and exists (asti) for the (enjoyment of) objects, that is his permanent being. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.32 He is called Rishi because He goes everywhere. He is Vishnu because he pervades everything. He has the lordship over everything. He is the lord of the Physical body etc. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.33

He is called Bhagavan because there are such (excellences) in him. He is Rāga (lord of passion) because he controls passion. He is Para (Supreme) because he is the cosmic being. He is Om because he protects (all). Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.34

He is Sarvajna because he knows everything. He is sarva because everything originates from him. As men originate from him, He is called 'Narayana.' Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.35 Because He is the first to manifest, he is called the first god. He is called Aja because he is not born (is self-existent). Since He protects his subjects, He is called the Prajapati. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.37

He is called Mahādeva because he is the greatest deity amongst the Devas. He is Īshvara because he is the Lord of the worlds and because he is not subject to other's control. Vāyu

Purāṇa 1.5.38

He is called Brahman because of his hugeness. He is called Bhūta because of his (eternal) existence. He is Kshetrajna because he knows the unmanifest cosmic nature. He is Vibhu because he is omnipresent. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.39

Because he lies in the subtle body (called Pur), he is called Purusha. He is called

Svayambhū because he is not procreated and because he exists before the creation. Vāyu

Purāṇa 1.5.40

He is called Yajna because worship or sacrifice is offered to him. He is Kavi because he is omniscient. He is Kramaṇa because he is worthy of being approached and due to his patronage of castes he is called Āditya, Kapila and Agni. His womb was golden and he was born of a golden womb, so he is called Hiraṇyagarbha in this Purāṇa. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.5.4142

We have heard the epithet of waters called Nara, and that they are minute or subtle bodies. Since he lies in waters, he is therefore called Nārāyaṇa. Vāyu Purāṇa 1.6.5

This does not mean however that these Devas representing different characteristics of Brahman are merely abstract figures. With regard to Rigvedic Deities, a scholar says:

“Because it is the power symbolized by a God or Goddess that is emphasized, personal characteristics of the deities are usually ignored. For most deities, no important biographical data are given; nothing about their origins, and next to nothing about their personalities, are indicated. There is no sense of a divine family or of a hierarchy of power among the deities. Despite their lack of personality, however, the Vedic deities are not abstract, for the powers they symbolize are directly experienced by every person, and the God or Goddess lives in the immediate experience.”25

Analogy of Different Names of Water: Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa gave another analogy in which he pointed out that the same substance namely water, is referred to as ‘Jala’ by the Hindus, ‘Paani’ by the Muslims,26 and also by other names like ‘Neera’ and so on. But these different names all belong to the same substance water. Likewise, the Bhagavān of Hindus, Allah of Muslims, Waheguru of Sikhs and Jehovah or Yahweh of the Christians and Jews is one and the same Divine Being. This analogy of the One

25 John Koller (1982), p. 25

26 The word ‘Paani’ for water is also a Sanskrit word and there is nothing particularly Islamic about it. What Swami Ramakrishna Paramahamsa referred to was that the Hindus in his vicinity preferred to use the word ‘Jala’ whereas the Muslims tended to use the word ‘Paani’.

Divinity possessing many different names has been given as early as the Vedic scriptures in Hindu Dharma. Rigveda 1.164.46 Several scriptural statements may be quoted below to illustrate this point:

They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is the Divine beautiful winged bird (the sun with beautiful rays). The sages describe one and the same Agni in various ways and call it Agni, Yama and Matarisvān. Rigveda 1.164.46

Agni itself is Indra, Vayu, Brahma, Vishnu and Brahmanaspati. Rigveda 2.1.3

Varuna and Mitra are but functional manifestations of Agni. Rigveda 2.1.4

Vishnu, Rudra and Marut are also functional manifestations of Agni. Rigveda 2.1.6 That (Supreme Being) is Agni; that is the Surya; that is the Vayu; that is the Chandrama; that is Jyoti; that is Brahman; and that is Prajapati. (Mādhyandina) Yajurveda 32.1 The perception of the worshipper makes the ONE Deity appear as three, but in their ontological essence, they are ONE. Brihaddevatā 2.18

The same sentiment has been echoed in later times by Saints like Kabir and Guru Arjan Dev (the fifth Sikh Guru) to argue that human beings are not intrinsically different as Hindus and Muslims because He who is Ram is the same as Allah and to Him alone belong our bodies as well as our life. In modern times, this eclecticism and acceptance of diversity is seen in the everyday behavior of Hindus. Many Hindus will add images from Christianity (like a picture of Jesus Christ) in their private home shrines, and will not criticize Abrahamic religions even if these religions are busy undermining and converting poor Hindus in many areas even using money, fraud and force. In fact, it is quintessentially Hindu to honor all religions and their ‘Gods’.

Different Devatās are like limbs of the body of the same Brahman: The different limbs of our body are parts of the body, but they function together so that the body can perform its role as a whole. In a similar way, the different Devatās represent different ‘limbs’ of the whole that is Brahman. Note that this is just a metaphorical description because Brahman does not really have a body like us. The following passage from Nirukta of Rishi Yaska is very eloquent on this matter:

In His body existed the three and thirty Devas by dividing themselves into its limbs. They alone who knew Brahman knew the thirty three Devas. Atharva Veda, Shaunakīya Samhitā 10.7.27

On account of superb excellence of the Divinity, One soul (i.e., the All-pervading Soul) is extolled in various ways. The other (manifest) gods are just like the limbs of the Great Soul, the secondary members of the body. The specialists in this branch of study (= spirituality) observe that the Sages praise the beings according to the plurality and Universality of their intrinsic nature. The gods are (figuratively described in the Veda as) born from each other (e.g., Rigveda 10.72.4). The gods are the primary source of each other. They owe their birth, i.e., coming into being, to their specific functions as well as to the (Universal) Soul. Soul alone is their chariot, horse, weapon and arrow, i.e., these things which are not different from the soul are only figurative appellations in their descriptions.

Nirukta 7.4

An extension of seeing the different Devatās as limbs or parts of the same Brahman is in that several Hindu scriptures advocate seeing these different Devatās in the corresponding limbs of our own body as a spiritual discipline. See the section on Saguna Brahman as Antaryāmī for more details. ̣̣

Analogy of the Sameness of Water in Different Water Bodies:

Another example given in the Hindu tradition is that of the sameness of water, whether it is in a pond, in a river, the ocean, in the rain or in the dew drops. Although the external forms of all these bodies of water are different, the essence is the same. It is the same ‘substance’ that is chemically written as H2O, to use modern parlance. Likewise, the different Devas are in essence the same Brahman, only their external forms are different. A similar analogy is made with regard to fire also. One can light different fires at different spots, but the fire or its essence is the same, no matter where it is lit.

and assumes several shapes and configurations, likewise the Ātman too takes on different forms (in different bodies) but is not exhausted by these forms. People may worship Brahman in different ways or call it differently due to their different cultural background or perceptions, but in reality, all these Devatās are the same Brahman.

“For indeed Agni is that God. His are the names: as the easterners (praachyaah) call him ‘Sharva’ (all), Bāhlikas (call him) ‘Dhava’ (one who shakes), ‘Rudra’ (one who causes weeping), ‘Pashunāmpatih’ (the Lord or the protector of beasts), ‘Agni’ (the first leader, he who was there at the outset).” Yajurveda (Kāṇva Shatapath Brāhmaṇa) 2.7.1.7

Devas as Personified Symbols of the Ultimate Divinity:

They said: ‘Revered one, you are the teacher, you are the teacher. What has been said has been duly fixed in mind by us. Now answer a further question. Fire, air, sun, time, whatever it is, breath, food, Brahma, Rudra, Vishnu- some meditate upon one, some meditate upon another. Tell us- which one is the best for us?’ Then he replied to them: “All these are

merely the manifest/frontal forms of Brahman, the Immmortal, the Formless. To whichever form each man is devoted here, in the realm of that deity does that man rejoices. For it has been said- ‘Verily, this whole is Brahman. Verily, these, which are its manifest forms that one meditates on, worships and discards. For by meditation upon these forms, one moves into higher and higher realms. And when all things perish, he attains unity with the Purusha!” Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Upanishad 4.5-6

In the Gita, Krishna says that we should be aware that all the ‘gods’ eventually get all their powers and abilities to bless their worshipper from the One God (‘Brahman’)-

Those whose knowledge has been affected by different desires seek refuge in other gods. They observe diverse rituals relevant to the tradition of worship of these respective gods, being constrained by their own material nature. Gita 7.20

Whichever form (god) such a devotee seeks to worship with faith, in that very form I make his faith unswerving (or firm). Gita 7.21

Endowed with that faith, he seeks to worship that form (god) and through that, he fulfills his desires, which are really fulfilled my Me (through the medium of that form or god). Gita 7.22

And in fact, the offerings of these worshippers to various Devas are enjoyed by none other than the One Lord-

Son of Kunti, even those who perform yajnas to other Devas with faith also worship Me alone, even though it does not follow the correct procedure. Gita 9.23

Because I am indeed the enjoyer and the Lord of all the yajnas. But these men do not know Me as I really am. Therefore, they fall. Gita 9.24

And, a modern scholar therefore explains the higher Hindu principle that worship of these Deities is worship of the Divine only if they are related to the Divine. Otherwise, it is merely a transaction, like the one we carry out in our daily lives with those who are more powerful than us-

“The recognition that the Gods are not ultimate sometimes leads to a kind of religious atheism, where the Gods are abandoned, ignored, or even repudiated (as in Buddhism and Jainism) in favor of a nonpersonal, but still spiritual, ultimate reality. Vedanta and some forms of Yoga are good examples of this tendency. But even among the devotees of Kali, Shiva or Vishnu, these deities are recognized not as the ultimate reality but as personified symbols of the ultimate. This would be like a Jew, Christian, or Muslim declaring that God is not the ultimate reality but, rather, a symbol of the ultimate. To the extent that the symbol participates in the reality that it symbolizes, Vishnu (or God) is the ultimate. But to the extent that the reality symbolized goes beyond the symbol, Vishnu (or God) is less than ultimate.”

Analogy of Sun and its Rays:

The various Devatas and Brahman are like the rays of the Sun and the Sun itself respectively. It is difficult, if not impossible, to experience and see the sun directly, but we can easily experience it through its rays which have the sun’s warmth, light and other properties. Although the number of rays is infinite, they all emanate from the same source – the one Sun. In the same way, all Devas represent Divine qualities of the same Brahman, from Whom they all emerge.

“(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the mighty powers collected in Him

(It is) The Supreme Being (Who) first spread out the heavenly lights everywhere

Verily, The Supreme Being was born as first Lord of all that exists

Who, then is fit to be this Supreme Being’s rival” Atharvaveda Paippalada VIII.8.1

The relationship between Brahman, Īshvara and the Devas may also be summarized pictorially below in a summary manner:30

4.4 Doctrine of Adhikāra and Different Perceptions of Brahman

Sometimes, the doctrine of Adhikāra is invoked to explain why the same Brahman is perceived differently by people of different levels of understanding. What is Adhikāra?

“[Adhikāra means] Moral and spiritual competence. The doctrine of Adhikāra means that an ideal teacher should adapt his teaching to the needs of his pupil. It is worse than useless to teach abstract philosophy to a man whose mind hungers for concrete gods. A laborer may require a type of religion different from that of the scholar. So instruction should be carefully graded. The skill of the teacher consists in discovering the next step which his pupil can take, and making him concrete on that and not wasting his time on vague and abstract ideas. Thus, he should lead him step by step.”31

Individuals with a different Adhikāra will interpret and learn about the same Brahman in a different manner, just as the same electricity is perceived differently by individuals with different types of understanding-

“People are at different stages of understanding the truth and God. For an ordinary person it is sometimes difficult to realize that there is only one God. The example of electrical energy can be used in this respect. Electrical energy is explained by a scientist by reference to the electron theory; a student perceives it as energy in the form of a current that flows through a wire like water; a simple person’s concept is that light is produced from a bulb when an electric switch is turned on. The electrical energy is the same but all three understand it in three different ways even though all experience the same result when they use it.”32

There are pros and cons of invoking this doctrine. The positive aspect is obvious – it enables people with different levels of intelligence to understand Brahman in their own way in a way that is allowed by Hindu Dharma officially. There is no persecution of people who do not worship Brahman in the only permissible ‘official’ way. At the same time, it can lead to stereotyping like say, “He is an illiterate servant, and therefore her Adhikāra is to worship Brahman only as Hanuman and not as Rama because the latter was a King and therefore fit to be worshipped only by rulers.”

4.5 The Symbolism of the Forms of Īshvara & Devas

The different beautiful forms of God have a very deep symbolical meaning. Some examples can be considered below.

31 D S Sarma (1981), p. 70

32 Nawal K Prinja (2001), pp. 25-26

Example 1: ‘Ganesha’ as the visible symbol of ‘Om’ turned clockwise by 90 degrees. The two tusks represent ‘Ātmā’ and ‘Māyā’ (Delusion of this World,

Ignorance”. Ganesha uprooted the tusk of Māyā and became pure Ātmā. Hindus start all their prayers by uttering Om and by invoking Ganesha as the first Deva before everyone else due to the parallelism between Om and Ganesha.

Example 2: Nataraja –

“Dancing Shiva”. In this famous depiction of Lord Shiva, the circle around him represents the Entire

Creation within which Lord Shiva lives. The bowl of fire represents destruction of the Universe. The ‘dumroo’ instrument represents the sound of creation. The demon below his feet represents evil and ignorance. Lord Shiva points with one hand towards the demon and says that if you crush evil and ignorance below your feet, then my blessings

(represented by the other

wisdom and knowledge.

Example 3: Padmanābhaswāmy – Vishnu with Brahmā emerging from His navel:

In the city of Trivandrum in the Indian state of Kerala, there is the famous Vaishnavite shrine of Anantapadmanabhaswami. The main Mūrti of the shrine shows Vishnu reclining on the bed of the seven hooded snake Sheshanāga. From His navel, arises an umbilical cord at the end of which is a lotus on which Brahmā, the Creator, is seated. This is an interesting symbolism – in the human world, it is the child to whose navel the umbilical cord is attached. But in this case, it is said that the Creator Brahma is seated on the lotus which emerged from the navel of Vishnu – quite the opposite of what one would expect. One hand of the reclining

Vishnu is extended downwards, and is offering flowers (an act of worship) to the Shiva-Linga kept at that position. So while the Shiva-Linga is located at a position lower than Vishnu, the latter is offering flowers in veneration to Shiva. The profound symbolism from the image of Padmanabhaswami is apparently meant to indicate to the visiting pilgrims the fact that these three Devās are forms of one another and are all worthy of worship.

Example 4: Bhagavān Dattātreya

In the Hindu tradition, Anasūyā is depicted as a very chaste and virtuous wife and a woman who is completely incorruptible. Her name itself means ‘one who is free of ego and hatred’, and the quality represented by her name is considered an essential pre-requisite for a human being to know Brahman. Her husband Atri is a Sage whose name means ‘one who is free of the three (kinds of sorrows or the three ‘Guṇas’ of Prakriti)’. This epithet applies to God, as well as to a spiritually realized person. Sage Atri is also held by the Hindu tradition to be one who was friendly towards everyone. Dattātreya is the child of Atri and Anasūyā. This means that when a worshipper becomes chaste and virtuous, gives up all hatred, goes beyond the three strands or gunas of Prakriti, and is friendly and kind towards all, he will attain Brahman that is represented by Dattātreya, the child. The three heads of Dattātreya are said to represent the essence of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. He has six arms that hold the insignia of these three Deities. He is accompanied by

four dogs that represent the Vedas. This means that the four Vedas are always in the service of Dattātreya, or that the spiritually realized soul transcends the Vedas themselves. The cow represents spiritual wisdom and realization. The Dattātreya Upanishad commences with a declaration that Dattātreya is identical to Vishnu, and ends with the declaration that the Deva is an Avatāra (incarnation) of Shiva. In fact, the worshippers of Dattātreya are often Shaivites and sometimes also Vaishnavites.

4.6 The Gender of Īshvara: Devī or Īshvarī

Is Īshvara male or female? One opinion is expressed by Swami Bhaskarananda (2002) –

“Īshvara is sexless. Yet the Hindus can look upon Īshvara as both father and mother. According to the devotees’ mental attitudes they can establish other relationships with Īshvara as well. They can look upon Īshvara as friend, child, or even husband or sweetheart, for such relationships are nothing but mental projections of Īshvara. Many great women saints of Hinduism considered themselves to be spiritually married to God. They looked upon God as their Divine Husband or Divine Sweetheart. Some women saints looked upon God as their Divine Child. Many saints of Hinduism like Kamalakanta, Ramaprasad, Shri Ramakrishna and others looked upon God as the Divine Mother. Such relationships were purely mental and completely devoid of any kind of association with the physical body. According

to Shri Ramakrishna, the famous 19th century saint of India, such attitudes toward God can generate feelings of great closeness between God and the devotees, and thus hasten Godrealization.”

Some Hindus worship Brahman in Her Saguṇa form as Devi, or the Divine Mother. Feminine theology in Hindu Dharma exists at two levels:

1. Devi as the Universal Mother, the Creator and Ruler of all male Devas

However, some Hindus also worship Devi as the foremost or Supreme manifestation of Saguna Brahman, and as the overlord or ruler of all other male deities. This tradition of Hindu Dharma is called Shākta Sampradāya, after ‘Shakti’ or the ‘(Universal) Power’. A verse extolling the Divine as Mother is given below-

At every step, men commit mistakes. And yet, in this universe, who else but one’s mother forgives and forbears our repeated mistakes. Therefore, without delay, one should worship and seek refuge with the Divine Mother with singular devotion. She alone can make all our efforts bear fruit. Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa 7.31.18-19

Even some followers of Nirguṇa Brahman consider His female counterpart as the Prakriti comprising of three Guṇas. The entire Universe is then said to result from their mutual cooperation or union.

The language in which the revealed Hindu texts are composed, namely Sanskrit, has a neuter gender in addition to the masculine and feminine. In fact, the Ultimate Reality, the Supreme God35 of Hindus, is often described as gender neutral. Interestingly, in a famous verse of Rigveda that says that all the various deities are but descriptions of One Truth, the names of deities are all masculine but the phrase ‘One Truth’ (‘Ekam Sat’) is in neuter gender as if to emphasize that God is not male.

Devī in the Vedic Hindu Dharma: Both male and female deities are extolled in the hymns of all revealed texts of Hindus and in the family prayers36 of all the 10 lineages of Vedic Sages. The superlative epithets used uniformly to denote female deities like Ushas, Sarasvati etc., in the Vedas describe them as sweetlysmiling, the first or foremost of deities to whom worship is offered, the shining ones, splendid and beautiful, possessors of wisdom, teachers of mankind and as powers capable of fulfilling the desires of human beings. The very invocatory mantra of the Atharvaveda37 addresses divinity as a ‘Devi’ – the Goddess, who while present in waters, fulfills all our desires and hopes.

The Gayatri Mantra, the holiest prayer of Hindus in the Vedas, is often represented symbolically as a five headed Devi in classical Hinduism. She is thus a female deity, who is also often termed as the ‘Mother of all Vedas’, and giver of boons38.

It is common to read in scriptures of mankind God is like the husband of all human beings and of all churches. In the Vedas however, we even read that God is like a dear wife whom ‘His’ worshipper loves like a doting husband39. The ‘Divine Word40’ itself is likened to a beautiful maiden who manifests her beauty to the husband41.

35 The very word ‘Brahman’ used to denote Supreme Being in Hindu texts is in neuter gender. Likewise, many words used to denote Universal Virtues such as Truth (Satyam) are considered neuter gender in Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hindu Dharma.

36 These family hymns are called ‘Apri Suktas’, and all these hymns have invocations to women deities such as Ila, Bharati, Sarasvati etc.

37 ‘Om shanno devirbhishtiye aapo bhavantu….’. The traditional recitation of Atharvaveda is commenced with this verse. The Paippalāda version of Atharvaveda starts with this mantra. It occurs as mantra 1.6.1 in the Shaunaka version of Atharvaveda but even the recitation of this text is often commenced with the invocation to Devi.

38 Shaunakīya Atharvaveda 19.71.1

39 ‘anavadyā patijushteva nārī’ – Rigveda 1.73.3

40 ‘Vāk’, the Sanskrit word denoting Divine Speech, is considered feminine according to grammatical rules. 41 Rigveda 10.71.4

As goddesses (devi-s), they are worshipped as mothers of even the most powerful male deities (devata-s). Devi Aditi is thus the mother of all prominent devata-s such as Varuna, Mitra, Aryaman, Rudras, Indra, of kings and many other excellent sons. She is invoked as the mistress of the Cosmic Order, omnipotent, every youthful, protector, mother of the devout worshipper and a wise guide of all humans.42

The Vedas hardly ever conceive of devata-s without corresponding -. Almost as a rule, the Sage, the worshipper and the ritualist invoke the devata-s to manifest along with devi-s and partake of the sacred oblations poured into the sacred fire altar.

Devī in Classical Hindu Dharma: Around 2000 years ago, Classical Hinduism, or Hindu Dharma as we know today, started crystallizing. Worship of the Supreme Being through icons and sacred symbols was aligned among five Hindu traditions of worship – Saura, Gānapatya, Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shākta. The last three of these traditions encompass practically all Hindus today.

Significantly, the Shākta tradition specifically worships the Divine as the Mother of the Universe43, to whom all the male deities also bow in reverence. Shrines of this tradition have perhaps a greater

42 Shaunakīya Atharvaveda 7.6.2; Mādhyandina Yajurveda 21.5

43 Mārkaṇdeya Purāṇa 91.2

44 Even texts not specifically belonging to the Shaakta tradition per se have sections that eulogize the Divine Mother. For instance, the famous ‘Devi Mahaatmya’ (the glory of Devi’) occurs in the Markandeya Purana which is not a Shaakta text.

The Shaiva tradition is considered the ‘male’ counterpart of the Shaakta tradition and the two share numerous texts, liturgies and other sacred traditions. In numerous iconic representations, God is shown as ‘ardhanārīshvara’ or ‘God who is half woman’, to emphasize that either God has no gender or he is both woman and man.

Even male deities such as Lord Vishnu sometimes incarnate as women to serve the cause of Dharma. The Devi herself is often said to combine the powers of all male deities including Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiva.

In the Vaishnava tradition, which is the most prevalent Hindu tradition today, God is worshipped as ‘Vishnu’ together with ‘Shrī’, who is also addressed variously as ‘Lakshmī’ . They incarnate together , and their incarnations, namely that of Rāma and Sītā respectively, and so on, are also worshipped as a couple. Lord Rāma is worshipped with his wife Devi Sītā. Lord Krishna is worshipped with Rādhā or with Devī Rukmini. In some sects of Vaishnava Hindus, Rādhā is actually accorded more importance with Lord Krishna. Independent Hindu spiritual texts with names such as ‘Sītopanishad’, ‘Rādhopanishad’ and so on exist, which extol the greatness of the Devīs- in the divine pairs.

It is important to note that when God is worshipped as ‘Divine Couple’ by Hindus, the name of the feminine typically precedes that of masculine. For instance, we say that we are worshipping ‘Sitā-Rām’, ‘Rādhe-

Shyām’, ‘Umā-Mahesh’ or ‘Shrī Vishnu’ and so on. In popular non-

denominational Hindu prayers, whenever God is addressed as a parent, he is first termed as a Mother, and only then as a Father .

In the Gāṇapatya tradition, the major focus of veneration is the Bhagavān Ganesh, well recognized from his elephant head. The followers of this tradition are not numerous, but all Hindus, irrespective of their sectarian affiliation, commence their prayers to Bhagavān with an invocation to Ganesh. Interestingly, in the sacred stories of Hindu texts, Ganesha is considered more of his mother Pārvatī’s son than his father Shiva’s. In fact, some versions state that Pārvatī created Him out of her own power because she wanted a

son whom only she could call her own. Ganesha is typically worshipped as a child, and is often depicted along with his brother Skanda together with their all-powerful mother.

Thus we see that even in the male oriented traditions of classical Hinduism, the feminine aspect of Divinity occupies a very central position of significance.

In numerous Hindu communities of Bangladesh, Nepal and India, the most prominent festival in the year is dedicated to the Divine Mother. During Diwali, the most important festival in northern India and amongst Hindu communities in the Caribbean, the main worship is offered to Devi Lakshmī. Diwali itself is often called ‘Lakshmī Pūjan’. A period of nine nights every year is devoted to the worship of numerous manifestations of the Mother. It is celebrated as Durga Puja festival in eastern India and as Navaratri in Gujarat as the major festivals of these regions.

4.7 Animals as Devas

In many other religions, animals are just considered an ‘ornament’ to human beings. It is even questioned if the animals have souls. Therefore, there is no guilt attached to eating meat.

In Hindu Dharma however, animals are regarded as living creatures with a soul like human beings, even though their minds are not as evolved as human minds. This section describes how Hindu scriptures treat animals with respect.

Animals as Recipients of Divine Grace: In the Hindu tradition, animals and plants are not regarded as mere objects for wanton human use and consumption. Rather, they are equally alive just as human beings are, and deserving of Divine grace and human compassion. Numerous Hindu prayers include animals as beneficiaries of God’s blessings and mercy. The traditional recitation of the Rigveda (the first of the four Vedas – the most authoritative scriptures of Hindus) ends with the benedictory words ‘sham chatushpade’ (‘May God give peace to the quadrupeds’). The very first section of the second Veda, the Yajurveda 1.1, ends with words ‘yajmaanasya pashuunpaahi’, which asks God to protect the animals belonging to the worshipper. Several Hindu scriptures such as the Puranas describe instances of animals earning salvation due to their devotion to God. For example, the Gajendramoksha episode in the Bhagavata Purana 8.3 narrates the miraculous devotion of

an elephant, which caused Lord Vishnu to manifest and grant salvation to the creature. It is a very common Hindu practice to have animals blessed by priests in temple compounds.

The Lord in Animal Form, Animals as Helpers of the Divine: In Hinduism, God himself is said to have manifested in the animal form several times to save human beings and the creation in general. For e.g., Lord Vishnu incarnated as a tortoise, fish, boar and a half-lion.

Even when God is said to have manifested in a human form to protect truth, animals are said to have contributed in many ways in furthering His purposes and tasks. As a result, many animals are considered sacred by Hindus, and killing them is forbidden. For e.g., monkeys are sacred creatures for Hindus because one of their kind Lord Hanuman, a very popular Hindu deity, is considered an exemplary devotee who served Lord Rama (a manifestation of God) and helped him achieve His divine goals as narrated in the Hindu epic Ramayana. The Sundara Kanda section of this epic narrates the deeds of Hanuman and is singled out for public recitation by Hindus even today.

Interfaith Perspectives: Many non-Hindus are perplexed and even repelled by the fact that several Hindu Deities are depicted as animals, plants or anthropomorphic. However, Hindus do not see any incongruity in these representations of the Divine. A modern scholar explains,

“Because some of these deities are shown with animal faces, it does not mean that Hindus worship animals or promote animal behavior. The reason why these animals are shown with the deities is to promote the idea of the sacredness of all living things. Hindus disagree with the teachings of some religions that God has made animals and birds purely for the consumption of mankind. Hindus go along with the theory of evolution that we are a continuation of the animal kingdom and this reverence for life should be extended to the animal kingdom.”49

A guide directed towards Hindus who participate in interfaith events says-

“An exploration of other ancient faiths shows that Hinduism is not alone in having Divinities with animal attributes. The ancient Greeks worshipped the God Pan, who has the hindquarters, legs and horns of a goat, and the Sea Gods Ichthyocentaurs, with human heads and torsos, the front legs of a horse and the serpentine tails of fish. In Egypt’s pantheon, Anubis (the Sun God), Thorth (Lord of Wisdom and of the Moon) has the head of an ibis or a baboon, and His consort, Bastet, has the form of a cat or a lioness. The Mesamerican peoples worshipped Quetzalcoatl, a feathered serpent. The Assyrians feared the powerful serpent Goddess Tiamat and revered various winged beings. In Japan – where Buddhism and Shintoism are intertwined – Kitsune the fox and Tengu the bird man are powerful shape-shifters who can transform into human or inanimate shapes to trick humans. Many shrines there are guarded by a oair of magical lion-dogs known as the Koma-in or Shishi.

……Christians, who tend to ridicule Hinduism on this pint,….can recall that winged angels are half-human and half-bird. Four-headed beings called Cherubins were central in the early Christianity. In the Bible’s Book of Revelation, John writes: “I saw a throne standing in heaven; and the One who was sitting on the throne…In the center, grouped around the throne itself, were four animals with many eyes, in front and behind. The first animal was like a lion, the second like a bull, the third animal had a human face and the fourth animal was like a flying eagle. Each of the four animals had wings….” (4:1-8). The description matches an account by Jewish prophet Elijah centuries before. Importantly, these beings are the most powerful beings in the pantheon, closest to the Creator.”

49 Seeta Lakhani (2005), p. 18

4.8 Is Hinduism Polytheistic or Monotheistic?

Monotheism means believing that there is only One God. Polytheism means worshipping several independent gods. In monotheistic religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, God is normally understood as a male fatherly figure that especially lives in a place called the Heaven although He can control the entire Universe from there. He creates the Universe so that all creatures can glorify Him. In polytheism, the gods typically live in the Heaven but can travel back and forth to the earth.

The concept of God in Hindu Dharma is completely different. Brahman is not an elderly male unit in heaven. For us, Brahman is not merely a Fatherly figure that resides in the heaven, but the Unity that pervades the plurality of this entire Universe. It is quite meaningless to put a number ‘one’ or ‘many’ to describe God because God is not a Unity but Infinity (‘Anantam’ in the Taittiriya Upanishad). Rather, it is better to say that he extends from minus infinity to plus infinity. This means that Brahman has no beginning and no end as well as no middle.

A modern scholar sums up beautifully why terms like ‘monotheism’ and ‘polytheism’ are therefore not really applicable to the Hindu conception of divinity:

“Because the ultimate level of reality is undivided, Indian Gods and Goddesses, from Vedic times to the present, are usually understood to be symbols of the ultimate reality rather than the ultimate reality itself. The ultimate has no form and no name; what can be given a name and identifiable characteristics is not the ultimate. As symbols, Gods and Goddesses both participate partially in the higher reality that they symbolize and point beyond themselves to the fullness of that reality. No number of symbols can exhaust the fullness of the ultimate, so there is no limit to the number of Gods. This is why a Hindu can say in the same breath that there are millions of Gods, only one God, and no Gods, for the last two statements mean, respectively, that all Gods symbolize the one ultimate reality and that this reality cannot be captured entirely by a symbol. But that a deity is not the ultimate reality does not mean that it is unreal. On the contrary, because the deity as symbol participates in the deeper levels of reality, its reality is greater than that of our ordinary existence, and by identifying with the deity in love and through ritual action, the power of this deeper level of reality becomes available to help effect a spiritual transformation of life. It is this understanding of deity that underlies Hindu theism and devotionalism.”

When we draw a number-line from minus infinity to plus infinity, it includes the number ‘1’ and every other number, because it represents the totality of all numbers. Similar is the case with Brahman. Brahman is like a thread that passes through everything in the Universe and gives it unity. The plurality of the entire Universe has Brahman as its underlying Unity. And at the same time, Brahman envelops and encompasses this diverse Creation.

Even the Vedas, often presumed to be polytheistic due to invocations to multiple Devas, are not really polytheistic because these Deities have an underlying unity-

“Agni…is the deva of fire, especially the sacrificial fire. Similar invocations were made to the devas and devis of the sun, dawn, rivers, rain, the storm, war and so on….this was not polytheism but rather what has been called ‘polymorphic theism’, for early Vedic religion represents the polycentric attempt to relate to a transcendent reality (the ‘One’) manifesting through worldly forms….This idea became the basis for taking everyday experience seriously in spiritual life, so that – not without change and development it is true – we find the same approach present, in spite of a growing emphasis on ascetic ideals, in the imagery of the Upanisads, and subsequently in Hindu tradition.”

Contemporary orthodox Gurus of Hindus also drive home the point that the Devas are really a medium to reach the One Divine and so are the Vedic Mantras addressing them.

“The mantras of the Vedas are remarkable in that they bring blessings to the world in the form of sound- even if their meaning is not understood. Of course, they are pregnant with meaning and represent the lofty principle that it is the One Truth that is manifested as all that we perceive. They also confer blessings on us by taking the form of deities appropriate to the different sounds (of the mantras).

Sound does not bring any benefits, any fruits, by itself. Ishvara alone is the bestower of benefits. However, instead of making the fruits available to us directly, he appoints deities to distribute them in the same manner as the king or president of a country appoints officials to carry out his dictates. The mantras represent various deities in the form of sound. If we attain perfection (siddhi) by constant chanting and meditation of a mantra, it should be possible for us to see the deity invoked in his physical form. The deities also arise if we make offerings into the sacrificial fire reciting specific mantras. If a sacrifice is conducted in this manner, the deities give us their special blessings. We do not pay taxes directly to the king or president. In the same way, we pay taxes in the form of sacrifices and Vedic chanting to the aides of the Paramatman for the sake of the welfare of the world. The sounds of the mantras constitute their form.”

Even though some Hindus might regard Forms of Īshvara as eternal, they are so only in a relative sense. In reality, even Brahmā, Vishṇu and Shiva have a lifespan whereas the Paramātmā, whose powers they represent, alone is eternal-

“The Paramatman, being eternal, was present even before creation when there was no Brahma. The Paramatman, or the Supreme Godhead, is eternal. The cosmos, all sentient beings and insentient objects, emerged from Him. The Paramatman did not create them Himself: He did so through the agency of Brahma (the creative aspect of the Godhead).

Through Vishnu (the sustaining aspect of the Godhead) He sustains them and through

Shiva (the destructive aspect of the Godhead) He destroys them. Later Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are themselves destroyed by Him. The present Brahma, when he becomes a hundred years old, will unite with the Paramatman. Another Brahma will appear and he will start the work of creation all over again.”

This view that all Forms are temporary relative to the eternal Formless Brahman is reflected in the Upanishads as well-

There are, no doubt, two forms of Brahman- one having a form and the other formless. The mortal and the immortal. The stationary and the moving. The discernible and the indiscernible. Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 2.3.1

There are several stories of Devas defeating or worshipping each other in the Puranas. These are sometimes used by Hindus (or non-Hindus) of incomplete understanding to assume that Hinduism is polytheistic and childish because it shows different ‘gods’ fighting or worshipping each other. But the correct understanding, according to our Gurus, is that it all represents the sport of One Divine Lord who wishes to teach us practical lessons through these narratives-

“These who are capable of looking upon all deities as the manifestations of the one and only Paramatman have no cause for exclusive devotion to any one of them. It is only when we think that one deity is separate from – or alien to – another that the question arises of giving up one for another. If we realize that all are the different disguises of the One Reality, the various gods and goddesses portrayed in the Puranas, with all the differences among them, will be understood to be nothing but the līlā or sport of the Supreme Being. It is One alone that seems divided into manifold entities. This is to help men of various attitudes and temperaments. If this truth is recognized we shall be able to see the stories in the Puranas- stories that seem contradictory- in the true light.”

To summarize, we Hindus are ‘Monists’ because we believe in a Brahman who is Infinite and

who gives an underlying unity to this entire diverse creation.

4.9 Hindu Conception of God in the Eyes of Non-Hindus

Al Biruni, a Muslim traveler who visited NW India in the early 11th cent. CE says the following about the Hindu perception of God:

“There is one God only Who is without beginning or end. He cannot be reached by thought but is sublime beyond our ability to conceive. He is infinitely vast, but not in the spatial sense since He exists outside of time and space. How can we worship this one whom we cannot perceive? He lies beyond the grasp of the physical senses, but the soul feels His presence and the mind understands His divine qualities. Meditating on Him one-pointedly

is true worship. When meditation is practiced for a long time without interruption, one attains the highest state of blissfulness.”

Similarly, astute scholars of religion in modern times have also noted the all-pervasive Hindu belief in one Brahman underlying the plurality of the forms that we worship –

“…to enumerate all the various deities worshipped in India would produce a formidable list, and perhaps be suggestive of polytheism, and perhaps be suggestive of polytheism, to do so would be misleading without taking into account the position of the individual worshipper. For the individual, there is one supreme God, however conceived or named, and various other devas, gods or spiritual powers. These merit respect and perhaps worshipped, but are conceived

of as subordinate manifestations, often with specialized functions. One author has rightly pointed out that one could spend a lifetime in India and never find a ‘polytheist’ in Western terms, because even an unlettered peasant who has just made offerings at several shrines will affirm that ‘Bhagavan ek hai’, God is one…”57

The multiplicity of Devas and of the forms of their Mūrtis is often taken as a ‘proof’ that Hindus are polytheistic. The great Hindu mystic Sri Aurobindo rejects the western practicing of equating Hindu

Mūrtis with pagan idols of ancient Europe in the following words-

“Indian religion founded itself on the conception of a timeless, nameless and formless Supreme, but it did not feel called upon like the narrower and more ignorant monotheisms of the younger races, to deny or abolish all intermediary forms and names and powers and personalities of the Eternal and Infinite. A colorless monism or a pale vague transcendental Theism was not its beginning, its middle and its end. The one Godhead is worshipped as the All, for all in the universe is he, or made out of this being or his nature…Indian polytheism is not the popular polytheism of ancient Europe; for here the worshipper of many gods still knows that all his divinities are forms, names, personalities and powers of the One; his gods proceed from the one Purusha, his goddesses are energies of the one divine Force…..Indian image-worship is not the idolatry of a barabaric or undeveloped mind, for even the most ignorant know that the image is a symbol and support and can throw it away when its use is over.”

In modern times however, some indolent Indologists and leftist Indians with a palpable animosity towards Hindus claim that the Hindus who project their faith as a monotheistic religion are somehow distorting their religion with some ulterior motives. Contrary to what these people imply, Hindu Dharma and its notion of

Divinity does not need to be saved from distortion by practicing Hindus themselves! We know what our Dharma is, and therefore find the allegation quite cheap and mean spirited. There is no need to save Hindu Dharma from Hindus. We have cited the extensive Pew Foundation Survey that interviewed almost 25,000 Hindus of whom 90% declared that Hindus believe in One Supreme Lord who may manifest in many different Forms.

4.10 Īshvara and the Creation

A compact verse in the Gita summarizes the relationships of Bhagavān with the Universe very beautifully:

gatir bhartā prabhuḥ sākshī nivāsaḥ sharaṇam suhṛt | prabhavaḥ pralayaḥ sthānam nidhānam bījam avyayam || Gita 9.18

“I am the final Goal (gatir)1, the Provider (bhartā)2, the Lord of all (prabhuḥ)3, the Witness (sākshī) of everything4, the Abode (nivāsaḥ) in which all creatures reside5, Refuge (sharaṇam)6, and the Friend of all (suhṛt)7. And I am the origin (prabhavaḥ) and the dissolution (pralayaḥ),8 the foundation (sthānam) of the universe,9 the store-house

(nidhānam)10 and the inexhaustible (avyayam) seed (bījam) of everything.”11 Gita 9.18

This verse enumerates at least 11 relationships that Bhagavān has with the Universe and with us and are marked in the translation above.

4.10.1 Brahman as the Origin and Support of the Universe

Brahman as Īshvara creates and supports the entire Universe.

Just like a spider exudes and then ingests the web filament, just as herbs emerge of the

earth, just as hair emerge from the head and the body of a living person, in the same way, this entire universe emerges from the Indestructible. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad

1.1.7

This Supreme Brahman is the support of all forefathers (Pitars) and Yama. He is the support for Varuṇa, the twin Ashvins, Agni, Marut and all those in between (the Pitars and the Devas). Yajurveda, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1.27.19

This Ātman, indeed, is the lord of all beings, the king of all beings. As all the spokes are held together in the hub and felly of a wheel, just so, in this self, all beings, all gods, all worlds, all breathing creatures, all these selves are held together. Yajurveda,

Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 2.5.15

Earth, water, air, fire, space, mind, intellect and ego – these are the eight divisions of My Prakriti (cause of the Universe). Gita 7.4

(But) This Prakriti is lower, and know that different from it is my Higher Prakriti - the Individual Soul (or the Living Principle) by which this entire Universe (created from the

Lower Prakriti) is supported . Gita 7.5

Realize this (two-fold Prakriti) to be the womb (origin) of all creatures. And in addition, I am the origin and the dissolution of the entire creation. Gita 7.6

And also, Arjuna, I am that which is the seed of all creatures. There is nothing, moving or unmoving, that could exist without existing through Me. Gita 10.39

But, the Infinite and Omnipotent uses only a fraction of his Powers to manage the Universe-

sport for the Lord, just as in the world (people often do things without any particular selfish motive).

2. The Universe is like the breath of the Lord. Just as we exhale and inhale air involuntarily and naturally, so does God projects the Universe from his own Self during the process of Creation. When the Universe has existed for its intended lifespan, it merges back into the Lord.

3. Some accounts of creation in the Hindu scriptures say that before the Universe came into being, God realized that he was alone and therefore he desired to be many. As soon as this desire entered his mind, the animate and inanimate creation came into being.

4. The creation of the Universe serves the purpose of the individual souls. Even at the end of one cycle of creation, the individual souls have residual Karma that needs to be exhausted. Therefore, the Lord creates the Universe afresh so that the individual souls can reap the fruits of their residual Karma from the previous cycle of creation.

Discussion: Why did the Lord Create an Imperfect Universe?

Many of us try to find faults with Bhagavān’s Creation. But, this is more a reflection of our own limited understanding, because this Universe is complete, and perfect when seen as a whole. We know too little about it to be able to find flaws in it. The following story illustrates how everything has a purpose and a role to play in the form that it was created.

Story: Bhagavan Knows Everything, and He knows the Best: A traveler passing through a forest felt tired. Therefore, he sat below a Banyan Tree in its cool shade. The traveler became curious at the giant size of the tree, but he noticed that the fruit of this tree was very small.

He thought to himself, “What a small fruit for this huge tree! Surely, Bhagavan could have thought better, and made larger fruit grow on this tree.”

As he thought this, a fruit fell from the branch on his head. The traveler was unhurt due to the small size of the fruit. He smiled and said, “I am wrong, and Bhagavan is right! If this huge tree also had large fruit on its branches, then the falling fruit would have smashed my head!”

Discussion: Bhagavān and Evil in the World: If Bhagavān is merciful, then why is there evil in the World?

We reap the fruit of our Karma. If we perform good karma, we beget good results. If we do bad Karma, then we get bad results. Every one of us has performed some good karma, and some bad Karma. Bhagavān has created the Universe that has both happiness and sorrow giving objects and situations so that people can get the deserved fruit of their Karma.

Interfaith Perspectives: In Abrahamic religions, God creates a Satan or the Devil to test people and lead them away from the path of goodness. Hindu Dharma rejects this viewpoint because it makes God the father of the Devil, and therefore responsible for Devil’s evil deeds. There is no Devil in the Hindu viewpoint. Humans themselves have both Divine and Devilish qualities in them. If they are suffering, it is due to their own past Karmas. We cannot blame Bhagavān or the Devil for our suffering.

4.10.2 Īshvara is the Sustainer of this Entire Universe.

This means that the Bhagavān fulfills the following roles with regard to the Universe:

1. Just like the pillars of a mansion support the entire structure, Bhagavān supports the entire structure of the Universe.

2. Just like the ground is the foundation on which a house stands, this entire Universe has Bhagavān as its foundation.

3. Bhagavān creates all the physical laws of the Universe. He makes sure that they are obeyed by the Universe.

4. If Bhagavān were to stop his work for even a fraction of a second, there will be total chaos in the Universe and in our society.

5. It is due to Bhagavān that our own body performs all its biological functions like seeing, digesting food and so on. Without Bhagavān’s constant activity, we would not be able to live even for a second.61

6. It is Bhagavān who ensures that there is order in the Universe as well in the society. He works unceasingly to maintain order without any selfish motive.

7. In reality, it is Bhagavān who is responsible for all our accomplishments and powers. Without his approval, we’d not gain anything.

And although Brahman is without physical attributes, He has all the powers and abilities to create, sustain and preserve the Universe.

I shall explain that which ought to be known, knowing which one attains immortality. It is the Supreme Brahman, the best of the beginning-less, which is said to be neither existent nor non-existent…Gita 13.12

That has hands and feet everywhere, Eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, Has the ability to hear everything in this world, and stands in this universe, enveloping everything. …Gita 13.13

He appears to have all the senses, and is yet free from all senses; unattached and yet sustaining all, free from the Guṇas and yet enjoying all the Guṇas….Gita13.14

Outside as well as within all the beings whether stationary or mobile; He is not known because of its subtlety; He is situated afar and is also near…Gita 13.15

He is undivided (indivisible) and yet abides within beings as if divided; He is to be known as the sustainer of all beings; as well as their Devourer and Creator…Gita 13.16

We all take the role of Bhagavān as the supporter of the Universe for granted. Imagine watching an opera inside a huge auditorium. The singer has a microphone that sends the voice to the speakers and from there to your ears. The auditorium is well lit and you can enjoy the actions of the singer and the instrument players. You do not suffocate for a lack of oxygen although all the doors are closed because oxygen is being pumped inside the auditorium at all times. The auditorium does not become stuffy because there is constant air-conditioning. The heavy and beautiful doors are kept closed by motors so that there is no disturbance from outside. A sudden power failure occurs! You can no longer hear the singer, cannot see anything and the doors are shut and jammed. The electric guitars of the musicians no longer work. Within a few hours, even the oxygen inside the auditorium will run out because no fresh oxygen is being pumped inside with motors. The electricity that we took for granted was the power that was running the entire show!

Likewise, in this Universe, we take Bhagavān for granted but He is responsible for sustaining, supporting the entire creation and keep it functioning. But for Him, there would be instant chaos and destruction in the cosmos.

Story: The Third Eye of Shiva Once, Shiva was in a state of a deep meditation. Shiva does not keep his eyes closed completely while meditating. They are slightly opened, but his gaze is turned not towards the

world, but inwards. His wife Devi Parvati, in a playful mood with her friends and maids, put her hands in front of the two eyes of Shiva.

Suddenly, there was darkness in the entire Universe! No one could see. People started worshipping Shiva out of uncontrollable fear. A miracle happened and a third eye appeared on the forehead of Shiva. As soon as this third eye opened, a flash of lightening came out of it and spread light in the entire Universe. Everyone could see once again!

Parvati realized two things – one that no one could cover the sight of Shiva. Second, the sight of the entire Universe depended on the sight of Shiva!

Story: How Vishnu feeds every Ant

Lord Vishnu is the sustainer of the whole world and He feeds all the living beings. Lakshmi is His consort. Every day, she waits for him to come home after His work is finished. Every day, the Lord comes very late. One day, Lakshmi got tired of waiting for Him. When the Lord was eating His dinner, she asked him. “Why

do you come home late every day? Why can’t you come home early?”

Lord Vishnu relied, “I have to feed billions and billions of creatures every day before I can think of eating myself.”

Lakshmi was astonished and asked, “You mean, you have to feed everyone personally every day”? Lord Vishnu replied, “Yes, I feed every creature myself, and give it food that it deserves according to its fruit of past karma.”

Lakshmi could not believe it and she decided to test Bhagavan Vishnu. She caught an ant, locked the creature in a small box and put the box in a cupboard. As always, Vishnu came home late for lunch that day too. She asked Him, “So did you feed everyone today?” “Yes,” replied Bhagavan Vishnu.

With a mischievous smile on her face, Lakshmi said, “I disagree. I think you did not feed this ant that I locked inside a cupboard today morning. I kept watching the cupboard the entire day today and did not see you go anywhere near it. So I am sure you missed to feed the ant.”

She went to the cupboard and brought the box to show it to her husband. But as soon as she opened it, she was shocked to find the ant feeding on a little piece of jiggery.

Bhagavan Vishnu smiled. Lakshmi-ji understood that He really does feed everyone even though we may not see Him doing so! He indeed takes care of everyone, and nourishes everyone without ever forgetting them.

4.10.3 The Creation is a Part of Īshvara and Contained within Him

In Abrahamic religions, the Lord is outside of and above the creation. In Hindu Dharma, nothing is outside the Supreme Being. Everything is within Him and is a part of Him.

What was the original cause and what was the material cause by means of which the creator

of this universe, who had the vision of this creation, created this earth below, and the heaven above? What was the tree, and what forest, out of which the earth and heavens were fashioned? The learned thinkers enquire as to what is that, upon which He is stationed holding all the worlds? Rigveda 10.81.2,4

Brahman is the forest and Brahman the tree out of which the earth and the heaven were fashioned and I am declaring after thoughtful deliberation that it is Brahman, which existed and supported all the worlds. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 2.8.9.6

In Him in whom this universe is interwoven, whatever moves or is motionless. In Brahman everything is lost, like bubbles in the ocean. In Him the living creatures of the universe, emptying themselves, become invisible. They disappear and come to light as bubbles rise to the surface. Atharvaveda, Chūlikā Upanishad 17-18

A modern author on Hindu Dharma elaborates:

“This third approach [i.e., God as a Cosmic Principle – Brahman] requires us to think of Him or Her not as a personality (with attributes like love and power), but as a principle underlying absolutely everything. This principle forms the basis of everything we experience. Brahman is the Ultimate Reality appearing as everything. It manifests as all the galaxies, all living and non-living things, and even as our mental and intellectual faculties. Everything is seen as an expression of this Ultimate Reality, Brahman. This approach is similar to the one used by scientists who are also trying to find a unity from which everything is manufactured. To pay tribute to this idea, Hindus define the universe as srishti, meaning ‘projection’ of that principle ~ Brahman.”65

She further clarifies-

“Note: Hindus do not say that the universe is God; that theory is called pantheism. Instead, they say that God or the Ultimate Reality appears or manifests as the universe. In this manifested universe, living beings are considered to be more special than non-living things. Brahman becomes more manifested in living beings. This gives rise to the second key concept in Hinduism: Atman.”66

Story: Arjuna sees the Vishvarūpa, or the Universal Form of God (Bhagavad Gita Chapter XI):

After Krishna had explained the nature of God and His Divine manifestations to Arjuna, the latter said, “Krishna, I have understood what you have said about God. If you think that I deserve to see Him now, then please show me the Divine Form of God.”

Krishna said, “No one can see this Divine Form but as you are my friend, I will give you Divine vision. Behold my Divine Form.”

And then Krishna manifested his Vishvaroopa, or Divine Form to Arjuna who saw a Divine Being with infinite faces, eyes, marvelous displays, adorned with divine clothes, garlands and ornaments. Arjuna saw that the splendor of this Being exceeded the light of a 1000 suns shining simultaneously. Arjuna saw the entire Universe in that being, the past, the present, the future.

Arjuna was overwhelmed with what he saw. He bowed reverentially and said-

“O Lord! I see within you Brahma, the creator. I see Vishnu with his four arms. I see Shiva.

I see the heaven, earth, all planets, stars, all living creatures, all Devas, countless things that I cannot even understand.

Your radiance dazzles me.

You have no beginning, no end, no middle.

You are the Being who upholds Dharma eternally, who is Infinite, Who is the Creator and the Destroyer.

The worlds seem to tremble at your sight. You are the foundation of the entire Universe.

I am terrified to see your mouths blazing with fire.

I can see these countless warriors in the Kurukshetra battlefield plunging to their deaths into your mouths, as moths plunge into a flame.

The entire Universe is filled with your glory and is radiant with your light.

This sight is so overwhelming that I am terrified.

You are the Father, the Grandfather, the Teacher and the Mother of the entire Universe. Please treat me as a father would treat his son, or a friend his friend. Please show me the beloved form of yours as the four armed Vishnu again so that I may gain my composure.”

And then Krishna again showed his four armed form as Vishnu and told Arjuna that,

“This form is seen by very few. Neither by mere study of scriptures, or mere ritual or mere austerities can one see God. It is only through love and devotion that we get to see God the way Arjuna saw Him. You saw the future in my Divine form. You saw that Duryodhana is already dead in the future. So become My instrument and do your Karma as My agent.”

This chapter of the Gita shows how Arjuna actually saw all the qualities of God when Krishna gave him the Divine vision. All space is within God. And all time is within God as well – whether the past, the present or the future. And God is infinite, he is the ruler of the Universe, its creator, destroyer and its nourisher.

4.10.4 Īshvara is the True Lord of the Universe

Bhagavān is the Lord or the Master of the Universe. He is superior to everything else. He controls the Universe. He is Almighty. We must follow his guidance given in the Vedas, which are His revelations.

No one is superior to him or mightier than He. So we should worship Bhagavān with humility and devotion, not with arrogance and pride.

Story: Who is the Greatest Emperor?

One evening, King Akbar invited all his friends and Birbal to a dinner. The King boasted, “I think I am the greatest King in the world. There is no King who is greater than I am. In fact, I am even greater than Bhagavān.”

Then, the King asked his friends, “Tell me, do you think that I am correct? Am I not greater than Bhagavān?”

Akbar’s friends got scared. They did not want to make Akbar angry by saying that Bhagavān is the greatest of all. So they just kept quiet.

But Birbal got up and said, “Yes your Highness, you are greater than Bhagavān.”

King Akbar said to Birbal, “I am really happy to hear that from you. You never speak a lie. Are you sure that I am greater even than Bhagavān?”

Birbal replied, “Of course your Highness! If someone annoys you, you can banish them from your kingdom. But Bhagavān cannot banish anyone from His kingdom. This means that you are greater than Bhagavān because you can do something that even He cannot do!” When Akbar heard this, he felt ashamed. He now

understood that Bhagavān was the emperor of the whole universe. Therefore, he cannot throw anyone out from his kingdom. Wherever that person goes, he will still be inside Bhagavān’s kingdom because He is the Emperor of the Universe.

4.10.5 Universe Derives its Properties from Īshvara

Arjuna, I am the taste in the waters, the radiance in the moon and the sun. I am the syllable Aum in all the Vedas. I am the sound in space, and masculinity in men. Gita 7.8

I am the pure fragrance in earth and the brilliance in the fire. I am the life in all beings and the austerity in ascetics. Gita 7.9

Arjuna, know me to be the primeval seed of all creatures. I am the intelligence of the intelligent; the splendor of the splendid am I. Gita 7.10

And I am the might of the mighty, devoid of desire and passion. And Arjuna, I am the desire in beings which is not contrary to Dharma. Gita 7.11

Intellect, knowledge, freedom from delusion, forbearance, truth, self-discipline, tranquility, pleasure, pain, existence and non-existence, fear and fearlessness, Gita 10.4 Non-violence, same-mindedness, contentment, austerity, charity, glory, infamy – these various states of beings arise from Me alone. Gita 10.5

Story: The Divine Wisdom that Leads to Bhagavān : The Universe was functioning normally. The elements of nature (earth, water, fire, space and air) became a little arrogant. They thought that they were the Universe itself, they alone were responsible for its existence and maintenance. So, Bhagavān decided to teach them a lesson. He appeared before Fire as a young man. Blinded by their ego, none of the elements could recognize Bhagavān and thought of Him as a stranger from some foreign land. He and asked Fire – “So tell me, what are your powers?” Fire replied, “I can burn the entire creation to ashes.” Bhagavān then put a blade of grass and said. “Burn this then.” The Fire tried and tried, but the blade of grass did not burn at all!” Fire was shocked.

But the other elements would not give up. Air came forward and said to Bhagavān, “I can blow

The five elements of nature then became terrified because they did not know who this stranger was. So, they went to their master, Indra (= the Atman) and asked him to investigate. Indra came to the spot where the stranger had appeared. But lo! The Stranger had disappeared. In place of the stranger was a beautiful lady named Umā or ‘Spiritual Knowledge.” So Indra asked her, “Who was that mysterious person that scared the five elements, and made them totally ineffective?”

Umā said, “That was Brahman, the Supreme Being. It is by the will of Bhagavān that the wind can blow, the rivers flow, the fire burns, the space contains everything within itself, and the earth supports the creatures. Without the will of that Bhagavān, even a leaf cannot move. The sun rises by His command, the stars twinkle due to Him and the moon shines by Bhagavān’s grace. Know that Bhagavān alone to be the source of all power, and all properties of the Universe. Knowing that God alone, you will attain Moksha.”

4.10.6 Perfect Īshvara is not Tainted by the Universe’s Imperfections and Transcends it

Just as the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not defiled by the external faults seen by the

eye, even so, the One within all beings is not tainted by the sorrow of the world, as He is outside (the world). Yajurveda, Katha Upanishad 2.2.11

The one Deva, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner ātman of all beings, the

overseer of all karma, who dwells in all beings, the witness, the knower, the only one who is not tainted by the Guṇas. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.11

Taking hold of My Prakriti, I send forth again and again this entire multitude of beings, which are helpless, being under the control of Prakriti. Gita 9.8

And these actions do not bind Me Dhanamjaya; I am seated as if indifferent, unattached in those actions. Gita 9.9

Because this Supreme Ātman is beginningless and devoid of Gunas, it is imperishable. Even though it dwells in the body, It neither acts nor is it tainted. …Gita 13.31

As the all-pervading ether is not tainted due to its subtlety, in the same way, the Ātman that dwells in all the bodies does not get tainted. …Gita 13.32

Deva Shiva transcends the three gunas. He is omniscient, All-Doer. Pervading the onesyllabled ‘Om’, he pervades everything. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 1.26

Several atheists and agnostics argue that the creation is full of imperfections. If the Perfect Lord is the Creator, this automatically implies that he is responsible for all the imperfections in the universe. Vedānta however responds that these so called imperfections are present to create appropriate experiences for individual ātmās that are consistent with their karmas performed in previous lives.

4.10.7 The Universe Dissolves into Brahman at the End of its Life and then Emerges again

This is indeed the truth – As from a blazing fire, thousands of sparks having the same form

as the fire emerge, similarly dear boy, various beings originate from that Imperishable and into it indeed they go back again. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.1.1

That from which these things are born, that by which when born they live, that into which when departing they enter. That, seek to know. That is Brahman. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Upanishad 3.1

Son of Kunti, all creatures go into My own Prakriti at the end of a Kalpa. At the beginning of the (next) Kalpa, I send them forth. Gita 9.7

Taking hold of My Prakriti, I send forth again and again this entire multitude of beings, which is helpless, being under the control of Prakriti. Gita 9.8

Discussion: Why does the Universe get Dissolved and then Recreated?

We see from our everyday life that everything wears out and eventually gets destroyed. The same is true of the Universe too. After several million years, even the sun loses its light and heat. But, even at the end of one cycle of creation, the individual ātmans have residual Karma that needs to be exhausted. Therefore, the Lord creates the Universe afresh so that the individual souls can reap the fruits of their residual Karma from the previous cycle of creation.

For this reason, we Hindus do not think that dissolution of the universe is an evil act. The followers of Abrahamic faiths tend to portray Shiva as the evil destroyer, whereas we see Him as an extremely merciful aspect of Bhagavān.

4.10.8 Īshvara is Within and Outside Everything

Fire is His head. His eyes are the sun and the moon. The four directions are His years. The

revealed Vedas are His speech. The wind is His breath. The Universe is His heart. From His feet originated the earth. He is indeed the indwelling Ātman of all beings. Atharvaveda,

Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.1.4

Nothing exists beyond Me at all, O Arjuna. This entire creation (comprising of the Lower and the Higher Prakriti) is pervaded my Me, just as a row of gems is threaded on a string.

Gita 7.7

Whatever states of being there might exist, be they Saattvik, Rajasic or Tamasic, know that they all arise from Me. They are in Me, but I am not in them. Gita 7.12

This entire universe is pervaded by My unmanifest aspect. All beings abide in Me, but I do not abide in them. Gita 9.4

As the mighty wind, moving everywhere, abides always within space; Know that so do all beings dwell in Me. Gita 9.6

I am the Ātman present in the heart of all creatures. And I am also the beginning, the middle and the end of all things. Gita 10.20

This earth belongs to king Varuṇa. So also the heaven which is vast and far away belongs to him; both the seas are contained in his belly and he is as well hidden in this small drop of water. Atharvaveda, Shaunakīya Samhitā 4.16.3

Deva Shiva transcends the three gunas. He is omniscient, All-Doer. Pervading the onesyllabled ‘Om’, he pervades everything. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 1.26

The observable Universe extends billions of light years across, and we do not even know what lies beyond. Vedānta declares that the Lord is present within this entire universe, and He is also beyond it. The entire creation is contained within a single ‘footprint’ of the Lord, so to speak. He is Omnipresent (present everywhere), All-Pervading and Immanent (i.e. present inside everything).

Story: Yashodā sees the Universe inside Krishna’s Mouth: Krishna had grown up to be a little boy who could walk. So, he used to play with other children of his age outside his house. One day it so happened that Krishna, while playing, put some soil into his mouth, One of his playmates went up to Yashodā and told her about what Krishna had done.

Yashodā caught Krishna by the hand and brought him inside. She said, "My son! It is bad to put soil into the mouth. It leads to worms in the belly and soil-eating children often fall ill. Have you eaten soil? Open your mouth hand show it to me."

"No, mother; I haven't eaten soil at all”, retorted Krishna. “But open your mouth and show me," Yashodā said again. Krishna opened his mouth wide and Yashodā was wonder-struck to see the entire universe--the sun, the moon, stars, the earth etc.--inside Krishna's mouth.

Now Yashodā was fully convinced that her son was not an ordinary boy but God Himself. Seeing Yashodā amazed, Krishna made her forget this thought through his divine power. Yashodā began to fondle him with deep affection and Krishna began to smile.

This story indicates that the entire Universe exists inside God, as if he is the abode or the home inside which we all live.

4.10.9 Īshvara is Omniscient, Witness and the Giver of Fruit of our Karma

I know the past and the present as also the future beings, but no one knows Me! Gita 7.26

The one Deva, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner ātman of all beings, the overseer of all karma, who dwells in all beings, the witness, the knower, the only one who is not tainted by the Guṇas. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.11

The fruit of our Karma comes from Brahman, because that possibility alone is the logical one. Brahmasūtra 3.2.38

The witness and permitter, sustainer, experiencer, the great Lord, the Supreme Ātman – thus is also called the Supreme Purusha inside this body. Gita 13.22

Īshvara, the Dispenser, is the One who gives happiness and sorrows, and what is dear and what is not dear to all creatures on the basis of their past Karmas. Īshvara indeed is the Lord of everyone. Mahābhārata 3.30.22

Just as space is all-pervading, Īshvara too pervades all creatures (as a witness) and determines their measure of happiness and sorrows depending in their Karmas.

Mahābhārata 3.30.24

Nothing is hidden from the Lord because He is All-Pervading and present inside the entire creation, witness to everything that happens even if we think it is a secret between two people only. He ensures that everyone gets the just fruit of their karma.

4.10.10 Īshvara Reveals the Vedas

In addition to creating the material universe, the Lord also reveals the Vedas. As from a

lighted fire laid with damp fuel, various (clouds of) smoke issue forth, even so, my dear, the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Samaveda, Atharvangiras, Itihasa, Purana, vidyā, Upanishads, verses, aphorisms, explanations and commentaries. From this, indeed, are all these breathed forth. Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 2.4.10

All knowledge proceeds from Him, because he is All-Wise, All-knowing. Specifically, Hindus believe that the Lord revealed the Vedas to Rishis to lay the foundation of all the branches of knowledge.

4.10.11 He is Unequalled and Unique in the Universe

Verily in the beginning this world was Brahman, the infinite one, infinite in the east, infinite in the south, infinite in the west, infinite in the north and above and below, infinite in every direction. For him, indeed, east and the other directions exist not nor across, nor below, nor above. Incomprehensible is that Supreme Self, unlimited, unborn, not to be reasoned about, unthinkable. Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Upanishad 6.17

Indeed, it is the Immortal Brahman that extends in the east, Brahman that extends in the west, Brahman to the south and to the north, below and above – it is Brahman alone is this entire universe, Brahman is the highest. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.2.12 Sage Veda Vyāsa said to Sage Shukadeva – He is neither above (completely), nor below; He is neither in the vicinity, nor in the middle. No finite region can encompass Him completely, nor does God travel from one location to the other. All these worlds are situated within Him, and no region or part of the universe is outside Him. Mahābhārata 12.239.26 Even though a person were to run with the speed of an arrow shot from a bow, or run with a speed of mind continuously, non-stop, he will not be able to reach the end of Paramātman, the cause of this entire universe. Mahābhārata 12.239.27cd-28ab

The wise say that this Brahman has no beginning, middle or end, he has no duality, is the originating cause of this universe, eternal, unchangeable and transcendental. Mahābhārata 12.301.102

Story: Bhagavān Shiva humbles the pride of Mighty Rāvaṇa

Rāvaṇa was an evil King who ruled a country called Lanka. He had 10 heads. He had a step brother named Kubera, who was very rich. Rāvaṇa attacked Kubera’s palace and looted everything that Kubera had. Then, he started returning to Lanka in his flying chariot. Suddenly, the chariot stopped in front of a mountain. He tried a lot, but the chariot would not go above the mountain. He discovered that this mountain was Mount Kailash, on which lived Bhagavān Shiva with Devī Parvati.

Rāvaṇa was very arrogant and proud of his strength. He did not want to return to Lanka by another route. So he decided to uproot Mount Kailash and then go back to Lanka by the same route that he wanted.

He got off the chariot, and started uprooting the mountain from the earth. The mountain started shaking. All the companions of Shiva and even Devi Parvati became worried and scared. At last, Rāvaṇa uprooted the entire mountain and lifted it on his strong arms. But Shiva just smiled. He pressed the mountain with his little toe of the right foot. Immediately, the mountain came crashing on Rāvaṇa. Now Rāvaṇa was trapped under the mountain. He was getting crushed.

Rāvaṇa realized that it was wrong of him to be proud of his own strength. Shiva used just the little toe of his foot and was able to crush Rāvaṇa under the mountain. Therefore, Rāvaṇa apologized to Shiva, and he sang prayers from the Sāmaveda to Him and asked for forgiveness. Bhagavān Shiva forgave Rāvaṇa, and asked him to go back to Lanka.

This story shows that although Rāvaṇa was the most

powerful person on this earth, Bhagavān Shiva was able to defeat him very easily by pressing the mountain with his little toe. No matter how strong we are, we should remember that there is no one who is stronger than Bhagavān because He alone is Almighty, the most powerful!

4.11 The Vyūha Doctrine of Pāṅcharātra Vaishnavism

This school of Hindus speaks of five forms of God –

1. The Para or the transcendent. This form of God possesses the six attributes denoted by the word ‘Bhagavān’ (knowledge, lordship. Potency, strength, virility and splendor).

2. The Vyūha or the grouped. There are four in number, and are respectively named after Krishna, his elder brother, his son and his grandson

a. Vāsudeva – this is the same as the Para form.

b. Samkarshaṇa – with him, the creation assumes an embryonic form. He also teaches one pointed devotion to Vāsudeva. Sometimes identified with Shiva.

c. Pradyumna – with him, the duality of Purusha and Prakriti manifests.

d. Aniruddha – enables the body and soul to grow.

3. The Vibhava or the incarnated (Avatāras) forms like Rama, Krishna etc.

4. The Antaryāmin or the Immanent form.

5. The Archā or the Mūrti which is the most concrete form.

It is the second of the above, i.e., the four Vyūha aspect of the Pancharatra philosophy that is rejected by all the other Hindus. This doctrine itself is quite complicated and is represented diagrammatically below side.

The Pāncharātra Doctrine explained with the help of the Water Analogy:

Pillai Lokacharya, a Shri Vaishnava theologian belonging to the ‘cat-school’ of the followers of

Vishishtadvaita Vedanta gives the following analogy of water to explain the five aspects of Bhagavān:

“The attempt to comprehend the transcendent form is like getting water from the other world for quenching thirst; the Vyūha form is like the legendary ocean of milk which also is not easy of access; the immanent form is like subterranean water which is not readily available to a thirst man although it is right underneath his feet; the incarnated forms are like the floods that inundate the country for a while but do not last long; and archā is like a stagnant pool from which anyone anytime could slake his thirst.”

The Eternal Form of Vishnu in Pancharatra Vaishnavism & Vishishtadvaita Vedānta:

Parallel to the doctrine that Para form of Brahman has six positive attributes, the Pāncharātra scriptures also declare that Parabrahman also has a personal, immutable and a magnificent form made of ‘Shuddha-Sattva’ that survives the dissolution of the Universe. This body is of Vishnu reclining on the multi-hooded cobra (the Sheshanāga). Not only Vishnu and Sheshanāga, but his attendants etc. have an indestructible body made of the same material. This concept of Brahman possessing an eternal body has been developed further in the school of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, that was systematized by Ramanujacharya (1017 – 1137 CE).

If God already has the universe and the finite selves as His body, then what is the need to have another one? Shri Ramanuja adduces four reasons:

1. Firstly, scriptural texts themselves indicated at many places that the Lord possesses a Supernatural Form. Ramanuja proposes that we should interpret these texts at their face value.

2. The acceptance of the Supernal Form of God would make possible the comprehension and reconciliation of apparently conflicting scriptural texts in a literalist manner. For instance, they would allow the possibility of the Lord enjoying all the Prakrtic (material) endowments through His Supernal Form.

3. Sri Ramanuja appeals to the authority of Bhagavān Bādarāyaṇa, Acharya Tanka and Dramidāchārya to propose the existence of the divine form. He quotes statements from their works to the effect that God possess an Eternal and Pure Form.

4. Lastly, it is consistent with the fact that Lord is an ocean of mercy and compassion and so His form serves to attract the earnest devotees towards Him.

It is surprising to note that while on one hand, Shri Ramanuja is very insistent about the supreme and transcendental nature of God and declares that the finite selves as well as the universe constitute His body, on the other hand, he feels the need to state with almost equal insistence that God possesses in addition, His own body, that is free of all imperfections and is possessed of infinite splendor, glory, brilliance and extent.

Such an insistence on the existence of a Divine Form in addition to the His ‘body’ constituted by the finite selves and the universe almost seems to be redundant. Yet Shri Ramanuja justifies his stand point by taking recourse to scriptural texts that seem to describe such a body possessed by God. The theological reasons for this doctrine are not far to seek. The concept of a perfect body for God fit very well into a

God is eternal and is composed of sattva only. Shri Ramanuja also quotes the Acharya Tanka in his Vedārthasamgraha to this effect and stresses that the essential ‘form’ of God is eternal and pure and is not assumed only temporarily for the benefit of his devotees. This peculiar concept seems to have been introduced into Vedanta by Shri Ramanuja from the Pancharātra.

Shri Ramanuja goes even further. He describes this divine abode of Brahman along the lines of the descriptions given in the Vaishnava texts like Visnu Purana and Pancharātra texts like the Paramasamhita. Thus, God is adorned with jewels of matchless beauty, he wears a yellow garment and is served eternally by attendants (‘suris’) who are more real than the finite selves like Brahmā and Shiva. The word ‘sūrī’ reminds of the Rigvedic verse- “Tadvishnoh paramam padam sada pashyanti suriyah.”

However, more detailed descriptions of the same are reserved for his works like the Vaikunthagadya. From these descriptions in the works of Ramanuja, it is clear that he is trying to synthesize the views of the Pancaratra and Bhagavata school with the Vedantic conception of God. Rather, he views these descriptions as further clarifications of nature of Brahman as revealed in the Vedas and Vedantas (Upanisads). Thus, Shri Ramanuja sees no contradiction in the two descriptions of Brahman as given in these two groups of texts. This is why, his followers termed the Visistadvaita school of Vedanta as ‘Ubhayavedānta’ or the two-fold Vedanta.

Shri Ramanuja beautifully weaves his concept of God’s eternal body with His accessibility. He says that although the form of God cannot be grasped by our organs of perception, yet its very beauty attracts His devotees. Thereafter, God, through His mercy, reveals His form to His blessed devotees and grants them Eternal Salvation.

According to Sri Vedanta Deshika, the word ‘Sri’ may be derived in six ways, each reflecting an aspect of the graciousness of the Devi –

1. From ‘sriyate’, meaning She who is resorted to (by Her devotees)

2. From ‘srayate’, meaning She who resorts to (Bhagavān Vishnu)

3. From ‘srnoti’ meaning she who listens to (her worshippers)

4. From ‘srāvayati’ meaning She who makes (Vishnu) listen (to her

5. From ‘srnāti’ meaning she who removes (the accumulated karma, the defects of character and the obstacles that prevent the devotee from attaining Moksha)

6. From ‘srinati’ meaning she who makes (human beings) perfect (so that they attain Moksha).

4.12 The Eternal Body of Shiva in the Shaiva Āgamas

Similar to the Pāncharātra school of Vaishnavas, the followers of Shaiva Āgamas (now found mainly in Tamil Nadu and adjacent parts of South India, and some areas in Sri Lanka and Malaysia) believe that Shiva is the Supreme Brahman encompassing all the attributes of the Trimūrti and He has an eternal body that is not impacted by the creation and dissolution of the Universe.

“The Supreme has the Ishāna as His head, the Tatpurusha as His mouth, the Aghora as His heart, the

Vāmadeva as His genitals and the Sadyojāta as His feet.” Cited in Madhavāchārya’s Sarvadarshanasamgraha, chapter VIII.

This, they argue, is possible because the Divine Body of Shiva is not comprised of any of the three guṇas of Prakriti and is not under the influence of Karma or Prakriti. Instead, this body is composed of pure ‘Shakti’ or energy which are the five mantras listed in the following scriptural text:

This body is produced by His own free fill and is the cause of five functions of Shiva, namely: grace, obscuration, dissolution, preservation and creation. This body of Shiva is invisible, and imperceptible.

This school of Hindu Dharma does not deny other forms of Shiva, but declares that Shiva assumes these forms out of compassion for his worshippers because it is very difficult to meditate upon and worship a Deity that has no form.

5.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS ANTARYĀMĪ

In a general sense, the word ‘Antaryāmī’ means the Brahman Who is present inside everything as the inner controller. And in a restricted sense, it means the Brahman that abides within our hearts as the inner controller as well as the witness. As the Supreme Lord pervades the entire creation, He controls it from within and makes the entire universe alive. He ensures that all the Cosmic Laws are obeyed the way he intends. Nothing is outside of His control even though we might not be able to see his lordship over the entire creation. Although Omnipresent, he takes care of every individual and object in the creation as if he were a separate entity within each one of them.

He who dwells in the ātman, yet is within the ātman, whom the ātman does not know, whose body the ātman is, who controls the ātman from within – He is your Ātman, the

inner controller, the immortal. Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 3.7.22

Although One, You have penetrated diverse beings. Yajurveda, Taittiriya Aranyaka 3.14.3

He enters every one and is their inner ruler. He is the ātman (inner pervade) of everything.

Yajurveda, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3.11.1

He enters everything and is the inner doer (of all natural/cosmic processes). Yajurveda,

Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3.11.3

The One Lord is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and the Ātman (indwelling soul) of all. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.2

He is undivided (indivisible) and yet abides within beings as if divided; He is to be known as the sustainer of all beings; as well as their Devourer and Creator…Gita 13.16

Supreme Lord, you reside with the hearts of all creatures as the Witness. Agni Purāṇa 79.19

The Antaryāmī aspect of the Divine can really be subsumed within Īshvara but is emphasized as a separate level of Brahman by several Vaishnava Hindu theologians to underscore the fact that Brahman is not merely transcendent to the creation, It also controls the Universe from within it as the Immanent Ātmā.

As the All-Pervading Immanent Ātmā, Brahman is present not just within the good and virtuous humans, but also within the evil and the low, and also within non-human creatures. The Bhagavad Gita therefore emphasizes that the wise should see Brahman within everyone, and therefore treat everyone with respect and reverence:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

The wise see the same (Atman) in a Brahmana endowed with knowledge and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, and even in a dog or in an outcaste. Gita

5.18

Krishna said to Arjuna:

There is nothing whatsoever higher than Me. This entire Universe is strung in Me, like clusters of jewels on a thread. Gita 7.7

5.1 Attributes of Brahman as Antaryāmin

First, as the Antaryāmin, Brahman gives an underlying unity to this entire creation and strings it together:

Second, Brahman also controls all creatures by being present inside their hearts:

The Ātman, Who resides within the hearts of all, is the Ruler of all. Yajurveda, Taittiriya Āraṇyaka 3.11.2

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Īshvara resides in the hearts of all beings, causing them to turn around by His Māyā (power or magic) as if they were mounted on a machine. Gita 18.61

Third, He is the true agent of all cosmic and our body processes.

By whom, willed and directed, does the mind shine light on its objects? By whom,

commanded, does Prāṇa, show activity? At whose will do people utter words? And what Divine is it that prompts the eye and the ear? Because it is that (Brahman) which is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech indeed of the speech, the breath of the breath, the eye of the eye – the wise, after giving up (wrong notions of their self-sufficiency) and after their death, become immortal. Samaveda, Kena Upanishad 1.1-2

The brilliance which emerges from the sun, illuminating the entire universe, which is in the moon and which is in the fire, know that brilliance to be Mine. Gita 15.12

Permeating the earth, I support all beings with vitality, and having become the soma (moon) full of sap, I nourish all the plants. Gita 15.13

Having become Vaishvānara residing within the bodies of all creatures, and combining with the prāṇa and apāna, I digest the four kinds of food. Gita 15.14

And I am lodged within the hearts of all. From Me come memory and knowledge as well as their loss. I indeed am that which is to be known by all the Vedas. I am author (fulfiller) of the Vedanta and the knower of the Vedas. Gita 15.15

Illustration: The Main Switch Vs. the Secondary Switch:76 The central message of this attribute of the Divine can be understood with the help of a more contemporary example. Bhagavān is like the main power switch whereas we are the small downstream switches. If the main switch is 'OFF', it does not matter whether the small switches are flipped to the 'ON' or the 'OFF' position. No electrical appliance will ever work if the main power switch is flipped to the 'OFF' position. Fortunately for us, God is that Main Switch which is always 'ON' and for this reason, we often take his gifts and powers for granted.

Story- Krishna as the Savior of the Pāṇdavas: According to the rules of the war, the Pāṇdavas and Krishna went to the tents of the Kaurava army to spend the night there and take possession of the Kaurava treasury. This meant to show the world that the Pāṇdavas now face no danger from the Kaurava army and could even sleep without any fear in the Kaurava camp.

When the chariot of Arjuna reached the Kaurava camp, Krishna asked Arjuna to take his bow and other weapons, get off from the chariot and walk away to some distance. When Arjuna did this, Hanuman immediately flew off from the flag of the chariot and disappeared. Then, Krishna got off and walked towards Arjuna. Immediately, the chariot burst into flames and exploded as the Pāṇdavas looked in shock! Yudhishthira asked Krishna as to why this happened. Krishna explained, “During the war, the chariot had been hit by many missiles and it should have exploded several days ago. But my presence kept it intact. Now the war is over, and we do not need it anymore. Therefore, I have allowed it to get destroyed.” Yudhishthira then

bowed to Krishna with respect and said, “We owe our victory to you Krishna. If you had not been there to look after us, we would have lost our lives a long time ago.”

Fourth, due to its immanence, Brahman is the witness (‘Sākshi’) of our good and bad Karma. However, Brahman itself does not get tainted by the results of the good or bad karma of the doer. He is also therefore the Giver of fruit of our Karma.

I know the past and the present as also the future beings, but no one knows Me! Gita 7.26

The one Deva, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the inner ātman of all beings, the overseer

of all karma, who dwells in all beings, the witness, the knower, the only one who is not tainted by the Guṇas. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.11

The fruit of our Karma comes from Brahman, because that possibility alone is the logical one. Brahmasūtra 3.2.38

The witness and permitter, sustainer, experiencer, the great Lord, the Supreme Ātman – thus is also called the Supreme Purusha inside this body. Gita 13.22

Just as space is all-pervading, Īshvara too pervades all creatures (as a witness) and determines their measure of happiness and sorrows depending in their Karmas.

Mahābhārata 3.30.24

Story: The Lord as the Witness for Sant Kanakadasa (1509-1609 CE) Kanaka Dasa was a humble cowherd who wandered from village to village singing the praises of Bhagawan Vishnu. Vyasateertha, a very famous scholar of Vedanta, took him as his student. Very soon, Kanakadasa became his favorite student.

The other students became jealous, because unlike them, Kanaka was not only from a very humble family, he was also not educated in scriptures. Vyasateertha decided to teach his students a lesson. He called all of them and gave them a banana each saying, “These are sacred bananas. If you eat them, you will be blessed. However, you must eat your banana in a secluded spot where no one can see you. Then come back and tell me where you had eaten your banana.”

After a day or so, everyone came back and reported that they had eaten their blessed banana at such and such spot. Surprisingly, Kanaka had still not eaten his banana. When Vyasateertha asked, Kanaka responded,

“Reverend teacher, I was not able to find a single spot where God could not see me.”

Vyasateertha looked at his students and said, “For you, God is merely something whose name is chanted by you in rituals. But for Kanakadasa, God is a real, living and breathing person whom he experiences everywhere.”

Fifth, Brahman’s presence in our heart makes it possible for the human being to meditate on It and advance spiritually towards Moksha. This does not mean that Brahman is present only inside the heart of all creatures, or that It is not present in creatures which do not have a heart! Krishna clarifies:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

I am the Soul seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the very end of beings. Gita 10.20

The reason why the heart is emphasized as an abode of Brahman in the human body and not other parts of the body as frequently is that it is very fruitful to meditate upon Brahman by focusing in the heart region. In the state of deep meditation, the individual soul abides in the heart (dahara-pundarīka) of its body. There, it is in very close communion with Brahman.

Sixth, the presence of Brahman as Antaryāmin in the hearts of all creatures mean that all living beings are the abode of the Divine and are worthy of our respect. He is impartial and present equally within all. The scriptures state:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Sages see the same (Brahman) in a brahmana imbued with learning and humility, in a cow, an elephant or even a dog or an outcaste. Gita 5.18

I am the same (Soul) in all. None is hateful or dear to Me. But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me and I am also in them. Gita 9.29

He who perceives the Supreme Lord as abiding alike in all beings, not perishing when they perish, he, truly sees. …Gita 13.27

Because, perceiving the same Lord as established alike everywhere, he does not hurt the

Ātman by the atman. Then, he attains the supreme goal. …Gita 13.28

None is dear to You, none inimical, none indifferent. These differences are only attributed to You by them whose vision is clouded by Māyā. Svayamprabhā in Adhyātma

Rāmāyaṇa 4.6.71

Our suffering and status in the society result from our own prior evil actions, and not due to Divine prejudice. Irrespective of our gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion etc., the Lord looks upon all of us equally. He showers His blessings on everyone, just as the sun castes its light on all creatures equally. There are no chosen-people, no infidels, now high or low in His eyes. Instead of focusing on superficial differences, treating different people differently, we ought to focus on the common Divinity within all, and treat everyone with love and respect. In fact, seeing the same Lord within all creatures, ‘high’ or ‘low’ is the true key to happiness, and steadfastness in spirituality. The Gita and the Upanishads say-

He excels, who regards equally well-wisher, friend, enemy, neutral, mediators, despicable persons, and kinsmen, and even the virtuous and the evil. Gita 6.9

He who is disciplined by Yoga sees his ātmā present in all beings, and all beings present in the ātmā – regarding all everywhere as the same. Gita 6.29

He who sees Me everywhere, and sees all things in Me, I am not lost to him and he is not lost to Me. Gita 6.30

The yogi who, established in Unity, worships Me as abiding in all beings, lives in Me in whatever way he otherwise acts. Gita 6.31

Arjuna, he who sees equally everywhere, and regards all others as if they were his own ātmā, whether in pleasure or in pain, he is considered to be the perfect yogi. Gita 6.32

That one, who is able to visualize the presence of Atma in all other moving things and even creatures and is able to visualize the presence of all such things within the Atma, never gets angry and he never hates anything in life. Īshāvāsya Upanishad 6

When he has identified the unison between all the moving things (incl. creatures) and the Atma, where is the question of him getting in to delusion or sorrow (or a sleep or dizziness driven by any of these)? Īshāvāsya Upanishad 7

Story: Swami Rāmatīrtha (1873 – 1906 CE) explains the path to true happiness

Swami Rāmatīrtha was born in the village of Murariwala in the district of Gujranwala (in Pakistan). From a very young age, he was very interested in reading and listening to Hindu holy books. As a young man, he became a mathematics teacher at a college in Lahore (in Pakistan). One day, he heard a speech of Swami Vivekananda and was so impressed that he decided to become a Sannyāsī himself.

During his travels in the United States in 1902-1904, numerous Americans came to hear Swami

Ramatirth’s discourses on Vedanta, or the teachings of Upanishads. One day, a lady came to see the Swami, and wept in front of him. She said, “Ever since I have lost my only child, my son, my life has been full of darkness. I do not see any more hope in my life. I am seeking true peace and happiness. Can you help me find it?”

The Swami responded, “To get something as precious as peace and happiness, you will need to pay a price. If you agree to do so, I will come to your home tomorrow and show you how to obtain it.” The lady agreed.

The following morning, Swami Ramatirth knocked the door of the lady’s home. When she opened, she saw that the Swami had come with an African American child. The Swami said to her, “If you raise this child as your own son, and educate him and love him, you will get true peace and happiness.”

In those days, blacks and whites, it was very rare to see whites accept blacks as family members. The lady cringed and said, “Sir, how can a white woman accept a black child as her son?”

The Swami said, “If you cannot accept this child as

your own, then you will find it very difficult to get true happiness and peace. There is unhappiness in this world because we discriminate against and look down upon others. Only when we accept as our own, and respect everyone whether they are black or white, will we get true peace.”

The very gesture ‘Namaste’ with which Hindus greet others means “I bow to the Divine in you” and is an acknowledgement of the presence of Brahman in everyone. In the Brihadarāṇyaka Upanishad, Sage Yajnavalkya tells his wife Maitreyi that the only rational and true basis for loving everyone is the understanding that we are all united in Brahman, Who pervades us all.

In fact, as the Lord is within everyone, how we treat others is how we treat Him. A delightful story illustrates this principle-

Story: Ganesha learns a lesson from His Mother Pārvatī

It was a bright sunny day on Kailash. Ganesha went out to play. He enjoyed looking at the butterflies, and listened to the singing of birds. Suddenly, a cat walked to him.

Ganesha was very pleased. He thought, “Let me become the cat’s teacher today.” So he held the two front paws of the cat, and started dancing with it. After some time, Ganesha said, “Now I will release your paws. I want you to continue standing on your two legs and dance with me.” But as soon as he released the cat’s paws, it would sit down on all its four legs!

Ganesha tried to make the cat dance on its two legs on its own many times. But the cat just could not do it. Now Ganesha became upset and said, “You are not being a good student. You will get some punishment for this.” In anger, he scratched the face of the cat. The cat got scared, and ran away immediately.

It was lunch time. Ganesha went back to his home and asked his mother Pārvatī, “Ma, is lunch ready? I am hungry.” Pārvatī replied, “Yes, food is ready, but let me put some bandage on my wounds first.” Ganesha grew worried. He rushed in and said, “Who scratched you so badly on your face?” Pārvatī replied, “It was you of course!”

“You must be joking Ma! How is that possible? I was playing out all the time. Someone else must have come in my place and pretended to be me. That person must have scratched your face.”

Pārvatī replied, “My son Ganesha, try to remember if you scratched anyone today?” Ganesha became a little shy and said, “Yes, but it was a cat. What does the cat have to do with your scratches?” Pārvatī said, “My son, I am the Mother of the whole Universe. I live in every creature, whether it is a plant, an animal or a human being. Therefore, whenever you hurt anyone else, you actually hurt me.”

Ganesha learned his lesson. He realized that if we love others, we love Bhagavān. And if we trouble others, we are hurting Bhagavān. So, he promised to his Mother, “I promise that from today onwards, I will never hurt others.

I will never think bad about others. And I will never say bad things to others.”

Pārvatī smiled and said, “You are right my son. The best way to make Bhagavān happy is to love all creatures, because Bhagavān lives inside everyone’s heart.”

Story: Bhagavān is inside the Beautiful as well as He is inside the Ugly

It might be asked – does the all-pervading Lord exist in evil and the ugly as well? The answer is a ‘yes.’ In fact, what we think of as ugly might not be ugly in reality. This beautiful story teaches us to see Divinity in the so called ugly things as well.

The King of Kalinga (today the state of Odisha in India) constructed a grand temple to Jagganātha (‘Lord of the Universe’) Vishnu but it had no Mūrti in it. The King made an announcement, “I want a sculptor to carve the most beautiful Mūrti of Vishnu to be carved. After the Mūrti is completed, I will inspect it. If I am pleased, the sculptor will be rewarded 10,000 gold coins. But if I am not happy with the work, the sculptor will be beheaded. I want all skilled sculptors to come forward to claim the reward.”

No sculptor wanted to risk his life, and so one came forward to carve Vishnu’s Mūrti. After several days, an old sculptor came forward but he put the condition, “I will need 30 days to carve the Mūrti. But during that period, I will work inside the Mandir with the doors closed. No one is allowed to open the doors till the work is completed, otherwise I will leave with my work unfinished.” The King was glad, that at least someone had taken up the challenge, and he agreed to the sculptor’s condition.

The sculptor entered the Mandir and shut the doors behind him. Day after day passed, and people outside could hear the sounds of chisel and hammer throughout the day. But some ministers grew suspicious and said, “We think that this sculptor is a fake. He must be a spy of the enemy King, and is actually knocking at the pillar so the Mandir from inside so that it collapses.” The King of Kalinga ignored them, but nine days, before the 30th day had passed, he could not control his curiosity. He ordered the doors of the Mandir to be opened. When everyone entered the Mandir, they were aghast to see an ugly, unfinished Mūrti of Vishnu lying on the floor, and the sculptor still working on it. The King was furious to see the ugly Mūrti and unsheathed his sword to behead the sculptor.

But the sculptor said, “King, you have broken your promise on the 21st day itself. I wanted you to go through this entire experience so that you understand that Vishnu resides inside the entire creation. Just as He is in beautiful Mūrtis, so also He is present in ugly ones too. Now, per my condition, I will leave this Mūrti unfinished and ugly, and urge you that this Mūrti alone should be worshipped in the Mandir. The beautiful Mūrti can be made afresh and placed somewhere else.”

The King was aghast at the impertinence of the sculptor, and also at his own foolishness for breaking the promise that he had given to the sculptor. But when he looked at the sculptor again, a bigger surprise awaited him – the sculptor appeared to him in the beautiful four-armed form of Bhagavān Vishnu. The King learned his lesson – that beauty and ugliness lie in the eye of the beholder, and Bhagavān is present everywhere, even in what we might consider as ugliness.

5.2 Brahman as Antaryāmī in Vishishtadvaita Vedānta

The doctrine of Brahman as the Antaryāmī is very well developed and is a central principle in the Hindu philosophy of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. A characteristic feature of Vishisḥtadvaita school of philosophy is its tenet that Brahman is the inner dweller of jīva-s as well as the inanimate Universe. Ramanuja utilizes this tenet to explain the monistic statements of Upanishads. For instance, in his

Vedarthasaṃgraha, he discusses the sadvidyā section of Chhāndogya Upanishad and its famous mahāvākya ‘tat tvam asi’ in great detail. Here, he contends that just as in ordinary parlance, things are referred to by the identity of their indwelling soul, so also, here the jīva is referred to by its inner dweller Brahman. For instance, we all know that humans are in essence, the soul. And yet, on seeing a person/his body, we say- “Ram is coming” and so on. In a likewise manner, there is no discrepancy if all things are equated to Brahman by Upanishads since He is the indwelling soul of all entities.

Shri Ramanuja defines a body as something that an intelligent being is able to completely control and support for his purposes, and the essential nature of which is entirely subservient to that intelligent self. Shri Ramanuja also clarifies that the imperfections of the Universe and the jīva-s do not stain Brahman at all. Brahman is also unaffected by the karma-s of jiva-s and possessing these bodies adds to His majesty and lordship. The entire opinion of Shri Ramanuja in this regard can be summed up in his own words that form his comment on Brahmasutra 1.1.18:

“Thus the entire group of intelligent and non-intelligent entities, which are different from Him, constitute His body, and He alone is the unconditioned Self, ensouling that body. For this very reason, competent authorities (abhiyuktaih) call this doctrine concerning the Supreme Brahman by the name ‘Sariraka”: the doctrine of the embodied Self.” Shrībhāṣhya 1.1.18

Relationship of Brahman with the Jivas and the Universe

Since Brahman is the Indwelling Soul of jīva-s and the Universe, He is related to them in multifarious ways. Sri Ramanuja uses several terms to describe these relationships:

1. Ādhāra and Ādheya: The former means a support, substratum, or container and the latter means that which is supported or contained. Brahman is the ādhāra of the jīva-s and the Universe as all finite beings are completely dependent on Him for their essential nature, continued existence in the phenomenal realm and actual functioning or activity.

2. Niyantā and Niyamya: The second aspect of the self-body relationship is that between the ruler or controller and that which is ruled. This conception clearly expresses the personal and dynamic character of God’s relationship to the universe.

3. Antaryāmī: Since God abides in finite beings, he may be called the inner ruler or the anataryam-īi. The Anataryami Brahman section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad thus plays an important role in the theology of Shri Ramanuja and he pays great attention to it in his commentary on Brahmasūtra 2.1.15.

4. Jīvas and the Universe as Vibhūti-s of Brahman: For Shri Ramanuja, the term Vibhūti connotes the material Universe and the jīvas. These are vibhūti-s of Brahman since He abides in them, controls them, fashions them, enjoys them and since their very existence is eternally dependent on Him. One thing to be noted however is that Shri Ramanuja, while designating Shiva, Brahmā, Indra etc. also as vibhūti-s of Brahman (who is equated with Nārāyaṇa) is at pains to point out that Shri Rama and Shri Krishna are not vibhūti-s of Narayana but are rather one with him and same as Him. In order to justify his designation of finite selves and the universe as vibhūti-s of Brahman, Shri Ramanuja states that these are possessed by Brahman and therefore are manifestations of His glory. Thus, he brings out the true meaning viz. ‘glory’, of the word vibhūti and fits it into Vishiṣhtadvaita school of philosophy.

5. The Sheṣha-Sheṣhī relationship: Another pair of words that Ramanuja uses to designate the relationship between Brahman on one hand and the finite selves and the universe on the other is -sheṣha and sheṣhī. He says: “The sheṣha-sheṣhī relationship in any situation means just this: the sheṣha is that whose essential nature consists solely in being useful to something else by virtue of its intention to contribute some excellence to this other being, and this other is the sheṣhi.”

Thus, in Shri Ramanuja’s scheme of things, Brahman is the sheṣīn, everything else is sheṣha since the finite selves and the universe are subservient to the will and lordship of Brahman. God is the owner and finite selves are like his slaves. And yet, God is an ocean of mercy and delivers His devotees from bondage. God not merely grants salvation to His devotees, rather He plays a much more active role in that He is ‘responsible’ for their salvation. By defining these two terms thus, Ramanuja sets the path clear for the subsequent doctrine of ‘Prapatti’ that was expounded in Sri Vaiṣhṇava texts like ‘Yatīndramatadīpikā’ of Shrīnivāsadāsa.

It is easy to relate these two terms to the terms ‘ādhāra- ādheya’ and this is what Shri Ramanuja does in his treatment of the ‘sadvidyā’ of Chhāndogya Upanishad in the Vedārthasaṃgraha. He also counters possible objections to his definitions of the terms ‘sheṣha-sheṣhī’. For instance, he states that the desire on the part of everyone to be independent of all kinds of control does not contradict our dependence on God for salvation since it is He who is the goal and the abode of all bliss. When the sacred texts laud the desire of all finite beings to be independent, what is really meant is the desire to be free from the bondage in the material body and not freedom from the will of Brahman. This is because God is an ocean of all auspicious qualities and complete detachment from Him is unthinkable for any sensible person.

This particular definition of sheṣha-sheṣhī allows Ramanuja to build the institution of worship harmoniously into his system of Vedanta- something that Shri Shankaracharya was unable to do. The latter had to envisage a two-fold Brahman to accommodate the act of worship and stated that only the lower (Saguna) Brahman can be worshipped- the Higher Brahman is beyond of all worship since He is devoid of all gunas.

A modern teacher explains the relationship between the Divine, the universe and the Jīva-s using the modern body analogy, using the wisdom of biology-

“The all-comprehensive dominance of the Divine will can be illustrated also by the example of a living body. The living body of a man has several millions of cells. Each cell has an individuality and a function. The cells of the heart, the cells of the digestive system, the cells of the brain, the cells of the muscles etc., all carry on different activities individually and collectively. But in spite of the distinctiveness in entity and function of the cells, they are all sharers of the total energy of the organism, and they are function for the ego tenanting that organism. They live and function by, and for, that ego, and separated from it they have no meaning and they perish. If any of these cells considers its individuality as independence and seeks to function independently, it becomes a cancerous cell and perishes. The individuality of the Jiva and its freedom are only like this. The Divine will along functions in the whole universe, which is His body, as it were, and all individuals derive their power from His will, and exist and function for His purpose. The recognition of this is to become a mere instrument or occasion – nimitta mātram – for His functioning.”

5.3 Interiorization of Brahman and all Devatā-s in one’s Body and Soul

As stated earlier, the different Deva-s are often perceived as limbs of the whole body of One Brahman. Brahman and the Deva-s can be worshipped as external to our being, but at the same time, Brahman also abides within us as our Antaryāmī. Therefore, the Deva-s too reside within our own body and ātmā. One mode of spiritual practices in Hindu Dharma therefore involves interiorizing the external sacred rites and direct them inwards through meditation. The body is imagined as the Universe within which dwell Brahman and all his limbs - the Deva-s. This technique is well illustrated by the following concluding verses of Manusmriti, the most esteemed code of Dharma in the Hindu tradition:

“The Atman alone is the entire multitude of Devas. The Universe rests on the Atman because it alone connects the embodied souls (individual souls) with their karma. Manu 12.119

Let him therefore meditate upon space as identical with the openings of his body; or upon wind as identical with the organs of motion and touch; on the most exalted light as his eyes and digestive organs; on water as his body fluids; and on the earth as the solid parts of the body. Manu 12.120

Let him meditate upon the moon as identical with his mind; on the directions as his organ of hearing; on Vishnu as his ability to move; on Shiva as his strength; on Agni as identical with his speech; on Mitra as the same as his excretions; and on Prajapati as one with his procreative organs. Manu 12.121

Let him seek to know the Supreme Being (Purusha) as the sovereign ruler of them all; as smaller than the smallest; as bright as light (or gold); and experienced by intellect (Buddhi) only in the state of deep sleep. Manu 12.122

Some call Him Agni, others Manu, Lord of all creatures (Prajapati), others Indra, others as Prāṇa (life sustaining currents) and again others as the eternal Brahman. Manu 12.123 He pervades all creation comprised of five elements, and makes them revolve like a wheel through the eternal cycle of birth, growth and decay. Manu 12.124

He who recognizes in this way the Atman through his own soul (and body) in all created beings, becomes equal minded towards all, then enters the highest abode of Brahman. Manu 12.125”

The purpose of seeing Brahman and the universe in its entirety in one’s body and soul is not becoming an egocentric person, but to develop a universal sense of empathy in which the entire creation is one with his own self and in Brahman, and therefore worthy of reverence and compassion.

In Hindu perspectives where the emphasis is on seeking the Divine within, practices like meditation (Dhyāna Yoga) and mental performance of Japa or Agnihotra are highly encouraged whereas external practices like Mūrti Pūjā, pilgrimages, visiting temples etc., are discouraged. Nirguṇa Bhakti Sant to emphasize the presence of the Divine within one’s heart and even reject external practices.

The nine petal lotus (in the heart region) covered over by the three guṇas in which lives the atman with the Ātman – that indeed the knowers of Brahman know, freed of all desires, serene, immortal, self-existent, contented with the essence (blissful), lacking nothing in That. One fears not death who has known that Ātman which is serene, unaging and ever youthful. Atharva Veda, Shaunakīya Samhitā 10.8.43-44

The Devas made the human body their mortal home, and dwelt within it. Atharva Veda

(Shaunakīya) 11.8.18

He should not regard the Devas as residing far away from him. Because to the extent he worships them as being close to him, to that very extent they are really close to him. And he who says, “All these Devas are within me”, then truly in him exist all the Devas. Sāmaveda, Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa 1.14.1-2

Rishi Sanatsujāta said to King Dhritarāshtra: To search for the Soul, there is no need to go towards east, west, south or north, then what to speak of the intermediate directions. Likewise, He should not be sought anywhere underground away from the sky either. Mahābhārata 5.43.33

The Royal Sage Janaka said to Sage Shukadeva – The Light of Consciousness exists within us, and not anywhere else. That Light exists uniformly within all living creatures. Anyone can experience that Light himself within him by controlling one’s mind (i.e., through meditation). Mahābhārata 12.326.32

Tamas, Rajas and Sattva – regard these as the constituents of the intellect. Due to association with the intellect, the soul too appears to be comprised of these guṇas and conversely the guṇas appear to be conscious (like the soul). In reality, the soul is a portion of the Supreme Soul. Mahābhārata 12.241.19

The soul is indeed a part of the Supreme Soul, and it resides within the heart of all creatures. But overpowered by Rajas and Tamas, these creatures are not able to see or experience the existence of soul within themselves. Mahābhārata 12.253.112

The soul, residing within the heart, is like a lamp with infinite rays. Yājnavalkya Smriti 3.166

Meditate on the Ātman, the Lord, that abides within the heart like a lamp. Agni Purāṇa 165.1

Swami Rama explains this concept in the following words,

“When you go to the source within and see that light in your partner, then you realize, “My partner is not a mere body or an object of sensory gratification, but a human being who has that light of divinity within.” When both partners realize that, then your relationship is a temple. And when you understand that a human being is a shrine, then you don’t need to go to an external temple, church, or chapel to pray. That experience is love: love means knowing the truth within. Then, suddenly, you will discover yourself giving all that you have without any condition – because you have understood the truth. Without love, there is no meaning in anything.”

Many religions teach about a God who controls the universe remotely from a place called heaven. People of these faiths look up towards that heaven while praying. Their prophets move up from earth to meet with God. Hindu traditions say that heavens exist but they are not the sole abode of the Divine, who exists everywhere and within us as well. Therefore, instead of seeking the Lord outside in some place called heaven, we should see It everywhere, including within us.

Story: Rishi Pippalāda discovers that the Devas reside within his own Body

Rishi Dadhichi gave up his body so that his bones could be used by Indra to make Vajra, a strong weapon, for killing the evil Vritra. When the Rishi’s son, Pippalāda grew older, he was full of resentment about the fact that his father had to die for the sake of Indra. He blamed Indra and his Devatas for the death of his father, and all the suffering he had to undergo in his childhood due to the loss of his parent. He thought that the Devas were indeed selfish and depraved people because they had asked for his father’s bones to suit their own selfish motives. He got nothing in return for his father’s supreme sacrifice.

Therefore, he decided to teach the Devatas a lesson. He meditated for long to please Shiva, who finally appeared in front of him. Shiva offered him a boon. Pippalāda asked, “May the Devas burn to death!” Bhagavān Shiva asked him to choose another boon, but the Rishi’s son would not agree. Therefore Shiva finally said, “So be it. Let the Devas start burning!”

But the moment He said this, Pippalāda started feeling a strong burning sensation in his own body, from head to toe. He cried to Shiva, “What have you done Bhagavān? I had asked you to burn the Devas but you are burning me instead!”

Bhagavān Shiva replied, “The Devas are not just outside of us. A portion of the Devas dwells inside all the creatures as well. Therefore, if you burn the Devas, you cannot escape their fate too. Your father was a great Rishi. No one forced him to die. All humans beings have to die one day. But your father chose a very noble death, so that all the Devas, and all the creatures may live. He made a great sacrifice for the sake of this creation. Do not belittle his sacrifice by bearing a grudge against the Devas.”

Pippalāda understood the greatness of his father through the words of Shiva, and he asked

Bhagavān for forgiveness. In fact, he himself became a great Rishi and became one of the compilers of the

Atharvaveda, which is one of the four divinely revealed books of the Hindus.

Story: How we treat others is how we treat the Deva-s (from the Chhāndogya Upanishad)

A young beggar once arrived at an āshrama where two Rishis were having their lunch. He said, “I am hungry, could you share your food with me?” The Rishis did not want to share food with him and replied, “We do not have enough for you. Please go away.”

The beggar asked, “Which Deva do you worship?” The Rishis replied, “We worship Vāyu, the Deva of air.” The beggar

of every creature?” “Yes of course,” replied the Rishis. The beggar said, “Don’t you think then that by denying food to me, weaken my body, and actually deny food to the same Vāyu that flows within me and you?”

The Rishis pondered over what the beggar said. They understood that when we deprive someone else, we actually deprive the same Divine who is present within themselves and others. And when we show our love

and compassion towards others, we actually do it to the Divine who is present equally within all of us. They Rishis felt ashamed at their own ignorance, and offered food to the wise beggar.

A more contemporary story is narrated by Swami Viditatmanananda:

…A very famous thief of Delhi was travelling in a train from Madras to Delhi by a firstclass coupe compartment in which another distinguished passenger was also travelling – a rich man from Madnras, apparently carrying a lot of cash money with him. The thief had made a very special effort to make sure that he got a berth in the same compartment. It was a long journey in the olden days which would take two nights before one could reach Delhi from Madras. The two passengers had settled on their berths during the day. At night the rich man opened his briefcase, pulled out a wallet containing a large wad of currency notes and started counting them behind the open lid of the briefcase. The fellow-passenger, being a thief, saw from the corner of his eyes and made a mental note of the wallet containing the money. After counting, the rich man stuffed the money back in the wallet, put it back in the briefcase, tucked it under the seat and then went to the toilet. After he returned, the thief also went to the toilet and finally both of them went to sleep. Within five minutes the rich man started snoring. So the thief quietly came down from the upper berth, pulled out the briefcase, opened the lock and looked for the wallet. He did not find it. Then he pulled out the suitcase, looked in and out everywhere but still could not find the wallet. Poor man had to give up the search. But the next morning after the breakfast, the rich man was again seen counting the money from the same wallet. The thief was surprised. An idea struck him and he decided to try again that night. That evening after having gone through the familiar routine, both of them went to sleep. The rich man, as before, started snoring. The thief got up. This time, the thief searched not only the briefcase and the suitcase, but also all the pockets and hiding places on the body of the rich man. But today also he could not find the wallet. Totally frustrated and disappointed he went to sleep. The next morning when the train was about to reach Delhi, the thief in his utter astonishment saw the rich man again counting money from the wallet! He could not contain himself and asked the rich man about the secret hiding place. The rich man said, “There is no secret in it. You searched the briefcase and the suitcase and my pockets also but there is one place where you did not look and which you would never suspect also. The wallet was right under your own pillow!”

5.4 Interfaith Perspectives: Antaryāmī in other Religions

The distinction between the Hindu and the Abrahamic notions of an all-pervading and immanent God may be explained with the following example: For Abrahamic religions, God resides in the heaven but is present everywhere in the sense that he can control the entire Universe, and also knows what happens everywhere in the Universe. He is like a candle inside a room, with the candle representing God, and the light of the candle spread out in the room reflecting God’s omnipotence and omnipresence. In that sense, the Abrahamic God is ‘contained’ within the heaven although he can control what is in the entire Universe.

There is no understanding of God beyond the Universe. Therefore, God transcends the Universe, but is not immanent to it. The Abrahamic religions have no conception of God that is independent of space and time.

In contrast, in Hindu Dharma, Brahman is not just present in heaven to govern the Universe by remote control. Brahman is present equally everywhere. He is not just transcendent to the Universe. He is also beyond it, and beyond all space and time. Rather than being a candle in a particular location that lights the area around it, Brahman is like an all pervading inflammable gas, that burning everywhere and all the time.

When Krishna shows his ‘Vishvarūpa’ (Universal Form) to Arjuna (in Bhagavad Gita, chapter 12), who was first bestowed with the divine eye, Arjuna saw a Divine Being with infinite faces, eyes, marvelous displays, adorned with divine clothes, garlands and ornaments. Arjuna saw that the splendor of this Being exceeded the light of a 1000 suns shining simultaneously. Arjuna saw the entire

Universe in that being, the past, the present, the

future. Arjuna was overwhelmed with what he saw. He bowed reverentially and said-

“O Lord! I see within you Brahma, the creator. I see Vishnu with his four arms. I see Shiva.

I see the heaven, earth, all planets, stars, all living creatures, all Devas, countless things that I cannot even understand.

Your radiance dazzles me.

You have no beginning, no end, no middle.

You are the Being who upholds Dharma eternally, who is Infinite, Who is the Creator and the Destroyer.

The worlds seem to tremble at your sight. You are the foundation of the entire Universe.

I am terrified to see your mouths blazing with fire.

I can see these countless warriors in the Kurukshetra battlefield plunging to their deaths into your mouths, as moths plunge into a flame.

The entire Universe is filled with your glory and is radiant with your light.

This sight is so overwhelming that I am terrified.

You are the Father, the Grandfather, the Teacher and the Mother of the entire Universe. Please treat me as a father would treat his son, or a friend his friend.

It is this nature of Brahman that explains his aspect of being the Antaryāmī. Brahman controls, oversees, governs the Universe and all the creatures in it not from a remote position in the heaven, but by being inside everything and by everything inside Him.

Secondly, in the Hindu faith, as demonstrated by quotations from Gita and other scriptures above, the Lord abides equally within not just humans but within all creatures. And therefore, Hindus extend the concept of compassion and kindness to animals as well as to plants. Even though different species differ in their levels of consciousness and intelligence, they nevertheless have the same Divine Light within them. Eventually, all creatures can transmigrate and attain Moksha. Numerous narratives in the Hindu tradition illustrate this implication of seeing the Lord within all creatures.

Seeing Brahman in non-Humans: Sant Ekanath sees Rama in a Donkey: Once, Sant Ekanath was travelling from Varanasi in north India towards Rameshvaram in south India with some water from the Ganga river. It is a Hindu tradition to offer Ganga water to the Shiva-linga at Rameshvaram. On their way, he and his disciples were travelling through an extremely hot and dry part of India.

Everyone wanted to quench their thirst but the only water was the Ganga water they were carrying. No one wanted to drink it himself because it was meant for worship at Rameshvaram. Suddenly, Eknath saw a donkey lying on the ground, dying of thirst.

Ekanatha was filled with compassion. He immediately took his pitcher of the Ganga water, and poured it into the mouth of the dying donkey. With its thirst quenched, the donkey revived.

Shocked at this act, a disciple asked Ekanatha, “Guruji, we have travelled hundreds of miles with this holy water to perform worship in Rameshvaram. Now where will we get the water of Ganga for our worship

of Rameshvaram’s Shiva now?” Ekanatha replied, “This is my Rameshvara.”

Ekanatha demonstrated through his deed that Bhagavān resides even in a donkey, and if we cannot treat animals with compassion, we cannot claim that we love Bhagavān.

5.5 Brahman as Antaryāmī as well as Enveloper

In modern times, it is very fashionable to say, “Since God resides within you, seek him only in your heart and not anywhere else.” This suggestion however is too one sided because the Divine resides not just within us but also outside of us, enveloping everything like the wind. The Divine resides within us, outside us and even beyond everything we can imagine. In the Gita, Krishna therefore explains that the true Bhakta sees the Lord everywhere and in everything, including our actions, in religious ceremonies and so on - Those who strive for liberation from old age and death, taking refuge in Me, they come to realize completely that Brahman, the Adhyātma and Karma in entirety. Gita 7.29 Those who know Me with Adhibhūta, Adhidaiva and Adhiyajna; and they, with their minds established in Yoga, know Me even at the time of leaving their bodies (i.e., at the time of death). Gita 7.30

The following story from Shrimad Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Skandha 12 clarifies giving a mystical example how Bhagavān is both within and outside us.

Due to the boon of Bhagavān Shiva, Rishi Markandeya became immortal. Therefore, when the age of the Universe was over and it started dissolving, Markadeya still did not die. He witnessed how a massive cosmic deluge of water started drowning everything in its path – all the planets, and all living creatures. Rishi Markandeya was distraught, and wondered if there was nothing that was permanent in this Universe.

The water kept rising and he clung on to the high branches of a Banyan tree. Suddenly, he saw a leaf floating in the torrents below him. On the leaf was a beautiful baby, smiling and sucking his own toe. The child was none other than Krishna.

Rishi Markandeya rushed to the child. But as he reached closer, he was sucked inside the child by the latter’s inhalation. Inside the child’s stomach, a fascinating sight awaited Markandeya. Inside the child, he saw all the worlds, entire universes, the destruction and creation of new Universes.

The child exhaled again, and Rishi Markandeya was ejected out of the child’s body. The Rishi understood the meaning of what he had seen – that Bhagavān resides inside the creation, and the entire creation also exists inside him. At any time, thousands of universes are being created inside him, and thousands others are being destroyed. Everything that we see, hear, touch, taste or can talk about eventually perishes, and only Bhagavān is eternal and imperishable.

6.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS VIBHŪTI-S

The Avatāra-s appear at a definite moment in history and then merge back into Bhagavān after their purpose is over. In addition to these temporary emanations of Īshvara, there are the more permanent manifestations as mentioned by the 10th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. These manifestations are called the ‘Vibhūti-s’, which means manifestations of the glory, power, love, beauty and other positive attributes of Brahman.

In chapter 10 of the Gita, Krishna explains that the entire universe, non-living as well as comprising of living beings, constitutes his glories (‘vibhūtis’). Brahman abides in them, controls them, fashions them, enjoys them and since their very existence is eternally dependent on Him. When Arjunas asks Krishna to describe completely the Vibhūti-s, Krishna responds that they are infinite and cannot be described to a human being completely. But, Krishna offers to list the chief of his Vibhūti-s, which are the best in their class: for example, the best of all the trees, the best of all rivers, the best of warriors, the best of all mountains and so on.

Mahadevan, the great scholar of Hindu Dharma, explains the concept of Vibhūti-s and Mūrti-s as symbols of Brahman –

“It is of course, difficult to see God in everything. In fact, to realize the Self in and as all is the height of spiritual experience. So, as a discipline that will eventually lead to the goal, one is asked to see the face of God in whichever thing that has prowess, splendor and rectitude. Illustrating this truth in the tenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Sri Krishna identifies himself with the best of every kind, e.g., the Himalaya among the mountains, the Ganga among the rivers, Vasudeva among the Vrishnis and Arjuna among the Pandavas (Gita 10.25-37). The great mountains and the big rivers, majestic trees and fine animals, heroic men and women – in fact, all things that have excellence thus become objects of veneration.”

The important point to re-emphasize is that this list of Vibhūtīs in the Gita is illustrative because they do not exhaust the powers and glories of Brahman. Krishna therefore concludes the description of Vibhūtis with the following words -

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Whatever thing there is, endowed with glory and grace and vigor, know that it has sprung from a fraction of My splendor. Gita 10.41

We may summarize the concept of Vibhūtis in the following words-

“Hindus believe that God is omnipresent and the same spirit pervades everywhere. Just as thread is common to all fabric or mud is common to all earthen pots, so the same universal spirit abides in all beings. One concept is that divine glory is manifested more prominently in certain beings or objects which are called ‘vibhūtis’.

Electricity is energy which is invisible but whose presence can be experienced through innumerable appliances such as bulbs, fans, motors and so on. Similarly, the presence of God as universal spirit can be noticeably experienced in certain objects. Even inanimate objects may be significant bearers of the spirit. A mighty ocean, a lofty mountain, an immensely radiant star like the sun, for example, are all vibhūtis.”86

6.1 Relationship between Vibhūtis, Avatāras and Mūrtis

The concept of Vibhūtis overlaps that of Avatāras on one hand, and that of Mūrti on the other. In particular, we may even call Avatāras as prominent Vibhūtis that reflect the power and glory of Brahman more fully. Or conversely, several Vibhūtis are partial incarnations of Brahman. This is the reason why a personage like Veda Vyāsa is enumerated as an Avatāra in scriptures like the Bhāgavata Purāṇa but as a Vibhūti in the Bhagavad Gita. Malhotra explains this overlap:

“The Puranas and some other Vaishnava traditions do not make a clear distinction between vibhuti and avatara, and there is a tendency to apply the name ‘avatar’ to anyone who has risen above the ordinary level of human consciousness or has some special divine power. But the Bhagavadgita is specific about avataras and says that there can be infinite numbers of vibhutis, or ones with special qualities and powers of the divine, but the Supreme descends in human form as an avatar for a specific purpose.”87

Many Vibhūtis, on the other hand, are natural objects like the river Gangā, the Himalayas and so on. They have a discernible, tangible and permanent material form like the Mūrti. Therefore, these Vibhūtis are like ‘natural’ Mūrtis. The two are also related to each other through the practice of worshipping Kula and Grāma Devatās.

Some scholars state that an Avatāra is distinct from a Vibhūti because the former is always conscious of its divine nature whereas the latter is not. However, this is not completely true. For example, in the Ramayana we read that Shri Rama, an Avatāra, had to be reminded of His divine nature before his battle with Ravana. It should be pointed out however, that some Hindu Sages also clarify that this apparent ‘forgetfulness’ on the part of Rama was merely His divine play, and that in reality He was never noncognizant of His divine nature or purpose.

Vibhūtis as Kula-Devatā and Grāma-Devatā

The concept of this entire universe being a vibhūti of Brahman (with numerous finite exemplars listed in the Gita) naturally leads to recognition by the Hindus of local manifestations of Divinity (Grāma-

86 Nawal K Prinja (2001), pp. 27-28

87 Rajiv Malhotra (2011), p. 427, en. 67

Devatā) and also worship of an Ishta-Devatā that has been traditionally worshipped within their own family for several generations (Kula-Devatā).

These may be either a pan Hindu deity like Durga, or a locally worshipped Deity or a Deity that is worshipped only by that particular family or a few other families.

The Kula and Grāma Devatās are worshipped for the sake of welfare of the village or one’s family out of tradition in the form of a Mūrti. They are frequently treated as manifestations of one of the pan-Hindu Deities and through them, of Brahman. Typically, Hindus do not worship them to achieve the higher goal of Moksha and accord the right to all communities and families to worship their own kula and grāma devatā.

6.2 Are Vibhūtis Gender Specific

Just as Īshvara is worshipped both in feminine, masculine, androgynous and neutral aspects, so are the Vibhūtis. As stated above, popular Hinduism also exhibits the concept of ‘grāma-devatā’ in which a local manifestation of the Divine is worshipped as the presiding deity of that place. Many Indian cities and towns, including several important pilgrim centers, have various forms of the Divine Mother as their ‘grāma-devi’. As examples, we may cite Ambā who is worshipped in Kolhapur and Ahmedabad (formerly called Ambāvād); Meenākshi who is worshipped in the pilgrim town of Madurai; a form of Sati, the wife of Shiva, worshipped in Jalandhar; and Dhākeshvarī Devi of Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh).

Likewise, forests that provide us with so many resources are said to be presided over by Devis who are known as Vanadevis (vana = forest). There are numerous Hindu rituals involving the veneration of trees, plants and forests in their feminine form. An example of such ritual is the Karama Puja done by Bangladeshi Hindus.

Karama Puja by Bangladeshi Hindu women near Dhaka

It is Mother Ganga, Mother Yamuna, Mother Kaveri and so on who have manifested as rivers to feed mankind. Rivers, their confluences, their mouths and their origins form prominent Hindu pilgrim centers. The evening worship of Ganga Ma (‘Mother Ganges’) in the pilgrim center of Hardwar with hundreds of lamps which are set afloat on the river in the night is a breath-taking spectacle.

6.3 Guru, Parents and Atithis as Vibhūtis

Hindu scriptures repeatedly ask us to serve, worship and nourish our Gurus, our parents and visiting and unexpected guests, learned scholars or needy people; and even stray animals etc., with love on a daily basis. This is a natural extension of the concept of the entire creation being a Vibhūti of Brahman, in particular our Gurus who enlighten us, our parents who give birth to us, provide for us and so on. To take the example of the Guru for example, Bhagavān Krishna says to Uddhava in His last sermon:

Know the Acharya as my own self. Never insult him in any way. Do not regard him as an ordinary mortal, because the Acharya contains all Devatās. Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.17.27 The Guru must be regarded as the Divine Devatā Himself because he imparts the lamp of liberating knowledge to his students. The learning of he who regards his Guru as an ordinary being all goes waste and does not bear any fruit. Bhāgavata Purāṇa 11.20.17

Likewise, Hindu scriptures (e.g. Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11) exhort graduating students to treat their mother, father, teacher and their guests as Divine and serve them to the best of their ability, with respect, humility and so on.

6.4 Guidelines for worshipping Īshvara as Vibhūti

The concept of Brahman’s Vibhūtis together as well as the permission to worship Mūrtis has resulted in an incredible diversity of worship in Hindu Dharma. There is no real separation between the secular and Dharma in Hindu culture. Spirituality has permeated deep in all aspects of the lives of Hindus, a fact that is acknowledged grudgingly even by Christian Missionaries who have been trying to convert the Hindus for centuries.

Unfortunately, it has also resulted in Hindus sometimes worshipping monstrosities and the most grotesque, evil and inappropriate entities. For example, many Hindus worship at the famous grave of the Sufi Khwaja Muin-ud-din Chishti in Ajmer. But, historical details give clear evidence of his bigotry against the Hindus. This Sufi demonstrated a deep-seated hatred toward Hindu religion and its practices. On his arrival near the Anasagar Lake at Ajmer, he saw many Hindu temples and promised to raze them to the ground with the help of Allah and His Prophet. After settling down there, Khwaja’s followers used to bring every day a cow (sacred to Hindus) near a famous temple, where the king and Hindus prayed, slaughter it and cook kebab from its meat- clearly to show his contempt toward Hinduism. In order to 'prove the majesty of Islam', he is said to have dried the two holy lakes of Anasagar and Pansela (holy to Hindus) ‘by the heat of his spiritual power.’ Chishti also came to India with his disciples to fight Jihad against the infidels and participated in the treacherous holy war of Sultan Muhammad Ghauri in which the kind and chivalrous Hindu King Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated in Ajmer. In his Jihadi zeal, Chishti ascribed the credit for the victory to himself, saying, "We have seized Pithaura (Prithviraj) alive and handed him over to the army of Islam." It is also stated that his tomb occupies the site of the temple of Shadi Dev usurped by the followers of the Sufi and that Khwaja Chishti himself had at least one Hindu woman captured to marry her forcibly.

Therefore, the following two guidelines should be observed in worshipping the Vibhūtis of

Brahman –

1. The Vibhūtis should reflect the purity and auspicious qualities of Brahman:

Brahman pervades the entire universe and fashions, controls and endows everything with its characteristic properties, whether good or bad (from our perspectives). But Brahman itself is pure (as emphasized in Advaita Vedanta) and is endowed with numerous auspicious qualities or kalyanaguṇas (as emphasized in Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Dvaita Vedanta). It is these noble aspects of Brahman that we ought to seek in the Vibhūtis. As an author says –

“While every creature possess a spark, tejas, of the divine, only those who fully express this divine potential come to be identified with the lord and become worthy of worship. These are Vishnu’s vibhutis…..Vishnu thus resides in all that is perfect, wise, beautiful and good, eternally bringing hope, peace, stability and joy to the three worlds.”

When this guideline is understood, there is no scope for worshipping violent and sinful Sufis and local ‘gods’, although those that have auspicious qualities and are pure can be worshipped.

2. Worship Brahman, not the Vibhūti Itself

The second and more important guideline is that the spiritual seeker should not equate Brahman to the Vibhūti itself. Krishna mentions numerous geographical features, creatures, saints and so on as His vibhūtis, but we cannot worship them in their own right as having nothing to do with Brahman. For example, one of the vibhūtis mentioned in the Gita is, “Among men, I am the king.” In this case, worshipping one’s political head of the country to the exclusion of Brahman will be fruitless. It will certainly not lead to Moksha because the king himself is bound by the law of Karma. Just because something is a vibhūti does not mean that it becomes an object of worship. The purpose of listing these vibhūtis is merely to elaborate upon the glories of Brahman.

At the same time however, there are several vibhūtis in the list of the Bhagavad Gita that are forms of Īshvara, like Rama, Krishna etc. Worshipping these vibhūtis directly however results in Moksha because they are the forms of Saguṇa Brahman. This principle again underscores the fact that the concept of Vibhūtis is very vast and expansive, and Avatāras are one aspect of it. Therefore, worship of Vibhūtis must proceed with caution.

3. Interfaith Perspectives: Iconoclastic religions like Islam claim that they advocate worship only of one Supreme Creator Deity – Allah, to the exclusion of any other created entity. Salafist and many other varieties of Islam violently stamp out anything worship that smacks of anything other than Allah. The government of Saudi Arabia has even destroyed the graves of their Prophet’s companions, converted historical sites to toilets and hotels and do not mark even the graves of their rulers with tombstones lest they

become objects and places of veneration and offering reverence. But has this mechanical iconoclasm made the society more spiritual? Material objects have been replaced with sacrosanct concepts whose criticism invites capital punishment. Renunciation of Islam has death penalty, so does any criticism of their Prophet Muhammad. Likewise, acts perceived as insults to the authorized shrines of Islam are retaliated with violence. Additionally, Islam also believes in supernatural helpers of Allah like Angels and Jinns.

So even a supposedly iconoclastic faith like Islam has created its own Vibhūti-s. Islam professes to place all its eggs in the one basket called Allah but does their God have the Universal Nature that is expected of him? He favors Arabic of all the languages, Arabs of all the peoples, Muslims amongst all religious communities, allows matrimonial exceptions for his beloved Prophet Muhammad and curses and condemns those he does not favor. In short, owing to his limiting characteristics, from a Dhārmic perspective, even Allah can at best be regarded as a Vibhūti like ‘Amongst the gods of Pre-Islamic Arabs, I am Allah’ and not the Universal, Omniscient, Loving Supreme Divine.

Similar arguments can be made against Christianity’s professed monotheism, considering the mandatory intercession of Jesus Christ or that of saints (in Roman Catholicism).

7.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS AVATĀRA (OR VIBHAVA)

The Avatāras and Vibhūtis are material or manifested Forms of Īshvara in historical contexts. They are the physical forms that Īshvara takes in full vision of humanity. But whereas the Avatāras are temporary and appear for a specific period of time, the Vibhūtis can be more permanent.

The Bhagavad Gita explains in the following two famous verses why Brahman assumes an Avatāra:

Krishna said to Arjuna-

Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and a rise of Adharma, I manifest Myself. Gita 4.7 For the protection and deliverance of the good, and destruction of the evil doers; and for the sake of re-establishing Dharma, I am born in every age. Gita 4.8

Hindu scriptures stated repeatedly that Brahman is motivated to assume an Avatāra out of the compassion that he has for the living creatures. The Hindu belief in Avatāras has been summarized very nicely by a scholar in the following words:

“…People see His miracles in their everyday life – they see the All-Merciful and AllPowerful hand of the Deity in what they do. God comes down amongst them and manifests Himself in them. His vibhutis are seen in the world. He directly guides His own incarnations or Avataras. They are the light-houses for guiding safely the vessel of life in the ocean of the world. God shows the path of morality and spirituality to mankind by His own life and conduct as a man. When they see extraordinary virtues and spiritual powers in a man, when they find in him what are missing in them, they bow unto him and regard him as God incarnate, as an Avatar of the Omnipotent Deity. If mankind see amongst them one of the super-human intellect and moral sense, they cannot but admire him; especially when they are laden with the weight of worldliness and sins, they cannot but admire him and venerate him. When such a person loves them, not in a way as they love others, when he helps them without any desire for a return, when he lends them a sympathetic and helping hand in their difficulty and misfortune without any selfish motive whatsoever, they cannot but love him reverentially and have an implicit faith in him. These shining lights enlighten people, who improve spiritually and morally when they are in their company. Thus people cherish a personal love and reverence for this superhuman being or Avatar. They are so much drawn and attracted by this grand and extra-ordinary personality that they cannot live for a moment estranged from him. They follow him implicitly and regard him as God coming down to save them. Gradually people advance so much in love and faith that they cannot think of anything else but him; they are so unconsciously led by him that they cannot think themselves separate from him. This implicit faith in, and reverence for the Deity is called by the Hindus Bhakti Yoga or communion with God through reverential faith.”

In this regard, a following popular story is narrated-

Story: Bhagavān loves us like His own Children

One day, Birbal told the story of Gajendra and Vishnu to King Akbar. The King liked the story but he did not like the fact that Bhagavān Vishnu came Himself to protect the elephant from the jaws of the crocodile. He asked Birbal, “Why did Bhagavān Vishnu have to come himself to protect Gajendra? He is the master of the Universe. He should have asked a servant to protect the elephant instead of coming Himself.”

Birbal replied, “Bhagavān comes to this earth as Krishna, Rama and in many other ways and Forms to protect us. He wants to save us Himself, because he loves us a lot.” Akbar said, “I do not agree to what you say. I think that Bhagavān Vishnu should have sent a servant instead of taking the trouble himself.”

Birbal decided to use a trick to make King Akbar understand his answer. He asked a servant to make a wax statue of the Prince. A few days later, Birbal and Akbar went for a walk to a pond. The Prince and the servant also played around that same pond every day. Suddenly, the servant came rushing to King Akbar and Birbal. He shouted, “King, the Prince fell into the water. He is drowning.”

As soon as King Akbar heard it, he rushed to pond and jumped into the water to save the Prince. But when he dragged out the Prince from the water, he discovered that it was only a wax statue.

Birbal looked at the King and asked, “Why did you jump into the water? You could have asked me, or one of your servants?”

King Akbar replied, “I thought that it was my own son who fell into the water. I love my son a lot. Therefore, I wanted to save him myself. How can I wait for someone else to protect my own son?”

Birbal smiled and said, “Now you know why Bhagavān Vishnu comes Himself to save his Bhaktas. He considers us as His own children. Therefore, he does not want any servants to protect us. It is because of His love that he takes these different forms to save us, just as he saved Gajendra from the crocodile.”

Emperor Akbar then understood why we Hindus believe that Bhagavān comes Himself in different forms to protect humans.

7.1 Why does Brahman take an Avatāra?

Since Brahman is all pervading, there is no need for it to assume a finite form to destroy adharma and re-establish dharma. However, descending as Avatāra serves to inspire His devotees to rise above their human limitations and learn how to walk the paths of Dharma and Moksha –

“God incarnates on earth to fulfill two purposes: (1) to inspire and (2) to liberate. He inspires mankind through example. He willingly takes upon Himself human limitations. Then through intense spiritual practice He goes beyond them and manifests His spiritual perfection. It should be understood here that as He is perfect from His very birth, the Divine Incarnation does not really need any spiritual practice to attain perfection. Nevertheless, to inspire others He goes through various spiritual disciplines and thereby manifests His perfection to set an example for mankind. Just as a hen, which itself is not hungry, may pick at and gobble up birdseed to teach its young ones how to eat, so also a Divine Incarnation, for the sake of mankind, goes through various spiritual austerities to teach them how to attain perfection through spiritual practice.”

Radhakrishnan, while commenting on Gita 4.9 elaborates:

“Krishna as an Avatara or descent of the Divine into the human world discloses the condition of being to which the human souls should rise. The birth of the birthless means the revelation of the mystery in the soul of man.

The Avatara fulfills a number of functions in the cosmic process. The conception makes out that there is no opposition between spiritual life and life in the world. If the world is imperfect and ruled by the flesh and the devil, it is our duty to redeem it for the spirit. The Avatara points out the way by which men can rise from their animal to a spiritual mode of existence by providing us with an example of spiritual life. The Divine nature is not seen in the incarnation in is naked splendor but is mediated by the instrumentality of manhood. The Divine greatness is conveyed to us in and through these great individuals. Their lives dramatize for us the essential constituents of human life ascending to the fulfillment of its destiny. The Bhagavata says, “The omnipresent Lord appears in the world, not only for destroying the demoniac forces but also for teaching mortals. How else could the Lord who is blissful in Himself experience anxieties about Sita?” [Bhāgavata Purāṇa 5.19.5].. He knows hunger and thirst, sorrow and suffering, solitude and forsakenness. He overcomes them all and asks us to take courage from His own example. He not only teaches us the true doctrine by which we can die to our separate temporal selfishness and come to union with the Timelss Spirit but He offers Himself to be a channel of grace. By inviting souls to trust and love Him, He promises to lead them to the knowledge of the Absolute. The historical fact is the illustration of a process ever unfolding in the heart of man. The Avatara helps us to become what we potentially are. In Hindu and Buddhist systems of thought, there is no servitude to one historic fact. We can all rise to the divine status and the Avataras help us to achieve this inner realization…..These systems do not believe in any exclusive revelation at one unique instant of time.”

The above description conforms very well to Avatāras like Rama and Krishna. In case of others like the Matsya and Kūrma Avatāras as well, the Divine Incarnation conveys a deeply ethical and spiritual message as well. As to why Bhagavān incarnates not just in the human but also in non-human forms, it has been said –

“One may wonder why God incarnated in forms other than human. To explain this, Hinduism draws our attention to the fact that all creatures were created by one and same compassionate God. God’s infinite compassion which causes His descent on earth as a Divine Incarnation, should be the same for both human and subhuman beings. Otherwise

God becomes biased and partial, an idea which is not acceptable.”

It might be suspected that Advaita Vedanta, with its emphasis on Nirguṇa Brahman, would underplay the importance of Avatāra-s. But on the contrary, in the introduction to his commentary on the Gita, Shankaracharya clearly acknowledges that although Brahman is unborn, eternally pure, conscious, free, immutable and so on, it is also endowed with the six auspicious qualities understood from the word Bhagavān. This same Brahman incarnates not to serve any private end of his, but to re-establish the primacy of Vedic Dharma over Adharma and heresies, so that the well-being of the world may be ensured.

The doctrine of Avatāra-s is also emphasized in the school of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. According to Ramanuja, Brahman assumes avataras periodically for three purposes-

1. To restore law and order and to confound their opponents.

2. To act as an appropriate refuge and mainstay for his devotees

3. As an exemplar and type, a particular lineage or order of being

Swaminarayan (Sahajananda Swami, 1781-1830 CE) and many other Hindu saints have also emphasized that Vishnu assumes Avatāra-s primarily out of compassion for his devotees, and the same has been declared in Hindu scriptures. Bhagavān truly loves us and cares for us, due to which even though He is infinite, He assumes a finite form for our sake:

Yoga may expand our mind, but love demands that we contract ourselves so that our lover does not feel inadequate or inferior. This conscious contraction of divinity is why the infinite bhagavan descends on earth as the finite avatar, experiencing death as Ram and Krishna for the benefit of his devotees.

An excellent example of this willful contraction of the infinite to become more accessible to the finite minded human devotee is that of Krishna showing the universe inside his open mouth to his mother Yashodā. The terrified mother fainted upon seeing this aspect of her loving baby, and Krishna then once again assumed his usual baby form to reassure his mother and then revived her. Likewise, in Bhagavad Gita chapter 11, Arjuna is terrified when he sees the Universal Form of Krishna, and begs Him to once again return to his human form, to which Arjuna was accustomed. The significance of this transformation in so far as it applies to the doctrine of Avatāra in Hindu Dharma is explained eloquently in the following words:

The thousand-armed God becomes the two-armed friend and charioteer once again. If devotion to Ram makes Hanuman expand and become bhagavan, then affection for Arjuna makes Krishna contract to become an avatar. He is like the mother who pretends not to see

the child while playing a game of hide-and-seek. Though limitless himself, he submits to the limited truth of those around him. These are the games (leela) the deity-parent plays with the devotee-child. The aim of bhagavan’s contraction (avatarana) is to uplift the devotee (uddhar). For bhagavan can see all slices of reality and can make the bhakta see more than just the one.

7.2 Distinction between Avatāras and Humans

Although Brahman assumes a form as an Avatāra, it is not bound by the laws of Karma unlike human beings. Swami Bhaskarananda explains –

“A Divine Incarnation is never controlled by the forces of karma nor is his body caused by any prārabdha karma. God, in order to incarnate on earth in human form, creates an earthly body for Himself through His inscrutable magical power or māyā and enters into it. By his māyā He gives others the impression that He is born of human parents. Out of compassion for His creatures who take refuge in Him, He absorbs their sins or bad karma in His earthly body, and suffers on their behalf. He works out their bad prārabdha karma to give them relief and salvation. Neither does a Divine Incarnation generate any karmaphala [fruit of action] for whatever he does during his earthly existence.”

The reason that the Avatāra is not bound by karma is explained in the Gita succinctly:

“Though I am unborn and My Atman is imperishable, though I am the Lord of all creatures, yet subjugating Prakriti, I assume a form through my mysterious power (Māyā).” Gita 4.6

So, whereas all creatures are born due to being subjugated by their karma and Prakriti, Brahman subjugates the Prakriti and is born of Its own free will. For this reason, an Avatāra is not subjected to karma. To state it succinctly,

1. A Jīva is born due to its karma in its past lives. It is bound by the cycle of births and deaths. An Avatāra appears due to the will of Bhagavān and is not bound by the cycle of births and deaths.

2. A Jīva reaps the fruit of its Karma, and is ignorant of its true nature. An Avatāra is not bound by the law of Karma because it knows its true Divine nature.

7.3 Types of Avatāras

Hindu scriptures enumerate several types of Avatāras. They could be broadly classified into Amshāvatāra, Vibhūti-Avatāra, Mahātmyavatāra, Yugāvatāra, Lilāvatāra and Pūrṇāvatāra. But the three major types are Pūrṇa Avatāra, Amsha Avatāra and Shaktāveṣha Avatāra –

1. Pūrṇa-Avatāra: In these, the manifestation of Brahman is complete. An example is Krishna. Pūrṇāvatāra is the culmination of all Divine characteristics and their personification in human form. Shri Krishna performed several miracles all through his life starting from his birth and all the way unto his death. His discourse to his disciple and friend Arjuna on the battlefield extracted absolute nectar from all the Vedas and Upanishads and outlined various pathways that human beings can pursue to gain knowledge and reach the enlightened state in this very human existence. He was fully conscious of his Divinity and never tried to hide his divine prowess. He utilized his divine powers to destroy the evil doers and instantly rescue his devotees in distress.

2. Amsha-Avatāra: In these, the manifestation of Brahman is partial. Only some of the attributes of God are manifested in Amshavatar. He possesses radiance (Tejas) and brilliance (Ojas) and is always turning towards the ocean of Bhagavān. He will show a great devotion to God and inspires fellow beings to become devoted to Bhagavān. Rishi Narada or Bhakta Purandaradāsa are such Amshāvatāras who spent their entire lives spreading the glory of God in the form of divine music. Other examples include great Rishis like Veda Vyasa.

3. Shāktāvesha-Avatāra: In this type, the Divine enters a body only for a short period of time, and then leaves it. E.g., once a group of Kapalikas imprisoned Shankaracharya in the Himalayas and were about to sacrifice him to their deity when suddenly, Vishnu in the form of the ferocious Narasimha entered the body of Padmapādāchārya (a disciple of Shankaracharya) and took possession of it. As a result, Padmapadacharya aggressively challenged the captors and freed his teacher. After the task was accomplished, Narasimha left the body of Padmapādāchārya and the latter was back to his normal self.

4. Līlāvatāra: Here Bhagavān appears in supra-physical body (aprākŗta), human in appearance and yet completely Divine. Such Lilāvatāra is aware of the past, present and future at all times. God appears before the parents just before the child’s birth to inform them of their previous lives and the reason for their becoming earthly parents for the divine descent. Among the 10 incarnations of Bhagavān Vishnu only Shri Rama and Shri Krishna are considered as Lilāvatāras. King Dasharatha, ruler of Ayodhya, was blessed with Shri Rama as a child in order to destroy Rāvaṇa and Kumbhakarṇa who were threatening all the worlds and creating chaos everywhere. Shri Rama worshipped his parents, learnt all the scriptures from Rishi Vasishta and served him, and treated his people with love, kindness and righteousness. He manifested the highest wisdom and walked as a perfect man on earth during Dwāpara Yuga. Sri Krishna in addition to being a Lilāvatāra is also considered as Pūrṇāvatāra.

5. Yugāvātara: Yugāvātara descends with a particular message for a particular age or time period. Enlightened individuals possessing the enormous love and power of God inspire the humanity to change the ways of life. Adi Shankaracharya is one such example. Though Shri Rama manifested in Tretā Yuga and Shri Krishna in the Dvāpara Yuga and gave several inspiring messages to human beings, these two Divine manifestations are classified as Lilāvatāra rather than simply Yugāvātara.

6. Mahātmyavātara: Here, God manifests suddenly to accomplish a specific purpose. Such manifestation can take any form and not necessarily a human form. When demon Shankhāsura stole the Vedas, Lord Vishnu appeared as a tiny fish in the Kamandalu of Sage Manu. Seeing rapid increase in the size of the fish he rapidly transferred that fish from his Kamandalu to a small pond then to a river and ultimately to the ocean. After entering the ocean the demon hiding inside a conch shell could be located and then destroyed. The Vedas were rescued and this Avatāra is called Matsyāvatāra.

Wishing to attain immortality, the celestials and demons used mountain Mandāra as the churning rod and the serpent Vasuki as the rope to churn the ocean of milk. When the mountain started sinking in the deep ocean, Lord manifested in the form of tortoise and held the mountain on its back till the time that churning process was complete and the nectar of Immortality, Amrita could be realized by the celestials. This Avatāra is commonly referred to as Kurmāvatāra.

Manifestation of the Lord in the form of a Divine boar, came about in order to destroy the tyrant Demon Hiraṇyāksha. That Avatāra is known as Varāhavatāra and is also considered as Mahātmyāvatāra. Lord manifested as half man-half lion to destroy Hiranyakashipu and to protect devotee Prahlād. This Narasimhāvatāra is also of the Mahātmyāvatāra category.

Yet another Mahatmyāvatāra was when Bhagavān manifested in the form of Divine Dwarf, Vāmana. When the enormously powerful King Bali offered Vāmana the boon to acquire the land as his three steps would cover, he covered the entire earth and heaven with his first two steps and placed the third step on the head of King Bali to dispatch him to nether world.

7. Vibhūti-Avatāra: Vibhūti means “Glory of God”. That which creates awe, wonder and which remains unfathomable and indescribable, we consider as the Glory of God. The 10th Chapter of the Gita is devoted exclusively to Divine Glories. After recounting more than 40 such vibhūtis,

Bhagavan Sri Krishna said,

“Every such creature as is glorious, brilliant or powerful, know that to be a manifestation of a spark of my effulgence.” Gita 10.41

7.4 Avatāras of Various Devas and Liberated Souls

I. Avatāra-s of Vishnu: Amongst the primary Forms of Īshvara, the incarnations of Bhagavān Vishnu are most commonly known and recognized. The reason for this is that Vishnu is the ‘Preserver of the Universe’ aspect of Īshvara. Therefore, he descends in a physical form from time to time to restore the balance when Dharma and its adherents have been undermined severely. Vishnu has innumerable incarnations, but the 10 major Avatāras of Vishnu are enumerated as:

1. Matsya (Fish)

2. Kūrma (Tortoise)

3. Varāha (Boar)

4. Narasimha (Half Lion - Half Man)

5. Vāmana (Dwarf)

6. Parshurāma (Rama with the Axe)

7. Rama

8. Krishna

9. Buddha (in some lists, he is replaced with Balarāma)

10. Kalki (in the future)

The Avatāras of even male Devas are not restricted to a specific gender. For example, one of the Avatāras of Vishnu is a beautiful lady named Mohinī. Moreover, as stated earlier, Vishnu often incarnates together with his consort, Lakshmi.

Sometimes, several saints are said to be Avatāras of other Avatāras. For example, the followers of

Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu believe that the Mahāprabhu was the Avatāra of Krishna for this age. Another one is Swami Nārāyaṇa (Sahajānanda Swāmī, 1781 – 1830 CE) who is considered a manifestation of Nārāyaṇa (equated with Parabrahman) or of Krishna by the followers of the Swami Nārāyaṇa Sampradāya of Hindus.

Likewise, Assamese Vaishnavites believe that Saint Shankaradeva104 (1449 – 1568 CE) was an incarnation of Krishna.

Finally, some Vaishṇavite Hindus also believe that the objects associated with Vishnu themselves have so much potency that they can incarnate as well. In the tradition of Shri Vaishṇavites of South India, the twelve Alwar saints, and numerous later saints belonging to the tradition are considered

as incarnations of objects like the Bell, the Sudarshana Chakra and so on associated with Vishnu.

II. Avatāra-s of Shiva: Some schools of Hindus like the Shaiva Siddhanta believe that Shiva never incarnates by taking birth in the home of human parents although He will appear in a body to save his devotees. And yet, other Hindus (e.g. Smārta) believe that Shiva does incarnate just like Vishnu. In general, it is fair to say that Shiva typically does not incarnate but appears to His devotees either in person, in their dreams or in the Form of his iconic symbol – the Shivalinga. Numerous sites spread all over the Indian subcontinent where Bhagavān Shiva appeared in the past are marked by famous temples.

III. Avatāra-s of Devī: In the scriptures (e.g. Devī Bhāgavata Purāna) of the Shākta Hindu tradition, the Devī graces the earth with numerous incarnations in which she is born in pious households. E.g., her birth as Sati in the household of Daksha.

IV. Avatāra-s of Ganapati: In scriptures like the Mudgala Purāṇa, many incarnations of Gaṇesha are also counted.

V. Avatāras of Other Devatas: Other Devatās are also said to have taken Avatāras. E.g. Vāyu was incarnated first as Hanumān, then as Bheema, and finally as Madhvachārya (in the 13th cent. C.E.) according to the theology of the followers of Dvaita Vedānta. Sindhi Hindus believe that Sant Jhūlelāl was an Avatāra of Varuna devatā. He saved them from forcible ̣̣ conversion to Islam in the 11th cent. CE and is worshipped even today along with the Indus river, which is traditionally associated with Varuṇa devatā.106

The great Sanskrit grammarian Patanjali is regarded as an Avatāra of Shesha, and so are Balarāma, Lakshmaṇa, Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE) and ̣̣

Nityānanda Prabhu, an associate of Chaitanya Mahāprabhu. The lady saint Antaḷ is considered an incarnation of Bhūdevī (earth).

VI. Avatāras of Liberated Souls: Hindu scriptures also declare that souls that have attained Moksha, and have been liberated from the cycle of births and deaths can, on their own will, take a birth in this world out of compassion and to guide those who need help on the path of their spiritual journey.

This birth of the liberated souls is purely of their own volition, unlike that of non-liberated souls which are born due their unexhausted karma. Hindus believe that the souls that have attained Moksha are like Brahman and therefore their Avatāras may also therefore be likened to Brahman Itself incarnating.

Many examples of this type of Avatāras in Hindu scriptures. The followers of Samkhya Darshana

believe that Sage Kapila, the founder of their philosophy, was one such soul that created a body for himself

to teach his philosophy to humanity through his disciple Āsuri. Likewise, the liberated sage Apāntaratamas took birth as Veda Vyāsa to compile the four Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Puranas etc.

Early Sikh traditions state that none other than King Janaka of Videha (the celebrated Philosopher King in Hindu scriptures) was reborn as Guru Nanak in the present age.

Another example is that of Sai Baba of Shirdi (?? to 1915) who is said to have been a realized and liberated soul. Some Hindus believe that he then took rebirth on his own will as Sathya Sai Baba (1926 – 2011), and will be reborn once again for the last time in the near future.

Some scholars (e.g., those of the Arya Samaj) believe that Krishna Himself was one such liberated soul (and that is how they interpret the Gita 4.78) that took birth for the benefit of all.

Of course, all Hindus do not believe in all these Avatāras, but nevertheless do not disrespect them, and even worship them as saints, if not as Avatāras.

7.5 Rejection of Avatāras or the Doctrine of Avatāras by certain Hindus

The followers of Hindu traditions like the Nirguṇa Bhakti (e.g. Kabir), the Arya Samaj and the Sikhs do not accept the notion of Brahman incarnating in a finite Form. However, they have no hesitation in accepting incarnations like Rama and Krishna as great individuals and as realized souls. Secondly, even Hindus who believe in the doctrine of Avatāras have an ambiguous viewpoint about Buddha, who is counted as an incarnation in several Hindu scriptures but replaced by Balarāma in others. Hindus typically believe that Vishnu incarnated as Buddha to delude (and thereby weaken) the evil people (‘Asuras’) by propounding a heretical and an anti-Vedic doctrine. So whereas the Buddha may be worshipped due to His divine nature, his doctrine ought to be rejected.

It has been noted above that many saints (both past and living in the present) are treated as Avatāras of particular forms of Īshvara by their followers, but non-followers do not subscribe to this belief. So how should non-believing Hindus perceive these saints, who are regarded as Divine Avatāras by other Hindus? What Swami Bhaktivinode Thakur (1838 – 1914) has rightly said109 with regard to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu applies to other Hindu saints too –

“We leave it to our readers to decide how to deal with the Mahaprabhu. The Vaishnavas have accepted Him as the great Lord, Shri Krishna, Himself….Those who are not prepared to accept this perspective may think of Lord Chaitanya as a noble and only teacher. That is all we want our readers to believe…We make no objection if the reader does not believe His miracles, as miracles alone never demonstrate Godhead. Demons like Ravana and

others have also worked miracles and these do not prove that they were gods. It is unlimited love and its overwhelming influence that would be seen in non but God Himself.”

In summary, even if a Hindu does not regard a particular saint as an Avatāra, he is nevertheless respectful and reverential towards that saint.

7.6 Interfaith Perspectives: Avatāras versus Prophets

In the Abrahamic religions, God sends either prophets or his own son to set an example. Thus, Muslims consider Muhammad as an exemplar of ideal conduct whereas Christians believe in ‘Imitatio Dei’ or imitating Christ because he is a perfect son of God. On the other hand, in Hindu Dharma, Bhagavān Himself assumes a finite form to guide humanity out of His infinite compassion for His creation. And this compassion is the main reason why He chooses to incarnate from time to time. We Hindus believe that Bhagavān loves us very deeply and therefore does not rely on others to help us. In Hindu Dharma, there is no intermediary between Bhagavān and his loving Bhakta. The relationship between the two is direct.

The concept of Avatāras distinguishes Hindu Dharma sharply from Abrahamic traditions. In the former, it is possible to behold the Form of Īshvara directly without intermediaries and in one’s own lifetime. On the other hand, in Abrahamic religions, God communicates and appears only through His intermediaries (the Prophets or the only son) and can be seen by humans directly only in Heaven after the Day of Judgment.

In Christianity, God is said to have made his only son Jesus born to Mary through immaculate conception. Because Jesus was not conceived through a human father, he is said to be free of the ‘original sin’ that is passed from Adam to all human beings. At the same, he was also the son of human beings because he had a human mother. Christians believe that Jesus was perfect and that we should follow his example in all matters. Moreover, salvation is possible only to those who believe in Jesus as the Christ and as the only son of God because Jesus alone can take away all our sins. Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are damned to hell. This notion of God’s son being reborn on this earth to provide the only medium of salvation henceforth is rejected by Islam. The Koran says that Allah does not have a wife and it is ridiculous to suppose that He can beget a son.

The concept of Avatāra of Hindu Dharma is somewhat different from that of Jesus as the only son of God. Hindus believe that we are all children of Brahman. Moreover, Jesus has appeared only once, but Avatāras appear from time to time. And Brahman does not send His son or any other agent to accomplish the task. Rather, Brahman Itself manifests in a form to destroy Adharma, establish Dharma and set an example for humanity. The Avatāra does not take our sins automatically. We have to make effort on the path of Moksha to shed our sins. And finally, faith in an Avatāra is not essential for a Hindu to get Moksha. Like we stated above, some Hindu traditions do not even accept the doctrine of Divine Incarnations.

7.7 Objections Against the Doctrine of Avatāras and Responses:

As stated above, several Hindus themselves do not accept the doctrine of Avatāras. Sikhs, who otherwise are an off-shoot of Hindu Dharma, reject this doctrine. However, their own scripture, the Guru

Granth Sahib, shows utmost reverence to the Avataras of Vishnu (Rama and Krishna). In our times, Sikh scholars tend to gloss over these reverential verses addressed to Rama and Krishna. Numerous historic Sikh shrines display the paintings of Hindu Deities and Vishnu’s Avatāras on their walls. But, current practices of renovation ensures that these are all whitewashed or are covered up with a thick layer of paint. In fact, many of the 10 Sikh Gurus are themselves named after the Avatāras of Vishnu (Ramdas, Harkishan, Har Rai, Hargobind, Gobind Singh).

The objections stated below are collected from various sources (Sikh scriptures, Arya Samaj texts

etc.).

Objection 1: God is all-pervading. So he can vanquish evil-doers by dismembering their bodies from within. There is no need for him to take an incarnation.

Reply: Yes, God is all-pervading. But merely destroying the evil doers from within will not enable God to set a personal example for all times to come. E.g., Rama showed us how to be a good son, a good ruler, a noble warrior and so on through his own actions.

Objection 2: There is no unanimity over who is an Avatāra and who is not. Different sets of people consider different entities as incarnations. Some consider the Buddha as an Avatāra of Vishnu, others substitute Balarāma in his place. This shows that there are no objective criteria for establishing whether something is an incarnation of Brahman or not.

Reply: The Avatāra-s are listed in the Hindu scriptures. Yes, the Hindus do not have a central authority (like the Pope) to declare who is an incarnation and who is not. But who are we humans to decide matters related to Divinity? Even if there is a controversy on the Avatārahood of some person, there is no bar in accepting him or her as a Vibhūti or a Sage. This ambiguity prevents the development of intolerance and fanaticism in Hindu Dharma, and also allows for a wide range of possibilities for spiritual advancement.

Objection 3: It is impossible for an all-pervading, infinite Brahman to take a finite form of an Avatāra. Reply: Just because moisture condenses into a dew drop on a leaf does not mean that moisture is no longer existent in the entire atmosphere. When Brahman takes an Avatāra, It does not cease to exist anywhere else in the universe. In fact, in the Hindu scriptures themselves, Krishna takes Arjuna to meet Vishnu in Vaikuntha, even though Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu. It is only a portion of the infinite Brahman that assumes the aspect of Avatāra, although even that portion may reflect Brahman in all of its glory. Only foolish people equate an Avatāra with a visible and a finite body to represent Brahman in totality. As Krishna Himself warns in the Gita-

Krishna said to Arjuna:

The deluded despise Me clad in human body, not knowing My higher nature as the Lord of all existences. Gita 9.11

In fact, Hindus give another argument as to why it is possible for Brahman to assume an incarnation:

“Abrahamic religions (i.e., Christianity, Judaism and Islam) promote the idea of God with attributes such as omnipotence (all-powerful) and omniscience (all knowing), but resist giving a form to God. These religions insist that the infinite God cannot become finite. Hindus disagree; they say that having infinite power must include the power to become finite. They claim that the gracious God assumes a finite form for the love of his devotee. The form He assumes is imposed by His devotee. This is the reason why we find many images of Gods and Goddesses in the Hindu tradition. This is a celebration of pluralism and should not be confused with polytheism.”

Objection 4: The belief that Brahman can assume an incarnation is insulting to Brahman. It is contrary to the doctrines of Vedanta.

Reply: This objection pre-supposes that God is an irascible personality who Lords over the creation but cannot assume a form to redeem humanity out of love. The doctrine of Avatāra clearly states that Brahman assumes forms out of his compassion, to re-energize Dharma, destroy evil doers and to set an example. It is not beyond the ability of God to animate a finite form with his own essence, even while remaining omnipresence, immanence and transcendence with regard to the universe. Ironically, the Abrahamics too presume God to be an elderly figure residing in a place called Heaven. If that is not irrational, then why is the doctrine of Avatāra so?

Objection 5: The doctrine of incarnation is a late innovation in Hindu traditions. The Vedas do not mention it, nor do the Upanishads, or even the Brahmasūtras which systematize the Upanishadic theology. In fact, all the six schools of Hindu philosophy (Darshanas) are silent about it.

Reply: Hindu Dharma is not based entirely on the Vedas or the Darshana Shastra-s. Many of the tenets of Hindus are derived from the Gita, the Puranas and other scriptures which do uphold this doctrine. In any case, to be a Hindu does not mean that one must accept this doctrine. There are other aspects of Brahman that can be worshipped.

Objection 6: An Avatāra of Brahman must be perfect. But we see many Avatāras demonstrate wrong and immoral behavior. For example, Krishna had 16108 wives. Now this is immoral and also impossible.

Reply: As stated above, all Avatāras are not Pūrna Avatāras and therefore they may not reflect Divinity in its fullness. The actions of Avatāras are certainly meant to convey subtle ethical and philosophical principles. In the example cited, the 16108 wives of Krishna are meant to indicate that Brahman is the inexhaustible seed of all existences (Gita 9.18; Skanda Purana 7.4.2.32). In a similar way, other objections raised against the character of Avataras can be answered too, but this discussion is beyond the scope of the current document.

To conclude, those who ridicule the Hindu theory of Avatāra as something primitive and evil themselves lack compassion and sophisticated understanding of the Divine, who loves His creation more than these critics can even imagine. As a contemporary author says:

A student may not learn because he does not have the capacity, or because he does not have the will or because he does not have the resources. None of these makes the wise teacher unhappy, for he knows that teaching is about the student’s benefit, not for his [own] aggrandizement. He cannot control the karma of the student; he can only focus on the svaha [offering] of his [own] yagna [i.e., the pious act of teaching students], plant the karma-bija

[seed for student’s karma] and not seek control over the karma-phala [fruit of student’s karma].

Likewise, a wise man never argues when a less learned man argues with him. He knows when to expand and when to contract, when to give and when to receive. Darshan [witnessing] of the [Divine as the] limited other enables the self to gain insight into the human condition and further expand the mind. By submitting to the truth [of the Infinite manifested as the finite Avatāra], the yajamana [worshipping devotee] experiences Brahmana [Brahman, the Supreme Being].

8.0 SAGUṆA BRAHMAN AS MŪRTI

The Vishnu Dharmottara Purāṇa has an illuminating discussion between Sages Vajra and

Markandeya on the appropriateness of worshipping Brahman through Mūrtis –

Vajra asked Markandeya:

You have told me that the Supreme Being does not have any form, odor, taste, sound or touch (the objects of the five senses). Then how can a form of Him be made?

Markandeya responded:

Prakriti and Vikriti are the two ‘Forms’ of Paramatman. The Form which is not seen is called the Prakriti. The Form which is seen is called the Vikriti and is the Universe. Worship and meditation etc. of the Supreme Being are possible only the aid of His manifested form (the Vikriti). Therefore, the Divine Form of the Supreme Being should be worshipped with the appropriate rites. It is only with great difficulty that living beings can apprehend the non-manifest nature of Brahman. For this reason, out of his own free will, Brahman has assumed various forms. These various forms, in the shape of Mūrtis, actually point to Its different manifestations. Therefore, the scriptures enjoin the worship of these manifested forms (Mūrtis) of the Supreme Being. Vishnudharmottara Purana 3.46.1-6a

And thus, Hindus believe that it is Brahman’s compassion that It allows us to worship through Mūrtis because it is very difficult for the human mind accustomed to forms to worship the Divine which lacks any form. The Mūrti serves as a ladder or a step, climbing which we can reach the Highest Goal more conveniently.

Worship of Brahman through Mūrtis is a very prevalent and visible aspect of Hindu worship. Appearing in front of a Mūrti for a ‘Darshana’ - to behold It, and to be seen by it is a joyous occasion:

“The Hindu devotee longs to stand in the presence of the image and to see and be seen by the deity. There is a great sense of excitement in the temple as the curtains are drawn back and the image is revealed to the view of the worshippers. Gifts are taken not to atone for sins or to win favors but to express delight in God, just as when one visits a friend one does not go empty handed. Again, this desire to see and to be in the presence of the divine is a reminder also that worship is not just a matter of belief but of presence – of sensing a mystery and beauty and peace that passes all understanding.”114

8.1 Two Viewpoints about worshipping Mūrtis

There are two ways in which Hindus interpret the use and nature of Mūrtis – as an abode of Brahman, or as a symbol of Brahman. Lay Hindus do not necessarily view these two interpretations as necessarily exclusive (‘either this or that’) to each other, or they may accord primacy to one of the two due to their own personal preferences or due to their self-association with a particular tradition of Hindus.

114 Marcus Braybrooke (2002), p. 51

Whatever be the interpretation, both of them have the same purpose – of making Brahman more accessible to the lay worshipper.

1. The Mūrti as a Symbol of Saguṇa Brahman: Once Swami Vivekananda during his itinerary arrived at

Alwar. The Dewan (Prime Minister) of the state kept him in his house as a guest, being impressed by the Swami’s personality, learning and spirituality. He once invited the Maharaja to listen to the discourses of the Swami and benefit from his wisdom.

The Maharaja said to the Swami, “My forefathers had consecrated an image of Shri Krishna inside the palace. But I do not worship it because I do not have faith in idol worship. Don’t you think that idol worship is harmful?”

Swamiji thought for a while and then asked some persons to get a picture of the Maharaja to the gathering. Then, he asked people to spit on it. Everyone was aghast. They said to Swamiji, “How can you ask us to spit on this picture? It is of

the Maharaja whom we all revere and respect.”

Swamiji smiled and said to the Maharaja, “Did you see how no one wants to spit on this picture? The picture is not the same as you. It is merely a painting of you on a piece of paper. Yet, it symbolizes you and represents you which is why no one wants to spit on it. These same people who have refused to spit on this picture have no problems spitting into the expensive silver and gold spittoons kept in the Dewan’s house. Similarly, the image of Shri Krishna reminds the worshipper of the Lord whom it represents. The worshipper knows that the image is not the same as the Lord, but this image reminds him of the Lord whom he worships in his heart. And when he offers worship to this image, he is offering worship to Shri Krishna that the image represents.”

The Maharaja learned his lesson about the rationale behind idol worship and promised to Swamiji that he will not henceforth look down upon ‘mūrti poojā’.115

To conclude again, in the words of T M P Mahadevan (1956: 47-48) –

“The function of the idol is symbolic. No Hindu, however unlettered he may be, regards the idol as exhausting the being of God. To see God everywhere and to practice the presence of God always is impossible for the ordinary individual. And so he is asked to behold the manifestation of God, wherever there is splendor, beauty and love. “Whatever being there is, endowed with grandeur, beauty or strength,’ says Sri Krishna, ‘know that it has sprung only from a spark of my splendor (Gita 10.41).’ Temples are built on beautiful

115 Swami Sambuddhananda (2006), pp. 91-92

spots in order that man may be reminded of God, the masterartist, and get into communion with Him.” (pp. 47-48).

2. The Mūrti as an Abode of Brahman: For many Hindus however, the mūrti is not just a symbol of the Divine. It is rather the body of God, and divine as such. However, this does not mean that Hindus practice idolatry, which would mean reducing Brahman to the idol. Rather, Hindus believe that Brahman is graciously present in the mūrti, but it is wrong to think that Brahman is present in the mūrti alone. This distinction is explained by Rambachan :

“The Hindu acceptance of the arcavatara concept has to be understood in the context of its prevalent views about the nature of God and His relationship to the world. According to Ramanuja, God is the only reality. There is no existence outside or independent of God. God, however, contains within Himself the world of individual souls and material objects.

Within the all-inclusive God exist unconscious matter and finite spirits. Ramanuja uses the analogy of the body and soul for clarifying the relationship between the Lord and the universe. Matter and souls are conceived of as constituting the body of God. God, as the soul of the entire universe, pervades, controls, guides and uses it as an instrument. For the Advaita philosopher Sankara, the entire universe is an inexplicable appearance of God who is both its intelligent and material cause. In either view, the universe as a whole and all its particular forms are pervaded by God. All forms belong to God and each can serve as a medium for appreciating and worshipping Him. The fact that the axis of the universe literally runs through everything, grants to all objects the potential for revealing God.

The persistent equation of the arcavatara concept with idolatry ought also to be examined in the light of the clear and strong affirmation of divine transcendence in Hinduism….in Vaisnava theology, the arca form is only one of the five ways in which the Lord is understood to manifest Himself. The Hindu concept of God as both immanent in the world and transcendent over it is expressed figuratively in the Vedas in the view that God pervades the world by a fourth of his being, while three-fourths of him remain beyond it. The Bhagavadgita similarly affirms that while the entire universe owes its being to God, the forms of the universe do not contain or express him fully (9:4-5). It is clearly recognized that no finite process or form can ever finally express the absolute. Ultimately, however, we appreciate the limitations of all our concepts and forms of worship…”

8.2 The Concepts of Pratīka, Pratimā, Mūrti, Archā, Vigraha

Several terms are used interchangeably for the images used in Hindu worship. The concept of

Mūrtis is practically absent in the Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata, the six Darshanas and in

the Kalpasūtras (except for the Supplementary portions that are late) although the description of several Devas in these scriptures easily lends itself to a tangible form that can be sculpted. However, in both Vedic rites as well as in Upanishadic meditations, the use of symbols (Pratīkas) is taught. For example, meditation on Om, or a wheel (as a symbol of sun), on space or the sky (as symbols of the formless Brahman) and so on.

Examples of Pratīkas used for different Forms of Bhagavān is listed in the table below:

Symbol Deity

Shivalinga Shiva

Shālagrāma Vishnu

Shrī-Chakra Devi

Gold disc Sūrya

Silver coins Lakshmi

The word Pratimā means a ‘likeness, image, measure’ and is used for sacred icons or images of Devas worshipped by Hindus. There is no sharp dividing line between Pratīka and Pratimā – e.g. the Shivalinga is both.

Mūrti means a real or material manifestation of a Devatā that has been ‘awakened’ through prescribed consecration ceremonies.

Vigraha means ‘taking up residence in’. It is another term used for the Mūrti that is the abode of the Deity and is served regularly as living entity by the priests and the worshippers. The word ‘Vigraha’ also means something that the mind can easily use to ‘grasp’ the nature of Brahman.

The word Archā is a technical term in Vaishnavite literature. It denotes the Mūrti into which the Divine has descended through prescribed rituals so that the devotees may worship Him. Because Vishnu descends and takes up residence in the Mūrti, it becomes an Archāvatara.

From the above definitions, it should be clear that ‘Pratīka’ is a more restricted term than others. A Mūrti, or a Pratimā, Archā or Vigraha is both a Pratīka (symbol) for all Hindus, as well as an abode of Brahman for many Hindus. But a Pratīka need not be worshipped as an abode of Brahman, and is instead merely Its symbol.

8.3 Are Hindus ‘Idolators’? Idols versus Mūrtis

The Hindus are neither idolators, nor are we polytheists. Mahadevan explains -

“When the Hindu worships these or the idols in the shrines, he is aware that it is to God that he really offers his worship. It is wrong, therefore, to characterize Hinduism as an idolatrous religion. The idols are symbols of the invisible Spirit. It is after the devotee has invoked the presence of God therein that they become sacred objects of worship. The Hindu, it is true, bows his head before many a form of the Deity. On that account, however, he is not to be dubbed a polytheist. What the Hindu adores is the One God in the many gods.”

Not just every mūrti sculpted out of any random material can be worshipped. Before becoming suitable for worship, the mūrti is consecrated in a ceremony where the Devatā is reverentially invited to dwell in it for the benefit of the worshipper. Although Brahman is all-pervading and it cannot come inside and go out of the mūrti, this act serves to draw a boundary between the profane and sacred for practical reasons. The worshipper can thereafter venerate the Mūrti as an abode of Brahman or a Deva in a home shrine in his privacy or in the temple and feel close to his Deity.

In the course of time, once the mūrti becomes worn out, the Devatā is requested to abandon it, and the mūrti itself is discarded by immersion in water or by burning. All this again underscores the fact that Hindus do not worship the ‘idol’ per se, but the Divinity within it. This act reminds the Hindu worshipper that though his Deity had taken residence inside the Mūrti, the same cannot be equated to the Deity.

The Mūrti can never exhaust any Deva or Brahman. The physical mūrti is always understood as perishable, just as our own body, whereas the Brahman within it is eternal, just like our soul. And it is that Brahman which is worshipped through the medium of the mūrti, and not the physical mūrti itself. Even those who see the Mūrti as an abode of Brahman understand this point very well. They also emphasize the fact that it is purely out of compassion for human beings that their Devatā has chosen by His or Her own will to make a portion of Himself or Herself abide in the Mūrti, so that we may approach Brahman more easily.

There is an unfathomable difference between the very concept of idol in Abrahamic religions, and that of Mūrti in Hindu Dharma. Malhotra highlights this difference and warns Hindus against using the loaded term ‘idol’ while referring to Mūrtis:

“The term ‘idol’ is loaded with negative and demonic connotations in the Abrahamic religions. The term generally refers to the graven images of false gods to which sacrifices were made in return for privileges and benefits. The Qur’an demonizes idol worshippers, as does the Hebrew Bible. Both authorize violence against them. All three religions have undergone periods in which images are purged, because they are felt to evoke idolatrous forms of worship. The reformers also felt an intense phobia vis-à-vis Orthodox and Catholic representations, which for them were associated with priest-craft and attempts to

control and manipulate people through superstition and sensationalism. Nonetheless, the tendency to use such aids in worship is persistent in human religious traditions, and Orthodox churches as well as Catholicism have come to embrace these in the case of Jesus and the saints (albeit in a carefully qualified way).

In Christianity, true worship (latria) can only be to God, but images of lesser exemplars of holiness in the form of saints are tolerated as long as they are objects of reverence (dulia) and not worship. The term ‘icon’ is applied to the latter practice, and the term ‘idol’ is used for practices that elevate a material representation of a ‘false god’ or entity to divine status. In Orthodox churches, icons are kissed and treated with reverence but they are not, technically speaking, worshipped. Stated more directly, what Christians revere are icons and what pagans worship are idols.

By the time Christian colonizers encountered Indian culture closely, these prejudices, biblical in origin, had become entrenched. The prominence of images and icons in popular Hinduism occasioned, and still occasions, a particular visceral revulsion among the followers of Jewish and Christian religions. Western mischaracterization of Hinduism as polytheistic has resulted in its representations of divinity being associated with a host of; heathen’ practices and traits of pre-Christian Europe and Asia Minor. These include sacrifice to magical fetishes, lack of moral integrity, ethical instability, grotesque sexual indulgences, fatalism, and so on. The various images and devotional objects encountered are instantly and arbitrarily registered as ‘idols’ not ‘icons’. In terms of interfaith encounters, even those friendly to visual representations, such as the early Catholic immigrants to India, were opposed to the visual representations of the divine which they encountered – especially when these involved female deities (their concept of divinity being entirely male).”

Additionally, it must be kept in mind that Hindus do not have a uniform view of the validity of image worship. There are four distinct attitudes towards image worship in Hinduism:

1. According to the first view, Brahman cannot be worshipped at all through images, because the images are formed, finite and perishable, whereas Brahman is formless, infinite and eternal. In this extreme view, no symbols may be used to worship Brahman, and image worship is out of question.

2. The second view is that images are worshipped by individuals who are unenlightened, as a preparatory step towards higher spiritual states in which image worship becomes meaningless. In this viewpoint, Brahman or Īshvara is merely superimposed on an image, which is taken to be a symbol of the Divine. The images in this viewpoint are of two types: Pratīka, and Pratimā.

3. Some Hindus believe that when an image is consecrated through ceremonies, the Divine becomes associated with it and imparts it holiness so that the image can be used for worshipping the Divine. But the Divine does not reside specially within the image. In this case, the image is simply referred to as ‘mūrti’.

4. Finally, in some schools of Hinduism (Vaikhānasa and Pāncharātra), a consecrated image is the very embodiment of the Divine. During the process of fashioning and consecrating the image, the divinity Brahman manifests increasingly within the image, and finally, the image becomes alive when its ceremonial awakening is completed. Thereafter, the image is treated as a living person, as

a manifestation of Brahman, who is woken up, put to sleep, fed and served as if one were to serve a living sovereign. In his mode of image worship, the image is referred to as ‘archā’ or ‘vigraha’.

To conclude, in the words of a saint from our times, it is wrong to refer to Hindus as ‘idolators’ pejoratively for the following simple reason:

“That the one and only one Paramatman who has neither form nor attributes is manifested as different forms with attributes is another special feature of our religion. We worship idols representing these forms of deities. For this reason others label us polytheists. Their view is utterly wrong. Because we worship the one God, the one Reality, in many different forms it does not mean that we believe in many gods. It is equally absurd to call us idolaters who hold that the idol we worship is God. Hindus with a proper understanding of their religion do not think that the idol alone is God. The idol is meant for the worshipper to offer one-pointed devotion and he adores it with the conviction that the Lord who is present everywhere is present in it also. We see that practitioners of other religions also have symbols for worship and meditation. So it is wholly unjust to believe that Hindus alone worship idols – to regard them with scorn as idolaters is not right.”

8.4 Importance of worshipping Brahman through Mūrtis for Hindus

There are several reasons that Hindus give for the use of various symbols and icons such as ‘mūrtis’, ‘mandalas’ and other forms to worship the Divine.

1. Aids in Meditation: First, these are used as an aid to focus our concentration during worship and meditation. Here, the mūrti merely serves as a symbol of the deity or Divine as such. The mind by its very nature is very restless and tends to wander off in different directions. The mūrti helps to focus the mind on God during worship and prayer so that it does not drift to think of mundane matters. A scripture says:

How can the mind meditate upon God that has no form. How can the mind fix itself upon the formless. When the mind cannot focus on anything, it will either drift away during meditation or it will slip into a state of sleep. Therefore, the wise meditate upon some form of Brahman, keeping in mind however, that the form is not the reality but a superimposition. Vishnu Pāncharātra Samhita 29.55-57

To steady one’s mind, meditate upon physical, material forms of Shiva. The various physical forms or images of Shiva must not be thought of as lifeless. Whatever are these material forms of Shiva (used for worship or meditation), they purify one’s evil karmas and enable one to steady the mind. This shows that these forms are not inert or dead (but are alive with Shiva consciousness). Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa10.92-93

It is worthwhile here to recall Swami Sivananda’s defense of mūrti pūjā,

“Idols are not the idle fancies of sculptors, but shining channels through which the heart of the devotee is attracted to and flows towards God. Though the image is worshipped, the devotee feels the presence of the Lord in it and pours out his devotion into it…..Even as you catch the sound-waves of people all over the world through the radio receiving set, it is possible to commune with the all-pervading Lord through the medium of an idol. The divinity of the all-pervading God is vibrant in every atom of creation. There is not a speck of space where He is not. Why do you then say that He is not in the idols?”

“Saguna-Upasana is Bhakti Yoga or the Yoga of Devotion. Nirguna-Upasana is Jnana Yoga or the Yoga of Knowledge. Worshippers of Saguna (the qualified) Brahman and of Nirguna (the unqualified) Brahman reach the same goal. But, the latter path is very hard, because the aspirant has to give up attachment to the body (Dehabhimana) from the very beginning of his spiritual practice. The Akshara or the Imperishable is very hard to reach for those who are attached to their bodies. Further, it is extremely difficult to fix the mind on the formless and attributeless Brahman. Contemplation on the Akshara or Nirguna Brahman demands a very sharp, one-pointed and subtle intellect.”

“Idol is a support for the neophyte. It is a prop of his spiritual childhood. A form or image is necessary for worship in the beginning. It is an external symbol of God for worship. It is a reminder of God. The material image calls up the mental idea. Steadiness of mind is obtained by image-worship. The worshipper will have to associate the ideas of infinity, omnipotence, omniscience, purity, perfection, freedom, holiness, truth and omnipresence. It is not possible for all to fix the mind on the Absolute or the Infinite. A concrete form is necessary for the vast majority for practicing concentration. To behold God everywhere and to practice the presence of God is not possible for the ordinary man. Idol-worship is the easiest form of worship for the modern man.”

“Idol-worship makes concentration of man simpler and easier. You can bring before your mind’s eye the great Lilas the Lord has played in His particular Avatara in which you view Him. This is one of the easiest modes of Self-realization.

Just as the picture of a famous warrior evokes heroism in your heart, so also a look at the picture of God will elevate your mind to divine heights. Just as the child develops the maternal Bhāva (mother-feeling) of the future caressing, nursing, protecting mother by playing with its imaginary toy-child made up of rags and suckling the child in an imaginary manner, so also the devotee develops the feeling of devotion by worshipping the Pratima and concentrating on it.”

2. Makes Brahman more accessible: Second, the vigraha makes Brahman more accessible to us. As a scholar explains –

“If you look through a telescope, you can clearly see the planets. Yet no one thinks the telescope is actually Mars. The “idols” in the temples, called murtis in India, are telescopes to help us see God and Goddess more clearly. The divine comes into focus, comes closer, comes so near we can reach out and touch the divine feet.”

Another example is to regard the mūrti as the icon of a software on the desktop screen of a computer. By clicking at the icon, we access the software promptly even though the icon is not the software itself. The icon is merely a shortcut, or a way to access the software hidden in the computer hard-drive more easily and quickly. Especially for the ordinary human, worship of images is a very convenient means of approaching the Divine. As a scripture says:

Yogis perceive Shiva not in the images but in their soul. Images are meant for the contemplation of the ignorant. Jabāladarshana Upanishad 3.58

Madhvacharya says in his Brahmasūtra Bhāṣhya 1.1.31 –

The men of ritual action worship Hari in the sacred fire. The Yogins worship Him in their hearts. The non-enlightened worship Him in images. The enlightened ones worship Him everywhere.128

3. Helps in Understanding the Awesome nature of Brahman: Third, the mūrti of a Devatā gives a lot of information about the Deity. For example, the multiple arms indicate that Brahman is omnipotent. Multiple heads indicate omniscience. Weapons in the hands indicate that the Deity upholds Dharma and the law of Karma by punishing evil.

The many Devas enrich our understanding of Brahman by representing different facets and aspects of his Divine nature and attributes. To the rational human mind, the forms of these Devas sometimes appear too fantastic or outrageously unreal, but they merely highlight the fact that the nature of Brahman too is different from everything that we know, that we see or hear of that we can think off. One danger of worshipping Mūrti is that the worshipper can reduce Brahman to it, and forget that Brahman is much more beyond the Mūrti. But the extravagant form of many Mūrti-s is a constant reminder to Hindus that it is not possible to capture the nature of Brahman in any physical form. Brahman and Devas are not like human beings, they are superior to us in many ways.

4. Makes the Hindu home a Shrine of Brahman: Fourth, it is often remarked that communal worship in temples is not a necessary requirement to be a good Hindu devotee whereas in Islam and Christianity, a regular attendance at the mosque or a church is a must. The reason for this is that the presence of the mūrti in a Hindu home makes it sacred. Rambachan says :

“The presence of a properly consecrated and installed murti literally transforms the family home into an abode of the Lord. It becomes a sacred environment in which all aspects of life are centered and focused in God. For the Hindu, the murti is a potent reminder of God’s eternal presence and His existence in all beings. It calls us to act as if we were always in the presence of the divine. For one whose consciousness is so imbued with a sense of the divine, God cannot be ignored. In his archā form he is the beloved household guest, around whom all activities revolve and to whom everything is dedicated.”

5. Inspiration for Hindu Art and Music: Fifth, the tradition of worshipping Brahman through vigrahas has inspired excellent Hindu art and music. One does not talk about ‘Islamic sculpture’ or ‘Islamic Music’, whereas there are several beautiful genres of sculpture and music in Hindu Dharma. As a scholar aptly puts–

“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.”

The practice of worshipping Brahman through Mūrti-s is the cause of the flowering of diverse and beautiful forms of Hindu art, sculpture, painting, poetry and so in in Hindu communities both within and outside of the Indian subcontinent. Hindus have erected breathtakingly monumental and beautiful temples to house exquisitely fashioned Mūrtis of their Devatā-s, saints have written soul-stirring

hymns revering Them and painters have created beautiful frescos on the walls of temples and palaces to depict Them. In fact, the largest single religious structure in the whole world is the Hindu temple of Angkor Wat in Kampuchea.

When we Hindus behold the Mūrtis, the temples, the sacred paintings; and when we listen to the beautiful hymns of the saint poets, we are drawn immediately closer to Brahman.

6. Brings the Worshipper closer to Brahman: The whole purpose of worship is to come closer to God (or Brahman in Hindu Dharma) and the worship of mūrtis certainly achieves this purpose. So the mūrti does not merely bring Brahman closer to the worshipper, it also brings the worshipper closer to Brahman. While worshipping a mūrti, the devotee washes its feet, offers it food and clothing, burns incense, signs devotional hymns to it, fans it, bathes it, wipes it dry and does all other activities that one would do towards a loving guest or household member. Worshipping the mūrti as a living manifestation of Brahman gives great joy to the Hindu worshipper, and makes him feel closer to Brahman. When the mūrti is housed within a temple, there are several other ceremonial activities related to it. For specific times during the day, visiting worshippers can come for a ‘darshana’, i.e., to see the Devatā and be seen by Him. Many prominent temples have their periodic festivals that serve as a panorama of the religious culture of the region, and are a time of great pomp and gaiety. All these activities serve to bring arts, culture, music and sculpture within the spiritual realm in the lives of Hindus. As a result, art etc. are no longer distractions that takes us away from Brahman, but become means to reach Brahman.

It has been said quite correctly:

“The mind of man is in a chaotic state and helplessly runs in all directions, seeking fulfillment of all its desires. It thus becomes agitated, rendering the mind unfit for meditation….The great Hindu sages and seers saw divinity in everything in this world and set out in a scientific, logical and practical manner, a way of life to achieve union with God. Hinduism has thoughtfully brought in images, rituals, festivals and ceremonies so that the mind is constantly reminded of the Supreme Being even when engaged in the pursuit of desired material objects. There are numerous gods covering the entire sphere of human activities, representing in image or symbolic form the attributes of one God.”

Another scholar remarks as well-

“Yet, images are necessary in the early stages of devotion. In trying to concentrate your mind, you require naturally to form images in your mind. You cannot help it. Except a human animal that never thinks of any other religion, and the perfected sage who has passed through these stages, all others require some sort of ideal, outside or inside. We are prone to concretize. We are concretized or embodied souls and so we are bound to worship personal beings. It is easy to say, “Don’t be personal; but the same person who says so is generally the most personal. His attachment for particular men and women is very strong; it does not leave him when they die, he wants to follow them beyond death. That is idolatry.

Is it not better to have personal attachment to an image of Krishna or Buddha or Christ than to ordinary man or woman.”

7. Regular worship unveils the Divinity in the Mūrti: Swami Sivananda says,

“Regular worship (Puja) and other modes of demonstrating our inner feeling of recognition of Divinity in the idol unveil the Divinity latent in it. This is truly a wonder and a miracle. The picture comes to life. The idol speaks. It will answer your questions and solve your problems. The God in you has the power to awaken the latent Divinity in the idol. It is like a powerful lens that focusses the sun’s rays on to a bundle of cotton. The lens and the cotton is not fire either nor can the sun’s rays by themselves, burn the cotton. When the three are brought together in a particular manner, fire is generated and the cotton in burnt. Similar is the case with the idol, the idol shrine and the all-pervading Divinity. God is then enshrined in the idol. From here, He will protect you in a speial manner. The idol will perform miracles. The place where it is installed is at once transformed into a temple; nay, a Vaikuntha or Kailasa in reality…..

…The image of Lord Shiva in the temple at Madurai in South India helped the fuel-cutter and the old woman. The image in the temple at Tirupati assumed human form and gave witness in the court to help His devotees. These are marvels and mysteries. Only the devotees understand these.”

“The Murti is the same as the Lord, for it is the vehicle of the expression of the MantraChaitanya which is the Devata. The same attitude should the devotee have in regard to the Murti in the temple which he should evince if the Lord would appear before him in person and speak to him in articulate sound.”

8.5 Is Worshipping Mūrtis inferior to other forms of Worship?

Those Hindus who regard the Mūrti primarily as a symbol of their Ishta Devatā consider the worship of images as an inferior form of worship. Mahadevan elaborates on this perspective:

“The Hindu scriptures are not unaware of the dangers of overdoing this form of worship. Idolatry is the beginning of religion and not its end. The Siva-Purana says: ‘The highest state is the natural realization of God’s presence, the second in rank is meditation and contemplation, the third is the worship of symbols which are reminders of the Supreme, and the fourth is the performance of ritual and pilgrimages to sacred places.’ Another Sanskrit verse arranges the different grades of worship this: ‘The first is the worship of idols; the next is muttering of mantras and offering of prayers; superior to that is mental worship; and the best of all is the contemplation of the Absolute.’ The strong in spirit find God everywhere. For the feeble minded the idol is an index of the Supreme. The Yogins see the blissful God in the self. The less developed require a concrete peg to hand their

conviction on. Transition from the lower to the higher form of worship is the mode of the pilgrim’s progress. The individual should evolve from the crude and the grotesque to the lofty and the sublime in religious experience.” (p. 48)

In this viewpoint, the Mūrti can never capture the totality of Brahman. Therefore, there is a stigma attached to the worship of Brahman through Mūrti. In fact, no form of worship is perfect because Brahman is ineffable and transcendent. As an example of this viewpoint, we quote a verse in a hymn to Kashi

Vishvanātha that is attributed to Shankaracharya says –

“Shiva, forgive my three great sins. First, I came on a pilgrimage to Kashi, forgetting that you are present everywhere. Second, I think you, forgetting that you are beyond thought. Third, I praise you in my prayers, forgetting that you are beyond words!”

Hindu scriptures too state, along similar lines that as the aspirant advances on the path of spirituality, worship of images becomes superfluous for him-

Yogis believe in the Divine within their own ātman and therefore do not travel for pilgrimage to water bodies, nor do they seek refuge in images of Deities made of clay or stone. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 3.65

He who forsakes the great Purifier within his own ātman and keeps roaming to various external pilgrimage centers is like that person who forsakes the jewels on his own palm and wanders around in search of pieces of glass. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 3.69

Just as a King prefers and loves the servants in his inner chambers more than the servants in the outer chambers, likewise, Shiva adores most his devotees who meditate upon Him within themselves, not those devotees who seek him externally. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 3.78

The Hindu tradition narrates many incidents in which the Saints transcended the form of the Mūrti that they worshipped.

Ramakrishna sees the Kali beyond the Kali:

“Ramakrishna was a priest of the Hindu goddess Kali. It was his responsibility to care for the statue of the goddess in the Dakshineshvar Temple, to bring offerings to her and chant her mantras.

Ramakrishna took his duties very seriously…He hardly had a life apart from the goddess. He would speak about her, sing about her, meditate on her and worship her in virtually every waking moment. He experienced the statue of Kali as actually alive and would see her leap down from the altar to dance ecstatically around the temple.

A tantric master named Bhairavi Ma noticed Ramakrishna’s extraordinary devotion and began calling people’s attention to the presence of a great saint among them. As an

advanced adept, she could see that his intense devotion was not only giving Ramakrishna divine visions but carrying him into very high meditative states. Then a master named Tota Puri visited the Kali temple.

He was an adept in the Advaita Vedanta tradition…..Tota Puri scolded Ramakrishna for his attachment to Kali’s form. He explained that if Ramakrishna really wanted to know the goddess’ true nature, he must go beyond the image of her he cherished in his mind.

Tota Puri took a sharp rock and pierced Ramakrishna’s forehead at the “third eye,” the point between his eyebrows. “Next time you go into meditation,” the Vedantin instructed, “focus behind this point. If a picture of Kali appears in your mind, take a sword and hack her to pieces.”

Ramakrishna was shocked at this advice, but he obeyed. When he next sat for meditation, he brought his full awareness to his ajna chakra, the center behind the eyebrows. When he saw his beloved Kali approach, he destroyed the image, moving through the visual image he held of her in his mind into the formless reality beyond…

This experience transported Rmakrishna into one of the highest meditative states a human being can achieve. He experienced the living reality of Brahman, the all-pervading essence of awareness that exists beyond thought…”

However, Hindus who worship the Mūrti as the Archā Avatāra are not overtly bothered by the consideration that it cannot exhaust their Ishta-Devatā in its entirety. In this viewpoint, Brahman is so compassionate that it consents to take up Its abode in the Mūrti so that the worshippers can approach It more conveniently. Hindus believe that due to the consecration ceremonies that brings the Mūrti to life, and due to its continuous worship by devotees, it becomes endowed with spiritual potentialities and powers. Devotees who approach the spiritually charged Mūrti benefit from their proximity to it. In fact, the entire structure of the temple housing the Mūrti becomes spiritually charged. For this reason, many Hindus prefer to buy homes and businesses in the vicinity of a temple site.

As stated above, most Hindus do not distinguish strictly between the symbolic aspect of the Mūrti or its Divine nature after its consecration. The Mūrti, for a lay Hindu, is both a symbol as well as an abode of their Ishta-Devatā. The Mūrti does not contain the Devatā in its entirety, and can be replaced with a newer one, once the old image becomes worn out. All Hindus seem to understand that the Mūrti can only

reflect a small fraction of the glory, the beauty, the power of their Deity. No Hindu will equate the Mūrti with his Ishta-Devatā, however he perceives or interprets it.

The understanding that the worship of Mūrti can lead the devotee to his Lord is seen literally in the hagiographies of numerous saints. For example, the saint musician Tyāgarāja (1767 – 1847 CE) worshipped his Mūrti of Shri Rama with great dedication for several years till He appeared to Tyāgarāja in a spiritual vision. Likewise, Mirābāī (16th cent CE) had a vision of Krishna after worshipping His mūrti for several years. Similarly, Nāmadeva saw Krishna in the Mūrti of Vithobā that he worshipped devotedly. A contemporary Hindu Swami therefore emphasizes that it is incorrect to disrespect image worship merely as a preparatory step for novices. He says:

“These forms of God are living forms. Through the worship of these living forms of God, many saints were born in India. Some think that the worship of images in temples has been introduced merely to enable the beginners to concentrate their mind. This may be true in the case of a few people. But the highest purpose which the worship of forms and images fulfills is to develop pure unselfish love for God. So we should not ignore the worship of forms and images as foolish. If worshipped with intense devotion, God manifests himself, his living presence to his devotees through the images and forms.”

But once again, it is emphasized that a true worshipper is one who sees his Devatā not just in the Mūrti, but in all creatures, and in the entire creation. A beautiful story is narrated in this regard from the life of Sant Nāmadeva:

Namadev Sees Brahman in a Dog

“One day, Nivrtti, Jnanadeva, Sopana and Muktabai came to Pandharpur to see Namadeva, on hearing of his great devotion. The devotees at Pandharpur were extremely happy to have these young saints in their midst and lost no opportunity to learn from them. Jnanadeva also was very impressed with Namadeva and the other saints of Pandharpur. He called Namadeva ‘the illumination of the world’. However, he also knew that Namadeva’s knowledge of God was limited – it was confined only to the image. This had to change.

Once, when a feast was being celebrated, Jnanadeva asked Gora, a potter by profession, to test the devotees to see if they were ‘baked’ or ‘unbaked’ – that is, whether they were firmly established in God or not. Gora took the stick which he used to test his pots and,

after tapping everyone on the head with it, found that all the devotees were baked except Namadeva. Namadeva felt humiliated. Muktabai then told him that he was unbaked because he did not have a guru. ‘But when Vithoba is here’, thought Namadeva, ‘what is the necessity of a guru?’ Namadeva sent straight to the temple and poured out his heart to Vithoba. Instead of comforting him, however, the Lord advised him to go to Visoba Khechara, who was then at the Mallikarjuna temple, and approach him for initiation. With a heavy heart, Namadeva went to the Shiva temple and saw Visoba Khechara asleep on the floor with his feet on the Shiva-lingam. Namadeva was shocked. ‘And this man is supposed to my guru!’ he thought. He immediately woke Visoba Khechara and asked him to remove his feet from the lingam. Visoba replied: ‘My child, it is true, I have done a very bad thing. But my body has gotten very old and weak, and I cannot always control what I do. Please take my feet away from the Lord.’ Namadeva grabbed his feet and was about to place them on the floor when he saw in a vision that Shiva was present everywhere. Shiva was in the floor, in the walls, in the offerings, in Visoba Khechara, in himself. Where could he place Visoba’s feet where the Lord was not present? Then Namadeva understood. Till then, his worship and devotion had been confined to the Lord in the temple. But the Lord was in everyone and in everything. This was true knowledge and also true devotion. He immediately bowed down to Visoba Khechara and begged for initiation. Visoba then blessed Vamadeva with initiation. In abhanga four of Visoba Khechara’s abhangas he says: ‘The whole world is God, says Khechara to Namadeva. He uttered these words in Namadeva’s ears, placed his hand upon the head of Namadeva, relieved him from the duality of existence, and brought him to oneness with himself. Namadeva thus became a ‘baked’ vessel – that is, one whose knowledge is firm and unbreakable.

The great transformation that took place in Namadeva after his initiation is indicated by the following incident: Once Namadeva was away from home and at noon sat down under a tree to eat some food. He took out some chapattis

(unleavened bread) from his bag and was just about to put

some ghee (clarified butter) on them with a knife when a dog ran up, grabbed the chapattis with its mouth, and fled. Namadeva immediately got up with the ghee and knife in his hand and started running after the dog, shouting: ‘O Lord, don’t eat those dry chapattis. Wait! Wait! Let me put some ghee on them for you.”

Perhaps, it is apt to close this section with the following narrative, which gives one of the interpretations of the form of Shiva-Linga (the word ‘linga’ literally means ‘a mark’, ‘an indication’, ‘attribute’ among other things), which is one of the preferred forms of the Mūrti of Bhagavān Shiva:

“The story goes that the primal artisan, Vishwakarma, stood before a cylindrical shaft, intent on carving the perfect form of God. But he realized that the magnificence of divinity could not be contained in an icon, so he placed the shaft in a basin and declared this aniconic representation as the “linga” – which literally means “attribute” – of that which has no attribute.”

In Advaita Vedānta, the Saguṇa and Nirguṇa aspects of Brahman are more sharply distinguished from each other than in other systems of Hindu philosophy. Traditional Advaita Vedantins have been worshippers of Mūrtis. Ādi Shankaracharya himself consecrated several mūrtis that are being worshipped to this day in the monastaries established by him, or in other temples. Unfortunately, some neo-Advaita Vedantists often reject mūrti pūja as something that is inconsistent with their philosophical beliefs, and too pedestrian to indulge in. Swami Sivananda mocks at these critics of mūrti pūjā,

“….one can realize God through worship of Murti or idol; that the worship of the Lord in Saguna form is a great aid for the realization of the Lord in His all-pervading, formless aspect also; that the worship of the Murti is very essential for the purpose of concentration and meditation in the beginning and that such worship is not in anyway a hindrance to the attainment of God-consciousness. Those who vehemently attack Murti-Puja…have no real knowledge of Puja and worship. They enter into unnecessary vain debates and discussion against Murti Puja to show that they are learned persons. They have not done any real Sadhana at all. They are persons who have made idle talking and tall talk their habit and profession…..The whole world worships symbols and Murtis only in some form or the other. The mind is disciplined in the beginning by fixing it on a concrete object or symbol. When it is rendered steady and subtle, it can be fixed later on, on an abstract idea such as ‘Aham Brahma Asmi.’ When one advances in meditation, the form melts in the formless and he becomes one with the formless essence. Image worship is not contrary to the view of Vedanta. It is rather a help.”

Unfortunately, the followers of Abrahamic religions have not understood (and sometimes they do not want to understand it either) the Hindu view of worshipping the Divine through Mūrtis. Suffice it to say that if the Hindus had equated their ‘God’ to the ‘Idols’ that they worshipped, then Hindu Dharma itself would have collapsed with the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples in the cradle areas of Hindus by Islamic and Christian invaders in the last thirteen centuries.

8.6 Upāsanā versus Pūjā

Upāsanā means to ‘sit near’ Bhagavān. It involves using symbols or symbolic gestures to show our love and respect for Him. We practice symbolism in everyday life, for example:

1. An Olympic winner is given a gold medal. When the medal has been placed around the winner’s neck, we are not honoring the neck, but the winner. Moreover, the victory of the winner is not dependent on wearing the medal!

2. We tie a Rākhī on the Rakshabandhan festival. The threads around the brother’s wrist do not on their own ensure the sister’s protection. It is just a reminder from the sister to her brother that he will always protect her.

Likewise, in a Mandir or at our home or anywhere else, we practice upāsanā in different ways. The two major ways of engaging in upāsanā are:

1. Pratīmā upāsanā

2. Pratīka upāsanā

In our daily lives too, we understand specific things from symbols because of the meaning that we have attached to them. E.g. a stethoscope reminds one of a doctor.

Upāsanā means,

“to sit near the deity and pray to it for desired objects like well-being, prosperity, knowledge and even the ultimate unification with the deity, which is called…Moksa.”141

It can take the form of meditation, worship (pūjā), japa, yajna, bhajana, shravaṇa etc. In other words, Pūjā is a form of Upāsanā.

Benefits of Upasana: A modern scholar summarizes-

“When impure thoughts appear continuously the mind becomes perturbed and vexed and one does not find happiness anywhere. Man thinks that the world is useless, unhappy, hasty, imperfect etc., but the fault is not in the surrounding world but it exists in his own mind. He makes his mind pure by performing Upāsanā.”142

“Upāsanā is the path leading to … Moksa….One has to work with pure mind and try to surrender to God. After the state of complete surrender the real Upāsanā begins. Upāsanā is a voyage to discover Ātmā and Paramātmā…..Uplifting of human being towards God is impossible without Upāsanā. By Upāsanā the vices of human nature like greed, anger, hate, covetousness, etc….get slowly vanished and these are replaced by virtues like forbearance, forgiveness, calmness, friendliness, love, pity, humbleness etc….”

In his commentary on Gita 12.3, Shankaracharya says:

“The deity one worships, i.e. Upāsya, becomes the subject of his intellect, he goes near to it and as oily drops spread over the water without disturbance, he transfers his vrtti to God and stays there forever.”

141 Ranjani Patki (1996), p. 2. See a description of various types of

142 Ranjani Patki (1996), p. 5

8.7 Arguments For and Against Worshipping Mūrtis

In the course of human history, numerous arguments have been presented by the followers of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism and of Hindu traditions like Nātha Shaivism, Vaishnavism of Shankaradeva, Nirguna Bhakti and Arya Samaj against the worship of ‘idols’. Of these, the arguments of Abrahamic faiths amount to little more than demonization of ‘idol-worshippers’, who are equated to devil worshippers fit to be excoriated, persecuted and killed. The most sophisticated were the arguments of Swami Dayanand Sarasvati, the founder of the Arya Samaj. This section is intended to give a brief overview of the arguments by all the opponents followed by potential responses by those Hindus who worship Brahman through mūrtis. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions. The sources of the objections are indicated by the following letters: I = Islam; C = Christianity; S = Sikhism; A = Arya Samaj; N = Hindu Nirguna Bhakti Sants; L = Left secularists in India.

# Arguments against Mūrti

Pūjā Hindu responses

1 God is eternal and all graven images are destructible. Therefore idols cannot represent God and it is an insult to worship Him through idols.

[I, C, S, A]. The Abrahamic God is irascible, jealous and vindictive whereas in Hinduism, Brahman is compassionate. Realizing that it is difficult for embodied humans to worship a formless Atman, Brahman has either permitted humans to worship through a form or has manifested in various forms lovingly for the sake of the worshippers. Therefore, this objection rather insults God by projecting Him as an arrogant and inconsiderate being.

2 Idol worship is the creation of the devil designed to take humans away from God. [C, I]. This allegation is pure demonization and devoid of logic. It is contradicted by the visible fact of the deeply spiritual nature of societies where Mūrtis are worshipped.

3 Idol worshippers are devil worshippers and therefore they are given to debauchery and other evils. They have rejected

God and therefore idol worshippers will burn eternally in hell-fire. [C, I]. God must be a sadist, capricious and vicious Devil to send people through an eternal torture chamber. Hindus do not accept the presence of a devil nor are Hindus are any more evil or debauched than Abrahamics. This Biblical and Koranic allegation is pure demonization and hatemongering.

4 God is all pervading. So how can he be worshipped through a finite sized idol? [A, S, N] The false chimera of logic of this argument is trumped by the simple statement in the Hindu scriptures that Brahman out of compassion for Its worshippers assumes forms and abides in Mūrtis so that embodied humans can worship Brahman more conveniently.

In fact, since God is all-pervading, He resides within the mūrti as well. And therefore, it can be argued that,

“If you shake hands with a man, he is highly pleased. You have touched only a small part of his body and yet he is happy. He smiles and welcomes you. Even so, the Lord is highly pleased when a small portion of His Virat (cosmic) body is worshipped. An idol is a part of the body of the Lord. The whole world is His body, Virat form. The devotion goes to the Lord. The worshipper then superimposes on the image the Lord and all His attributes…In these external forms of worship, the inner love finds expression. The wandering mind is fixed now in this form of worship. The aspirant gradually feels the nearness of the Lord. He attains purity of heart and slowly annihilates his egoism.”

In fact, those who criticize ‘idol-worship’ on the ground that it spatially restricts the omnipresent Divine are themselves hypocrites. Swami Sivananda says,

“There are others who would glibly say: “Oh, God is all-pervading formless Being. How can he be confined to this idol?” Are these people every conscious of His omnipresence? Do they always see Him and Him alone in everything? No. It is their ego that prevents them from bowing to the idols of Go and, with that motive, put this lame excuse forward!

Empty vessels only make much noise. A practical man who does meditation and worship, who is full of knowledge and rea devotion, keeps always silence. He influences and teaches others through silence.”

5 God is the creator whereas any idol is constructed from materials that are created by him. Worship the creator, not the created. [I, C, S, N] Same as above. Swami Sivananda explains,

“Pratima, the idol, is a substitute or symbol. The image in a temple, though it is made of stone, wood or metal, is precious for a devotee as it bears the mark of his Lord, as it stands for something which he holds holy and eternal. A flag is only a small piece of painted cloth, but it stands for a soldier for something that he holds very dear. He is prepared to give up his life in defending his flag. Similarly, the image is very dear to a devotee. It speaks to him in his own language of devotion. Just as the flag arouses martial valor in the soldier, so also the image arouses devotion in the devotee.

The Lord is superimposed on the image and the image generates divine thoughts in the worshipper..

….When your devotion and meditation become intense and deep, you do not see the stone image. You behold the Lord only who is Chaitanya. Image-worship is very necessary for beginners.”

6 God is one but idol-

worshippers are all polytheists because they make many

different types of idols. [C, I] The different Mūrtis represent different Devatās which are all parts of and aspects of the same Brahman. Therefore, the same One Brahman is being worshipped through these different Mūrtis. A modern scholar remarks,

“In any Hindu temple there will be, in addition to the central sanctum, a dozen surrounding shrines to other deities: Ganesa, Hanuman, Durga, Gauri and so on. Were one to ask any worshipper….”How many gods are there?” one would hear Yajnavalkya’s response from even the most uneducated. “Sister, there are many gods. There is Siva here, and there is Visnu, Ganesa, Hanuman, Ganga, Durga, and the others. But of course, there is really only one. These many are differences of name and form.”

7 The forms of God depicted by idols are ridiculous. [C, I, S, N, A]. We Hindus find these forms very meaningful and beautiful. They have a great symbolic significance and they give a lot of information on the nature of the Deity. The multiple arms and heads signify the omnipotence and other divine attributes of the Deity. If they appear ridiculous to you, it is because the human mind is conditioned by its limitations and is not able to go beyond its boundaries of understanding.

8 Idol worship is not preached in the Vedic scriptures, or in the

Aranyakas, Upanishads, Darshanas or any ancient scripture from the times of Brahma to Jaimini. Even the Ramayana or the Mahabharata do not mention it. In fact, the

Vedas forbid it. [S, A] Just because Mūrti worship is not mentioned in these ancient scriptures does not mean that we cannot start this practice at a particular period of history. Hindu Dharma is not static like a stagnant pond but is like an ever-flowing river that refreshes itself every now and then. Moreover, Mūrti worship is in fact taught in the Puranas and the Āgamas that are also scriptures of Hindu Dharma. Pratīka Upāsanā (using symbols for meditation) is clearly taught in Vedic scriptures and the use of Mūrtis is merely a natural extension of that.

9 Construction of idols and temples to house them requires Abrahamics perhaps spend more money in constructing mosques and temples than Hindus do in constructing temples. Are their

spending big amounts of money that could have been used instead to do other better things like feeding the poor. Therefore, idol worship leads to wasted resources. [L, A]. shrines also a waste of money? Hindu temples have served historically as a center for Hindu art, education, sculpture, social life and have even played important economic roles in sustaining the society. People construct temples because they have a right to spend their money the way they want, and because they derive value out of temples. In fact, from one perspective, spending billions on golf-courses, museums, palatial mansions, stately government buildings, spending space probes and launching satellites for gathering information from Mars and Jupiter is a big waste when this money can be used to house the orphans, feed the poor and hungry. It is prejudice to single out temples and Mūrtis.

10 Worship of idols requires continuous and repeated use of flowers, incense, water, food and other resources. This makes the temples very dirty places. Moreover, flowers look better on their natural origins (the plants) and plucking them to offer to idols is violence. [A] There is partial validity in this statement. In fact, saints like Dāsimayya, a Vīrashaiva saint did not use flowers for his worship to prevent inflicting violence to flowering plants. But nevertheless, offering flowers out of love is esthetically pleasing and is a beautiful gesture full of worship. There are many other practices, both religious and secular, that generate more waste and pollutants than offering flowers and food to Mūrtis.

11 Temples housing these idols attract monetary and other forms of donation. But all this wealth gets removed permanently from the economy. Not only do the temples act as a black hole, their legendary riches have in the past attracted invaders to India, causing great slaughter of and misery to Hindus. [A, L] If construction of temples and donations of money to them resulted in poverty, then the poorest parts of India would be those where we have the fewest temples and the poorest periods of Indian history would necessarily follow construction of temples. But this is not the case. The Golden Ages of Indian history have coincided with construction of temples and a flourishing of Hindu Dharma whereas in contrast, the dark ages of Europe coincided with the triumph of Christianity. To say that temple wealth attracted invaders is blaming the victim and is like saying that American prosperity invited 9-11. The Swiss Bank is certainly not owned by idol-worshippers.

12 Idols and Temples come to be associated with festivals and other public celebrations. These events are a waste of energy and time, and indiscriminate mixing of genders in these events is

highly undesirable. [A] This objection is worthless because people find their own ways to congregate and celebrate. Not just temples, but all religious and non-religious institutions organize period celebrations and communal events. And it is paranoia to allege that all these events result in an undesirable mixing of sexes.

13 It is incorrect to say that focusing on the idol helps train our thoughts towards God. In fact, meditation on an idol is impossible because the mind will keep travelling from one part of the idol to another. From a spiritual perspective of Yoga therefore, idol worship is worthless. [A] Numerous saints have in fact attained spiritual enlightenment through the worship of Mūrtis and therefore this argument is contradicted by direct evidence. Moreover, focusing on a Mūrti for the sake of worship is many times superior to staring in a vacuum inside one’s mind and letting the mind wander off towards numerous other material objects.

14 The worthlessness of worshipping idols is evident from numerous historical episodes where the worshipper cried piteously in front of their idols to protect them from violent invaders. Of course, the god in the idol did not manifest, the worshippers were slaughtered by the invaders and the idols themselves smashed by the Christian and Muslim iconoclasts. Had Hindus not trusted these idols so much, their fate would have been

better. [A] This makes it appear that Christians and Muslims never lost any battles to Hindus. And what about wars between Abrahamics themselves? Or between two groups of Muslims? Whose side will Jehovah or Allah take in these cases? In the last three centuries, Muslim rule has receded from India, and last swathes of land in Central Asia, Balkans and from many other regions. So why did this happen? Also, what kind of God is this which incites his worshippers to invade other countries and kill people just because they do not worship him in the way he wants? If this is God, then why do we need the devil?

15 Idols and temples are associated with the practice of pilgrimages. Hindus waste a lot of time and energy to travel from one pilgrim center to another, abandoning their family and friends. But it is doubtful if these pilgrimages beget anything. [A, N, S] Pilgrimages are undertaken even by people of Abrahamic religions in which no idols are worshipped. In fact, the Hajj is one of the five pillars of faith in Islam, the most iconoclastic religion of all. Moreover, millions do derive peace and other benefits through pilgrimages, which is why they do them year after year. There are many reasons why Hindus undertake pilgrimages, but a discussion is beyond the scope here. Even the Sikhs who reject pilgrimages nevertheless undertake them with the difference that they have switched from Hindu holy places to Sikh holy places. Is that not hypocrisy?

16 Using idols as a means, unscrupulous priests swindle the innocent, gullible worshippers of a lot of money. Leaders of all kinds, religious or non-religious, dupe innocent people and indulge in demagoguery. No one can match the extent of pedophilia by priests in Catholic churches, or the incitement of youth towards terrorism in several Islamic mosques by hardline

Idol worship therefore promotes fraud and

exploitation. [A] Muslim clerics. The excesses of idol-worshipping Hindu priests are little more than childish pranks in comparison.

17 The idols are lifeless. By meditating on these lifeless idols, one’s mind can only become dull whereas by meditating on Brahman, the universal consciousness, the result will be enlightenment.

[A] This crass argument is contradicted by the inspiring lives of thousands of Hindu saints who attained great spiritual heights worshipping idols. Numerous saints were successful in witnessing Brahman by worshiping their Mūrti. Your argument would require that all these biographies are false, which is simply not admissible because in our own times we find many saintly and spiritual people who worship mūrtis.

18 Idol worshippers often substitute reverence for their own parents and teachers for reverence of idols. They pay more attention to the lifeless idols than to their own family, friends and teachers. [A] This objection is disproven by observable facts. Service of parents and teachers is perhaps much more a norm in India than in nonidol worshipping nations of the west.

19 Idol worship promotes sectarianism and prevents unity amongst Hindus. Worship of different idols makes the difference between different gods even more apparent. How can idol worshippers therefore unite like say, the Muslims, who worship Allah only. Hindus are perhaps the most united religion in many ways. Within the same temple, it is common to find different groups of Hindus worshipping different Mūrti-s and then going to other Mūrti-s for their next round of worship. Persecution of one sect of Hindus by another is rare, unlike the literal genocides and civil wars that mar the history of Abrahamic religions. For example, civil wars between Catholics and Protestants lead to the slaughter of a quarter to half of the populations of many European countries in medieval

Europe. Likewise, Islamists kill more Muslims than non-Muslims.

20 Consecration of idols and temples to house them is accompanied with many other headaches like ensuring their security and so on. Every now and then, someone vandalizes and idol causing riots, despair and so on. These things would not happen in the absence of idol worship. [A] This is a worthless argument because all material objects require maintenance and expense for refurbishing. This is true of mosques, churches and Arya Samaj temples too, as well as of Gurudwaras. Riots happen also when the shrines of these religions are desecrated. So this cannot be specific to worshipping idols.

21 The worthlessness of the stones that you worship was quite evident when the armies of Allah and Jesus invaded the Hindu kingdoms. The Hindus kept praying to their idols but to no avail, whereas the worshippers of Allah and Jesus inflicted crushing defeats on Hindu armies and enslaved the Hindus for several centuries.

[C, I] A God that answers prayers only of his chosen people is nothing more than a tribal god, a totem or a cultic object. Many of the wars waged by Abrahamics against Hindus were unprovoked invasions and involved lots of wanton slaughter, rape, looting and enslavement of innocent people. Did Allah and Jehovah approve all this too? If Hindus lost battles in the past, it was because of antiquated fighting equipment and poor military strategy. And in fact, even after centuries of Islamic rule, Hindu armies led by Marathas, Jats, Rajputs and Sikhs were able to route Muslim armies and regain control of most of India.

22 Many of these idols and temples are associated with some fake miracle that supposedly happened in the past. Fooled by these myths, Hindus spend more time worshipping these idols to improve their lot than they spend in pursuing the goals of Dharma, Artha and Kama. The result is grinding poverty in

India and Nepal. [A, L] The critic was not there to confirm that the miracle was a fake! In fact, miracles are narrated in all religions – including those that do not worship idols. In fact, miracles have no theological importance in Hindu Dharma but are considered valid proofs of prophethood in Abrahamic religions. As for the poverty, for most of history, the Hindu societies have been more prosperous and educated than Christian and Islamic societies. And China and India are on the ascent once again in the global economy.

23 You say that the Mūrti is merely a symbol of God which is all-pervading. But your consecration ceremonies that involve ‘calling’ the Deva to dwell in the idol, and then leave it all smack of totemism and indicate that your Deva is not the all-pervading Brahman.

[A] These ceremonies draw a formal line between what is sacred and profane for practical purposes. Brahman can of course not go and come, but for this reason, it is very difficult to treat the entire Universe as sacred in day to day life. These ceremonies make it convenient for us to restrict our space of worship to the consecrated Mūrti.

8.8 Idolatry in Other Religions and in Nirguṇa Hindu traditions:

Idolatry means worshipping the created, in lieu of the Creator God. ‘Idols’ are likened to ‘false Gods’ by Abrahamic religions. The Muslims go to the extent of believing that it is a great virtue to destroy idols and temples housing them. However, as we will see below, use of images for worship or mortal human teachers as a proxy for a personal God exists in all religions, even in those that swear against idol worship.

A Hindu scholar therefore argues-

“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.”

“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….. 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 SelfRealization as the highest goal.”

“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.”

Hindu View of Christian Idolatry: In Christianity, idolatry is defined as worshipping anything that is created in lieu of the Creator God. The name ‘Christianity’ itself derives from the found Jesus Christ, who is believed by all Christians to be the unique son of God. It is very difficult to conceive of a formless, invisible God as a personal Divine Being. All Abrahamic religions overcome this limitation by believing in Prophets, or individuals who were chosen by God to be his mouthpieces. This itself is idolatry, because these prophets are revered and worshipped very similar to Idols. A Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Church is full of images of Saints, Jesus, Mary and so on with their own associated rituals and paraphernalia.

Even Protestant Christians therefore accuse Catholics of indulging in idolatry! All Christians worship Jesus Christ and it is devotion to him, and his name more than that of God that inspires respect and reverence in their minds. Catholics worship angels and saints in addition to God. There are saints for every specific request. There is a particular does use these ‘icons’ in the same way that Hindus use their ‘idols.’

Hindu view of Islamic Idolatry: All Muslims face the Kaaba mosque during their prayers. The Kaaba is a cubical structure claimed to be the first mosque on earth.

Muslims also kiss a rock embedded in the wall of Kaaba as a holy object, because it is said to have fallen from heaven with Adam. If God is everywhere, why should Muslims face in one particular direction? The fundamental belief of Islam is that “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His prophet.” This belief itself makes Allah subservient to Muhammad because one cannot be Muslim unless he believes in Muhammad as a Prophet. An average

Muslim may somehow digest an insult to Allah but will never tolerate any insult towards his idol, Prophet Muhammad. Much like an idol, Muslims have a lot of ritualistic practices concerning their holy book, the Koran. The book is always held in one’s right hand, it is always kept above all books in one’s home and so on. In addition, Muslims believe in supernatural beings like Jinns and Angels, and many Muslims also worship at the graves of their saints believing that the souls of these saints will give blessings to the worshipper. Overall however, Islam theoretically rejects any whiff of idolatry. Due to this rigidity, Muslims have frequently destroyed the ‘houses of idols’ belonging to other religions in displays of intolerance and bigotry. Literally thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples have been and are being destroyed by Muslims since the inception of Islam, and the same happened to Zoroastrian fire temples, and numerous churches and synagogues.

Devout Muslims regard ‘idolators’ like Hindus as inferior and sinful humans who can be persecuted and oppressed on this earth, and are destined for everlasting hell after their deaths. All these values run counter to a pluralistic worldview. In Islam as well as in Christianity, those who are not of their faith are tormented till eternity in an everlasting hell, which is a chamber of torture built by God. Whereas in Hindu Dharma, even the greatest sinner is eventually saved by Vishnu or Shiva and granted then Moksha. Almost two-thirds of the Koran deals with the curses on infidels, their base nature, God’s curses on them and how them will suffer in hell-fire along with the stones’ (idols) that they worshipped. Hindus would prefer to worship these ‘idols’ of Vishnu and Shiva who have more compassion than a divinity that is vindictive towards those who do not worship him.

Hindu View of Sikh Idolatry: The first Sikh Guru Nanak rejected several Hindu practices like pilgrimages, worship of vigrahas, worshipping in temples, taking dips in sacred rivers and so on. His argument was that God is formless, eternal, unborn and infinite and therefore all these Hindu forms of worshipping Him are futile and are insulting to the majesty of God. However, the third Guru Amar Das reinstated some Hindu practices. Starting from him, Sikh Gurus progressively created Sikh places of pilgrimages. The 10th Guru said that after him, their sacred text – the Adi Granth, would be the next Guru till perpetuity. Since then, the Sikhs have been ritually worshipping copies of their scripture as a living Guru that is placed on a throne, worshipped, fanned, fed, put to sleep, woken up with music and so on, exactly in the manner of a Hindu vigraha. During winter, it is wrapped in blankets and electric heaters are placed nearby. In summer, the room containing it is airconditioned. Cloth coverings are used to cover it. Some people even message the legs of the stool on which the Granth is placed. While reading from the Granth, the reciter has to be

ritually pure. Worn out copies of the Granth are sent to a specific location in the Punjab where they are cremated with the performance of funeral ceremony and procession. The ashes of the cremated Granth are then scattered in a tributary of the Beas river. When the Sikhs worship God as ‘Waheguru’, they are reminded not only of God, but also of the 10 human Gurus. Sikhs are at pains to explain that this not idolatry because the Granth is not the Deity and what they honor is the word in the Granth. But if the Guru can take the form of the Granth, why can’t the Omnipresent Lord manifest through a fraction of his power for the convenience of the worshipper? Therefore, some could argue that Sikhism also practices idolatry in its own way. Sikhs claim that they reject idolatry but like all other Nirguṇa traditions (Hindu or non Hindu), they have substituted it with what others might perceive as Gurudom and bibliolatry.156 Even as early as 1912, a scholar remarked,

“There is no doubt that the enlightened section of the community bow before their sacred book in the same way as the best of idols was ever worshipped by the most idolatrous of Hindus.”

Numerous other facts indicate how the ‘physical’ version of the Granth is revered by the Sikhs. Its pages are individual referred to as ‘Ang’ or ‘parts’ (of the body), e,g., page 1100 is ‘Ang 1100’. For this reason, damage to the Granth and tearing off its portions is considered an utmost sacrilege. In the early 20th century, some Namdhari Sikhs initiated the practice of reciting the text from unbound, loose leaves like the Hindu Pandits. The practice caught on, causing a huge furor in the larger Sikh community perhaps because it was perceived as dismemberment of the body of the Guru. Therefore, the Namdharis gave up this practice in February 1941. In fact, there was an initial resistance even to reciting the text from digital versions. In the Gurudwaras however, the leading reciter will always read directly from the hardbound Granth even if the congregation follows the text displayed on flat screen monitors.

Moreover, the Adi Granth itself celebrates episodes from the Hindu scriptures that assume the forms of Brahman. For example, the Gajendra Moksha episode in which Vishnu saves an elephant from the clutches of death, of the Kubjika episode in which Krishna delivers a lady of the same name. The names Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Narayana and so on occur thousands of time in their entire scripture, and even though Sikh translators uniformly translate them as ‘God’ in their English translations, the context often makes it clear that the Hindu Devas are being referred to. When the Sikhs worship God as ‘Waheguru’, they are reminded not only of God, but also of the 10 human Gurus. And tradition records of the activities of Sikh Gurus maintained in Haridwar, Prayagraj, Kurukshetra and other holy Hindu places demonstrate (in the form of notes written in the writings of Gurus themselves) that the Gurus regarded Naina Devi as their family Deity and performed Hindu ceremonies in Her name. In short therefore, Sikhism also practices idolatry in its own way. It has replaced Idolatry with Bibliolatry or ‘but-parasti’ with ‘book-parasti’.

Idolatry in Nirguṇa Hindu Traditions: Interestingly, those Hindu traditions that do not admit or worship Sākāra Brahman have developed practices similar to worship of a God with a form to fulfill the basic human need of a visible and tangible symbol of the Formless Divinity.

In ancient India, the Sāmkhya tradition raised the founder of their school, Sage Kapila, to a divine status. Quotations from now lost Sāmkhyan scriptures claim that Kapila was a manifestation of Divinity, or that he was created at the very beginning of the creation as the first Guru of humanity. In more recent times, the followers of Sant Kabīr have divinized him and some Kabīrpanthis treat him as a manifestation of none other than Brahman. In Yogic traditions that focus on meditation on the formless soul, the supreme importance of and reverence for the Guru at par with that for Brahman is well known.

Much like in the Sikh tradition, the ‘Ek Sharan Naam Dharam’ tradition in Assam founded by Shankardev (a senior contemporary of Guru Nanak) does not encourage worship of Mūrti-s, but nevertheless advocates bibliolatry-

“As regards the worship of idols, Sankaradeva does not seem to have put much importance on them. While initiating or ordaining neophytes, he always made them prostrate before a holy book placed on the altar. Biographies do not testify to the existence of any image in the religious establishments of Sankaradeva. At the initial stage of his movement at Bardowa, he is said to have installed an idol of Madana Gopala with a view to attracting the Brahmanas of the locality. But afterwards he did not encourage idol-worship.”

“According to Bardowā-Gurucharita and Shankara-charita by Rāma Charaṇa, Shankara at the time of his last departure to Cooch Behar advised Mādhava to look for him in the pages of his Kīrtana and Dashama. The Kathāguru-Charita, a prose biographical work on the loves the saints narrates that Mādhava advised his disciples to regard Kīrtana and Dashama as representatives of Shankara and the Ratnāvalī and Nāma Ghoṣhā as his own. Perhaps on the strength of these utterances of the first two gurus, the above holy books were raised to the status of pre-eminence and they took the place of the idol or the deity. The seat on which these holy books are kept is known as the guru-āsana and all religious functions are held before this holy seat. Thus, Mādhavadeva raised the status of the holy scriptures

composed by the guru and himself by making them symbols of Godhead as well as their own selves.”

All these examples show that classical mainstream Hindu Dharma has been very honest to itself, and completely non-hypocritical in recognizing the simple fact that the average human being does need the support of visible symbols to reach the invisible final goal. And it has likened these dual modes of worship of Brahman (as formless and with forms) as a license allowed by Brahman out of compassion for embodied human beings.

Universality of Idol Worship

The fact remains that idol worship is present in all religious and spiritual traditions to some extent.

As a modern Hindu saint says,

“…Idol-worship is not peculiar to Hinduism. Christians worship the Cross. They have the image of the Cross in their mind. The Mohammedans keep the image of the Kaaba stone when they kneel and do prayers. The people of the whole world, say a few Yogis and Vedantins, are all worshippers of idols. They keep some image or the other in the mind. The mental image is also a form of idol. The difference is not one of kind but only one of degree. All worshippers, however intellectual they may be, generate a form in the mind and make the mind dwell on that image.

Everyone is an idol worshipper. Pictures, drawings, etc., are only forms of Pratima or the idol. A gross mind needs a concrete symbol as a prop or Alambana and a subtle mind requires an abstract symbol. Even a Vedantin has the symbol OM for fixing the wandering mind. It is not only the pictures or images in stone and in wood, that are idols but dialectics and leaders also become idols. So, why condemn idolatry?”

Those who condemn idol worship dogmatically are often hypocrites and conceited. As Swami Sivananda says,

“However intellectual one may be, he cannot concentrate without the help of some symbol in the beginning. An intellectual and learned person, on account of his pride and vanity only says: “I do not like a Murti. I do not wish to concentrate on a form.” He cannot concentrate on the formless one. He thinks that people will laugh at him when they come to know that he is meditating on a form. He never does any meditation on the formless one. He simply talks and argues and poses. He wastes his life in unnecessary discussions only. An ounce of practice is better than tons of theories. Intellect is a hindrance in the vast majority of intellectual persons. They say that the existence of Brahman is a guess-work, Samadhi is a bluff of the mind and Self-realization is an imagination of the Vedantins. Deluded souls! They are steeped in ignorance. They are carried away by their secular knowledge which is mere husk when compared to the Knowledge of the Self. There is no hope of salvation for such people. First, their wrong Samsakaras should be flushed by good

Samskaras through Satsanga. Then only they will realize their mistakes. May the Lord bestow on them clear understanding and thirsting for real knowledge!”

8.9 When Mūrti Pūjā becomes a Fetish

The foregoing discussion demonstrates that from a theological perspective, Mūrti Pūja is quite defensible. The drawbacks arise, as with every other mode of worship, when people mistake the wood for trees, by making it a fetish. The following stories show how some ignorant people can make a mockery of mūrti-pūjā.

Story 1: Ramakrishna Paramahamsa scolds Mathur Babu

“Once a thief broke into the temple of Vishnu and robbed the image of its jewels. Mathur Babu and I went to the temple to see what was the matter. Addressing the image, Mathur said bitterly: “What a shame, Lord! You are so worthless! The thief took all the ornaments from your body, and You couldn’t do a thing about it?” Thereupon I said to Mathur: “Shame on you! How improper your words are! To God, the jewels you talk so much about are only lumps of clay. Lakshmi, the goddess of Fortune, is His consort. Do you mean to say that He should spend sleepless nights because a thief has taken your few rupees? You must not say such things.””

Story 2: Worshipping mūrtis but ignoring the living Divine

“One bright morning, the Guru [= Shri Narayana Guru] was standing under a mango tree at Shivagiri. A young Brahmachari disciple had got up in the morning as usual. He gathered flowers. He went from temple to temple and was busy prostrating before the idols and offering flowers. In one of the temples, there was a beautiful portrait of the Guru. The Brahmachari placed flowers before the portrait, lighted camphor, and with folded hands, recited the Samskrita stanza which sings the glory of the Guru:

“Guru is Brahma, Guru is Vishnu, Guru is Maheshwara.”

At that time a number of devotees were standing around the Guru. He said to them: “Look at this strange thing! I am standing here in flesh and blood. I have not had my breakfast yet. My portrait is more fortunate than I am! It has camphor light, floral offering and song recital before it.” In this humorous way, the Guru taught that such is the way of thoughtless custom.”

Story 3: Bhagavān resides in an Unconsecrated Mūrti if there is Faith

Perhaps an antidote to these excesses of mūrti pūjā is this beautiful story from the life of Shri Ramanujacharya:

Once, some street urchins were playing a game on a sandy stretch of a sidewalk. They fashioned a Mandir on the sand, and crafted a Mūrti of Bhagavān Vishnu inside it. Then, the kids conducted a Pūjā with great faith and love.

After the Pūjā was over, the kids picked small amounts of sand and offered it as ‘Prasād’ to passersby. But most passers-by merely laughed at the kids’ game, and threw the sand offered to them mockingly. However, when Shri Ramanuja walked by and saw the kids’ Mandir and their devotion, he prostrated down on the street and bowed to the sand Mūrti and the Mandir. His disciples were amused and asked him, “They were just playing a game. Why did you take the trouble to prostrate to their sculpture?”

Ramanuja said, “Bhagavān dwells wherever there is innocence, faith and devotion. Did you not see these qualities in the eyes of the kids? They genuinely believed and saw Bhagavān in their own sand Mūrti. And therefore, Vishnu indeed exists in the Mūrti and I bowed to Him.”

extremely popular Hindu scripture Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa has the Lord warning against ignoring living human beings in our midst while expending great energy, resources and time in the worship of Mūrti-s because in a way, all living beings are themselves walking embodiments of the Divine-

I abide in all beings as their innermost soul. Disregarding My Presence within them, men often make a show of worshipping Me through images. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.21

If one disregards Me present in all as their foundation and the Lord but ignorantly offers worship only to images, such worship is as ineffective as sacrificial offerings made in ashes. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29. 22

A man who persecutes Me residing in others, who is proud and haughty, who looks upon God as someone different from fellow humans – such a person will never attain to peace of mind. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29. 23

If a man disregards and persecutes fellow beings but worships Me in images with numerous rituals and rich offerings, I am not at all pleased with him for proffering such worship. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.24

A man should, however, worship Me in images, side by side with discharging his duties, which include the love of all beings, until he actually realizes My Presence in himself and in all beings. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29. 25

As long as man is self-centered and makes an absolute distinction between himself and others (without recognizing the unity of all in Me, the Inner Pervader), he will be subject to the great fear of Death (including every form of deprivation of self-interest). Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29.26

So overcoming a self-centered life in which one separates himself from others, he should serve all beings with charity, honor and love, recognizing that such service is really being rendered to Me who reside in all beings as their inner-most soul. Shrīmad Bhāgavata Purāṇa 3.29. 27

9.0 THE THEOLOGY OF HINDU APPROACHES TO REACH THE DIVINE

This section does not deal with the ‘ritual’ details of how Hindus worship. Rather, it discusses how the different ways of worshipping in Hindu Dharma relate to the different aspects of Brahman in Hindu conception.

As stated earlier, a very useful way of classifying the three ways in which Hindus worship Brahman is the following:

1. Brahman viewed as a personality with attributes and form. This is worshipping Brahman as Saguṇa and Sākāra.

2. Brahman viewed as a personality with attributes but no form. This is worshipping Brahman as Saguṇa and Nirākāra.

3. Brahman viewed as a principle that underlies everything, without attributes and without form. This is worshipping Brahman as Nirguṇa and Nirākāra.

From the preceding chapters however, it should be clear that Hindu Dharma is not fixated on the correctness of the form or way in which we should worship Brahman. The more important thing is to establish a meaningful, living and a real relationship with Brahman. And this could involve worship Brahman as a Formless Atmā, as Īshvara or Devī, as an Avatāra, as one’s Antarayāmī, through a Vibhūti or a Mūrti. The house of Brahman has many doors through which one can enter It.

Hindu scriptures allow all these three approaches but the first two are most common. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna favors the first approach (Saguṇa-Sākāra) because it is the simplest and leads to the same goal as the other two approaches that are also more difficult to practice. But, He also emphasizes that both the approaches lead to the same goal. All the four Yogas of the Gita can employ any of these three approaches but there are some preferences in each of these paths:

1. In Jnāna Yoga, the last two approaches (Saguṇa-Nirākara or Nirguṇa-Nirākāra) are preferred but it is the second approach (Saguṇa-Nirākara) that is most commonly followed. A formless (Nirākāra) can be worshipped very easily by assuming that He has infinite noble qualities (Saguṇa). Some believe that the Lord is simultaneously and equally both Saguṇa as well as Nirguṇa, i.e., He is reservoir of wonderful qualities but at the same time, we cannot describe Him adequately due the limitations of human language. Most Hindus state that Saguṇa Brahman (Supreme Lord) is inferior to or lower than Nirguṇa Brahman and therefore, one must eventually rise from the level of worshipping the former to the level of experiencing or know the latter. These fine-tuned distinctions are really just a matter of emphases. In reality, there isn’t much difference in the second and third approaches, which however differ a lot from the first approach that involves Forms of the Divine. To summarize, Jnāna Yoga as taught in the ancient Upanishads and the Brahmasūtras prefers the worship of a Formless Divinity that can have positive attributes like omnipresence, or which might even be considered as a Power which we cannot describe or perceive.

2. In Karma Yoga, the first two are more compatible (Saguṇa-Sākāra and Saguṇa-Nirākāra). This is because Karma Yoga involves offering the fruit of one’s actions to the Lord, and it helps if the Lord is a tangible entity with positive virtues and possibly even a form.

3. In Dhyāna Yoga, the second approach (Saguṇa-Nirākāra) involving meditating on the Formless Lord within oneself is most common although the first approach is also recommended by Krishna. Many Hindus therefore meditate upon a Form (Saguṇa-Sākāra) of the Lord as well even though the Yoga Darshana treats the Divine as a Supreme Puruṣha (Being) that is Formless.

4. In Bhakti Yoga, first approach (Saguṇa-Sākāra) is the most common among Hindus followed by the second approach (Saguṇa-Nirākāra) which is also adopted by other Hindus (like followers of . The third approach is not very compatible with this path.

9.1 A Three Step Model: From Saguṇa Sākāra to Nirguṇa Nirākāra

Many Hindus who prefer to worship the Nirākāra Brahman nevertheless admit that a beginner may initiate his spiritual practices by worshipping a manifested form of the Divine, like Brahmā, Vishnu or Shiva. These Deities may be worshipped as a Mūrti or in some other way. However, to become eligible for Moksha, the devotee must then graduate to a ‘higher form’ of worship, which involves meditating upon a Nirguṇa and Nirākāra Divinity. In other words, worshipping a Sākāra-Saguṇa Brahman is merely the lower step of a stairway in this viewpoint.

From there, the spiritual practitioner graduates to the Saguṇa-Nirākāra aspect of the Lord, where he has no need to lean on Divine Forms but nevertheless contemplates the positive attributes (Guṇa-s) of the Lord.

Finally comes the contemplation of a Nirguṇa-Nirākāra Brahman. This viewpoint is advocated in Advaita Vedānta and finds justification in some Upanishadic passages like the one given below:

“They said: ‘Revered one, you are the teacher, you are the teacher. What has been said has been duly fixed in mind by us. Now answer a further question. Fire, air, sun, time, whatever it is, breath, food, Brahma, Rudra, Vishnu- some meditate upon one, some meditate upon another. Tell us- which one is the best for us?’ Then he replied to them: “All these are merely the manifest/frontal forms of Brahman, the Immmortal, the Formless. To whichever form each man is devoted here, in the realm of that deity does that man rejoices. For it has been said- ‘Verily, this whole is Brahman. Verily, these, which are its manifest forms that one meditates on, worships and discards. For by meditation upon these forms, one moves into higher and higher realms. And when all things perish, he attains unity with the

Purusha!” Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Āraṇyaka 4.5-6

9.2 Worshipping Nirguṇa (Attributeless) and Nirākāra (Formless) Brahman

This approach to worshipping Brahman involves perceiving Brahman as an Impersonal Principle. The Bhagavad Gita is said to be a synthesis, a synopsis and even a commentary of the teachings of the most authoritative scriptures of Hindu Theology – the Upanishads (also called ‘Vedānta). For most part, the Upanishads, even while acknowledging the Vedic Devatas (e.g., Indra, Agni, Vayu) nevertheless advocate meditation upon and a knowledge of a Formless Brahman that is without attributes. However, it should be emphasized that the Upanishads also elaborate upon Brahman’s numerous attributes, enjoining meditation on them, and see no difference between Brahman with or without attributes. The Bhagavad Gita elaborates on worshipping Brahman in both ways – Formless as well as with a Form superimposed on Brahman, and says that the latter is superior because of its relative ease, even though both the paths lead to the same Goal eventually.

Worshipping Formless and Attributeless Brahman can take place in the following ways:

1. Meditation upon Brahman through a symbol. Even other Devatā-s are meditated upon as symbols of the Formless Brahman.

2. Meditation upon the Paramātmā (the Universal Ātmā) within one’s own body and atmā (as Antaryāmī).

The following is a good description of the first method:

“An important aspect of sādhanā as enunciated in the Upanisads is vidyā or upāsanā. A man deeply devoted to – or even addicted to – the religion of yajñas or Vedic sacrifices has to be led gradually first to contemplation and then to jñana (knowledge or direct experience) of the atman in course of time, because that is the ultimate goal of life. And, that is the only way to moksha.

These upāsanās have taken two forms. In the first group, the sādhaka is advised to imagine the various parts of a ritual and them superimpose certain ideas on them. For instance, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.1.1,2) advises one to meditate upon the horse, to be offered in the Asvamedha sacrifice, by thinking that it is Prajāpati, the Lord of beings. This upāsanā, which can be practiced even by those who are not competent to perform the Asvamedha sacrifice, gives the same fruits as the real Asvamedha itself.

In the second group of upāsanās certain known objects like nāma (name), vāk (speech), bala (strength) or manas (mind) are recommended to be meditated upon as Brahman, by imagining or discovering some similarity between that object and Brahman. Such upāsanās

gradually help the aspirant’s mind to be raised to the highest level, Brahman, and give him the much needed spiritual experience.”

An example of the second method is the ‘Dahara-vidyā’ in Chhāndogya Upanishad (chapter 8) in which the seeker meditates on Brahman in a region within the heart that is shaped like a Lotus flower containing a very small space. Brahman in its Antaryāmin aspect is also formless, and therefore the daharavidyā may be called a meditation on the Antaryāmin Brahman.

Nirguṇa-Nirākāra, the Supreme Divine Lord is beyond the Description by Speech or Thought.

It is impossible to describe Him using any language in human speech. No scripture can describe Him satisfactorily. He is completely different from whatever we know. All that we know is finite in some way or the other, whereas the Lord is Infinite in every sense and is unmanifest.

Smriti scriptures, direct perception, history and inference are the tetrad. From them are understand the Solar Sphere and everything. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1.2.1 When the minute (aṇu) and the great (mahat) come together, the Samvatsara (year) is seen directly. But the ātman (sattva) is not understood completely in this way. Yajurveda,

Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 1.2.6

From where, words return along with the mind, not attaining It, he who knows that bliss of Brahman fears not from anything at all. Yajurveda, Taittiriya Upanishad 2.9.1

The Ātman is not this, not this. It is incomprehensible for it is not comprehended. It is indestructible for it is never destroyed. It is unattached for it does not attach itself. It is unfettered. It does not suffer. It is not injured….Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 3.9.26

It is different from the known, and different from the unknown. Sāmaveda, Kena Upanishad 1.4

It is neither coarse, nor fine; neither short nor long. Yajurveda, Katha Upanishad 1.3.15 That Ātman is colossal and Divine, its form is incomprehensible to the mind. It is more subtle than subtle objects and is luminous. It exists farther than that which is far, and it is also in close proximity. The seers indeed behold that Ātman which is hidden in the cave of their heart. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 3.1.7

Unenlightened men consider me, the Unmanifest, as being manifest, not knowing My Supreme nature that is immutable/imperishable and unsurpassed. Gita 7.24

Veiled by Yogamāyā (Māyā formed by the union of Gunas), I am not visible to all. The deluded world does not recognize Me, the Unborn and the Imperishable. Gita 7.25

I know all the beings of the past, present and future, but no one knows Me. Gita 7.26

Even the Vedic words, and the minds cannot fathom the Divine. Indeed, his name is ‘silence’ (mauna). That Lord who has revealed the Vedic as well as worldly words shines resplendent within him who meditates upon the Lord with his entire mind. Mahābhārata 5.43.2

No one can teach about the Lord completely, no matter how competent the Guru is. The Guru and scriptures can only be a guide to help us realize and experience the Lord within us and in the creation. A beautiful story from a lost Vedic scripture is cited by Shankaracharya:

"It is also stated in the Veda that when Bādhva was questioned by Bāṣkalin, he explained the Supreme Divine by remaining silent: 'He [Bāṣkalin] said: 'Sir, teach me.' He [Bādhva] remained silent. Asked a second and a third time, he said: 'I speak but you do not understand. This Supreme Soul is silence.' Shankara's commentary on Brahmasutra

3.2.17

When a person comes to experience the Lord, he is overwhelmed and is unable to describe Him completely to others. It is like someone who has eaten a banana but cannot help someone else understand how it tastes because for that, the second person must also eat the banana himself. The Upanishads say:

Now, the gods ( = residents of heaven) came together and said to Prajāpati (the Lord of all Creatures): "We do not know! We do not know!" He told those holiest of people: "When I tell it to you, you will understand it." Thereafter, indeed, those holy ones no longer spoke -- they no longer spoke! That is all. Kathashruti Upanishad 2.1

For this reason, those who have experienced and have come to know the Lord do not talk too much, and do not describe Him in much detail because they realize that this is a wasteful effort and the seekers must make his own efforts to know Him.

Now, let learned Brahmins, untouched by desire, turn their minds to the highest and eternal Brahman. He indeed who is calm, controlled, tranquil, patient, devoted to learning, and possessing equanimity, comes to know it. On knowing it, without desires and free from debt, he may live in any order whatsoever as a silent sage. Yajurveda, Shātyāyanīya Upanishad 1.5

The fact that the Nirguṇa Nirākāra Brahman cannot be described or rationally thought of is denoted by silence after every chant of ‘Om’. The Upanishad therefore says that silence is the ‘half-vowel’ after the three vowels ‘A’, ‘U’, ‘M’ constituting the verbal chant:

It is Infinite in Space and Time, Omnipotent, Unequalled and Without a Parallel

The wise say that this Brahman has no beginning, middle or end, he has no duality, is the originating cause of this universe, eternal, unchangeable and transcendental. Mahābhārata 12.301.102

It is Unborn and Without Physical Attributes

When Brahman is perceived as Nirākāra, He is inherently without attributes associated with a physical body, like biological parents, family lineage, color, shape and so on.

He attains (that Brahman Who is) the radiant which is without a body, without any wound (or opening), without sinews, pure, not touched by evil. Brahman, the Sage, All-Wise, Allpervading, and Self-existent has duly ordained through infinite time all objects according to their natures. Yajurveda, Īshāvāsya Upaniṣhad 8

…The [Imperishable Brahman] is neither gross nor fine, neither short nor long, neither glowing red (like fire) nor adhering (like water). It is neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor space, unattached, without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without voice, without mind, without radiance, without breath, without a mouth, without measure, having no within and no without. It eats nothing and no one eats it. Indeed, at the command of that Imperishable, the sun and the moon stand in their respective positions. At the command of the Imperishable, what are called moments, hours, days and nights, halfmonths, seasons, years, stand in their respective positions. At the command of that Imperishable, some rivers flow to the east from the white snowy mountains, others to the west in whatever direction each flows…. Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 3.8.8-

That which cannot be seen, cannot be grasped, that has no lineage (gotra), belongs to no social class (varṇa), who has no eye or ear, has no hand or foot, who is eternal, all pervading, omnipresent, extremely subtle, is indestructible – the wise perceive completely that [Indestructible who is] origin of all creation. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad

1.1.6

Brahman is free of happiness and sorrows, he extends over past, present and the future; he is neither female, male nor is he neutral gender. Mahābhārata 12.250.12

Some scholars claim that the approach of worshipping Brahman as principle that is without attributes or a form is most appealing to the modern scientific mind –

“The third approach to God in Hinduism is to think of God as formless, nirakara, as well as without attribute, nirguna. This may appear very abstract and difficult, and yet this approach provides the best link between science and religion. This approach takes pluralism to the other extreme. It moves dramatically from the idea of God as a personality, to the idea of God as a principle. The idea that God has a particular form or that he has superhuman attributes like omniscience or omnipotence is seen as human limitations imposed in the concept of God. As we are human, the only way we can relate to God is in human terms, and thus we give him various human forms and superhuman attributes like being ‘all compassionate.’ Some people recognize the limitations of such monotheistic approaches and thus prefer to adopt this third approach. The word ‘God’ is now replaced with the term ‘Ultimate’ or ‘Cosmic Reality’ ~ Brahman.

Vivekananda emphasized the importance of moving away from the idea of God as a personality to the idea of God as the principle that underpins everything. Modern thinking man will find it easier to relate to spirituality if this third approach is promoted.”

There is some validity in this claim. In the western world and to some extent, even in India, many so called modern and scientifically minded people prefer to refer to Brahman by terms like ‘Force’, ‘Power’ as in sentences, ‘May the Force be with you’. In their circles, it is even considered unfashionable or politically incorrect to use more positive and personal terms for Brahman, like God, Creator, Mother and so on.

9.3 Interfaith Perspectives: Do Abrahamics worship a Formless and Attributeless God?

Although the Abrahamic faiths disallow the worship of God in any form, they presume Him to be an embodied Divinity residing in the heaven, and like an elderly male who controls the Universe from this remote position. The Abrahamic God is outside of and transcendent to the Universe, whereas Brahman is immanent and one with the creation even though Brahman is also superior to the Universe. Christians typically worship facing an icon (which may be a Cross) and the Muslims face a niche called the Mihrab in the direction of Mecca. So from a Hindu perspective, these objects (the Cross or the Mihrab) may be called ‘Pratīkas’.

Ironically, one of the charges leveled against Hindu Dharma in most of the Christian literature that the Supreme God of Hindus is Impersonal, and not Personal with positive attributes of compassion, love etc. This is a wholly false charge as demonstrated throughout in this compilation.

The Abrahamic religions assign numerous attributes to their God (like compassionate, loving, provider and so on) and so their worship is more akin to the Hindu way or worshipping a formless Brahman with attributes, as discussed in the next section though the notion of Abrahamic God is very different from

that of Brahman and Īshvara, as discussed later in this document. Although the possibility of the Divine assuming a Form is not at all acknowledged in Abrahamic religions, they use substitutes in the form of Prophets or the ‘Son of God’. Thus Muslims explain nature of Allah using stories from the life of Muhammad or other Prophets (or Muhammad’s companions) whereas Christians have stories from the life of Jesus Christ. In Hindu Dharma, we do not have the concept of Prophets because anyone can become an inspired Rishi, and does not have to be ‘chosen’ by the Divine.

See also section 3.3 above.

9.4 Worshipping Saguṇa and Nirākāra Brahman: Divinity With Qualities/Attributes but Without a Form

Some scholars deny that Brahman can be without attributes completely. They point out-

“The question of whether or not God possesses the ability to have qualitative attributes has been an unfortunate point of debate among a number Vedanta philosophers for the last two millennia. As a result of this debate, some philosophers have claimed that Brahman is nirguna, or without qualities. Others have claimed that God is wholly saguna, or possessed of qualitative attributes. The Vedic shastras (scriptures) teach that the Absolute (Brahman) is both equally nirguna, meaning without material qualities, and saguna, or possessed of transcendent qualities, simultaneously. One aspect is not "lower" or "higher" than the other. Rather, one necessitates the other. If God is ontologically transcendent and antecedent to matter in His being, then it necessarily follows that God is without delimiting or conditioned material qualities and attributes. The Absolute has no material (prakriticonditioned) attributes within the contexts of temporality, sequential causality, enervativeness and spatial extensiveness that constitutes the functional make-up of all things material. But the Absolute does have infinite auspicious qualities (ananta-kalyanagunaih) that are wholly transcendent and spiritual in nature. The fact that God cannot even be understood without reference to God's qualities is evocatively demonstrated in the truth that even the very statement that God is nirguna in itself is directly stating a quality of Brahman. God is nirguna; God is without material qualities, which is itself clearly an attribute.

These spiritual qualities of the Divine are enumerated by the multiple thousands all throughout the Vedic scriptures. In the Taittiriya Upanishad (2.1.1), as one of many thousands of examples of the attributes of God delineated throughout the totality of the Vedic scriptures, God is described in the following way: satyam jnanam anantam brahma, "God is truth, wisdom and infinity." Thus, God can be both described and recognized in accordance with His natural inherent attributes.”

It is very clear that the bulk of the Vedas describe the Devatās with very human attributes, and so do a significant proportion of Upanishads. Therefore, it cannot be denied that in Hindu Dharma, Brahman is indeed assigned many qualities and attributes. It is another matter that they may not accurately and completely describe Brahman due to the limitations of the human speech in describing It.

9.4.1 Saguṇa-Nirākāra in Jnāna Yoga

The Vedāntic scriptures discuss the nature of the Divine and His relationship to the Universe and to human beings in great detail. They say that reaching the Supreme Being through Jnāna, or spiritual wisdom and experience, is the final goal of our life. In this path of Jnāna Yoga, the Divine is typically described as an eternal, unchanging, formless, all-pervading, all-knowing Ātmā that presides over the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the Universe, is free from mixture with the Guṇas, is free of all desires and attachments, is the overseer and witness of all karmas, and ordains their appropriate fruit (karmaphala), who makes sure that all cosmic processes carry on per the natural laws, who is difficult to comprehend, who cannot be known through the intellect, the mind or the senses and who cannot be described through speech but can only be experienced in one’s own ātmā.

In the scriptures of Vedānta (like the ancient Upanishads), Yoga and Sāṃkhya Darshanas, the focus is on the Nirākāra (Formless) aspect of the Divine. The words used to denote the Divine in Jnāna Yoga are ‘Brahman’ (the Supreme), ‘Paramātmā’ (the Supreme Ātmā), Akshara (the Inexhaustible, Indestructible), Antaryāmī and so on. The focus on Nirākāra Brahman in these Hindu traditions is understandable because the path of Jnānayoga is characterized by dispassion, rational enquiry and deep contemplation on the Divine which is quite in tune with visualizing the Divine as a Formless Spiritual Being. In this path, all the Divine forms are sometimes considered temporary and as created at a certain point of time. Worship to these forms as Devatās is meant only for fulfilling mundane desires, not for attaining Moksha. Even though the Supreme Lord is Nirākāra, He has numerous positive qualities. In other words, He is Saguṇa-Nirākāra. Even if the Nirguṇa Brahmana is approached through Forms, these are regarded as a preliminary step towards realizing Him eventually as Nirākāra.

Thus, the Sākāra (i.e., with Forms) aspect of Brahman are not ignored entirely because of His association with the Universe and with the individual Jīvas. This is particularly true in the Bhagavad Gita, which gives an extensive theology of Saguṇa and Sākāra Brahman that forms the bedrock of how Hindus actually approach the Divine. Krishna tells Arjuna that as we humans are embodied creatures and learn through our senses, most of us find it easier to relate to a Divine that also has a form, appearance, color etc. For the convenience of the common human being and out of His love for us, the Lord approaches human beings and other creatures through these various physical forms. Worshipping the Lord with emotion and an engagement of all our senses therefore often presumes a Divine who is ‘Saguṇa’ – endowed with beautiful qualities, and often also Sākāra – one with beautiful Form or Forms. Therefore, the path of Bhakti Yoga in Hindu Dharma typically involves approaching the Divine through these beautiful Forms. Worshipping Nirākāra Brahman in Bhakti Yoga is treated as the particular or specific mode or Bhakti called the Shānta Bhāva and these approximate the practices of several later Dhārmic traditions described in Section 9.4.2 below.

Numerous passages from the Upanishads and other scriptures give a description of Brahman that is used in practices of Jnāna Yoga. The passages reproduced below are merely illustrative and have been classified into various categories for the convenience of the student. The stories given for explaining these concepts make one thing very clear – the concept of Nirākāra Brahman (and especially Nirguṇa-Nirākāra Brahman) is very abstract due to which we have to borrow stories from the Saguṇa-Sākāra traditions to explain the former.

Brahman is True Existence, Consciousness and Bliss

In later schools of Vedānta (especially Advaita Vedānta) which draw upon Upanishadic teachings, the three most important characteristics of Brahman are:

1. Sat (meaning that Brahman is the Supreme Reality underlying the Universe)

2. Chit (Consciousness, meaning that Brahman is a Living entity and he gives life to the entire Universe)

3. Ānanda (Bliss, meaning that he is full of joy, bliss and peace).

Brahman is Satya, Jnānaṃ (Consciousness) and Anantaṃ (Infinite). Yajurveda, Taittirīya

Upanishad 2.1.1

Brahman is bliss and consciousness. Yajurveda, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad 3.9.28

These three characteristics are the essential nature of Brahman, and therefore, It is referred to as ‘Sacchidānanda’. The entire creation, according to the Bhāmati of Vāchaspati Mishra (8th – 9th century CE) has five important characteristics of which the first three are derived from Brahman, and the last two from Prakriti. These five characteristics are:

1. Asti: The creation owes its reality and existence to the ‘Sat’ aspect of Brahman.

2. Bhāti: The creation owes its life, its sustenance, transformation to the ‘Chit’ aspect of Brahman.

3. Priya: The creation is very enticing and provides all possible pleasures to jīvas – a manifestation of the Ānanda aspect of Brahman.

4. Nāma: All the knowledge in this Universe, starting with the Divinely revealed wisdom in the Vedas. They form the verbal counterpart to the physical universe and are present in a latent form with Brahman even when the universe is undergoing dissolution.

5. Rūpa: All forms, shapes, material, energy etc., deriving from three guṇas of Prakriti.

Satyaṃ, Shivaṃ, Sundaraṃ: Brahman is Truth, Goodness and Beauty

All that is evil, Savitri Deva, send away from us. And send our way that which is good (beneficial and spiritual). Rigveda 5.82.5

Sinless, for spiritual might, under Deva Savitri’s inspiration, we think of all beautiful things. Rigveda 5.82.3

The Universal Deva, Lord of goodness, we choose with our hymns today, that Deva Savitri whose power lies in truth. Rigveda 5.82.4

The Supreme is the ultimate truth, from which all other truth originates. He is the source of all that is beautiful and glorious. He is goodness and beneficent because He desires the good and progress of everyone.

He is the Light of Lights

Darkness represents death, ignorance and fear. Light represents life, knowledge and security. The Supreme Lord is the source of all light in the universe.

That under which the year revolves with its days, the gods worship that as the light of lights

and as life immortal, That in which the people of all the five regions of the Earth and space are established, that alone I regard as the Soul; know that Immortal Brahman, I too am immortal (=reference to Divinely enlightened). Yajurveda, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

4.4.16-17

There, the sun does not shine, nor the moon and the stars, nor the lightning – what then to speak of the fire. Only when He shines do all things shine, and the entire universe is illuminated with His light. Atharvaveda, Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.2.11

And He the Light of lights; and is said to be beyond all darkness; He is knowledge, the

Object of knowledge and the goal of knowledge; He is seated in the hearts of all…Gita 13.17

In the absence of Shiva as the Lord, this entire universe will get enveloped with darkness, just as this world becomes devoid of any light in the absence of sun. Shivadharmottara

Upapurāṇa 1.32

He is the Final Goal of all Scriptural Teachings

For the Bahvrichas (followers of Rigveda) investigate him (the Soul) in the great hymn

(mahad-uktha), the Adhvaryus (Yajurvedins) in the sacrificial fire, the Chhandogas (Samavedins) in the Mahāvrata ceremony. Him they see in this earth, in heaven, in the air, in space, in water, in herbs, in trees, in the moon, in the constellations, in all beings. Him alone they call Brahman. Rigveda, Aitareya Āraṇyaka 3.2.3.12

All the creations and transformations in this Universe originate from Him. The best of Rishis praise Him alone in their scriptures. Mahābhārata 12.301.103

There is no end to learning new things. The scriptures themselves are vast and hardly anyone can master them entirely in multiple lifetimes. But what we need to know is that the goal of all these branches of knowledge and especially all the scriptures is to know and realize the Divine. Moksha is the final goal of all scriptures. Therefore, let not our learning and education become a hindrance in the path of Moksha, and let not our wisdom take us away from the Lord. Rather, all of our knowledge, learning and wisdom should take us closer to Him.

Knowing Him results in Moksha and Freedom from Samsāra

Different systems of philosophies list different means to attain Liberation (Moksha) but Jnāna Yoga is emphatic that only the knowledge and realization of the Supreme Lord is the true way, all else are secondary or supporting means in the path of Moksha.

The ātman which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from grief, free

from hunger, free from thirst, which desires the Truth and has resolved to obtain the Truth – that ātman should be sought. Him, one should desire to understand. He who has discovered and has understood that ātman obtains all the worlds and desires. Sāmaveda, Chhāndogya Upanishad 8.7.1

When humans shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then will there be an end of sorrow, apart from knowing the Divine. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.20

Knowing Him in this life itself, one transcends death. There is no other path leading to

Moksha. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3.13.2

He who knows Me, the Unborn and the beginning less, the Great Lord of the Universe, he among mortals is not deluded and is released from all evils. Gita 10.3

Just as medicine is naturally the remover of illness, in the same way, Shiva is naturally the opponent of all sorrows and defects of this world. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 1.31

Union with Him in the state of Moksha is the Final Goal of Human Life

As the rivers flow and merge into the ocean, relinquishing their names and forms, So the wise, freed completely from name and form, goes to the Effulgent Being who is the Most Superior. Muṇdaka Upanishad 3.2.8

When a person comes to know the Highest Brahman, he indeed becomes Brahman. In his family, no one who does not know Brahman will be born. He overcomes all evils and grief. Being freed of all the knots of the heart, he becomes immortal. Muṇdaka Upanishad 3.2.9 Just as these rivers flowing towards the sea, when the have reached the sea, merge into it, all their names and forms perish and all is called ‘sea’ alone; likewise these sixteen parts of the all-seeing Seer that go towards the Puruṣha, upon reaching and attaining that Puruṣha, disappear; their names and forms are destroyed and all is called ‘Puruṣha’ alone. He – that (Puruṣha) becomes without parts, and immortal. On this, there is this verse. Prashna Upanishad 6.5

Those who are freed from pride and delusion, who have conquered the evil of attachment, who, dwelling constantly in the Supreme Self, with all their desires turned away, released from dualities designated as pain and pleasure, the undeluded, go to that eternal abode. Gita 15.5

The sun does not illuminate that (abode), nor the moon, or fire, to which, having gone, no one returns. That is My supreme abode. Gita 15.6

An Evil Person cannot know Brahman, Only the Virtuous Can

(Brahman is) not (known to those who are possessed of) avarice, delusion, fear, egotism,

lust, anger, and evil, or (possessed of) heat and cold (i.e. those who cannot withstand the opposites), hunger and thirst, or mental resolve and indecision, or pride of birth in a Brahmana family, or (vanity in having read) a mass of books on Moksha. Atharvaveda, Tejobindu Upanishad 12

Those who are evil doers, who are deluded and the lowest of human beings, whose wisdom has been destroyed by Māyā and who follow the ways of Asuras, do not seek refuge in Me.

Gita 7.15

Brahmā, the grandsire, said to Rishi Āshvalāyana, “Seek to know Brahman by faith, devotion, meditation, and concentration. Not by karma, not by offspring, or wealth, only by renunciation does one reach life eternal. Atharvaveda, Kaivalya Upanishad 1.2

To them belongs the stainless (pure) realm of Brahman in whom austerity, chastity and

truth are established. They alone reach the realm of Brahman in whom there is no crookedness, falsehood or trickery. Atharvaveda, Prashna Upanishad 1.15b-16

Indeed, My Māyā, composed of the Gunas and supernatural (Divine) is very difficult to overcome. But those who take refuge in Me alone are able to cross over this Māyā. Gita 7.14

‘Aum’ is the Perfect Designation for Brahman.

In reality, no word or name can suffice to designate or describe the Supreme Lord. But all traditions of Hindu Dharma, and those of Jnāna Yoga and Dhyāna Yoga in particular exalt ‘Om’, comprising of three sounds ‘A’, ‘U’, ‘M’ followed by silence as an excellent designation of the Lord in both His Saguṇa and Nirguṇa aspects. Contemplation or meditation on ‘Om’ with feeling (i.e., not mechanically) and reflection on its meaning is very helpful in taking us to the Divine.

Taking the bow, the mighty weapon of the Upanishads, fix in it the arrow sharpened with constant meditation. Dear boy, having stretched it with the mind that is absorbed in That, take aim, and hit that target which is the Imperishable. Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.2.3 Praṇava (Aum) is the bow, the arrow indeed is the ātman, and Brahman is said to be its target. It is to be pierced with great concentration. And as the arrow becomes one with its target, he will become one with Brahman. Muṇdaka Upanishad 2.2.4

That which the knowers of the Vedas call the Imperishable, into which the ascetics free from passion enter, desiring which they following a life of celibacy, that path I shall explain to you in summary. Gita 8.11

All the gates of the body restrained, the mind confined in the region of heart, one’s life force fixed in the head, established in Yogic concentration; reciting constantly ‘Om’, the one syllabled form of Supreme Being (Brahman), he who departs remembering Me while giving up his body reaches the Supreme State (of Moksha). Gita 8.12-13

In the Hindu tradition, ‘Aum’ is referred to as ‘Shabda-Brahman’ or Brahman manifested as Sound.

9.4.2 Saguṇa-Nirākāra in Later Dhārmic Traditions

Several sampradāyas or traditions of Hindus worship Brahman as formless and yet endowed with numerous attributes, combine elements of Jnāna Yoga along with Bhakti. It must be emphasized however, that there the boundary between Saguṇa-Sākāra and Saguṇa-Nirākāra streams in the Hindu tradition is not impervious. The difference is a matter if emphasis. The Nirākāra streams focus on the Formless aspects of the Divine, frown upon Mūrti-Pūjā and external practices like pilgrimage, and advocate seeking the Divine within oneself or in the heart of others. But they do not completely reject the possibility of the Divine assuming Forms. Conversely, the Sants of the Sākāra tradition also often compose hymns extolling the Nirākāra aspects of the Divine. For this reason several Sants like Rāmānanda and Nāmadeva are claimed by both the streams.

1. Nātha Shaivites: They follow the teachings of Nātha-Yogī-ss like Matsyendranātha and

Gorakhanātha. A section of this tradition worships Brahman or Shiva as a formless Divinity, but

others may worship Forms of Shiva or even Vishnu. This tradition survives today largely in Rajasthan and in Maharashtra in India. Before the partition of India in 1947, Nātha Yogis (called (Jogis) were found as itinerant ascetics in large parts of Sindh and W Punjab in Pakistan (with their centers at Gorakh Tilla aka Tilla Jogian in NW Punjab, and in Hinglaj). The Jogis still survive in Pakistan in smaller numbers and still wear their characteristic orange-red robes and even pierce their ears with wooden earrings, but they are now associated with the shrines of various Sufis and Pirs and are considered as Muslims. The Nātha-s did not worship images in general except the Shivalinga and practiced Hathayoga and performed Homams instead. Many of their practices were later also adopted by the Udāsī Sampradāya, founded by Bābā Shrīchand, the elder ascetic son of Guru Nanak.

2. Nirguṇa Bhakti Sants: In the medieval period in India arose numerous Bhakti saints who preached a tender devotion to a formless Deity with numerous loving attributes. The Deity was still addressed with the traditional Hindus names for Avatāras, but the Sants clarified that their Rama

(say, for an example) was not the incarnation of Vishnu but the Lord of the Universe. These saints include Kabīr, Rāidās, Dādū, Devachandra (founder of the Praṇāmī Sampradāya) and have followings of several million Hindus today. Many of these Sants like Rāmānanda and Nāmadeva are ironically claimed both by Hindus who worship Brahman through Its Forms and those that worship a Formless Brahman. Early Nirguṇa Bhakti Sants like Nāmadeva and Kabīr had profound connections with the Nātha traditions which were strong but were fading away in their times. The followers of Kabīr have established several monastic institutions with lineages of Acharyas. These monasteries spread the teachings of Kabīr and their Gurus, and some even consider Kabīr as an incarnation of Brahman. The Praṇāmīs today worship Mūrtis of other Hindu deities, but have always enshrined a copy of the Kulzām Swarūp (a collection of scriptures largely attributed to Prāṇnāth, their second and most influential ̣ teacher in the 17th cent. CE). Followers of Rāidās (aka

Ravidās) are closely associated with Sikhism and even have their own Gurudwaras but are also considered as Hindus. The Dādū Panthis (followers of Dadu) have their shrines largely in Rajasthan and they revere the writings of Dādū and four other Nirguna Sants (collected together as ‘Panchavani’) and also worship Mūrtis of Dādū himself.

3. Sikhs: Today, Sikhism is considered a separate religion from Hinduism but it is doubtful whether this was true completely before the last decades of the 19th cent. C.E. The Sikh scriptures reject the doctrines of Avatāras, Vibhūtis and the worship of Mūrtis. However, God is otherwise described as formless but endowed with thousands of beautiful qualities. In fact, the most common names used for God in Sikhism are Hari, Rama, Bishan (Vishnu), Ishar (Īshvara) and so on and are clearly derived from the Vaishnavite tradition. Some scholars assert that the Sikh tradition is historically situated well within the Nirguṇa Bhakti tradition of Hindus. Sikh worship comprises largely of reading and singing sacred hymns from the Ādi Grantha, their scripture compiled by their fifth Guru Shri Arjan Dev in the year 1604 CE and enlarged a bit by their 10th Guru Gobind Singh in the

late 17th cent CE. It would however be ahistorical to state that the Sikh Gurus did not worship Hindu Deities or Avatāras. There is plentiful evidence to controvert modern interpretations that the ‘Rāma’ of the Guru Granth is the Supreme Being and not the son of King Dasharatha. Numerous hymns composed by the Gurus extoll and revere Vishnu and His Avatāra-s as well as the Devī.

4. Brahmos: This term represents of cluster of similar movements (e.g. Brahmo Samaj) founded in the 19th cent. British India and associated with Hindu luminaries like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Devendranath Tagore. They believed that the Vedas and the Upanishads are the only true scriptures of Hindus and practices like idol worship are later false accretions. This organization is practically defunct today but the Ādi Dharma, which is said to have originated from its principles of the Brahmo Samaj and other organizations, has more than 7 million followers today.

5. Ārya Samaj: The followers of Ārya Samaj are most numerous in the Indian states of Haryana and Punjab and in parts of the adjacent states in N India. This sect of Hindus was founded by Swami Dayānand Saraswati (1824 – 1883 CE) in the year 1875. They believe that the Vedas preach a pure

Monotheism and that the various Devatās mentioned in the Vedas are merely names or aspects of a formless Brahman who has all these different qualities of the Devatās. The Aryas completely reject all the Hindu scriptures (Āgamas, Purāṇas etc.) that talk about Avatāras, Vibhūtis, worship of Mūrtis, pilgrimages and so on. Swami Dayanand Saraswati instead advocated the practice of meditation (Yoga) and performance of worship through the Yajna or Havan – the Vedic Fire Ceremony. In this ceremony, the chief form of worship in the Vedic scriptures, a fire altar is lit, and offerings of clarified butter (ghee), grains and various herbs are poured as oblations with the chanting of Vedic prayers. However, it is emphasized that all the prayers are directed to Brahman and that the purpose of the oblations of ghee and grains etc., is to rarify them and purify the environment for reducing sickness etc. In other words, the Arya Samaj rejects the traditional Vedic notion that the offerings are meant for the Devatās out of reverence because it does not even acknowledge the existence of any divinity other than Brahman.

Scholars of this sect treat the Avatāras not as divine incarnations but as super-heros and saints and interpret the Ramayana and the Mahabharata accordingly.

There are several other movements within Hindu Dharma which do not worship Brahman as Sākāra but their treatment is beyond the scope of this document. Not more than 5% of the Hindus subscribe to all these traditions collectively although their intellectual and philosophical contribution to Hindu Dharma is far greater than their numbers.

In addition to these movements, there are other traditions within Hindu Dharma that acknowledge that Brahman has or can have forms but nevertheless discourage the worship of Mūrtis. An example is the Eka Dharma Naam Sharan sect of Vaishnavites of Assam, who follow the teachings of Sant Shankara Deva.

There are many modern Hindus who call themselves followers of Vedānta. They are comfortable worshipping a Brahman with numerous positive attributes and qualities as long as It is not given any form. They justify their stance with the argument that worship of forms of Brahman and Mūrtis are meant for the less educated or less spiritually advanced, and that they have risen above these limitations. This is the multistep step approach that we have described above.

Interestingly, historically the followers of all these groups of Hindus have been in the forefront of polemics defending Hindu traditions against criticisms by Muslims and Christians.

9.5 Is Worshipping Formless Brahman Superior To Worshipping a Form of Brahman?

Opinions vary on this matter. A similar question was asked by Arjuna to Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. The reply comprises of many verses in Chapter 12 of the Gita. The relevant verses of this chapter are:

Arjuna asked Krishna:

The constantly steadfast devotees who worship you with devotion, and those who worship the eternal unmanifest; which of these have the greater knowledge of yoga? Gita 12.1

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Those who fixing their minds on Me worship Me, ever steadfast and endowed with supreme faith – them do I consider the most perfect in Yoga. Gita 12.2

But those who worship the Imperishable, the Indefinable, the Unmanifest, the Omnipresent, the Unthinkable, Unchanging, the Immovable, the Eternal – by restraining their senses, being even-minded in all conditions, rejoicing in the welfare of all creatures, they too come to Me for sure. Gita 12.3-4

But the difficulty of those whose minds are fixed on the unmanifest is greater, because the goal of the Unmanifest is hard to reach by the embodied beings. Gita 12.5

Those who, renouncing all their actions in Me, and regarding Me as the Supreme, Worship Me, meditating on Me with undistracted Yoga, those whose thoughts are set on Me, I soon deliver from the ocean of death and transmigration. Gita 12.6-7

In his commentary on Gita 12.1-7, Shankaracharya clarifies that Krishna does not intend to say that worshipping a personal Īshvara with a form is superior to worshipping a formless, Nirguna Brahman. The ̣̣ superiority of the first method merely lies in the fact that it is the easier path of the two for most spiritual seekers. This interpretation appears correct, contrasted with the interpretation of others like Ramanujacharya, who hold that the worshipper of Saguṇa and Sākāra Brahman are superior to others. The reason is that the question of Arjuna does not relate to the superiority of one class of devotees to another, but to which path makes one more knowledgeable about Brahman. Krishna answers that the followers of both the paths reach Brahman, but the worship of a formless and attributeless Brahman is very difficult for the ordinary embodied human beings, due to which those who worship Brahman with attributes and forms are more perfected in yoga, i.e., more united with Brahman.

A scholar explains the rationale behind Krishna’s recommendation for worshipping a personal Īshvara, or at least use Pratīkas:

“….how do we conceive Infinite God as our Heavenly Father listening to our prayers and dealing out justice showering mercy? How does our intellect sanction such narrowing down of the Absolute? The Absolute cannot be limited either by form or by qualities. It is Transcendental, beyond the range of human thought and speech. None can worship such Brahman. Yet to turn our mind Godward we try to conceive Him through a group of qualities and call Him Merciful and all that. That facilitates our approach to Divinity. If we can do this much for the facility of our sādhanā (spiritual practice), on precisely the same ground, there is no harm in meditating on God through any of the prescribed forms. Rather, this would make it easier for us to fix the mind on God.

Indeed, our mind is so constituted that it cannot grasp an abstraction. It requires something concrete to hold on to. And this is why even those who are up against forms of God cannot do away with forms altogether in their spiritual practice. The very conception of the Heavenly Father, the very reference to God by the pronouns ‘He’ or ‘She’, the very description of His or Her abode in heaven, all these together with the particular structures of our places of worship, as well as all details of rituals, rest entirely on concrete forms. All these have to be considered and weighed carefully before dispensing with worship of God through symbols (pratikas) and images (pratimās). Mere intellectual snobbery may lead to sophistry, ending perhaps in materialism. We should beware of this. Only those who in their spiritual practice have outgrown the necessity of such aids as symbols or images offer, may go in for saguṇa nirākāra upāsanā.

Such devotees are advised to meditate on the all-pervading presence of God. Certain appropriate imageries are suggested by our Shāstras through which such contemplation becomes easier. One may consider oneself to be like a fish in the ocean surrounded on all sides by water and replace the water by God. One may contemplate that just as an empty jar is filled and surrounded by air or either, so is one by God. Such devotees also have suitable hymns, prayers and modes of worship prescribed by the Hindu Shāstras. If those who are really fit for choosing this path persist in their spiritual practice with sincere love for God, they also are sure to reach the goal like any other Bhakti-Yogi.”

In contrast to this approach, other traditions within Hindu Dharma (as listed in the preceding sections) hold that worshipping the Formless Brahman is superior to worshipping Forms of Brahman because the latter is merely a portion of the latter.

9.6 Worshipping Saguṇa and Sākāra Brahman and the Concept of Iṣhta Devatā

Worshipping Brahman as a Personality with attributes or qualities as well as a form is the most popular approach among Hindus. As a scholar says –

“God with attributes, saguna, and form, sakara, is the most popular approach adopted by Hindus. The corporeality attributed to God allows the devotee to develop a relationship with the Ultimate Reality (God) viewed as a personality, and is therefore considered to be the simplest way of relating to God. This personified God can be regarded as kith and kin, for example as a father or mother, a brother or sister, or maybe a child or a friend. There are a vast number of relationships that the devotee can choose from in order to build a relationship with God. This is not seen as a limitation but as a very practical way of relating to and approaching God.”

However, it should be emphasized that although it is easier for the worshipper to establish a personal relationship (e.g. as a Father or Mother) with a Personal God, it is nevertheless possible to have similar relationships with a Formless Divine too. In fact, Muslims and Christians too regard the God in their respective traditions as their Father and so on, although the choice of relationships that one can have with God in their religions is very limited compared to the various relationships that a Hindu worshipper of Saguṇa-Sākāra Brahman can have with his or her Deity. For example, Muslims and Christians rarely perceive their God as ‘Mother’, whereas Hindus commonly do so.

9.6.1 Ishta-Devatā

Then, is there a preferred form of Īshvara that we should worship to the exclusion of other forms? The Gita says that no matter whom we worship, the result is the same because we really worship the same Brahman, and moreover the fruit of our worship comes from the same source – Brahman.

Krishna said to Arjuna:

In whatever way humans take refuge in Me, I love them.

In all ways, humans follow My path. Gita 4.11

In Whatever form my worshipper chooses to worship me, in that very form I accept his worship and make his faith steady in that very form. Gita 7.21

The import of these verses is very clear – Brahman loves the worshipper no matter what Form of Brahman he worships. Moreover, the worshippers of all the Forms are in fact all walking on the path that leads to the same Brahman.

There are several Forms of Brahman to choose from to worship. But typically, instead of worshipping all of them, Hindus chose to focus on one of them – their ‘Ishta-Devatā’. The word ‘Ishta’

means that which is desired or beloved. So the favorite Devatā or form of Brahman or Īshvara that one worships is one’s Ishta-Devatā.

Swamini Pramananda Saraswati explains –

“The deity chosen for worship by a given person, based upon his disposition and liking, is known as ishta-devatā. For instance, one who cannot but express one’s devotion by singing and dancing may choose Lord Krishna for worship, while a person with a quiet disposition inclined to spiritual learning may choose Lord Dakshināmūrti. One’s own choice can also be determined by a family tradition or worshipping a particular deity. This deity then becomes the kula devatā, the family deity, whose worship is handed down through generations. Sometimes, a whole village together worships a particular deity known as the grāma-devatā, who also serves as the presiding deity of the village.

One worships the chosen deity, or deities, as the Lord. Most people have an altar for worship, having many gods and goddesses in the form of icons and pictures. One may have his or her primary deity in the center of the altar and place the other deities around the primary deity.

In the Itihasas and the Puranas, there are different stories told about the various deities. Each deity is depicted with a different form. This form is based on either symbolic representation of the functions the deity represents, or on the mythological stories surrounding its manifestation. A person chooses the form that is most pleasing and cultivates a special

relationship with that deity…”

Rambachan explains the significance of the concept of Ishtadevatā in Hindu Dharma -

“Much of the variety of Hindu worship is the result of the concept of the istadevata, or the deity of one’s choice. This concept is partly the result of the plurality of the environment in which Hinduism developed, and the recognition of the diversity of human personalities. It is a view which also helps to explain a certain liberality of outlook in Hinduism towards other religions. Within a certain framework, we have the freedom to choose concepts and

representations of God with which we can most easily identify, and with whom we can enter into a relationship…The reasons for a particular choice are many. The deity might have been traditionally worshipped in the family or the individual may be attracted to certain features and attributes of the deity… It is not uncommon to find the members of any Hindu home choosing different personal deities for worship.

There are many reasons why this plurality of representations of God is not, for us, confusing or conflicting. Each chosen deity is completely identified with the qualities and attributes of Godhead, such as omnipotence and omniscience, and is not opposed to another similar representation. The unity and oneness of God is most strongly affirmed side by side with this multiplicity of representation in worship. The guiding principle for us is the Rg Veda text, “Truth is one; it is spoken of diversely.” There is also a very beautiful and often quoted verse of the Bhagavadgita in which Krishna says: “In whatsoever ways people approach me, in that same way do I return their love; for the paths people take from every side are Mine.”

(4:11)”

The Ishta Devatā can be one of the Trimūrti (although the worship of Brahmā is very rare today in the Indian subcontinent, but still found in Thailand and other places), an Avatāra, a Devī or even a local or a family or a tribal Deity that has been given the form of a Mūrti so that it can be worshipped concretely.

It is very typical that within the same Hindu household, one member (say the father) has one Ishta Devatā (say Vishnu) and another family member (say the son) has another (say the Devī). Most Hindu families do not have strong sectarian affiliations in which they must worship the same Ishta Devatā generation after generation. And it is not unknown for a Hindu to sing hymns to one Devatā when standing in front of the Mūrti of another. All this does

indicate that an overwhelming majority of Hindus have the sense that Brahman is one, and all the Devatās are manifestations of that one Brahman.

The choice of one’s Iṣhta-Devatā can result from one or more of the following factors-

1. Family tradition or place of origin. For example, Nāgara Brahmanas will most likely worship Shiva because their ancestral shrine is a Shiva temple at Hatakeshvara in Gujarat.

2. One’s preference. Different Devatā-s have different personalities. Therefore, one might be drawn to a specific Iṣhta-Devatā due to his own temperament or personality. For example, martial Hindus often worship the warlike Devī.

3. Life Incidents: Sometimes people feel that their entreaties are responded to more favorably by a specific Iṣhta-Devatā (say Ganeṣha) and are drawn towards Him/Her in preference to others.

4. The command of one’s Guru, or the Iṣhta-Devatā of one’s Guru is another factor. For example, Neem Karoli Bābā used to worship Hanumān and so do his followers.

5. One’s life circumstances might make a person change his Iṣhta-Devatā permanently or temporarily.

9.6.2 The Major Ishta-Devatās and the Traditions (Sampradāyas) of Worship

Since ancient times, most Hindus who worship Saguṇa Brahman are divided into the following six groups listed below -

i. The Vaishnavas worship Vishnu and Lakshmi, with their incarnations of Avataras such as Rama-Sita, Radha-Krishna and so on. They predominate in all the communities of Hindus today with the exceptions of those listed below. They perhaps comprise 70% of the Hindu population today.

ii. The Shaiva Hindus worshipped Lord Shiva and Devi Parvati. They predominate among the Hindu communities in Tamil Nadu (followers of Shaiva Āgama scriptures), parts of Karnataka and Maharashtra (followers of Veerashaiva and Nātha traditions), Kashmir (followers of Pratyabhijna or Kashmir Shaivism) in India, Nepal (followers of Nātha and Pāshupata traditions), Bali and Java in Indonesia (followers of Āgama Hindu Dharma), and

Sri Lanka etc. Shaivite Hindus constitute approximately 20-25% of Hindus today. In Kashmir, where the Hindus have been ethnically cleansed out recently by Islamists, Shaivism was intimately fused with Shākta traditions.

iii. The Shākta Hindus worship Brahman as Devi in many forms – Durga, Kālī and so on. They predominate among the Hindu communities in W Bengal and parts of Assam in eastern India, Bangladesh. They form around 5% or less of the Hindus today.

iv. The Saura Sampradāya worships Brahman as Sun. This tradition is today very minor and the temples are in Konarka (Indian state of Orissa), Modhera (Indian state of Gujarat), Sohna (Indian state of Haryana), Martanda (Indian state of Kashmir) and so on.

v. Gāṇapatya Hindus worship Brahman in the form of Ganesha. This tradition is particularly strong in the Indian state of Maharashtra.

vi. Skānda tradition worships Brahman as Karttikeya or Skanda. This tradition is more prevalent in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu where Skanda is called Murugan. It is also prominent in other areas where Tamils have settled, like parts of Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Sometimes, this tradition is not counted separately and is subsumed within the Shaivite tradition.

Hindus have freedom to consider any one or more of these five or six forms of Brahman as the supreme form, with the other forms subservient to their chosen supreme form. In fact, a great majority of

Hindus do not identify themselves strongly with any one of the six traditions listed above, and are quite eclectic in their worship.

Many of these individual traditions are very ancient. In fact, several of them are older than entire religions like Christianity and Islam. Within most of these traditions, there is a huge corpus of scriptures, traditional practices, shrines, lineage of saints and so on. And therefore, some scholars think that these traditions are individual religions, and Hinduism as such does not exist as a unified religion. This is however a very extreme view. The unity of the different Hindu traditions is like that of a bouquet made of beautiful different flowers, not that of uniformly black charcoal ash derived from burning several types of wood.

9.6.3 Smārta Sampradāya and Panchāyatana Worship

Many centuries ago, Adi Shankaracharya organized the worship of Brahman in Its many forms into the above five (sometimes said to be six) different traditions. His followers worship God in all these forms equally. But it is acceptable to choose one form and worship God in that form throughout one’s life. Hindus who follow this tradition of worship are said to be of the Smārta Sampradāya (tradition). In their households, they have vigrahas of all the five Devatās although one of them is chosen as the Ishta-Devatā and placed at the center with the other four around it. Sometimes these vigrahas may be just five kinds of stones or even five marks on the floor. The collective worship of these five main Devatās of Hindus is called the ‘Panchāyatana Pūjā.’

9.6.4 Shaṇmata Sampradāya

Sometimes, Shankaracharya is also said to be the founder of the ‘Shaṇmata’ mode of worship in which Karttikeya is worshipped along with the other five Devatās. The followers of this mode are also called Smārtas and they uniformly regard the six Devatās as equal manifestations of Saguṇa Brahman.

9.6.5 Ekāyatana Mode of Worship

Some Hindus believe that to avoid all distractions and to focus completely on one’s chosen Ishta-Devatā, no other Devatā should be worshipped by them. As an example, some Hindus will worship only Krishna. Or, if they worship Vishnu, they will start their ceremonies with an invocation to Narasimha, an Avatāra of Vishnu, rather than to Ganesha as do most Hindus. There is indeed an element of validity in this approach in so far as it helps the devotee to focus on his spiritual practices. But if it generates into reviling the other Ishta-Devatās and or into a phobia of them, then it becomes an obstacle in one’s spiritual progress. Numerous stories below narrate how Hindu Dharma frowns upon the sentiment of an active aversion towards Divine Forms that are not one’s Ishta Devatā.

9.6.6 Relationships with Saguṇa Sākāra Brahman

Worshipping a Divine with a tangible Form(s) and beautiful attributes is very conducive to the path of Bhakti because the devotee can establish several kinds of loving relationships with associated emotions with Him, mirroring the relationships and emotions we have with other human beings in our lives. Describing these emotions and relationships in detail is beyond the scope of this treatise. Even with respect to Saguṇa Sākāra Brahman, Hindu Dharma provides unique and multiple options – Vibhūti, Avatāra, Mūrti and even Īshvara. The table below illustrates how Hindu conception of Saguṇa Sākāra Brahman provides the broadest possibilities for developing a living, meaningful and intense connection with the Divine vis-àvis the possibilities in other faith traditions-

# Bhāva in

Hindu Bhakti (emotion and relationship) Description of Bhāva Christianity Islam Sikhism

1 Shānta ‘The Lord is my King, Supreme, Majestic and above the creation’ Yes Yes Yes. Prominent in Guru Granth.

2 Dāsya ‘Lord is my Master, I am

His slave’ Yes Yes, a prominent Bhāva, based on fear of Allah Yes

3 Sakhya ‘Lord is my companion and friend’ No No Yes

4 Vātsalya ‘I love the Lord as my child’ Only with respect to child Jesus No No

5 Madhura ‘The Lord is my Beloved’ Only Nuns with respect to Jesus No except in Sufism No

6 Kānta ‘The Lord is my Spouse’ Nuns with respect to Jesus No Yes

7 Apatya ‘The Lord is my Mother or

Father’ Yes Yes Yes

8 Sahodara ‘The Lord is my Sibling’ No No No

9 Atithi ‘The Lord is my Guest’ Marginal Bhāva No No

10 Sākshi ‘Lord is my Witness’ Yes Yes Yes

11 Guru ‘He is my Teacher’ Yes Yes Yes. Prominent Bhāva

12 Īshvara ‘He is my Protector,

Creator, Nourisher etc.’ Yes Yes Yes

13 Ātma ‘He and I are One’ Marginal Bhāva No except in Sufism Yes

14 Antaryāmī ‘He is my inner abiding

Ātmā’ Marginal Bhāva No except in Sufism Yes

15 Viraha ‘I perpetually long to meet my Lord’ Marginal Bhāva No except in Sufism Yes

16 Dvesha ‘I have an obsessive hatred for Him’ No No No

17 Vīra ‘He inspires me to fight against tyranny’ Inspired crusades. Inspires Jihads against Kāfirs. Yes (prominent in

Dasham Granth)

These Bhāvas listed above are not completely exclusive of each other. For example, there is a lot of similarity between Dāsya Bhāva and Īshvara Bhāva. It has been said that the different Bhāvas are like different lanes on the same highway, and all lead to the same goal. People travelling with different speeds (i.e., abilities and preferences) and in different vehicles (or circumstances in life) simple happen to choose one lane or the other, and can switch lanes every now and then.

9.7 The Concept of Ishta-Devatā and Hindu Pluralism

The Hindu worshipper does not deny the existence of Devatās other than his Ishta Devatā. Secondly, he cannot insult or ignore the other Devatās. Finally, most Hindus, will not even regard their Ishta Devatā as superior to the other Devatās. Bilvamangala, an ardent devotee of Shiva from South India, writes in a verse that although he is a faithful devotee of Shiva and recites this five syllabled mantra to Him, nevertheless when he thinks of the radiance of the face of Krishna, he derives immense joy – so much so that Krishna and Shiva appear same to him.

Hindus belonging to different traditions of worship do not fight with each other because they all understand that these are all different manifestations of the same One God. In contrast, people of other religions who claim to be Monotheists keep fighting with people of other religions, and people of their own religion over the nature of God, and over whose God is true. The Civil War of Europe between Catholics and Protestants, Crusades, Jihads etc. are all too well known from history to repeat their horrors here. The Islamic tradition has a particularly rich vocabulary of ‘othering’ the apostate, heretic, non-believer, heterodox and so on.

Most Hindus do not believe that worshipping the Divine as their Ishta-Devatā is necessarily inferior to worshipping Him as an impersonal Nirguṇa Brahman. A western scholar describes very eloquently how the individual preference for different Ishta-Devatās actually underscores the essential Unity of Divinity-

“To some degree, this is true; our understanding or “picture” of God is determined by our own level of spiritual maturity, which is why there are so many different “Gods” to choose from. We simply craft Him in our image and continue to do so until such a time as we might grow beyond the need for such images and move toward a more mature understanding of the Divine. But this is not entirely a bad thing, for in permitting us the luxury of crafting God in our image, it allows us to see the underlying sameness that permeates all images of the Divine that we maintain. This is not only to be expected, but could even be considered an important part of the process of understanding the vastness of the Divine, which truly can be all things to all people.”

A French scholar Francois Gautier once rightfully remarked that Hindus are the only true ‘monotheists’ in the world, because they realize that the same Divinity underlies the many expressions of Him in various religions.

9.7.1 Analogy of Many Rivers Merging into the Ocean

Hindus give the example of all rivers merging with the ocean to explain why this freedom of worshipping Brahman in any form is philosophically and theologically sound.

Just as different rivers lead to the same one big mass of water called ocean, likewise the worship of Brahman in any of Its forms or aspects leads to Brahman alone. It is not proper to ask a worshipper to abandon his Ishta Devatā and adopt another one if his own Ishta is meeting all his spiritual requirements. For example, no one asks a person living on the banks of the Mississippi to relocate to the banks of the Danube or vice versa to get water. The rivers adequately meet the needs of people living on their respective banks. Therefore, it is not proper to persuade someone to abandon his or her Ishta-Devatā in favor of the one that you worship. A famous verse written by a Vaishnava states, for example-

As each drop of water that falls from the skies eventually reaches the ocean, so also salutations to every Deva eventually flow towards Krishna.

A famous verse of the Shivamahimna Stotra of Rishi Puṣhpadanta illustrates the appreciation that Hindus have for diverse modes of worship -

The different practices based on the threefold Vedas, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Pāshupata tradition, Vaiṣhṇava etc. are but various paths to reach the final goal (=Divine). Due to their different aptitudes, preferences and understanding, different paths appeal to various people. But as all streams eventually find their refuge in the ocean, every person eventually reaches you alone, whichever path, straight or twisted, he adopts. Shivamahimna Stotra 7

9.7.2 Do Not Keep Changing the Ishta-Devatā

In fact, it is recommended once we have selected our Ishta-Devatā, we should stick to it and not change our Deity to please others, out of fickle mindedness or out of peer pressure (or persecution). When going down the river to meet the ocean, it is often just faster to just stick to one’s own river rather than keep getting on to the land to transfer to other rivers. Similarly, Hindus believe that if the worshipper keeps changing his Ishta Devatā frequently, he will not make much spiritual progress.

9.7.3 Respecting Devatās other than One’s Ishta Devatā

Loving and revering one’s own mother does not mean that we can disrespect someone else’s mother. Similarly, worshipping one’s own Ishta Devatā does not mean that we criticize or revile the Ishta Devatā of others. For example, a worshipper of Shiva must not revile Vishnu and vice versa. Hindu tradition emphasizes the need to honor all forms of Brahman even while being devoted to one of them in many different ways.

All your names, Devas! Are worthy of our homage, worthy of our praise and worthy of our worship. Rigveda 10.63.2

9.7.4 Sectarianism in Hindu Dharma

A few Hindus however do regard their Ishta Devatā as superior to other Devatās. They will then either refuse to worship other Devatās completely so that their devotion does not get divided and diffused between different Devatās. Or, they consider all other Devatās as superior or subordinate to their own Ishta Devatā. In other words, they perceive all the other Devatās through the prism of their own Ishta Devatā. In rare circumstances, this has motivated some worshippers of Shiva abuse Vishnu, and some worshippers of Vishnu abuse Shiva. However, these instances are indeed exceptional, and inter-sectarian persecutions within the Hindu society have been an exception rather than the rule. This sectarianism goes against the very fundamentals of Hindu teachings. It has been said very aptly-

“Though it is all right to worship many gods, devotees need to guard against the belief that one’s personal form of God is superior to another or that one’s personal form god is greater than the neighbor’s god. In devotion to God, one is supposed to overcome one’s ego. If ego is developed by fighting for one’s god then the whole basis of Hinduism is totally lost. Everyone can have a personal god, but they should try to see their personal god in all forms of God. By doing so, they will be able to establish the oneness of God as well as eradicate the ego and a lot of the inter-religious strife that exists in the world today.”

Several examples can be given from various Hindu traditions to illustrate how the concept of Ishta Devatā does not necessarily promote sectarianism. In the tradition of Shri Vaishnava Hindus, the 4000 hymns composed by the twelve Alvar Saints are considered as holy as the Vedas. In these hymns, Vishnu is considered the Supreme Deity. But the Alvars certainly show the awareness that Vishnu is none other than Shiva, and Shiva is none other than Vishnu.

Poygai Alvar writes:

“His names are Hara and Narayana; his mounts are the bull and the bird; his texts the Agamas and Vedas; his abodes the mount Kailas and the Ocean of Milk; his works dissolution and protection; his hue the fire and the cloud; and yet he is one to all.” Tiruvantati I, verse 5.

Likewise, Pay-Alvar says:

“In the streaming hills Venkatam, the lord my father seems to have both mat hair and crown. He wields both the axe and the discus, wears both a snake around his neck and the sacred thread. Two images blended into one – what a wonder!” Tiruvantati III, verse 63

We may cite another example from the life of the great Gujarati saint Narsi Mehta. He worshipped Shiva at the Gopnath Mahadev Mandir in Junagadh. Pleased with his devotion, Shiva granted him his wish of seeing the dance of Krishna with the Gopis of Vrindavan. Vidyāpati was a devotee of Shiva, Who commanded him to sing praises of Krishna and Radha in NE India. In southern India, Appayya Dikshitar was once refused admission into the Vaishnavite shrine of Tirupati temple because he was a Shaivite. The

next morning, the chief priest of the shrine as astonished to find that the mūrti of Vishnu had overnight transformed into that of Shiva. He profusely apologized to Saint Appayya Dikshitar and requested him to change the mūrti back to its Vaishnavite form.

Several parables exemplify the concept of Ishta Devatā, the associated Hindu pluralism, and the dangers of sectarianism very well.

Parable 1: Swami Samarth Ramdas realizes that Rama and Vithoba are the same:

Once, Swami Samartha Rāmadāsa was on his way to the shrine of Vithobā in Pandharpur when Hanuman appeared to him in a vision and said that the Swami would see none other than Bhagavan Rama there. But when Swami Samartha Rāmadāsa reached the mandir, he was disappointed to see the mūrti of Vithobā (with his hands on the hips) and Rukmini. He was disappointed and prayed, “What has happened to you my Lord? Where are your bow and arrows?” The words of the saint reached Vithobā and he said to Rukmini, “Rāmadāsa has come to see Rama and Sita, his ishta-devatas. Let us change to that form and give a darshana (vision) to Rāmadāsa.” A miracle happened, and the image of Vithobā turned to that of Rama. The image came alive, and Lord Rāma, with his bow and arrow, walked towards the saint, and hugged him. Swami Samartha Rāmadāsa was overwhelmed with the compassion of Vithobā, and he realized that Rama and Vithobā are not different, and they are one and the same.

Parable 2: The Devotee who Saw Vishnu but felt Shiva

The town of Pandharpur was famous for its temple of Vithobā, a form of Bhagavān Vishnu. In that town also lived a famous goldsmith named Narahari. He was a great devotee of Shiva but so narrow was his devotion that he would not worship any Deva but Shiva. He had made a vow that he would not even look at the spire of the temple of Vithobā.

Once, a rich merchant had no son and he vowed that if he became a father, he would give a gold waistband to Vithobā in gratitude. His prayers were answered and soon, a boy was born to him and his wife. The merchant approached Narahari and requested him to take the waist measurement of the mūrti of Vithobā for making the gold waistband. But Narahari refused flatly even if that meant losing the business. So the merchant offered to measure it himself and bring the measurement to Narhari. He went to the temple, took the measurement and then gave it to Narahari. Unfortunately, when the gold waistband was tried on the Mūrti, it was found to be somewhat shorter than needed. The merchant took it back to Narahari and

requested him to add one more section to make it a bit longer. But, this time the merchant discovered that the waistband was a little too long.

Frustrated, the merchant requested Narahari to go himself to the temple to take the measurement of the Mūrti’s waist. Narahari was very reluctant, but he agreed on the condition that he will be taken blind-folded to the temple. The merchant agreed to this condition. While Narahari was being taken to the Mandir, the pilgrims took pity on him for his foolishness for not seeing the beautiful Lord due to his bigotry. But Narahari would not budge from his principles.

There, inside the temple, the blindfolded Narahari placed his tape-measure around the Mūrti of Vithoba. But a surprise was in store for him. Instead of feeling the stone Mūrti, he felt elephant skin, just like the skin that Shiva wears on His waist. Narahari was a but unnerved, but he put the tape-measure around the waist again. But once again, he felt a Mūrti of Shiva with an elephant skin around it. Narahari was convinced that the foolish worshippers of Vithoba were actually worshipping a Mūrti of Shiva.

So he took off his blindfold. But a bigger surprise was in store for him. He saw that he was indeed looking at the Mūrti of Vithoba and there was no elephant skin around its waist. He promptly placed the blindfold again around his head and started measuring the waist. But once again, he felt that he was touching a Mūrti of Shiva. Upon taking off the blind-fold, Narahari confirmed that it was actually Vithoba.

Narahari got the message that Shiva was conveying to him – that Shiva and Vishnu are one and it was foolish on part of Narahari to assume that he could worship Shiva but totally ignore Vishnu, because

They are one half of each other. It is perhaps instructive to cite the following verse from the Hindu scripture:

They who do not distinguish between Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva, but worship them both equally as ONE- these indeed are the true devotees of God. Narada Purana 1.5.72

Parable 3: When the Devas love each other, Why should their Devotees Quarrel?

Once, Narada was fed up of the sectarian bickering of the devotees of the devotees of Vishnu and Shiva, each of whom claimed that their Ishta was superior than that of the others. So he decided to get the truth straight from Vishnu and Shiva. When he went to see Rama, an Avatāra of Vishnu, he found that Rama worshipping Shiva by offering prayers and flowers to a Shiva-Linga. Elated that he had found the answer (“Shiva is greater than Vishnu because the latter worships the former”), he proceed to Mt. Kailash to convey the news to Shiva himself. But there, he found Shiva deep in meditation, worshipping none other than Vishnu! Narada now got the correct answer – that these two great Devas are forms of each other and none is greater than the other. A variation of this story explains the dual meaning of the word ‘Rameshvaram’, which is one of the 12 important shrines to Shiva called the twelve Jyotirlingas. After

Rama vanquished Ravana, the evil king of Lanka, he decided to worship Shiva to atone for the killing involved in the war of Lanka. He consecrated a Shiva-Linga and declared that it should be called ‘Rameshvaram’, which he explained as ‘Shiva, who is the Lord of Rama.’ When Shiva heard this in Mt. Kailash, he smiled and said to His wife Parvati – “The Lord is so humble. He is twisting the meaning of the word ‘Rameshvaram’ which should really mean ‘Rama who is the Lord (of Shiva)!”

In the Hindu tradition, Shiva is considered the narrator par-excellence of the Ramayana, which is the inspiring biography of the Avatāra of Rama. On the other hand, many devotees of Rama like Tulasidas, have dedicated their works with a prayerful verse to Shiva.

Parable 4: Hating others’ Ishta-Devata makes it impossible to love one’s own Ishta-Devatā

There are many versions of the story of Ghantākarna all of which have the central theme that Shiva and Vishnu are the same. In one version of the story that is prevalent in the shrine of Badrinath, Ghantākarna was a doorkeeper of this Vaishnavite shrine. In fact, his image is present at the right side of gate of the Mandir. Although he served as a doorkeeper at this shrine, he hated Vishnu and was an ardent devotee of Shiva. He even hung bells on his ears giving him the name ‘Ghantakarna’. Whenever the worshippers and pilgrims would chant the names of Vishnu, he would shake his head so that the peal of the bells would prevent him from hearing Vishnu’s names. After years of devotion, Shiva appeared to Ghantākarna and offered to fulfill his boon. But when Ghantākarna asked for Moksha, Shiva said – “Look, Vishnu is my other half. You cannot get Moksha by just worshipping me as long as you hate Vishnu. If you truly want Moksha, worship Vishnu because He is very compassionate towards His devotees. He will surely fulfill your desires.” Ghantākarna was heartbroken. He truly did not want to worship Vishnu. But Shiva convinced him to go to Dwaraka, which was ruled by Krishna, an Avatāra of Vishnu.

When Ghantākarna reached Dwaraka, he was surprised to learn that Krishna was at Mt Kailash, where he had gone to worship Shiva to ask for a son. Ghantakarna thought, “This is strange! Shiva asked me to worship Krishna and here I find that Krishna Himself has gone to Mt Kailash to venerate Shiva. So let me also go to Mt Kailash directly to Shiva.” On his way, he stopped at the Badrinath temple where he saw many devotees singing the praises of Vishnu and chanting his names. Ghantākarna too joined these devotees and started singing the praises of Vishnu. So sincerely was his devotion that he was soon lost in meditation. Krishna had still not reached Mt Kailash and was at that time right there in Badrinath. When Krishna heard Ghantākarna chanting His name, appeared in front of him. Ghantākarna was overjoyed to see Krishna and instantly, all of his hatred for Vishnu disappeared. Ghantākarna now became the doorkeeper of the shrine with a difference – he now served with devotion. When he died, his soul merged with Brahman, and devotees erected a statue of him at the entrance of the Badrinath temple.

Parable 5: They who distinguish between different Ishta Devatās, loving one and hating another, suffer terribly:

The narrative of the conflict between Daksha and his son-in-law Shiva is narrated in many Puranas with some variations. The version reproduced below is from the Kūrma Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa with conflicting and irrelevant details excluded.

Daksha

greatly resented the marriage of his daughter Sati to Shiva. He had allowed Sati to marry Shiva only because of her insistence. He thought that Shiva was just a good for nothing, uncouth wanderer and it was a shame that his own daughter had chosen to marry Shiva. But, Daksha’s opinion of Shiva was based merely on His external appearances of a Yogi whose body was covered with ashes, Who wore a snake like a garland on His neck and Who was accompanied by fierce looking Gaṇas at all times. Daksha did not revere Shiva for who He really was – a Form of Brahman.

Once, Daksha organized a huge Yajna. He invited all the Devas, but did not send any invitation to his daughter and son-in-law because their presence would have embarrassed him. Sage Dadhici urged him to include Shiva also but Daksha refused, saying that all the other devatas are already present and he does not recognize Shiva as a deity. All Devatās and sages then left, boycotting the sacrifice. Only Vishnu stayed back and Daksha sought refuge in him.

Shiva did arrive, with his attendants. The latter instead went on a warpath, ruining the sacrifice. At this juncture, Daksha realized his mistake and offered homage to Sati , who interceded on his behalf with Shiva . Lord Shiva instructed Daksha to include all deities and also Himself in his sacrifices.

This was followed by a sermon to Daksha by Brahmā, who described the greatness of Lord Shiva and then asked Daksha not to differentiate between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu because they are not separate, and therefore he should be devoted to both of them.

It is worth citing the relevant verses of Brahmā said to Daksha for his instruction -

From Kūrma Purana

This great mediator, the Imperishable Vishnu Who is your protector is none other than Mahadeva, the Lord of Devatās - there is no doubt in it. 1.14.86

They, who regard Vishnu, the cause of the Universe, as different from Shankara due to a deluded mind or due to lack of adherence to the Vedas, indeed go to hell. 1.41.87 The followers of Vedas behold Vishnu and Rudra with the same feeling (of reverence) and thus become fit for Liberation. 1.41.88

He Who is Vishnu is indeed Rudra Himself; and He who is Rudra is indeed Vishnu. He who worships Brahman, with this understanding; reaches the supreme state (of salvation). 1.14.89

Parable 6: The Girl who kept changing his Ishta-Devatā

A girl was bicycling on the banks of the river and she suddenly lost control and fell into the river. She prayed to Lord Krishna to save her but after a second when he did not come, she lost patience and prayed to Lord Rama. After another second she lost patience again and prayed to Lord Ganesha. She thought that if Krishna did not listen to her, maybe Rama will and if Rama did not listen to her, maybe Ganesha will. But when even Ganesha did not come, she prayed to Lord Shiva. Now she decided to wait for a longer time and suddenly Lord Shiva appeared and pulled her out. She was very grateful and said – “O my Lord Shiva, you are the greatest because I called out to Rama and Krishna and Ganesha and others but no one else came. Only you came to save me.” Lord Shiva said – “You are wrong little girl! You did not have patience. I am the same person who you call Krishna and Rama and Ganesha. But as soon as you called for Krishna and I got ready to come, you started calling for Rama. So I took time to change my form from Krishna to Rama. But you suddenly started calling for Ganesha. Then again I had to change my form to Ganesha. But at last, you called for Shiva and waited and so I did not have to change my form in a hurry. Therefore, I could come and save you. Therefore, next time when you call Me, have patience, and do not think that all the Devas are different. We are all One. Pick your favorite Form and focus all your prayers to

that Ishta-Devatā alone. Or even if you call Me by many names, always remember that all these forms are of One Brahman alone.

Parable 7: When Rama transformed to Krishna

Bilvamangala, a devotee of Shri Krishna, once visited the temples of Rama in Ayodhya. A Sadhu asked him, “Why have you forsaken your Krishna to worship King Rama here?”

Bilvamangal replied, “I see my Krishna alone in Rama. But if you wish that I should worship only Krishna, then I will pray to Rama to transform Himself into Krishna. May Rama leave aside his bow and arrow for a moment and pick a flute. May he take off his royal crown and wear a tiara of peacock feathers for my sake for some time.” A miracle happened, and the murti of Rama transformed to that of Krishna for some time in the full vision of everyone.

This beautiful story demonstrates how a devotee does not cease to worship other Devatas because he sees his own Ishta-Devata in all the other Devatas.

Parable 8: Upamanyu prefers to be a moth rather than become an Indra

Upamanyu was a great devotee of Shiva. To test him, Shiva appeared in front of him in the form of Indra, the king of heaven. When Upamanyu had welcomed and seated Indra, the latter asked him for a boon. But Upamanyu replied, “If Shiva wishes, I am willing to become even a moth or an insect. But I will no desire to assume the rulership of even the entire universe even if Indra offers it to me.” Shiva was very pleased with the single-mindedness of Upamanyu’s devotion, and now appeared assumed his usual form with the Trishul, locks of hair with the Ganga emerging from them.

9.8 Worshipping Non-Brahman

The freedom of worship permitted in the Hindu tradition does not mean that ‘anything goes’ in this matter. The fact of the matter is that people worship Divinity with different intents and also with a different understanding. And therefore the results of their worship cannot be the same even though Brahman responds to all of these different worshippers with compassion and love.

There are two considerations that affect the fruit of our worship:

• The first is object of our worship, or the Deity (or the Form) to which the worship is offered.

• The second is the intent of the worship. We have already cited the opinion of the Gita on this point above.

9.8.1 Results of Worshipping something other than Brahman:

Hindus worship Brahman in many ways as described in the preceding sections. They can ask for either mundane favors (like children, or wealth) or for the final goal, which is Moksha. In addition, Hindus also worship the Devas (through Vedic ceremonies), Pitars (souls of departed individuals worshipped through ceremonies like the Shrāddha) and Bhūtas (malevolent powers, nature spirits that are local in nature and are worshipped through Tantric rites, through sacrifices of fowl etc.). Typically however, Moksha is

not sought from the Devas, Pitars or from the Bhūtas. It is sought only from Brahman worshipped in any of its five forms.

Among Hindus, those who perform Vedic ritual ceremonies typically do so with intent to gain some earthly or other-worldly reward from the Devatās. These ceremonies quickly result in the desired fruit, but that fruit itself also gets exhausted after some time.

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Those who desire success from actions in this world make sacrifices to the Devas; because success is indeed quickly obtained from these actions in this world of humans. Gita 4.12

But limited and temporary is the fruit gained by these worshippers who have a limited intelligence. The worshippers of Devas go to the Devas, likewise My worshippers reach Me. Gita 7.23

The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes that the worship of either Brahman, Devas, Pitars or Bhūtas is not fruitless. But the fruits are different in each of the four cases.

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Those who are devoted to the Devas go to the Devas. Those who are devoted to the ancestors go to the ancestors. Those who are devoted to the spirits go to the spirits. Those who worship Me come surely to Me. Gita 9.25

What the results and goals of worshipping Pitars or Bhūtas are is not described in the Gita. However, it is well known that Pitars are worshipped for achieving mundane benefits (e.g., for children by an issueless couple) through rites like the shrāddha ceremonies. The Bhūtas are worshipped primarily for ‘warding off disease or calamity’ and other limited reasons through rites prescribed in scriptures like the Gāruḍa Tantras and so on.

How does the worship of these entities achieve its intended result? Do these deities have the power to bestow the fruit of worship to them? The Bhagavad Gita disagrees, and declares that even the fruit (limited by its very nature) of worship to these deities comes from Brahman.

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Those whose minds are distorted by desires resort to other Devatās (different from Me), observing various injunctions and rites, and constrained by their own natures. Gita 7.20

Whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his stead. Gita 7.21

Endowed with that faith, he seeks the propitiation of such a one and from him he obtains his desires, but the benefits are actually declared by Me alone. Gita 7.22

9.8.2 Rivers not leading to Brahman: Doctrine of Adhikāra and one’s Deity

The worship of these entities that are different from Brahman may be explained again with the riverine analogy. Some rivers do end up in inland lakes and not in the ocean. And a few dry out even before reaching the ocean or a terminal lake. The boatman will travel some distance on these rivers but he will never reach the ocean. Likewise, worshipping something other than Brahman does not lead to Moksha, the final goal of our life. It may beget some other smaller and more temporary benefits, but nothing more. Some boatmen just do not want to reach the ocean. They are just content sailing down a little downstream, and then stop. Likewise, many worshippers do not desire Moksha and are content with ephemeral fruit. The Bhagavad Gita clearly states one’s faith and values are what decides our Deity:

Krishna said to Arjuna

Sattvic people worship the Devas,

Rajastic people worship the Yakshas and Rakshasas.

Other people who are Tamasic,

Worship the categories of spirits of the dead and ghosts. Gita 17.4

So does Hindu Dharma condemn these people who worship the heavenly Devatās and other entities different from Brahman? The answer is a clear ‘no.’ Hindu Dharma recognizes the fact that even people living on the banks of river that terminate inland nevertheless derive some benefit – like water for drinking and irrigation, even though the river may not be able to take them to the ocean. Likewise, the worshippers of these non-Brahman entities nevertheless get some temporary benefit even though it cannot lead the worshipper to the final goal – Brahman.

Some people are in fact not interested in the final goal of Moksha. Their understanding is limited and they will not fathom the fact that happiness from temporary material rewards and material goods are eclipsed greatly by the bliss of Moksha. All they want are things like children, a big house, expensive clothes and jewelry, latest electronic gadgets, success in school tests, a good job and so on. Given their understanding and their circumstances, it is understandable that they would want only these things and not even reflect on the means of achieving Moksha.

But just like a loving parent appreciates and fulfills the wants of his little innocent child without lecturing the child on stuff like ‘college education’ and the like, Brahman too fulfills the temporary and trivial wants of his devotees who is not yet advanced spiritually. Just like a child learns and grows mentally with time, and outgrows his trivial wants, the devotee too outgrows his trivial desires as he advances spiritually, and eventually aspires for the final goal – Moksha.

This Doctrine of Adhikāra, according to which different worshippers can be at different stages of spiritual development and will all reach Brahman eventually, allows Hindus who are more learned, wise, and spiritual, to look at their less fortunate brethren with love, understanding and compassion. Not with condescension, hatred or contempt. Indeed, Brahman does not condemn worshippers of powers different from It, but increases their faith through them, unlike the Abrahamic God who punishes people for worshipping other ‘false’ gods.

To conclude, Hindus do accept that there is a hierarchy of worshippers according to what they worship (Brahman, Devas, Yakshas, Rakshasas, Pretas, Bhutas) but nevertheless none of them are condemned or damned eternally.

9.8.3 The ‘Correct Way’ of worshipping Devatās other than Brahman:

Interestingly however, Bhagavad Gita does not discourage the performance of Vedic ceremonies (Yajnas) meant for worshipping Devatās residing in heaven even by those who aspire only for Moksha and have no interest in temporary rewards. ‘Yajna’ is almost always incorrectly translated as ‘sacrifice’ in which human beings, who are subservient to the Devas, offer their own wealth to the demanding and greedy gods.

But in reality, it is not so. A modern scholar says,

“Yajna has usually been interpreted as sacrifice. This is most unfortunate, because sacrifice connotes the wrong images and associations from the beginning. A yajna is clearly a celebration, something easily overlooked when focusing on it as sacrifice. Perhaps it would be better to translate this word as “sacrificial celebration,” an expression that points to both the sacrificial and the celebrative dimension of yajna. The reason for insisting on the celebrative dimension is that the whole of the Rg Veda is essentially a collection of songs of celebration. What is being celebrated is existence itself – in its various powers, transformations, and mysteries. Most of the hymns are addressed to Gods or Goddesses, the symbols of the powers of existence. Celebrating the powers symbolized by the Gods, the hymns open the way to human sharing in these powers.”

“…it [yajna] is simultaneously (1) the celebration of the achieved powers of existence, (2) the renewal of existence by returning to the ground of becoming, and (3) the creation of new existence out of the offering of the fullness of present existence. Clearly, yajna is not merely a matter of making sacrificial offerings to the Gods in exchange for their benefits and blessings. Rather, it is the participatory act through which human beings create and maintain their existence in the world.”

The Gita offers several reasons why even the enlightened should continue to perform these ceremonies:

1. They are enjoined by the Vedas and therefore their abandonment is not good because we must follow the dictates

2. Performance of Yajnas purifies the wise. (Gita 18.5)

3. Oblations made in the Yajnas do reach the Devas and keeps the wheel of life moving. (Gita 3.1016)

4. Even if the wise do not need to perform the Yajnas, they should perform them nevertheless for the greater good of the world, to set an example for others (Gita 3.21), and so as not to confuse those who are not as enlightened and knowledgeable as they are (Gita 3.26).

Therefore, one should continue to perform Yajnas, but without attachment to these actions, and without a desire for the fruit of these good karma. (Gita 18.6). A detailed discussion of Karma-Yoga doctrine of the Gita is beyond the scope of the present document, and what is presented here is a very brief summary of the relevant points.

9.8.4 Worship of Non-God in other Religions

Not only Hindus, the followers of other religions too worship entities that are not God.

• Many Christians (largely Catholics and Orthodox Christians) also worship Saints and Angels for worldly benefits. They also believe that these Saints as well as Jesus can intercede on their behalf so that they can enter heaven. There are saints for every specific desire and for every specific profession.

• Many Muslims also worship other supernatural figures called Jinns, and at the graves of dead holy men for getting mundane rewards (like success, or children) while others ask for the same things from Allah. Even though the Salafist brand of Islam is trying to stamp out these practices in areas under their control, often using violence, they continue to persist in the Islamic societies.

• Sikhs too revere their Gurus and their holy book, the Adi Granth. The name ‘Waheguru’ for God at once refers not only to the Divine, but also reminds them of their Gurus. Many Sikhs continue to worship Hindu Deities, and the words of the Gurus themselves in the Adi Granth are evidence of their worship of the Hindu Deities.

• Followers of Chinese religions worship ancestors. They also worship Buddha if they subscribe to Buddhism.

• Followers of Shintoism also worship different nature spirits and also extra-terrestrial gods.

In general, Abrahamic religions are highly intolerant of the worship of anything other than their one God. From a Hindu perspective however, the Abrahamic God Himself often assumes the characteristics of heavenly Devas, Pitars, Bhutas etc., going by His traits described in the Bible and the Koran.

Swami Vivekananda underlines the distinction between the Hindu worship of Mūrtis with the image and other iconic venerations in Abrahamic faiths in the following words:

“Now worship of anything other than Brahman cannot generate Bhakti and Mukti. Such worship is at best idolatry. Though in no way sinful, it can at best yield the result accruing

to it, but not Bhakti and Moksha. It is like ritualistic Karma of the Vedas. Unless the worshipper views that Pratika as an expression of Brahman and worships it as Brahman, it will not lead to Bhakti and Mukti.

This is true of Pratimas also. A Pratima is an image of a god or a saint. If the image stands only for the god or the saint, such worship will not lead to Bhakti and Mukti. But if it stands for the one God, that worship will bring both Bhakti and Mukti.

In every great religion, the worship of Pratikas and Pratimas has entered on some form or other. Muslims, while externally standing against image worship, use the graves of their saints and martyrs for worship. The Kaba is also holy for them. The Catholics use images freely. But in all these religions, such worship takes only the form of pure Pratika worship without any idea of worshipping the one universal God through them, in other words, merely as acts of propitiation and not as help to the vision (Drishtisaukaryam) of God. Therefore, they are at best like ritualistic Karma and cannot produce Bhakti or Mukti.”

A comprehensive comparison of Hindu Theology versus those of other sacred traditions is given in the next chapter.

10.0 INTERFAITH PERSPECTIVES

10.1 Hindu ‘Polytheism’ and Hindu Tolerance of Diversity:

Hindu Dharma has evolved in a huge landmass with incredible geographical diversity. Accordingly, Hindus have perceived Brahman in many, many different ways and the Hindu tradition itself acknowledges this diversity by accepting and validating all of their diverse experiences. In contrast, faiths like Islam that evolved in a bleak desert where the contrast between sandy wastes and the wide open sky is quite start can only picture a God (Allah) who is harsh, and who demands exclusive allegiance. Either you are with Allah, or you are against Allah.

How does Hindu Dharma’s concept of Brahman make Hindus a very pluralistic and tolerant people? A scholar explains -

“Hinduism abounds with every possible name and form for Truth or the Divine. This is because Hinduism requires that we see the same reality in all the diversity of creation – that we see the same Self in all beings. It is not because Hinduism is trapped in the diversity of name and form but because its sense of unity is inclusive, not exclusive. As a formulation of Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism is not attached even to its own names and forms, however diverse. It can accommodate the names and forms of all religions into its comprehensive view. This universal view permeates the form of the teachings of Hinduism, which consists of many different approaches to the same One Reality. It allows the teachings of Hinduism to encompass all time and all religion, and affords it a characteristic tolerance and syncretic view of life.”

On the proverbial Hindu tolerance, the same scholar says:

“As a conscious formulation of Sanatana Dharma, Hinduism remains close to its basic principles of universality and eternity. This universality even encompasses partiality. Hinduism holds that it is alright for any one of us to think that our particular religion is the best, or that our teacher is the highest, if such thoughts increase faith and concentration in our inner practices. But we should recognize the right of others to think the same of their teachings, and not try to impose our point of view upon them. Sanatana Dharma requires that we respect the sacred nature of each individual and his or her own private relationship with Divinity, which is not for us to judge.”

This distinction between the liberal Dharmic (Hindu and Sikh) and the rigid Abrahamic religious notions of Divinity have resulted in different historical outcomes of these two streams of faiths. Whereas Hindu Dharma has spread through a process of peaceful assimilation of neighboring populations along with adoption of their alien traditions (resulting in an incredible diversity of worship within the Hindu society), the Abrahamic faiths have spread largely by destroying the older religions that were practiced by the converted populations. The aggressive, offensive and intrusive nature of the Abrahamic traditions has persisted to a great extent even today. Streams of missionaries, peaceful and not so peaceful, are constantly sent out to unconverted populations to undermine their ancestral beliefs and convert them to Islam or to Christianity. And where these two Abrahamic religions have come face to face with each other, endemic violence between their respective followers has been the result. This is the case in countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, Lebanon, Egypt, Chad, Central African Republic, Sudan, Serbia and so on where both the followers of Islam and Christianity are significant proportions of the population of the same country.

In contrast, the Hindu concepts of Iṣhta-Devatā and Adhikāra have ensured that pluralism in matters of worshipping Brahman are a cornerstone of Hindu Dharma-

“There are various cults in Hinduism and a variety of creeds. But conflict among them is avoided by the twin doctrines of adhikāra and ishta. Adhikāra means eligibility. A person’s faith is determined by the kind of man he is. There is no use, for instance, in putting a boy in the Honours Class, if he is fit only for the Pass Course. What is meat for one may be poison for another. A man’s creed depends upon his adhikāra. And it is his eligibility that determines his ishta or ideal. Hinduism prescribes to each according to his needs. Hence it is not to be considered as a single creed or cult, but as a league of religions, a fellowship of faiths.”

In addition to these two concepts, the Hindu vision of Parabrahman acknowledges that no description or conception can adequately fathom His nature. A similar concept exists on other religions too, but it is emphasized to a far greater degree in Hindu and Sikh traditions than in others. The result of this was that,

“Because of the depth and profundity of primordial wholeness of existence, it is accepted that no description, formula, or symbol can adequately convey the entire truth about anything. Each perspective provides a partial glimpse of the reality, but none provides a complete view. Different partial – even opposing – visions are regarded as complementing each other, each contributing something to a fuller understanding of reality. Accordingly, every means to penetrate the ultimate level of reality and to experience one’s identity with this reality must be utilized, and Indian thinkers exhibit a ready willingness to adopt new perspectives, and new positions. Old positions and perspectives are not abandoned, however. The new is simply added on to the old, providing another dimension to one’s knowledge. The new dimension may render the old less dominant or important, but it does not require the latter’s rejection. A friend once likened the traditional storehouse of Indian

ideas to a four-thousand-year-old attic to which things were added every year but which was never once cleaned out!

…. The conviction that the highest truth is too profound to allow anyone to get an exclusive grasp on it underlies not only the syncretic attitude, but also a general spirit of tolerance in the realm of beliefs. Heresy is practically impossible, because, when no beliefs can be said to be absolutely true, no beliefs can be declared absolutely false. In one family a grandfather may worship Ganapati, an uncle worship Vishnu, the mother worship Krishna, and the son be an atheist – all without upsetting the father who is a priest connected with the Devi temple. Perhaps no other culture has permitted – indeed, encouraged – so much religious tolerance; fanaticism has been a rare phenomenon over the centuries. It should be pointed out, however, that this extreme tolerance with respect to the beliefs was nearly matched by an intolerance of action. Nonconformity to codes of action were not tolerated by family, caste, or village.”

Indeed, as Pattanaik (2015, pp. 135-136) argues, the Abrahamic Deity is an extremely jealous entity who brooks no tolerance for any perceived threats to his supremacy:

The God of Abrahamic mythology is constantly described as jealous and possessive, someone who does not tolerate false gods. The God of Hindu mythology does not create such divisions, and is seen present in diverse local and folk deities, who serve as portals of a larger singular divine entity.

One can say that the Abrahamic idea of God seeks purity and so shuns contamination by the ‘false’, while the Hindu idea of God seeks completeness, and so keeps including many incomplete ideas of the divine in the journey towards infinity. This could account for why the legacy of pre-Christian Europe, America and Arabia has been completely wiped out or hidden while various Vedic, pre-Vedic, post-Vedic and extra-Vedic practices continue to thrive and influence each other in India, under the large umbrella of terms called Hinduism.

From a Hindu perspective, it can in fact be argued, that the God of Abrahamic religions is not really a Universal Divinity like Brahman, because their God does not make Himself equally accessible to ‘nonbelievers’. He hates these people and is instead partial towards the ‘believers’, whom he selectively favors. But, if ‘one size fits all’ is hardly the case in real life, so how can it apply to spiritual pursuits in a pluralistic world? Therefore, we must accept the fact that people will naturally perceive God in different ways. Hindu Dharma naturally allows this diversity of views, whereas the Abrahamics adopt a more ‘my way of the highway’ attitude.

10.2 Hindu Dharma as the only ‘Monotheistic’ Spiritual Tradition

How is it possible that worship of anything ‘other than’ Brahman results in something good? Is the worship of anything other ‘Brahman’ fruitless or futile? We see millions of people worshipping not the Brahman in his various aspects as taught in the Hindu tradition, but in other ways. So what is the result of

their worship? Are these worshippers merely wasting their time? The Gita gives a very beautiful answer to these questions and re-assures everyone:

Krishna said to Arjuna:

Those whose knowledge has been affected by different desires seek refuge in other deities. They observe diverse rituals relevant to the tradition of worship of these respective deities, being constrained by their own material nature . Gita 7.20

Whichever form (deity) such a devotee seeks to worship with faith, in that very form I make his faith unswerving (or firm). Gita 7.21

Endowed with that faith, he seeks to worship that form (god) and through that, he fulfills his desires, which are really fulfilled my Me (through the medium of that form or god). Gita 7.22

Even they who worship other Devas with faith also worship Me alone, although they do so in ignorance. Gita 9.23

Because I indeed am the Lord of all yajnas (worship ceremonies). But these worshippers (who pray to these other Devas) do not know Me, and therefore they fall (i.e., are reborn after the fruit of their prayers is exhausted). Gita 9.24

In other words, unlike some religions who declare that all ‘non-believers worship false gods’ and therefore ‘their prayers are futile and they will go to hell’, Hindu Dharma says that there is only One Brahman who alone responds to the prayers of everyone, no matter who the worshipper addresses his prayer to. It is Brahman who responds to the prayers of a Muslim worshipping’ Allah’, of a Christian worshipping ‘God’, of a Jew worshipping ‘Yahweh’, of a Sikh worshipping ‘Waheguru’ and of a Buddhist worshipping Buddha because all of their prayers actually end up only with Brahman and none else. Therefore, it has been remarked that Hinduism is perhaps the only religion that is truly monotheistic. To quote a scholar:

“The other ideas of the Divine which Semitic religions hold – their so-called monotheism – is only a form of disguised idolatry; for when it is said that Jehovah is a jealous God, or that there is no God but Allah, it obvious that the Supreme Being is identified as an exclusive individual and not as an expression of an Infinite Being in terms of the human mind. When the link with the Infinite is forgotten, a Deity, whether it is a monotheistic entity or a polytheistic being, becomes a mere idol. Real worship of the Supreme being, becomes a mere idol. Real worship of the Supreme Being is possible only when the principle of Vedantic Polytheism is understood- that principle being the perception of the infinite Personal-Impersonal Being through a limited and humanized manifestation of Him. A Vedantic Deity is never aggressive, demanding the overthrow of other Deities. But a monotheistic Deity, always a jealous God, cannot tolerate another Deity. As Toynbee pointed out, the monotheistic Deity of the Semitics is only an apotheosis of the group or

tribal consciousness of certain people, a sentiment that held together societies before nationalism took its place. Just as the nationalistic patriotism is eager to absorb all other countries, that form of group consciousness masquerading as monotheism wants to supplant all other religions and establish its Deity in their sanctuaries. Proselytism, for which many religions stand but which has no place in the Vedantic scheme, is the consequence of entertaining a God who is not an expression of the Infinite Being but a personalization of the group consciousness of a people.”

In modern times, followers of other religions merely pay lip-service to currently fashionable ideas like religious pluralism and diversity. In contrast, Hindu Dharma provides a theological justification for accepting the diversity of worship and ritual in its very core scriptures. Religious pluralism is therefore something that is ingrained into the heart of Hindus and is not something that they need to learn from others.

10.3 Reconciling the Spiritual Visions and NDE of Followers of Different Religions

Many individuals, who were declared dead clinically or were thought to be dead, have miraculously recovered. Some of them have reported meeting super-natural figures of light who asked the dead person’s soul to return to the world, causing the person to become alive again.

A few of the accounts diverge from the predominant descriptions that accord well with Hindu scriptural teachings, and include meetings with angels, seeing God and going to a heaven as narrated in the Bible. A book (“Heaven is for Real”) based on the recollections of a child born in a devout Christian family is very popular among American Christians. Similarly, many Hindus have narrated seeing their own Devatās.

Hindus do not find these conflicting accounts disturbing to our religious convictions. Death is a traumatic experience in which the ātman of the dead person is uprooted from this world and sent to the

next. The ātman encounters a totally alien environment even while being attached to its prior existence when it lived in a body. Hindus would explain that just as Brahman assumes forms out of love for us, so also, he would ensure that the departed souls conditioned by their religious upbringing in this world are initially made to experience an environment with which they are more comfortable and familiar, so as not to exaggerate their trauma of death.

Similarly, we can explain the diverse spiritual visions of the followers of different faiths.

10.4 Distortion of Hindu concept of Brahman by Christian Fundamentalists

Example 1: Lord Shiva is the ‘Destroyer’ and ‘Satan’

Christian fundamentalists misrepresent Shiva as the ‘destroyer’ of the world, and therefore an equivalent to their ‘Satan’ who is out there to destroy and lead people astray from God. But this is totally different from how Hindus perceive Shiva. For the Shaivite Hindus, he is the Supreme Brahman that manifests in three different aspects (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) and even for non-Shaivite Hindus, he is much more than merely the ‘Destoyer’. Shiva is a manifestation of Brahman for all Hindus, and is the concept of Satan who is the anti-thesis of God, and is outside of God is totally un-Hindu. Malhotra explains and counters the Christian distortions in the following words–

“Shiva is often mistranslated as ‘the destroyer’ and assumed to be the antithesis of Brahma, the ‘creator’ and Vishnu, the ‘preserver’. We have seen that Brahma is not a Creator-God in the Judeo-Christian sense, nor is Shiva a destroyer-God as many writers today think. Shiva might perhaps best be described as a transformer who moves humanity and the universe forward in the evolution of consciousness. This evolution entails dissolution of the falsely constructed mental frame of reference (nama-rupa) and is different from destruction. The transformation brought by Shiva is a deconstruction process that has been misconstrued as destruction. The physical and material dissolution may also be seen as end

of a cycle – making room for fresh manifestation in the same way as one season gives way to another. The tradition emphasizes continuity, making every apparent destruction, in fact, a transformation.

Shiva is therefore also described as the lord of dance and of yoga, enlightenment and mysticism, and this is why he inspires so much more devotion than he would if he were thought of simply as ‘destroyer’.”

Example 2: Anthropomorphic Deities and Deities with many Hands and Heads:

Swami Bhaskarananda discusses, in brief, why Hindu images have these super-natural forms –

“Some images used by Hindus to worship God have several arms, or more than one head. The images also have different colors. To portray God’s various powers many arms are used, each arm symbolizing a different power of God. Some images have one hundred, or even one thousand arms, to indicate that God has infinite powers. For the same reason, Hindus sometimes put more than one head on images. The blue color of an image indicates the unfathomable and infinite nature of God. Similarly, other colors may symbolize other aspects of God.”

10.5 Comparison of Brahman/Īshvara with the Abrahamic ‘God’

The Hindu philosophy of Brahman and Īshvara are more comprehensive and logical compared to the Abrahamic notions of God. In the former, the Divine is both transcendent and immanent (i.e. beyond the creation as well as within it; and the creation itself is a part of the Divine) whereas in the latter, God is transcendent, and it is blasphemous to regard the creation as a part of God. A western Christian scholar explains this vital difference between the Hindu and the Abrahamic viewpoints:

“In this concept [Western concept of a transcendent God], God is perceived as a spirit or personality that exists outside of, and apart from, “His” (and God is invariably thought of in masculine terms within most Western traditions) creation like some great benevolent monarch overseeing a vast kingdom. He is thought to be a conscious, moral agent of unlimited power and intellect that, though existing entirely apart from time and matter, uses both His ongoing quest to create and, when necessary, destroy. He is “first cause” or, more precisely, that from which everything else emanates, and there is nothing that exists that He did not first conceive of and create through the sheer power of His will. To such a God, the universe was brought into existence in the distant past and will end at some future date, at which point time will come to an end and the great “experiment” will be concluded.”

“…From this perspective [the Eastern concept of an Immanent God], to speak of God is to refer to all that is, all that has ever existed, and all that ever will exist. God is not a someone or something that creates things out of nothingness, but rather God is the creation itself – every molecule, every cell, and every atom in the universe are all a part of the vast and infinite “body” of God. It is eternal and immortal, has always existed and will always exist, without beginning or end. To the Eastern mind, then, God does not “bring forth” the universe and all within it; God is the universe and all within it.”

The differences between the Hindu and Abrahamic notions of the Divine may be represented diagrammatically as below -

10.6 Comparing Hindu Theology with Abrahamic Theology

It has become very fashionable in modern ‘secular-Indian’ and ‘Interfaith Dialogue’ circles to suggest that Brahman and Īshvara of Hindu Dharma is the same as God of Abrahamic traditions. Although this fashionable claim may be driven by a genuine desire to promote inter-faith harmony, or due to sheer innocent ignorance, it does not reflect the truth. Malhotra elaborates on the difference between Brahman/Īshvara and God, and explains why the former cannot be translated as ‘God’:

“The word Brahman comes from the root brih, which means ‘to expand’. The all-expansive ultimate reality which creates all, lives in all and transcends all is Brahman. To translate it as ‘God’ in the Judeo-Christian sense diminishes its meaning. The ‘God’ whom Moses saw on Mount Sinai and from whom he received the stone tablets is not remotely the same as Brahman. This Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the universe, distinct and separate from it. Furthermore, this God is authoritative, punishes those who transgress rules, and intervenes in history at specific times and places. Brahman, on the other hand, is the cosmos and resides in each one of us, unrealized as atman, making us ultimately Brahman. This makes Brahman ever-present and accessible; indeed, enlightened spiritual masters who are in unity with Brahman always among us, in every era, to serve as guides. The idea of nondual unity with God is absent for mainstream practitioners of the Judeo-Christian faith, though it is buried among their mystics who have often been marginalized by institutionalized churches.

In much the same way, the term Īshvara is not the same as the Judeo-Christian notion of God. Īshvara has countless forms of manifestations depending on each individual’s choice of form (ishta-devata). Each of the terms (Brahman, Ishwara, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi etc.) has the implications which are distinct from one another. These terms (and various others) cannot all be collapsed into a monolithic concept of God.”

The Abrahamic religions simply lack the notion of Parabrahman, and even their notion of God is very restrictive as compared to the conception of Īshvara. For one, Īshvara is seen as a derivative of Brahman-

“The Judaic god is not the Īsvara of Sanātan Dharma. Īsvara creates differently, it manifests itself differently and its relationship with man and the world are of a very different order. At a fundamental level an Indian seeker looks at a reality that is even greater than the theistic notion of Īsvara. Saints and sages have impelled men to push beyond the limits of a particular manifestation and apprehended the one great truth that exists everywhere and in everything. Godliness or Īsvaratā is only an expression of the Supreme Being who is the ultimate reality and the ultimate truth.”

A western scholar explains how the Hindu adoration of Brahman/Īshvara differs from Abrahamic adoration of God due to this difference in our understandings of the Divine:

“….The Eastern mind considers recognizing the Divine in all things to be the purest form of adoration or worship possible, while the Western insistence on making God personal (or human, for that matter) would be to minimize the Divine. In essence, to the Easterner, the transcendent God of Western religion is insulting in that it presumes the Divine might be contained within the parameters of a single entity or being.”

He also explains how, from an Eastern (= Hindu) viewpoint, the Abrahamic adoration of God is inadequate, because it circumscribes the Infinite Divinity into a limited Personality:

transcendent God of Western religion is insulting in that it presumes the Divine might be contained within the parameters of a single entity or being.”

The diagram below compares Hindu theology with Abrahamic theology in general terms.

10.7 A Hindu Critique of God in Abrahamic Religions:

Several sections of this document have contrasted Abrahamic notions of God with Hindu notions of Brahman. This section is meant not to repeat those points again, but to state additional Hindu perspectives on the God of the Bible and the Koran from a critical perspective.

First, given that pluralism is the bedrock of Hindu beliefs and practices, Hindus find it very difficult to comprehend how the god of the Bible, who claims to love all humans, can say these words himself or through his prophets-

In the Bible, Moses warns his people –

“If you do not obey the Lord, then you will be destroyed just like those nations that he is going to destroy as you advance.” Dueteronomy 8.20 God himself warns in the Bible:

“If you will only obey Me, you will eat all the good things the land produces. But if you defy Me, you are doomed to die.” Isaiah 1.18

Those who do not worship the God of the Bible are warned by God himself:

“I myself will tear them to pieces and then leave them. Then I drag them off, no one will be able to save them.” Hosea 5.14-15 God further adds:

“No pity, compassion or mercy will stop me from killing them.” Jeremiah 12.14-17 Prophet Isaiah too warns:

“He has condemned them to destruction. Their corpses will not be buried, but will lie there rotting and stinking; and the mountains will be red with blood.” Isaiah 34.2-3

A Christian Saint even wrote that one of the rewards of a believer will be watching the unbelievers being tortured in hell, and feel glad that he had not erred like them. Numerous church hymnals right down to our times have the worshippers sing how blessed they were to believe in the only true god and how damned the infidels and pagans were.

Similar statements are found in hundreds in the Koran, wherein ‘idol-worshippers’ and those who ‘reject’ Allah and his prophets are condemned to everlasting hell where they will be roasted perpetually in an oven along with their ‘stones’ (=idols) and forced to consume the bitter fruit from the tree of Zakkhum there.

Allah has condemned the

‘unbelievers’ not only after their death, but has also exhorted Muslims to persecute and slaughter them even in this world. ‘Infidels’ are prevented by the Koran from even entering or passing through the holy cities of Mecca and Medina because the ‘polytheists are unclean’ (Surah 9 of the Koran) which is nothing but divinely ordained untouchability. The results of these types of teachings on the disruption of world peace and interfaith harmony are quite obvious even in our times.

Second, the doctrine of Satan misleading humans on this earth also implicates God as a party in the crime. Hindus reject any notion of a powerful Satan and make humans take responsibility for their own karma. Historically speaking, the concept of the Devil or Satan was absent in ancient Abrahamic traditions, and was borrowed from the Zoroastrians when the Israelis were enslaved and deported from Israel to Mesopotamia by the Persian Emperors. The fact that God allows this Devil to freely go and tempt humans due to which they go to an eternal hell is not a very loving trait. In modern courts of law, not merely the perpetrator and instigator of a crime is held culpable, but also someone who is a silent accomplice.

Third, Hindus reject the notion of heaven as a perpetual reward for good deeds and correct beliefs as is taught by the Abrahamic religions. According to Christian theologians, less than 200,000 people will enter heaven, leaving other billions destined for hell. The Koranic heaven on the other hand reminds one of things that inhabitants of a bleak desert would want all the time. The Islamic heaven promises

gardens watered by underground rivers, fruit laden trees, 72 beautiful women for each believing men (although women are promised only 1 man), pearl complexioned boys serving wine (which is banned on earth but allowed in heaven) that does not give a hang-over and many other details not suitable for mentioning.

Fourth, the character traits of God in these religions are not always edifying. He exterminates entire cities to punish sodomy and homosexuality. He condemns women to prostitution. He participates in the domestic disputes of his prophets to magnify their unjust actions, instead of elevating them spiritually – for truly he plays favorites. He is revengeful, he threatens angrily, he is a jealous god and he condemns all those who do not believe in him. But Hindu sages say that God should shower his grace on all-

“…Hinduism says that God’s grace cannot be conditional. Any conditional gift cannot be called real grace. Therefore, God’s grace has to be unconditional, unbiased and impartial. Just as the sun shines on both the good and the wicked, so also God showers His grace impartially on everyone, whether good or evil. The good use God’s grace for good purposes. The wicked use God’s grace for bad purposes.

Shri Ramakrishna explains this with the help of a beautiful analogy. In a small room a candle is burning. By the light of the candle one person is reading a holy book, while another person in the same room is forging dollar bills. In this analogy the candlelight represents God’s grace. It is impartial; it shines equally on both. The two persons are using God’s grace for two completely different purposes – one good, and the other bad. Perhaps one of them will eventually turn into a saint, while the other will end up in prison.”

A loving parent has infinite patience with his recalcitrant prodigal child. He could never smite him or condemn the child to everlasting pain no matter how disrespectful and disobedient the child is. In Hindu

Dharma, Brahman gives us not just one but many lives, so that we have several chances to understand the true nature of things, or ourselves and reach the Final Goal. The Abrahamic God gives the finite human being with finite understanding and a finite karma an infinite reward or retribution – all this just does not sound fair.

Fifth, Hindus celebrate the compassion and love of Brahman who though ineffable, transcendent, Supreme, Omnipotent, Omniscient, goes to the extent of assuming finite Forms so that we who have limited understanding can fathom It and approach It. The Abrahamic God appears too distant and historical. He plays favorites and He has stopped communicating with us because He has already sent His only son or His last prophet. Whereas we Hindus perceive Brahman not as a distant entity, a male figure in the Heaven, but someone Who is approachable now, within ourselves, and within everything in the Universe.

Finally, Hindus have a sophisticated concept of the Universal Divine which they impose upon more mundane and material objects like Mūrti-s that are used merely as aids to advance in their spiritual journey. In contrast, the followers of the Abrahamic faiths impose limiting characteristics like ‘chosen people’, ‘hater of non-believers’, ‘Creator of a Geocentric Universe and Flat Earth’ etc. on what they falsely profess to be the Supreme Divine. And yet, the former, due to their own limited and finite vision of the Infinite, wrongly castigate and hate the Hindus as being primitive and infantile in theological matters.

With all these things, we Hindus still do not believe that Abrahamics are inferior, or evil, or deficient in faith or in understanding compared to us, although many of them think of us as if he were evil, foolish, obstinate or inferior. We have faith in unconditional grace and compassion of Brahman and we do believe that no matter where we send our prayers, they will reach the same Brahman, being guided by a Theostationary Satellite, provided they are said with faith and with devotion. And the same Brahman will eventually deliver atheists and the vilest evil doer. This is the firm conviction of Hindus.

10.8 Rejecting the Abrahamic Notion of the Devil

In Abrahamic religions, there exists another powerful cosmic power called the Devil, or Satan who is sort of an ‘anti-God.’ Hindus find the Abrahamic notion of the Devil unacceptable. The doctrine of a Devil or Satan who can tempt humans away from the Godly path and take them towards evil and eternal damnation in a universe where even a leaf cannot move without God’s will makes the Abrahamic God an accomplice in Satan’s machinations. Interestingly, Abrahamic religions declare that Satan was an angel to start with, and that he rebelled against God’s authority at the beginning of the creation. Since then, Satan, the rebellious angel, has been dividing the humanity into evil and good individuals. A western scholar rejects the notion of the Devil in Christianity as being illogical in the following words:

“….if God can visit his creation any time he so chooses, this begs the question of precisely what purpose the angels serve….That is only one part of the equation that needs to be addressed however. An even more important problem is if we allow that God “needed” angels for some reason, how is it that a supposedly all-knowing God would not have foreseen that an element of these creatures would later rebel and drag, at least according to the Book of Revelations, a third of their numbers down with them (along with, by most accounts, a majority of humanity as well)? It seems a tremendous oversight on his part not to have anticipated such a possibility and built in some safeguards to prevent it. Such a dilemma leaves us in the uncomfortable position of forcing us to choose between a God that is either inept (or, at the very least, tragically shortsighted) or a God that was fully aware of the inevitable rebellion and did nothing to prevent it, neither of which seems consistent with the idea of a perfect, all-knowing deity. Additionally, the entire issue fails to address how evil could come about at all in a universe that originated from pure goodness in the first place. Wouldn’t this be a case of bad fruit (rebellious angels) emerging from a good tree (God), completely in contradiction to Jesus’ own words in John that such was impossible?”

“Religionists counter this point by reminding us that in order for the angels to be truly free to love and serve God, it was necessarily that he endow these beings with free will, thereby effectively trying his own hands when they rebelled. However, this answer fails to account for the entire problem. Free will, after all, is not synonymous with immortality. If God can create a freewill being from nothing, then why can’t he just destroy it if it goes “bad”? In effect, even if God did create freewill creatures in an effort to acquire their affection and allegiance, why not simply destroy those that refused to serve him once they made the decision to rebel, a wise precaution especially considering how dangerous such beings would later prove to be if left to their own devices? The old tried-and-true response that God would not destroy them for then their decision to follow him would be based on the desire for survival rather than out of true, heartfelt devotion, also falls on its own petard when one reads the account of God casting the fallen angels into the fires of hell at the end of time in the Book of Revelations (Rev. 20:10). Clearly, God is fully capable of and willing to torment his creation for their rebellion at the end of time, so why doesn’t that ultimate fate for rejecting him carry the same connotations now? Further, couldn’t one make the case that destroying such an entity would be more compassionate than eternally torturing it and, as such, more consistent with a loving creator?”

Swami Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883 CE) once remarked that the Biblical God is worse than the Biblical

Devil.220

Whereas the intentions and purposes of the Satan are known publicly, it is in fact God Himself who instigates Satan, as the western author explains below:

“Another problem is that even if we should allow for the possibility that God needed to create the angels for some reason and further that their ability to rebel was a necessary element of that creation, then how is it possible, if God is far more powerful than Satan (and Satan’s army is vastly outnumbered in any case, as is generally believed and taught) for this demon army still to be fighting? If Satan’s ill-fated rebellion has been going on since the creation of man, it seems God should have had plenty of time and, one would think, opportunity to finish the job. The fact that fighting is still raging, then, clearly implies that either God’s army is utterly incompetent, or he is not as serious about stopping the devil as it is assumed. Since it is impossible to imagine an allpowerful God capable of fielding an incompetent army, however, this suggests the latter option, which is that God has no real interest in stopping Satan or

his legion of followers. However if God does not want to destroy this rebellion – remarkable in light of how destructive it has proven to be to his creation – that means God must want Satan and his army to exist, which further suggests that God intentionally created Satan for precisely this purpose (perhaps to test humanity’s allegiance to him). If true, however, what does that say about God and his love?”221

“Further, does this also not suggest that light and darkness can not only coexist in much the same way that matter and antimatter can exist within the same universe, but that they might even be necessary for the other to be realized? In effect, for evil to exist in a universe of love would entail a loving Creator permitting it to exist. Otherwise, God cannot be omnipotent. But this has profound implications, for if we imagine that nothing exists that God does not permit to exist, we have to assume that God fully allows and even intended for evil to be a part of the mix. This makes the current situation on this planet, then essentially God’s fault, for the evil that humanity performs could not occur apart from his will. In essence, for Satan and his demons to exist essentially makes God culpable for all the evil that has since resulted.”222

Therefore, it may be concluded that the Abrahamic notion of the Satan is completely illogical,

221 Allan Danelek (2006), pp. 143-144

222 Allan Danelek (2006), pp. 144

“…..if demons do, in fact, exist, it is evidence of a wholly incompetent Creator whose mismanagement of the universe has led to thousands of years of pain and misery and a hell brimming over with lost souls, a position I believe to be inconsistent with the belief in a God who is all-living, all-powerful, and all-knowing. Either demons and Satan are real and God is a befuddled old man, or demons and Satan are a product of our own imagination and fears, and the universe is essentially benign.”

11.0 ATHEISM AND HINDU DHARMA

Atheists have lived in the midst of Hindus for thousands of years. In ancient India, they formed their own school and community of philosophers and lay people known by various names like the Bāhrspatyas, Chārvakas, the Lokāyatas and the Ājivakas.

There were many different strands of atheism – some believed in the soul that transmigrated (even while rejecting the existence of God), some did not believe in any soul whatsoever and so on. The Maitrāyaṇīya Upanishad (section 7) says that Brihaspati, the teacher of the Devas, started the false philosophy of atheism to fool the Asuras, who were the traditional adversaries of the Devas.

If the atheists advanced their own arguments for the absence of any God, Hindu philosophers like the Nyaya scholar Udayanāchārya (10th Cent CE) gave several arguments to prove the existence of God:

1. Each effect has two causes – material, and efficient. The latter must have the necessary wisdom and power to create the world, and this can only be God.

2. The Universe is comprised of atoms which however are inert and lifeless. They must be brought together by an intelligent and living entity and this entity is God.

3. The Universe presupposes an intelligent design by an omniscient being, and this being is God.

4. Faith and scriptures reveal God.

5. An intelligent and moral agent is needed to uphold the law of Karma and the moral order in the Universe. This agent is God.

6. There is no proof that God does not exist.

Another exhaustive list that lists the signs pointing to the existence of the Divine is given in a Smriti text-

Ego, memory, intelligence, hatred, wisdom, happiness, patience, experiences that transfer

from one sense organ to another, desire, assumption of bodies, taking birth, heaven, dream, emotion, efforts of sense organs, workings of the mind, batting eyelids, consciousness, effort and bearing the five elements – all these are signs of the Lord, and prove the existence of the Supreme Soul that is beyond the embodied soul in our bodies. Yājnavalkya Smriti

3.174-176

The creation that we are a part of is the biggest miracle. The intricacy of the human body, its parts like the eyes, the process by which a child is born etc., are all indicative of an intelligent creator. Much of the universe appears to be random and without any purpose to some skeptics, but that is a human viewpoint resulting perhaps from our own limitations of understanding.

Not surprisingly, the arguments for and against the existence of God in ancient India were very similar to the arguments that we hear today. In addition to the arguments against the existence of God stated below,

there are several additional arguments advanced by atheists. However, these additional arguments apply specifically to Abrahamic notions of God and therefore they are not included here.

The responses to atheistic arguments are culled from the scriptures of the Nyāya school and from the traditional commentaries on Brahmasūtras (specifically chapter 2, sections 1-2).

11.1 Atheist Arguments & Hindu Responses to Atheism

Atheist Arguments Hindu response

1 Jaina Argument: The universe is eternal. It was never created and will never dissolve. Rather, it just keeps evolving and changing continuously. Therefore, there is no need to assume that a God creates, preserves or dissolves it. The universe is not eternal. Even the largest boulders are seen to wear out. Everything in this world is seen to have a finite lifespan, no matter how long it is. We see new things being created every moment. We can therefore infer that the cosmos itself originated at some time and we believe that an all-powerful, all-wise Brahman created it. Modern science too concludes that the universe arose at a finite period of time in the past and that it will eventually die out.

2 In our belief, God has everything and does not need anything. Even if we assume that God created the Universe, then what can be his reason for creating it? No intelligent being creates something without a cause. We disagree that all activities are done with some selfish motive or purpose. In our world, we see many people doing tasks without any selfish motive or even a conscious effort. We breathe in and out automatically. We can see a king or a child indulge in many activities as a matter of play, without any useful purpose. So also, Brahman also creates the Universe as His breath effortlessly and without any selfish motive.

3 There is no need to assume an intelligent Creator God. The Universe in its current state evolved from primitive matter, which in turn evolved from more primitive matter. The universe shows the hand of an intelligent entity in creating it. There is order, cosmic laws that are obeyed and a complexity that cannot be attributed solely to the workings of inert matter.

4 Just like water flows naturally in a particular direction, and milk transforms to yoghurt through natural processes; likewise inert matter transforms into the universe in its current state without requiring an intelligent cause. Water does not just flow randomly in any direction. It obeys the slope of the surface on which it is poured. Nor does milk convert to yoghurt automatically unless there are proper conditions like the presence of certain bacteria, ideal temperature conditions and so on. Moreover, the consistent flow of water only in a particular direction, and the repeated conversion of milk

bowls to yoghurt would require a human being to pour the water at the same spot or mix the culture with milk repeatedly. Likewise, the fact that the Universe shows complex phenomenon happening repeatedly in a specific way pre-supposes an intelligent being, and that Being is Brahman.

5 Even if we assume there is an intelligent and a living entity, his mere proximity to matter may be the cause of creation rather than any conscious volition on his part. We can think of the presence of a magnet in the proximity of an iron object. The magnet automatically magnetizes the iron object and causes it to move. This argument does pre-suppose the existence of Brahman, is it not? The Universe would remain in a state of inertia of motion or rest if there were not intelligent interference by Brahman to create it out of primordial matter.

6 Matter itself has all the potentiality to cause it to behave intelligently. In other words, matter is not as inert as it is held out. Intelligence is an attribute of matter and derives from it. Near death experiences, past life regression, recollection of previous lives does presuppose that something exists beyond our mortal material selves. Hindu Dharma agrees that intelligence per se (called ‘buddhi’) is actually an attribute of matter. But Hindu Dharma postulates a spiritual entity – the Atman, beyond this buddhi. It is the Atman that controls and governs the buddhi, and it can be experienced through the path of meditation.

7 The universe is so vast, that it has trillions of cosmic bodies (starts, planets, dust etc.), whereas the earth which has complex life is like a mere spec of dust. So it is by random chance that earth came into being with life on it and there is no need to presume that a God created it intelligently. It is not essential for all cosmic bodies to have life to prove the existence of Brahman because the Divine Being would use only that portion of matter as is needed for the souls to acquire a body. The Universe is infinite and we can see only a portion of it. We do not know what lies in the far corners of our Universe, much less what lies beyond it.

8 When analyzed carefully, the universe does not seem to have order and symmetry as claimed. Instead, there is a lot of chaos and randomness which negates the presence of a God that inputs order in the cosmos and rules it through his natural laws. The clock argument What exactly does Brahman need to do to satisfy the objector? What type of a Universe will convince the objector that Brahman indeed exists? Even in our daily lives, what appears disjointed, irrational and chaotic suddenly appears to be with a design, rational and connected when we see the whole picture, or when we learn more about that thing or about the situation.

does not apply because seen as a whole, the Universe is a very poor construction. Perhaps, our feeling that there is chaos in the Universe is more a result of our limited knowledge and understanding than being the true nature of things.

9 The theist argues that the universe serves the purpose of souls and enables them to achieve spiritual emancipation or Moksha. But we do not see that the universe is actually serving that purpose. The universe is therefore without a purpose. If at all the universe helps the souls advance spiritually, this happens just incidentally and not by design. Brahman does not have any selfish purpose to serve in creating this Universe. Nor is Brahman obliged to Atmans. The objector’s argument is purely a theoretical one that is contradicted by the actual fact that the Universe does serve its intended purpose of allowing individuals to perform and experience the fruit of their karma, and advance spiritually towards Moksha.

10 Morality really is a very subjective entity. Different ethnic groups have different norms and therefore we cannot accept the presence of a universal Supreme Being who has laid down a moral code for all living beings. May be Brahman did intend a pluralistic and a diverse human society. Hindu scriptures do not mandate a single code for all humanity for all times because what is good for someone at a particular time may not be good at another time or for another person. This objection therefore applies more to Abrahamic faiths with their ‘my way or the highway’ nature than to the more variegated Hindu Dharma.

11 There is a lot of pain and sorrow in this world. How can a compassionate and all-knowing God create a universe with these evil. If he knows the future, why does He not prevent natural catastrophes and other pain giving incidents from happening in the first place? We experience joy and sorrow as a result of our good and bad karma. There are an infinite number of souls, and they have infinite combinations of good and bad karma. Brahman has fashioned a Universe that allows all possibilities for experiencing the results of these different combinations of good and bad karma. This is why the Universe seems to have both good and bad things resulting in joys and sorrows. We get unnerved by disasters and the ensuing loss of life because our frame of reference is the single life we live or the victim lived. If we take a broader view across several lives, the whole interpretation of these events changes.

12 If there is a God, then why can’t we perceive Him? We are not able to perceive many things that exist due to the limitations of our senses. E.g., we cannot hear sounds of certain frequencies, nor can we see certain colors (whereas other creatures can). Brahman cannot be perceived by our senses or by scientific instruments because It is very subtle and all our devices are incapable

of detecting Brahman, not because Brahman does not exist. Nevertheless, we can indeed experience Brahman within our own Atman through the practice of meditation. Conversely, things that we see (e.g., Mirage) need not exist at all, and therefore this argument is inconclusive or invalid.

11.2 God and the Problem of Good and Evil

Five explanations are traditionally given by Hindus (and others) to explain why this universe that has originated from the perfect Brahman has numerous imperfections and evils:

1. It is not for us to judge Brahman or his creation as good or evil. Whatever exists and whatever happens is good and with our limited intelligence, we must not question the motives or the intelligence of the omnipotent and omniscient Brahman.

2. Although Brahman desires good and is perfect, he has given us the freedom to do our karma. Unfortunately, this freedom has its consequences too. Good karma begets good fruit, and bad karma begets bad fruit. Because the karma of humans are mixed (good as well as bad), the creation too has imperfections so that humans of all types and with all types of karma can reap the fruit of their own respective karma.

3. The third explanation is that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are merely one’s own interpretations of the same event. What appears as ‘good’ to someone might mean ‘bad’ to another person. For instance, winning a sports championship is good for the winner, but bad for the loser. Therefore, we must accept things as they come our way, putting our trust in the judgment of Brahman, who rules over us.

4. The fourth explanation is that we must not use the same standards to judge everything or everyone as good or bad because different standards apply to different people and to different situations. For instance, it is ‘bad’ if child yells at his parents, but ‘good’ if parents yell at a misbehaving child. Likewise, we must not use our human standards to judge the actions of Devas as good or bad in the Purāṇic narratives, because they are at a different plane of existence then we are.

5. The fifth explanation is that we must not classify events in scriptural narratives as good or bad by judging them in a literal sense. For instance, Rishi Nārada appears to indulge in the evil of gossiping, if we apply our simple standards to him. But in practically all of his stories, we see how his gossiping actually leads to a happy ending, or to the punishment of a wicked person. Therefore, we must acknowledge that our understanding and knowledge as humans is limited and a careful consideration of all the facts can only lead the conclusion that everything in this universe created by Brahman is actually meant to advance our good.

All these five explanations are accepted by the Hindus, but some are accepted more than others. In particular, the second explanation above is resorted to most frequently by the Hindus.

It can be observed that any discussion about the existence of God is bound to remain inconclusive.

For every argument, a counter-argument can be presented. For this reason, the Hindu school of Vedānta,

which details the spiritual philosophy of our Dharma, says that the proof of pudding is in eating it. We should seek to know and understand God by following the path of Dharma and Moksha. Once we see Brahman ourselves, all these arguments have no meaning, and all the contradictions of space and time that the atheists point out get resolved.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna was blessed to have a vision of the Universal Form of the Divine. He was overwhelmed when he saw time and space collapse in this Form. He saw his own future, his ancestors, his descendants, his contemporaries, the cosmic bodies, things that he knew and things that he could not even have imagined. This vision blew away all his doubts about the existence and the nature of the Divinity. Similarly, when we have seen and have tasted the sugar ourselves, all arguments on whether it is white or colorless, sweet or bitter become dissolved in our first-hand experience.

Hindu Dharma therefore declares boldly that that even the revealed scriptures, the Vedas, are of no value to that wise person to whom Brahman itself has been revealed:

As is the use of a pond in a place flooded with water, so is that of all Vedas for a Brahmana who is enlightened spiritually. Gita 2.46

11.3 Can an Atheist be a Good Hindu?

Many Hindus claim that it is possible to be a Hindu as well as an atheist at the same time. This statement is true as well false. Hindu Dharma operates at many levels: culture, ethical virtues, core values, public celebrations and so on. An atheist can practice several elements of Hindu culture, such as Hindu art, drama, music, clothing and food etc. He can also be a very virtuous and a pious person, practicing charity, speaking the truth, showing compassion towards all and so on. The one big area that he will be lacking is faith in Brahman, and a desire to pursue Moksha as a goal. Most Hindu scriptures are quite explicit in stating that Moksha cannot be achieved without involving God in one way or another. It is only by following one of the many paths (e.g. Bhakti Yoga, Jnāna Yoga etc.), all of which have the Divine as their goal, that one can achieve Moksha.

When humans shall roll up space as if it were a piece of leather, then will there be an end

of sorrow, apart from knowing the Divine. Yajurveda, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad 6.20 Knowing Him in this life itself, one transcends death. There is no other path leading to

Moksha. Yajurveda, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 3.13.2

He who knows Me, the Unborn and the beginning less, the Great Lord of the Universe, he among mortals is not deluded and is released from all evils. Gita 10.3

Just as medicine is naturally the remover of illness, in the same way, Shiva is naturally the opponent of all sorrows and defects of this world. Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa 1.31

To summarize, it is possible to be an agnostic or an atheist and yet be a good Hindu in a cultural, social and ethical sense, but definitely not in the spiritual sense. The best Hindu is that person who is a theist, and also practices other elements of Hindu Dharma.

11.4 Are Miracles a Proof of the Existence of God?

A miracle is an incident in which natural laws are apparently disobeyed. For instance a solid iron sphere would sink in water, but in a miraculous event, it would float on the surface of water. We Hindus believe that Bhagavān has created natural laws and therefore has the power to bend them. But performance of miracles by an individual is no proof that Bhagavān exists or that that individual is especially blessed by Him. Because, accepting this would mean that Bhagavān is partial because miracles are not seen when we need them, or that he has lost control over his own creation.

In the 18th century, when Christian missionaries came to India, they declared that Hindu Dharma was inferior to their own religion precisely because whereas in Christianity, miracles formed the cornerstone of their faith, they were merely peripheral ornamentation within Hindu traditions. But, many so called miracles turned out to be explainable using scientific principles as the knowledge of science advanced. And many of these miracles can be regarded as hoaxes.

In Abrahamic faiths, performance of miracles is regarded as a proof that an individual is a prophet or a saint. In fact, in the Catholic Church, one of the major ways of declaring someone a saint is if after his death, others can attribute at least two miracles to that person. In Hindu Dharma however, miracles do not mean much and Sants need not perform any miracles.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS

1. Hindu scriptures teach us that the Divine is One. He is our Creator, Destroyer, Preserver. He gives us the fruits of our Karma, and also grants us Moksha. He is Eternal, Imperishable, All-Pervading, Almighty, All-Knowing and abode of Bliss. He pervades the entire Universe, and he also envelopes it from outside. He/She has no gender, race, caste, class etc.

2. The Divine exists as an infinite Ātmā and is then called ‘Brahman’. However, it is very difficult for human beings with limited intelligence to worship such a formless spirit and for our convenience, He has also manifested in many different forms through which we can worship Him. In other words, there is no contradiction between the Personal and Impersonal aspects of the Divine.

3. We can worship the Divine in whichever form appeals to us. Hindus who understand His true nature do not quarrel over different Forms. Many Hindus believe that we should rise above the worship of a Divine Form, and eventually worship Him as a Formless Soul which is His true nature.

4. All the Forms of the Divine have profound spiritual meaning and symbolism.

5. The Divine Lord is very compassionate. He will not punish us just if we worship him in a ‘wrong’ form, or if we do not worship his formless nature. Hindus do not believe like Christians or Muslims that God is vindictive and will punish us if we worship Him in Mūrtis.

6. By tradition, five or six major forms of worship have been established within Hindu communities. Some Hindus worship Him in other forms also, but these other forms are somehow tied to these six major forms in some way or other.

7. This diversity of worship gives Hinduism its famous tolerance for other religions because we Hindus do not believe that non-Hindus worship something other than God. We allow non-Hindus also to worship God in their own way. We believe that all humans worship the same Brahman and there are no ‘false gods’. In this way, we can say that Hinduism is the only true monotheistic tradition in the world, because we worship the God who is the Lord of Hindus, of Muslims, of Christians and so on.

8. An atheist can be a Hindu in a cultural and traditional sense alone. But Hinduism insists that to obtain Moksha, we must worship and understand God spiritually and practice different ways of spirituality. Therefore, a good Hindu is a Hindu spiritually too.

9. The existence of the Divine cannot be proved or disproved through arguments. But He can surely be experienced in one’s own Ātmā.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acknowledgements: The images used in this document are taken from various websites.

Primary Texts: Representative passages from Hindu sacred literature were referenced/cited using standard translations with or without slight modifications, for illustrative purposes. Some translations are mine. It was not my intent to create an exhaustive compilation of all relevant scriptural passages in this book. The texts cited are-

Rigveda, Mādhyandina Yajurveda, Shaunakīya Atharvaveda, Paippalāda Atharvaveda, Mādhyandina Yajurveda Saṃhitā, Kāṇva Shatapatha Brāhmaṇa, Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, Jaiminīya Upanishad Brāhmaṇa, Atharvashiras Upanishad, Brihadāraṇyaka Upanishad, Chhāndogya Upanishad, Chūlikā Upanishad, Īshāvāsya Upanishad, Jabāladarshana Upanishad, Kaivalya

Upanishad, Katha Upanishad, Kathashruti Upanishad, Kena Upanishad, Maitrāyaṇīya Upanishad,

Māṇdūkya Upanishad, Muṇdaka Upanishad, Prashna Upanishad, Shātyāyanīya Upanishad, Shvetāshvatara Upanishad, Taittirīya Upanishad, Tejobindu Upanishad, Nirukta, Brihaddevatā, Bhagavad Gitā, Brahmasūtra with commentaries of Shankaracharya (Shārīraka Bhāṣhya), Vāchaspati Mishra (Bhāmati), Ramanujacharya (Shrī Bhāṣhya) and Madhvacharya, Shāṇdilya Bhakti Sūtra, Manusmriti, Yājnavalkya Smriti, Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa, Agni Purāṇa, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Devī Bhāgavata

Upapurāṇa, Kūrma Purāṇa, Liṇga Purāṇa, Mārkaṇdeya Purāṇa, Shivadharmottara Upapurāṇa, Skanda

Purāṇa, Vāyu Purāṇa, Vishṇu Purāṇa, Vishṇu Dharmottara Upapurāṇa, Vishṇu Pāncharātra Saṃhitā, Sarvadarshanasaṃgraha, Vedārthasaṃgraha, Yatīndramatadīpikā, Shivamahimna Stotra, Guru Granth

Sāheb, Satyārtha Prakāsha of Swami Dayananda Saraswati

Secondary Works

Bedekar V M and G B Palsule. 1995. Sixty Upanishads of the Veda (English translation of a German translation by Paul Deussen), vol. II. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited: Delhi

Bhat, K S Haridasa, K B Ramakrishna Rao, A Krishna Rao, T R A Pai. 1977. Anjali, What the Great

Masters have to say on Devotion and Prayer. Gita Mandir (Manipal)

Bose, A. C. 1988. The Call of the Vedas. Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan: Mumbai

Braybrooke, Marcus. 2002. What we can learn from Hinduism. Ashford Color Press Ltd: UK

Borkakoti, Sanjib. 1995. Sri Sri Sankardeva, a Total Personality. Bani Mandir (Guwahati)

Carman, John Braisted. 1974. The Theology of Ramanuja. Yale University Press: New Haven and London Chari, S M Srinivasa. 1988. Fundamentals of Visistadvaita Vedanta. Motilal Banarsidass: New Delhi

Cowell. E. B. 1900. Sarva Darsana Samgraha – Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy.

Reprinted in 1987 by Cosmo Publications (New Delhi)

Currie, P M. 1989. The Shrine and Cult of Muin-al-Din Chishti of Ajmer. OUP: Delhi

Danelek, J. Allan. 2010. The Case for Reincarnation. Llewellyn Publications: Woodbury, Minnesota (USA) ____. 2006. The Case for Ghosts. Llewellyn Publications: Woodbury, Minnesota (USA)

Dusenbery, Verne A. 1992. The Word as Guru – Sikh Scripture and the Translation Controversy. Pages 385-402 in History of Religions, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Sikh Studies), May 1992

Eck, Diana L. 1985. Darsan, Seeing the Divine Image in India. Anima Books. Chambersburg (Pennsylvannia, USA)

Frawley, David. 1995. Hinduism, the Eternal Tradition. Voice of India: New Delhi

Hinnels, John R. 1991. A Handbook of Living Religions. Penguin Books: Harmondsworth (England)

Hiriyanna, Mysore. 1995. The Essentials of Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass : New Delhi

Johnsen, Linda. 2002. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Hinduism. Alpha Books: New York

Koller, John M. 1982. The Indian Way. Macmillan Publishing: New York

Krishnaswami, O R. 2014. Open Your Hearth to God Through Bhakti Yoga. Dev Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi

Lakhani, Sita. 2005. Hinduism for Schools. Vivekananda Centre. London (UK)

Mahadevan, T M P. 1956.. Outlines of Hinduism Chetana Limited: Bombay

Malhotra, Rajiv. 2011. Being Different, An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Harper Collins:

New Delhi

Murti, G V Narayan.1974. Narayana Guru. Rashtrotthana Sahitya Trust: Bangalore

Narang, Gokul Chand. 1912. The Transformation of Sikhism. New Book Society: Lahore

Narayanan, Vasudha. 1987. The Way and the Goal. Institute for Vaisnava Studies (Washington D C) and Center for the Study of World Religions (Harvard University)

Narayanan, Vasudha. 1998. ‘Sri: Giver of Fortune, Bestower of Grace’, in Devi, Goddesses of India, ed. by

John S. Hawley and Donna M. Wulff. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Ltd.: New Delhi

Nirankari, Man Singh. 2008. Sikhism, A Perspective. Unistar Books: Chandigarh

Patki, Ranjani. 1996. The Concept of Upasana. Sri Satguru Publications: Delhi

Pattanaik, Devdutt. 1998. Vishnu, an Introduction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt Ltd.: Mumbau

Pattanaik, Devdutt. 2006. Shiva to Shankara. Indus Source Books: Mumbai

Pattanaik, Devdutt. 2015. My Gita. Rupa Publications: New Delhi

Pravrajika Shuddhatmaprana. 2010. Indian Saints and Mystics. Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture: Kolkata

Prinja, Nawal K et al. 2001. Hindu Dharma, a Guide for Teachers. Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Leicester (UK). Radhakrishnan, S. 1953. The Principal Upanishads. Harper & Brothers Publishers: New York, p. 52

Raghavachar, S S. 2000. The Philosophy of Bhakti and the Significance of Hindu Image-Worship.

Ramakrishna Mission’s Institute of Culture. Kolkata

Rambachan, Anantanand. 2004. Hinduism, True or False, Vijnana Publications: Minnesota

Rambachan, Anantanand. 1992. The Hindu Vision. Motilal Banarsidass: Delhi

Rizvi, S A A. 1978. A History of Sufism in India (vol I), Munshiram Manoharlal: New Delhi

Rosen, Steven. 1988. The Life and Times of Lord Chaitanya. Folk Books: Brooklyn (New York)

Sarma, D S. 1981. A Primer of Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna Math. Mylapore (Madras)

Sarma, Satyendranath. 1989. Sankaradeva and Assam Vaisnavism. Pages 241-270 in N N Bhattacharyya

(1989), Medieval Bhakti Movements in India. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd: New Delhi

Sharma, Arvind. 2000. Classical Hindu Thought, an Introduction. Oxford University Press: New Delhi

Sharma, Shashi K. 2002. Oh My God. Rupa & Co.: New Delhi

Shastri, Manmath Nath. 1978. Hindu Metaphysics – An Outline. Cosmo Publications: New Delhi

Singh, Bhai Jodh. Structure and Character of Sikh Society. Pages 1-30 in J S Grewal (2015), Sikhism and

Indian Society. Indian Institute of Advance Study: Shimla

Singh, Joginder. 2010. A Short History of Namdhari Sikhs of Punjab. Guru Nanak Dev University:

Amritsar

Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swamigal, Fitzgerald, Michael Oren (ed.). 2008. Introduction to Hindu Dharma. World Wisdom: Bloomington (Indiana, USA)

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya (Dr. Frank Morales). 2011. Sanatana Dharma, the Eternal Natural Way.

Dharma Sun Media: Omaha (Nebraska, USA)

Swami Adidevananda. 1978. Yatindramatadipika of Srinvasadasa. Ramakrishna Math: Mylapore(Madras)

Swami Akhandananda Saraswati. 1966. Narada Bhakti Darshana. Satsahitya Prakashan (Bombay)

Swami Bhaskarananda. 2002. Essentials of Hinduism. Viveka Press: Seattle (US)

Swami Chinmayananda. 2002. The Holy Geeta. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust: Mumbai

Swami Harshananda. 2008. A Concise Encyclopedia of Hinduism (3 vols). Ramakrishna Math: Bangalore

Swami Jyotirmayananda. 1976. Yoga Stories and Parables. Published by Swami Lalitananda: Miami (USA)

Swami Nirvedananda. 1996. Hinduism at a Glance. Ramakrishna Mission: Kolkata

Swami Rama. 2012. The Art of Joyful Living. Himalayan Institute India: Allahabad

Swami Ramakrishna Pramahamsa. Tales and Parables of Sri Ramakrishna. Sri Ramakrishna Math:

Mylapore (Madras)

Swami Sambuddhananda. 2006 (1950). Vedanta Through Stories. Ramakrishna Math: Mumbai

Swami Sivananda. 2004. Parables of Swami Sivananda. A Divine Life Society Publication: Rishikesh

Swami Sivananda. 1993. All About Hinduism. The Divine Life Society. Tehri-Garhwal (Uttarakhand), India Swami Tapasyananda. 2010. The Four Yogas of Swami Vivekananda. Advaita Ashram: Kolkata

Swami Tapasyananda. 2010. Srimad Bhagavad Gita, the Scripture of Mankind. Sri Ramakrishna Math:

Mylapore (Madras)

Swami Viditatmanananda. 1995. Vedanta in Present-Day Life. Adhyatma Vidya Mandir: Ahmedabad

Swamini Pramananda Saraswati and Dhira Chaitanya. 2006. Purna Vidya – A Vision of Hindu Dharma. Sri Gangadhareswar Trust: Rishikesh

Swamini Sharda Priyananda and Bharati Sukthankar. 2009. Tell Me a Story Part 2. Central Chinmaya Mission Trust, Mumbai

Zevah, Aaron. 1998. The Soul’s Alamanac. Penguin Putnam Inc.: New York