• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Smartas - The Eclectic Hindus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smartas - The Eclectic Hindus

In our quest for our roots, most of us have an interest in knowing about the Smarta
religion. But there is very little research material on the subject. Another major problem
is that though the tenets of the Smarta religion are followed all over India, only in South
India we call ourselves Smarta.

The basic tenet of the Smarta religion is non-Sectarianism. It is eclectic in belief. We
believe in all Gods/Goddesses. It is this Smarta belief which is Hinduism to most of the
Hindus all over the world. Again Smarta are not Vedantins. They believe in all the six
Dharshanas or the systems of philosophy.

I would like to start with the evolution of Smarta religion.

Hinduism has been plagued by sectarianism for a long time. This sectarianism made Hinduism
weak. We all know about the fight between the Saivites and the Vaishnavites in Tamil Nadu.
That is history. To look at some sectarian beliefs you have to only visit any Hare Krishna
web site. Shiva and all other Gods/Goddesses are not even Gods. They are only demi-Gods.
Frequent rants against Adi Sankara forgetting the historical fact that but for him, there
might not have been any Hinduism at the time of Chaitanya Maha Prabhu.

You can very well imagine how it must have been in the middle ages when sectarianism ruled
the roost.

There was another problem also with sectarianism in the middle ages. Saivism and
Vaishnavism in those days were both Agamic. The Pancharatra Vaishnavism and Kalamukha and
other brands of Saivism. These did not lay emphasis on the Vedas or Vaidic practices.

So it was felt that a non sectarian religion was required to unify Hinduism, and also to
revive Vaidic practices. And it was also felt necessary to bring the different warring
philosophies together since different sects followed different philosophies.

Now this bringing about the unity has been attributed to Adi Sankaracharya. But scholars
have questioned whether Adi Sankaracharya the exponent of pure Advaita could have been the
founder of a religion which emphasized on all the six Dharshanas. Whether it was one or
many Sankaracharyas does not matter for us. The fact is that it is the Sankaracharyas and
the mutts established by him which played a major role in this unification.

Now I expect some of the Smartas to object to my classifying the Smartas as following all
the six Dharshanas or systems of philosophy. This may seem contrary to the widespread
belief that they are Advaita Vedanta followers.

I do not know how many of you are aware of the titles of the Matathipathi of Sankara
Matams. These titles are recited by people who consider the Sankaracharya as their personal
Guru.

Shad Dharsana sthanapacharya

Sankyathraya prithipadaka

Vaidhika Marga Pravarthaka

A sloka

Sasthram sarira Mimansa devasthu Parameswara
Acharya Sankaracharya santhu me janma janmani

These clearly indicate that Smarta religion follows all the six Dharshanas or systems of
Philosophy.

Why did the Smartas do it? Tamil Smartas always talk about Shanmadham, but not about Shad
Dharshana.

The basic idea of Smarta religion was to reestablish Vaidic practices. Vedas are non-
sectarian unlike the Puranas. There are verses in praise of all Gods. Indra, Varuna, and
other Vaidic Gods. Then we have Rudraprasna, Narayana Suktham and Sri Suktham among others.
In these verses the god to whom the verses are addressed is considered the Supreme God.
Again the Vaidic practices are basically from Karma Kanda and follow Purva Mimansa.
Advaita is Gnana Kanda. Then Yoga has become a part and parcel of Hinduism. Sankhya is the
basic philosophy of the Sakthas.

You can not bring about a unity among different sects or revive the Vaidic practices
without bringing together the six systems of Philosophy.

So Smartaism became Shan Madha and Shad Dharshana. Though it is not stated clearly Smartas
also absorbed the concept of Bhakthi. The various slokas attributed to Sankaracharya are
evidence of this.

Now about Vishishtaadvaita and Dwaita. Even here the only problem that the Smartas have is
the definition of Narayana and Vishnu as the only supreme God. Smartas are not comfortable
with that. Otherwise the philosophies of Vishishtaadvaita and Dwaita are perfectly
acceptable.

The followers came from all the sects. Initially we did have sub-classifications of
Smarta-Saiva, Smarta-Vaishnava and Smarta-Sakthas. But this disappeared over a period of
time. The best part of Smarta religion is that you could continue your sectarian worship.
The Panchayathana Puja was a compromise. But here the central deity could be Shiva, Vishnu,
Sakthi, Skanda or the Sun. The Smartas went to the extent of even allowing sectarian marks.
That is how we have Nama Iyers for example.

Two important points to be considered now.

1. How do I say that most of the Hindus are Smartas?

Take the case of Bengal. Sri Ramakrishna's family deity was Raghubir (Krishna). His Tantrik
Guru was Bhairavi Brahmani a Vaishnavite Tantrika. He worshiped Krishna and Kali. This is
Smartaism. Most of the Brahmins in Bengal are like this.

Kerala: The Nambhoodiris claim to be Purva Mimansa followers. But see the worship. Shiva,
Devi and Krishna temples are all over Kerala. Everyone goes to all these temples. Swami
Chinmayananda spent his lifetime spreading the message of Bhagavad Gita. But in all his
Ashrams the central temple is Shiva's temple. This is Smartaism.

2. Some one might say that "But there is proof that Smartas are Saiva, Vaishnava". We have
had discussions regarding this. This is exactly what you are supposed to believe. Smartaism
is Saivism for Saivas and Vaishnavism for Vaishnavas. All things to all people is the name
of the game. We can not claim that Smartas are pure Advaita Vedanta people. Pure Advaitins
reject Purva Mimansa. They do not subscribe to Sri Vidya practices which basically believes
in Saguna Brahman.

I would also like to point out the all important role of the Sankara matams and thousands
of other matams which are loosely affiliated to these matams. These matams have spread the
idea of non-sectarian Hinduism all over India. They have also revived the Vaidic practices.

Again India has been known for the millions of wandering renunciates. Smarta religion tried
to bring some order here also by creating the Dasanami Sampradhayas of Sannyasis. They
created a semblance of an organization. But this affiliation is only nominal. They do not
even have a uniform practice of dealing with the dead bodies of Sannyasis.

Time-Frame

Though the formal Smarta religion seems to hve originated in the middle ages, it is very
difficult to specify the date of the Smarta religion. The Smarta religion with its
syncretistic tendencies seem to have been in existence for long. There is evidence for that
like the medieval sculptures of Panchayatana Sivalinga and Harihara. But organizing them
into a force in Hinduism could be attributed to Adi Sankaracharya.

Since these are developments which took place over a period of hundreds of years, we do not
have a time frame for this development.

Finally

If Smarta religion is so good and has strengthened Hinduism how come no one is talking
about it?

Here lies the crux of the matter. Smarta called themselves Smartas because they wanted to
emphasize the role of the Smiritis/Dharmasasthras. Dharmasasthras are founded on
Varnashrama Dharma. So the Smartas have been accused of propagating the Varnashrama Dharma.

But this criticism does not take into account the seminal role played by the Smartas in
strengthening Hinduism and preventing it from becoming divided into a number of warring
sects.

Hope

The vision shown by Adi Sankarachrya or Sankaracharyas is unparalleled in the history of
Hinduism. We can only pray that such a visionary will be born in India again who will unite
all the castes together, so that the caste name would signify only a tradition or culture.
A Dalit should say proudly of the Brahmins "Here are the people who have kept OUR Vedic
traditions alive."


Smarta's View of Adi Sankaracharya


Adi Sankaracharya is universally known as the Acharya who first enunciated the principles
of Advaita. In Hinduism the ideas always mattered more than the personality. That is why we
have Advaita, Sankhya, Yoga, Vishishtaadvaita, Dvaita and others. This is totally different
from the Western way of thinking where the individual is more important than their ideas.
Thus we have philosophies named after Aristotle, Plato, Kant among others.

Now Smartas tend to view Adi Sankaracharya as the founder of Shanmadha/Shaddharshana
religion. He is credited with recovering the glory of the religion of the Vedas.

These two different views do clash. The historical image of Adi Sankara as the ultimate
pure Advaitin clashes with the image of Adi Sankara who brought back the glory of the Purva
Mimansa religion. How could a person who debated the Purva Mimansa people throughout his
life turn to be a follower of Purva Mimansa? How could he become a Saktha Tantrik and
author Soundarya Lahari? How could he become a Bhakta and author the various slokas
attributed to him? The questions are many.

There is no historical evidence that Adi Sankara was anything but a pure Advaitin.

It is probable that we are talking not only about Adi Sankara, but also Sankaracharyas who
have adorned the different Peetams over a period of time. Great men like Abhinava Sankara,
Vidyaranya. Probable, but not confirmed in the absence of historical records.

In the early days of the internet this used to be the favorite topic of discussion on the
Hindu usenet groups. Adi Sankara the Advaitin Vs Adi Sankara as projected by the Smartas.

The Smartas always defended their stand by saying "We know." Thus it boiled down to
question of belief and not history.

Smartas should be aware of this conflict between history and their belief.

This post is an old one. This article was written to enable the Smarthas to understand their religion.

It is not against Sakthism, Saivism or Vaishnavism. Or against any Acharyas.

 
Last edited:
Dear Sir,

Is it correct to call Smarta a religion?

Isn't it a Matam?

Closest word in English to describe Matam is a doctrine.
 
The term religion is used for all sects of Hinduism. Saiva, Vaishnava, Saktha, Ganapathya, Sourya, Koumara and Smartha.

A Matam is a Religious Institution. Like Sankara matam, Ahobila Matam and Gowdiya matam to name a few. Matam is also used for residence. One of my ancestors was known as Thekke Matathu Siva Ramakrishna Iyen. Siva Ramakrishna Iyen of South Matam. It is மடம் not மதம்.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sir,

Mata/Matam means a doctrine/school of thought/tenet.

In many verses we do see the word Mama Mata or Me Mata (My thought).

So I was wondering if the word religion might not be appropriate cos whatever it is every school of thought would have come only from the Vedas even though practices would differ.
 
Last edited:
Dear Iniyan,

The term religion is used for all sects of Hinduism. Saiva, Vaishnava, Saktha, Ganapathya, Sourya, Koumara and Smartha.
A Matam is a Religious Institution. Like Sankara matam, Ahobila Matam and Gowdiya matam to name a few.
This post is an old one. This article was written to enable the Smarthas to understand their religion.
It is not against Sakthism, Saivism or Vaishnavism. Or against any Acharyas.

Could you please provide more info on what Adi Sankara did to establish shan matham or shad darsana? What are these shad darsana? Just for knowing. Thanks

Cheers.
 
Shanmadha and Shaddharsana

Dear Iniyan,



Could you please provide more info on what Adi Sankara did to establish shan matham or shad darsana? What are these shad darsana? Just for knowing. Thanks

Cheers.


Shanmadhas are Ganapathyam, Koumaram, Saivam, Sakthism, Souryam, and Vaishnavism.


Shaddharsanas are Samkya, Nyaya, Yoga, Vaiseshika, Purva Mimansa and Uttara Mimansa also known as Vedanta. Vedata includes Advaita,

Vishista Advaita, Dvaita and all other later philosophies.

Both Shanmadha and Shaddharsana are later day concepts which sought to explain the non-sectarian eclectic nature of the Smartas.
The Smartas accepted the Gods/Goddesses of all the sects and all philosophies. Their main concern was Vaidhika Dharma. Because of this their practices are mainly Purva Mimansa. There is no religion called Shanmadha and no philosophy called Shaddharsana.

Shanmadha and Shaddharsana are concepts evolved by Tamil Brahmins to explain Smarta beliefs. There is absolutely no historical record of these.


Adi Sankara who propounded Advaita has nothing to do with these concepts. These six sects existed before his time and even after that. Adi Sankara entered into arguments with the proponents of Purva Mimansa, Sankya and Yoga and is reported to have proved them false. He differed from all these philosophies.


As I said earlier Adi Sankara of the Smarta Tamil Brahmin has nothing to do with the real Adi Sankara the pure Advaitin.
 
Syncrectic nature of Hinduism

The main reason for this article is that Smartas themselves are not aware of their tradition.

Most of them especially the younger generation are not even aware of the term Smartas.
They call themselves Iyers which is only one of the surnames of the tradition. Earlier the term Sasthri seems to have been more popular. They surname Sharma is again popular. This is the name used in the Abhivadaye the introduction which all Brahmins give.

Many people believe that Iyers are Saivites. This belief has grown because the Iyers
themselves do not know whether they are Saivites or not. Smarta term has been forgotten. The Acharyas emphasize only on Dharmasasthras and Nityanushtana karmas. Very little is written or known about how Smartas worship all Gods/Goddesses.

The Brittanica on line tends to follow this misconception.


Smarta sect (Hinduism) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


Just because they are called Sankara Matams many people swear that they are followers of
Advaita. You go thorugh any number of web sites where Samrtas claim to followers of Advaita.

Frankly Smartas are not aware of the history of their religion.


This is what happens when you try to erase or twist History to suit your own ends. Then
how many Hindus know or bother about their religious history?

Hinduism could not have survived for thousands of years but for the the syncrectic nature of Hinduism. This syncrectic nature is the basis of Smarta religion.


Syncretism is the combining of different (often seemingly contradictory) beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought.


Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths. Syncretism also occurs commonly in expressions of arts and culture (known as eclecticism) as well as politics (syncretic politics).
 
Last edited:
Mr. Nacchi,
Very good explanation of Smartha ways. I fully agree with you. I did not know that there was this much misinformation about smartha. I can understand that some Iyangars do not understand the Smartha way.
The water in the pot may not understand the ocean, but ocean understands all waters.

That is how we have Nama Iyers for example.
Can you explain this a little more.
Thanks
 
I do not blame the others when the Smartas themselves are not aware of their tradition. There have been a few threads in this forum where members have raised this question about what Smartas are.

The other name for Smartas is Vaidhika Brahmanas. Now-a-days his term has become common. The Mathas also seem to prefer this.

Nama Iyers is the local term used for a group of Iyers from Palakkad who put Trichurnam instead of Vibuthi on their foreheads. Sri. T.N. Seshan belongs to this group.

I am posting a video of the speech of His Holiness Paramahamsa Parivrajakacarya Gaudapadapithadhiswara Anantasri Dr. Swami Prajnanananda Saraswati, Vedantacarya, Vyakaranatirtha, Sastracakravarti, Mathadhisa, Sankara Matha, Ramrajatala, Howrah, West Bengal, at Sankara Hall, Calcutta. The Sankara math at Ramrajtala runs the famous Rama temple at Ramrajatala, Howrah.

Swami Prajnanananda Saraswati_Sankara Jayanti Speech_Part 1 - YouTube

You cam listen to the Swamiji replacing the usual obeisance of "Sadhasiva samarambam Sankaracharya madhyamam ... with "Narayana samarambam Sankaracharya madhyamam ..."

This Sankra Math is affiliated to Shringeri math.

 
Mr. Nacchi,
Very good explanation of Smartha ways. I fully agree with you. I did not know that there was this much misinformation about smartha. I can understand that some Iyangars do not understand the Smartha way.
The water in the pot may not understand the ocean, but ocean understands all waters.


Can you explain this a little more.
Thanks
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...
 
Last edited:
Dear Shri Iniyan,

I have the following doubts:

1. Is it because pancaratra and vaikhanasa are considered as Agamas that the non-vaishnavites were branded as "smartas" meaning people who follow smritis rather than Agamas?

2. It is seen that the Thenkalai sampradayam admitted non-brahmins into its fold and also permitted non-brahmins to be vaishnavite NBs and follow the Thenkalai sampradayam.

see:

Iyengar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Textiles and weavers in medieval South India - Vijaya Ramaswamy - Google Books

Even some Thenkalai matrimonials state "caste no bar" (Defence Thenkalai Brides - Grooms - Matrimonials - Defence Matrimonial, Defence Brides - Grooms)

Was this one reason for the smartas keeping all the vaishnavites as separate (and also the vadakalai iyengars forming a separate sect by themselves)?
 
smartas is by far the most secular amongst sanathana dharma adherents.siva,vishnu,brahma,sakthi,lakshmi,saraswathi,ganapathy,skanda....all darshanas including achintha bheda abheda tatvam.....as far as adi sankarar is concerned,if not for him,we would be all either buddhists or jainas followers.
 
Sri Ramanuja assigned temple duties to several communities and arranged special 'mariyadai' for them; this is followed even today. There was no thengalai-vadagali distinction in Ramanuja's days. Acharyas of both sects have brahmin and non brahmon sishyas.

Vijaya ramaswamy is or was Professor at the Centre of Historical Studies in JNU, Delhi, and has worked in US universities. Their research and writing, in general, have a left and anti hindu/ brahmin bias. What they say or write have to be taken with a sackful of salt.
 
Dear Iniyan,

1. Is it because pancaratra and vaikhanasa are considered as Agamas that the non-vaishnavites were branded as "smartas" meaning people who follow smritis rather than Agamas?

2. It is seen that the Thenkalai sampradayam admitted non-brahmins into its fold and also permitted non-brahmins to be vaishnavite NBs and follow the Thenkalai sampradayam.

Please take this into account:

1.Vaishnavites also follow smrities. It is not as if they have discarded the smritis and replaced it with Agamas. Only they take it with a pinch of salt unlike smarthas.

2.There are non-brahmins who follow vadakalai sampradhayam also.

Cheers.
 
A tiny weeny bit on JNU mindset. JNU scholars think Sanskrit is not essential, but Persian and Urudu are.

"However, the fact remains that the primary tool to study ancient India, namely the
Sanskrit language, has not, in all these years, been available to students attending JNU. At
India’s premier academic institution--famous for its cutting edge Social Science excellence--
students are not offered courses in Sanskrit, the root language of Indian culture. And
significantly, implementing the study of this quintessential part of Hindu tradition was time and
again vehemently opposed by the faculty. They would prefer that Sanskrit education remain in
the domain of religious institutions, so as not to sully JNU’s leftist/secular reputation with anything too closely associated with Hindu traditions. It should be pointed out, that not all Indian universities share this aversion.

Indic Colloquium
Yvette C. Rosser
 
Secular - engayo idikkuthu. If Sankara engaged followers of other mathams in debates, and beat them hollow, is he secular. In today's world, muslims and christians (who want to convert by temptation or force) are considered secular, while hindus are not.

As some animals are more equal then others, some followers of sanatana dharma are secular while some are not, in relative terms.

A new definition of secularism is in order.

smartas is by far the most secular amongst sanathana dharma adherents.siva,vishnu,brahma,sakthi,lakshmi,saraswathi,ganapathy,skanda....all darshanas including achintha bheda abheda tatvam.....as far as adi sankarar is concerned,if not for him,we would be all either buddhists or jainas followers.
 
Dear Shri Iniyan,

I have the following doubts:

1. Is it because pancaratra and vaikhanasa are considered as Agamas that the non-vaishnavites were branded as "smartas" meaning people who follow smritis rather than Agamas?

2. It is seen that the Thenkalai sampradayam admitted non-brahmins into its fold and also permitted non-brahmins to be vaishnavite NBs and follow the Thenkalai sampradayam.

see:

Iyengar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Textiles and weavers in medieval South India - Vijaya Ramaswamy - Google Books

Even some Thenkalai matrimonials state "caste no bar" (Defence Thenkalai Brides - Grooms - Matrimonials - Defence Matrimonial, Defence Brides - Grooms)

Was this one reason for the smartas keeping all the vaishnavites as separate (and also the vadakalai iyengars forming a separate sect by themselves)?

Your question brings to the fore the relationship between Vedas, Agamas and Tantras.

Agamas and Tantras are sectarian unlike the Vedas.

Agamas and Tantras do not accept the authority of the Vedas.

Agamas and Tantras do not accept Varnashrama Dharma.

Originally Agamic Saivism and Agamic Vaishnvism were not Caste based. Later the Caste system made its way into both Saivism and Vaishnavism.

The other term used by the Smartas is indicative of this. Vaidika Brahmana. Those who believe in Vedas and Smiritis. Dharmasasthras emphasize the Varna syatem.

From what I understand the Thenkalai Brahmins are the Agamic Brahmins and the Vadakalai the Vaidhika Brahmins. Of course this could be a over-simplification.

Smarta tradition is not a creation of one individual. Nor all Smartas followers of Sankaracharya. This a myth created by Tamil Brahmins.
 
smartas is by far the most secular amongst sanathana dharma adherents.siva,vishnu,brahma,sakthi,lakshmi,saraswathi,ganapathy,skanda....all darshanas including achintha bheda abheda tatvam.....as far as adi sankarar is concerned,if not for him,we would be all either buddhists or jainas followers.

There is nothing secular about Smartas. They are the most conservative Vaidhika Brahmins. They accept all Gods/Goddesses and all Dharsanas.

BTW history tells us that it was Kumarila Bhatta who engaged the Buddhists in Vadha. Sankara did not engage the Buddhists or Jains in argument. This is a myth propagated by us.
 
Am making this post becoz am told a couple of newcomers are reading up this place now. Let them note -- not everything said here is the truth. This is just a forum where anyone can say anything without any evidence whatsoever. Take my post below also with a pinch of salt. And verify everything before you conclude anything.


Originally Agamic Saivism and Agamic Vaishnvism were not Caste based. Later the Caste system made its way into both Saivism and Vaishnavism.
Correctly put, the sentence should have been "Later the Varna system made its way into both Saivism and Vaishnavism". Caste system predates Varna system. Please see older threads in this regard. This particular thread may help.

The other term used by the Smartas is indicative of this. Vaidika Brahmana. Those who believe in Vedas and Smiritis. Dharmasasthras emphasize the Varna syatem.
There is no evidence whatsoever to prove Smritis are derived from Vedas. The Smritis contradict the Vedas in far too many ways. There are very many Smritis. The corpus texts of Smritis are contradictory themselves (i.e., they contradict each other too). The contradictions are merely indicative of difficulties, the Smriti followers had, in making their rules applicable to prevailing social conditions then.

Smarthas are followers of Smritis. Period. Whether they follow the Vedas or not is highly debatable. Undoubtedly they are Agama followers from the very fact that they are all idol worshippers. It seems very probable the Smartas arose from certain specific Agama followers (Shakta Agamas, IMO). These were outsiders of the vedic system (ie., the religion of brahmanical sacrifices) but hijacked it and made things birth-based. And came up with the term 'Vaidika Brahmana' for themselves.

Also IMO, the followers of Shakta Agamas originated from the Central Asia regions, where they had much in common to do with the Shaman/Shraman systems prevailing there. In effect they also had much in common with Jainas; and puranic writers arose from these groups IMO.


WRT Shakta Agamas it must be noted Parvati / Kali / Uma, are not vedic goddesses; and during the time of Devi-Mahatmya these were amalgamated into the vedic system. The integration was aided by the puranas. And now that they had seized social control, dharmashastras were created, to help them stay in power with a birth-based system.


From what I understand the Thenkalai Brahmins are the Agamic Brahmins and the Vadakalai the Vaidhika Brahmins. Of course this could be a over-simplification.
Wrong it seems. Because both Vadakalai and Thenkalai follow Pancharatra Agamas.

Smarta tradition is not a creation of one individual. Nor all Smartas followers of Sankaracharya. This a myth created by Tamil Brahmins.
To be a Smarta, one can give up Shankaracharyas, Shaddarshana, Advaita, Shanmata, or any God/Goddess. A Smartas owes allegiance to the Smritis alone; and that has come to be the core basis of being a Smarta.

I contend, Smartas are not really eclectic. Their acceptance is limited to 6 dietis (Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Surya and Skanda). Of numerous deities which existed during Shankara's time, only these 6 made it to the Shanmata System (and it is highly debatable why Adi Shankara, so to say, chose only those 6, unless the reasons were political). Seems to me, this was one of the reasons, why remaining deities remained tribal and did not make it to 'hinduism' (i.e., the 'hinduism'
version of Smarthas).
 
Last edited:
Syncretistic Tendencies and Smarta Panchayatana Puja

Syncretistic Tendencies and Smarta Panchayatana Puja

Excerpts from A Religious History of Ancient India - Volume Two By Prof. S. R. Goyal


"Attempts at re-conciliation and rapproachment between the rival creeds were made
in India from a very early period. The Rigvedic rishis rightly emphasised that
the sages call the one eternally existing principle in various ways (ekam sat
vipra bahudha vadanti) and the names denoting this principle may be different,
such as Indra, Agni, the celestial sun-bird Garutman, Yama, Matarisva, etc. In
the post-Samhita period many factors contributed to the continuance of this
tendency. The Asokan ideal of samavaya and the Jaina philosophy of anekanta were
expressions of the same thinking. The spread of Vedantic teachings among the
worshippers of the various creeds was not a little responsible for the growth of
a liberal religious outlook. Smrti works like those of Manu and Yajnavalkya did
not advocate the cause of any cult in particular and inculcated among the
devotees of different sects (who also followed the injunctions laid down in
these Smrti works) a liberal outlook. The early foreign immigrants into India
(the Sakas, the Pahlavas, the Kushanas and the Hunas) who were presumably less
cultured than the Indians and were therefore prone to the influence of the
latter, especially in matters of religion, usually paid equal homage to gods and
goddesses of more than one creed. Their kings often used as devices on their
coins the figures of deities belonging to different pantheons. Kanishka's
affiliation with Buddhism for example is sufficiently established by the Chinese
literary data, but in the medley of the devices on his coins, many scholars
recognise his eclecticism in religious matters. "

To be continued in next post

 
Excerpts from A Religious History of Ancient India - Volume Two By Prof. S. R. Goyal

"In this atmosphere many Hindus of higher orders known as Smartas, evolved a kind of worship described as
Panchayatana puja in which the principal deities of the five approved
Brahmanical Hindu cults were the objects of veneration. The principal object of
worship in it was usually in the form of an aniconic emblem which symbolised all
the five cult deities. Sometimes five symbols of five major gods were placed on
a round open metal dish called Panchayatana, the symbol of the deity preferred
by the worshipper being in the centre. The mode of placing in the centre the
symbol of the preferred deity in the Panchayatana arrangement indicated the cult
affiliation of the Smarta worshipper. The Panchayatana puja of the Smartas is
also illustrated in many extant early and late medieval temples of India, in
which the central shrine housing the principal deity is surrounded by four
smaller shrines on the four corners of the quardrangle containing the figures of
the four other deities."


To be continued in next post.
 
A digression into details of Panchyathana Puja.

Five aniconic symbols of five major gods were placed on a round open metal dish called Panchayatana.

The aniconic (symbolic or suggestive rather than literally representational : not made or designed as a likeness) symbols are

Ganesha - Red Sonabhadra
Surya - Crystal
Vishnu - Saligrama
Shiva - Bana Linga
Devi - Swarna Mukhi

You will notice that this Puja does not include Subrahmanya. This was included by the Tamil Brahmins later. This is done only by them and is not part of the general Smarta worship.

Koumaram or the worship of Subrahmanya does not seem to have existed anywhere in India except Tamil Nadu.

Even these aniconic symbols are taken from a Tamil Brahmin worship. They may be different elsewhere in India. Vishnu and Saligrama go together everywhere.
 
An image of Panchyathana Puja
 

Attachments

  • panchayathana_puja.jpg
    panchayathana_puja.jpg
    242.2 KB · Views: 126
Excerpts from A Religious History of Ancient India - Volume Two By Prof. S. R. Goyal

"Such a religious syncretistic tendency is very interestingly illustrated by a
large number of early medieval sculptures also. A Panchayatana Sivalinga,
originally found in Bihar and now in the collection of the Indian Museum, shows
the four cult deities, Ganapati, Vishnu, Parvati and Surya on the four sides of
the central Saiva emblem, all of which taken together symbolise the five
Brahmanical Hindu cults. The Hari-Hara murti (or Haryardha aspect of Siva to a
Saiva) emphasises the reconciliation between the two major cults of Vaishnavism
and Saivism. The composite icons combining in them the features of Surya and
Siva and Martanda and Bhairava are comparatively fewer. The Markandeya Purana
invokes Surya in this manner "Brahma's, Siva's and Vishnu's bodies are the same
as the body of the resplendent Sun whose real nature is three-fold indeed, may
he be gracious". The Ardhanarisvara murtis of Siva also symbolise the
syncretistic ideology, for they apparently emphasise the union of the principal
cult deities of Saivism and Saktism. Siva-Lokewara, Surya-Lokesvara and
Hari-Hara-Surya-Buddha icons show syncretism between Brahmanical Hinduism and
Buddhism. Many other such sculptures are known. These may also be called another
mode of symbolising the Panchayatana worship of the Smartas."


To be continued in next post


 
Excerpts from A Religious History of Ancient India - Volume Two By Prof. S. R. Goyal


"The spirit of syncretism expressed itself in many other ways. For example, for
some time Surya formed with Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, a kind of quadrumvirate, as
in many ceremonial gifts these four go together. The Matsya Purana lays down
that Brahma Vishnu, Siva and Surya are identical or non-different (abheda). The
Kurma Purana states that it originally consisted of four Samhitas - Brahmi,
Bhagavati, Sauri and Vaishnavi. The Skanda Purana is divided into six Samhitas
namely of Sanatkumara and Suta, Vaishnavi, Brahmi, Sankari and Sauri. These
facts suggest that these gods were associated together in some places and times.
As Brahma was gradually ousted from the field, a trinity of the other three was
left and attempt was indeed made to establish a triad of Surya, Siva and Vishnu,
with prominence given to the first. However the grouping of gods was always
liable to alteration. The Matsya Purana lays down that vows are to be made to
Siva, Surya and Vishnu. Surya is found combined with the other three major
gods-with Vishnu in Surya-Narayana figures (Vishnu being himself an Aditya),
with Siva in Martanda-Bhairava figures, and with Brahma in the images of a
slightly later date. The Naradiya Purana ascribes to the second part of the
Vamana Purana four Samhitas namely Mahesvari, Bhagavati, Sauri and Ganesvari,
thus belittling the importance of Brahma and extolling that of Ganesa. The
Garuda Purana accords the highest position to Vishnu but prescribes modes of
worship of Siva, Durga, Ganesa and Surya also in the full Smarta manner. The
Bhavishya Purana mentions different groupings in different parts and, though
conceding the importance of Surya in some parts, reserves pre-eminence for the
old triad-Brahma, Vishnu and Siva."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top