does not excite any feeling of veneration in me. But I think that idol-worship
is part of human nature. We hanker after symbolism. Why should one be more
composed in a church than elsewhere? Images are an aid to worship. No Hindu
considers an image to be God. I do not consider idol-worship a sin.
Young India, 6-10-'21, p. 318
I am both an idolator and an iconoclast in what I conceive to be the true senses of the
terms. I value the spirit behind idol-worship. It plays a most important part in
the uplift of the human race. And I would like to possess the ability to defend
with my life the thousands of holy temples which sanctify this land of ours.
I am an iconoclast in the sense that I break down the subtle form of idolatry in the
shape of fanaticism that refuses to see any virtue in any other form of
worshipping the Deity save one's own. This form of idolatry is more deadly for
being more fine and evasive than the tangible and
gross form of worship that identifies the Deity with a little bit of a stone or a golden image.
Young India, 28-8-'24, p. 284
Whether the temples should contain images or not is a matter of temperament and taste. I
do not regard a Hindu or a Roman Catholic place of worship containing images as
necessarily bad or superstitious, and a mosque or a Protestant place of worship
as good or free of superstition merely because of their exclusion of images. A
symbol such as a Cross or a book may easily become idolatrous, and therefore
superstitious. And the worship of the image of Child Krishna or Virgin Mary may
become ennobling and free of all superstition. It depends upon the attitude of
the heart of the worshipper.
Young India, 5-11-'25, p. 378
'If Hinduism became monotheistic,' suggested the Father, 'Christianity and Hinduism
can serve India in co-operation.'
'I would love to see the co-operation happen', said Gandhiji. 'I have my own solution,
but in the first instance, I dispute the description that Hindus believe in many
gods and are idolators. I believe that I am a thorough Hindu but I never believe
in many gods. Never even in my childhood did I hold that belief, and no one ever
taught me to do so.'
'As for idol-worship, you cannot do without it in some form or other. Why does a
Mussalman give his life for defending a mosque which he calls a house of God?
And why does a Christian go to a church, and when he is required to take an oath
he swears by the Bible? Not that I see any objection to it. And what is it if
not idolatry to give untold riches for building mosques and tombs? And what do
the Roman Catholics do when they kneel before Virgin Mary and before
saints—quite imaginary figures in stone or painted on canvas or glass?'
'But', objected the Catholic Father, 'I keep my mother's photo and kiss it in
veneration of her. But I do not worship it, nor do I worship saints. When I
worship God, I acknowledge Him as Creator and greater than any human being.'
'Even so, it is not the stone we worship, but it is God we worship in images of stone or
metal however crude they may be.'
'But villagers worship stones as God.'
'No, I tell you they do not worship anything that is less than God. When you kneel
before Virgin Mary and ask for her intercession, what do you do? You ask to
establish contact with God through her. Even so a Hindu seeks to establish
contact with God through a stone image. I can understand your asking for the
Virgin's intercession. Why are Mussalmans filled with awe and exultation when
they enter a mosque? Why, is not the whole universe a mosque? And what about the
magnificent canopy of heaven that spreads over you ? Is it any less than a
mosque? But I understand and sympathize with the Muslims. It is their way of
approach to God. The Hindus have their own way of approach to the same Eternal
Being. Our media of approach are different, but that does not make Him
Harijan, 13-3-'37, pp. 39-40
Image-worship in the sense of investing one's ideal with a concrete shape is
inherent in man's nature, and even valuable as an aid to devotion. Thus we
worship an image when we offer homage to a book which we regard as holy or
sacred. We worship an image when we visit a temple or a mosque with a feeling of
sanctity or reverence. Nor do I see any harm in all this. On the contrary
endowed as man is with a finite, limited understanding, he can hardly do otherwise.
The offering of vows and prayers for selfish ends, whether offered in churches,
mosques, temples or before trees and shrines, is a thing not to be encouraged.
Making a selfish request or offering of vows is not related to image worship as
effect and cause. A personal selfish prayer is bad whether made before an image
or an unseen God.
Young India, 26-9-'29, p. 320
It is not necessary for any Hindu to go to a temple to worship (the image of) Ramachandra.
But it is for him who cannot contemplate his Rama without looking at his image in a temple. It may
be unfortunate, but it is true that his Rama resides in that temple as nowhere
else. I would not disturb that simple faith.
Krishna of the Hindu devotee is a perfect being. He is unconcerned with the harsh
judgement of the critics. Millions of devotees of Krishna and Rama have had
their lives transformed through their contemplation of God by these names. How
this phenomenon happens I do not know. It is a mystery. I have not attempted to
prove it. Though my reason and heart long ago realized the highest attribute and
name of God as Truth, I recognize Truth by the name of Rama. In the darkest hour
of my trial, that one name has saved me and is still saving me. It may be the
association of childhood, it may be the fascination that Tulsidas has wrought
on me. But the potent fact is there, and as I write these lines, ray memory
revives the scenes of my childhood when I used daily to visit the Ramji Mandir
adjacent to my ancestral home. My Rama then resided there. He saved me from many
fears and sins. It was no superstition for me. The custodian of the idol may
have been a bad man. I know nothing against him. Misdeeds might have gone on in
the temple. Again I know nothing of them. Therefore, they would not affect me.
What was and is true of me is true of millions of Hindus. Temple-worship
supplies the felt spiritual want of the human race. It admits of reform. But it
will live as long as man lives.
Harijan, 18-3-'33 p. 6
Temples are to Hindus what churches are to Christians. Thousands of Hindus who visit
temples in simple faith derive precisely the same spiritual benefit that
Christians visiting churches in simple faith do. Deprive a Hindu of his temple,
and you deprive him of the thing he generally prizes most in life. That
superstition and even evil have grown round many Hindu temples is but too true.
That, however, is an argument for temple reform, not for lowering their value.
Harijan, 11-2-'33, p. 2
I know of no religion or sect that has done or is doing without its House of God,
variously described as a temple, a mosque, a church, a synagogue or an agiari.
Nor is it certain that any of the great reformers including Jesus destroyed or
discarded temples altogether. All of them sought to banish corruption from
temples as well as from society. Some of them, if not all, appear to have
preached from temples. I have ceased to visit temples for years, but I do not
regard myself on that account as a better person than before. My mother never
missed going to the temple when she was in a fit state to go there. Probably her
faith was far greater than mine, though I do not visit temples. There are
millions whose faith is sustained through these temples, churches and mosques.
They are not all blind followers of a superstition, nor are they fanatics.
Superstition and fanaticism are not their- monopoly. These vices have their root
in our hearts and minds.
To reject the necessity of temples is to reject the necessity of God, religion and earthly existence.
Harijan, 11-3-'33, p. 5
What a reformer should be concerned with is a radical change more in the inward spirit
than in the outward form. If the first is changed, the second will take care of
itself. If the first remains unchanged, the second, no matter how radically
changed, will be like a whited sepulchre. A mausoleum, however beautiful, is a
tomb and not a mosque, and a bare plot of consecrated ground may be a real Temple of God.
Harijan, 29-4-'33, p. 6
She (Miss Mayo in her book Mother India) says that the Vaishnava mark has an
obscene meaning. I am a born Vaishnavite. I have perfect recollection of my
visits to Vaishnava temples. Mine were orthodox people. I used to have the mark
myself as a child, but neither I nor anyone else in our family ever knew that
this harmless and rather elegant-looking mark had any obscene significance at
all... I asked a party of Vaishnavites in Madras where this article is being
written. They knew nothing about the alleged obscene significance. I do not
therefore suggest that it never had such significance. But I do suggest that
millions are unaware of the obscenity of many practices which we have hitherto
innocently indulged in. It was in a missionary book that I first learnt that
Shivalingam had any obscene significance at all, and even now when I see a
Shivalingam neither the shape nor the association in which I see it suggests any
obscenity. It was again in a missionary book that I learnt that the temples in
Orissa were disfigured with obscene statues. When I went to Puri it was not
without an effort that I was able to see those things. But I do know that the
thousands who flock to the temple know nothing about the obscenity surrounding
these figures. The people are unprepared and the figures do not obtrude
themselves upon your gaze.
Young India, 15-9-’27, p. 311