Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

Could you please help me out?
What is the motivation for the rivalry between the two?

 

It's really not about rivalry, but about different ways of seeing the Divine, different paths to God.

According to Vedanta philosophy, Brahman - God - has many different forms. Krishna or Vishnu is one, Shiva is another.

The practices of Vaishnavas and Shivites are similar in many aspects, although there are differences. If there is rivalry between sects of either path, it comes of ignorance and deviation from what is the true understanding.

 

Krishna is God the One and Shiva is God the One and they themselves get along great and the One is always serving the other One but sometimes their devotees in their immaturity of not seeing the One but only one/half, think their One is better than the other One

 

It is not due to immaturity, it is due to the fact that if you are worshipping one, stick with it, that however does not mean that you get intolerant of others who are worshipping the other.

 

one and other one is perspective

 

Yes and you have to stick with one perspective rather than going back and forth getting nowhere. I think I read a poem by a famous philosopher once , named Parmenides... In it he talks about the truth. He talks about the "fork" in the road which Peter Kingsley interprets as- 1) One path to the being. 2) other to nonbeing , and then 3) another path going back and forth between being and nonbeing.
I think this is similar to that, where ofcourse both paths are valid but the third one is just messed up.

 

...

 

Yes, but I understood all gods in Hinduism are just different forms of one and the same god. So, shouldn´t I worship them all the same, or rather wouldn´t it be logical to worship allways the most appropriate for the situation?

 

In Hinduism is something known as 'ishta devata' - this means the chosen form of God selected by the devotee. The reason it is recommended to focus on one particular form is that this encourages and helps the development of one-pointedness of mind.
In Bhakti Yoga, or devotion, the idea is to develop love of the Divine - so once again, sticking to one form is better.
But there is no hard and fast rule - one can focus on the Divine in any of these forms - including also the Divine Mother, or on God without or beyond form.

Whatever approach one adopts, it's good always to remember that others who pursue different paths are following something equally as valid. There is no room in Sanatana Dharma for 'my god is better than your god'.

 

or the form God chooses to appear to his/her devotee

 

Yes that's also true. I suppose in the end, what determines the path for a given individual is their karma, and the constitution of their being based on that.

 

Thanks. I also looked up "ishta devata" in Wikipedia and a book on Hinduism I have here and found the translation to be "the god one prays most" in modern Hindi it would also mean "the favoured god", so if I was to believe that it really doesen´t matter which form of god to choose, or rather if I´d prefer to not just worship one form, would this make me a "Smarta hindu"?

 

smarta refers to one's hereditary position... one's deity and caste as a birthright

there can be family disturbance if one's choices are not the traditional family values

one's ishta deva is true when it is a love and not an inheritance

 

I´m getting confused:

Smartism is a denomination of the Hindu religion

and

Hinduism is also traditionally divided into four major denominations: Saivism, Shaktism, Vaishnavism and Smartism

Please help me get sorted

 

Shivasya hridayam vishnu bishnoshcha hridayam shivaha.

Shiva is the soul of vishnu and vishnu is the soul of shiva.

 

That´s how I understood it in the first place. However it does not explain my query regarding smartism.

 

If you worship the One behind all form, then you will be a smarter Hindu....

But you won't be a smarta because that refers to a section of Brahmin priests. Usually this refers these days to a position within India's caste system. The only organization I know of involved in making non-Indian people into Brahmins is ISKCON, but I don't think their Brahmins are smartas. Smart ass maybe .....some of them at least.

 

Haha!

But do I understand you correctly, you wouldn´t agree with the definition "Smartism is a denomination of the Hindu religion" ?

 

i always understood smarta in terms of smarta brahmins who maintain their brahminicalness is birthright and not by qualities and hence they are known as smarta brahmins... they have great disdain for modern hindu prophets who bring westerners (outcastes) into the priestly tradition of hinduism that they represent... a.c bhaktivedanta swami of iskcon is one of the best examples of this as he was not appreciated by these smartas for his initiation of westerners into the bramana position

a.c. swami maintained that brahmana is by qualification and not a birthright as is the claim of smarta... a plus plus to his credit and his spiritual mentor, bhaktisidhanta and to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who had little regard for the smarta brahmana injunctions

 

I've said all i know about this - so far as I know, it isn't a major sect or 'denomination'.