Talk:Ganesha/Archive 1

Idol and Murti
IDOL: An image used as an object of worship. A false god. One that is adored, often blindly or excessively. Something visible but without substance.

These are CLEARLY biased ideas of worship, based wholly on Judeo-Christian ideas of false religion. Unfortunately, the word idol both connotes and denotes a mistaken belief that the statue worship is seen as the finite existence of God, whereas Hindus believe that the murti/statue is but a mode of representation that acts as a point of focus. If Hindus believe the statue itself was God they would not immerse it in water, thereby drowning it. If you disagree, you should present a valid argument. Also, please see the Hinduism article and look at the end of the "What Is Hinduism?" section for a discussion of this.

Hindus themselves refer to their statues and images as 'murti.' A murti is as I have described above. While referencing the word murti, the reader is given the proper point of view of Hindu image worship, i.e. the Hindu definition of murti, and not a biased view that condemns without understanding. --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:09, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * First, a statue is a likeness: you must have the original to create a likeness, since you haven't (presumably) seen the original Ganesha, the word statue is clearly out of the question. Are all Ganesha murti's alike? If not, you can't call them statues.


 * Second, "false god" is only one sense of the word idol. Representation is a different sense. So there is no conflict. To make clear which sense is being used, you are free to make a link to murti and explain the Hindu concept of idol in that article.


 * Arvindn 07:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect. Idol is clearly a derogatory term whose usage is not at all in line with Hinduism. Why are you insisting on using this word when no scholar in indology today is even allowed to use the term for sake of political correctness? What happened to NPOV? Why not just use a NEUTRAL term like "REPRESENTATION?" I can't say, oh, look at that 'bastard' over there, referring to a boy who never knew his father, and say 'oh no, it's merely descriptive, the original meaning, and another main one, is simply someone who doesn't know his father, who was born out of wedlock."

The whole point of Wikipedia and, beyond, academic integrity is to maintain accuracy. Hindu 'concept of idol' doesn't exist, because idol is INHERENTLY based on Christian beliefs of object worship without substance, hence something that is wrong. This is not NPOV, and you are insisting. I will work on a page for 'murti,' but using idol as a term for HIndu statues is unacceptable for someone claiming to be objective. THe term is too loaded to use as a neutral term. Pagan or heathen originally meant anyone who was not Christian, but developed extremely negative connotations that denoted savage and uncivilized tendencies. But while a new group of believers called 'pagans' now exists, it would be highly insulting and worthy of a libel suit to call a Hindu or Buddhist a pagan or heathen. The same goes for the word 'barbarian,' which originally only meant foreigner, but now encompasses an idea of savagery.

By the way, your explanation of statue is ignorant. Michelangelo didn't ever SEE 'David,' but it is called a sculpture or statue. NO ONE would call it an IDOL. Idol carries a hell of a lot of loaded misunderstandings of religion. Would you, therefore, call the crucifix of Jesus an idol on the Christian page? Come on. If you're going to prove your point that idol is a neutral term that is suitable to use with representations of religious ideals in the modern academic and literary world, I want to see you go to the Christian pages and force them to accept, with the same reasoning you're using here, that crucifixies and many images and statues of Christ in Catholic churches in Europe are IDOLS and should be called such.

Murti has an ENTIRELY different and IRRECONCILABLE meaning from that of idol.

You appear to be knowledgeable and very interested in facts, but this should be coupled with sensitivity to the ramifications of the perpetuation of terms that for hundreds of years have been used to denigrate and demean, with incorrect understandings of the nature of the religion, many Hindus. If you want to have an edit war, fine, but I suggest that you contact an impartial wiki-observer. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:42, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Arvind: I have spent some time, with a considerable effort to remain objective and to remain one with my ideals. Surely you have strong views on the use of one word. It is an interesting and rather telling behavior that you, who should ostensibly place no value on mere nomenclature, should be so adamant about using the word 'idol.' I draw such conclusion since the use of 'idol,' you would admit, is not essentially the only word available to adequately describe 'murti' in English. Since it is not the only word available, andthe Hindu and in general larger academic society would frown upon the use of 'idol' to describe Hindu worship figures, what with the weight of historical (and current, to a large extent) usage brought to bear on its propriety, what is your concern? Do you wish to prove a point that 'idol' should NOT carry such significance and instead be reduced to a neutral terminology? That is fanciful thinking. For the sake of a neutral point of view, I would advise you think more carefully as to what your motivations for such obduracy and insouciance to people other than yourself are, and why you strain to introduce words that from the very first sight result in negative bias.

This is my final word, and I shall not indulge any further in such trivial games as switching words back and forth. Indeed, I find it to be quite in opposition to my own beliefs in maintaining equanimity in the face of ignorance and overtly and overly indulgent egotism. 'Idol' is clearly a personal, negative, and heavily weighted terminology when used in such a context as to define the word 'murti.' Frankly, you can have your way, as Hindus and educated non-Hindus will look upon your childish and curious insistence as cussid, and those who are intent on seeing Hinduism in a condemnatory light will take the word 'idol' as license to do so. I hope you are pleased with your journalistic and academic integrity, for it is as hollow as an empty coffin. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:18, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)