My Iconology

My Iconology

Q) Is it right for me to chant the slokas for Govinda (Perumal) as I would for my Govinda (Muktinath)? – SR

DB: I see no issue with using the names of other deities for the Lord, as long as one understands the meaning and background of that name, which is often linked to stories associated with that deity. For instance, “Govinda” can mean “one who leads cows” or “one who lifted the mountain.” “Perumal” in Tamil means “Great Person.” Historically, many converts have used such names in their songs. For example, Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya employed the names “Govindam” and “Sumukundam” in his famous Sanskrit bhajans “Vandechattidanadam.” Although some Christians have replaced these names with others, I have used the bhajans as they are, without changing the words.

Similarly, in Tamil Christian lyrics, you might find the name “Sivam” used for the Lord. I am also moved deeply by the Hindi bhajan “Romu Romume basanevala Ram,” which is a bhajan on Ram. However, when I sing it, I think of my Lord, as “Ram” means “the pleasant one.” That said, I wouldn’t sing this bhajan in a corporate worship setting, as it might confuse others. Using the names of other deities for their attributes is different from using names tied to specific narratives. Even the name “Muktinath,” which I prefer for Jesus, is derived from the deity of the famous Vishnu temple in Nepal. The name “Muktinath” resonates with me as it aligns with the meaning of “Jesus,” which is “one who saves.” For more on this, refer to the article “Names of God” on the blog.

Q) Can I approach the moorthy of Govinda with bhakti? –SR

This question warrants a detailed response. Let me start with an analogy. Suppose you cherish your parents deeply, and after their passing, you wish to keep a photo of them to show your respect and love. Unfortunately, you don’t have any photos of them, so you ask someone to paint a picture, even though it may not accurately capture their likeness. Though you may keep it, you’ll always know it’s not truly them. Alternatively, you might get a picture of your parents’ close relatives. While they resemble your parents, they are not your parents. Although you might keep it, you understand it cannot replace the role or place of your parents in your heart.

Now, imagine you encounter another elderly couple who need care and love. You care for them as a way of honoring your parents’ memory. When they pass away, would you replace the photo of your parents with a picture of this elderly couple? No matter how much you care for them, they cannot replace your parents. Similarly, while we respect the deities of others, that respect doesn’t replace our devotion (bhakti) to the Lord. This analogy, of course, has its limitations, but it illustrates the point.

In every bhakti tradition, exclusive devotion to one’s chosen deity is never considered wrong, and replacing that deity with another is seldom encouraged. In fact, in certain orthodox sects, like Sri Vaishnavism, such an act would be considered heresy. Therefore, if I have personal devotion to my Lord, why would I need to replace Him with another deity’s icon?

In Hindu tradition, worshiping a chosen deity is often not just about contemplating the deity’s qualities but also about describing their beauty and might through songs. For example, in several sampradayas, describing the deity from head to toe is common practice, known as “Padadi kesa varnanai” (from feet to hair). A famous example is Kamban’s Tamil Ramayana, where Rama’s physical features are vividly described as he walks through Mithila:

– “Those who have seen his shoulders have only seen them; 

  The same is true for those who have seen his lotus feet with anklets, 

  The same goes for those who have seen his mighty hands. 

  Who among the ladies with sword-like eyes has seen his entire form? 

  They all become like followers of various sampradayas who have seen God in fragments.”1

While the context of this poem is romantic, Kamban uses the final line to introduce a theological reflection—different sampradayas perceive God in fragments, rather than in totality.

There are countless examples from various poems describing deities’ physical appearances, such as “Aajanubhahu” (majestic look). However, in the Muktiveda (Bible), particularly in the Old Testament, physical descriptions of God focus on His power (e.g., “mighty arm,” “strong hands”) rather than His appearance.

I’ve also written a song about Akilandeswari, which is available on my Bhakti Theology blog. In some cases, even the deity’s mount (e.g., Garuda for Vishnu, Peacock for Murugan) is worshiped, or their weapons (e.g., Vel for Murugan) are given special significance. For many Murugan devotees, the Vel is more important than the deity itself, as it represents protection. Similarly, Vishnu’s Chakra (wheel) is worshipped separately in some temples.

However, in the Uttara Veda [New Testament], no reverent descriptions of the Lord’s physical appearance are found. Even the cross, which later became a symbol of Christianity, was initially a symbol of crime. Although the Purva Veda [Old Testament] has a few such descriptions (e.g., in Song of Songs or Isaiah’s suffering servant), they do not carry the same connotations as in Hindu tradition.

For me, our devotion to the Lord centers on His personality and what He has done as a person. For example, “Immanuel” means “God with us”; “Muktinath” (Jesus) means “one who saves”; “Christ” means “anointed one.”

A crucial point for me is that by replacing the icon of another deity with one of our Lord, we disrespect that deity by superimposing our theology onto them. In Hindu tradition, it is often stated that when one worships a deity, they are worshiping that specific deity of that sampradaya. For example, in the Bhagavad Gita (7:21), Krishna says, “Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I make that faith steady.”2 Therefore, whoever worships any other deity, in any form, is ultimately worshiping Krishna. However, as bhaktas of the Lord, we should not do this. By superimposing our theology onto another deity, we may offend or hurt others.

Hinduism accommodates both exclusivism and pluralism. Many Hindus worship multiple deities with equal devotion, visit Christian shrines, and even participate in Muslim festivals. Hinduism is not a rigid religion but a civilization that embraces various sampradayas. Even in the Gita, while pluralism is acknowledged, exclusivism is ultimately promoted. Therefore, there is also room for the Muktinath sampradaya, with exclusive devotion to Him.

Some Hindus have objected to using the icons of their deities in Christian contexts, such as depicting them in stained glass windows or crucifying the Pranava (OM) on the Roman Cross. They have asked that if their deities are respected, they should be placed on the altar alongside the cross, not used as decorative pieces. I agree with them. We should avoid using the icons of other sampradayas to worship the Lord. Without knowing, understanding, and accepting the theology of another sampradaya, we cannot replace its icon with that of the Lord. Any bhakti tradition that values exclusive devotion to a chosen deity would agree. For example, you won’t find the deity of another sampradaya in the home of a staunch Sri Vaishnava or Saivite.

Even in rare instances where exceptions exist, such as Ganapati in some Vaishnavite temples, these deities are given names and attributes consistent with that tradition. Therefore, while we respect other traditions, our exclusive devotion to the Lord remains paramount.

Regarding the question of what kind of icon one can use to worship the Lord, especially within the context of Hindu bhakti traditions, I suggest that a devotee might choose to worship the Lord’s ‘feet’ [Paduka] as an icon.  But I personally find no need for any form of physical icon in my worship. My focus is on worshipping the Lord for who He is and what He has done. This reflection inspired me to write a poem, encapsulating my thoughts on iconology:

1252 Your Icon

I tried to worship you

By creating an icon for you

Then I realized that I cannot

Create any kind of icon for you

I heard so many times told by others

That ‘God is love’

To know it completely

I came to you with much eagerness

When I analysed the image

That you have created for Love

I only saw all your acts

To create that Image

First practically demonstrating

All the teachings which you gave to others

You instructed me also to

Learn to live doing like that

In those acts I saw your image

Then I understood the concept of love

When I show love similarly to others

I will see your image in that

Therefore creating an icon for you

Though I keep it before me

And worship several times in a day

You are not in that I know that

Though I cannot love

As you have done for others

Whatever seva that I do to those who are before me

I will see your Image in it

Mathigiri, 8-03-2021, 11.30 pm.3

Q) I like to take up a popular slokam and read the translation. I have started reading the translation of ‘Sri Lalitha Sahasranamam’. As I have very little knowledge of both Hinduism and Christian theology, is this a healthy practice? – SR

DB: There is no harm in reading Sanskrit slokas, mantras, and bhajans about other deities. It can enrich our understanding of them and allow us to appreciate the beauty of Sanskrit, through which bhakti (devotion) can be expressed in diverse ways. However, [this is only a joke] I personally believe that Tamil is the only heavenly language on earth (and will be the only language in the New Heaven and New Earth). Therefore, I prefer to worship the Lord in Tamil rather than any other language, and I encourage others to do the same for an easier transition to the New Heaven and New Earth.4 That said, I also support worship in one’s mother tongue over any other foreign language, no matter how fluent they are in it.

Q) I have started reading the New Testament of Muktiveda in Sanskrit. It uses many terms with profound meanings in Hinduism. It becomes confusing when I search for their meanings online. Would a different book be a better starting point for me? – SR

DB: The New Testament in Sanskrit can indeed be challenging to comprehend, even for those familiar with the language. It might not be the best entry point for learning or reading Sanskrit. Fortunately, there are simpler Sanskrit slokas, mantras, and even bhajans written by some Jesuit Fathers that are more accessible. In our songbook, we have included a few of these for our devotional use.

Notes and Comments by Dr. Herb Hoefer

This discussion on iconology is both important and complex. I agree with two of your key points:

1. We should avoid using controversial or confusing terminology/names in public worship, as it can distract and upset worshippers. Such terms should be reserved for private worship if they hold personal significance.

2. We must respect the integrity of other religions and avoid superimposing Christian meanings on Hindu terms and names.

However, the question remains: What kind of physical representation is suitable for Christian worship? The Old Testament’s second commandment forbids the creation of graven images. But in the New Testament, when God became incarnate, He took on a physical form. Does this change the commandment, allowing physical representations in worship?

Historically, Christians have used physical representations like icons, statues, and the crucifix as focal points for worship, following the example of God incarnate in Christ. Similarly, other religious traditions, including Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism, have utilized physical objects or sacred texts as focal points in worship.

For Jesu bhaktas (followers of Jesus), accustomed to using physical objects in their worship, the transition might require new practices that differ from those used in Hinduism. However, they might also be hesitant to adopt Western Christian symbols.

It raises the question: Can we expect devotees to solely meditate intellectually or reflect on Scripture verses without any physical aid? Not everyone is trained in meditation or deeply familiar with Scripture. What, then, is left for the common worshipper, especially those new to the faith?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a definitive answer. The solution may need to emerge naturally and organically from within the community. Some Jesu bhaktas may find meaning in an Indian artist’s representation of Jesus, while others might use a photo or painting of a person in poverty, following the principle of Matthew 25: “What you have done to the least of these, you have done to Me.” Some may meditate on names of Jesus, like Immanuel or Prince of Peace, or focus on a calligraphied Scripture verse. Over time, meaningful personal practices might develop, and some could resonate with others.

This is a significant and complex topic that requires thoughtful consideration.

Db’s Response:

Thank you, Dr. Hoefer, for taking the time to read my reflections and provide valuable feedback. As always, you’ve helped me realize that there is no simple solution to the question of iconology, particularly for Hindu devotees of the Lord. I agree that not everyone can worship the Lord without symbols, and that each devotee must develop their own spiritual discipline that best meets their needs. Once again, I appreciate your insights and perspective on this topic. God bless you.

Db 

11-03-2021

Notes

1 தோள்கண்டார் தோளே கண்டார் தொடுகழற் கமல மன்ன

தாள்கண்டார் தாளே கண்டார் தடக்கைகண் டாருமஃதே

வாள்கொண்ட கண்ணார் யாரே வடிவினை முடியக் கண்டார்

ஊழ்கொண்ட சமயத் தன்னா னாருவுகண் டாரை யொத்தார்.— உலாவியற் படலம், (பாடல்.1195),

2 Swami Ramsukhadas, Srimad Bhagavadgita, Gita Press Gorakhpur, Volume 1, p. 629.  It is worth reading the comments given by Swami Ramsukhadas for this verse:

–The Lord makes the faith of devotees steady in the gods whom they seek to worship. The Lord does not force them to have faith only in Him. The faith in other gods does not lead them to salvation because they adore them to satisfy their desire.  But He makes the faith of a devotee firm in Him if he has faith in Him and he wants to attain salvation because He is the disinterested friend of all beings (Gita 5/29)

        Now a question rises, why the Lord does not make the faith of all persons firm only in Him.  The Lord seems to answer the question (p.629) by saying that if He stabilizes their faith only in Him, they lose their independence and He is proved selfish. So He sets an example for human beings that they should be impartial and should not motivate other people to have faith in them and adore them only.

        The second question rises that the Lord by stabilizing their faith in other gods does not think of their welfare because that faith does not lead them to salvation  The answer is that if He stabilizes their faith in Him, removing it from others, they will cease their reverence and faith in Him.  But if they are given independence, being intelligent and wise they may be attracted towards Him and that attraction will lead them to salvation.

        The third question rises that the Lord instead of uplifting them, degrades them by stabilizing their faith in other gods. The answer is that He stabilizes their faith not only in gods but in any one whom they wish (desire) to adore and they are free to change their wish because they have discrimination which is possessed by a man.  By using this discrimination they can kill the enemy in the form of desire, that is hard to overcome (3/43).—pp. 629-30

3 BT Song1252 உனது உருவம்

உருவம் ஒன்று நான் கொடுத்து

உன்னை வழிபட முயன்று பார்த்தேன்

எவ்வித உருவும் நான் கொடுக்க

இயலாது என்றுமே உணர்ந்து கொண்டேன்

அன்பின் உருவம் இறைவன் என்று

அடிக்கடி பலரும் சொல்லக் கேட்டேன்

அதையும் முழுதாய் புரிந்து கொள்ள

ஆர்வமாய் உன்னிடம் நானும் வந்தேன்

அன்பிற்கு நீதந்த உருவம் தன்னை

அலசி ஆராய்ந்து பார்த்த போது

அதனை நீயும் உருவாக்கித் தந்திட

செய்த செயல்களை மட்டும் கண்டேன்

சொன்ன உபதேசம் அனைத்தையுமே

செயலிலே முதலிலே செய்து காட்டி

இதுபோல் பிறருக்கு நானும் செய்து

உன்போல் வாழ்ந்திடப் பழக்கச் சொன்னாய்

அதிலே உனது உருவைக் கண்டேன்

அன்பின் தன்மையைப் புரிந்து கொண்டேன்

அதுபோல் பிறருக்கு அன்பு செய்ய

அதிலே உனது உருவம் காண்பேன்

ஆகவே உனக்கொரு உருவம் தந்து

அதையே என்முன் நானும் வைத்து

அனுதினம் பலமுறை வணங்கினாலும்

அதிலே நீயில்லை அறிந்து கொண்டேன்

உன்னைபோல் என்னாலே அன்பு செய்ய

இயலாது என்பதை உணர்ந்த போதும்

கண்முன் உள்ள மனிதருக்கு

செய்திடும் சேவையில் உன்னைக் காண்பேன்

மத்திகிரி, 8-03-2021, இரவு, 11.30

4 ‘Heaven’ is, in fact, one of the most misused religious words around today, with the possible exception of the word ‘God’ itself.  The biblical notion of heaven is not of a place far away ‘way beyond the blue’.  Nor is it simply, as some have said in reaction to that older notion, a state of mind or heart which some people can attain here and now.  Heaven is God’s space, which intersects with our space but transcends it.  It is, if you like, a further dimension of our world, not a place far removed at one extreme of our world….— N T Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. (England, SPCK, 1994) New Delhi, ISPCK, Indian edition 2015, Heaven and Power, p. 85

…the ontological dualism which says that the world of space, time and matter is evil and that only the world of pure spirit is good, so that a world without evil would be a world of disembodied spirits sitting on non-spatiotemporal clouds playing nonphysical harps. Imagining that is certainly not easy. Fortunately it is not what we are called upon to do.— N. T. Wright, Evil and Justice of God, IVP Books, Illinois, 2006, p. 105