Related article: Why is Kali Dancing on Shiva?

The greatest charge that predominant Western religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have made against other religions, particularly Hinduism, is that of idolatry - that they worship a God other than the One God and are therefore committing a great sin or error. Idolatry charges people with regarding as Divine some material thing like a stone, a piece of wood, or a picture.

Hinduism recognises the One Divine reality as all pervasive. The ultimate aim of Hinduism is to realise that the Divine is the only reality, and understand that nothing exists outside of it. To reach this realisation, people of different levels will require different approaches. As a universal tradition, Hinduism contains within itself a place for all forms of worship from the most basic ritual to the highest meditation. This includes worship with and without form - whatever may be valid for different human temperaments and stages of development. Therefore Hinduism employs abundant forms of all types, as well as every sort of formless meditational approach. Most Hindus use images in their religious worship and most Hindu temples contain many of them.

This abundance of forms has been criticized by aniconic (anti-idolatry) traditions not as a universal approach, but as the idol worship of primitive people. They associate Hindu images with the idolatry and perversion that was charged against the Pagans by the Christians, Jews and Muslims. The idea is that whoever uses images in religious worship is somehow immoral, perhaps a worshipper of the devil, and does not know there is only One God.

Image worshippers may be lumped together with criminals, perverts, or whoever at the moment is regarded as representing deviant behaviour in society, as if the use of images led to moral depravity. Such ideas are prejudice, if not bigotry, and are akin to racism and its negative stereotypes. People who hold them never take the time to communicate with so-called idolaters and find out what they are really doing (and discover that they are also human beings, often with more love and tolerance than the religious zealots who attack them). Even the so-called primitive savage knows that his idol is not the deity he worships but merely a means of communication with it.

Not surprisingly the charge of idolatry is often levelled as part of a campaign of conversion, invasion and conquest. It has been used as an excuse for smashing statues, robbing and demolishing temples, for plunder and genocide, all conveniently done in the name of God. Such a God is but a personification of intolerance and his worship is built on the blood of innocent people.

Anti-idolatry religions have not only been opposed to the use of images, they have often regarded it as a virtue to take offense at the use of images by those outside their religion. They have at times made it their divine right to interfere with the religious practices of others, if such practices involve the use of images, and to force others to worship God in the correct (their) way. They often spend more time criticizing the idolaters than seeking God.

We should note that religions that use images have not historically been more violent or sensual than those who deny them. Hindu and Buddhist communities contain a strong ascetic tradition, as well as an emphasis on non-violence, even though these traditions use images.

Image-denying religions, on the other hand, have been guilty of violence and destruction perpetuated in the name of destroying idols and converting heathens and infidels through various crusades and holy wars. The non-use of images has obviously not increased our human sensitivity or respect for other cultures.

Send this article to a friend