Confused with smArtha, vaishNava and Shaiva etc.
ashl...@my-dejanews.com
what to call them) in Hinduism. What is a smArtha? One book that I flipped
through gave its definition as Hindus who are part of the amalgamation with
the Aryan society who worship the panchAyatanas(if someone could clarify what
this word means I would be grateful) [i.e. the book gave it as ganESha,
rudra, gaurI, vishNu and sUrya].
What contrasts vaishNavAs and ShaivAs believe with smArthas in tems of the
gods worshipped, etc. What are the intertwined elements, if they are?
Personally, being a smArtha, I worship almost every god there is, whether
vishNuite or Shaivite.
Another thing that I need clarification on is the different forms of gods we
worship. This is indeed confusing and difficult to explain but what i want to
know is the aspects(i.e. horrifying form as opposed to serene forms). From
what I see there's some difference in North and South Indian gods in this
respect and I'm also intrigued to know further e.g.the worship of Mother
kALi.
Thank you.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own -------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail posts to: gh...@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Shrisha Rao
>What contrasts vaishNavAs and ShaivAs believe with smArthas in tems of the
>gods worshipped, etc. What are the intertwined elements, if they are?
A smArta is of the Advaita denomination, and his worship is different
from that of the Vaishnava-s or Shaiva-s, who are dualists in the
main. Of course, nearly all extant Shaiva traditions, and several
Vaishnava ones as well, have amalgamated with Advaita so that this
distinction is really not a clear one in the present day, but
historically, it would be correct to say that a Vaishnava or a Shaiva
would worship only his chosen deity, while a smArta can worship
anything with the understanding that it is a mere stepping stone
towards realizing the nondual Reality:
nirvisheshhaM paraM brahma sAxAt.h kartumanIshvarAH |
ye mandAste.anukampyante savisheshhanirUpaNaiH ||
(kalpataru, under sUtra I-1-20, `antastaddharmopadeshAt.h')
>Personally, being a smArtha, I worship almost every god there is, whether
>vishNuite or Shaivite.
Sounds about right.
>Another thing that I need clarification on is the different forms of gods we
>worship. This is indeed confusing and difficult to explain but what i want to
>know is the aspects(i.e. horrifying form as opposed to serene forms). From
>what I see there's some difference in North and South Indian gods in this
>respect and I'm also intrigued to know further e.g.the worship of Mother
>kALi.
That sort of distinction is largely due to incremental changes in
tradition and the like.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Thank you.
--
http://www.dvaita.org
http://www.dvaita.org/list/-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pradip Gangopadhyay
>Subject: Confused with smArtha, vaishNava and Shaiva etc.
>I'm confused with the different types of worshippers(I'm not sure exactly
>what to call them) in Hinduism. What is a smArtha? One book that I flipped
>through gave its definition as Hindus who are part of the amalgamation with
>the Aryan society who worship the panchAyatanas(if someone could clarify what
>this word means I would be grateful) [i.e. the book gave it as ganESha,
>rudra, gaurI, vishNu and sUrya].
>
>What contrasts vaishNavAs and ShaivAs believe with smArthas in tems of the
>gods worshipped, etc. What are the intertwined elements, if they are?
>Personally, being a smArtha, I worship almost every god there is, whether
>vishNuite or Shaivite.
>Another thing that I need clarification on is the different forms of gods we
>worship. This is indeed confusing and difficult to explain but what i want to
>know is the aspects(i.e. horrifying form as opposed to serene forms). From
>what I see there's some difference in North and South Indian gods in this
>respect and I'm also intrigued to know further e.g.the worship of Mother
>kALi.
>Thank you.
Namaste,
To understand the Smartas you have to know the state of Hindu society
just before Acharya Shankara's time. There were five major sampradayas
worshipping Ganesha, Surya, Rudra, Devi and Vishnu as the supreme God,
respectively. Acharya Shankara unified these 5 sampradayas by his advaitic
theory of Brahman.
How did Shankara unify these five sects? I discuss below his approach.
Vedas talk of the existence of an Ultimate Reality called Brahman. What
Brahman is can not really be described. All Vedantic sects agree that all that
can be said about Brahman is that Brahman is Satchidanand (existence-knowledge
-bliss). There are, however, differences among Hindu theologians about whether
this Reality is Impersonal or Personal. However, most Hindus except for
athiests believe in this Reality. Sri Sankara is a believer in the Impersonal
Reality. He accepts that there are Personal forms of Brahman but considers
them to be temporary compared to the eternal Impersonal Reality. The Personal
Forms are like waves while the Impersonal Reality is like the ocean. However,
large may be the waves, we know that any wave ultimately is drawn back in to
the ocean. So in Sri Shankara's views the Personal Forms like Ganesha etc as
waves in the ocean of Brahman. So all the five religions are true in the sense
that the adherents are worshipping waves. However, they can not reach the
ultimate Reality. Ultimately, they must adopt Advaitic meditation on the
formless to experience the indivisible formless Reality beyond any form. The
smartas are those people who follow this conception of Brahman. In this view
there are grades of reality with Brahman being absolute Reality while the jiva
and jagat while empirically existing do not exist from the absolute point of
view. Jiva is really Brahman itself.
This view of Brahman, jiva and jagat was challenged primarily by the
Vaishnavas who worship Vishnu as the Supreme Godhead. Vaishnava philosophers/
theologians like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Chaitanya etc only accept the
Personal form of Brahman and deny the conception of the Impersonal Reality.
According to Sri Ramanuja, Brahman may be thought of as a fruit with the Lord
being the seed while jiva and jagat like the flesh and skin of the fruit.
Thus he agrees with Shankara that there is only Brahman but accepts the reality
of jiva and jagat. He does not agree with Shankara's assertion that Jiva is
Brahman but says that jiva and God are eternally tied together in a soul-body
relationship. That is, while Shankara says that Jiva=Brahman, Ramanuja says
that Brahman=God+Jiva +jagat. This is the way Ramanuja accomodates the
Upanishadic idea that there is only Brahman. This conception is called
Vishishtadvaita. Sri Madhva considers Brahman, jiva and jagat to be eternally
different. His disagrees with the idea that Vedas say that there is only
Brahman. His view is that all three, Brahman, jiva and jagat are eternally
real. This concept is called dvaita. Notwithstanding these differencees, all
Vaishnavas consider Vishnu as God and the other deities of the Hindu pantheon
as devotees of Vishnu. The Vaishnavas are hindu monotheists.
Saivas are divided into monotheists who regard Siva as God and also
Advaitists (Kashmir Saivism, Saktaism) who regard Siva as the Ultimate Reality.
In recent years there has been attempt to reconcile between these two
view by Sri Ramakrishna. Sri Ramakrishna accepts both Personal and Impersonal
Reality. The analogy used by Sri Ramakrishna is that of the world's oceans.
The world's oceans contain both the formless, colorless water and icebergs (in
Arctic and Antartic oceans). Similarly Brahman is both Personal and
Impersonal and the Personal is not temporary. Just as the icebergs in Arctic
or Antarctic do not melt, similarly Brahman arranges these permanent forms to
satisfy the devotees. The Personal form serves the needs of the Bhakta
(devotee) while the Impersonal is for the Jnani (those who use the path of
knowledge). The various Hindu gods and godesses are different Personal forms
of the One Reality. Different Hindu sects worship different Personal Forms of
Brahman. Thus you may consider Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva, Sri Chaitanya as
monotheistic interpreters of Hindu scripture. Sri Sankara is the monistic
interpreters of Hindu scripture. Sri Ramakrishna takes the middle ground.
You will get a deeper understanding of all this if you study
Radhakrishnan's 2 volume book "Indian Philosophy" and Swami Prabhavananda's "
The Spiritual Heritage of India". You will find these books in any Ramakrishna-
Vivekananda Vedanta Centers all over the world.
I now want to discuss the meaning of Hindu Gods and Goddesses.
I have to give you 2 views of Hindu Gods and Godesses as Hindu
philosophers have given both monotheistic interpretation (Sri Ramanuja,
Sri Madhva, Sri Chaitanya) and Advaitic interpretation (Sri Sankara and
Sri Ramakrishna).
Monotheistic Interpretation
The Vaishnavas and some Shaivas are the principal monothiests among
hindus who worship Vishnu and Shiva as the respective supreme Godheads. An
orthodox Vaishnava will consider all other Hindu Gods and Godesses as devotees
of the Supreme Godhead, Vishnu.
Monistic Interpretation
Now I will try to describe to you the Hindu Gods and Goddesses from
the monistic or Advaitic point of view:
To understand the Hindu Gods and Goddesses you would have to understand the
famous Rg Vedic saying --- Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti (Truth is One; sages
call It by various names). The Hindu deities though appearing to be different
and independent are really facets of the same Brahman, the Supreme Reality.
You will better understand this idea if you understand the Hindu idea of God.
In the Personal aspect God can appear to the devotee in any Form the devotee
likes and if necessary can even incarnate among humans. When you think of God
beyond space, time and causation, the Absolute aspect, then God defies
description. Thus Hindu Gods are particular namarupa (name and form) of
Brahman. (I must warn you here that there are differences between various Hindu
schools of thought about the exact nature of Brahman .) Since Hindu Gods and
Goddesses are namarupa of Brahman, there is great psychological and symbolical
significance in their iconography. Since Brahman is infinite, Brahman has
infinite forms. Yogis, sages and saints have actually seen these forms.
Brahma, Vishnu and Siva and their consorts are the three major facets of
Brahman. I am also describing the significance of some of the Hindu Gods and
Godesses below.
Durga
Goddess Durga and actually all Goddesses are personifications of the
power of Brahman. She is shown in a variety of forms. One common feature of
these forms is that She is shown with a variety of arms carrying many weapons.
The multiplicity of arms signifies that She represents the totality of
Brahman's Power (i.e. Shakti). It is She who keeps the entire universe
energized. She is shown with a lion and shown killing a demon. The demon
stands for the various obstacles which prevent us from experiencing the
Divine. The main obstacle is our ego which when uncontrolled gives rise to
lust, greed, jealousy, anger etc. The variety of weapons conveys the idea that
you need a variety of weapons in your arsenal to destroy the obstacles to
experience the Divine. For example, selfishness must be killed by detachment,
jealousy by desirelessness, prejudice by knowledge and ego by discrimination.
The iconography also conveys the idea that if you can get Her on your side
then She will help you overcome all these obstacles. The lion stands for our
senses. Normally our senses take us from the Divine path through lust, greed
etc. When She helps you the same senses are given Godwards turn.
Shiva
I will treat Shiva in His Nataraja aspect where he is showing dancing.
He is shown holding a damaru (drum) and fire. The damaru signifies sound and
stands for the creation principle. The fire stands for destruction. The dance
indicates a continuous process of creation, preservation and destruction. His
third hand is pointing at His feet and the fourth is in Abhay Mudra (gesture of
protection). This signifies that anyone who takes refuge at the feet of the
Lord has nothing to fear. He is shown standing on the demon of ignorance, our
ego, which separates us from the Divine.
Kali
Ma Kali is another Form of the Divine Mother. The word Kali comes from
Kala, time. Ma Kali is Brahman when imagined in space-time. She is usually
shown naked or more correctly clad in space. This is because She is Infinite
space (and time) and it is not possible to cover Her. She is shown black
because She is very distant from us just as ocean appears to be black or blue
from distance. When you come close to Her She is found to be colorless. This
is because She is really Brahman, the Infinite, which can not be described by
finite human words. She is shown standing on Her spouse Shiva who is pure
white. Shiva is the Absolute aspect and She is the space-time aspect. They are
together because the universe is thought of as a veil cloaking the Divine, i.e
, the relative and the absolute are intrinsically linked. Ma Kali as the
Energy is indissolubly linked with its Absolute source. Shiva as the Absolute
is beyond names, forms and activities and hence is shown to lie as a shava
(corpse). It is through the relative aspect that the Divine operates in the
universe. You will see a garland of 50 skulls or heads. They represent the 50
letters of the Sanskrit alphabet, the manifest state of sound from which the
entire creation has preceded. She is holding a freshly severed human head and
a sword with two of Her arms. This signifies that time will destroy
everything. The other two arms are in Abhaya and Varada Mudras. They are Her
assurances that Her devotees have nothing to fear.
I hope this helps.
Regards
Pradip Gangopadhyay
SomaVeda
> Kali
>
> Ma Kali is another Form of the Divine Mother. The word Kali comes from
> Kala, time. Ma Kali is Brahman when imagined in space-time. She is usually
I think kaalii it means the Black(blue) (bodypainted) One fem.(and planet Saturn).
Its a question of accentuate. Kaalikaa its an other name of Kaalii. Kaalika its the
adjectives of time.
Thomas
--
ges9...@studserv.uni-leipzig.de
http://veda.freepage.de
Indische Mythologie und Texte
Sudhir Sadanand
Pradip Gangopadhyay wrote:
>
> Namaste,
>
> Sri Sankara is a believer in the Impersonal
> Reality. He accepts that there are Personal forms of Brahman but considers
> them to be temporary compared to the eternal Impersonal Reality. The Personal
> Forms are like waves while the Impersonal Reality is like the ocean. However,
> large may be the waves, we know that any wave ultimately is drawn back in to
> the ocean. So in Sri Shankara's views the Personal Forms like Ganesha etc as
> waves in the ocean of Brahman.
>
Namaste,
I have been reading the postings on this newsgroup for a few months now.
Reading books on Upanishad and Gita has cleared lots of question about
Hinduism in my mind, but some still remain.
1) Even though we universally agree that there is one Supreme god and as
you mentioned "the Personal Forms are like waves", how does it relate
the facts like the various gods seem to wives, children and talk to each
other eg. in the story of Bhasmasura, Shiva goes for help to Vishnu. These
type of situations (there are many) do not conform to the theory of single
god and different forms (or maybe I cannot comprehend it).
2) Personalities from all other major religions (Islam, Christian, Budhism etc.)
are known to exist in some historical time periods. But the Gods in Hinduism
are totally traceless. We haven't still able to conclusively decide on dates
for Shree Krishna's or Shree Rama's birth dates or time periods when they
have existed.
3) Do we have central religious autorities who maintain the religious documents
and does work on maintaining uniformity across various thoughts (Ramkrishna
Foundation comes to my mind)
Thanks in advance,
Sudhir Sadanand.-------------------------------------------------------------------