How different are the sects of Hinduism?

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

I decided to start this thread based off of something that Eastern Mind said in another thread called "Were the Itihasas actual historical events?". The thread can be found here: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=44832#post44832
I have also been thinking about starting this thread for a while now.

Here is what Eastern Mind said:

Vannakkam Ranakrishna:

I an still an agnostic in these matters. Its not part of traditional Saiva lore, just as the Bible (from other threads) isn`t part of SD. But I must say after this thread I am closer to believing it may have happened than before. Such is the reason for discussion. At least now I understand the Vaishnava perspective better. We all have the right to believe whatever we want. I would prefer to focus on commonalities of the many paths within Hinduism. But you have to understand that the sects of Hinduism: Vaishnava, Saiva, Shakta, Smarta, etc, are as different as the Abrahamic religions are to each other.

If you claim to be a Vaishnava, then my opinion shouldn't matter much now should it?

I just received a recently published book on the 63 Nayanmars, or Saiva Saints. I don't expect you to want to read it.


Aum Namasivaya




My question is, are the different sects of Hinduism really that different? Are they really as different as different religions are to each other? I'm a Vaishnavite, and I believe that Lord Krishna is the supreme and most complete form of God, so I guess that would make me a Gaudiya Vaishnavite (although I am not part of ISKCON). Most of my prayers are to Lord Krishna, however I still do pray to Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, and Lord Hanuman. I still do believe that they are valid and true forms of God and are just as worthy of worship as Lord Krishna is. It is just that based largely off of the Bhagavad Gita, I believe that Lord Krishna is the most complete and supreme form of God, and therefore I pray to Him a little more than I pray to Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, and Lord Hanuman. My altar does not just have pictures of Lord Krishna and Radha, it also has pictures of Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, and Lord Hanuman.

I do not view the different sects of Hinduism as being that different. To me, it is just a matter of which particular form of God connects with you the most and you feel like worshiping the most. For me, that it Lord Krishna. For others, it may be Lord Shiva, or Lord Ganesha, or Goddess Kali. Now, I do believe that there are some extremes, such as ISKCON (some members at least) that worship only Lord Krishna and believe that He is the only form of God that is worthy of praying to. I am sure there are extremes on the other end as well, with Saivites and members of other sects. I believe that is wrong and goes against one of the most basic yet important tenets of Hinduism, that Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Lord Krishna, Lord Ganesha, etc. are all valid manifestations of Brahman, the ultimate reality, and they are all worthy of being worshiped.

Now, am I being a Smarta by worshiping Lord Krishna, in addition to Lord Shiva, Lord Hanuman, and Lord Ganesha? Are there other Vaishnavites who also pray to these other forms of God? Are there Saivites who pray to Lord Vishnu and any of His avatars? Does my ideology fit with Smartism since I worship so many different forms of God, even though I still believe Lord Krishna is the supreme form? I understand the other sects of Hinduism, but I am not sure about what Smartism exactly is. How different are the sects of Hinduism, really?

Lastly, I would be interested in reading your book, Eastern Mind. I am just as interested in learning about the Saiva saints as I am about the Vaishnava saints.

Hare Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

Hers is one link: http://sai-ka-aangan.org/hinduism/the-four-major-sects-of-hinduism/?wap2

There are many more if you search "Four sects of Hinduism"

I don't think it is wise to focus on differences. It is best to have respect for each other's traditions, and as I said before, there are many commonalities.

Still there are a couple of reasons I stand by my statement. One is the avid discussions that happen on HDF. POV's, occasionally controversial often come from a sectarian perspective, and that is partly why the discussions get avid.

Another is just witnessing the temples and devotees in my own city. When someone says, "That place is not a REAL temple", I personally don't take it as an insult. All they are really saying is "That place is not the same sect of Hinduism I am familiar with." Yet it happens and it can be insulting even.

There is also a lot of 'overlap' as you might imagine, especially towards Smartism. That would be you, I believe. But here again, its just my POV.

The best example in Saivism I can think of is Murugan. What Vaishnava, especially from the north, has even heard of Murugan. Yet some Saivas of the "Murugan cult" within Saivism, worship Murugan almost solely.

I do not view Murugan or Ganesha as Godhead like a Smarta would. They are, to me, like Siva's Big helpers, Ganesha taking care of the world, and Murugan being the celestial overlord of Yoga.

So it is complex. We all have our POV, and I can't stress enough that nobody is right or wrong. We have what we have because that is what makes the most sense to us as individuals. For me, my first encounter with serious religion at all was Saivism. I felt my search to be over than and there. So it must have been my karma, or destiny, if you will.

Aum Namasivaya

[ScottMalaysia]

As Devotee will tell you, Ramakrishna, many Hindus do not belong to any particular sect. Believing that Krishna is the supreme form of God does not make you a Gaudiya Vaishnava. Followers of Vallabha and Nimbarka's sampradayas believe the same things as well. To be a Gaudiya Vaishnava, you have to believe that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Golden Avatar of Krishna, who came to spread the chanting of the Holy Name of Krishna throught the world. You are not being a Smarta because Smartas have very strict rules that must be followed. They believe that God has five forms: Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Devi and Surya (the Sun God). In the South, Murugan is added to this pantheon. Most Smartas believe that conversion to Hinduism is not possible and one must be born a Hindu, so they are unlikely to accept converts to Smartism.

As Devotee will tell you, most Hindus are not sectarian. It took me a long time to discover this. Most Hindus do not see themselves as Saivites or Vaishnavas. From what you wrote, you seem to fit the mould of a non-sectarian Hindu. You don't need to classify yourself as a member of a particular sect.

To answer your question, there are many Hindus who pray to a variety of Gods, both Saivite and Vaishnava. They just don't identify themselves as members of a particular sect. My wife's grandfather is primarily a Murugan devotee, however, he has a picture of Hanuman on his shrine. The temple near where I stayed in Malaysia had a Deity of Hanuman, and it was a Saivite temple.

There is a sect that believes that Ganesha is the Supreme Lord (Ganapatyam). There is a sect that believes that Lord Murugan is the Supreme Lord (Kaumaram). However, most Hindus who choose to pray to Ganesha or Murugan as their ishta devata are not Ganapatyas or Kaumaras. They are simply Hindus who worship those Gods.


I do not view Murugan or Ganesha as Godhead like a Smarta would. They are, to me, like Siva's Big helpers, Ganesha taking care of the world, and Murugan being the celestial overlord of Yoga.

Malaysian Saivites have a different view. This is from the book Hinduism for Students by Gomathi Thiruvasagam.

"Next we worship Lord Ganesha. He is just another form of the formless God Siva and traditionally he is considered to be the power of Siva who removes all obstacles in the various activities of our life."

Most Hindus that I encountered in Malaysia (except the ISKCON ones) seem to consider Ganesha and Murugan to be forms of God.

So I think that it would be best to stop trying to fit yourself into different sects, since many Hindus don't identify with a particular sect.

I also think that many of the external differences you might notice are due to different geographical regions of India, rather than sectarian differences. South Indian Vaishnava temples look the same as their Saivite counterparts, with large gopurams over the gateways with carved figures, and Deities made from black granite. North Indian Saiva temples have large towers over the main altar, with the Deities made of marble.

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste Eastern Mind,

If you don't mind me asking, do you ever pray to Lord Vishnu or any of His avatars? Or do you solely pray to Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, and Murugan? This is just out of curiosity, and I understand your perspective. I had never heard of Murugan before.




There is also a lot of 'overlap' as you might imagine, especially towards Smartism. That would be you, I believe. But here again, its just my POV.



When you say this, are you saying that my views align with Smartism and I would be a Smarta, from your POV?

Hare Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste Eastern Mind,

If you don't mind me asking, do you ever pray to Lord Vishnu or any of His avatars? Or do you solely pray to Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, and Murugan? This is just out of curiosity, and I understand your perspective. I had never heard of Murugan before.



When you say this, are you saying that my views align with Smartism and I would be a Smarta, from your POV?

Hare Krishna

Vannakam Ramakrishna: Yes 99% of the time I pray to only Siva, Murugan, and Ganesha. At the temple I go to there is no Venkateshwara. it is a Saivite temple, and it is written that way in the constitution. And yes, from my POV you would be Smarta.

Murugan is incredibly popular in South India. The Thai Pusam festival in Malaysia gets 2 million people each year. Palani Hills temple in TN northwest of Madurai is second only to Tirupati for the queue, or so I've read. When I was there last the shortcut expensive line took about an hour for 3 seconds of darshan. Priceless, from my POV. There are more temples for Murugan in the south than any other God.

I differ a bit with Scottji's interpretation in that I believe that most Hindus don't know their sect, not that they aren't of one. It has to be learned. The tern 'Hindu' is fine for most everyone. When you say you are of no particular sect, and then when actually questioned about some of the beliefs, you can discover it. But I agree that it is not important. We all have the same or similar goals in life.

I also believe in what my Guru termed 'Hindu Solidarity' that we should respect all paths within Hinduism.

Aum Namasivaya

[ScottMalaysia]

And yes, from my POV you would be Smarta.

For a start, Smartas follow Advaita Vedanta. If Ramakrishna considers himself to be a Gauidya Vaishnava, then he would have to be a Dvaitin. Smartas also practice sandhyavandanam, recitation of certain portions of the Vedas three times a day. Some Smartas also perform daily agnihotra, the Vedic fire sacrifice. They also follow a sattvic diet, which means no meat.


Murugan is incredibly popular in South India. The Thai Pusam festival in Malaysia gets 2 million people each year. Palani Hills temple in TN northwest of Madurai is second only to Tirupati for the queue, or so I've read. When I was there last the shortcut expensive line took about an hour for 3 seconds of darshan. Priceless, from my POV. There are more temples for Murugan in the south than any other God.

I was told by an Indian national living in Malaysia that Thaipusam is much bigger in Malaysia than India.


I differ a bit with Scottji's interpretation in that I believe that most Hindus don't know their sect, not that they aren't of one. It has to be learned. The tern 'Hindu' is fine for most everyone. When you say you are of no particular sect, and then when actually questioned about some of the beliefs, you can discover it. But I agree that it is not important. We all have the same or similar goals in life.

What sect would someone who prayed to both Shiva and Vishnu be? What about someone who prays to the Goddess but is a strict vegetarian and against usual Shakta practices?

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

It seems that there are more shiva-viShNu temples in the USA than in India! It is understandable because the Hindu diaspora in the USA and other countries needs to have an overall religious identity than individual sectarian.

South Florida, San Diego:
http://www.shivavishnu.org/

Livermore, California:
http://livermoretemple.org/hints/

Greater Cleveland:
http://www.shivavishnutemple.org/

Lanham:
http://www.ssvt.org/

Georgia:
http://hubpages.com/hub/shivavishnutempleofgeorgia

List of Hindu temples in the USA:
http://www.hindumandir.us/east-coast.html
http://www.hindumandir.us/west-coast.html
http://www.hindumandir.us/

Australia:
http://www.hsvshivavishnutemple.org.au/SVT/Home.aspx

*****

Here is a link that tells stories of shiva-viShNu aikyam--unity:
http://moralstories.wordpress.com/2006/05/29/story-of-shiva-and-vishnu/

[ScottMalaysia]

Our temple has Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha as well as Lord Hanuman, Radha-Krishna and Seeta-Rama. I think they're trying to include both Saivite and Vaishnava Deities so both Saivites and Vaishnavas will be able to worship there.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Saidevoji:

The primary reason that the west has these combined temples is financial. They try to appease everyone at the same time, and in the course of doing so, break many of the agamic or architectural rules, causing the temple to lose some of its power if you will. They can always find a sthapati who for the right price will tell you oh yes, its totally by the shastras. I'd like to see the Indian temple that has two moolasthanams. Rameswaram is the only one I can think of off hand, and I'm not even sure about that. One side is probably a later addition. I can imagine the response if people from Palani asked if they could install a Palaniandavar inside the Tirupati temple.

Its like grabbing a little piece of India from each state and culture and sect, then putting it all together within one building. Many but not all western temples have basements, by construction code, need washrooms, and in many ways go against the shastras. Then they hire two or three priests of different lineages who do the puja different using different slokas
etc.

Even sometimes they confuse the yantras, so much is lost. At one temple I know of, when they received yantras, they put them all over. When an older wiser knowledgible priest came along, he saw and noticed the energies of the temple swirling around like a storm, so had to rearrange all the yantras so that Siva's was with Siva etc.

So basically there has been a forgetting of the sanctity, the mysticism of and in a Hindu temple. I have been to quite a few. Some 'feel' nice, and some just don't. But of course this is just my personal take. I would rather see two separate structures, like they did in Atlanta. Same land, but 2 temples. Then you know who you are worshipping when you go inside. (No pun intended)

I just think something is lost in the mixing, like mixing milk and orange juice.

Aum Namasivaya

[Odion]

Our temple has Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati, Goddess Durga and Lord Ganesha as well as Lord Hanuman, Radha-Krishna and Seeta-Rama. I think they're trying to include both Saivite and Vaishnava Deities so both Saivites and Vaishnavas will be able to worship there.
My local mandir is more or less the same.

Inside the mandir are murtis (what's the correct plural of murti?) of the Lords and Ladies Shiva, Parvati, Durga, Ganesha, Radha-Krishna Hanuman, Sita-Rama, and Lakshmi, as well as a Shiva Lingam.

It's nice like that, it reminds me of Harihara in some way. :)

I can't say I've seen a murti of Kali Maa there, which is a bit of a shame, because she is one of the Hindu deities I like most. :)


The primary reason that the west has these combined temples is financial.
Sadly, I'm inclined to agree with you here.

Can you explain about the agamic rules to me, sometime please? :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: This is more for the OP, and the question, defining some of what is happening.

neo-Indian religion: Navabharata Dharma.

A modern form of liberal Hinduism that carries forward basic Hindu cultural values - such as dress, diet and the arts - while allowing religious values to subside. It emerged after the British Raj, when India declared itself an independent, secular state. It was cultivated by the Macaulay education system, implanted in India by the British, which aggressively undermined Hindu thought and belief. Neo- Indian religion encourages Hindus to follow any combination of theological, scriptural, sadhana and worship patterns, regardless of sectarian or religious origin. Extending out of and beyond the Smarta system of worshiping the Gods of each major sect, it incorporates holy icons from all religions, including Jesus, Mother Mary and Buddha. Many Navabharatis choose to not call themselves Hindus but to declare themselves members of all the world's religions.



This is clearly not my personal take. I'm far more orthodox that this.


Aum Namasivaya

[saidevo]

namaste EMji.



This is clearly not my personal take. I'm far more orthodox that this.


Not mine either, although I am a smArta. And thank you for your explanation about what drives the Hindu temples in the USA. I thought from the South-Indian-like temple gopurams of some of them, that they are built strictly according to the Agamic rules with emphasis on mysticism. But at least they help Hinduism spread its roots widely in the USA, though the roots are probably not deeper than grass roots.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Odion:

Here is a link to an excellent article about it.

http://www.shaivam.org/siddhanta/tht31.html

In the agamic temple there are rules. I am no expert but do know a few. The outer walls construction should be exactly twice as long as it is wide. Any expansion would have to consider this.

The size of the temple should be directly related to the size of the murthi.

Temples should either be on a hill, or have water running through the property.

They should face a definite direction. For example, Ganesha temples face east.

No basement.

Stone, not concrete or wood.

Everything works outward from the sanctum, of which location is decided first.

So everything has it's place, and its very subtle alignments. For example in a Siva temple such as the one at Tanjore or Chidambaram, Nandi's right eye is aligned with Siva's right eye.


So there were rules but of course, as the article explains, there needs to be adaptations for all kinds of various reasons. If you search on keywords, 'Agamic temple plan' etc, you can get a lot of info. I'll ost more links if I find something really good.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

Scott raises some good points. I used to think most Hindus are non-sectarian, but then I read somewhere that about 70% of Hindus are Vaishnavas. However, I don't remember where I read that or how reliable it was.

I don't think I am a Smarta precisely because of what Scott said. Certain aspects of Smartism do appeal to me, but I do not follow the daily rituals that Smartas perform, such as the different yajnas and recitation of the Vedas.

Also, I don't believe I'm a Gauidya Vaishnava since I don't worship Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or believe he is an avatar of Lord Krishna. Also, I have studied Advaita Vedanta philosophy and it really appeals to me. I do not really believe in Dvaita philosophy. I guess I am just unique because I believe Lord Krishna is the supreme form of God, but I'm not a Gauidya Vaishnava and I believe in Advaita Vedanta. I also pray to other forms of God besides Lord Krishna.

I guess I am a non-sectarian Hindu. I always believed Lord Krishna was the supreme form of God, and therefore I identified myself with Vaishnavism and specifically Gauidya Vaishnavism. I actually thought about joining ISKCON, but then I found out certain things that I didn't like about them. I then just identified myself as a Vaishnava, but then I realized how most Vaishnavas only pray to Lord Vishnu and his avatars, and obviously that is not what I do. I don't seem to fit in with Smartism either, so I guess I am a non-sectarian Hindu.

Hare Krishna

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

Here is a question I have for you all. Do most Vaishnavas pray only to Lord Vishnu and His avatars? Do most Saivites pray only to Lord Shiva and His "associates", like Lord Ganesha and Murugan? Because I was thinking that maybe I can still identify myself as a Vaishnava since I do believe that Lord Krishna is the supreme form of God, despite the fact that I also pray to other forms of God. I know that labeling myself isn't very important since we are all Hindus, but I would really like to know what sect, if any, I fit into. This could also explain why apparently the high majority of Hindus identify themselves as Vaishnavas. Perhaps they all believe that Lord Vishnu is the supreme form of God, but they also pray to other forms, like Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesha.

Hare Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Ramakrishna:

If you read my post #11 again, it talks about 'liberal Hinduism'. It is an extension of Smartism, not pure Smarta. Shankara had the traditional 5 (6) versions of Godhead, and old Smarta was a definite tradition. But people extended that philosophy. So when You go to a temple that has everything in it, the closest thing that you can put it into, if you care to define it at all is Smarta. It's certainly not Vaishnava, Saiva, or Shakta. its a combination of all 3 and more. I've been to temples that have like 27 different shrines.

At one temple here, in the center is the traditional Smarta, but along the walls are Mahavira, another Ganesha, etc.

So for me, lifestyle and conduct is far more important than defining who you are.

I don't think your last question is easily answered. Hinduism is just so very very vast. Some would, some wouldn't. There are lots of mixtures and I have heard them described as follows: ______________ leaning towards ___________. like Smarta leaning towards Saivism. But its like Christian conversion and economics too. Some Brahmin or devotee who is poor will 'become' whatever is necessary to keep his family fed.

If I moved to Trinidad on some job, I would likely drop some of my pure Saiva and worship with the Hindus there. So the whole thing is very complicated and each of us only speaks from his own experience.

Just be a good person.

Aum Namasivaya

[BryonMorrigan]

What about someone who prays to the Goddess but is a strict vegetarian and against usual Shakta practices?

Speaking of Shaktas...Are there any on this board?

[sambya]

Speaking of Shaktas...Are there any on this board?

yes im one . :)

the form of durga and kali have been the closest to my heart since childhood . my spiritual activities and prayers revolve around them . that way im a shakta . not that i dont celebrate other festivals or dont bow down to other deities . i can dance wildly in a gaudiya kirtan and celebrate janmashtami too .

there are some other members with orientation towards devi also .

although i have an objection with the original qoute of scott .
scott says "usuall shakta practices" .

what IS 'usuall shakta practices' ?!!!

it has nothing to do with the five Ms or shava-sadhana . in fact those are the unusual shakta practices .

usuall shakta practices are just as 'usual' as of any other sampradaya involving normal puja with flowers , fruits , sweets , dhayna , japa , diksha etc . the only difference that might be noticed in some places is the custom of animal sacrifice . but the trend is declining steadily over recent years .

[sambya]

Namaste,

Here is a question I have for you all. Do most Vaishnavas pray only to Lord Vishnu and His avatars? Do most Saivites pray only to Lord Shiva and His "associates", like Lord Ganesha and Murugan? Because I was thinking that maybe I can still identify myself as a Vaishnava since I do believe that Lord Krishna is the supreme form of God, despite the fact that I also pray to other forms of God. I know that labeling myself isn't very important since we are all Hindus, but I would really like to know what sect, if any, I fit into. This could also explain why apparently the high majority of Hindus identify themselves as Vaishnavas. Perhaps they all believe that Lord Vishnu is the supreme form of God, but they also pray to other forms, like Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesha.

Hare Krishna

hi ramakrishna ,

hinduism is not made up of 70 % vaishnavas !!!! its a wrong information whoever supplied it . a trip across the country is enough to prove it !

infact it is impossible to determine the the strentgh of any sampradaya since there has never been or never will be any census on basis of sampradaya !!

you go north and you will see ram-bhaktas , come to east and see devi bhaktas go to south and meet with shiva bhaktas ------------all these differ from place to place .

as for you believing in krishna and advaita simultaneously theres nothing wrong with it . krishna specifically mentions in gita that those who are following the path of nirguna brahman will also reach him , but it is a more painstaking path .

it is the later bhakti movements which gave an exclusive dualistic aura to the philosophy of krishna .

in bengal we have a saying that goes like -- "shankara's mat , chaitanya's pat " .

it means that the philosophy and the scriptural basis should be of shankaracharya but the practical mode of sadhana should be as instructed by chaitanya . the combination of pure gyana and pure bhakti . when it comes to philosphy we can believe in monism and advaita but when it comes to practising sadhana take to bhakti marga -- chant the name of god , do bhajans , dance in kirtans etc . thats the easiest and most enjoyable way .

without bhakti a gyani becomes a dry speculator . and without a little dose of gyana a bhakta becomes an orthodox fanatic . the right combination can spell wonders for a sadhak .


vaishnavas can pray to other gods , and often does . but they always regard vishnu to be supreme over the rest . however other sects like shakta or shaivas might not necessarily believe that other gods are on a lower level than their ishtas . this is because of their inherent belief in advaita . thus for a shakta , krishna can be an equal but different expansion of kali !!

[isavasya]

Namaste ramkrishna ji,

For almost 80% Hindus, sect doesn't exists, they believe in all gods, for example, Lord Hanuman is very famous in North India, Lord hanuman represents merger of Lord Vishnu and lord Shiva sects.

As for those who follow philosophy, it depends upon their philosophy, if followers can worship other gods or not.

For example in Madhwa Vaishnavism , there is hierarchy of Gods , but Sarvottama is shri Hari and Jeevotama is lord Vayu. thats why they chant hari sarvottama vayu jeevotama. All gods are to be worshiped according to Madhwa Viashnavism (but only sri hari as supreme), for example according to their belief lord Rudra(shiva) clears one's intellect so he is also to be worshipped, but his position is very lower down the order at no. 10 or 11. Similarly in Gaudiya vaishnavism , lord shiva is taken as best vaishnava.

Now coming to Shaivism, only tamilian shaivism and shaivism of basavana potrays lord shiva as exclusive supreme, north indian shaivism is very advitic in nature, so north Indian shaivites worship all Gods.


hi ramakrishna ,

hinduism is not made up of 70 % vaishnavas !!!! its a wrong information whoever supplied it . a trip across the country is enough to prove it !

!!

Namaste sambya ji,

I agree with you it is 100% wrong info, spread by communists to divide hindus as aryans and dravidians. And in north India vasihnava term has two denominations. One who follows lord Vishnu, other is who is vegetarian. For example my family is vaishnava, but devotion is equal for lord Shiva and lord Vishnu. In fact in month of sawan almost everyone from bihar and jharkhand goes to vaidyanath dham which is jyotirlinga. Worship for all gods is equal in whole of north India except Himalayan states like kashmir, himachal, uttranchal, Nepal where shaivism is more exclusively followed by all it's citizen, but then that shaivism is of advaitic nature. Similarly in west Up and Gujarat vaishnavism dominates. In Mithla region of bihar shaktism begins. But today Hindu society is very Homogeneous, thanks to greats like adi shankara bhagwatpada, tulsidas ji, gorakshnath ji.

[sambya]

Namaste sambya ji

I agree with you it is 100% wrong info, spread by communists to divide hindus as aryans and dravidians. And in north India vasihnava term has two denominations. One who follows lord Vishnu, other is who is vegetarian. For example my family is vaishnava, but devotion is equal for lord Shiva and lord Vishnu. In fact in month of sawan almost everyone from bihar and jharkhand goes to vaidyanath dham which is jyotirlinga. Worship for all gods is equal in whole of north India except Himalayan states like kashmir, himachal, uttranchal, Nepal where shaivism is more exclusively followed by all it's citizen, but then that shaivism is of advaitic nature. Similarly in west Up and Gujarat vaishnavism dominates. In Mithla region of bihar shaktism begins. But today Hindu society is very Homogeneous, thanks to greats like adi shankara bhagwatpada, tulsidas ji, gorakshnath ji.

namaskar isavasya .

yes actually the terms like vaishnavism or shaivism often carries two distinct meanings . ill explain it in context of bengal , since im used to seeing our local customs .

a certain individual may be a vaishnav since his forefathers had subscribed to vaishnavism long back . his family may still be worshipping their ancient vishnu family deities and organising vaishnav customs and rituals .
but in his personal religious sphere he may follow or love some other deity . so when asked he might say ' im a vaishnav ' when infact his ishta is some other deity . here he is applying the term 'vaishnavism' as a family identity rather than a personal inclination .

this has been the case with me also . we are the bearers of gaudiya vaishnavism in bengal . our ancestors were the ancient gurus of gaudiya vaishnavism that started with chaitanya mahaprabhu and nityananda . but over years most of our family members have deviated from orthodox vaishnavism . none of my relatives are into guru-hood anymore . my own parents are agnostics . out of what little respect they have for god , most of it goes out for shakti deities .
and personally my attraction has been towards devi since childhood .

so now i have dual identity . im a vaishnav and also a shakta !!

[ScottMalaysia]

although i have an objection with the original qoute of scott .
scott says "usuall shakta practices" .

what IS 'usuall shakta practices' ?!!!

it has nothing to do with the five Ms or shava-sadhana . in fact those are the unusual shakta practices .

usuall shakta practices are just as 'usual' as of any other sampradaya involving normal puja with flowers , fruits , sweets , dhayna , japa , diksha etc . the only difference that might be noticed in some places is the custom of animal sacrifice . but the trend is declining steadily over recent years .

I thought that Shaktas did practice the 5 M's and ate meat. I read in Steven J. Rosen's book Essential Hinduism that Shaktas don't emphasise ahimsa and many offer animal sacrifices. I am a vegetarian and I'm opposed to animal sacrifice.

However, I am primarily a devotee of the Holy Mother. I fast on Tuesdays from sunrise to sunset, which is a South Indian devotion to the Goddess Mariamman. But I've never considered myself to be a Shakta, although I'm rethinking the term after what Sambya said.

[saidevo]

without bhakti a gyani becomes a dry speculator . and without a little dose of gyana a bhakta becomes an orthodox fanatic . the right combination can spell wonders for a sadhak.


A very good observation! As I quoted KAnchi ParamAchArya elsewhere, bhakti gives chitta-shuddha--mental purity, and jnAna with dhyAna--meditation, helps overcome the rebirth cycle. KP also says that a jnAni, although he is a jIvan-mukta--liberated while living, should involve himself in bhakti upAsana--worship, for the sake of the society.

[Eastern Mind]

ill explain it in context of bengal , since im used to seeing our local customs .




Namaskaram Sambya: I appreciate how you frame things this way, locally. This then doesn't lead to some misunderstanding or generalisation.

I also very much agree with yourself and Saidevo on how you can be a monist or advaitin at the same time as a keen bhaktar. Although God is essentially not separate from yourself, its just fun to worship with bhakti, in the stage that we're in. I believe we need both.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

Namaskaram Sambya: I appreciate how you frame things this way, locally. This then doesn't lead to some misunderstanding or generalisation.

I also very much agree with yourself and Saidevo on how you can be a monist or advaitin at the same time as a keen bhaktar. Although God is essentially not separate from yourself, its just fun to worship with bhakti, in the stage that we're in. I believe we need both.

Aum Namasivaya


thanks eastern ! yes , karma yoga , bhakti yoga , gyana yoga etc all are linked up together . i dont think that they are mutually exclusive to each other . but amongst these the combination of bhakti and gyana is most important .

[sambya]

I thought that Shaktas did practice the 5 M's and ate meat. I read in Steven J. Rosen's book Essential Hinduism that Shaktas don't emphasise ahimsa and many offer animal sacrifices. I am a vegetarian and I'm opposed to animal sacrifice.

However, I am primarily a devotee of the Holy Mother. I fast on Tuesdays from sunrise to sunset, which is a South Indian devotion to the Goddess Mariamman. But I've never considered myself to be a Shakta, although I'm rethinking the term after what Sambya said.


hi scott .

never resort to books by western individuals to get the proper understanding on controversial concepts like vamachaar and madhura bhava .

normal shaktas do not practise five Ms or bhairavi chakras . they are just like any ordinary hindu . the only apparent difference in their rituals is animal sacrifice . such scarifices form the part of festivals and is not a regular practice , and even that is not practised by everyone .

infact shastras give two options of balidaan . either an animal like goat , buffalo etc or a vegetable like a gourd or sugarcane cucumber etc .

in bengal , the hot bed of shaktism people follow both these practices . many families who have taken the shelter of a vaishnav guru and yet organises festivals like durga puja go for the vegetable balidaan . the manner and style remains the same . beacuse according to kalikula sampradaya of eastern and northern india a shakta mahapuja cannot be complete without a balidaan . a hindu scimitar or khadaga (the one that we see in mother kali's hand ) is used to chop off the vegetable in two halves .

in present age more and more families are resorting to this practice .

and its always nice not to be too orthodox in your approach . why not adopt some better practices of other sects if it apeals to you ? i personally am a vegetarian .

i know a sadhak who is a tantrik . not the occult practitioner type. he is genuinely a bhakta of mother . he has spent many years in sadhana in crematoriums etc . presently he lives in a kali temple with the kali deity that he has installed himself . he is strict vegetarian and no leather items are allowed in to the garbhagriha !! he wears white robes and is a brahmachaari .

[Eastern Mind]

karma yoga , bhakti yoga , gyana yoga etc all are linked up together . i dont think that they are mutually exclusive to each other . but amongst these the combination of bhakti and gyana is most important .

What it boils down to is doing SOMETHING religiously, charitable, etc. Give time, give money, sing praises of Lord, meditate. Everyone is suited to sme form of spiritual advancement.

Aum namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

hinduism is not made up of 70 % vaishnavas !!!! its a wrong information whoever supplied it . a trip across the country is enough to prove it !

infact it is impossible to determine the the strentgh of any sampradaya since there has never been or never will be any census on basis of sampradaya !!

you go north and you will see ram-bhaktas , come to east and see devi bhaktas go to south and meet with shiva bhaktas ------------all these differ from place to place .



Namaste sambya,

I don't know where I read that 70% of Hindus are Vaishnavas, but it is obvious now that it is false. That just shows the number of false statements and propaganda out there about Hinduism. At least there's places like this where I can verify what I read :)

Hare Krishna

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste,

Here is one website that shows supposed demographics of Hinduism: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Hinduism

Obviously it's a little old, since the total number of people adds up to 832 million, and it's my understanding that there's currently around 1 billion Hindus in the world today. It's also interesting that Shaktism isn't even listed as a sect, but the Veerashaivas are. I've never even heard of Veerashaivas or Lingayats before, although I'm guessing it's a shoot-off of Shaivism, because of "linga" in the name?

I guess I would be what this website calls a "neo-Hindu" or "reform Hindu". Smartism isn't listed as a sect either, or are they "neo-Hindus"? Or am I still a Vaishnavite? LOL...You all know what I believe based on what I've said in this thread, so what would you classify me as? A non-sectarian Hindu? A Vaishnavite? A Smarta leaning towards Vaishnavism? I know Eastern Mind would classify me as a Smarta, but what about the rest of you? I realize I'm probably getting a little bothersome now and I know ultimately I'm a Hindu and that's really all that matters, but I'd still like to know the specifics.

What do you all think of the website? It shows demographics for all religions, so I doubt that it is set out on smearing Hinduism or anything like that. Maybe they just got their facts wrong?

Hare Krishna

[ScottMalaysia]

Namaste,

Here is one website that shows supposed demographics of Hinduism: http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Hinduism

Obviously it's a little old, since the total number of people adds up to 832 million, and it's my understanding that there's currently around 1 billion Hindus in the world today. It's also interesting that Shaktism isn't even listed as a sect, but the Veerashaivas are. I've never even heard of Veerashaivas or Lingayats before, although I'm guessing it's a shoot-off of Shaivism, because of "linga" in the name?

I guess I would be what this website calls a "neo-Hindu" or "reform Hindu". Smartism isn't listed as a sect either, or are they "neo-Hindus"? Or am I still a Vaishnavite? LOL...You all know what I believe based on what I've said in this thread, so what would you classify me as? A non-sectarian Hindu? A Vaishnavite? A Smarta leaning towards Vaishnavism? I know Eastern Mind would classify me as a Smarta, but what about the rest of you? I realize I'm probably getting a little bothersome now and I know ultimately I'm a Hindu and that's really all that matters, but I'd still like to know the specifics.

What do you all think of the website? It shows demographics for all religions, so I doubt that it is set out on smearing Hinduism or anything like that. Maybe they just got their facts wrong?

Hare Krishna

There are around 900 milliion Hindus.

I also have to say that that website doesn't seem very credible to me (and I am studying Information Studies). The author is a computer programmer with an interest in religion, not an academic who has actually carried out proper scholarly research. I'm not saying what he says is wrong, I'm saying that he doesn't have much authority to quote those figures, especially when many Indians live in poor villages and wouldn't have filled out a survey about which denomination of Hinduism they followed (if any).

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam:

I think it would be silly to even attempt a breakdown of sects by population. The bias of the surveyor or data collector or the hypothesis would come through. Take a guy who is trained Smarta, but claims his ishta is Vishnu. One guy might put him as Smarta, and the other might argue for him being Vaishnavite. It's kind of like asking for a census based on languages. Many people in India speak at least 3 languages, and some many more. In the west we find this unusual. I can imagine polling that one in India. There is a group of 100 people. 43 speak Hindi, 33 speak Bengali, 52 know English, 27 know Tamil, 28 know Marathi, etc. There is such overlap.

Why do we ask a person who we meet where they are from? It is to enable conversation, and friendliness. I'm always asking which state, or country people are from. It's a starting point for conversation. If you figure out someone's primary sect, then you can avoid certain topics, mention certain temples, talk about festivals, etc. It's cordiality so that we as Hindus can enjoy our brotherhood better.

I get the feeling that some people think talking about sect is divisive, while I view it completely the other way around. It brings us together through knowledge and mutual respect.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

ramakrishna , eastern is right . you are smarta . but im not sure whether smartism is a matter of personal preference or a family designation . in eastern states , it is a family designation , a system that has been followed since generations . and smartism is so common everywhere that it has actually become the lifestyle of the people . for example a shakta puja vidhi also has the panchaupasana incorporated in it .

im not sure about the exact status of smartism in south . maybe eastern ji would be able to shed some light in this matter . is it a personal inclination or a family identity ?

you can also be described as a hindu vishnu bhakta .

as regards the term 'neo hindu' i think it is vague and somewhat derogatory , since the people who use this term are mostly scholars with vaishnav leanings who wish to shun advaitic teachings .

true .... changes have been there in hinduism over the last century , but when was change not a part of our faith ? show me one point in history where hinduism has been stagnant . which hinduism is 'traditonal hinduism' ? there is none . so wherefrom this neo thing comes in ?!!!!

[Sahasranama]

People often say that Shankaracharya introduced the worship of the 5 or 6 dieties. But the pancha devas: ganesha, surya, vishnu, shiva and devi have been mentioned in the puranas as mandatory in all rituals. The padma purana also mentions the sixth deva: agni.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam sambya: Here is a link to an article on neo-Hinduism. http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/neohinduism.htm

Once again, this article blames the British as developing it. (Divide and conquer, weaken) They even legally banned certain customs, as they did everywhere, like her in North America with the indigenous peoples.

I don't know what else you could call an altar with Christ on it. Certainly not 'traditional' Hinduism, whatever that is, as you say.

As far as Smarta influence in the south, I think Saidevo would be the one to ask, not me. My observations are from very afar. But here where I live, all the Brahmins I know, even from Sri Lanka, are Smarta. Many of the non-Brahmins though are Saiva or don't know, and don't care.

Aum Namasivaya

[sambya]

well most of my knowledge of neo hinduism comes from some anti neo hindu vaishnavas in some other forum . they all were educated an intellectual minded . since then i have read about neo hinduism over internet .

the father of what is called neo hinduism is supposed to be vivekananda !! yes , the very man to actually saved hinduism from dying . and the other prominent neo hindus in line were aurobindo , radhakrishnan yogananda and virtually evry 20th century guru that followed and who had a wide outlook . and the main grudge of those fuming against neo hinduism is that it had destroyed 'traditonal hindudism' .

now i cannot understand a few things . firstly what is this 'traditional hinduism ' . is it the hinduism of the aryans . is it the hinduism of the tantra agamas ? is it the hinduism of other tribal populace ? is it the hinduism of pre buddhist era with animal sacrifices and ashwamedha ? or is it of the post buddhist advaitic era of shankara? or is it the bhakti movement of ramanuja , madhva and chaitanya ? what is the traiditonal hinduism . in every era hinduism has adapted itself to its new surroundings , in new situations . but no entirely new concept has been created .

concepts of karma and rebirth was already there but was highlighted by shankara after buddhism . bhakti and saguna worship was also there , but it became the dominant force aftr ramanuja . respect to all religions was also there , as can be seen from panchaupasana or the concepts of swadharma , but it recieved a speciall boost in recent years . nothing can be concocted . relevant concepts come forth to adapt hinduism to the changing scenario . it had also adopted a little from every culture it became exposed to .

in muslim era there was attempts to reconcile islam and hindu thought , which is seen in satyanarayana pir(sufi saint) puja of skanda purana !!

after mahaparinirvana of buddha he was incorporated as a god into hindu fold ........call it hindu way or brahminical diplomacy .


its naturall that now there would be attempts to reconcile it with christianity also . this is just what has been happening for the last 200 years . although i agree completely that hinduism doesnt really need any of those . it is luminous enough to shine on its own .

coming back to the point if hinduism has changed every single day , what is the traditonal hinduism ? which period in history can one pick up and labell as traditional hinduism ? the answer is none . so if there has never been any traditonal hinduism what is neo hinduism ?

yes there has been some change . no doubt about that . but that is not a bad change . it is a good positive change .

the reformists who got the first exposure to british may have gone a bit too far in their ways .....like the arya samaj and brahmo samaj . but thankfully they have died down long since . what we see as hinduism today is way better that what it was 150 years ago . i can provide that statistics of abominable things like sati and superstition etc , but i wouldnt want to do that , since it is my own faith . i would want to highlight some weeds which might have once appeared in its huge body --- and that too under muslim subjugation . but it is this modern movements which ultimately brought out hinduism from its slumber .

heres a link to neo hinduism . it is a discussion with a vaishnava guy who hated ramakirishna vivekananda aurobindo etc and most of the modern gurus for them being neo hindus . read it to find out yourself .

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453321-neo-hinduism-what.html

[BryonMorrigan]

A quick point about "Radical Universalism":

I like to say that "The only false religions are those which believe that false religions exist."

In other words, it's the Exclusivist doctrine of Christianity, Islam, & Early Judaism that makes them "false." Nobody is going to "Hell" because they happen to believe/not believe in any particular religious dogma. We'll all be reincarnated and have another go at it until we get it right and achieve Moksha. I believe that these Exclusivist religions are essentially negative influences on the world.

But I don't go around telling Christians that they follow a "false religion" and should convert...because, as I said, they're going to reincarnate regardless of what they believe. Someone who needs to be convinced or coerced into believing something...doesn't actually believe it. (I believe the correct term is "brainwashing"...) So I do my best to limit the harm that their beliefs incur on society (i.e., prejudice, racism, sexism, etc.) and wish them the best on their next journey.

And who knows? Maybe they might achieve a certain amount of self-reflection or enlightenment in this life that will help them in the next one. Sometimes one can even find gold in a trash-heap.

Radical Universalism is the belief that all religions are equally "true," and essentially the same, with the same goals and end results. It's a good concept for Christians and Muslims to believe in, because it generally limits the amount of destruction (Forced Conversions, Jihad, Holy War, etc.) that they cause.

But for me, I feel that Sanātana Dharma is the "best" religion, as it is the one that leads to true enlightenment and Moksha. But I don't tell Christians or Muslims that they are following a "false religion" any more than I would tell my 8 year old daughter that she is practicing "false mathematics" because she cannot do trigonometry yet. She'll get there eventually. But if someone was saying that you can't do trigonometry because addition & subtraction are the only "true" mathematics...well, that would be a "false" belief. (It's not a perfect analogy, but you get the picture.)

In the end, some kind of Universalist or Pluralist ethics has to be the norm in a multi-religious society, or the most violent group of Exclusivists will always hold sway. Essentially, I can't just condemn Universalism outright...even though I don't really believe in it. Do you get what I'm saying?

[sambya]

yes , radical universalism is another form of extremism . thankfully i dont see many modern day hindus subscribing to it . most agree that hinduism is the best over other faiths .

and radical universalism is clearly different from neo-hinduism .

[Ramakrishna]

well most of my knowledge of neo hinduism comes from some anti neo hindu vaishnavas in some other forum . they all were educated an intellectual minded . since then i have read about neo hinduism over internet .

the father of what is called neo hinduism is supposed to be vivekananda !! yes , the very man to actually saved hinduism from dying . and the other prominent neo hindus in line were aurobindo , radhakrishnan yogananda and virtually evry 20th century guru that followed and who had a wide outlook . and the main grudge of those fuming against neo hinduism is that it had destroyed 'traditonal hindudism' .

now i cannot understand a few things . firstly what is this 'traditional hinduism ' . is it the hinduism of the aryans . is it the hinduism of the tantra agamas ? is it the hinduism of other tribal populace ? is it the hinduism of pre buddhist era with animal sacrifices and ashwamedha ? or is it of the post buddhist advaitic era of shankara? or is it the bhakti movement of ramanuja , madhva and chaitanya ? what is the traiditonal hinduism . in every era hinduism has adapted itself to its new surroundings , in new situations . but no entirely new concept has been created .

concepts of karma and rebirth was already there but was highlighted by shankara after buddhism . bhakti and saguna worship was also there , but it became the dominant force aftr ramanuja . respect to all religions was also there , as can be seen from panchaupasana or the concepts of swadharma , but it recieved a speciall boost in recent years . nothing can be concocted . relevant concepts come forth to adapt hinduism to the changing scenario . it had also adopted a little from every culture it became exposed to .

in muslim era there was attempts to reconcile islam and hindu thought , which is seen in satyanarayana pir(sufi saint) puja of skanda purana !!

after mahaparinirvana of buddha he was incorporated as a god into hindu fold ........call it hindu way or brahminical diplomacy .


its naturall that now there would be attempts to reconcile it with christianity also . this is just what has been happening for the last 200 years . although i agree completely that hinduism doesnt really need any of those . it is luminous enough to shine on its own .

coming back to the point if hinduism has changed every single day , what is the traditonal hinduism ? which period in history can one pick up and labell as traditional hinduism ? the answer is none . so if there has never been any traditonal hinduism what is neo hinduism ?

yes there has been some change . no doubt about that . but that is not a bad change . it is a good positive change .

the reformists who got the first exposure to british may have gone a bit too far in their ways .....like the arya samaj and brahmo samaj . but thankfully they have died down long since . what we see as hinduism today is way better that what it was 150 years ago . i can provide that statistics of abominable things like sati and superstition etc , but i wouldnt want to do that , since it is my own faith . i would want to highlight some weeds which might have once appeared in its huge body --- and that too under muslim subjugation . but it is this modern movements which ultimately brought out hinduism from its slumber .

heres a link to neo hinduism . it is a discussion with a vaishnava guy who hated ramakirishna vivekananda aurobindo etc and most of the modern gurus for them being neo hindus . read it to find out yourself .

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453321-neo-hinduism-what.html

Namaste sambya,

I agree that there is no "traditional Hinduism". Throughout it's very long history, Hinduism has undergone many periods of change, and that is the very thing that has helped Sanatana Dharma live up to it's name, as it really is eternal. Perhaps a hundred years from now or so, Hinduism will undergo another series of changes and different outlooks and some people then will label that as "neo-Hinduism". There is no "traditional Hinduism", but "neo-Hinduism" is probably a label people will use anytime Hinduism undergoes a period of change.

Hare Krishna

[Ramakrishna]

And who knows? Maybe they might achieve a certain amount of self-reflection or enlightenment in this life that will help them in the next one. Sometimes one can even find gold in a trash-heap.


Namaste BryonMorrigan,

This is especially true for "liberal Christians", as they are often called. For example, I am good friends with an Episcopalian who believes that Christianity isn't the only religion that leads to salvation, and he also has a great respect for Hinduism. People like him do have a decent chance of achieving enlightenment in this lifetime. But I also know several fundamentalist Christians who believe that anybody who doesn't accept Christ as their savior is going straight to hell. For those people, I can only pray that they will prosper and achieve moksha hopefully in their next life.

Hare Krishna

[Shanti]

This is a great topic RamaKrishna. I honestly didn't even know of the different sects of Hinduism until I was in my late teens. And I grew up Hindu!

It just was not discussed in my family. I grew up in a fairly smallish community in America, all the Hindus prayed together. There just were not enough people, I suppose, to divide.

A temple was not built there until I was almost 20 years old. So, satsangs were held every other week a someone's house (everyone took turns).

I must admit, I was very confused growing up. My mother was Sikh, my father Hindu, but after marriage my mother never really mentioned Sikhism. There was a photo of Guru Nanak in our alter along with Krishna, Shiva, Durga, and Ganesha. I clearly remember asking my mom one day who the picture of Guru Nanak was, but never got a clear answer.

My uncles on my mom's side are Sikh, but they also have pics of Hindu deities in there prayer spaces and attended temple services. I thought this was the norm, until I later spent more time in other Sikh homes.

As I mentioned already, satsangs were every other week, on the rotating week, we would attend sikh kirtans. Again, the differences were never explained to me, I was just told it was prayer. As a kid, I would just remember to grab a dupatta to cover my head on rotating weeks.

I was always told that I am Hindu, because my father was Hindu. My mother had been a strict vegetarian her entire life, my dad ate meat after being in a America for a few years.

My point is, I was always taught it doesn't really matter (strictly within the Hindu and Sikh realm, not other religions) because God is one and he will hear you no matter who you pray to.

I have always felt close with Lord Krisha, after my marriage (my husband's family is Shivaite) I have also grown very fond of Lord Shiva over the years. I don't really feel the need to define myself as part of a sect. Who knows how I will feel in a couple of years. I pray, I try to read at least a little bit of scripture every day, I try to remember God throughout the day, I try to do my duty, and I try to raise my children to remember God and instill in them morals and values. This is how I define myself.

[Odion]

Speaking of different sects of Hinduism, may I ask what most the majority of members here think of Arya Samaj? :)

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Odion:

I know very little about Arya Samaj. I do know that they fall under the umbrella of SD or Hinduism, so I consider them my brothers in dharma. My personal take is that way about all sects and sampradayas. If they meet most of the basic tenets of Hinduism, then they are my brothers. I will touch the feet of any swami who walks past me, regardless of affiliation or 'genuineness' . I am not to judge based on my personal bias towards traditional Saiva bhakti.

Not always is the reverse true, however, but from my point of view, that is their loss. If we as Hindus can't get along in some sort of diplomatic way, how in the world can we expect much more divergent faiths to get along?

Aum Namasivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Odion.

I admire the pure knowledge-based approach of the Arya Samaj, but when they denounce the PurANas and the Hindu rituals, they are certainly missing the role of bhakti in this Kali Yuga.

[Believer]

Speaking of different sects of Hinduism, may I ask what most the majority of members here think of Arya Samaj? :)

Arya Samaj was founded by Maha Rishi Dayanand Saraswati. There have been periods in the long history of Hinduism, when the pundits or lowest level priests whose main function is to perform rituals on specific occasions like at weddings or birth of a baby, became overbearing. It was one of those periods when Swami Dayanand came along and tried to liberate people from this bondage. They follow the Vedas and do not believe in worshipping the deities. In fact they go so far as to define Hindu gods as great personalities who graced the land but were not incarnations of God. God according to them is formless, omnipotent and omni-present. According to Sanatan Dharma, God appears on the earth whenever there is extreme ir-religiosity. But the Samajis say that God is all powerful and can fix things by remote control, and does not have to descend to earth in the bodily form to take care of adverse situations. Needless to say, this type of thinking stokes the ego of educated, analytical minds and they largely make up the ranks of this sect. Other than liberating the masses from the overbearing pundits, they have done quite a few social reforms:

1. With the absence of belief in the caste system, they have been at the forefront of apologizing to the lower caste people by ceremonially washing their feet and asking for forgiveness for the past mistreatment.

2. They have pioneered the concept of performing shuddhi - a voluntary ceremonial conversion of people of other faiths, or reconversion of ex-hindus back to their fold.

3. They operate a string of schools and colleges in India, some in areas inhabited by lower class/disadvantaged people, which are mostly secular except the prayers at start of the school day.

4. Their motto is service to the needy living, breathing human beings, rather than serving the Lord in the form of a deity.

5. Their temple has no deities and the service consists of chanting of Vedic mantras with the lighting of the sacred fire and making sacrifices (throwing into the fire) of sweet smelling organic plant/tree derivatives. The chanting of the mantras is followed by singing of bhajans and a parvachan - lecture on religion and moral living. There are some other nuances that, I am sure, I am forgetting to list. But, it advertises itself as reformed Vedic religion, based on Vedas alone. They do not celebrate the Sanatan Dharma holy books of Bhagwad Gita and Ramayana. Swami Dayanand wrote their book Satyarath Prakash and there are many other books written by other Samaji swamis.

Having said all that, times have changed. With the rise in education levels and people becoming more self-confident, pundits no longer control the masses. Some of the social evils have been dealt with. So, it has lost much of its charm. It remains viable in some areas of North India where it flourished for quite some time, but is not very popular.

What do I think about it? It makes lot of sense to my analytical side of the brain. But the Bhakti side of the brain yearns for a personal God. It accepts the entire pantheon and could not live without Krishna and Rama.

You probably got lot more than what you wanted to know. If so, don't give me another chance to get up on the soap box. ;)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



just a passing thought..

The Latin word sect comes from secta defined as something to follow, pathway, course of conduct, school of thought. Some say sect is from the Latin verb sequī to follow. Webster Dictionary says the most probable root is from the Latin word sectārī to pursue, accompany, wait upon.


From a sanātana dharma perspective we may call a sect sampradāya or paramparā.

How do these names differ?

sampradāya - tradition , established doctrine transmitted from one teacher to another , traditional belief or usage ; any peculiar or sectarian system
paramparā - an uninterrupted row or series , order , succession , continuation , mediation , traditionLooking at it in a bit more detail we have the following:

pára-m-parā - para = previous (in time) , former ; following , succeeding , subsequent + parā = any chief matter or paramount object
Hence pára-m-parā means the chief matter that is paramount, from a previous time.
Another view is to look at pára-m as páram meaning beyond , after + parā as a measure of time .
Now we have 'that which is beyond the measure of time'. A lineage that is ancient, paramount and beyond time

sam-pradā-ya - sam = together with , along with , together , altogether + pradā = to devote one's self or to give up + ya = joining
Hence sam-pradā-ya means joined together ( as in a group) to devote one's self i.e. those of common interest joined together.The differences are only in degree . Yet if critically viewed one could take the position that a person can be in a sampradāya ( a group with a common focus) and that focus can be of a particular paramparā tradition.

praṇām

[ScottMalaysia]

A temple with no Deities? Count me out.

[Odion]

Thanks for all the responses, guys! :)
This is a rather late reply, though. Sorry!!! :D


What do I think about it? It makes lot of sense to my analytical side of the brain. But the Bhakti side of the brain yearns for a personal God. It accepts the entire pantheon and could not live without Krishna and Rama.
I'm pretty much the same as you in that respect; I like the analytical, intelligent side of it, but I'm a huge fan of Bhakti, too--I'm being particularly drawn to Mother Durga recently, so I'll read their literature and so on happily, but I like my local mandir.

The only Samaji temple I know of that's near me is like, 25 or 30 miles away and I don't own a car, so I won't be visiting it any time soon, but I'd like to go sometime and have a look.

I think they've done a lot of good, and I respect that. :) One of the things that fascinates me is the shuddhi ceremony, as I've had no formal ceremony to mark my following of Sanatana Dharma (as of yet anyway) it interests me.

Apart from that, I see them as I see every Hindu group, and every Hindu: my brothers and sisters in faith. :)