I base this hypothesis on the fact that in any religion, being able to see the deity, or not ,is engrained in the minds of the worshipers as they practice their religion. In the case of Darshan, worshipers are taught that they can physically take in the deity with their senses. In Confession, it is taught that God is omnipresent but invisible, thus the priest is set apart by God as a intermediary. Though I want to look at secondary sources to get a better sense of both practices, I think it is necessary that I also find primary sources documenting people’s worship experiences. With a combination of these, I hope to better understand the contrasts and comparisons of sight in both Darshan and
I base this hypothesis on the fact that in any religion, being able to see the deity, or not ,is engrained in the minds of the worshipers as they practice their religion. In the case of Darshan, worshipers are taught that they can physically take in the deity with their senses. In Confession, it is taught that God is omnipresent but invisible, thus the priest is set apart by God as a intermediary. Though I want to look at secondary sources to get a better sense of both practices, I think it is necessary that I also find primary sources documenting people’s worship experiences. With a combination of these, I hope to better understand the contrasts and comparisons of sight in both Darshan and