Why so much animosity??

[amoghvarsha]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Why in Tamil Nadu, there is so much animosity between Shaiva and Vishnava Brahmins. On of my college Iyengar friend told that his family doesn't go to a shaiva/murugan temple coz they are Vaishnava. Also finding anything related to Shiva in Vishnava temple or vice-versa is very rare in SouthIndian temples. In North-India, atleast in my place its as equal to blasphemy to differentiate between Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu. Acc to Ramacharitmanas, Lord Rama never accepts a Shiva-drohi and similar case for Lord Shiva with respect to Rama. Also Puranas show that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu used to revere each other. Then whats the reason, that in TN I find Shaivism and Vaishnavism as parallel religions. Also Dasavataram shows something like Shiva and Viashnavas were like Muslims and Christians to each other in Chola period. I have deep respect for TN as it is repository of Purer form of Hinduism. But why this animosity?? Kindly explain this with relevant historical or philosophical info..... And plz don't indulge in mudslinging.....

hiranmayena pâtrena satyasyâpihitaM mukham,
tat tvaM pûSannapâvRinu satyadharmâya dRiSTaye.

 

[Vaagmi]

Hi A Varsha,

Please answer this one question. As we proceed from that answer you will understand and get the answer to your question.

If you are a Hindu, have you ever thought as to why we should have so many gods? A Vishnu, a Shiva, a brahma, a Ganesh, a Muruga etc, etc,? God can be just only one. Is it not so?

 

[sangom]

Why in Tamil Nadu, there is so much animosity between Shaiva and Vishnava Brahmins. On of my college Iyengar friend told that his family doesn't go to a shaiva/murugan temple coz they are Vaishnava. Also finding anything related to Shiva in Vishnava temple or vice-versa is very rare in SouthIndian temples. In North-India, atleast in my place its as equal to blasphemy to differentiate between Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu. Acc to Ramacharitmanas, Lord Rama never accepts a Shiva-drohi and similar case for Lord Shiva with respect to Rama. Also Puranas show that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu used to revere each other. Then whats the reason, that in TN I find Shaivism and Vaishnavism as parallel religions. Also Dasavataram shows something like Shiva and Viashnavas were like Muslims and Christians to each other in Chola period. I have deep respect for TN as it is repository of Purer form of Hinduism. But why this animosity?? Kindly explain this with relevant historical or philosophical info..... And plz don't indulge in mudslinging.....

hiranmayena pâtrena satyasyâpihitaM mukham,
tat tvaM pûSannapâvRinu satyadharmâya dRiSTaye.

Hi amoghvarsha,

I am not a scholar to give an authoritative answer, but I am of the view that this saiva-Vaishnava conflicts had something to do with two factors:
1. the difference in philosophies, and
2. the (blind and usually very intense) patronage of one or the other by the rulers.

As you may know, Vaishnavism originated with Ramanuja (though the bhakti cult and Vishnu-Krishna-Maalon worship started much earlier) who also advocated the Visishtadvaita philosophy which viewed the advaita of Adishankara as faulty. Later Vaishnavites came to refer to advaita as maayaavaada and denigrated it also. Coevally, there was intense animosity between those bhakti-cult sympathisers who held the Tamil aacharyas in high respect on the one side, and those who held Ramanuja, Vedanta Desika, etc., who leaned heavily towards the sanskrit scriptures.

The rulers in the south had rarely a secular point of view; most of the times, the ruler/s believed in one god/philosophy and this belief was overshadowed only by his dislike/disbelief in other gods/philosophies and this general proclivity was exploited to the fullest advantage by the favourite group. Legend supports these and that is what you find in the picture Dasaavataaram, possibly with a higher dose of overstatement, for cinematic effect.

But let me say that after independence and the trend of people to seek progress in secular and material lines, all these animosities among the hoi polloi has come down markedly. But the religious heads are yet to come to the level of similar mutual understanding and a 'live-and-let-live' attitude of peaceful coexistence. Hence the fringe groups who consider themselves very orthodox, religiously "pure", etc., still have the tendency to view the rest as inferior to themselves.

In a way, it is like "hiranmayena pâtrena satyasyâpihitaM mukham"—a golden plate (material advancement) covers the 'truth' (true religious fervour).

 

[kunjuppu]

Hi A Varsha,

Please answer this one question. As we proceed from that answer you will understand and get the answer to your question.

If you are a Hindu, have you ever thought as to why we should have so many gods? A Vishnu, a Shiva, a brahma, a Ganesh, a Muruga etc, etc,? God can be just only one. Is it not so?

i suspect the pointed query here is from a vaishnavite. i have only seen 'perumalukku sevikkanam' coming from iyengars. we have a common hindu temple here in toronto. the vaishnavaites skirt the rest of the temple, congregate towards venkatesa, and walk out ignoring the rest of the sanctum.

we being smarthas have no such prejudice. one God is all God. no need to differentiate. in the bigger span of things, there is enough animosity and conversion and abandonment of religion. so to me it is childish in this day and age to emphasize on the difference. but that falls on deaf ears to most vaishnavites, i think.

a good friend of mine, a vaishnavite, rejected an iyer proposal from me. that was not acceptable to his family in india. now his daughter is marrying a white. i guess that is ok.

this blatant show of disunity is more jarring only when we see from a third party view. .. i was in bethlehem recently. the church of nativity where jesus was supposed to be born, is divided between the varous christian denominations ie catholics greeks armenians and each one always jostling for space power influence and always quarrelling.

across the street, a few years ago, the muslims put up a mosque, a 100 yards from one of xtianity's holiest site. today the muezzin calls from the mosque masks the church bells peeling. these xtians were so busy fighting each other that they were powerless to stop the muslim incursion.

when there is disunity in one religion, others come and play among us and destroy us.

 

[prasad1]

i suspect the pointed query here is from a vaishnavite. i have only seen 'perumalukku sevikkanam' coming from iyengars. we have a common hindu temple here in toronto. the vaishnavaites skirt the rest of the temple, congregate towards venkatesa, and walk out ignoring the rest of the sanctum.

we being smarthas have no such prejudice. one God is all God. no need to differentiate. in the bigger span of things, there is enough animosity and conversion and abandonment of religion. so to me it is childish in this day and age to emphasize on the difference. but that falls on deaf ears to most vaishnavites, i think.

a good friend of mine, a vaishnavite, rejected an iyer proposal from me. that was not acceptable to his family in india. now his daughter is marrying a white. i guess that is ok.

The last line is hilarious, at least he is not Shaivate.

For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Smartas—who see all Deities as reflections of the One God—the choice of Deity is left to the devotee. This liberal Smarta perspective is well known, but it is not the prevailing Hindu view. Due to this diversity, Hindus are profoundly tolerant of other religions, respecting the fact that each has its own pathway to the one God.

What is sometimes confusing to non-Hindus (and obviously some Hindus) is that Hindus of various sects may call the one God by many different names, according to their denomination or regional tradition. Truth for the Hindu has many names, but that does not make for many truths. Hinduism gives us the freedom to approach God in our own way, encouraging a multiplicity of paths, not asking for conformity to just one.

The concept of pluralism within Hinduism is, in essence, tolerance taken one step further. For all members of this universal family, Hinduism promotes not only tolerance and respect for differences in belief and religion, but also acknowledgement of the existence of more than one path to relating to Truth (God). This true, unadulterated pluralism is captured in the ancient Sanskrit hymn:


Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti
Truth is one, the wise call it by many names.

Hinduism is both monotheistic and henotheistic. Hindus were never polytheistic, in the sense that there are many equal Gods. Henotheism (literally "one God") better defines the Hindu view. It means the worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods.

 

[Nara]

... Also finding anything related to Shiva in Vishnava temple or vice-versa is very rare in SouthIndian temples.

This is not true, several 108 Dhivya Desam temples have Shiva or related shrines inside the temple, and two of the 108 are inside the confines of Shaivite temples.

Also Dasavataram shows something like Shiva and Viashnavas were like Muslims and Christians to each other in Chola period.

The hagiographical account of Ramanuja and other early acharyas states this Chola king tried to shove Shaivism down the throats of Vaishnavites, but such coercion didn't last for long. In the most part the Shaivites and Vaishnavites lived in peace, though were opposed on their theology.

There is a perfectly good reason, within their theism, for SV smarthas (SVs are smarthas too) who subscribe to VA, to stay clear of non-vaishnavite shrines. They are taught that only mOksham, i.e. release from samsara and deliverance unto Sri Vaikuntam, is of value, and the only deity who can grant mOksham is Sriman Narayana. So, true SVs must only seek Sriman Narayana and no other. There is more to this theology, but this is sufficient for the present context. Please note, there are Shaivite VA groups who will not worship any deity other than Shiva, like the Lingayats of Karnataka.

For the Shaivite smarthas, i.e. those who put their faith in advaitam, moksham is the realization of non-difference. Within this faith system it does not really matter who the deity is in the temple. All temples are the same.

So, each group treats the temple going experience consistent with their faith. I find both faith systems irrational. What I would advocate is to give up this unnecessary and useless faith altogether. However, I see nothing rational for one group to feel superior about their faith and say the other group's faith is prejudiced. To insist SV smarthas must give up their faith and embrace the Shaivite smartha faith is equivalent to a Christian missionary telling both SV and Shivite smarthas to give their faiths up and embrace Christianity.

I have deep respect for TN as it is repository of Purer form of Hinduism.

Ha, now I see the problem, give up this deep respect, it is not deserved ....

 

[Nara]

Even "well defined" religions like Christianity or Islam have many different denominations and divergent ideologies. The so called Hinduism on the other hand is the very antithesis of "well defined". Everything goes, whatever form of worship it many be in the subcontinent, it is part of Hinduism. Worship of village deities like Mariamma, Kathavarayan is as much part of Hinduism as the Brahminical Vedantam. Everything from animism, pantheism, to polytheism is found within the rubric of Hinduism.

Advaitic view occupies only a small sliver of what is known as Hinduism. Even within the advaitic view, it is difficult to pin down monotheism. Advaitees may point to their faith that nirguna brhman is the only reality as indicative of their faith being monotheistic. But then they also say the lesser reality of multitude of deities must be taken as real for our day-to-day practical life, and they call it வ்யவஹாரிக சத்யம். They want to have it both ways.

What is interesting is this adoration of "monotheism". Why? If we go back a few decades not many cared about monotheism or polytheism. Now, as more and more people live in the West, it seems a sense of inferiority complex has creeped into the psyche of a few. They seem to view monotheism as superior to polytheism. So, we see this "me too" attitude, my religion is also monotheistic. IMO, if one is unable to scale out of theism into the freedom of atheism, then the common animism cum pantheism is superior to the monotheistic exceptionalism.

One more thing, the "tolerance" touted by the Hindu faithful is in fact not tolerance at all. Tolerance entails a certain level of respect, but the true attitude of Hindus towards other religions is disdain. Go away, don't come near me, only Hindus are allowed in. The present day Hindutva ideology is about putting all other religions in a second class status.

 

[krish44]

i suspect the pointed query here is from a vaishnavite. i have only seen 'perumalukku sevikkanam' coming from iyengars. we have a common hindu temple here in toronto. the vaishnavaites skirt the rest of the temple, congregate towards venkatesa, and walk out ignoring the rest of the sanctum.

we being smarthas have no such prejudice. one God is all God. no need to differentiate. in the bigger span of things, there is enough animosity and conversion and abandonment of religion. so to me it is childish in this day and age to emphasize on the difference. but that falls on deaf ears to most vaishnavites, i think.

a good friend of mine, a vaishnavite, rejected an iyer proposal from me. that was not acceptable to his family in india. now his daughter is marrying a white. i guess that is ok.

this blatant show of disunity is more jarring only when we see from a third party view. .. i was in bethlehem recently. the church of nativity where jesus was supposed to be born, is divided between the varous christian denominations ie catholics greeks armenians and each one always jostling for space power influence and always quarrelling.

across the street, a few years ago, the muslims put up a mosque, a 100 yards from one of xtianity's holiest site. today the muezzin calls from the mosque masks the church bells peeling. these xtians were so busy fighting each other that they were powerless to stop the muslim incursion.

when there is disunity in one religion, others come and play among us and destroy us.

kunjuppu saheb
you are ahead of the times we live in.I found your comments regarding iyengar rejecting iyer proposal and daughter marrying a white amusing.our children know neither Advaitha nor vishist advaitha. iyengars are an interesting community with more subdivisions thengalai and vadagalai.Nara can enlighten us about them. I am learning a lot from this thread . I do not know about who is more prejudiced iyers or iyengar. Though I belong to iyengar community ,I found greater acceptabily among iyers in comparison to iyengars as far as marriage between the two sects are concerned

 

[ashwin_ash]

kunjuppu saheb
you are ahead of the times we live in.I found your comments regarding iyengar rejecting iyer proposal and daughter marrying a white amusing.our children know neither Advaitha nor vishist advaitha. iyengars are an interesting community with more subdivisions thengalai and vadagalai.Nara can enlighten us about them. I am learning a lot from this thread . I do not know about who is more prejudiced iyers or iyengar. Though I belong to iyengar community ,I found greater acceptabily among iyers in comparison to iyengars as far as marriage between the two sects are concerned

There is also a third kalai... if i mention, i'll be permanently banned from tambrams forums..

 

[renuka]

There is also a third kalai... if i mention, i'll be permanently banned from tambrams forums..

LOL!

I still remember you mentioned the 3rd Kalai in the very first few post when you were a new member and everyone got mad with you!

 

[ashwin_ash]

doctor..pls. read the conversation I had in shirdi..reproduced verbatim..

 

[renuka]

Hi A Varsha,

Please answer this one question. As we proceed from that answer you will understand and get the answer to your question.

If you are a Hindu, have you ever thought as to why we should have so many gods? A Vishnu, a Shiva, a brahma, a Ganesh, a Muruga etc, etc,? God can be just only one. Is it not so?

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I got a question for you..

When I recite the 14 Maheswara Sutras before I commence my daily study of Panini's Grammar sometimes I wonder..will a Vaishnavite recite the Maheswara Sutras especially the last part "iti mAheshvarAni SutrAni"?

 

[renuka]

doctor..pls. read the conversation I had in shirdi..reproduced verbatim..

I read that..could not stop laughing..I am wondering how many people still remember your 3rd Kalai!

 

[krish44]

There is also a third kalai... if i mention, i'll be permanently banned from tambrams forums..

ashwin
why not try it again? members tolerance levels can be reassessed.life is getting a bit boring.

 

[krish44]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I got a question for you..

When I recite the 14 Maheswara Sutras before I commence my daily study of Panini's Grammar sometimes I wonder..will a Vaishnavite recite the Maheswara Sutras especially the last part "iti mAheshvarAni SutrAni"?

renuka ji I do not recite any shlokas. if you load the last part I will try recitng it to cleanse my soul of all the sins committed against iyers. with iyer caste marks on my forehead. do you accept iyer converts from iyengar?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Why in Tamil Nadu, there is so much animosity between Shaiva and Vishnava Brahmins. On of my college Iyengar friend told that his family doesn't go to a shaiva/murugan temple coz they are Vaishnava. Also finding anything related to Shiva in Vishnava temple or vice-versa is very rare in SouthIndian temples. In North-India, atleast in my place its as equal to blasphemy to differentiate between Lord Shiva or Lord Vishnu. Acc to Ramacharitmanas, Lord Rama never accepts a Shiva-drohi and similar case for Lord Shiva with respect to Rama. Also Puranas show that Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu used to revere each other. Then whats the reason, that in TN I find Shaivism and Vaishnavism as parallel religions. Also Dasavataram shows something like Shiva and Viashnavas were like Muslims and Christians to each other in Chola period. I have deep respect for TN as it is repository of Purer form of Hinduism. But why this animosity?? Kindly explain this with relevant historical or philosophical info..... And plz don't indulge in mudslinging.....

hiranmayena pâtrena satyasyâpihitaM mukham,
tat tvaM pûSannapâvRinu satyadharmâya dRiSTaye.

The differences between Smartha and Vaishnavism are explained in a number of web sites.

But there is no Animosity between the Iyers and Iyengars.

In Veda sabhas there is no difference. Iyengar pundits were part of the group conducting many of the Homas which I have attended.

I have a number of Iyengar friends and Guru Bhais.

Theological differences need not lead to animosity.

The last post by Aswin_Ash is offensive.

 

[renuka]

renuka ji I do not recite any shlokas. if you load the last part I will try recitng it to cleanse my soul of all the sins committed against iyers. with iyer caste marks on my forehead. do you accept iyer converts from iyengar?

Why are you asking me if I accept Iyer converts from Iyengar?? I am not even a Brahmin to start with!LOL

 

[renuka]

Vadakari..sorry Vadakalai..Thenkalai..and the most prevalent of 'em all.. Yechakalai

Oops he did it again!
Ash you are one crazy guy!

 

[Nara]

....Your last post is offensive,

The OP may be misinformed, but offensive, really??? Of all the jAti based offensive things that are said in this forum, the OP is probably the least offensive of them all ..... just look at this one from adorable ash:

Vadakari..sorry Vadakalai..Thenkalai..and the most prevalent of 'em all.. Yechakalai

 

[krish44]

Oops he did it again!
Ash you are one crazy guy!

madam Ash is an iyer . he cannot behave otherwise. well done Ash. keep it up .you got only one complaint from nachinarkiniyan. he must be an iyengar. renuka ji has escaped saying that she is a NB.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

The OP may be misinformed, but offensive, really??? Of all the jAti based offensive things that are said in this forum, the OP is probably the least offensive of them all ..... just look at this one from adorable ash:

The last post by Aswin_Ash is offensive. Post corrected.

Of course you may not find it offensive. But that is your prerogative.

 

[ashwin_ash]

The last post by Aswin_Ash is offensive. Post corrected.

Of course you may not find it offensive. But that is your prerogative.

Legend has it that Ramanujan couldn't find people to preach his philosophy to, so he preached to a buffalo instead. Technically, the first iyengar was a buffalo. No offence meant, animals have feelings same as people do, i would even say animals are more evolved than humans.. no caste creed etc..

 

[Nara]

The last post by Aswin_Ash is offensive. Post corrected.

Of course you may not find it offensive. But that is your prerogative.

What, come on, I was the one who pointed out how offensive ash's post was, and now you are telling me this??? What gives, LOL!!!!

 

[krish44]

Legend has it that Ramanujan couldn't find people to preach his philosophy to, so he preached to a buffalo instead. Technically, the first iyengar was a buffalo. No offence meant, animals have feelings same as people do, i would even say animals are more evolved than humans.. no caste creed etc..

we all love animals . ash why bring buffaloes into discussion. you do not seem to be respecting feelings of buffaloes in addition to iyengars.

 

[Nara]

Legend has it that Ramanujan couldn't find people to preach his philosophy to, so he preached to a buffalo instead. Technically, the first iyengar was a buffalo. No offence meant, animals have feelings same as people do, i would even say animals are more evolved than humans.. no caste creed etc..

Oh ash, how quickly one snatches obnoxious from the jaws of adorable!!! Now, pray tell, what legend is this? Where did you find it, what is the source, I am all ears .......

Yes, I agree with you that some animals are more evolved than some humans, of course ....