Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

Ok. Thanks a lot for your explanations.

 

Never even heard the word smarta until today

 

I have investigated a little further here is what I found:

What Is the Universalistic Smarta Sect?

Smartism is an ancient brahminical tradition reformed by Shankara in the ninth century. Worshiping six forms of God, this liberal Hindu path is monistic, nonsectarian, meditative and philosophical. Aum.

Adi Sankara lived from 788 to 820 ce, a mere 32 years, yet he gave Hinduism a new liberal denomination Smartism. Here, wearing sacred marks, he holds his writings and is flanked by the six Deities of the Smarta altar: Surya the Sun, Siva, Shakti, Vishnu, Kumaran and Ganesha.

Smarta means a follower of classical smriti, particularly the Dharma Shastras, Puranas and Itihasas. Smartas revere the Vedas and honor the Agamas. Today this faith is synonymous with the teachings of Adi Shankara, the monk-philosopher known as shanmata sthapanacharya, "founder of the six-sect system." He campaigned India-wide to consolidate the Hindu faiths of his time under the banner of Advaita Vedanta. To unify the worship, he popularized the ancient Smarta five-Deity altar Ganapati, Surya, Vishnu, Siva and Shakti and added Kumara. From these, devotees may choose their "preferred Deity, " or Ishta Devata. Each God is but a reflection of the one Saguna Brahman. Shankara organized hundreds of monasteries into a ten-order, dashanami system, which now has five pontifical centers. He wrote profuse commentaries on the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita. Sankara proclaimed, "It is the one Reality which appears to our ignorance as a manifold universe of names and forms and changes. Like the gold of which many ornaments are made, it remains in itself unchanged. Such is Brahman, and That art Thou." Aum Namah Sivaya.

and this is where I found it:

http://www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2003/10-12/44-49_four_sects.shtml

 

Just goes to show what a wide area is covered by the word 'Hinduism'! So many different traditions and philosophical branches. I've read lots about Shankara, but I've never heard this explanation of 'smarta'.

 

note... smarta does not exist as a unified belief system as does the catholic church or iskcon but is a label given to a collection of beliefs as are vaisnavas, shaivites, saktas, etc

 

O.k, but the following seems to contradict this:

"Vaishnavas strictly worship Vishnu and his incarnations, Shaivas strictly worship Shiva and the deities associated with him, Shaktis strictly worship The Mother Goddess (Devi) in her various forms, but Smartas worship any and all of the Hindu deities as they please."

 

As there are said to be millions of gods, they'd be busy if they chose to worship them all.
Perhaps this definition is actually not quite right. Major figures of modern times - Ramakrishna, Vivekanada, Sivananda, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, and others - were not Vaishnavas, Shaivites, Shaktas, or Smartas.

 

Sorry, this was my mistake. Correctly it should say:

"Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesh, Surya and Skanda"

"...all of them" merely related to the three mentioned in regard of the other three denominations.

 

my point is there is not an ecclesiastical heirarchy or organized religious structure of the smartas

 

Oh, ok. Yes, that seems to be correct. Smartism seems to be the most individualistic denomination.

 

umm...i hope im not hijacking this thread but i hear it said that shaivites elevate Shiva to a Brahmanic level, and that they worship him as "supreme"...is it correct to say this? I'm very interested in Shaivism, and want to knw more about it.

 

shaivites are concerned with God as Brahman or monism while vaisnavas are concerned with the personal aspects of God

 

ohhhh i see. thank you

 

Surely though Shiva is a personal aspect Himself. Saguna Brahman. The Divine with attributes, rather than Nirguna Brahman, the absolute beyond all qualities.

 

Shiva is also Brahman and Krishna also. Also you. Sarvam khalvidam brahma - EVERYTHING is verily Brahman. Shaivites have had fewer problems resolving the saguna-nirguna tangle than vaishanavas. Personally I feel achintya bhedabheda covers it very well.

Narayana Bhattatiri, in his beautiful composition Narayaneeyam, explains it with the following analogy:

Nirguna brahman is like the vast depths of the ocean, still, deep, infinite, peaceful. And saguna brahman is like the waves on its surface. The wave and ocean are not different, yet there is a difference in that you can percieve the wave as a distinct entity, though it is not.

My guru explains it similarly: Nirguna brahman is like the icy glaciers of the Himalayas. The saguna is like the Ganges that flow from it.

 

Yes - both Shiva and Krishna are Iswara. I agree too that bhedabheda is the right kind of way to see it. Sri Aurobindo says as much in his 'Essyas on the Gita' - in developing his Integral Yoga, he was really working partly to extend Chaitanya's doctrine. for Aurobindo, the goal is an integral experience of the Divine in all aspects - with and without form, transcendent and cosmic. A kind of total realization at every level and every plane of manifest being,including planes that are 'superconscious' to the ordinary mind, as well as what is unmanifest. Hence both the personal and the impersonal are reconciled.

 

All paths lead to God.

 

even the path that does not lead to God?

 

You mean the path that is God?

 

no, i mean the path away from God... does that path lead to God? she said "all paths lead to God" and so i was wondering if the path that doesn't lead to God leads to God?