Religion and Idolatry

The ancient Mosaic tradition is characterized by a radical rejection of idolatry. As an example, we read in Leviticus (26:1): “You shall not make idols for yourselves, or set up for yourselves carved images or pillars, or place figured stones in your land to worship upon, for I am the Lord your God.” We find similar claims in the scriptures of the religions derived from the Hebrew revelation, that is, Christianity and Islam. In its simplest and most basic meaning, an idol is a representation, image, or symbol of divinity that it is worshipped through. It is a limited symbol of the limitless, a finite image of infinity. The Mosaic tradition disapproves of referring to such symbols as if they were what they symbolize, that is, treating a limited representation as if it were unlimited.
Idols begin as ideas, images, or mental objects that are then verbalized and, finally, sculpted. But the Torah does not refer only to physical idols made of clay, wood, metal, or stone, but to psychological idolatry, which is a mental and linguistic idolatry that manufactures idol-ideas or idol-concepts. In reality, every word and idea by which we refer to Ātman—soul, Self, Truth, consciousness, enlightenment, or God—is not real but is only an objective and limited verbal representation of the infinite subjectivity.
Enlightened beings who attempt to define Truth are aware of the absurdity of the endeavor. It is simply irrational to undertake the task of describing the indescribable or conceptualizing limitless subjectivity. It is understandable that, throughout history, many awakened beings have chosen to remain silent, omitting explanations, ideas, or concepts about the Absolute. Some authentic disciples have followed the silence of their masters and adopted it as if it were the definition of Truth. The Upanishadic sages, on the other hand, tried to verbalize the mystery. Their descriptions, though imperfect, may be of some benefit.
From another perspective, we can say that while enlightened masters have emanated from Truth, institutionalized religion has been born from definitions of Truth. For centuries, the phenomenon of organized religion has offered only notions, concepts, ideas, opinions, conjectures, and beliefs that help sell false conceptualizations of Truth. If they were true descriptions as they claim, they would all be the same. But these distortions vary greatly because they are influenced by different cultures and traditions. In contrast, the Upanishadic sages do not offer definitions, but descriptions of transcendental experience. They may be of some use to sincere seekers because they offer intuitive glimpses of the Self.