Dayanand Bharati
The focus of this paper is to share aspects of textual, historical, practical and theological views on image worship. The aim is NOT to provide information ‘against’ image worship (from either Hindu sources or the Muktiveda (Bible)) to equip people who serve among Hindus to confront them. In the past, numerous attempts were made to reach the Hindus by this negative approach, and all miserably failed. Since this is known history, we need not repeat the story here again. Eric Sharpe says enough for us to understand the negative and shallow understanding on the part of evangelicals in this regard.
With very few exceptions their [Evangelicals’] use of the Bible dictated the terms on which they viewed the world—as ‘fallen’, ‘idolatrous’ and, as a whole, condemned to final destruction. For the scriptures of (in this case) the Hindu tradition they had very little time, except as evidence of the depths of human depravity. Most had practically no access to them; nor, in all likelihood, would they have availed themselves of the opportunity, even had it presented itself. (Sharpe 1985:33,emphasis added)
So this paper is not going to give all the information about the textual, historical, theological aspects of image worship but more will focus on practical issues related to it. Because, even availing all information on this subject won’t help, unless one sincerely tries to understand the worldview of a Hindu. Doing any seva (service) among them with preconceived and prejudiced notions about image worship with ‘traditional’ convictions based on (their interpretation of) Muktiveda (Bible) won’t help much. They have to come out from their evangelical hangover to thinks soberly.
Textual Considerations
Traditionally it is assumed that image worship is absent in the Vedas. But Prof. Kane, in his classical work on Dharmasastras, refutes this notion and gives lots of detailed information about image worship in Vedic times and literature. At the same time he also agrees that,
When Vedic sacrifices became less and less prevalent owing to various causes, there arose the cult of the worship of images. Originally, it was not so universal or elaborate as it became in medieval and modern times. (Kane 1973-1990: vol. 2 pg. 712)
It will help us if we take time to read all the information given by Kane and a few others on textual evidence from Vedic and other literatures. And those who are interested are requested to contact the author (through email) to get them or directly read books related to this subject.1
But let me give a warning here that in this or any study on Hindu worldviews based on texts, simply beginning from Vedas won’t help us much. The problem is that once we accept the academic chronology of Hindu scriptures which assigns the Vedas as ancient and oldest, then it becomes difficult to come out from such a mindset. Though this (artificial) academic chronology of Hindu scriptures does help students of Hinduism (also any scholar) to study in a systematic way, yet it won’t help them to understand the ground realities of Hindu life. The absence or presence of any concept in the Vedas is not going to determine the everyday life of a Hindu. So, technically, one can argue the absence of idols in Vedas and Vedic period and so claim (with the Arya Samaj) that it was later introduced into Hinduism which initiated various kinds of blind faiths or superstition and thereby corrupted the purity of Hinduism. But this in no way will help us to understand the practical aspects of image worship among Hindus.
Historical Considerations
Apart from textual evidence, a lot of information is available about image worship in India through archeological excavations and extensive scholarly study on this subject. Again on this point, traditionally the Indus valley civilization and all the ‘idols’ and other symbols like phallic emblems and Siva with beasts surrounding him, etc., is discussed as the presence of idol worship from time immemorial in India.2
However, Michael Willis in his remarkable scholarly works gives not only a reasonable but authentic facts based on archaeological and copper plat chatters that show that temple and idol worship were a conscious creation by priests:
…The juxtaposition of the domestic world of the sutra-tradition with the public cult of the temple may be overdrawn—the two overlapped for centuries—but it highlights the degree to which ritual, social, and economic relationships were changing in the time of the Guptas. As already noted, this was a change of configuration rather than components. The new relationship between puja, priest, image, patron, and land was a powerful synergism that produced temple-based Hinduism. This world—in part Vedic but radically different from what went before—did not emerge in an organic, subconscious, or accidental fashion from some sort of socio-religious plasma; it was consciously created by members of the priesthood—an intellectual and religious elite with clear aims and certain purposes…The temple priests of Gupta India established images in increasing numbers, accumulated endowments to support their work, and grew ever more powerful. As they did so, ancient forms of worship and everything they represented were displaced. By the early sixth century, these priests and their temples had changed the religious landscape of India forever. (Willis 2009:121-22)
Anyone wanting to understand historical perspectives on image worship should read this book. I will be happy to share my unedited review of the book if anyone is interested.
So one can tentatively say that idol worship was not prevalent in Vedic times. As Hinduism is not centered only on the Vedas various other sources need to be studied about the origin and development of idol worship. An important tendency in Hindu traditions is towards assimilation rather than abolition. So numerous local and regional (and even from far outside the scope of “orthodox” Hindu ways) faiths, customs and rituals were accommodated side by side with orthodox views and practices. It is difficult to say whether they were included as a natural process or in a deliberate attempt to Hinduize or Aryanize others through inculturation. Though scholars like Vijaynath have conclusively proved the process of inculturation in Aryanizing non-Aryans3, yet I consider that there was mutual interpenetration between various local and regional faiths and the orthodoxy Hindu traditions—both at the same time managed to sustain their own individuality and orthodoxy in various ways. Both the Aryanization of non-Aryan groups and the tribalization/Dravidianization of the Aryans developed as a long smooth process which contributed to the growth and expansion of idol worship. Though this process of adapting and adopting worked on all levels, yet the Agamas were the texts which gave shape and guidance to temples and idol worship.
There are various perspectives on this historical development of borrowing and adapting. Kane outlined three possible sources for the development of image worship:
(1) that the worship of images was derived from sudras and Dravidian tribes and absorbed in the brahmanical cult; (2) that the making of images was copied from the Buddhists; (3) that this practice was a natural and spontaneous growth.4
Then, dismissing the first two, he gave information from various texts in favor of the third point. Willis’ scholarly discussion, in my opinion, provides a better alternate perspective. It should be noted that there is ample evidence in Sangam (Tamil) literature about the presence of temples and idol worship among the Tamilians (or Dravidians in general). Remember also, as mentioned above, that study on any subject based on chronological order and by isolating of one social group (Aryans, Dravidians, tribes etc.) from the others won’t help much. All this textual and historical information is important, yet it won’t help much to understand the practical aspects of idol worship.
In closing this section, a word about the Agamas is not out of place. The Agamas mark an important link between the textual/historical and practical points of view. In a sense, Agamic rituals are a kind of extension of Vedic rituals. At the same time, however, they accommodated from various social groups in India all kinds of rituals related with idol worship and temple construction. In my personal opinion all the Agamic texts and rituals developed from practical aspects of idol worship among the people. Later all these rituals and information were compiled and written and rewritten by various sampradayas for wider and future use. So a proper study on the Agamas will help us to understand the textual, historical, practical and above all theological views on idol worship. Even present day idol worship of all forms—temple, public, private etc.,—cannot be done without some reference and directions as given by the respective sectarian Agama literature. All the details about making idols (for all purpose), temple construction and minute details about consecration (of both temple and idol) and various aspects of pujas are found in Agamas literature of the respective sampradayas—including that of the Tantrics.
Practical Considerations
Present day ritual Hinduism is thus centered on Agamic worship, which centres on the temple and idol. The concept of arcavatara, in which the particular deity (mostly in Vaishnav sampradayas) after consecration physically dwells in the idol, gave a great boost to murtipujas (image worship)). That is why in puja in the home the deity is treated as a guest, and in the temple as a king, with all rituals done accordingly. Temple festivals are grand occasions in which the local god of the temple is taken in procession and gives audiences to his devotees; music, dance and other cultural events are performed before the deity and big communal feasts are arranged; in fact the presiding deity receives all the honours of a king from the people.
In addition to the temple festivals and house pujas, the recent development of big celebrations like Durgapuja in Bengal, Ganeshchaturti in Maharashtra and recent jayantis (birthdays) for national leaders shows how flexible Hinduism is in giving room for all kinds of expressions—religious, spiritual, cultural, social, political, national and even communal. Now these occasions are also being turned into great tourist attractions, preserving and promoting Indian culture and traditions. These festivals also provide an opportunity to go on pilgrimage, which also forms a part of ritual.
Regarding murtipuja, it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the details of the entire debate about its strengths and weaknesses. Though this controversy is not new to Hinduism, since the Renaissance of the past two centuries idol worship has been a focal point for debate among the Hindu reformers as also between Hindus and Christian missionaries. Though the traditional discussion on this point was for or against it—between orthodox sects and reformers like the Tamil Siddhas, Kabir Das and Guru Nanak—in modern times both sides try to give scientific reasons along with intellectual, rationalistic explanations for their respective points of view. Common people, however, continue in their faith as before, most of these discussions remaining in elite intellectual circles.
Though an average Hindu is very orthodox when it comes to his faith, he will be a liberal when he tries to explain it. When it comes to the point of defense he has only one word of explanation, which is “FAITH”. Especially regarding “murtipuja”, the ordinary Hindu has faith in it (though he knows that it is not the substance but rather the meaning behind it that is important).5 To a typical Hindu the moment you give a name and form to God, with or without a symbol, it itself become an “idol”.6 That is why when some Christians (particularly Roman Catholics), however sympathetic they may be in their understanding of Hindu “idol” worship, try to differentiate their “veneration” of “icons” of Mary, Jesus and other saints from Hindu “idol” worship, Hindus can see nothing but sectarian prejudice.7
If a small piece of bread or wafer after consecration becomes “the very Person of God” for Roman Catholic Christians, a piece of stone or wood after “pranapratistha”8 becomes very God for a Hindu. But a Hindu will happily throw away that piece of wood or stone after it has served its purpose, whereas a Catholic has to cling to that wafer or bread till the end. I have seen some Catholic priests falling down to worship the consecrated bread or wafer, calling it as the very body of Jesus. Protestant Christians do not accept this theory of transubstantiation, but the Protestant Christians who condemn the murtipuja of a Hindu should remember that the Bible also talks about Jesus “as the image (icon) of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). Regarding Muslim criticism of Hindu idol worship, turning towards the west to worship, kissing a stone (at Mecca, that too by several million people) and the ritual stoning of Satan are all, in the eyes of Hindus, nothing but idol worship.9 Regarding this point about Protestant Christians and Muslims, one can argue that these practices never come near to any idol worship in their faith. Many Hindus also know about this, because they know what ‘idol’ worship actually means and merely keeping a cross and bowing before it or kissing a stone is not idol worship. But this is said from a Hindu perspective as a counter argument to point out that such activities could also be considered by common Hindus as another kind of idol worship, however both Protestant Christians and Muslims try to explain their respective practice.10
Without a symbol (pratika)11 the common man cannot comprehend, apprehend or express any objective ideals. The moment meaning is understood, the need for the symbol can be set aside.12 A typical Hindu never thinks that all the non-Hindus who condemn his “idol” worship have transcended the need for every symbol in their own religious expressions. That is why he is sympathetic to them even when they think that he is in the kindergarten school in his spirituality in his relationship with his symbols. Of course, a kindergarten school faith is more important than all kinds of intellectual explanations of spirituality. Note that Hinduism equally condemns idol worship13, even while also upholding it. Two such contradictory positions can co-exist without any confusion in Hinduism since it gives freedom for all kinds of faith expressions. The following story told by Nirad C. Chaudhuri reflects a typical Hindu mind:
I shall give an example of this from an old Bengali poem written around 1750, in which the poet sets forth an argument between the Mogul Emperor Jehangir and a Bengali Brahmin to prove the superiority of Hinduism.
The Emperor says that Hindus make idols of clay, wood, and stone and, by infusing life into these by means of spells, only worship evil spirits. He asks: “Who can save a people who give life to things made by man and what can be the future life of those who put vermilion on trees and pitchers and call these goddesses”?
The Brahmin replies: “Clay, wood, or stone, all things movable or immovable contain God according to the Puranas as well as the Quran. He who makes images of Him with these only makes the intangible God tangible. He who contemplates only the intangible without the help of the tangible drops the gold and only ties an empty knot in his scarf.” (Chaudhuri 1996:91-92)
Though an idol may be called a pratika or symbol, in fact it can neither can represent God nor interpret Him. Though a symbol can help us to visualise the invisible, still how far it can do this regarding God is questionable. Though the concept of arcavatara, in which after proper consecration the very spirit of God indwells an idol, is familiar among the Vaishnavites, yet it can in no sense limit the unfathomable form of God. So then, what is an idol? In my opinion an idol expresses our limitation of understanding God who is beyond our human comprehension. An idol as a symbol neither expresses nor interprets God. It is a symbol of our limitation. And those who try to worship God through an idol only manage to communicate their limitation. Though it is a good way to express and accept our limitation, yet it is not necessary either to understand or express that limitation, because it may directly or indirectly restrict our efforts to understand God in our spirit beyond all human limitations.
Theological Considerations
An average Hindu in all practical issues related with life is not concerned about theology/doctrine. Family tradition, personal faith and the demands of life are more important matters. So we cannot dwell here on the theological aspects of idol worship in Hinduism, which deserve a separate paper.
Coming to the Muktiveda (Bible), I completely agree with it that idol worship is a sin which has separated and will continue to separate us from the love of God. But our understanding of ‘sin’ based on the Muktiveda has various dimensions. I cannot limit it only with condemning Hindus for their idol worship. Thankfully the same Muktiveda in clear terms points out all kinds of idol worship other than just ‘iconic’ and ‘fetish’ kinds of worships of symbols. This is not just a philosophical view, but a daring truth found in the Muktiveda. As the participants of this conference are thorough with Muktiveda, I need not discuss about it here.
Of course, one crucial issue is how to handle and approach this issue for those who do seva (service) among Hindus, particularly those Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath who live with their parents and keep all their social family contact with their relatives. My view is that this question really should not be ‘where to draw the line’ but rather ‘who to draw the line’. All outsiders of Hindu society (including the ‘converts’ who left Hindu community and joined Christian community), instead of passing judgment, should approach the issue with clear understanding of each individual context and of all the views on idol worship in both Hinduism (textual, historical and practical) and Muktiveda. Otherwise they end up as a blind person leading the blind.
All the insiders (Hindu bhaktas of the Lord), while taking a stand for the Lord (not only on the issue of idol worship), not compromising with their personal conviction and bhakti, should handle it without creating any guilty conscience, particularly induced by any outsider. All the concessions given by God because of human weakness should not be treated as permission to get lost completely ending up with syncretism. Rather, remaining sensitive to the cultural, social and even religious (and ritual) sensitivity of our own people, we should learn ‘where to draw the line.’ Those who are happy to remain on spoon/bottle feeding will never mature and become witnesses for the grace of the Lord to anyone—particularly to their own children. Learning, thinking and fellowship alone will help them to become mature. So giving any one-time, uniform theological response to any group won’t do any justice both to the issue and the person.
Conclusion
There is no substitute for hard work. A two day conference and one 45 minute presentation of a paper and collecting the paper and keeping it in a file (never to be opened again), though a good beginning, yet cannot replace the personal hard work to understand all the issues related with idols (or any other issue).
Notes
1.See particularly Kane 1973-1990, vol. II chapter XIX, devapuja – image worship, pp. 705ff, 730. See also vol. V pp. 35-36 for other evidences from Vedic literature for the sixteen upacaras; vol. V chap XXVI, Pratistha-consecrating an image, pp, 896ff. I can be reached at dayanand.bharati@gmail.com
2. See Kane 1973-1990, vol. II pg. 709 and Bryant 2002:163-4:
Much has been written on the religion of the Indus people; the implications of interpreting Indus artifacts as Vedic or non-Vedic are obvious. Rather than burden the reader with an overly detailed exposition of views on this mater, a brief glance at some of the creative interpretations inspired by the so-called Pasupati proto-Siva seal will give some sense of the series of assumptions that are often made in assigning meaning to innate archaeological objects. The seal consists of what appears to be an ithyphallic figure on some kind of a seat in yogic posture with arms resting on knees and crowned with a horned headdress. The figure is surrounded by a number of animals, and there is an inscription above the figures.… The list goes on, but I trust that the point has been made and will spare the reader further expositions on proto-Siva, pre-Aryan ‘earth goddesses’, Vedic ‘soma filters’, ‘lingams’, ‘yonis’, Vedic ‘vrajras’, and a host of other Aryan, or non-Aryan, religious characteristics that have been reconstructed from other Indus artifacts.
3. Nath provided a good summary of his position:
Thus, by the age of the Puranas, the socio-economic developments, particularly those related to agricultural expansion, not only emphasised the need to forge cultural links with autochthonous groups residing in peripheral zones, but also made it imperative to modify and adopt the existent Brahmanical system to the needs of a changing social order. The composition of the Puranas as a distinct genre of Brahminical literature, therefore, was more than anything else an attempt to meet the challenges posed as much by the recent socio-economic upheaval as by the proselytising activities of the Jainas and the Buddhists specially in the remoter tribal belts….’ (Nath 2001: 204)
Whether or not the Aryanized tribals helped the Brahmin (priests) gain materially through this process of acculturation, the Brahmins certainly succeeded in their endeavour. By introducing several borrowed tribal and tantric rituals as well as introducing numerous other ‘foreign’ rituals—like tirtha yatra, temple worship, praayaschitas etc., which were, according to the author, introduced by the Purana composers in their acculturation process—the Brahmins made a good living from other Aryan communities. In practice today tribes do not engage the Brahmin priest for rituals and ceremonies, rather only the tribalized Aryan communities do so.
4. Kane says, “Farquhar is not right when he says in his Outlines of the Religious Literature of India (p. 51) that the sixteen upacaras ‘are so distinct in character from the sacrificial cult as to betray alien origin’. When image-worship became general items offered to invited Brahmins were also offered to the image of gods. It was a case of extension and not of borrowing from an alien cult” (1973-1990: vol. II pg. 730). See also vol. V, part I p. 35 for other evidences from Vedic literature for the sixteen upacaras.
5. The best rationalistic defense against attacks on image worship that I am aware of is by Gora in Rabindranath Tagore’s novel of that name:
I only want to tell you that the object you are dismissing as a mere idol cannot really be understood by looking at it physically. Whether it is golden or earthen, finite or infinite, is known only by the person whose mind has settled on it, whose heart has been satisfied by it, whose nature has found refuge in it. Take it from me—no true devotee in our country worships the finite. Only by losing all limits does devotion fulfill itself.…Worship of form and idolatry are the same thing, or that worship of idols is not the final evolution of devotional piety. In art, in literature, even in science or in historical study, there is room for imaginative perception—therefore I cannot accept there is no place for it in religious belief. All the inclinations of man find their supreme manifestation in religious belief. In our country, there has been an effort through idol worship to harmonize knowledge and devotion with imaginative grasp. Hasn’t that made religious belief more completely real to our people than it is to people of other countries? (Tagore 2001 (1927):374f., 391)
6. Cf. Kane, “But even image worshippers are quite conscious that god is pure consciousness (cit), is one without a second, is without parts and without a physical body, and that the various images in which he is thought as in-dwelling are so imagined for the benefit of worshippers” (1973-1990: vol. II, pp. 896-7).
7. Julius Lipner wants the word idol to be abandoned by all, saying “idol” is, “not to be understood in the sense used by orthodox Christianity. Hindus themselves, alas, often blithely use the word ‘idol’ to refer to their sacred images. But they should realise that the term is so fraught with tendentious Western associations as to be quite unsuitable” (Lipner 1994:351).
8. See Kane 2973-1900: vol. II pp. 896-900 on the pranapratistha ceremony that “enlivens” a murti.
9. Note Gandhiji’s view on this:
One of the Hindu practices which Christians regard as gross superstition and sin is idol worship. A Christian, F. Mary Barr, sought Gandhiji’s opinion about it. In his letter dated November 30, 1932, Gandhiji wrote, ‘What must not be forgotten about me is that I do not consider idol worship to be a sin, but I know that in some form or other it is a condition of our being. The difference between one form of worship and another is a difference in degree and not in kind. Mosque-going or Church-going is a form of idol-worship. Veneration for the Bible, the Koran, the Gita and the like is idol-worship and even if you don’t use a book or a building but draw a picture of divinity in your imagination and attribute certain qualities, it is again idol worship and I refuse to call the worship of one who has a stone image a grosser form of worship…It would be both arrogant and ignorant to look down upon such worship as superstition…All this is a plea for a definite recognition of the fact that all forms of honest worship are equally good and equally efficient for the respective worshippers. Time is gone for the exclusive possession of right by an individual or a group.’ (Savariroyan 1986:163-4, from Gandhi 1972:96)
10. Note Diana Eck’s further dissection of this topic. ‘…In exploring the nature of images in the Hindu context we must make a further distinction between the iconic and the aniconic image.…The Latin icon or the Greek eikon means “likeness” or “image” and calls to mind the icons of Orthodox Christianity which show a likeness of Christ or Mary. By contrast, the aniconic images are those symbolic forms which, although they refer to a deity, do not attempt any anthropomorphic form or any representational likeness. The plain cross, for example, is aniconic, as is the linga of Siva or the natural stone saalagraama of Visnu.’ (Eck 1996:32)
11. B. G. Tilak explained the concept of pratika:
The Name-d and Form-ed object necessary for purposes of worship as the symbol, sign, incarnation, particle, or representation of the worshipped Parabrahman, is known in Vedanta philosophy as a “pratika”. The etymological meaning of “pratika” is prati + ika, that is, “one, who is turned, towards (prati) ourselves”; and that side or portion of any particular object which first becomes perceptible to us, and whereby we subsequently obtain a knowledge of it, is called “pratika”. (Tilak 1986:580)
Regarding the misuse of symbols, which can become image worship, Daniel Fleming says:
Again, all of us, unless we are spiritually awake, tend to see the sculptured or painted form, and not the particular state of mind that the symbol was meant to inspire. In a dull mood we are likely to miss the idea, the spirit, or the sentiment, and experience only the visible. There is a real danger, therefore, that for certain backward peoples the physically tangible symbol may take the place of the thing signified. In that case the symbol becomes a fetish or idol. From this point of view idolatry may be defined as the misuse of symbols. (Fleming 1940:30)
12. Cf. Raimundo Panikkar’s observation; “The sacred character of a thing, we note, resides always in its function and not in its substance. For example, the murtis, the idols worshipped during popular festivals, are afterwards often immersed in the rivers or simply laid aside”. (Panikkar 1989:369)
13. Cf. P. Fallon:
Many others go even further and say that images of wood or metal and statues of any kind are only for the spiritually uneducated, the “alpabuddhi” or “murkha”; a man with true spiritual insight finds God in his heart, in his soul;
kaastha-lostesu muurkhaanaam, yuktasya aatmani devataa.
–In wood or clay God is seen by the foolish ones; In the Atman by those who are one with Him. [no reference is given]
ruupam ruupa-vivarjitasya bhavato dhyaanena yat-kalpitam, stutyaa
(a)-nirvacaniiyataa (a)-khilaguro duriikrtaa yan-mayaa;
vyaapitvam-ca niraakrtam bhagavato yat tiirtha-yatraadinaa,
kantavyam, jagadisha, tad vikalataa-dosa-trayam matkrtam.
–Forgive, O Supreme Ruler of the world, three faults which I have committed due to my weakness; meditating upon Thee, O Formless One, I fancied Thee under various shapes and forms; when praising Thee, O Lord of the universe, I have done away with Thine ineffableness; while journeying to sacred places, O Lord, I forgot thine omnipresence. (Fallon 1997:110-11)
And see what Maluk Das and Kabir say:
Sadhus, the world is mad; it worships senseless stones.
Maluk the Spirit worships, able to ask and eat.
As are the souls you see, the Saligrams are many,
Serve thou the God who speaks; what profiteth a stone?
The soul that knows not Ram, but to a stone bows down,
How can it win release by numberless Puranas?
Serve not gods made with hands, that with a blow are broken.
Maluk says, all four ages perfect the Spirit abides. (Maluk Das, I cannot give a reference as this is from handwritten notes—db.]
Kabir:
Paving earth with stones, say they lead to heaven,
To soot-cell pundits fix, doors of evil action. (162:23:1)
MC: Priests cover the earth with stone idols, declaring them to be gods and their worship as the way to God. Already the world is a chamber of soot, to it they fix black doors of evil actions.
Why pray to idols, they’ll answer not,
Hope blinds him, self he reveres not. (163:23:3)
MC: It is foolish to have blind faith in stone-idols and no faith in oneself. (Mahajan 2008:149)
Why worship the stone, why not the mountain,
I revere this stone, for people it grinds grain. (380)
MC: The couplet snubs the seeker praying to a stone idol. God is not in stone but in living beings, hence their service is the best prayer. (Mahajan 2008:321)
References Cited
Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, Indian edition 2002.
Chaudhuri, Nirad C. Hinduism: A Religion to Live By. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Eck, Diana L. Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in India, Delhi: Motilal Banasidass, Second Revised and Enlarged Edition, 1996.
Fallon, P. “God in Hinduism: Brahman, Paramatman, Ishvara and Bhagavan.” In Religious Hinduism, R. De Smet and J. Neuner (eds.). Mumbai: St. Paul’s, Fourth Revised Edition, 1997.
Fleming, Daniel Johnson. Christian Symbols in a World Community. New York, 1940.
Gandhi, Mahatma. The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 52. New Delhi: Government of India. 1972.
Kane, P. V. History of Dharmasastra. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Second ed. 1973-1990.
Lipner, Julius. Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London:Routledge, 1994.
Mahajan, Sushila. Couplets of Kabir: A Vision of Beyond. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, 2008.
Nath, Vijay. Puraanas and Acculturation: A Historico-Anthropological Perspective. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001.
Panikkar, Raimundo. The Vedic Experience, Mantramanjari: An Anthology of the Vedas for Modern Man and Contemporary Celebration. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Second edition, 1989 (1977).
Savariroyan, Pandit D. (ed.). The Tamilian Antiquary: Manikka Vacagar and His Date. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1986.
Sharpe Eric J., The Universal Gita: Western Images of the Bhagavadgita, a Bicentenary Survey. London: Duckworth, 1985.
Tagore, Rabindranath. Gora. Translated from Bengali with notes by Sujit Mukherjee. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2001 (1927).
Tilak, B. G. Srimad BhagavadGita-Rahasya. Tr. A.S. Sukthankar. Poona: Tilak Brothers. Seventh edition, 1986.
Willis, Michael. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Leave a Reply