Perplexed

[TheOne]

Right now I have my feet semi-stable in Sanatana Dharma I certainly don't know everything THAT would take lifetimes. But I have a few questions regarding the Gods and want to know if I'm on the right track. From a symbolic perspective I see that a lot of things can be objects of prayer even figures from other religions and famous Hindu saints. And from the mystical perspective the Gods have form and take up space in a higher plane of reality.

Right now, I subscribe to a bit of both of these beliefs yes, I believe that the symbolism is important as it tries to convey the point that ultimately(from advaita perspective) all these gods are already in you you just have to realize it. But I also believe(like many other forum users) that dvaita comes first and then Advaita and I believe there are the gods in other realms of existence and that they are not bound by time and space.

Now, the questions(only two) : )

What is the Shaivite view of the Bhagavad Gita
This question has been bothering me for a real long time. Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.


Namaste

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TheOne,

From a kaśmir śaivism point of view regarding the bhāgavad gītā, Abhinavagupta-ji's commentary on the bhāgavad gītā is called gitārtha¹ saṁgraha.
Not many have read this. The beauty of this offering is saṁgraha. What does this mean ?

Saṁgraha is collecting , gathering , conglomeration , accumulation yet it also is defined as drawing together , making narrower , narrowing , tightening. This is the great point of his offer. At the end of each chapter he offers this saṁgraha, a summary verse of the chapter that has just concluded.

Perhaps ( via your initiative) you may wish to read this work - then you can compare and contrast it to other translations and key main points.

Regarding brahma - others on HDF will offer the story. One may need to be mindful of the following:
brahma is used for nirguṇa brahman (the Absolute, some say impersonal Spirit) and brahmā for saguṇa brahman, that with qualities.

praṇām

1. gitārtha = gīta - sung , chanted , praised in songs + artha- substance, aim, purpose

[Sahasranama]

Right now I have my feet semi-stable in Sanatana Dharma I certainly don't know everything THAT would take lifetimes. But I have a few questions regarding the Gods and want to know if I'm on the right track. From a symbolic perspective I see that a lot of things can be objects of prayer even figures from other religions and famous Hindu saints. And from the mystical perspective the Gods have form and take up space in a higher plane of reality.

Right now, I subscribe to a bit of both of these beliefs yes, I believe that the symbolism is important as it tries to convey the point that ultimately(from advaita perspective) all these gods are already in you you just have to realize it. But I also believe(like many other forum users) that dvaita comes first and then Advaita and I believe there are the gods in other realms of existence and that they are not bound by time and space.

I like to quote some of Aurobindo's words here.

The Krishna consciousness is a reality, but if there were no Krishna, there could be no Krishna consciousness; except in arbitrary metaphysical abstractions there can be no consciousness without a Being who is conscious. It is the person who gives value and reality to the personality , he expresses himself in it and is not constituted by it. Krishna is a being, a person and it is as the Divine Person that we meet him, hear his voice, speak with him and feel his presence. To speak of the consciousness of Krishna as something separate from Krishna is an error of the mind, which is always separating the inseparable and which also tends to regard the impersonal, because it is abstract, as greater, more real and more enduring than the person. Such divisions may be useful to the mind for its own purposes, but it is not the real truth; in the real truth the being or person and its impersonality or state of being are one reality. ~Aurobindo


Now, the questions(only two) : )
What is the Shaivite view of the Bhagavad GitaAs Yajvan has said, Abhinavagupta has written a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita from a Kashmir Shaivism perspective. I did not have the time to study this work yet, but if you are interested you can find the Sanskrit and English commentary on the Gita Supersite (http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/).

This question has been bothering me for a real long time. Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.

Namaste

There is a story in the Brahmavaivarta Purana about this, maybe I can find it later if you are interested in an explanation from a puranic perspective.

[saidevo]

namaste TheOne.

A symbol, especially in the form of an image, represents the physical form of a god, while the power that descends gradually on it after the image is sanctified duly, and as its sAnnidhyam--sanctity, increases by the pujas and rituals conducted to the image, is the mystic form of the image, a formful manifestation of The One in other words.

Just as you can tune in to a radio station with the exact frequency, with the right devotional vibration, a devotee can perceive the mystic form through the physical image. All the Hindu puja and temple rituals are geared towards enhancing this vibration.

All this is dvaita, of course, because the devotee, not sufficiently aware of the Self in him, feels himself to be different from the deity and performs the puja or ritual to make a connection.

It takes time and persistent efforts, even to know intellectually, the Oneness of the Self, whereas devotion in duality soon becomes second nature, because it is a common feature in all religions. Unless and until there is experiential knowledge of the Self, and the sAdhana--accomplishment, to sustain it, the duality between the devotee and the deity will be hard to overcome.

When Self-Realization is established, the devotee would find himself, the deity and his devotion all merge into an Absolute Unity. But then, our Advaita sages say, that a person who wants to become an Advaitin, should gradually establish the bhAvana--mental frame, of this unity in his pujas and rituals. In other words, when doing a puja, the devotee should think that he is doing it to his own Atman--Self, rather than an external deity.

As to your question on why the Creator deity BrahmA is not worshipped or has no sect of followers, apart from the purANic story, this analogy might help:

Our house is planned by an architect, who is practically its creator. Once the house is ready, we make it our home by pervading it with our personality, but do we ever consider the architect to be part of the family? Or even call him to our household functions beyond the house warming ceremony? Yet, we are always aware of his planning and design practically every brick, iron and peace of wood, while we live in the house. In other words, the architect becomes part of the family by the knowledge he has manifested in the making and form of the house. In the same way, God BrahmA is worshipped through his consort Goddess SarasvatI, the goddess of knowledge.

In the whole of India, there are only two temples dedicated to BrahmA: one in Rajasthan, another in Orissa:
http://www.thegreenhouseresort.com/Pushkar_Temples.htm

Of course, God BrahmA is worshipped in the Vedic rituals in the name of PrajApati.

[TheOne]

Thank you for your help both of you. The thing is that I'm leaning more towards Shaivite philosophy and I identify more with the form of Shiva as God but I also read the Bhagavad Gita and try to live my life according to the principles set forward in there. If anyone has any life experiences to share that are similar to mine that would help very much :)

[Sahasranama]

Just as you can tune in to a radio station with the exact frequency, with the right devotional vibration, a devotee can perceive the mystic form through the physical image. All the Hindu puja and temple rituals are geared towards enhancing this vibration.

All this is dvaita, of course, because the devotee, not sufficiently aware of the Self in him, feels himself to be different from the deity and performs the puja or ritual to make a connection.
Namaste Saidevo,

I have heard Swami Satyananda (the white one) say in a lecture that bhakti is dvaita by definition. I don't necessarily agree with that, ananya bhakti can also be advaita.

[TheOne]

I don't know if this is wrong but I feel a strong affinity for Brahma. I know it's rare for people to worship Brahma and that there are only 2 temples in all of India devoted to him. But whenever I think of Brahma I think of the person who made the props and directed the lighting for the play/ divine lila. I am aslo particualry drawn to the Jnana Yoga or Path of knowledge which many associate with Brahma.

This is where I got a lot of my info on Brahma
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

[sunyata07]

Namaste TheOne,

It's nice to see how well you are coming along with getting the answers that might have been floating around your head sometime around Sanatana Dharma. Believe me, it will indeed take a lifetime to learn all there is know. Since I began to study Vedic philosophy and Hindu religion in general I used to feel very troubled at not knowing everything at once as I was used to in my old faiths. Since then, I have learned the value of patience and have begun to appreciate that it's ok to take one's time in learning more about the eternal faith. As with your education, a slow accumulation of knowledge can have its advantages over cramming the night before an exam. Remember that that which grows slowly, grows well.

Symbolism is important, yes, because it serves as reminders for how we should conduct ourselves and live rightfully according to Dharma. Through various manifestations and gestures, the Supreme Being leaves us little reminders about what We are and the way in which we can reach union in Him. And yet, you must be aware that it cannot be written off simply as "symbolism". Please don't explain it like this to non-Hindus who are curious about the different Devas; at least, don't simplify it and make them think it is all down to symbolism and nothing more than that. Such thinking might lead some to believe that these celestial beings are merely figments of our imaginations.


Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.
Good question. I wondered this from the start of my bhakti yoga practices. Coming from a Catholic background, it was hard to understand why Hindus did not revere Brahma as much as He would be, construed on the part of Christians and followers of Abrahamic religions, where God is seen as the Creator. Saidevo has already answered the question very well. It's considered amongst Hindu tradition that the age of creation (in which Lord Brahma would have been the dominant force fashioning the universe) is over and, with it, the need to pray to Him formally. From this, you might understand why Lords Vishnu and Shiva (maintenance and destruction/renewal) are more widely worshipped as the world is now being perpetuated, decaying and then being recreated by these latter aspects of Trimurti.


I don't know if this is wrong but I feel a strong affinity for Brahma. I know it's rare for people to worship Brahma and that there are only 2 temples in all of India devoted to him. But whenever I think of Brahma I think of the person who made the props and directed the lighting for the play/ divine lila. I am aslo particualry drawn to the Jnana Yoga or Path of knowledge which many associate with Brahma.


There is nothing wrong about your feeling an affinity to Brahma. Just because His type of worship is not as popular as it once was, does not mean that no Hindus pray to Him anymore! After all, each birth is a testament to His aspect. Each time you set out to create something, with the help of Maa Saraswati (knowledge), you work through Lord Brahma. It is true, we are all being pulled by the many different faces of God, but don't be fooled by the illusion of duality that makes you think Brahma is any different from Vishnu or Shiva. They are the same. Imagine a ray of light refracting through a diamond, casting a spectrum of beautiful colours. To our eye, these colours appear different. Divided. In fact, this is actually an optical illusion. You cannot separate them. This is the same with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are just One.

Om namah Shivaya

[TheOne]

They are the same. Imagine a ray of light refracting through a diamond, casting a spectrum of beautiful colours. To our eye, these colours appear different. Divided. In fact, this is actually an optical illusion. You cannot separate them. This is the same with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are just One.


I know that ultimately everything is Advaita. But because that is so what is the difference between the different sects? I know Vashnavism is more monotheistic and bhakti oriented and Shavaism is more monistic and meditation oriented.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



kaśmir śaivism point of view regarding the bhāgavad gītā, Abhinavagupta-ji's commentary on the bhāgavad gītā
is called gitārtha saṁgraha


One would find that abhinavagupta-ji's view is that of paramādvaita ( the highest-supreme view of non-duality). One would also find 15 additional śloka-s in the kaśmiri version.

praṇām

[amith vikram]

well i remember this story vaguely. Lord brahma and lord shiva had a fight over some issue. Lord vishnu and lord brahma decided to find the foot of shiva(or something like that mate,i'm really not sure abt this bit) and they went to see lord shiva. Lord vishnu tried to find the foot and was unsuccessful and told shiva that he couldn't but lord brahma lied that he did. So lord shiva cursed lord brahma that nobody on earth would worship lord brahma. Now i know one thousand more questions will burst out in your head but this is according to some purana. I feel it is essential to add that these puranas will sometimes make us more confused and the final word is that all three are friends again and have mutual respect!

[Sahasranama]

In pujas Brahma is not worshipped elaborately, but before the puja he is often greeted with the words: ॐ वानी हिरन्यगर्भाभ्याम् नमः om vānī hiranyagarbhābhyām namaḥ (I salute Sarasvati and Brahma). He is also worshipped as one of the guardians of the directions which are known as the dasha dikpalas. In the agnihotra sacrifice he is worshipped with the mantra ॐ प्रजापतये स्वाहा om prajāpataye svāhā.

In the vedas Hiranyagarbha and Prajapati are associated with Brahma. Here is the Hiranyagarbha sukta.
http://www.raaga.com/play/?id=77480

[anatman]

I don't know if this is wrong but I feel a strong affinity for Brahma. I know it's rare for people to worship Brahma and that there are only 2 temples in all of India devoted to him. But whenever I think of Brahma I think of the person who made the props and directed the lighting for the play/ divine lila. I am aslo particualry drawn to the Jnana Yoga or Path of knowledge which many associate with Brahma.

This is where I got a lot of my info on Brahma
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

Its given right there on bottom of the Hindu website that you have linked.

A note of caution: God in his infinite wisdom provides innumerable paths to the devotees. In such matters it is always wiser to follow ones own inclination and inner promptings of the soul, rather than the advice of others.

This should be your end of confusion.:)

[TheOne]

Thank you everyone for the wise words. I will meditate on the different aspects of God and see which form(s) appeal to me most. I do believe I have strong personal Smarta leanings such as worshipping many forms of God instead of just one supreme such as Vishnu or shiva. But because of the Orthodox teachings I cannot/ do not want to become a Smarta.

One more question. I know it's demeaning to have a picture of a god on shoes, shirt, tatoos, etc.. But is it also demeaning to wear a necklace with the eternal Aum on it?

[Sahasranama]

In north India people who worship all the major deities are called Sanatanis or followers of "Sanatana Dharma." How orthodox they are really depends from person to person. Smarta is mainly used in the south where it denotes orthodox followers of Shankaracharya, but technically smarta means following the smritis and puranas. Even Vaishnavas and Shaivas can be smarta. Most smarta rituals are a combination of shrauta/smarta and agama anyway. The idea of worshipping more than one deity is also not exclusive to south Indian smarta brahmins.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam TheOne et al: Most divisions between sects are quite grey. There are a few people who are staunch this or that, but that is not the norm Over the years the intermingling has gone on, and many today would be hard pressed to provide a description of who they are. One term I've heard to describe this is 'leaning'. For example 'our priest here is Smarta leaning towards Saivism.' Most Hindus know little philosophy and just carry on with the devotion and rituals as per their family traditions. In a global society where there is a lot of movement, this happens. Priests will move just to get jobs, and if it means entering another tradition for survival, so be it.

The beauty (and the problem) with this is that we newcomers ourselves get to decide. On the one hand, many options are available, yet on the other hand, there are so many that it is cumbersome.

One perhaps helpful thing is to go top as many temples as you can and read a lot of books, and then just ask, "Where do I feel the most comfortable?" and "What makes the most sense to me."

Then again, for some, such as myself, it was just blatantly obvious. Choosing wasn't really something I did. It was the other way around. For whatever reason, Ganesha chose me, and then guided me to here I am. So thats a whole different slant. Think of it as a God looking for you, not as you looking for God.

I pray for your clarity on the matter.

Aum Namasivaya

[TheOne]

Ahh, thank you. I'm also confused because it says Smartism is one of the more liberal branches of Hinduism and in other places it says it is ultra-orthodox and one must be born into a Smarta family.

I enjoy the aspect of puja to multiple gods because it helps reminds me that although they may seem different they are manifestations of the Brahman.


Thank you for your words EM I realize that although identifying with a sect is an important decision I should take time and experiment to see which group I identify with most


Namaste

[Sahasranama]

In a lot of Indian families there's a concept of kula devata and ishta devata. Kula devata is the main deity of the family tradition and Ishta devata is your personal "leaning." As a Hindu you can worship any deity within empirical reality. (Nota Bene: Harry Potter is not a deity within empirical reality, neither are the gods of other religions from the point of Hinduism).

Right before the battlefield of kurukshetra, Arjuna prayed to Durga for succes in battle and before that he did spend a long time worshipping Shiva to get his pashupata astra. After that, in the chapters of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna considers Arjuna the most suitable bhakta to see his universal form or vishvarupa. These are anecdotes of the MahaBharata, an itihasa (smriti) text. This one reason why the worship of several deities is associated with the word Smarta. Sometimes pancha deva (Ganesh, Surya, Shiva, Vishnu, Durga) and the sixth is sometimes added Agni or Skanda. Since smarta means "regarding the smritis" and the smritis are the itihasas, puranas and dharma shastras. These scriptures have a lot of anecdotes where multiple gods are worshipped and revered equally.


Ahh, thank you. I'm also confused because it says Smartism is one of the more liberal branches of Hinduism and in other places it says it is ultra-orthodox and one must be born into a Smarta family.
The practices of the dharma shastras are very orthodox, while the equal reverence of multiple Gods may be regarded as liberal. As a westerner you need not to worry about the dharma shastras too much, but you can adopt the bhakti towards multiple deities.

[TheOne]

The practices of the dharma shastras are very orthodox, while the equal reverence of multiple Gods may be regarded as liberal. As a westerner you need not to worry about the dharma shastras too much, but you can adopt the bhakti towards multiple deities.


Thank you for the clarification very very much. What if someone asks me what sect am I? I cannot say Smarta because I'm not following the tradition and haven't been born into it. But on the other hand I do have bhakti towards multiple deities and I believe(to some extent) of Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté anatman,

In such matters it is always wiser to follow ones own inclination and inner promptings of the soul, rather than the advice of others.
Your words ring true when 'others' are those that are steeped in ignorance.

The kaṭha upaniṣad ( 1.2.8) is quite clear on this matter. It says
thought of variously, It ( brahman ), when taught by the inferior person ( one that is not realized) is not easily known or understood.
Yet when taught by one that sees himself non-different from the Real, then there is no doubt concerning It.

praṇām

[kd gupta]

Namaste

tā vaṃ vāstūnyuśmasi ghamadhyai yatra ghāvo bhūriśṛṅghāayāsaḥ |
atrāha tadurughāyasya vṛṣṇaḥ paramaṃ padamava bhāti bhūri || 6/154/1 mndlm rig

Fain would we go unto your dwelling-places where there are many-horned and nimble oxen,
For mightily, there, shineth down upon us the widely-striding Bull's sublimest mansion…sri Griffith ralph

हे शाश्त्र वेत्ता विद्वानों जहाँ प्राप्त हुए बहुत सींगो के समान उत्तम तेजों वाले किरण हैं उन स्थानों को तुम अध्यापक और उपदेशक परम योगीजनो के जाने को हम लोग चाहते हैं जो बहुत प्रकारों से प्रशंशित सुख वर्साने वाले परमेश्वर को प्राप्त होने योग्य मोक्षपद अत्यंत उत्कृष्टता से प्रकाशमान है उसको यहाँ ही हम लोग चाहते हैं ...aryasamaj

श्री १००८ श्री वित्थलेश्जी महाराज.....
जहाँ सुवर्णमय बड़ी बड़ी सिंगोवाली गायें है वह वृश्निधुर्य श्री कृष्ण का परम धाम अति प्रकाशमान है जिसमे वेदों का वहुधा गुण गान होता है और जो गोपों के सुंदर भवनों से अलंकृत है , वहा चले इस प्रकार कहकर श्रुति रूपी गोपियाँ व्रज में आई .तथा श्यामसुंदर की सांवरी सूरत पर मुग्ध हो गयीं .

हे इन्द्र और वरुणदेव आप दोनों से हम अपने निवास के लिए ऐसा आश्रय स्थल चाहते हैं जहाँ अतितिक्ष्ण सूर्य रश्मियाँ प्रवेश कर सकें अथवा जहाँ सुंदर सींगो वाली दुधारू गायें विद्यमान हों इन्ही श्रेष्ठ गृहों में अनेको के उपास्य सामर्थ्य संपन्न विष्णुदेव के उत्तम धामों की विशिष्ट विभूतियाँ स्वयं प्रकाशित होती हैं ...gayatri parivar

Avyakto’kshara ityuktastamaahuh paramaam gatim;
Yam praapya na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama. 8/21 gita


What is called the Unmanifested and the Imperishable and is shaivite view , That they say is the highest goal
(path). They who reach It do not return (to this cycle of births and deaths). That is advaita highest abode
(place or state).

उपरोक्त समस्त व्याखानो में गीता द्वारा उल्लिखित भक्ति, अद्वैत ज्ञान का सुंदर वेदार्थ है .

[anatman]

Ahh, thank you. I'm also confused because it says Smartism is one of the more liberal branches of Hinduism and in other places it says it is ultra-orthodox and one must be born into a Smarta family.

I enjoy the aspect of puja to multiple gods because it helps reminds me that although they may seem different they are manifestations of the Brahman.


Thank you for your words EM I realize that although identifying with a sect is an important decision I should take time and experiment to see which group I identify with most


Namaste

Yes, Smartha is liberal. It identifies all the different forms of God as the manifestations of the one absolute truth Brahman(Not to be confused with Brahma-the creator).
And it is not necessary for you to be born in a Smartha family to follow the Smartha tradition. If you accept and follow the principles and teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, you are considered as a Smartha.

Yes, you should definitely take time, and experiment to find out the path that suits you the most.

The Great Buddha's advice:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

[Sahasranama]

Thank you for the clarification very very much. What if someone asks me what sect am I? I cannot say Smarta because I'm not following the tradition and haven't been born into it. But on the other hand I do have bhakti towards multiple deities and I believe(to some extent) of Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

South Indian orthodox smartha is just one of the traditions that follows Shankaracharya, so following Shankaracharya doesn't automatically make you smartha. I don't think it's necessary to make that decision so fast. Most people are followers of a specific sect, because a) they were born in it, b) their teaching guru was part of it, c) they were attracted towards it d) in rare cases because they have analysed the philosophy of the sampradaya. Many born Hindus are not very sect aware, but a lot of new Hindus want to jump on sect bandwagon much earlier.

In hinduism it's not so easy to call yourself follower of a specific sampradaya. I might want to say that I am a Kashmir Shaiva or a Sri Vidya upasaka or a Sri Vaishnava, but that's all not true, since I do not have any guru in those lineages. I did have a guru who was an Arya Samaji, but still that didn't make me Arya Samaji either, because I didn't accept their veda fundamentalist philosophy. I don't think it's a good idea to go guru/ sampradaya hunting, just because you want to belong somewhere. You can simply call yourself Hindu or a follower of Sanatana Dharma and do some simple sadhana like yama, niyama, puja, japa, yoga, svadhyaya, kirtana, satsang, until maybe later you find a great guru, are strongly attracted towards something or are convinced by it.

[amith vikram]

Namaste,
It is not important to what caste or religion you are born into or what path you follow. We have seen from the history that a hunter, a demon, a prostitute etc., have attained what pandits couldn't. What is important is akarma and not karma. Pure devotion is important and one who has pure heart loves and respects all. Well in the end however, we are trying to cut the bonds of sects and dharmas and karmas. So if any path is making you renounce the desires and pleasures and giving you satisfaction, choose that path. And the confirmation comes from inside.

[TheOne]

Yes, Smartha is liberal. It identifies all the different forms of God as the manifestations of the one absolute truth Brahman(Not to be confused with Brahma-the creator).
And it is not necessary for you to be born in a Smartha family to follow the Smartha tradition. If you accept and follow the principles and teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, you are considered as a Smartha.


But here's what confuses me, yes Smartha is liberal in worship but everywhere I look it says that they don't accept converts. I follow the principle that all the gods are manifestations of the Brahman and I agree mostly that reality is advaitic in nature. But I think here's where I am ultimately confused. The smartha sect does not accept converts but I do follow a lot of what they teach(advaita, nature of gods, importance of vedas) but I also disagree with some things such as their teaching that 'tradition' is just as important as what is written down and because of that someone cannot 'become' a smarta.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam TheOne: My understanding is as follows but it could be dead wrong. Adi Shankara established the Smarta Sampradaya as an effort to unify many schools by focusing on Advaita and that all routes lead to Brahman. He codified a worship of 5 in one, (sometimes 6) that actually makes up a traditional Smarta altar. (One of the temples in my town has one of these.) Now that's how it started. In the meantime others re-adapted it into a more liberal version by adding more Gods and identifying them all as aspects Brahman. For some, this even went as far into universalism as to include Christ, even Buddha, and Muhammed, and of course a plethora of Gods beyond the ones in the original. So the closest thing that this new 'liberal Hinduism' could be identified with is Smartism. Certainly its not strict Vaishnavism or Saivism. Almost by exclusion of the rest, it becomes Smarta. This would include the Sanatana temples that Sahasranama mentioned.

But like I said, my understanding could be dead wrong. No doubt I've met traditional South Indian Smartas that wouldn't allow conversion, or believe that one loses his brahmin status by leaving India, etc. But the other version is far more common here in the west. The heavily influenced by Smarta versions. In the South there are also priesthoods like the Iyers and Iyengars or AdiSaiva (Sivacharya) Brahmins. Personally, I have encountered about as many different explanations as people I've asked. It seems everyone has a slightly different take. Even individual priests trained in different places would have their own takes.

For example, within Smartism, you are free to choose an ishta, or personal favorite. So if someone within Smarta chooses his Ishata as Siva, or Murugan, it is very difficult to distinguish between them and the traditional Saivite. The difference might be seen in the comfort level they have within a Vaishnava temple. The Smarta would take it more in stride whereas the straight up Saivite might feel more out of place. The opposite would be true with a Vaishnavite versus a Smarta Brahmin who has chosen Venkateswara (Vishnu) as his ishta.

I have no idea if this is helpful at all, but at least its an effort. Ihave trust in God that in time it'll be much clearer to you as your heart will take you in a certain direction, just s others have mentioned.

Aum Namasivaya

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste TheOne,

I believe Eastern Mindji is correct about Smartism. There is basically two types of Smartas: the one that you are referring to that are very orthodox and don't accept converts, and the more modern "liberal" Hindus that worship many different deities.

The best advice I can give you is not to worry too much about sects, as Sahasranama said. There are many, if not most Hindus who do not pay any attention at all to identifying with a certain sect and they just go about with their worship. This used to be a concern of mine, as I wanted to find out what sect I fit into. You might find this thread helpful: http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5828

I would say that you are either a Smarta (in the second sense of the term that I explained above) or you are just a nonsectarian Hindu. The second sense of the term Smarta pretty much is nonsectarian, but I guess some people term it as Smarta so they can neatly organize Hindus into four sects. I also echo what Eastern Mindji said in an earlier post with the term 'leaning'. I generally say that I am either "nonsectarian" or "Smarta/nonsectarian leaning towards Vaishnavism".

Ultimately, identifying with this sect or that sect does not matter, as we are all brothers and sisters in Sanatana Dharma.

Jai Sri Ram

[Sahasranama]

I would like to add one point, pancha deva worship was not invented by Shankara, it is mentioned in many smriti texts. Shankara may have popularised it, but the practice goes well before the establishment of the Advaita Vedanta tradition. What neo-Hindus are doing, worshipping Jesus and Mohammed, that is by no means an extension of Shankara's philosophy. Shankaracharya was a very strict follower of the shastras, including the smritis.

Many Hindus since colonial times have downplayed the role of smriti texts. On the internet, people with lack of knowledge of the itihasas and puranas are making confusing statements about the origin of Hindu practices. Shankara was only following the trend that already existed in the itihasas and puranas, he didn't do anything radically different. I have given the example of the Mahabharata, the markandeya purana is considered an extention of the Mahabharata, this purana gives equal importance to Shiva, Durga and Vishnu. Another extension of the Mahabharata is the Harivamsa purana, also this purana gives equal importance to Shiva and Vishnu. The most famous Vaishnava Purana, the Bhagavatam, worships Shiva as parabrahman. There are references to 5 deities and the 6 deities which includes agni in the smriti texts. Who is going to tell that this is all the doing of Shankaracharya?

Shrauta (regarding the vedas) and Smarta also refers to the orthodox Hindu rituals like Sanskaras (life ceremonies) and Nitya Karmas (regular house rituals). Shankaracharya had very little to do with the establishment of these, since he was a sannyasin (a renunciate) and traditionally renunciates have their own rituals and are not bothered with the rituals of householders and students. This is all part of the vedic tradition and not specific to any one type of vedantic philosophy. In later times, we can see that followers of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva made their nuances in the rituals to pronounce their philosophical leaning, for example in the Sri Vaishnava samkalpa (vow before the ritual) the concept of sharanagati is emphasized. Therefore they don't pray for the removal of bad karma, but only to serve Bhagavan. In south India, these distinctions are more clear. But who is going to say that every dvija (twice born) needs to have his mind made up about medieval vedantic polemics before he can do the shrauta and smarta rituals?

[devotee]

Namaste The One,

What Sahasranama says is right. Why are you worried about sect and all ? I can guarantee that 90 % of Indian Hindus won't even know what "Smartas" are. The Common Indian Hindu is normally non-sectarian. They worship all forms of God and believe that there is one God but is worshipped in many forms and names. They have no problem in accepting even Jesus and Allah as God.

Please don't bother yourself about joining a sect/being acepted as Hindu by some sect etc. Hindus don't have a pope or a Church or some one who can dictate terms to all Hindus. So, once you declare that you are a Hindu and follow the rituals of Hindus and accept Vedas as the authority ... you are a Hindu. Though it would help in a congragation if you convert formally and change your name to a Hindu-sounding name.

OM

[Sahasranama]

They have no problem in accepting even Jesus and Allah as God.

OM

We have to remain within (empirical) reality when we talk about Gods. Christians and Muslims may have the right intention, but their knowledge of God is viparyaya or false knowledge. According to patanjali false knowledge can be both klishta (hurtful) and aklishta (not hurtful), so it's possible that the Christians can benefit from aklishta viparyaya, but as history has shown a lot of terror has been caused by the Christian's klistha viparyaya. In hinduism we are more concerned with pramana (right knowledge) which includes the shabda pramana or authentic scriptures, even though this right knowledge can also be klishta and aklishta from a psychological standpoint. An example of klishta pramana from anumana are the brilliant mathematicians who ended up in mental institutions. It's easy to always take the aklishta road which can be a form of blissful ignorance, but ignorant nonetheless. Christians and muslims follow different shabda pramanas which are completely irrelevant to Hinduism and not useful as pramana within Hinduism. Accepting Jesus as God may make someone feel warm and fuzzy on the inside for some reason (aklishta viparyaya), but it is outside of the realm of the shastras. I might want to say that my cat is an incarnation of Ma Jagadamba's vehicle lion, but unless I have pramana for this, it's just a baseless assumption.

[TheOne]

Thank you everyone for answering my question. I ask them here because the only other sources on the Internet are wikipedia or descriptions written by (usually prideful) westerners.

[Eastern Mind]

Thank you everyone for answering my question. I ask them here because the only other sources on the Internet are wikipedia or descriptions written by (usually prideful) westerners.

Vannakkam TheOne: This is quite astute. At least here you get different variations. There is a whole lot to be said about pride and attitude within a piece of writing. Very few scholarly articles that you mention ever preface it with 'This is my opinion" or any other indication of a more humble attitude. It is more like a condescending story of 'This is the way it is, the truth, because I know." As I've said before, its all opinion, both here on HDF and there in Wikipedia etc. Its quite understandable when you realise that a person's knowledge only comes from what they personally have experienced or read. That's why, in the end, we all stick to our own guts on things. Each person on the planet has a different 'favorite place'.

Aum Namasivaya

[kd gupta]

Namaste The One,

What Sahasranama says is right. Why are you worried about sect and all ? I can guarantee that 90 % of Indian Hindus won't even know what "Smartas" are. The Common Indian Hindu is normally non-sectarian. They worship all forms of God and believe that there is one God but is worshipped in many forms and names. They have no problem in accepting even Jesus and Allah as God.

Please don't bother yourself about joining a sect/being acepted as Hindu by some sect etc. Hindus don't have a pope or a Church or some one who can dictate terms to all Hindus. So, once you declare that you are a Hindu and follow the rituals of Hindus and accept Vedas as the authority ... you are a Hindu. Though it would help in a congragation if you convert formally and change your name to a Hindu-sounding name.

OM
namaste devoteeji
good article , pl read...
http://advaita-academy.org/Talks/The-Scriptural-teaching-of-mAyAvAda-and-brahmavAda-%283-of-3%29.ashx

[rainycity]

Accepting Jesus as God may make someone feel warm and fuzzy on the inside for some reason (aklishta viparyaya), but it is outside of the realm of the shastras. I might want to say that my cat is an incarnation of Ma Jagadamba's vehicle lion, but unless I have pramana for this, it's just a baseless assumption.

But it is also a big assumption to say that accepting jesus as God makes someone feel warm and fuzzy on the inside and nothing more. We can't know the experiences of others, especially those which we don't share.

[Sahasranama]

I have not said that the warm and fuzzy is the only possibility, it doesn't matter what the belief in Jesus does to someone, the point is there is no reliable Hindu pramana to show that he was an avatara or even a yogi, neither is there any historical evidence for his existence. Belief in Jesus and in the Bible is incompatible with Sanatana Dharma, Christianity is a false religion (http://www.srimatham.com/storage/docs/Why%20Hindus%20Should%20Reject%20Jesus.pdf).

[TheOne]

I agree that Hindus should reject Jesus by not putting a statue of him next to other deities. But I also think that we should be educated that the Jesus which Christians worship is nothing like the Jesus of 2000 years ago(if he existed).

[Sahasranama]

Christians view Jesus as having been born from a virgin mother, having been raised from the death and having died for our sins. This is something non Christians cannot belief. Reinteprating Jesus as an avatar or as a yogi is equally silly though. Let the Christians worry about Jesus and the Bible and let us focus on our own Hindu culture and tradition.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Sahasranama


This is something non Christians cannot belief.

I see the point you are suggesting and can see the rationale, yet I look at is slightly differently. When I read the mahābhārata and various purāṇa-s I see events and activities done that would surpass these events called out.

It seems to me one may or may not discount Jesus, that is not my intent of the post. Yet many things occur in this universe that are even beyond the stories offered by Christians and done by various people not considered avatāra. When one becomes an exponent of Reality, much is possible.

... give an example yajvan.

One only need to look to the vibhūti pada of patañjali’s yogadarśana, his sūtra-s.

For me I think, this may be possible vs. this just can't happen. Why do I choose to think in this manner? Expansion vs. contraction.

Some one gives me a small-small seed and says there is a 100 foot tree inside of it. How can this be? Or do I have the vision to see the oak tree inside of it?

http://www.celebratebig.com/california-sierra-nevada-mountains/calaveras-big-trees-state-park/calaveras-big-trees-state-park-north-grove-trail.jpg


praṇām

[Sahasranama]

I might have chosen the wrong words.

[devotee]

Sarve BhadraaNi Pashyantu


Note : This post is only for those who may be interested to listen to good advice as per the shastras. Those who don't agree with my views, may plese forgive me.


Dear friends,


Speaking ill of any person is not good & it is very bad to speak ill of any person without knowing the complete truth because it is nothing but carrying avoidable biases. Speaking against saints is still more sinful and we must avoid it for our own sakeas our Shastras say.


Our ShAstraas tell us that we must never carry "dwesha" (bad feelings) against saints otherwise we incur sin ( the part of sinful acts which they might have done before getting enlightened get accrued to us). This is not auspicious ... it can only harm us. Moreover, dwelling on others' negative points does create negative vibrations within us.


Our prayer should be :


"Sarve Bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niraamayaah |
Sarve bhadraani pashyantu, maa kashchit dukhbaagbahveta ||"


===> May all be happy. May all be healthy. May we see (only) good in others. May no one suffer (pains).


*****************


Now if I have severe itching to criticise someone, what should I do ? :D


Rahim says,


"Buraa jo dekhan maein chlaa, buraa na milyaa koi,
Jyon dil dhoondhaa aapne, mujh saa buraa na koi"


===> As I set out on my quest to find a bad person (in the world), I didn't find any. However, as soon as I looked into my heart, I found that there was no one as bad I was !


So, better I should find the bad traits within me & criticise myself. I am sounding like a preaching saint who should first apply the teachings on himself ? Yes, I agree. I am not free from this weakness. But I am aware of it and I am trying to improve. :)


OM

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Devotee et al:

I see this is a complex issue, not a simple 'never criticise' anyone' one. I believe each circumstance and the individuals involved in such circumstance is different. Different remedies for different diseases.

As a teacher, it was my job to figure out the personalities of each student and then apply the correct medicine for each. It was impossible of course, and all I could do was try my best. Some kids took any critique as negative criticism, yet others wanted same, even thrived on it. So the overall question was, "Is it helping?"

The Tirukkural has two separate chapters (I may be wrong, its been awhile) that add to the complexity point. One is entitled 'Avoidance of Harsh Speech' whilst the other is titled 'Avoidance of Bad Company'. The first one tells how cruel speech and harshness will karmically return and how it is frowned upon, unhealthy, etc. But the secone one practically condones criticism, at least from a discerning individual point of view.

My father was heavily critical of certain types: lazy non-contributing neighbours, one man who hung around the bar and stole from drunkards, poor sportsmanship etc. He did this especially harshly when I was sitting with him riding from somewhere in the car. It was just his way of telling me what not to do, and hoping I would grow to become an overall contributor to society, not a sponge. So what was the purpose? To create more good.

The term criticism itself is often prefaced by 'positive' or 'negative' which further illustrates my point.

I wish life were simpler but it isn't. Each action, even each statement we make on here for others to read, has its consequence. So for me personally, there are two things: I try to give myself some time before reacting (which sometimes is impossible) and secondly, I try to ask, "Is this doing any good? For that person? For the group?"

Aum Namasivaya

[devotee]

Namaste EM,

I never thought you would bring Parents' criticism, Guru's criticism or friendly criticism in picture ! Thanks for making me see from this angle. :)

My post excludes such criticism which are aimed by the well-wishers for improving a person. That post applies when we criticise because we feel that we should criticise ... we have no concern for the improvement of person in mind ... we criticise because we don't approve that type of a person or his act and we feel that we are better than that person and thus we acquire rights to criticise him. This criticism is born out of our egotism and not from our altruistic feelings.

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste EM,

I never thought you would bring Parents' criticism, Guru's criticism or friendly criticism in picture ! Thanks for making me see from this angle. :)

My post excludes such criticism which are aimed by the well-wishers for improving a person. That post applies when we criticise because we feel that we should criticise ... we have no concern for the improvement of person in mind ... we criticise because we don't approve that type of a person or his act and we feel that we are better than that person and thus we acquire rights to criticise him. This criticism is born out of our egotism and not from our altruistic feelings.

OM

Vannakkam Devotee: I agree totally, but sometimes it takes wisdom to see the differences because often it's so subtle. The ego can be a trickster on his own. There are other tricks to guard against such as falling for another person's opinion without due reflection oneself, criticising before all the facts are known, etc. Regarding the second one, often the facts may be hidden. I see this happen particularly against people who actually have an unseen disability, such as Asperger's syndrome. It really helps to know ALL the facts before saying anything at all, and of course when Innuendo and Rumour are barking like Delhi dogs at night, it compounds the maya.

Aum Namasivaya

[saidevo]

namaste Sahasranama.

Time and again you are proving yourself (in your second coming in HDF) to be well versed in Hindu texts, even at such an early age. It is a delight to read about the knowledge you disseminate in your posts no.28 and 30. Kudos, carry on!

[TheOne]

Not to revive a "dead" post but I still have a question which I don't feel was properly answered(no offense intended).

My question is, can Brahmā be my ishta-deva? Because I know there are barely any "Brahma worshippers" but I have felt a strong connection with Brahmā for some time now. I think for lack of a better term I am a non-sectarian Hindu and I see all the devas as manifestations of the Divine(but I don't think they are all equal in power per-se). I plan on adopting a Smarta style of worship of 5-7 devas and do a puja for one of them each day. Any thoughts/advice?

Namaste

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste TheOne,

Yes, of course Lord Brahma can be your ishta-deva. Obviously as you know, He is not widely worshipped and there will be less information out there on specific prayers, mantras, and rituals for Lord Brahma, but you can certainly go ahead and pray to Him as your ishta-deva if you feel a strong connection.

Most Hindus are like that and pray to several deities, and I am also. Best wishes.

Jai Sri Ram

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

I share the same view with Ramakrishna. If it is Lord Brahma who stirs up spiritual love in you and is the shape of the Lord who tugs at your heartstrings the most, then by all means worship Him in this form and give all your love to Him in prayer and meditation. Yes, information regarding the nature of ritual worship and prayers for Lord Brahma will be harder to locate, but I would not say that it is impossible to find. Adopt whatever worship suits you best. The most important thing is adopting the right frame of mind before you begin any puja, dhyana or prayer. The Smarta fashion of dedicating each day of the week to a particular Deva is perfectly reasonable. Like Ramakrishna (and many, many others on the forum), I also pray to different Devas throughout the week.

Om namah Shivaya

[TheOne]

Thank you very much, do you have any idea where I could find information on how to perform puja, mantras, and prayers to lord Brahma?

[Eastern Mind]

Thank you very much, do you have any idea where I could find information on how to perform puja, mantras, and prayers to lord Brahma?

Vannakkam TheOne: A lot of the pujas are essentially the same, with just the substitution of a different deities name at the point of address. Perhaps that might help. Its the mental though process a lot as well. So if you're thinking Brahma, then its probably okay.

Aum Namasivaya

[sunyata07]

I found a page with a summary of the basic Brahma mantras, including the Brahma Gayatri, here: http://hubpages.com/hub/Lord-Brahma-Bija-Gayatri-Mantras. Instructions on specifics for Brahma puja are going to be trickier to find. I imagine you can always do basic puja ceremony for Lord Brahma. If you are able to go your local temple, you can ask the priests there for some tips on what to do.

If I'm able to find anything else for you on worship of Lord Brahma, I'll make sure I post it.

Om namah Shivaya

[TheOne]

Thank you very, very much that link you provided is very helpful. I think I will use this thread as a platform for asking any questions I have in regard to puja and ritual worship. In the following few years I will try to make an active effort in learning about home puja and temple puja so that once I head off to college I will be able to participate in the local temple without looking like a confused westerner.

Namaste Eastern Mind and Sunyata

[Eastern Mind]

I will be able to participate in the local temple without looking like a confused westerner.

Namaste Eastern Mind and Sunyata

:)
Vannakkam: Good luck with that. After 30 years I still look like a confused westerner. Maybe its because I am a confused westerner.

Seriously, its the Hindus that look confused when you walk into a temple and act and behave far more Hindu than they do. I get stared at not because I'm white, but because I'm in veshti, I prostrate full out, I actually sit and meditate, I refuse to talk during puja, the priest actually knows who I am, I help distribute prasad, I ring the large bells, and I have this strange look about me that seems like I'm actually believing the Gods are real.
:)
Aum Namasivaya

[TheOne]

I know entirely what you mean. It's a little strange when the only person under 18 in the temple is a blue-eyed Hindu. Thank you for your encouragement Eastern Mind :)

[Arjuni]

Namasté, all,

Eastern Mind, I actually laughed aloud at your post, especially this strange look about me that seems like I'm actually believing the Gods are real. Who does that?? You crazy person! :)

TheOne, I have a few bits of info to add to everyone else's wonderful and insightful posts.

There is a third temple to Brahmā, at Bithoor in Uttar Pradesh, and it is the place from which creation of the world began. (A few websites explain that "Brahmā devotees" consider the site very holy. (See? DevoteeS. There are at least a few others. :D ) Brahmā plays an important part in the life of the Buddha, so you'll find information about him in Buddhist stories as well, and there are a few shrines to him outside of India. (An example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thai_4_Buddies.jpg), from the Erawan shrine in Bangkok.)

There is good in having an uncommon iṣṭa-devatā. In searching for information about him, you will naturally learn a lot of Hindu theology and stories along the way. And because there are fewer prayers and such readily available for him, that gives you much incentive to develop a close relationship with him through your own heartfelt prayer, and to use universal practices (like puja) as a starting point in making a devotional practice rich with personal meaning. In other words, you have the opportunity to honour the Creator by...creating. :)

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté





I refuse to talk during puja


This too I do not understand. The benefits of pūjā comes with absorption or āveśa¹. What does talking bring? Distraction.

praṇām

1. āveśa - absorption of the faculties in one wish or idea; intentness , devotedness to an object

[TheOne]

I'm becoming more knowledgeable and connected to Brahma. I have a few questions though. What sort of temple would I go to and what should I answer if someone asks me what sect I am. Also, why isn't Brahma worshipped? I've seen some answer on the internet but they make no sense.

Please enlighten me

Namaste

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam TheOne: I doubt that anyone will ask your sect. It hasn't ever happened to me at some 20 or more North American temples, and another 20 or so in India. And by the way, in our faith we have to enlighten ourselves. :)

There is a Brahma niche at our temple on the side of the moolasthanam. You may find one in other temples as well.

Aum Namasivaya

[Arjuni]

TheOne,

There are several legends that explain why Brahmā is no longer worshipped.

One story is from the Shiva Purana, and explains that once Shiva turned into a huge column of fireand challenged Vishnu and Brahmā to find the beginning or the end. Vishnu began digging into the Earth, Brahmā flew upward, and neither of them could find where the fire started or stopped. Vishnu was truthful with Shiva, but Brahmā's ego would not let him admit defeat. He tried to lie to Shiva and claim that he had seen the pillar's beginning; Shiva, knowing the truth and angry at the deceit, cursed him never to be worshipped anywhere.

Another story goes that Brahmā was to perform a yajna (fire-sacrifice), but his wife Savitri (or Saraswati - the story differs) was running late and could not be present during an essential part for which she was required. Brahmā, irritated by the delay, requested Indra to find him a girl to marry so that he could complete the sacrifice. Indra came back with the maid Gayatri, and Brahmā married Gayatri and finished the rite. Brahmā's wife finally arrived to find this girl sitting next to Brahmā and, furious, cursed Brahmā that he would never be worshipped anywhere. Later, mollified, she reduced her curse to permit his worship at Pushkar.

A third tale also involves a yajna, this one organised by the sage Bhrigu. Because the greatest of the Trimurti was to be the presiding deity at the sacrifice, off Bhrigu went to find that One. When he reached Brahmā's abode, Brahmā was so engrossed in Saraswati's beautiful music that he didn't hear Bhrigu's calls or respond. Bhrigu was angry and cursed him.

This question of why no longer worshipped is one that interests me, and I'll try to write more later when I'm not as pressed for time!

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[kd gupta]

:)
Vannakkam: Good luck with that. After 30 years I still look like a confused westerner. Maybe its because I am a confused westerner.

Seriously, its the Hindus that look confused when you walk into a temple and act and behave far more Hindu than they do. I get stared at not because I'm white, but because I'm in veshti, I prostrate full out, I actually sit and meditate, I refuse to talk during puja, the priest actually knows who I am, I help distribute prasad, I ring the large bells, and I have this strange look about me that seems like I'm actually believing the Gods are real.
:)
Aum Namasivaya
EMJi is not wrong , he has been a teacher .
I dont know how many of you are the science student . This is the scientific way of explaining the ever existing god .
Take some quantity of water in a bowl .The water will turn to vapour when you heat it to boiling point , this is gyan as vapourisation .
Some quantity of water always tries to escape in every temperature due to energy of sun/air and it is termed as evaporation , quantum phisics explains it .
This is the proper way and known as bhakti , it leaves nobody perplexed .

[TheOne]

Thank you Eastern Mind and Indraneela why are there legends on why he isn't worshiped those legends don't make much sense to me. Like why would gods go searching for the end of a pole? Excuse me if I am ignorant but it just seems to strange. Especially because there are conflicting accounts. I personally just assumed Brahma worship wasn't widespread because people view Brahma's role of creator as "over" and they found it "useless" to worship the creator as almighty because his role was over.

[Sahasranama]

puShkara, once the abode of bramhA,
Now home of the mlechcHa…
bramhA bathed there after concluding his yaj~na
Now mlechcHa removes in its waters the fatigue of demolishing our sacred temples…
Once this lake was the repository of the tears of joy of viShNu
Now a bin for the waste of mlechcHa’s meals…
Once warmed up by the fire of the eyes of The Eleven rudra-s
Now steaming with the hot tears of persecuted brAhmaNa-s…
apsaras were forbidden to enter its waters,
Even indrANI considered it not proper to bathe here,
Now becomes the wallowing pool of abominable turuShkanI women in their menses…
Once deva-s quenched their thirst from it,
Now supplies to these barbarians who dont hesitate to slaughter their horses to quench their thirsts in the desert…


http://bharatendu.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/pushkara/

[Eastern Mind]

Thank you Eastern Mind and Indraneela why are there legends on why he isn't worshiped those legends don't make much sense to me. Like why would gods go searching for the end of a pole? Excuse me if I am ignorant but it just seems to strange. Especially because there are conflicting accounts. I personally just assumed Brahma worship wasn't widespread because people view Brahma's role of creator as "over" and they found it "useless" to worship the creator as almighty because his role was over.

Vannakkam TheOne:

Many legends don't make a lot of sense to me either. Siva chopping off his son's head is the absolute last place I'd start teaching about Ganesha, for example. Unless you have insider information on the symbolism or hidden meanings, taken literally, many don't make sense.

I have no scholarly traits, but I can tell you what my gut says about Brahma worship.

Firstly, I think the British western encyclopedia thing of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, has had far too much of a role in describing Hinduism. For me, all 3 are contained within Siva. For Krishna devotees, all 3 are contained within Krishna. So when somebody reads about Hinduism, they get this weird incorrect teaching. A lot is lost in translation such as 'Destroyer' to describe Siva. So for starters, I think we have to toss that idea by the wayside in our minds, just as we have to rid ourselves of any Christian leftovers.

Secondly, most temples were built or financed by kings and religious leaders over history. I just think that the development of temples was determined by the whims of a few, not a lot. If you look at the temples in lands of indentured labour countries like Trinidad, Fiji, etc. the temples are a reflection of who built it, and what their particular sectarian leaning was. So it may have been a small committee of Hanuman lovers who built the first temple in Trinidad. The same principle applied back in days of yore. It was Rajaraja who built Tanjore temple in the Tamil Nadu for example. He was a Saiva, so what else would he build?

Here at my temple, the Sri Lankans and a couple of westerners who decided to build a temple were not Smarta, but devotional bhakti orientated Saivas. So that's what got built. Still we have people who come and ask, "Where is the Venkateswara, where is the Rama shrine, etc.?" not fully aware of the differences because of historical differences.

But I'm probably wrong.

Aum Namasivaya

[TheOne]

Vannakkam TheOne:

Many legends don't make a lot of sense to me either. Siva chopping off his son's head is the absolute last place I'd start teaching about Ganesha, for example. Unless you have insider information on the symbolism or hidden meanings, taken literally, many don't make sense.

I have no scholarly traits, but I can tell you what my gut says about Brahma worship.

Firstly, I think the British western encyclopedia thing of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, has had far too much of a role in describing Hinduism. For me, all 3 are contained within Siva. For Krishna devotees, all 3 are contained within Krishna. So when somebody reads about Hinduism, they get this weird incorrect teaching. A lot is lost in translation such as 'Destroyer' to describe Siva. So for starters, I think we have to toss that idea by the wayside in our minds, just as we have to rid ourselves of any Christian leftovers.

Secondly, most temples were built or financed by kings and religious leaders over history. I just think that the development of temples was determined by the whims of a few, not a lot. If you look at the temples in lands of indentured labour countries like Trinidad, Fiji, etc. the temples are a reflection of who built it, and what their particular sectarian leaning was. So it may have been a small committee of Hanuman lovers who built the first temple in Trinidad. The same principle applied back in days of yore. It was Rajaraja who built Tanjore temple in the Tamil Nadu for example. He was a Saiva, so what else would he build?

Here at my temple, the Sri Lankans and a couple of westerners who decided to build a temple were not Smarta, but devotional bhakti orientated Saivas. So that's what got built. Still we have people who come and ask, "Where is the Venkateswara, where is the Rama shrine, etc.?" not fully aware of the differences because of historical differences.

But I'm probably wrong.

Aum Namasivaya



I think you made just about the most sense clarifying my confusions then the whole of the internet sources and Wikipedia combined. I myself don't follow the belief that all the gods are contained in shiva, vishnu, or any other god. I follow more of the Smarta belief that the gods are expressions of formless Brahman but I do recognize that being an expression doesn't mean they are "all the same".

Thank you very much Eastern Mind.

Namaste

[TheOne]

Also, who can be defined as a Smarta? I have seen it used to describe a group of ultra orthodox brahmins in south India. But I have also seen it used as an umbrella term for anyone who follows Adi Shankara's style of worship and believes in Advaita Vedanta. I am truely wondering who is considered a Smarta and why there is so much confusion.

[TheOne]

I don't think my posts showed up. So here's a "bump"

[Eastern Mind]

Also, who can be defined as a Smarta? I have seen it used to describe a group of ultra orthodox brahmins in south India. But I have also seen it used as an umbrella term for anyone who follows Adi Shankara's style of worship and believes in Advaita Vedanta. I am truely wondering who is considered a Smarta and why there is so much confusion.

Vannakkam TheOne: I certainly can't explain this very easily, as I'm no expert. There isn't a whole lot of difference externally between a Saiva and a Smarta whose Ishta is Siva. The Saiva will see quite the difference, especially once a discussion erupts about the view from the inside. But a Smarta has a harder time telling the difference because it makes perfect sense for him to view the Saiva as just another one of his own kind, but a Smarta at heart. The difference would come up more by what each 'feels' inside a temple. The Saiva will feel more of a distinction at a Vishnu temple whereas a Smart won't, because of his training. A Siva views and feels from his mystic inside a different vibration between Vishnu and Siva. You can include Murugan and Ganesha and all the forms of Shakti in there too. Each 'feels' different to me. When I first discovered Hinduism, I thought Adi Shankara was a great Saiva bhaktar because of his appearance in drawings. (Read 3 stripes of vibhuthi and the cloakings of Saiva. Only after further study was I able to determine the difference. One is somewhat more intellectual and analytical whereas the other is more mystical and devotional. Each has elements of the other, but the primary focuses are different.

At least that's my take, for what its worth. Others may differ.

Aum Namasivaya

[Sean]

TheOne & Eastern Mind



Thank you Eastern Mind and Indraneela why are there legends on why he isn't worshiped those legends don't make much sense to me. Like why would gods go searching for the end of a pole? Excuse me if I am ignorant but it just seems to strange. Especially because there are conflicting accounts. I personally just assumed Brahma worship wasn't widespread because people view Brahma's role of creator as "over" and they found it "useless" to worship the creator as almighty because his role was over.


The Hindu myths are not to be underestimated and are worth half a dozen of the confused Greek myths any day.

The myth here concerns the right relationship to sexuality. And image of Shiva is sometimes sculptured into column to indicate his unity with sexuality yet also unaffected divine relationship with it: Shiva is the great erotic-ascetic.

When Brahma said he'd found the end of Shiva's linga or erection what he meant was that he could make sense of sexuality by stepping back from it and objectifying it. This certainly cannot be done however (as you probably understand personally) as we cannot separate ourselves from what is integral to us and instead just need the right internal relationship with ourselves, where the attention returns on itself before just being lost in the senses so that we have 100% relative experience and 100% absolute and righteousness- in all aspects of life.

Brahma also isn't worshipped as he's the creator and his job is done. None of the gods directly intervene in the world though of course- they just recline like Vishnu in his Anantashayana pose on the (phallical) Sheshanaga snake, and illuminate the divine in us to do our work for us, which though in this sense is intervention...

[Sahasranama]

they just recline like Vishnu in his Anantashayana pose on the (phallical) Sheshanaga snake

Where did you get that idea?

[Sean]

Not sure which part you're asking about: the gods are like the Self, uninvolved with activity yet issuing activity; and indeed snakes are phallical in numerous traditions.

[TheOne]

TheOne & Eastern Mind



The Hindu myths are not to be underestimated and are worth half a dozen of the confused Greek myths any day.

The myth here concerns the right relationship to sexuality. And image of Shiva is sometimes sculptured into column to indicate his unity with sexuality yet also unaffected divine relationship with it: Shiva is the great erotic-ascetic.

When Brahma said he'd found the end of Shiva's linga or erection what he meant was that he could make sense of sexuality by stepping back from it and objectifying it. This certainly cannot be done however (as you probably understand personally) as we cannot separate ourselves from what is integral to us and instead just need the right internal relationship with ourselves, where the attention returns on itself before just being lost in the senses so that we have 100% relative experience and 100% absolute and righteousness- in all aspects of life.

Brahma also isn't worshipped as he's the creator and his job is done. None of the gods directly intervene in the world though of course- they just recline like Vishnu in his Anantashayana pose on the (phallical) Sheshanaga snake, and illuminate the divine in us to do our work for us, which though in this sense is intervention...



But Creation is never complete. We see new creations from humans and new creations from natural world each day. As long as something is being created somewhere Brahma and his consorts will watch over.

[Sean]

Absolutely.

[Adhvagat]

The Hindu myths are not to be underestimated and are worth half a dozen of the confused Greek myths any day.

Sean, after some study I began suspecting the greek gods are in fact the Vedic devas through the light of another civilization.

My suspicion was more or less confirmed after I had a dream about a Vaishnava sannyasi I know, he was drawing the picture of a three-headed dog on a blackboard and talking about him... I woke up extremely curious and the first thing that I searched for was: Cerberus.

So I discovered that the word Cerberus comes from Sharvara, which is the three headed dog of Yamaraja. Therefore Hades = Yamaraja, which is explicit even in their functions.


When Brahma said he'd found the end of Shiva's linga or erection what he meant was that he could make sense of sexuality by stepping back from it and objectifying it. This certainly cannot be done however (as you probably understand personally) as we cannot separate ourselves from what is integral to us and instead just need the right internal relationship with ourselves, where the attention returns on itself before just being lost in the senses so that we have 100% relative experience and 100% absolute and righteousness- in all aspects of life.

Sean, that's actually a pretty nice understanding.

[Sahasranama]

Not sure which part you're asking about: the gods are like the Self, uninvolved with activity yet issuing activity; and indeed snakes are phallical in numerous traditions.

Can you quote specifically from a Hindu source where Sheshanaga is considered phallic?

[Sean]

Sahasranama, probably not, although the evidence is overwhelming, and the whole Anantashayana image and its covering of snake heads has genital reference. Snakes and sexuality are in Buddhism and Christianity as well as Hinduism; give me a few days and I'll put some stuff up on my Notes thread, cheers.

[TheOne]

Does it say anywhere in any scripture Vedas, Gita, Ramayana, Shiva Puranas that Brahma is not to be worshiped? Because the only thing I hear from people is numerous different stories that don't make much sense and sometimes contradict each other.

[sunyata07]

Namaste TheOne,

If I were you, I would not trouble myself with the "dos and don'ts" of different schools of thought. Nowhere in any scripture does it ever say: do not worship X. All is an expression of the Supreme Lord, no? How can His worship be limited in any way? He is as present in a grain of sand as He is in a great mountain. I understand your dismay (for lack of a better word) at not seeing more devotional hymns/prayers/rites for Brahma, and the lack of an actual Brahmanite sect. Lack of source material for traditional worship is bound to be frustrating, and no doubt you are still learning something new everyday about your relationship with God as you become more acquainted with Hinduism. Trust in the love you cultivate for Brahma, and in the words of Sri Krishna "abandon all outwardly supports and just surrender to Me". Your pure devotion to God is all that truly matters. Everything else is superficial.

Try not to take the legends and myths at face value. They are not to be interpreted in such a crude manner. Texts, hymns and prayers from Saivite traditions will extol Shiva as the Supreme Lord; read a few and see how in these practices, Vishnu and Brahma pay homage to Shiva! Alternatively, go to Vaishnavite sources and see how the tables have been reversed, and surely do Brahma and Shiva pray and worship Vishnu. I have no doubt once upon a time before this universe came into being, that Lords Vishnu and Shiva paid their deep respects to Brahma. Who is worshipping whom? Don't trouble yourself with the cyclical nature of the Self recognising Self inherent in All. Maya is a powerful force, one that continues to trick us with delusions of separate existence of the Devas and dual nature of the universe.

Om namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Does it say anywhere in any scripture Vedas, Gita, Ramayana, Shiva Puranas that Brahma is not to be worshiped? Because the only thing I hear from people is numerous different stories that don't make much sense and sometimes contradict each other.

Vannakkam TheOne: As usual, I'll second what Sunyata said. Besides, what does it matter what others think? We are all just expressing opinions formulated by the sets of experiences we have been through, including meeting Gurus, listening to people, reading books, attending pujas, inner stuff in meditation, etc. The only person that should matter at all is you. Sorry if I sound like I'm lecturing. :)

(Drawing out the old gruff teacher voice not used in a while) - Is that clear, Young Man?:D

God, I do sound like I'm lecturing. Oh well.

Aum Namasivaya

[Sahasranama]

You can find some prayers for Brahma here:
http://www.bhaktibhav.com/album.php?album_id=81

[TheOne]

Namaste EM and Sunya

Thank you very much, I think that recently I have been more occupied with the aesthetic in Sanatan Dharm rather than the spiritual thank you for reminding me that all is Brahman and Brahman is all. Whether we call him Vishnu, Shiva, or Brahma it ultimately boils down to the primordial nature called Brahman.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TheOne

you ask,

Does it say anywhere in any scripture Vedas, Gita, Ramayana, Shiva Puranas that Brahma is not to be worshiped?

The answer to your question can be found in the Śiva mahāpurāṇa, vidyeśvara saṃhitā (section), 7th & 8th adhyāya-s (chapters).

I will let you reivew/find it. You may wish to ask questions. Yet the core issue was brahmā¹ asked the king of flowers, ketakī, to bear false witness on what brahmā had seen/ accomplished i.e. finding an ending point to śiva ( which is just not possible) as he was in a contest with viṣṇu. It is due to this action that he is without sweeping adoration on earth.

Now, the question is what is the symbol, the lesson or insight that is being offered here? What is the story-behind the story? We will leave this to your reseach and perhaps you can come and give us your ideas on this matter.
praṇām

words

brahmā - please note the following nominclature - brahma is used for nirguṅa ( quality-less, transcendent, absolute) and brahmā for saguṅa - or with qualities

[Sean]

Also Brahma the creator is next to Brahman the creation or plane of being, who isn't worshipped either...

[TheOne]

I was under the impression that Brahman is the primordial consciousness from which all things came into being.

[Sean]

It is. Consciousness is the plane of being, as confirmed by quantum mechanics and modern physics.

[TheOne]

And isn't "all this" a product of Brahman? Including all matter, and all the gods.

[Sean]

Brahman is all things, and even all things that are not; it is the quantum mechanical seething froth of potentiality and infinity.

Hinduism is the colossal interconnection of the Veda and the easy obliteration of articulated distinctions- you're on the right path TheOne.

[TheOne]

Then why are some people saying that cultivating bhakti for Brahma is not noble or isn't the right way? If all things are Brahman and Brahman is all things then is not Brahma worship just a different color in the spectrum of bhakti for God?

[Adhvagat]

If you want to know if a tree is blocking the road, you should ask that question to someone who already crossed that path. Right?

/Confucius mode off

[sunyata07]

Then why are some people saying that cultivating bhakti for Brahma is not noble or isn't the right way? If all things are Brahman and Brahman is all things then is not Brahma worship just a different color in the spectrum of bhakti for God?

If you look closely, you'll see that you've already answered your own question.

Om namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TheOne ( et.al)


Then why are some people saying that cultivating bhakti for Brahma is not noble or isn't the right way? If all things are Brahman and Brahman is all things then is not Brahma worship just a different color in the spectrum of bhakti for God?

To suggest I can even talk exhaustively about brahman is to embarrass myself. Yet that said let me in some way help you understand
why we do not directly worship brahman... let me set the stage:

Brahman is indeed all, and not all. Once you say it is this, then you have confined ( limited) brahman. So we usually say brahman is not this,
not this, or that. The upaniṣads¹ inform us that only 1/4th of this Being is the expression of all this is, was, or can be. The entire universe and
all of its permutations is just 1/4th ( if that) of this Being.

So, that says how will we, a mire speck , be able to properly adore brahman? This Being is magnificent, magnanimous , gracious i.e. bhūman,
fullness itself on every possible level. - yet in a word we can consider It ( brahman) anuttara - unsurpassable, The most Supreme.

Now the upaniṣads also inform us, to know brahman is to become brahman. Then one can truly adore this Being - until then , there are only
limits to one's adoration. It is this limitation that should not be come part of one's upāsana ( adoration,worship).

So what does s one to do? We worship expressions, various forms of brahman as we know them to be ambassadors of brahman -
the various forms of the Supreme, the avatāra and others.

When we talk of brahmā the creator, śiva the destroyer and viṣṇu the one that maintains , we're discussing the well-known tri-mūrti or triad.
We are not talking of brahman, but an expression of that fullness that explains all of creation , maintenance and dissolution thereof.

It is common to mis-represent brahmā for brahman.

brahmā = saguṅa or with qualities
brahma is used for nirguṅa ( quality-less, transcendent, absolute)Yet brahman is not only both brahmā + brahma , but all that is, and is not, will be, and will not be, for now and for ever.

How does one then properly adore such a Being? This is the conundrum the wise ask us to consider and properly channel our
adoration and worship accordingly - to something one can get their minds and hearts around.

praṇām
1. Māṅdūkya upaniṣad, chāndogya upaniṣad

[Sean]

Then why are some people saying that cultivating bhakti for Brahma is not noble or isn't the right way? If all things are Brahman and Brahman is all things then is not Brahma worship just a different color in the spectrum of bhakti for God?

Yes, just that some paths up the mountain are easier.

[TheOne]

Namaste Sean

To that I say "If winter were not so harsh then spring would not be so welcome"

Which I believe means in terms of Sanatan Dharma that if I follow a difficult path and spend my time learning and cultivating then I will have made a path to God.

I see this as yes, there are routes Hinduism has provided Saivism, Vashnaivism, Smartism, Shaktism, etc. but I myself feel that to truely understand dharma one should be able to traverse the mountain(Sanatana Dharma) without a clear cut trail in the same way that a hiker who is ambitious steers clear of the trails and uses his own knowledge to hike up the mountain. This is only my opinion and I certainly see the immense importance and value in following a well-defined and set out path but I feel that if I want to understand the utter core of Vedic thought and practice than I should make my own path for myself.

[Sean]

Yes indeed, I'm sure others will agree: dharma is individual, we have our own paths to personal development because our psychologies, abilities and histories are unique. It's the Abrahamics who try and funnel everyone through Christ or Mohammed or whoever: you can use one of the major branches of Hinduism, but millions of Indians also have personal gods of their own.

There are 330 million gods in scripture, which is to say there are any number of expressions of the divine and personal paths. There is no coercion here, everything is personal. I've been to my local temples many many times and no one has ever tried to push anything on me- they know me and provide pujas but otherwise totally ignore me.

[Ramakrishna]

Namaste TheOne,

I completely agree with Sunyata. You just need to chill out.

As for your question about Smartism, I'm fairly sure that the term 'Smartism' refers to two things. One is the orthodox sect that you refer to that doesn't accept converts and have very strict rules. I believe this was originally what 'Smartism' referred to. But overtime, the term has come to describe Hindus who pray to multiple deities and pretty much view all of them as equal, with no one being supreme over the other. Now this is also referred to as 'nonsectarian', but overtime the term 'Smartism' has also been loosely applied to these beliefs. I could be wrong about this, but I am fairly sure this is right. This is something that used to confuse me. I have been called a nonsectarian Hindu and I've also been called a Smarta, so ultimately the two terms are interchangeable, although you must remember that when people talk about Smartism they could also be referring to the specific orthodox sect with the strict rules.

Jai Sri Ram

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste Sean

To that I say "If winter were not so harsh then spring would not be so welcome"

Which I believe means in terms of Sanatan Dharma that if I follow a difficult path and spend my time learning and cultivating then I will have made a path to God.

I see this as yes, there are routes Hinduism has provided Saivism, Vashnaivism, Smartism, Shaktism, etc. but I myself feel that to truely understand dharma one should be able to traverse the mountain(Sanatana Dharma) without a clear cut trail in the same way that a hiker who is ambitious steers clear of the trails and uses his own knowledge to hike up the mountain. This is only my opinion and I certainly see the immense importance and value in following a well-defined and set out path but I feel that if I want to understand the utter core of Vedic thought and practice than I should make my own path for myself.

Vannakkam TheOne: I admire your sense of independence. The sages all say things like, "I cannot do it for you," or "lean on your own spine,". And yet I differ slightly on this 'route' of taking your own path. I am on pretty much a singular path, one sect, one sampradaya, etc. Why have I chosen this? It's because there have been successful trailblazers before me. Others have walked the same path, described it, spoken of the pitfalls off it, or without all the analogies, told me what to do. Its not the blind following the blind, its the clear following the wise. I think when someone decides to go his own way as you have alluded to, the dangers of getting confused arise more. When you read 5 books from 5 different teachers giving 5 different points of view, none of them will really sink in, and indeed, there may be subtle contradictions. I know people well versed in philosophy who can't answer the question, "But what do you think?" On a much smaller level than say, Dharmic versus Abrahamic, the differences exist, whether we like to admit it or not. Of course in the beginning stages, most people do explore our various paths. But eventually most will settle on one more than another. If not, well, then they remain with the contradictions, only to carry then forward to another life.

This is just my take, others of course will vary.

Aum Namasivaya

[Water]

I wish I had found this thread weeks ago. It questions (and does answer) in depth many of the questions I had when trying to figure out the ambiguous explanations of Smartha and it's relations to Advaita Vedanta.

It also restated something I was suspecting - that Smartha tradition itself was a liberal tradition (when compared to ardent Shaivism, etc) but Smartha tradition itself was not "liberal Hinduism."

SOV in another thread explained clearly the difference between the family tradition of Smartha and the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta. That helped clear the confusion caused by different Western sources - I was probably reading the exact same sources as TheOne. Sources that (incorrectly) said all of Sanatana Dharma was ardently secular. That's simply not the case.

Someone (sorry, I'm too lazy to scroll back) also mentioned that "90% of native Hindu/Indian people wouldn't even be able to answer what Smartha was" - that's true. I asked several people who all read the descriptions from sources from Wikipedia, ISKCon, Gurudeva (Sivaya Subramuniswami) and would all say, "Oh, that's Shaivism" or "Oh, that's Vaishnaivism" or "That is my/our tradition and religion."

It seems only other Westerners knew what I was talking about when I asked about it. :)

Also, I wanted to add a possible source for many would-be-converts questioning a sect:
Sivaya Subramuniswami has a public and easily found resource on "How to Become a Hindu" which it details that [b]you must choose one of these four 'things'". While a little misleading, I understand why it was written the way it was - to help an aimless seeker find a single target to concentrate on.