Using Hindu Icons as parchar in Gurmat ?

[Morghe Sahar]

Kamalroop Singh wrote:

"I totally agree Hindu is a modern construct. However some people who believe in Mahalakhsami are definately "Hindu". As for the Shakta Tantra tradition definately, but is it fair to confine Maha Lakhsami to this tradition in modern terms? "

The fact that people who believe in Mahalakshmi refer to themselves as Hindu is no incidence to the fact that it remains a Shakta Tantra theological concept. And in fact it has never left the Shakta Tantra tradition even today.

"I have defined what I meant by iconic."

Language works because people use conventions. When they invent new ones it is because there is an absence for the meaning they wish to convey.In your case it would have been most apropriate to use the term "literary figures" and refer to literary criticism.

[kamalroop singh]

What word would you use to describe the references to Hindu mythological characters in Nirmala literature, that are used to teach Gurmat?

This is an icon, of the manglacharan by Pandit Gulab Singh Ji:

http://www.indiavilas.com/wldofind/images/...axganesara4.jpg

Yes there are words in the manglacharan, and in the texts, but what are they referring too?

Let us take it further: Devi, is represented as the feminine Divine. The i, meaning female, Dev, meaning Divine. Therefore it creates an image.............therefore in my view it is an icon. It symbolises something......a form.............

all the best

[Morghe Sahar]

Kamalroop Singh wrote:

"What word would you use to describe the references to Hindu mythological characters in Nirmala literature, that are used to teach Gurmat?

This is an icon, of the manglacharan by Pandit Gulab Singh Ji:

http://www.indiavilas.com/wldofind/images/...axganesara4.jpg

Yes there are words in the manglacharan, and in the texts, but what are they referring too?

Let us take it further: Devi, is represented as the feminine Divine. The i, meaning female, Dev, meaning Divine. Therefore it creates an image.............therefore in my view it is an icon. It symbolises something......a form.............

all the best"

What is being referred to here is an illustration. Icons are two dimensional images used in worship as it is the case in Eastern Christianity, some Indian traditions like the Dadupanthis and popular Shi'a practise. Iconolatry is clearly differenciated from iconolatry in which three dimensional images like statues (murtian) are being used in worshiped. This difference is one of the elements that lead to the schism between Catholics and Orthodox.

Language only works because we all use linguistic conventions. We all use the word "car" to designate a four weeled vehicle not a fruit. In the same way icon has a conventional meaning when used in religious studies. The basis of all discussion is the agreement by all participants on the use of terms and their meaning. If each one of us would add his own meaning to words the world would be chaos.

wa alaik

[kamalroop singh]

Ok then the Nirmala manglacharan in question is referring to a popular "Hindu" icon or murati of Ganesh, the Devi, and Saraswati.

[Morghe Sahar]

Kamalroop Singh wrote:

"Ok then the Nirmala manglacharan in question is referring to a popular "Hindu" icon or murati of Ganesh, the Devi, and Saraswati."

1. It's an illustration not an icon because it is not being used in worship.

2. Icons and murtis (idols) are completely different things, in fact quite the opposite of each other: To state ""Hindu" icon or murati " is a contradiction in terms.

Let us stick to more factual and rigorous terminology and say very factually that some Nirmala works contains illustration depicting divinities of the puranic pantheon. This would be more appropriate and correct.

[kamalroop singh]

Morghe Sahar:

1. It's an illustration not an icon because it is not being used in worship.

A manglacharan is not worship? See "religious ritual invocation", BLACKBURN 1991, p. 120

Therefore, as the three Deva's feature in the mangalcharan, which is a religious ritual of invocation. The author is praying to his Isht Devas. The three particular Isht Devas are found illustrated in my previous post, clearly as an Icon. The three Devas in question are found together, in the form of Idols, in Hindu temples.

[Morghe Sahar]

Kamalroop Singh wrote:

"1. It's an illustration not an icon because it is not being used in worship.

A manglacharan is not worship? See "religious ritual invocation", BLACKBURN 1991, p. 120

Therefore, as the three Deva's feature in the mangalcharan, which is a religious ritual of invocation. The author is praying to his Isht Devas. The three particular Isht Devas are found illustrated in my previous post, clearly as an Icon. The three Devas in question are found together, in the form of Idols, in Hindu temples.

"

Iconolatry implies the separate existence of the icon as an object used in worship accessible to the senses such as touching (kissing the icon), seeing (contemplating the icon) etc...Your example is an illustration of a text nothing more. It has no separate existence and is hence not an icon.

The illustrations are not used in any ritualised form of worship. A mangalacharan is first of all a literary genre used as an opening for texts or section of texts. Its ritual recitation during liturgy can be seen as worship but it is vocal worship not iconolatry.But the Nirmala granths you are refering to are didactic works and are not used in any liturgical manner. The invocation does not turn simple illustrations into icons.

[Silence]

SINGH SABHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!