Hindu Darshan, Idolatry, and Eucharistic Presence

[Bubba_Switzler]

If the spirit is not in the Murti then that would really be idol worship; you’d just be worshiping an inanimate object.

That’s an interesting perspective but I don’t think it follows. Let’s shift to a closer comparison to help the discussion.

Christians worship Jesus as God. The crucifix is the most important symbol of Jesus and is a standard feature of Catholic churches. But, still, Catholics would not say that they are worshiping the crucifix or that Christ is present in the crucifix. On the other hand, we do say that Christ is present in the Church. (And, as mentioned before, in the Euchraist.) But Catholics don’t worship the Church or the Eucharist either (though there is something called Eucharistic Adoration which comes pretty close).

Because that is who we are giving veneration to. The Murti is a representation of the spirit which comes down and dwells in the statue. The murti is only venerable after it is enlivened with the spiritual energy and essence of the Deity.

So let me ask the question a different way: what is the difference between worshiping an animated statue and using an inanimate statue to worship a god?

 

[Philomath]

That’s an interesting perspective but I don’t think it follows. Let’s shift to a closer comparison to help the discussion.

Christians worship Jesus as God. The crucifix is the most important symbol of Jesus and is a standard feature of Catholic churches. But, still, Catholics would not say that they are worshiping the crucifix or that Christ is present in the crucifix. On the other hand, we do say that Christ is present in the Church. (And, as mentioned before, in the Euchraist.) But Catholics don’t worship the Church or the Eucharist either (though there is something called Eucharistic Adoration which comes pretty close).

The difference is that Christians don’t believe that the spirit of Jesus literally comes down and dwells within the crucifix. They may pray towards it and venerate it but that belief is not there. To Christians it’s just an object of adoration. The Murti is that way also, **until **the invocation takes place where they draw the divine energy into the Murti.

So let me ask the question a different way: what is the difference between worshiping an animated statue and using an inanimate statue to worship a god?

The difference is the inanimate statue would not be worthy of worship, it would just be an inanimate object. It’s the animation of that object through invocation that makes it worthy of worship. If the invocation isn’t done it’s just a statue.

 

[Nine_Two]

What is the difference between an incarnation and the god itself? If I destroy an incarnation I have obviously not destroyed the god. The god is not trapped in its incarnation. The incarnation, though, has some functional ability beyond a mere symbol.

Incarnation vs. window, I’m not sure which is better but both express something between a mere symbol of a thing and the thing itself.

An incarnation is quite a bit more than a window. Jesus was God incarnate, he was literally God, he was a far cry from a simple window, and much more than any icon will ever be.

Nor do the icons, in and of themselves, have any special abilities. Even the Wonder Working icons are such because God has made them so, not because of a particular property in the icon.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

An incarnation is quite a bit more than a window. Jesus was God incarnate, he was literally God, he was a far cry from a simple window, and much more than any icon will ever be.

Nor do the icons, in and of themselves, have any special abilities. Even the Wonder Working icons are such because God has made them so, not because of a particular property in the icon.

One thing I’m trying to do here is grapple with the distinctions of real presence vs. idolatry. I think it would be fair to describe the incarnation of Christ as representing one extreme in a continuum. God became man.

At the other extreme we have mere representation such as a stain glass window or an unblessed crucifix or statue of a saint.

But there seems to be something between these extremes and perhaps even some distinctions among them. Window vs. portal vs. spirit. Consecration and blessing. Relics are themselves an interesting case. But the Eucharist is perhaps the most interesting example in Catholocism, the closest to Hindu Murti.

Are these distinctions real or merely semantics?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The difference is that Christians don’t believe that the spirit of Jesus literally comes down and dwells within the crucifix. They may pray towards it and venerate it but that belief is not there. To Christians it’s just an object of adoration. The Murti is that way also, **until **the invocation takes place where they draw the divine energy into the Murti.

The difference is the inanimate statue would not be worthy of worship, it would just be an inanimate object. It’s the animation of that object through invocation that makes it worthy of worship. If the invocation isn’t done it’s just a statue.

Let us imagine two statues of Vishnu and two worshipers. One statue is consecrated and one is not. The first worshiper prays toward the unconsecrated statue of Vishnu but to Vishnu in the abstract using the statue merely as a device to focus his concentration. The second worshiper prays to the consecrated statue of Vishnu.

If someone were to watch the two how could he tell the difference? Do the worshipers themselves experience any difference? Aside from the above mechanics, what is the difference?

 

[Philomath]

Let us imagine two statues of Vishnu and two worshipers. One statue is consecrated and one is not. The first worshiper prays toward the unconsecrated statue of Vishnu but to Vishnu in the abstract using the statue merely as a device to focus his concentration. The second worshiper prays to the consecrated statue of Vishnu.

If someone were to watch the two how could he tell the difference?

No one can. Only the practitioners and God would know.

Do the worshipers themselves experience any difference?

I’m not sure, you would have to ask someone who has done both and see.

Aside from the above mechanics, what is the difference?

The difference between what exactly?

 

[Nine_Two]

One thing I’m trying to do here is grapple with the distinctions of real presence vs. idolatry. I think it would be fair to describe the incarnation of Christ as representing one extreme in a continuum. God became man.

At the other extreme we have mere representation such as a stain glass window or an unblessed crucifix or statue of a saint.

But there seems to be something between these extremes and perhaps even some distinctions among them. Window vs. portal vs. spirit. Consecration and blessing. Relics are themselves an interesting case. But the Eucharist is perhaps the most interesting example in Catholocism, the closest to Hindu Murti.

Are these distinctions real or merely semantics?

I’d probably agree that when it comes the the Eucharist that you have something of a point about the beliefs being similar, I would disagree with icons, statuary, relics, etc.

It should be remembered that the prohibition against idol worship came out of a belief that they were false. Which would be why a Christian would still be forbidden from worshiping an idol of Vishnu while venerating the Eucharist is ok.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’d probably agree that when it comes the the Eucharist that you have something of a point about the beliefs being similar, I would disagree with icons, statuary, relics, etc.

It should be remembered that the prohibition against idol worship came out of a belief that they were false. Which would be why a Christian would still be forbidden from worshiping an idol of Vishnu while venerating the Eucharist is ok.

I don’t want to get into the issue of the prohibition against Idol worship but I agree that the main imputetus of that is redirection toward the true God. (It’s worth noting, however, that one of the Jewish criticisms of Christianity is that the Incarnation of Christ is idol worship.)

But I would like to delve a little more into the controversy between Catholics and Orthodox vs. Protestants on the issue of the real presence of the Eucharist. I think this very closely mirrors the alternatives I posed to Philomath.

Two Churches, two Sunday reenactments of the Last Supper. In one the Eucharist is consecrated and becomes, in some mystical sense, the body and blood of Christ. In the other it is merely symbolic. What’s the difference? Why is real presence important?