Perplexed

[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

हेशाश्त्रवेत्ताविद्वानोंजहाँप्राप्तहुएबहुतसींगोकेसमानउत्तमतेजोंवालेकिरणहैंउनस्थानोंकोतुमअध्यापकऔरउपदेशकपरमयोगीजनोकेजानेकोहमलोगचाहतेहैंजोबहुतप्रकारोंसेप्रशंशितसुखवर्सानेवालेपरमेश्वरकोप्राप्तहोनेयोग्यमोक्षपदअत्यंतउत्कृष्टतासेप्रकाशमानहैउसकोयहाँहीहमलोगचाहतेहैं ...aryasamaj

श्री१००८श्रीवित्थलेश्जीमहाराज.....
जहाँसुवर्णमयबड़ीबड़ीसिंगोवालीगायेंहैवहवृश्निधुर्यश्रीकृष्णकापरमधामअतिप्रकाशमानहैजिसमेवेदोंकावहुधागुणगानहोताहैऔरजोगोपोंकेसुंदरभवनोंसेअलंकृतहै , वहाचलेइसप्रकारकहकरश्रुतिरूपीगोपियाँव्रजमेंआई .तथाश्यामसुंदरकीसांवरीसूरतपरमुग्धहोगयीं .

हेइन्द्रऔरवरुणदेवआपदोनोंसेहमअपनेनिवासकेलिएऐसाआश्रयस्थलचाहतेहैंजहाँअतितिक्ष्णसूर्यरश्मियाँप्रवेशकरसकेंअथवाजहाँसुंदरसींगोवालीदुधारूगायेंविद्यमानहोंइन्हीश्रेष्ठगृहोंमेंअनेकोकेउपास्यसामर्थ्यसंपन्नविष्णुदेवकेउत्तमधामोंकीविशिष्टविभूतियाँस्वयंप्रकाशितहोतीहैं ...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).

उपरोक्तसमस्तव्याखानोमेंगीताद्वाराउल्लिखितभक्ति, अद्वैतज्ञानकासुंदरवेदार्थहै .

[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.