Developing a comparative theology of the sacred image: a reflection on Visnu's presence in the sacred image and Christ's presence in the Eucharistic Sacrament

Hindu ritual activities tend to revolve around the worship and veneration of images of deities, present either in the temple setting or a home shrine. According to Hindu tradition, seeing (darsana) the deity (or more importantly, being seen by the deity) is one of the most effective ways to obtain the blessings and grace of God. Worship of the sacred image (puja) involves honoring the deity with flowers, garlands, fruit and offerings of ghee lamps and incense.  The liturgy performed in Hindu temples ensures that the sacred image is given all of the care of a royal personage: the sacred image is bathed, fed, clothed, put to rest for the night, and ceremonially awakened in the early morning. Students of Hinduism will know that some of the most moving and passionate devotional poetry composed by Hindu poets and saints is directed to God as present in the sacred image.

 

While the worship of sacred images is common to many Hindu religious traditions, the theological justification offered for the practice differs amongst theological traditions. For example, in some Hindu philosophical schools, the significance of the sacred image is viewed in functional terms: the sacred image, on this view, functions primarily as a focus for meditation and worship, i.e. as a symbol of the divine and as a useful pointer to the ultimate Reality to which it points and represents. The Hindu theological school that I will probe in this essay takes as its point of departure the ontological oneness of Deity and sacred image: on this view, the sacred image is regarded as the very embodiment of the Deity.

In this short blog post, I will take a comparative approach to the study of sacred images. Before exploring the theological and devotional foundations for image-worship as it developed in Hindu Vaishnava theology, I will offer an overview of Christian sacramental theology as it pertains to the sacrament of the Eucharist. I believe that the insights developed by Christian theologians in thinking through the problem of how Christ is present in and through the Eucharistic sacrament can be brought to bear in our appreciation for Hindu theology as it relates to the worship of sacred images. 

Vaisnava theologizing of the sacred image takes place in a conceptual and theological framework that has as its central core the personality of Lord Visnu. According to Vaisnava theology, there is only one Supreme God, Lord Visnu, who is sole creator, ruler, protector and dissolver of the universe. All of creation, including the multiplicity of souls that inhabit it, exist in a state of eternal subservience to God. Although they may have extraordinary powers, all other ‘gods’ , such as Brahma and Ganesa, are viewed as subsidiary divinities that derive their power and godliness from Visnu himself. Vaisnava theologians describe Visnu as possessing a body that is the abode of innumerable auspicious qualities, wholly pure and taintless, and entirely different in nature from all others.

Vaisnava theology understands God to exist in five primary forms: 1) the Transcendent God Visnu (para) who is wholly beyond the range of speech and mind and dwells eternally in the highest heaven surrounded by liberated souls who serve and praise him endlessly; 2) the four-fold aggregate of his creative cosmic emanations (vuyahavatara); 3) Visnu’s periodic incarnations on earth (vibhavatara) (such as Rama and Krishna); 4) the Immanent Visnu who indwells in all of creation and in the human heart as antaryamin; and 5) God’s worshippable incarnation in the properly consecrated sacred images. It is the last of these forms, Visnu’s incarnation in the sacred image that forms the focus of this blog post.

The Yatindramatadipika, an important Srivaisnava theological handbook, describes Visnu’s incarnation in the sacred image in the following way:

“The Lord’s iconic incarnation is that special form which, without remoteness of space and time, accepts for its body any material chosen by the devotees, and “descends” into it with a non-material body; The Lord thus becomes dependent on the worshipper for bath, food, sitting, sleeping, and so forth; The Lord’s iconic-incarnation bears everything and is replete with all auspicious qualities; in it, He is present in houses, villages, towns, sacred places, hills, and so forth.”

 

For those outside the Vaisnava tradition, it may be tempting to see the construction of sacred images as an attempt to project God in the human image, especially given that sacred images oftentimes reflect divine persons with human-like forms. Vaisnava theology anticipates such objections but notes in response that such criticisms ignores the subtle theology underpinning the construction of sacred images and the accompanying emphasis on the divine intention to conform to human expectations (given the human predilection for the familiar and comprehensible): as we imagine God, so God becomes apparent to us. Writing in the early centuries of the CE, Poykai Alvar, a poet-saint from the Alvar tradition, sings passionately of Visnu’s divine accommodation to human preferences:

 

“Whichever form pleases his people, that is his form;

Whichever name pleases his people, that is his name;

Whichever way pleases his people who meditate without ceasing, that is his way –

The One who holds the cakra.”

 

Commenting on this verse, Appillai, an important 12th century Sri Vaisnava theologian writes that:

 

“Thus the Lord does not consider his own greatness, but holds as his own forms, names, deeds, etc., those that please people who take refuge in him. Thus Poykai Alvar reflects on and makes known the excellence of the nature of the sacred image with which the Lord serves those who take refuge in him”.

 

Vaisnava theologians emphasise the significance of the radical accessibility of Visnu in his sacred images: the Transcendent Lord, who dwells in the highest heaven and is otherwise inaccessible, becomes accessible, in a tangible and material way, through his divine presence in the sacred image. Visnu’s presence in the sacred image is an expression of his gracious condescension and radical accessibility- qualities which reveal his deep and enduring love for and desire to be intimately connected with his devotees.  Vaisnava theologians argue that Visnu’s willingness to become dependent on his worshippers (to the extent of limiting himself) is for the sole purpose of facilitating intimate communion with his devotees. This argument is not dissimilar to Kenotic approaches to Christology which emphasise that God the Son must have divested himself of certain divine properties or functions, or even limited his divine being, for the purpose of existing in human form.

 

The ritual and devotional significance of the sacred image is hard to overstate; for Vaisnava theologians, the sacred image occupies a foundational role in the ritual and spiritual life of a devotee, no matter how advanced his or her spiritual development. This approach stands in contrast to the arguments advanced by some Hindu schools of thought that the sacred image is a useful ritual tool for neophyte practitioners to aid in their meditation and spiritual discipline but can otherwise be relinquished at mature stages of spiritual realization. In contrast, for the Vaisnava theologian, the sacred image is a source of delight and rapture to those already devoted to God while also serving to elicit self-surrender to God on the part of the neophyte devotee. Pillai Lokacarya, a highly influential 12th century Sri Vaisnava theologian, writing in his Srivacana Bhusana, notes that:

 

“[t]o the soul uncorrected by the scriptures, distracted by other objects and continuing in aversion to God, the sacred image produces an attraction or taste which converts his aversion. Having produced a taste it becomes a means (upaya) and after the means has been grasped, it stands as an enjoyment”.

 

The charge often ascribed to idolators then, i.e. that they are guilty of making God in their own image, appears less threatening in the context of a theology that emphasizes the accommodating intent of a God who chooses to be like us. Further, the charge of idolatry makes little sense in the context of a theology that recognizes both the transcendence and immanence of God; while God is present in the sacred image, the sacred image is not considered to exhaust God’s presence. In other words, while God may be present in the sacred image, God’s presence is not limited to the sacred image.

 

A Vaishnava theology of the sacred image must engage phenomenologically with the practice of image worship as it is experienced by Vaisnava devotees. Accessing the subjective religious experiences of Vaisnava theologians is difficult however as the literary genres of biography or devotional works relating personal religious experience (such as Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love) is largely foreign to Hindu literature. That said, devotional compositions, such as stotras, offer useful and personal insights into their author’s religious experiences and so exploring such compositions can serve as a useful substitute for biographies and other such first-person accounts. In Vaisnavism, the self-manifestation of God is intimately associated with his presence in the sacred image. The extraordinary and profound sense of wonder that this presence elicits in the devotee is a theme to which poets return again and again. Advanced devotees perceive the sacred image as mystically active and alive, responsive to prayers and keen to bestow blessings and grace. In his Varadaraja Stava, a poem of praise to the deity of Vishnu enshrined in the Varadaraja temple in Kancipuram, Kuresa writes:

 

“[a] sidelong glance from your eyes, O Lord,

Manifests your majesty

Spreads forth radiance

Reveals your boundless compassion

Rains down raptureAnd melts the hearts of your devotees.”

 

The devotional rapture experienced by devotees at being in the presence of the sacred image is matched, Vaisnava theology argues, by the bliss which God himself experiences at being in the presence of and dependent upon his people. This mutuality of the relationship between Visnu and his devotees is a distinctive element of the Vaisnava understanding of God and is frequently alluded to in the devotional poetry of the tradition. In his commentary to the Bhagavad Gita, Ramanuja argues that Visnu’s inability to bear separation from his devotees is the cause of his choosing to reveal himself in any form his devotees desire. Kuresa and Parasara Bhattar bring out this theme beautifully in the following verses:

 

“O Lord at Srirangam!

You delight in being worshipped in this world

In temples, homes and hermitages…

Completely dependent upon the temple priests.” (Parasara Bhattar in his Srirangaraja Stava)

 

“O bestow of boons!

Unable to suffer delay in embracing your devotees

And not even allowing them enough time to be purified

You, most patient one,

Were so eager to take them immediately

To your own abode in the highest heaven

That you descended here!

But what is this?

You woo even those who haven’t taken shelter with You!

Yielding the sight of your auspicious and holy body to them!” (Kuresa in his Varadaraja Stava)

 

The preceding paragraphs provide a rough overview of the Vaisnava theology of sacred images. Students of comparative religion that focus on Hindu worship of the sacred image tend to compare the practice to Christian (more specifically, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) veneration of statues and icons. Whilst this approach is understandable, it runs the risk of conflating two sets of devotional practices that ascribe radically different ontological and ritual significance to the sacred image: to be sure, whilst both sets of traditions view the sacred image or icon as ‘ritually significant’, they differ enormously on the question of the extent to which the image embodies God and/or mediates his presence.

 

Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: A Catholic Perspective

 

“[I]n the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things” (The Council of Trent)

 

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema” (Canon I, On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, The Council of Trent).

 

“And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:19 – 20)

 

In the next few paragraphs I will try to show that the Catholic understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist bears some theological similarities to the Vaisnava understanding of the divine presence in the sacred image. At the Council of Trent, Catholic Christianity affirmed that “in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things”. As we try to unpack what this affirmation means in the context of Christian theology, we will discover how Catholic theologians have evolved their understanding of how Christ comes to be present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and have thought through and have sought to respond to problems associated with the doctrine. This exercise, I hope, will allow us to develop a comparative perspective in thinking through the issue of God’s sacramental presence and the effect and role that such a presence plays in the lives of religious believers. 

 

The Catholic tradition regards Christ’s presence in the Eucharistic Sacrament to be true, real and substantial. These terms serve to distinguish the Catholic conception of the Eucharist from competing approaches which consider that Christ is only ‘representationally’ or ‘symbolically’ present in the bread and wine of the Sacrament. We noted earlier that a similar tension exists in Hinduism where a distinction is usually drawn between traditions that view God’s presence in the sacred image in ‘representational’ terms and those that consider the sacred image to be an actual and real embodiment of the deity. The fullness of Christ’s presence in the Sacrament is reflected in highly elaborate Catholic liturgies that purport to treat the Eucharistic Sacrament as the Church would treat Christ himself. In developing its sacramental theology, the Catholic Church drew a distinction between the different ways in which Christ is present in the Church; while the Church accepts that Christ is present in the Church when, e.g., (i) it prays, (ii) when it performs acts of mercy, (iii) in its preaching of the Gospel, etc., the Church affirms that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is different from the above-mentioned ways of presence: Christ’s is substantially present in the Eucharist as truly as he is present at the right hand of the Father.  During the Second Vatican Council, reflecting on the fullness and truth of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, Pope Paul VI delivered an important doctrinal encyclical in which he noted that describing Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a ‘real’ presence does not imply that other types of Christ’s presence are ‘unreal’ but that Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is presence in its fullest sense, “a substantial presence by which Christ [is] wholly and entirely present”.

 

To what extent can this distinction between types of presence be utilized by Vaisnava theologians in thinking through the theology of the sacred image? This distinction between types of presence captures, I think, an important tension that exists in both traditions between on the one hand affirming the ontological oneness and unicity of all of God’s presences and on the other in drawing meaningful distinctions between types of divine presence that reflect the lived experience and religious phenenomology of believers. A theological commitment to Visnu’s unicity and the fullness and completeness of all of Visnu’s manifestations would problematize a theological strategy that sought to draw a distinction between types of Visnu’s presence. However, that there is a typology or hierarchy of sorts amongst Visnu’s manifestations is clear; the difference only is that while Catholic sacramental theology draws a distinction between types of presence, Vaisnava theologians argue for a difference in the relative accessibility of each of Visnu’s manifestations. We drew attention earlier to devotional poetry in which the poet-devotee emphasizes the extraordinarily accessible nature of Visnu’s presence in the sacred image. While Visnu is equally present in each of his manifestations, he is far more accessible in the sacred image: this is what bestows special significance to the practice of image worship in Hinduism: while Visnu is present in the ritual sacrifice (yajna), in his sacred name, in his supreme abode, he is present most accessibly in his sacred image.

 

The poet-devotee’s celebration of Visnu’s willingness to render himself more accessible by becoming present in the sacred image has parallels in the Catholic tradition through the development of private Eucharistic devotions which allowed the laity to view the consecrated Host (the Eucharistic bread that had been appropriately consecrated) and to marvel in awe at the self-effacing humility of Christ. There is a deeper point here which relates to the experience that the divine presences engender in the life of the religious believer. We noted earlier that for the Sri Vaisnava, the sacred image communicates something essential about the inherent nature of Visnu: the Lord, out of his merciful condescension, manifests and is fully (and most accessibly) present in the sacred image in order to achieve a more intimate communion with his devotees. The Catholic would say, in not too dissimilar vein, that the risen Christ, in his great humility, invites his devotees to participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist in which his salvific sacrifice on the Cross is re-enacted by his real presence in the Eucharistic sacrament.

 

We have seen that the Vaisnava understanding of God’s presence in the sacred image is based on a sophisticated theology that emphasizes and celebrates divine accessibility. So as to be tangibly present before his devotees, Visnu manifests himself in the temples and home shrines, incarnating in whichever approrpriately consecrated form is offered to him. We have also seen how the Vaisnava concept of sacred image bears a close resemblance to the Catholic understanding of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharistic Sacrament. Both traditions consider such divine presences to be real, full and complete, and to some extent, different from all of the other ways in which God is present to his devotees. Both Vaisnavas and Catholics agree that the divine presence in the sacred image and (for Catholics) the Eucharist is an expression of divine humility and a channel for divine grace.