Smartas - The Eclectic Hindus

[natkaushik]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

In such discussions, there is no single correct view. Sri Nachinarkiniyan has come out with his view and reasoning.All the power to him. I am a tamil Iyer,a (sroutha) smartha-follower of sruthi & smrithi, I pray as per shanamatha practices (gaanapathyam,koumaaram,souryam shaaktham,saivam and vaishnavam), my vedantham is uttara mimamsam of sankaracharya.my Guru vandana is "sadaasiva samaarambaam, sankaracharya madyamaan, asmad aacharaya paryanthaam vande Guru paramparaam".
PS: a majority of Bengalis are shaakthas (Kali maa), a few are baishnos (followers of gouranga mahaprabhu aka Krishna Chaitanya, composer of "Geetha Govindam".Bagwan Ramakrishna is all( Hindu,Muslim Christian )religions rolled into one.

 

[Pam]

hi
i myself belong to Nama iyers sect...we wear namam like vaishnavas ..but belong to vadama iyer sect....even though we

are Nama smarthas....we worship/ kula deivam vishnu....we never use vibhuti.....we belong to srirangam matam.....

not any smartha matam....we use srirangam panchangam tooo...so we called Nama iyers...mainly three agraharams

belong to Nama iyers....2 in tamilnadu 1 in palakkad ,kerala.....i think pallipuram/thirunellayi in kerala...singanallur in

coimbatore...one agraharam in tanjore....there is proverb in tamil.....வடமன் முத்தி வைஷ்ணவன் ....this applicable to us...

Hi!

I found your post very interesting. My father-in-law and his father wear thiruman inspite of being vadama iyer. My father - in - law wears only the srichurnam whereas his father used to wear a full vadakalai thiruman. But, their kula deivam is Vaidyanathaswami of Vaideeswaran kovil. So, I wonder whether they too could belong to the Nama iyer sect? Do Nama iyers have Shivan as Kula deivam? We also do not know who their original acharyan was; My parents-in-law used to go to Mahaperiyava for Darshan, but, I know people from all sects, across the board have gone to Mahaperiyava, so, that doesn't tell us anything.
My mother-in-law does not know any information about that so, I look forward to anybody throwing any more light on this issue here in the forum.

THanks!

Padhma

 

[sangom]

Hi!

I found your post very interesting. My father-in-law and his father wear thiruman inspite of being vadama iyer. My father - in - law wears only the srichurnam whereas his father used to wear a full vadakalai thiruman. But, their kula deivam is Vaidyanathaswami of Vaideeswaran kovil. So, I wonder whether they too could belong to the Nama iyer sect? Do Nama iyers have Shivan as Kula deivam? We also do not know who their original acharyan was; My parents-in-law used to go to Mahaperiyava for Darshan, but, I know people from all sects, across the board have gone to Mahaperiyava, so, that doesn't tell us anything.
My mother-in-law does not know any information about that so, I look forward to anybody throwing any more light on this issue here in the forum.

THanks!

Padhma

I knew a smartha iyer, way back in the 1960's, who used to apply only a simple "Gopi" (the U-shaped nAmam) but he was not a vaishnava. He told me that in their poorveeka agrahAram all people used to apply only this U-nAmam either with sandal paste or the white thirumaN. He did not know the reason.

One possibility is that when the vaishnava-non vaishnava conflict was at its height, the non-vaishnavas in some disadvantaged locations adopted this so that apparently they could pass off as Vaishnavas and be free from trouble. How the womenfolk tided over this crisis is not known!

 

[sarang]

As this is in the realm of a possibility in one's mind without a shroud of evidence, can be considered as titillating or mischievous. There was migration between vaishnavas and saivas due to conviction and respect for the acharyas, but definitely not 'to avoid trouble'. Pressure to convert by terror or force is a muslim and christian phenomenon; there is ample evidence for this. Even today, hindus are forced to convert in pakistan and bangladesh, if one believes reports published in secular magazines like 'the hindu'.

The women folk has to wear the sari differently. Because the considered opinion of some is, the women had no independence, were doormats and had to do whatever was commanded by the husband or inlaws or sons.

One possibility is that when the vaishnava-non vaishnava conflict was at its height, the non-vaishnavas in some disadvantaged locations adopted this so that apparently they could pass off as Vaishnavas and be free from trouble. How the womenfolk tided over this crisis is not known!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Some members seem to have missed the entire basics of Smarta religion.

You can be a 100% Vaishnavite and still be a Smarta. To be a Smarta one has to only accept the other Gods/Goddesses. That does not mean that you have give up any of the Vaishnavite culture or belief.

In this regard, I had posted about how in Bengal every Hindu starts any ritual with reacting Vishnu, Vishnu, Vishnu. And also we had discussed how Vishnu means the all pervading one.

A Vaishnavite is one who worships Vishnu. Who said that a Vaishnavite is one who decries all other Gods/Goddesses as Demi Gods? Who said that a Vaishnavite should believe that only Vishnu can give you salvation? This is the interpretation of some Acharyas.

Again some members are talking about Saivite/Vaishnavite. By no stretch of imagination can a Smartha be termed as Saiva.

A person who recites all the names of Vishnu in his sandhyavandanam, mutters Harihiom all the time and submits all the results to Narayana as
Kayena vacha manasendriyairva
Buddhyatmana va prakrite swabhavath
Karoomi yadyad sakalam parasmai
Narayanayeti samarpayami

Whatever I do with my mind, body, speech or with other senses of my body, Or with my intellect or with my innate natural tendencies I offer everything to Narayana.

You call this person who ends all his rituals and prayers with this sloka a Saivite?

Sangom had remarked that there has been a number of posts attacking Samrtas recently. This thread is the reason for it.

Again the names of Vishnu in Smarta sandyavandana, smartas saying harihi om, and reciting Kayenavacha ... are all facts. Not my opinion. The posting of many members also confirms how Smartas have accepted people who practice Vaishnavite culture.

 

[zebra16]

Some members seem to have missed the entire basics of Smarta religion.

You can be a 100% Vaishnavite and still be a Smarta. To be a Smarta one has to only accept the other Gods/Goddesses. That does not mean that you have give up any of the Vaishnavite culture or belief.

In this regard, I had posted about how in Bengal every Hindu starts any ritual with reacting Vishnu, Vishnu, Vishnu. And also we had discussed how Vishnu means the all pervading one.

A Vaishnavite is one who worships Vishnu. Who said that a Vaishnavite is one who decries all other Gods/Goddesses as Demi Gods? Who said that a Vaishnavite should believe that only Vishnu can give you salvation? This is the interpretation of some Acharyas.

Again some members are talking about Saivite/Vaishnavite. By no stretch of imagination can a Smartha be termed as Saiva.

A person who recites all the names of Vishnu in his sandhyavandanam, mutters Harihiom all the time and submits all the results to Narayana as
Kayena vacha manasendriyairva
Buddhyatmana va prakrite swabhavath
Karoomi yadyad sakalam parasmai
Narayanayeti samarpayami

Whatever I do with my mind, body, speech or with other senses of my body, Or with my intellect or with my innate natural tendencies I offer everything to Narayana.

You call this person who ends all his rituals and prayers with this sloka a Saivite?

Sangom had remarked that there has been a number of posts attacking Samrtas recently. This thread is the reason for it.

Again the names of Vishnu in Smarta sandyavandana, smartas saying harihi om, and reciting Kayenavacha ... are all facts. Not my opinion. The posting of many members also confirms how Smartas have accepted people who practice Vaishnavite culture.

The veda adhyayanam irrespective of the veda (rk/yajus/sama etc.) irrespective of Shaka and irrespective of smprayadayam starts off with : Sri GurubhyoH namaH HariH Om and concludes with HariH Om tatsath

 

[suraju06]

Dear Iniyan,

Post #30 for reference:

I am not a religious begot. Nor am I a fanatic. My background is from communism during and upto youth (college days) which involved atheistic belief. But I am finding a certain errors in your understanding of Vaishnavism. I am writing this not because I am a vaishnavite but because I have studied vaishnavism and its philosophy along with Saivism, jainism and christianity in depth. If I am to be branded as partisan or anti smartha (as already some one has done here) it would be unfortunate. Now please read further.

You can be a 100% Vaishnavite and still be a Smarta. To be a Smarta one has to only accept the other Gods/Goddesses. That does not mean that you have give up any of the Vaishnavite culture or belief.

This is not correct. A vaishnava accepts only Sriman Narayana and no other deity as supreme God. There are a number of evidences for this settled fact. I will quote just one or two as sample. A vaishnava Azhwar says "எற்றைக்கும் ஏழேழ் பிறவிக்கும் உந்தன்னோடு உற்றோமேயாவோம் உனக்கே நாம் ஆட்செய்வோம்" and vaishnavs understand the meaning of this fully and follow it faithfully. A vaishnav performs a BaranyAsam once in his life time, which is also called Saranagati, with the help of his Acharyan and he takes a vow during that not to worship any other authority as God. A vaishnava does saranagati by observing the five angas of it. One of them is Ananya gatitvam. It means a total belief that SrimanNarayana is the only gati and none else. So one can not accept other gods/godesses also and still remain a vaishnavite. Your understanding as expressed here is wrong. It betrays a basic misunderstanding of the vaishnavite sampradhayam. Even from a purely logical secular point of view too it does not make sense to have multiple gods which negates the very god idea itself. Please think about this. I appreciate your anxiety to integrate every thing to present a united theism. But facts are facts and we can not pick up lies and use them as truths. I know I am touching a hornets nest. But some one has to speak up and speak the truth.

In this regard, I had posted about how in Bengal every Hindu starts any ritual with reacting Vishnu, Vishnu, Vishnu. And also we had discussed how Vishnu means the all pervading one.

This does not add up to anything. If a Bengali says Vishnu so be it. If he says Vishnu without believing in Vishnu to be the supreme Godhead, it does not help us in any way.

A Vaishnavite is one who worships Vishnu. Who said that a Vaishnavite is one who decries all other Gods/Goddesses as Demi Gods? Who said that a Vaishnavite should believe that only Vishnu can give you salvation? This is the interpretation of some Acharyas.

A vaishnavite is one who sincerely believes that SrimanNarayana is the God and he worships him. For him other deities are all at the next level with SrimanNarayana the God as the antaryAmi. If and when a vaishnavite has to worship other deities he worships the antaryAmi in them viz SrimanNarayana. This is the philosophy of vaishnavism too. Your spirited question “Who said that a Vaishnavite should believe that only Vishnu can give you salvation?” is irrelevant. Please tell me who should say. It is a vaishnavite’s belief and there ends the matter. If you want to worship God in some other name jolly well do that. Vaishnavite never stands in your way. What Acharyas say is sacrosanct to vaishnavites. So your words are blasphemous to vaishnavites.

Again some members are talking about Saivite/Vaishnavite. By no stretch of imagination can a Smartha be termed as Saiva.
A person who recites all the names of Vishnu in his sandhyavandanam, mutters Harihiom all the time and submits all the results to Narayana as
Kayena vacha manasendriyairva
Buddhyatmana va prakrite swabhavath
Karoomi yadyad sakalam parasmai
Narayanayeti samarpayami
Whatever I do with my mind, body, speech or with other senses of my body, Or with my intellect or with my innate natural tendencies I offer everything to Narayana.
You call this person who ends all his rituals and prayers with this sloka a Saivite?

If you are going to say that smarthas are vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you are going to say that smarthas are saivites and not vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you say there are some smartha vaishnavites and some smartha saivites I will have no dispute on that too. But if you say a smartha is a vaishnavite believing in Narayana, also a saivite believing in the Siva as the supreme God, a saktha believing in Sakthis as the supreme God head, a koumara believing in the supreme God head Subramanya all simultaneously, then I would dispute it because it becomes a mockery of the God idea itself.

Sangom had remarked that there has been a number of posts attacking Samrtas recently. This thread is the reason for it.

Considering the amount of misunderstanding of vaishnavism I intend to start a thread soon explaining what is vaishnavism.

Again the names of Vishnu in Smarta sandyavandana, smartas saying harihi om, and reciting Kayenavacha ... are all facts. Not my opinion.

Please answer this question:

Do you think the kayenavacha…….. and harihi om makes you a vaishnavite and the parameshwara preethyartham in the beginning of the sandhya practice makes you a saivite? Why this dilemma at all? Begin it with parameshwara preethyartham and end it with kayena vacha……. Sri parameshwarethi samarpayami and be faithful to your God.

The posting of many members also confirms how Smartas have accepted people who practice Vaishnavite culture.

Each sampradhayam has its own unique practices and belief system. Why attempt to homogenize it? Why do you want to destroy a beautiful system called Hinduism with multiple facets?

Please try to perceive. I have no malice towards any one or any system of belief.

Cheers.

 

[sarang]

Please do. I prefer to call it Vaishnavam and not vaishnavism; ism has many bad connotations.

Considering the amount of misunderstanding of vaishnavism I intend to start a thread soon explaining what is vaishnavism.

 

[tbs]

hi

Considering the amount of misunderstanding of vaishnavism I intend to start a thread soon explaining what is vaishnavism.


nice to hear...please do sir....i heard somewhere in this forum about 2 types of vaishnavas........one...the very staunch vaishnava...

2nd is extreme like communist vaishnavas.......the both are different extremes.....like south pole/north pole.....

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Before I reply to Sri. Raju's Points, I would like to clarify some points.

I wrote this article to enable Smarthas to understand their beliefs. Some of my statements/interpretations may not be acceptable even to the Smarthas of Tamil Nadu.

This thread is not against any sect or belief or Acharya. This is all about what Smarthas believe in.

NON-SECTARIAN

Dear Iniyan,
Post #30 for reference:
I am not a religious begot. Nor am I a fanatic. My background is from communism during and upto youth (college days) which involved atheistic belief. But I am finding a certain errors in your understanding of Vaishnavism. I am writing this not because I am a vaishnavite but because I have studied vaishnavism and its philosophy along with Saivism, jainism and Christianity in depth. If I am to be branded as partisan or anti smartha (as already some one has done here) it would be unfortunate. Now please read further.

This is not correct. A vaishnava accepts only Sriman Narayana and no other deity as supreme God. There are a number of evidences for this settled fact. I will quote just one or two as sample. A vaishnava Azhwar says "எற்றைக்கும் ஏழேழ் பிறவிக்கும் உந்தன்னோடு உற்றோமேயாவோம் உனக்கே நாம் ஆட்செய்வோம்" and vaishnavs understand the meaning of this fully and follow it faithfully. A vaishnav performs a BaranyAsam once in his life time, which is also called Saranagati, with the help of his Acharyan and he takes a vow during that not to worship any other authority as God. A vaishnava does saranagati by observing the five angas of it. One of them is Ananya gatitvam. It means a total belief that SrimanNarayana is the only gati and none else. So one can not accept other gods/goddesses also and still remain a vaishnavite. Your understanding as expressed here is wrong. It betrays a basic misunderstanding of the vaishnavite sampradhayam.

Who is a Vaishnavite? A devotee of Vishnu.

I go by the definition given by the great Narsi Mehta in his poem Vaishnava jana to ...

Vaishnava jana to - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you have written is Theology. It is a belief among the followers of some Acharyas. There is nothing right or wrong in religious beliefs.

The belief that you have stated is your belief. What I have stated is Smartha belief.

You should write an article on Vaishnavism so that you can state your beliefs. But you can not expect everyone to accept your definition of Vaishnavism.

Even from a purely logical secular point of view too it does not make sense to have multiple gods which negates the very god idea itself. Please think about this. I appreciate your anxiety to integrate every thing to present a united theism. But facts are facts and we can not pick up lies and use them as truths. I know I am touching a hornets nest. But some one has to speak up and speak the truth.

There is nothing logical or secular in deriding a belief in multiple Gods. Of course you can find a lot of material in Christian literature. They attacked Hinduism for this. But that does not make it the truth.

This does not add up to anything. If a Bengali says Vishnu so be it. If he says Vishnu without believing in Vishnu to be the supreme Godhead, it does not help us in any way.

Unfortunately you expect that all Vaishnavas should share your beliefs. Otherwise they are not Vaishnavas. This is your belief and not Truth.

What I had stated is a fact. It indicates different concepts of Vishnu.

A vaishnavite is one who sincerely believes that SrimanNarayana is the God and he worships him. For him other deities are all at the next level with SrimanNarayana the God as the antaryAmi. If and when a vaishnavite has to worship other deities he worships the antaryAmi in them viz SrimanNarayana. This is the philosophy of vaishnavism too. Your spirited question “Who said that a Vaishnavite should believe that only Vishnu can give you salvation?” is irrelevant. Please tell me who should say. It is a vaishnavite’s belief and there ends the matter. If you want to worship God in some other name jolly well do that. Vaishnavite never stands in your way. What Acharyas say is sacrosanct to vaishnavites. So your words are blasphemous to vaishnavites.

Again you are defining Vaishnavites. There are many definitions. As I said I go by that of Narsi Mehta. There are many Vaishnavites among the Smarthas. They were called Smartha Vaishnavas by some historians.

If you are going to say that smarthas are vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you are going to say that smarthas are saivites and not vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you say there are some smartha vaishnavites and some smartha saivites I will have no dispute on that too. But if you say a smartha is a vaishnavite believing in Narayana, also a saivite believing in the Siva as the supreme God, a saktha believing in Sakthis as the supreme God head, a koumara believing in the supreme God head Subramanya all simultaneously, then I would dispute it because it becomes a mockery of the God idea itself.

This is the basic concept of Hinduism I believe in. Belief in a number of Gods. Believing that all Gods/Goddesses are equal. What you are advocating is Sectarian worship.

Smartha religion is against Sectarian worship.

Why this dilemma at all? Begin it with parameshwara preethyartham and end it with kayena vacha……. Sri parameshwarethi samarpayami and be faithful to your God.

This is a clear indication about your attitude towards Smartha religion which is non-sectarian. This shows how you believe that all Smarthas are Saivites. And you would even deny the right of the Smarthas to worship Vishnu.

This is the reason why Smartha non-sectarian religion was formed.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

वैष्णव जन तो तेने कहिये जे पीड पराई जाणे रे,
पर दुखे उपकार करे तोये मन अभिमान न आणे रे॥

सकल लोकमां सहुने वंदे निंदा न करे केनी रे,
वाच काछ मन निश्चल राखे धन धन जननी तेनी रे॥

समदृष्टि ने तृष्णा त्यागी, परस्त्री जेने मात रे,
जिह्वा थकी असत्य न बोले, परधन नव झाले हाथ रे॥

मोह माया व्यापे नहि जेने, दृढ़ वैराग्य जेना मनमां रे,
रामनाम शुं ताली रे लागी, सकल तीरथ तेना तनमां रे॥

वणलोभी ने कपटरहित छे, काम क्रोध निवार्या रे,
भणे नरसैयॊ तेनु दरसन करतां, कुल एकोतेर तार्या रे॥

One who is a Vaishnav (one who is a devotee of Vishnu)
Knows the pain of others
Does good to others, especially to those ones who are in misery
Does not let pride enter his mind

A Vaishnav, Tolerates and praises the entire world
Does not say bad things about anyone
Keeps his/her words, actions and thoughts pure
O Vaishnav, your mother is blessed

A Vaishnav sees everything equally, rejects greed and avarice
Considers some one else's wife/daughter as his mother
The toungue may get tired, but will never speak lies
Does not even touch someone else's property

A Vaishnav does not succumb to worldly attachments
Who has devoted himself to staunch detachment to worldly pleasures
Who has been addicted to the elixir coming by the name of Ram
For whom all the religious sites are in the mind

Who has no greed and deceit
Who has renounced lust of all types and anger
The poet Narsi will like to see such a person
By who's virtue, the entire family gets salvation -- Narsi Mehta

 

[suraju06]

Dear tbs,

Your post #34 for reference:

nice to hear...please do sir....i heard somewhere in this forum about 2 types of vaishnavas........one...the very staunch vaishnava...2nd is extreme like communist vaishnavas.......the both are different extremes.....like south pole/north pole.....

I am not amused. To be a communist when you are young it requires a very sensitive mind. Those who did not have it and missed the opportunity will never get it and will never know what it is. They may flippantly mock at communists just as they mock at vaishnavas. But who is bothered any way? I wish you happiness in your own world of make believe. God bless you.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Is it not a still better thing to be agnostic rather than fight among ourselves (2% and without reservation benefits, going down the drain, and all that on one side!) as to which kind of god belief is what god himself likes?

I read in Frits Staal's book titled "Discovering the vedas" that Yajnavalkya taught his wife Maitreyi that after death there is no awareness of specifics and 'that's all there is, to immortality.' I am tring to find the exact location of this quote in the Brihadaranyakopanishad**. In any case, we don't know what happens after death. On the background of such impenetrable ignorance have all religions, sects and all been built. If we understand this simple fact, may be we can keep quiet like the so-called "realized souls".

** Note: It is in Adhyaya II, Brahmana-4-12 and 13.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Iniyan,

Who is a Vaishnavite? A devotee of Vishnu.
I go by the definition given by the great Narsi Mehta in his poem Vaishnava jana to

A vaishnavite is the devotee of only Vishnu/Narayana. Narsi Mehta came into this world in 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century AD and vaishnavam has been in existence much earlier than that. Whatever N. Mehta has said in his poem is about an ideal individual and he calls him a vaishnav. Won’t you like a smartha saivite to live like the model described by Narsi Mehta?

What you have written is Theology. It is a belief among the followers of some Acharyas. There is nothing right or wrong in religious beliefs.

I am sure we are talking about religion and not about rocket science here. You can not discuss religion without touching theology.

The belief that you have stated is your belief. What I have stated is Smartha belief.

I have no objection to that.

You should write an article on Vaishnavism so that you can state your beliefs. But you can not expect everyone to accept your definition of Vaishnavism.

Where did I define vaishnavam? I only reproduced what was defined by vaishnavites eons ago.

There is nothing logical or secular in deriding a belief in multiple Gods. Of course you can find a lot of material in Christian literature. They attacked Hinduism for this. But that does not make it the truth.

I have not said any thing derisive about belief in multiple gods. I have only tried to draw you out in a discussion. There is nothing deriding in my words that I am unable to understand that a belief that a God who is admittedly all powerful, omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent, one without a second can coexist side by side with another belief that accepts several such gods. They are mutually incompatible. Please answer this with a rational understandable presentation of your arguments. Christianity attacking Hinduism for this perceived weakness can not be an answer to my doubt.

Unfortunately you expect that all Vaishnavas should share your beliefs. Otherwise they are not Vaishnavas. This is your belief and not Truth.What I had stated is a fact. It indicates different concepts of Vishnu.

Again you are judgmental and your prejudice is in display here. It is not ‘my’ belief that was presented by me. It is the belief of vaishnavites that was presented. You can get this verified from any vaishnavite. And you did not present any ‘concepts’ of Vishnu. Which were the different concepts presented by you?

Again you are defining Vaishnavites. There are many definitions. As I said I go by that of Narsi Mehta. There are many Vaishnavites among the Smarthas. They were called Smartha Vaishnavas by some historians.

Narsi Mehta came here in the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century AD. Vaishnavam existed much much before that. There may be many vaishnavites among Smarthas but whom do they worship as God? That is what is material to the subject under discussion. By your own definition vaishnavite is one who worships Vishnu.

This is the basic concept of Hinduism I believe in. Belief in a number of Gods. Believing that all Gods/Goddesses are equal. What you are advocating is Sectarian worship. Smartha religion is against Sectarian worship

Are smarthas not a sect? Is belief in a number of gods not sectarian?

This is a clear indication about your attitude towards Smartha religion which is non-sectarian. This shows how you believe that all Smarthas are Saivites. And you would even deny the right of the Smarthas to worship Vishnu.

There is no well heeled attitude involved here. I am only trying to understand. I have already mentioned I have nothing against the smarthas being saivites or vaishnavites or atheists even. But they can not be a confusing lot. Who am I to deny any one’s right to worship any god?

This is the reason why Smartha non-sectarian religion was formed.

<Edtd. KRS>
Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Is it not a still better thing to be agnostic rather than fight among ourselves (2% and without reservation benefits, going down the drain, and all that on one side!) as to which kind of god belief is what god himself likes?

I read in Frits Staal's book titled "Discovering the vedas" that Yajnavalkya taught his wife Maitreyi that after death there is no awareness of specifics and 'that's all there is, to immortality.' I am tring to find the exact location of this quote in the Brihadaranyakopanishad**. In any case, we don't know what happens after death. On the background of such impenetrable ignorance have all religions, sects and all been built. If we understand this simple fact, may be we can keep quiet like the so-called "realized souls".

** Note: It is in Adhyaya II, Brahmana-4-12 and 13.

Sangom Sir,

Being an agnostic is neither here nor there. There can be many among the believers who have crossed that 'neither here nor there' stage. I dont think we are fighting here over anything. Being an agnostic involves a certain amount of procrastination (tamo guna?). Once the sAtvik nature gets an upper hand it will join hands with rajoguna and make you take up the task of understanding here and now. And what you have waited for would have dawned on you.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Sangom Sir,

Being an agnostic is neither here nor there. There can be many among the believers who have crossed that 'neither here nor there' stage. I dont think we are fighting here over anything. Being an agnostic involves a certain amount of procrastination (tamo guna?). Once the sAtvik nature gets an upper hand it will join hands with rajoguna and make you take up the task of understanding here and now. And what you have waited for would have dawned on you.

Cheers.

Shri raju,

I gave the reference to the upanishad because, ultimately, understanding can include the understanding that there is no such external creator gods or supreme power except the one thing which manifests as life in our bodies. As I wrote in an earlier post, all the 3 gunas are always present in every physical body; one or the other gets manifested mainly as a result of the past karmas for which the reactions or results have to be (necessarily) experienced during the present life time. And once the physical body becomes useless and "death" happens, there is no further continuation of anything except the fresh Karma balance which is carried over, to be experienced by another living thing in another name and form. Hence, all our beliefs about the type of god etc., will ultimately end with the drama that is life.

What has to be understood here and now and whether it will dawn on you, are also the results of each person's Karma but these also are as immaterial as the food which we may be eating on any particular day - not relevant in the long-term reckoning. Even if one person is agnostic, if that person is to understand here and now, that will happen. Is it not better to leave the god undisturbed?

 

[zebra16]

Dear Iniyan,


Even from a purely logical secular point of view too it does not make sense to have multiple gods which negates the very god idea itself. Please think about this.

Just as Acharyan of your samprayadam has thought over and arrived at the conclusion of Sriman Narayana, the Acharyas of other samprayadams too have arrived at their conclusion. If one is to follow the samprayadam, then one is to understand the philosophy and follow it. Where is the scope for original thinking in any samprayadam?

Exactly where does "secular" and "logic" fit in beliefs? Secular means divorcing the activities of state from religion and "belief" means temporary suspension of logical and reasoning facility.

This does not add up to anything. If a Bengali says Vishnu so be it. If he says Vishnu without believing in Vishnu to be the supreme Godhead, it does not help us in any way.

What does the phrase "It does not help us in any way" mean? Doesnt help whom?

What Acharyas say is sacrosanct to vaishnavites. So your words are blasphemous to vaishnavites.

How did you suggest the original poster to think himself regarding the concept of "logical" (actually meaning illogical) and "secular"" (meaning the opposite) of multiple gods. Would it not be blasphemous to his samprayadam?

If you are going to say that smarthas are vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you are going to say that smarthas are saivites and not vaishnavites I have no dispute with you. If you say there are some smartha vaishnavites and some smartha saivites I will have no dispute on that too. But if you say a smartha is a vaishnavite believing in Narayana, also a saivite believing in the Siva as the supreme God, a saktha believing in Sakthis as the supreme God head, a koumara believing in the supreme God head Subramanya all simultaneously, then I would dispute it because it becomes a mockery of the God idea itself.

The point of fact is dispite all your disputes, he is going to "believe" in what he wants to "believe" because the whole thing is based on belief. Many peoples belief system wouldnt consider multiplicity of Gods as a mockery of the idea of God and they may resort to mocking the other set of believers.

Please answer this question:

Do you think the kayenavacha…….. and harihi om makes you a vaishnavite and the parameshwara preethyartham in the beginning of the sandhya practice makes you a saivite? Why this dilemma at all? Begin it with parameshwara preethyartham and end it with kayena vacha……. Sri parameshwarethi samarpayami and be faithful to your God.

Please answer this question. Are you aware that there is a sandhya vandanam (per Bodhayana Paddhati) where for achamanam, sankalpam etc. there is no mention of Vishnu? or Siva or Shakti or Ganapathi for that matter. Excuse me, your suggestion or advising "be faithful to your God" sounds very priestly, to say the least.

Do you for moment suppose that all those in samprayadams which have prevailed for about 3000 years at least now, did not think of what you are suggesting?

I have no malice towards any one or any system of belief.

Neither have I

 

[suraju06]

1.Where is the scope for original thinking in any samprayadam?

2.Would it not be blasphemous to his samprayadam?

3.Doesnt help whom?

4.Many peoples belief system wouldnt consider [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]multiplicity[/COLOR] of Gods as a mockery of the idea of God and they may resort to mocking the other set of believers.

5.Please answer this question. Are you aware that there is a sandhya vandanam (per Bodhayana Paddhati) where for achamanam, sankalpam etc. there is no mention of Vishnu? or Siva or Shakti or Ganapathi for that matter

6.your suggestion or advising "be faithful to your God" sounds very priestly, to say the least.

7.Do you for moment suppose that all those in samprayadams which have prevailed for about 3000 years at least now, did not think of what you are suggesting?

1. I do not know what a samprayadam is. Please throw some light.

2. As for the rest of what you have presented here as questions to me I humbly suggest that you please read Mr. Iniyan's and My posts here several times more. Like the son of the father who was asked to do the tapas(contemplation) again and again in Taitriya upanishad, you may also find answers to your questions.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Though I am at peace with my agnosticism, the following doubt comes to my mind, not that I have any problem if this doubt is not cleared.

If there is only one Supreme God or power (call it by any name you like) and there is no other god, even if a person creates a belief in some new god (an example is "pratyangirA dEvee" who has come on the scene very recently) will not all the worship and devotion go to that one supreme god? If the answer is no, then, it will go to prove that the said Supreme god is capable only to receive the poojas and bhakti which are specifically addressed to him/her; something like a registered postal delivery or courier service! How then can we say that there is only one Supreme god?

If in vaishnavism, other gods (of course, lesser gods as compared to Narayana) can be worshipped by imagining or concentrating on the tatwa or principle of Narayana which permeates even these lesser gods, will not, by the same principle, worshipping many gods while concentrating on a supreme god (Nirguna or Saguna Bahman) be equal to worshipping the one and only Supreme Power?

Again, the xians, muslims, parsees, jews etc., worship very different gods; are we to presume that all of them are wasting their lives and will be punished in hell? Has any of our gods, including Narayana, said in any scripture that "I am the only true god; all the rest are fake."?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The posting of Sri. Raju raises a pertinent question. Can you attack the beliefs of a sect of Hinduism in this forum? One may believe in Monotheism. Can you say that all other beliefs are wrong. But Hinduism is not Monotheistic.

Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others), but any such term is an overgeneralization.

Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sri. Raju's attack is on Hinduism that I believe in. Hinduism which accepts all beliefs and practices.

Hinduism grants absolute and complete freedom of belief and worship. Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family that deifies the one truth, and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity. Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy.

Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not posting a reply to Sri. Raju's post. I have reported the post to Sri. Praveen.

 

[zebra16]

1. I do not know what a samprayadam is. Please throw some light.

2. As for the rest of what you have presented here as questions to me I humbly suggest that you please read Mr. Iniyan's and My posts here several times more. Like the son of the father who was asked to do the tapas(contemplation) again and again in Taitriya upanishad, you may also find answers to your questions.

Cheers.

Excuse me for saying so. Before doing tapas on the posts you mentioned, I first did the tapas on the taittiriya upaniSad. But I did not find mention of Vishnu therein (except in the Santri mantras) which are common to many upaniSads

 

[suraju06]

Excuse me for saying so. Before doing tapas on the posts you mentioned, I first did the tapas on the taittiriya upaniSad. But I did not find mention of Vishnu therein (except in the Santri mantras) which are common to many upaniSads

I do not understand what you want to convey. Is it "There is no mention of the word Visnu anywhere in Taitriya Upanishad and so there is no Visnu"? It appears you have not even read the upanisad properly. Please read the upanisad siksha valli again and then come back.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

The posting of Sri. Raju raises a pertinent question. Can you attack the beliefs of a sect of Hinduism in this forum? One may believe in Monotheism. Can you say that all other beliefs are wrong. But Hinduism is not Monotheistic.



Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sri. Raju's attack is on Hinduism that I believe in. Hinduism which accepts all beliefs and practices.



Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not posting a reply to Sri. Raju's post. I have reported the post to Sri. Praveen.

Dear Iniyan,

I expected something better from you. You have disappointed me. There was a honourable method of withdrawing from the engagement. But it appears you do not know such things. You have chosen to raise the bogey of attack on Hinduism that too from a staunch Hindu Brahmin. Let me see how you are going to make this accusation stick. I stand by every word I have posted under this thread. Please challenge me and prove me wrong with reasons. I will be happy. Perhaps you needed a cover to retreat and has chosen the bogey, a well tested method. The people here in this forum are all matured and see can easily see through. Any way I am not the loser. Thank you for engaging me this far.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Though I am at peace with my agnosticism, the following doubt comes to my mind, not that I have any problem if this doubt is not cleared.

If there is only one Supreme God or power (call it by any name you like) and there is no other god, even if a person creates a belief in some new god (an example is "pratyangirA dEvee" who has come on the scene very recently) will not all the worship and devotion go to that one supreme god? If the answer is no, then, it will go to prove that the said Supreme god is capable only to receive the poojas and bhakti which are specifically addressed to him/her; something like a registered postal delivery or courier service! How then can we say that there is only one Supreme god?

If in vaishnavism, other gods (of course, lesser gods as compared to Narayana) can be worshipped by imagining or concentrating on the tatwa or principle of Narayana which permeates even these lesser gods, will not, by the same principle, worshipping many gods while concentrating on a supreme god (Nirguna or Saguna Bahman) be equal to worshipping the one and only Supreme Power?

Again, the xians, muslims, parsees, jews etc., worship very different gods; are we to presume that all of them are wasting their lives and will be punished in hell? Has any of our gods, including Narayana, said in any scripture that "I am the only true god; all the rest are fake."?

Dear Sangom Sir,

The answer to all your questions here is:

அவரவர்தமதமது அறிவறிவகைவகை
அவரவரிறையவர் எனவடியடைவர்கள்
அவரவரிறையவர் குறைவிலரிறையவர்
அவரவர் விதிவழி அடையநின்றனரே.--நம்மாழ்வார்-திருவாய்மொழி1-1-5.

cheers.

 

[zebra16]

I do not understand what you want to convey. Is it "There is no mention of the word Visnu anywhere in Taitriya Upanishad and so there is no Visnu"? It appears you have not even read the upanisad properly. Please read the upanisad siksha valli again and then come back.

Cheers.

The message I wish to convey is your asking me to do 'tapas' on the two posts is as irrelevant as my reply to your post.

I have been in these situations before, people sending others on wild goose chase when simple questions are asked. If someone is sent on expedition of reading and understanding Chandogya UpaniSad and Brihadaranyaka UpaniSad alongwith the bhashyam, vartika, tika, tippaNi etc. the chances are that the jignasu will take at least five years to surface, if at all.