Perplexed

[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 [Better] Hindu" which it details that 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.