hinduism in pittsburgh. 239
“idolators”; early Western missionary terminology still rings in their ears.^14 Perusal
of the publications of the Malibu and Penn Hills temples reveals that the topic of
“idolatory” is of great concern to writers, and many seem to be responding to
nineteenth-century criticisms by writing apologiasbased on neo-Advaita-Vedanta.
One writer from California (a C. A. P. Iyer), after quoting Dr. S. Radhakrishnan,
the Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram, and Dr. Benjamin Rowland, says, “When a
devotee worships an idol in a temple, the worship is paid to what the image stands
for in philosophical interpretation. The worship is never paid to the idol per se.”^15
The “Visitor’s Guide,” a pamphlet issued by the Penn Hills temple in 1979, em-
phatically explains, presumably to an American visitor, “Where the Hindu worships
the idols in the shrines, he is aware that it is to God that he really offers his worship.
It is wrong, therefore, to characterize Hinduism as an idolatrous religion. The idols
are symbols of the invisible spirit.” These sentiments are repeated by a brahmacarini
of the Chinmaya mission who wrote frequently for the Penn Hills bulletin; she
states unequivocally that “the ritual of worshipping God represented by an idol or
symbolis replete with significance” and later adds, “The elaborate rituals of Tiru
Aradhana are prescribed for propitiating the Lord symbolizedin an idol” (italics
added).^16 Words like “represent” and “symbol” give the impression that what
people are worshipping is only pointed to or signified by the “idol.” These senti-
ments are at variance with traditional Srivaisnava acaryas,who held that the deity
in the temple is totally, completely God; the arca(literally, “that which is wor-
shipped”) has a nonmaterial form composed of a nonearthly substance called sud-
dha sattva,and this incarnation in the temple is as real as the incarnations of Rama
or Krishna.^17 Nevertheless, several issues of the Saptagiri Vanicontain articles that
emphasize the importance of this allegorical or “symbolic” interpretation and insist
that not to do so would make us think of Hinduism as “absurd.” One article states:
If one has to appreciate the real essence of Hinduism, one must learn to appreci-
ate this science of symbolism. In absence of such an understanding the whole pe-
riphery of Hinduism will appear funny, unintelligent, and absurd. In the process
of knowing this science of symbolism one discovers the deeper meaning of the
real Hindu tradition which apparently appears to be superficial.The article then gives the “symbolic meaning” of various rituals (when one burns
camphor, the priest burns “all your past notions, beliefs, conclusions etc....the act
of burning camphor stands for Guru Upadesha”; the breaking of a coconut sym-
bolizes the breaking of the ego, or ahamkara,and so on).^18 It is my impression that