Dear Aachi

Wonderful piece. Just last night I was watching Barkha Dutt on We the People where a debate was being held on whether religions are discriminatory to women and why? It was an interesting debate......of course everyone said that all religions are discriminatory, whether its the Christian Church which refuses to allow women to become Bishops, or Islam which refuses to allow women to pray when they are menstruating, or Hinduism which discriminates at random with regard to women's interaction with certain deities at certain times etc.

It is interesting that all the worship and idol installation rites followed in the temples currently are Tantric rituals. Yet the concept of the feminine and masculine both being important and central in the worship of the deity have obviously not been incorporated.

Coming from Pakistan where we obviously have no notion of idols/or a God in any form and certainly no rituals attached even to the Quran. It was very odd for me to hear that the Guru Granth Sahib for example gets covered with warm clothes in winter so that it is not cold!! Or that the doors to temples are shut at a certain time because the deity is asleep.

But I do agree with you that when one does deeper one finds the significance of such rituals. Though these may have been translated into simplistic notions of 'rest for the idol' etc. for the masses they are perhaps just energy revitalising times as you say.

Random thoughts. Thanks for an interesting piece as always;-)

lots of love

Dear Aachi

On re-reading your piece I just need to clarify my earlier comment.

I don't think we should equate idols with human beings. They are not. And the entire controversy of Sabrimala has arisen because of these kinds of erroneous beliefs. If Gods get colds and allergies then they must also get sexually excited and hence women should not be allowed near them because God forbid the idol could get turned on!! Dangerous notions dont you think??

In this respect what you say "Though I denounce all discrimination regarding worship when it comes to sex, religion or birth I also understand the original emotion of the ancients when they laid down rules for the same." appears to be contradictory to me. Some traditions are just downright suppressive and retrograde no matter how deep you go. One has to be able to discern between wisdom and tradition in my opinion.

Dear Anusheh,

what you say is correct in one aspect. that is by equating the idol to a human we lay open a whole new gamut of emotions to take shape.

but surprisingly this is what the bhakti cults profess!

santa bhava..the calm attitude, dasya bhava...the servant attitude, vatsalya bhava...the friendship attitude and the madhura bhava...the romantic attitude are the various emotions that a soul takes in worshipping the supersoul.

dont you recall some scenes from films where the girl thinks of the idol Krishna as her husband? the example for one such is meera bai.

so the thought of equating an idol to a human is not peculiar. the bhakti cult emphasises that a beautiful idol is more easier to love and cherish and lays open the road to supreme bliss if properly worshipped.

and idol worship is the central core for bhakti beginning. and thus I feel many traditions might not equate to logic.

what do you think?

Aachi

I feel one has to be very careful in how one uses such arguments. The Ancients placed the concept of sakar and nirakar very carefully within the context of one within the illusion of form and one beyond all. For that matter today is Guru Purnima and then look at the status accroded to the Gurus by the Vedas- Guru Brahman, Guru Vishnu, Guru swami Maheshwara, Guru Sakshat parabrahman, tasmayi Sri Guru Deve Namah" And where people like Kabir truly said. "Guru, Gobind dovoo khadey, kakay lagu paye, baliharey Guru apney jin Gobind diyo milaye." Basically the Guru has been called God in human form. But how many especially in the intellectual age of today can even offer the Guru true reverance let alone as Gobind? Not only that the feeling refers to the subtlest realm of surrender and love which rare individuals can feel....how many have attained the kind of bhakti which Mira is famous for.

And yet only the one who yearns to revere his/her Guru as such can also see that the Infinite is also beyond the Guru, beyond the disciple and then also where all three merge Guru, disciple and God.

So to understand for example what Shams was to Rumi- Guru, master, beloved, God- who can even attempt such a thing or make such a claim let alone set up scores of rituals to justify how he/she perecives what they meant. No dear freind idol worship has nothing to do with Bhakti, sufism or the love Path. It is meant for giving the masses succour, not direction. And succour has to be had at a lower level of consciousness, hence the absurd traditions continue which have very little to do with higher consciousness forget deep esoteric wisdom.

So I think the question really is who defines what you call 'proper worship' of the idol? I frankly find the argument quite disturbing. In the eternal quest to search for the undefinable, unknowable entity called God, divinity and your own higher Self what kind of imprint does it make on a confused, illusory mind if God is defined as being 'allergic' to women, dalits, lowers castes, other religions, times of day, seasons etc etc.

As for the Bhakti movement I feel its for the rarest of the rare unlike popular belief. It is where the heart is truly feminine, for it must know how to love at its own peril, where becoming one is the only quest where the lover is alert to the subtlest strains of surrender and the Beloved is almost coaxed every moment to test the lover anew.

For us who have the discerning eye for the subtle it is important for our own truth to be able to 'see' the difference and not couch prejudices and our own mental traps under the delicate almost ethereal strains of what was the Bhakti movement. For there was but one Mira and others like Nanak and Kabir though oceanic as Bhakti Masters were unflinching in denouncing all form of idol worship.

Love

Dear Anusheh

Just luv what you wrote. Wow what a great interpretation of Bhakti. Just touched my soul u did.

BTW I agree with your interpretation

Thanks Shagufta....glad it resonated with you:-)

Dear anusheh,
On studying the Vedas and Vedanta, the acaryas have come to two different conclusions On the basis of the conclusions of Dattatreya, Astavakra, Durvasa and other risis, Sankaracarya preached the philosophy of absolute monism That is one type of conclusion. On the other hand, following in the footsteps of Narada, Prahlada, Dhruva, Manu and others, the Vaisnavas have preached the philosophy of pure bhakti.That is the second type of conclusion reached from studying the scriptures.

There are four types of bhakti philosophy. Ramanujacarya preached visistadvaita; Madhvacarya preached suddha dvaita; Nimbarkacarya preached dvaitadvaita; and Visnu Svami preached suddha advaita. They are all preachers of pure bhakti.

According to Ramanujacarya, there is only one reality, the Lord (advaita), who is qualified (visista) by cit and acit. According to Madhvacarya, the jiva is a reality or entity distinct from the Lord (dvaita) , but has a nature of devotion to the Lord. According to Nimbarka, the jiva is simultaneously different and non-different from the Lord (dvaita advaita), but he accepts the concept of eternal difference of jiva and the Lord. According to Visnu Svamii, though there is only one substance (advaita), there are still eternal states of difference in the form of brahman and jiva . Though there are differences amongst the philosophies, all the vaisnava acaryas have accepted the eternal nature of bhakti, bhagavan, the jiva 's eternal servitorship and the goal of prema They are true Vaisnavas But though they are all Vaisnavas, their realizations, being slightly different for each other, were partial or imperfect When Mahaprabhu appeared, he removed incompleteness from those realizations and taught the world the pure science, the highest truth of pure bhakti.
In his Vedanta sutra, Srila Vyasadeva has described that everything is but a transformation of the energy of the Lord. Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by commenting that Vyasadeva was mistaken.. Thus he has raised great opposition to theism throughout the entire world.According to Sankaracarya, by accepting the theory of the transformation of the energy of the Lord, one creates an illusion by indirectly accepting that the Absolute Truth is transformed.

Transformation of energy is a proven fact. It is the false bodily conception of the self that is an illusion. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is opulent in all respects. Therefore by His inconceivable energies He has transformed the material cosmic manifestation.

Using the example of a touchstone, which by its energy turns iron to gold and yet remains the same, we can understand that although the Supreme Personality of Godhead transforms His innumerable energies, He remains unchanged.

Although touchstone produces many varieties of valuable jewels, it nevertheless remains the same. It does not change its original form.

Brahman, who is greater than the greatest, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is full of six opulences, and therefore He is the reservoir of ultimate truth and absolute knowledge. When we speak of the Supreme as impersonal, we deny His spiritual potencies. Logically, if you accept half of the truth , you cannot understand the whole.
( C.C. Madhya 7.121-126, 138, 140)

The personal features of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are categorized in three cases-namely, ablative, instrumental and locative. (C.C. Madhya 6.144 )

Are you describing as formless that Supreme Personality of Godhead whose transcendental form is complete with six transcendental opulences? (C.C.Madhya 6 152)

Veda Vyasa in the Vedanta Sutras has taught parinama vad (transformation), not vivarta vada (illusion). But Sankaracarya, claiming that in parinama vada the Lord becomes subject to change, changed the meaning of the sutras and established vivartavada
The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama. Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta.

Parinama is transformation of an object. The example is the formation of yogurt from milk. An example of vivarta is mistaking a rope for a snake .

Taking these definitions, the followers of Sankaracarya say that the jiva and the material world can never be a transformation of the Lord. If one accepts such a transformation of the Lord, it must be considered a perverted state of the Lord. As yogurt is a perverted state of milk, one must say that the world is a perverted state of the Lord. Therefore, they say, parinama is not acceptable. If out of ignorance a person accepts a rope as a snake, from that mistake many difficulties arise. They claim the perception of the material world is similar to this. The world does not exist. Out of ignorance that which is perceived as world is actually an illusion, vivarta. By accepting this proposition, the Lord is not subject to change or transformation. By such reasoning, the theory of vivarta is established.

Mahaprabhu's teaching is as follows. There is no substance to the theory of vivarta vada. Thinking the material body to be the self is comparable to the mistaking a rope for a snake. That is vivarta. However the material body is not false. And to claim that the Lord, through illusion or vivarta, becomes the material body and the material world, that the Lord falls under the illusion of thinking he is a jiva , is a detestable belief.

Parinama is accepted in the Vedanta Sutras of Vyasa. By rejecting parinama, one admits that all-knowledgeable Vyasa is mistaken. Just as milk transforms into yogurt, the Lord's inconceivable energy, by his wish, is transformed into the jiva and the material world. There is no transformation of the Lord or Brahman What is transformed through the influence of the Lord's variegated, inconceivable energies can never make the Lord the object of transformation.

Though a material example cannot fully represent spiritual matters, by accepting an example one can clarify a spiritual topic. Thus it is stated that touchstone, though producing piles of jewels, remains unchanged. On the spiritual level, one can think of the Lord's creations in the same way. Though creating unlimited jivas and unlimited universes by his inconceivable energy just by his will, the Supreme Lord remains without change.

One should not think the words "without change" make the Lord impersonal, absolutely without quality. The absolute truth is endowed with the six opulences in full as Bhagavan. By claiming the Lord is absolutely without qualities, one is claiming he is without spiritual energies. However, by his inconceivable energies, the Lord is eternally endowed with qualities as well as being devoid of qualities. To claim absolute absence of qualities is acceptance of only half of the Lord's form. By this, one is destroying his completeness.

The three ways in which the Lord is the cause (ablative, instrumental, locative- from whom, by whom and in whom everything exists) is explained in the sruti.
Inquire about the brahman from who everything is born, by whom everything is sustained, and into whom everything enters.
From whom all beings are born" describes the Lord in the ablative function. "By whom all beings continue to live" describes the Lord in his instrumental function. "Into whom they enter" describes his locative function. The supreme being is qualified by these characteristics; these are his qualities. Thus the Lord is always endowed with qualities, and can never be without form or qualities. The form of eternity, knowledge, and bliss, full of the six opulences, is the Lord's eternal spiritual form.
There is one Supreme Being. He is naturally endowed with inconceivable energies. Through these energies he exists eternally in four states: His own form, His spiritual expansions, the jiva and pradhana (matter). These four states may be compared to the sun's power, the sun globe, the sun's rays and the sun's effulgence. (Bhagavat Sandarbha 16)

In the above quoatation, His own form (svarupa) means the form of eternal bliss and knowledge. His spiritual abode, names, associates and all objects assisting in pastimes are the expansions (vaibhava). The eternally liberated and eternally conditioned souls are the jivas. Maya and all the gross and subtle elements of the universe are indicated by the word "pradhana". These four manifestations are manifested from the eternal supreme being.If one examines all the statements of all the scriptures, one can understand that there is one eternal truth. The world is true, not a false object imagined through ignorance. It has arisen through the free will of the Supreme Lord, not through the jiva . Perception of a false object is called vivarta. Though the world is temporary, it is real, having arisen through the glance or will of the Lord endowed with inconceivable energies. There is no factor of illusion or vivarta here. The Supreme Lord's inferior energy is maya. By her will, this material world of moving and non-moving entities appears. The whole universe is at once identical with and different from the Lord by his inconceivable energy. Though the world is real, it is not the ultimate reality The Kathopanisad and Svetasvatara Upanisad prove this: nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam (I am the chief eternal and the chief of all conscious entities.)

Exclusive duality, exclusive monism, pure monism or qualified monism-these philosophies all agree with some of the statements of the scriptures, but contradict other scriptural statements. But the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda is a philosophy which agrees with all the statements of scripture. It is the natural object of the faith of the jiva and approved by all the devotees.

The jiva does not have an eternal relation with this material world, which is a transformation of the Supreme Brahman's energy, not a transformation of the Lord, Himself. This world of subtle and gross matter is simply a stage for jiva's forlorn attempt to enjoy.

Dear Sayan

A very impressive array of knowledge displayed by you. Personally I have left behind much of my thirst for scriptures and 'gyan'. The dialectics of what contains what and how it affirms or negates which school IMO is a whole other mental feat of engaging with ego and intellect. In my humble experience it does nothing to bring you closer to your own truth.

Just to share with you that my entire engagement with tantra was not triggered by any books and texts. It was an experiential stage of revelations which made me understand Tantra and only after that did I try to enquire what is the philosophy and the source of Tantra. Hence most of my insights are totally based on what I have and am experiencing and how we use that understanding with others who access Ifsha. And always I find the subtlety of my insight, coming as it does from my inutition. takes me far deeper than what is alluded to in the texts.

Personally in my experience of being a seeker I have found scriptures to have limited value. It cannot be otherwise for Truth is too complex and can NEVER be contained in words. yes signposts can be provided and that is exactly what the texts do. Perhaps that is why there are so many different texts, schools because there are so many different roads and hence signposts. Yes they provide an outline and often throw up interesting language for states which you experience on your road to the Self but as one who has gone through some fascinating inner roads I would like to say that I truly understood why Buddha and Zen particulalry called all texts 'dead'. At best they echo the reminder to wake up to your potential. But after that all is your own 'expansion'. NOTHING, no text comes even close to explaining what and how the Truth ultimately unravels. There is just the silence of knowing.

Dear anusheh,
Thanks for your comment.You are indeed right,merely reading scriptures, does not in any way make you more knowledgable,or enlightened rather it just gives you afalse pretence that you know.Tantra indeed as you told is absolutely based on self knowledge and on the supreme dependence on your guru.So what exactly were the experiential stage of revelations which made you to understand tantra?Interested to know more about your experiences.

Hi Sayan

Well the experiences have been many and continue as does my understanding of Tantra. But I don't feel the need/desire to share them. Some things are just personal and they don't necessarily serve any purpose for others in their detailing. I guess because what you experience makes sense and serves to guide only you and for everyone else they are at best magical or bizarre occurences:-)

Hi Anusheh,
Its perfectly ok if you do not feel at ease while discussing this things,I will not tell you to write about them any more.Actually as for me i love to discuss philosophies with people who are interested in them.Anyway best of luck for your endeavours.

That's a very interesting thought, Aachi. I wish you would write some more about this since you have obviously spent a good deal of time contemplating this question. This post sort of starts of a thought and leaves it hanging.