• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sectarianism in ktism

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
I recently came across the following verse in the Dvitīyollāsaḥ of the Kulārṇavatantram and it seems to be quite sectarian, a bit ironic since I've heard on these forums that Śākta-s are generally the least sectarian of all Hindu "sects," :rolleyes:...

Here are the verses in question from the original paper transcript I was reading from the Muktabodha Indological Research Institute site (my hand isn't very steady, so it's hard for me to highlight online, lol):

paper_zps91093ea4.png


सर्वे भ्यश्चोत्तमा वेदा वेदेभ्यो वैष्णवं परम्।
वैष्णवादुत्तमं शैवं शैवाद्दक्षिणमुत्तमम्॥७॥
दक्षिणादुत्तमं वामं वामात् सिद्धान्तमुत्तमम्।
सिद्धान्तादुत्तमं कौलं कौलात् परतरं नहि॥८॥

Transliteration:
sarve bhyaścottamā vedā vedebhyo vaiṣṇavaṃ param।
vaiṣṇavāduttamaṃ śaivaṃ śaivāddakṣiṇamuttamam॥7॥
dakṣiṇāduttamaṃ vāmaṃ vāmāt siddhāntamuttamam।
siddhāntāduttamaṃ kaulaṃ kaulāt parataraṃ nahi॥8॥

Clearly, the above verse is declaring a hierarchy among mārga-s (i.e. saying Kaulācāra > Siddhāntācāra > Vāmācāra > Dakṣiṇācāra > Śaivācāra > Vaiṣṇavācāra > Vedācāra), and since this view comes from one of the most prominent Kaula texts and is said to have been stated by the Devī herself, wouldn't it be safe to assume that some Śākta-s (specifically, Bhadrakālī bhakta-s who follow the Kulārṇavatantram) are indeed quite sectarian?
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
According to Mother BhArati,

Devī > Deva.

Mother BhArati will receive no quarrel from me.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3560797 said:
According to Mother BhArati,

Devī > Deva.

Mother BhArati will receive no quarrel from me.

Your point is?
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3560838 said:
I don't think Shakta-s are really that sectarian. Especially not vividly in socio-political terms.

The most vocal sectarians have usually been non-Shakta-s.

You're viewing it more from a personal standpoint; I'm talking more about it from a primarily scriptural standpoint. The view of the Śākta āgama-s and Tantra-s that non-Śākta scriptures are paśuśāstrāṇi, or scriptures meant for animals or humans with animal like nature (kulaśāstrapriyaṃ devi paśuśāstraparāṅmukham...) certainly sounds very, very sectarian.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
You're viewing it more from a personal standpoint; I'm talking more about it from a primarily scriptural standpoint. The view of the Śākta āgama-s and Tantra-s that non-Śākta scriptures are paśuśāstrāṇi, or scriptures meant for animals or humans with animal like nature (kulaśāstrapriyaṃ devi paśuśāstraparāṅmukham) certainly sounds very, very sectarian.

No "sect" is safe from sectarianism. However, I wonder, though, how many Shakta-s view non-Shakta-s as inferior.

I haven't come across any Shakta-s that take Shaktic scriptures as seriously as non-Shakta-s take their non-Shaktic scriptures.
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
You're viewing it more from a personal standpoint; I'm talking more about it from a primarily scriptural standpoint. The view of the Śākta āgama-s and Tantra-s that non-Śākta scriptures are paśuśāstrāṇi, or scriptures meant for animals or humans with animal like nature (kulaśāstrapriyaṃ devi paśuśāstraparāṅmukham...) certainly sounds very, very sectarian.

All the sects are sectarians.Like the advaitins call nirvikalpa to be the highest to suit their formless brahman.They have some scriptures tailor made for that..like avadhuta gita,yoga vasishtha etc.It is only when they point to specific individuals and their household/ashram activities it becomes a problem.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3560857 said:
No "sect" is safe from sectarianism.
That's the point I'm trying to make...
मैत्रावरुणिः;3560857 said:
However, I wonder, though, how many Shakta-s view non-Shakta-s as inferior.
I never referred to all Śākta-s, I'm referring to "Bhadrakālī bhakta-s who follow the Kulārṇavatantram" (read the OP again) and the Kulārṇavatantram does view non-Śākta-s as inferior. It views a Brāhmaṇa who knows the four Veda-s but does not take up the Kaula path as far lower than the lowest dog-eater (caturvedī kulājñānī śvapacādadhamaḥ priye... śvapaco'pi kulajñānī brāhmaṇādatiricyate) and states that the only true men are those who follow Kaula-dharma, everyone else is just skeletons and skin (sa pumānucyate sadbhiḥ kuladharmaparāyaṇaḥ.... aparastu paraṃ satyamasthikūṭatvacāvṛtaḥ).
 

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
I'm sure there are indeed groups of Shaktas that are highly sectarian. I have not had enough open conversations with other Hindus about whether or not they even consider themselves part of a sect, much less where they rank themselves in the list. Sectarianism does seem to be counter intuitive to Hinduism as a whole though. The divine spark exists in all. Scriptural supremacy seems a little insignificant and petty placed up against that, don't you think?

:camp:
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
Personally, I have found Shaktas the least sectarian.

This is a generalization, true. I have found some Saivas that are basically free of it. But overall, Saktas are very, very ready to be your friend and they want you to have a love that is not really sectarian at all.

Jai Mother Annapurna

Om Namah Sivaya
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
Which just seems oddly specific to me.

:camp:

I admit, I was being a bit overly-specific. However, considering that strict followers of Kulārṇavatantram are considered Śākta-s (even though the majority of Śākta-s don't follow it), I don't think it is altogether incorrect to label the thread sectarianism within Śāktism, as the Kulārṇavatantram is, after all, a sectarian text and is a part of Śāktism. Had I titled it "Śākta-s are sectarian" or something along that line, then it would have been a generalization.
 
Last edited:
If anything these lines (extolling one sect as superior) only go to show how hard the sects in Hinduism try to assert their separate identities from each other.

On the other hand, it is difficult to find texts which stress upon an underlying unity among all the sects. Because this would be a worthless exercise, Hindus already have trouble, if anything, seeing their unique identities. So Ramakrishna Paramhamsa's call for unity among all sects is more of misplaced "Bengali revolutionarism" (ShivaFan is making a point, I think, in another thread).

As for me, I call Her as Kali but worship as Vedic Devi Ila. And it may surprise you, I see Sri Rama as a manifestation of Ila (in Vishnu mode).

So I will tend to be dismissive of this "Kaula family dharma" (which I don't know about) that puts Vedic way as the last preference.

As I have said elsewhere, we are all Hindus.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I admit, I was being a bit overly-specific.


Thank you for your admission. :p

However, considering that strict followers of Kulārṇavatantram are considered Śākta-s (even though the majority of Śākta-s don't follow it), I don't think it is altogether incorrect to label the thread sectarianism within Śāktism, as the Kulārṇavatantram is, after all, a sectarian text and is a part of Śāktism.

I don't think that the thread-title is misleading. :p

...the majority of Śākta-s don't follow it)

Bingo. :p
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
sarve bhyaścottamā vedā vedebhyo vaiṣṇavaṃ param।
vaiṣṇavāduttamaṃ śaivaṃ śaivāddakṣiṇamuttamam॥7॥
dakṣiṇāduttamaṃ vāmaṃ vāmāt siddhāntamuttamam।
siddhāntāduttamaṃ kaulaṃ kaulāt parataraṃ nahi॥8॥

Clearly, the above verse is declaring a hierarchy among mārga-s (i.e. saying Kaulācāra > Siddhāntācāra > Vāmācāra > Dakṣiṇācāra > Śaivācāra > Vaiṣṇavācāra > Vedācāra), and since this view comes from one of the most prominent Kaula texts and is said to have been stated by the Devī herself, wouldn't it be safe to assume that some Śākta-s (specifically, Bhadrakālī bhakta-s who follow the Kulārṇavatantram) are indeed quite sectarian?

It would be extremely safe to not only assume, but conclude, as fact, that the BhadrakAlI bhakta-s who follow the KulArNavantantram are indeed quite sectarian.

I was personally insulted by the KulArNavantantram calling the VedAcAra as the lowest, since that would mean that they disregard the application of Shrutic Law, forfeiting the title of Hindu as a result, making them nAstika-s, according to Shruti.

What is the number of BhadrakAlI bhakta practitioners? Do you know, by any chance?
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3561301 said:
It would be extremely safe to not only assume, but conclude, as fact, that the BhadrakAlI bhakta-s who follow the KulArNavantantram are indeed quite sectarian.

I was personally insulted by the KulArNavantantram calling the VedAcAra as the lowest, since that would mean that they disregard the application of Shrutic Law, forfeiting the title of Hindu as a result, making them nAstika-s, according to Shruti.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the texts encourage one to reject the Veda-s, but rather look at them as paśuśāstrāṇi (as they view all non-Kaula scriptures). However, I think they placed Vedācāra as the most basic/lowest stage of tantra-sādhanā as it is one, if not the, most ritualistic of all Hindu mārga-s (as is evident by even a cursory look at the Brāhmaṇa-s). As you go up a stage (according to the system of the Kulārṇavatantram) it seems that the paths get less ritualistic and more esoteric. For example, Vāmācārin-s and Siddhāntin-s are less ritualistic than Vaiṣṇava-s and Śaiva-s who, in turn, generally place less emphasis on rituals than the Śrautin-s and Mīmāṃsaka-s. In that sense, this may have been a type of rebellion against the orthodoxy of the time rather than an explicit rejection of all Vaidika practices.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
In that sense, this may have been a type of rebellion against the orthodoxy of the time rather than an explicit rejection of all Vaidika practices.

We are of like-minds, Jaskaran. I have been waiting so long for someone, of a Hindu background, to reiterate the factual observation you have made, as stated above.

:)
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Can someone please translate this into English? lol

Yo, fo' real, tho'...that should be like a rule in the HinduDIR:

Post English translations with Sanskrit, Tamil, and Prakrit verses. Also, please post in Spanish, because M.V. loves Spanish. :)
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I don't find very many Hindus to be sectarian to the extent that it is annoying. The vast majority show respect to other views and ways, accepting we all belong to a greater brotherhood.

However .... I'm not sure if that same level of tolerance or respect applies to linguistic and/or state pride. Of course it can be argued that the ethnic make-up and what goes along with it isn't a religious concept, more political.
 
Last edited:
Top