Pranam Tattva ji, i'm a bit lost, i do recall reading about this, but i have forgotten most of the details; which is more authoritative, the smritis or srutis? If it varies too broadly, what is the Vaisnava view?
-
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!
Vaishnava identity
- Thread starter Talmai
- Start date
The Shrutis are more authoritative in all Vedantic traditions.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The 'smritikaras' also were orthodox and followers of Vedas. Differences of views exist everywhere in Hinduism, in Shruti as well as Smriti. But the 'Smritikaras' were careful not to cross the line. Let me illustrate this by a verse in my grandfather's smriti - 'Vishweshwara Smriti':
"Panchatattvamayi vyākhyā syātsamkshepakritā purā, yatau bhumau jale vāyou samlīnānyeshu bhūrishah." (1.50)
- In earlier times the universe was taken as composed of five elements, this must have been said for brevity, because Earth, water and air are composed of many elements.
Basically, agreeing to this and also agreeing to that (Tradition and Science), finding the middle-way. They did not reject tradition out-right.
Last edited:
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
That is quite a list.
Is Madhva saying that one has to check off all of these conditions to qualify as a Madhva/Vaishnava or is he saying that a Vaishnava has to strive to meet these criteria?
If it is the former, I am not aware of any Madhva I know in real life (I know quite a few), coming anywhere close. If it is the latter, then it is not really a definition. Again, if it is the former, the Madhvas I know, consider themselves religious, follow rituals, but do not meet this criteria of Vedic study, knowledge of Siddantha, etc.. How are we to label them?
This is not clear. Vaishnavas heavily follow non-Vedic, Pancharatra systems of worship. By your definition, shouldn't they be classified as Smarthas too?
As explained earlier, my understanding of Smartha is one who aligns with the specific Smartha tradition of worshiping five (sometimes six) deities- without placing them in a hierarchy. They are also philosophically aligned with Shankara's Advaita tradition.
Regards,
तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
Namaste,
But that still doesn't mean that smārta can only be an exclusive appellation based on a specific method of pūjā which cannot be generally applied to anyone who follows smṛitis - which includes most brahmins in India.
श्रीमन्मध्वान्तर्गतश्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
On points where there are apparent difference of opinion b/w śrutis and smṛtis, there is usually a synthesis possible. But it is also possible, however, for the smṛitis to have practices derived entirely from local customs, in which case the vaidikas view them a optional practices.
Well, the approach is to imbibe and practice the philosophy enunciated in the sarvamūla, and the external signs that manifest in such a person would be the aforementioned qualities, only then such a person would earn the qualification of being a vaiṣṇava. The life of a vaiṣṇava is a continuous yajña towards attaining the knowledge of the self and realising the antaryāmin, and in the mādhva system, each individual's attainment is unique and people and things attain perfection at different levels. So, whereas for some, the aforementioned itself would be great achievement, there could be those for whom even one of it would be a great achievement, and yet others for whom these would just be basic sādhana - this is referred to as jīva yogyata. And then there would be those who fret at the mere sight of them.
I know many mādhvas who have put this to practice, including women; of course, many of them would be too modest to even talk about their internal sādhana, so i wouldn't blame you if you didn't notice.
Well can there be a definition on which all schools agree unanimously? For e.g., if we consider your definition
(Knowledgable) Mādhvas would consider such a definition incomplete and wrong. And the varkaris and ISKCONites would also say you are wrong, each for different reasons.
Why label anyone at all? In any case i'm very sure the people you know are most likely exceptions based on which no generalisation can be made.
Well, i'd say that is a naïve statement. Pancarātra is a completely vaidika system.
I think i already mentioned this in the earlier post, there are many mādhvas who follow smārta customs and practices. Mādhvas are śrauta and smārta simultaneously. Or are you saying that the smārtas have given up śrutis entirely and follow only smṛiti? Most smārtas i know follow many vaidika (śruti-based) customs and practices, why shouldn't they too be śrauta-smārta? which brings the next point -
That is the rūḍḥārtha, granted, one more belonging to the category of terms like mahāvākya, etc, and people are free to call themselves whatever they want.
But that still doesn't mean that smārta can only be an exclusive appellation based on a specific method of pūjā which cannot be generally applied to anyone who follows smṛitis - which includes most brahmins in India.
श्रीमन्मध्वान्तर्गतश्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
If Vaishnava is a qualification to be earned after the manifestation of *all* these qualities, my question remains. How are we to categorize all the people who are not there yet or are not even trying? As I have said earlier, while people (not just Madhvas) find it easy enough to be religious in the sense of observing rites and rituals, philosophy is not for the overwhelming majority. To adopt such a stringent definition of Vaishnava, would discount a large number of Madhvas.
Moreoever, I am not aware that such a definition is actually used in practice for Madhva status comes by birth. The Dvaita site, for instance, offers a very basic definition for the identity of Vaishnava (http://www.dvaita.org/docs/srv_faq.html).
If they are that modest, how did you come to know about their internal Sadhana
? Anyway, just like you are privy to their secrets, I know the people I am referring to, well enough to know what they are and what they are not. They are very religious, but they have little or no interest in philosophy and so, do not meet your stringent definition.If they hold the definition you posted as correct, then my definition is incomplete. But I would again point you to the Vaishnava FAQ on dvaita.org, which I believe was created by knowledgeable Madhvas. Your description appears more like a wish-list; a standard that Madhvas should attain and less like a definition. For instance, a statement such as "a Brahmana should speak the truth" does not mean that one is a Brahmana only if he speaks the truth. It simply means that a Brahmana is expected (or required) to be truthful.
Even if the Madhvas I know are exceptions (which is unlikely, anyway), the question persists. Is it incorrect to classify them as Madhvas and if so, what are they?
By non-Vedic, I mean, it is not part of the Vedic canon and therefore, is Smriti. Vaishnava worship is not that different from Smartha worship in the sense that it is heavily contingent on Smriti, as well.
Regards,
Shiv
तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
In tattvavāda, vaiṣṇavatva persists even in mokṣa, and the degree of vaiṣṇavatva varies starting with śrī and decreasing all the way down to devatas, manuṣyas and total lack of it among daityas. The capability of vaiṣṇavatva-anusandhāna of śrī is infinitely greater than that of brahma, which is many times greater than deities lower in the hierarchy, thus even this list cannot be considered *all*. The aforementioned qualities can be considered as the partial list of "what" with different brahmavidyas answering the "how" part. Together the anusandhāna becomes a routine practice, hence not at all something that is strenuous/onerous, and ritualistic activity.
- not there yet, but striving would be vaiṣṇavas;
- not even trying wouldn't be. Really, what is so abstruse in this? I find the questions you are trying to pose quite contrived.
Nowhere has Śri Madhva recommended that his philosophy be evaluated based on its popularity.
All of these are directly from Śri Madhva's or his commentators' authentic works. Different levels of adhikāri is an accepted principle in all schools.
So does the status of brahmin. But just as there are brahmins who have actually studied the śāstras amongst a majority of those who haven't, similarly there are many mādhvas who actually put to practice the siddhānta enunciated in the sarvamūla amongst those who are mādhvas just by accident of birth. The practices of the former obviously is exemplary of followers of tattvavāda than those of the latter, despite the greater population size.
That is hardly an evidence for anything. Can you please quote anything from the sarvamūla? Also, what matters is for *whom* it was created and in what context. The page (w.r.t. FAQs) makes no claims on whether it is representing Śri Madhva's views according to sarvamūla on vaiṣṇavatva or not. It is a general discussion wherein even the advaita-smārta vaiṣṇava is considered, which should make it obvious to even neophytes in vedānta that it cannot be the siddhānta view.
Many are Guru-bandhus, many relatives, many friends...If they are that modest, how did you come to know about their internal Sadhana
Still cannot generalise, being poor examples at best. If 95% of candidates fail say, the civil services exam, it doesn't mean those 5% who succeeded cannot be taken as exemplary or that the entire system has to be redefined. Exclusivity of vaiṣṇavatva is accepted both in tattvavāda and general śāstras. And also, for those who aspire but find śāstrādhyayana difficult, the haridāsas have shown the way.
You cannot certainly contend based on those who are not interested at all.
Again, i've never claimed to have provided a definition and have also shown the futility of trying to limit the term and the philosophy behind it with some prejudiced mindset. If one/more sect holds a contrarian views and yet claims to be vaiṣṇava, mādhvas will have no problem with it whatsoever. The above is a description of some of the qualities that are considered essential in tattvavāda philosophy for vaiṣṇavatva focusing only on those that can be considered exclusive to tattvavāda school and excluding those that are common to many other schools. Your contentions all belong to those scenarios common to all schools, so i don't see how they are relevant.
Of course it does! Such compromises are authorised by *who*? There is no śāstra that has made such an exception acceptable, unless it is in the context of āpaddharma.
It could of course be your opinion, which i will not contend.
In which case you are merely reiterating the point i made in the earlier post - one of the reason why smārta (followers of smṛiti) as an exclusive appellation to any group is unjustified. I don't know what you mean by heavily contingent. If it is in the sense of not being able to worship without pancarātra/smṛitis at all, then it would be wrong. The prakriya of adoption is quite complex and perhaps is a topic for a different thread.
You are welcome to discuss perhaps thru direct message, if you have more questions, so as to not digress much from the thread.
श्रीभारतीरमणमुख्यप्राणान्तर्गतश्रीमन्नारायणार्पणमस्तु ।
I would really be glad if @shivsomashekhar could continue the discussion here, since I'm learning a lot about Tattvavada.