-
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!
Ishta devata
- Thread starter Polarbear
- Start date
Yes, Smartans choose. The concept of ishta is central to Smarta. For the rest, the particular aspect of that sect's Supreme God is sometimes considered as an ishta .. for example, Venkatestwara, or Krishna, or Rama for Vaisnavites, or Kali, otrDurga etc. for Shaktites. As far as going outside of SD, I've never heard of it, but I'm sure it happens. These days lots happens.
Last edited:
Many people won't recognize the difference between a Smarta with an ishta, or a Sectarian. For example, I'm a Saivite with respect for all other branches, as we have some very important common traits. So when a Smarta sees me worshiping Siva, he just thinks, "Oh, that guy's ishta is Siva. How nice!" and they assume that I honour Adi Shankara. Then if I inform them that I don't, I follow a different sampradaya altogether, they get a confused look. (When you have been taught nothing else, and you hear a new language, it is to be expected to be confused.) Another common example is the teachings of the great modern sage Swami Sivananada. Most people think he is a Saivite, but he's not, he's Smarta. One easy way to see that is from the names of some of his disciples ... Venkatesanda, Vishnudevanda, etc.
So there is a pretty vague line between the two, and you can feel it more in the energy, as well as in the words. Smartas lean more to an intellectual take, and Saivas lean more to a mystical or bhakti take. Still there is more in common than not.
So there is a pretty vague line between the two, and you can feel it more in the energy, as well as in the words. Smartas lean more to an intellectual take, and Saivas lean more to a mystical or bhakti take. Still there is more in common than not.
Something I read said that Smartas accept that non-Vedic deities are fine to worship outside of SD, but are frowned upon within SD. That is, they are perfectly fine with a Christian worshipping Jesus, but it's frowned on if a Smarta or Hindu of another sampradaya were to worship Jesus as ishtadevata.
But what about pagan gods such as Isis or Zeus, are they acceptable?
It's not really a question of being acceptable. We are a very tolerant lot, for the most part. I would personally never do it, nor would 99% of Hindus, but as to whether or not someone else wants to, that's entirely up to them. But I don't think you could gift a statue of Zeus to a Hindu temple like the one Jainarayan worships at, and expect them to accept it, install it, etc. But what you do on your own time, in your own shrine room, is all fine.
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
In order for gods to truly be compatible (rather than the fuzzy acceptable) with SD, they have to have the requisite traits.
1. Mantra - the deity corresponds to the Speech (Vak) of Invocation (Hotra). This imbues divine energy (prana pratistha). In what does it imbue? Either the external idol, or the mind - mind, having the nature of emptiness, or a cavity, is like a temple, a chamber in which things are installed. The mind shapes itself around the deity and, when imbued by mantra and dhyan, the deity confers grace upon the sadhak (practitioner). More broadly, the mind unfolds into the subtle body, with its myriad altars.
2. A form full of meaning - each implement, gesture, etc. has volumes of meaning.
3. A rigorous system of sadhana (devotional yoga), by which communion or union with the deity is effected.
Fundamentally, Hinduism is not a religion of beliefs, it's a religion of practice. You don't get to heaven, or a good rebirth, or moksha, or apotheosis with just beliefs.
I believe, for example, that Jesus was truly a master yogi, to the extent of embodying Shiva. I don't have any practice around Jesus though. Why? He has no mantra that has survived, no upasana (method of worship), and no lineage of gurus to empower mantras through diksha and give shaktipat. I respect, honor and believe most of the teachings attributed to him in the gnostic gospels. Instead, I worship what is described in the Gnostic gospels but through the means (upaya) provided in the agamas instead, which also describe This.
Occasionally I see him meditation. I believe that Jesus is worthy of worship, but lacks means outside of spontaneous devotion - which certainly has its place. I believe that Jesus is important to SD, not because Hindus or those following the HIndu Dharma portion of SD somehow need Jesus in their lives, but because of all the people in Christianized societies who could so benefit from worship of Jesus in the context of SD rather than conventional Christianity. It would be beautiful to see him become ishta-devata for hundreds of millions of Ex-Christians.
1. Mantra - the deity corresponds to the Speech (Vak) of Invocation (Hotra). This imbues divine energy (prana pratistha). In what does it imbue? Either the external idol, or the mind - mind, having the nature of emptiness, or a cavity, is like a temple, a chamber in which things are installed. The mind shapes itself around the deity and, when imbued by mantra and dhyan, the deity confers grace upon the sadhak (practitioner). More broadly, the mind unfolds into the subtle body, with its myriad altars.
2. A form full of meaning - each implement, gesture, etc. has volumes of meaning.
3. A rigorous system of sadhana (devotional yoga), by which communion or union with the deity is effected.
Fundamentally, Hinduism is not a religion of beliefs, it's a religion of practice. You don't get to heaven, or a good rebirth, or moksha, or apotheosis with just beliefs.
I believe, for example, that Jesus was truly a master yogi, to the extent of embodying Shiva. I don't have any practice around Jesus though. Why? He has no mantra that has survived, no upasana (method of worship), and no lineage of gurus to empower mantras through diksha and give shaktipat. I respect, honor and believe most of the teachings attributed to him in the gnostic gospels. Instead, I worship what is described in the Gnostic gospels but through the means (upaya) provided in the agamas instead, which also describe This.
Occasionally I see him meditation. I believe that Jesus is worthy of worship, but lacks means outside of spontaneous devotion - which certainly has its place. I believe that Jesus is important to SD, not because Hindus or those following the HIndu Dharma portion of SD somehow need Jesus in their lives, but because of all the people in Christianized societies who could so benefit from worship of Jesus in the context of SD rather than conventional Christianity. It would be beautiful to see him become ishta-devata for hundreds of millions of Ex-Christians.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
I think it is completely fine, you should use what brings you focus.
At the temple at the Ashram I belong to we have images from several religions, not only Hindu, though the temple there is not a "classical" Hindu temple.
Like Vinayaka said in a more typical Hindu temple I don't think they would install a deity that is not Hindu.
Personally, I have non Hindu images on my personal altar as well.
I'm Advaita but I could probably say that I'm a bit of a Smarta too
Maya
At the temple at the Ashram I belong to we have images from several religions, not only Hindu, though the temple there is not a "classical" Hindu temple.
Like Vinayaka said in a more typical Hindu temple I don't think they would install a deity that is not Hindu.
Personally, I have non Hindu images on my personal altar as well.
I'm Advaita but I could probably say that I'm a bit of a Smarta too
Maya
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Smartas are almost always advaitins, as Adi Shankara popularized both
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Really? I did not even know that. It makes sense then that I feel at home with both
Maya
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Real smarta is real Hinduism, and is also about as traditional as it gets. Smarta has a long lineage, stretching back maybe 2000 years. Many of the "conservative" branches of Hinduism today are only 700-1200 years old.
Many act as smartins though in selecting their own ishta-devata. One does not need to be a smartin to select for oneself one's ishta-devata and approach the appropriate sampradayas specializing in worship of that deity.
One can also be syncretic without being a smarta. I'm not a smarta, but I practice trika (Shaiva), kaula (Shakta) and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. To the extent that trika and kaula are different from Advaita, I practice Advaita Vedanta. I would like to practice Vaishnava Sahajiya but have not yet had the opportunity to immerse myself or meet the appropriate guru.
One need not only look through one reality tunnel, especially where satsang is concerned. One may find oneself in the spiritual company of those of different sects who, nonetheless, are quite obviously infused with divine power and even being around them is like being drunk with realization. Should this rejected because different words and images are used to train the finite mind towards the same infinitude?
Many act as smartins though in selecting their own ishta-devata. One does not need to be a smartin to select for oneself one's ishta-devata and approach the appropriate sampradayas specializing in worship of that deity.
One can also be syncretic without being a smarta. I'm not a smarta, but I practice trika (Shaiva), kaula (Shakta) and Gaudiya Vaishnavism. To the extent that trika and kaula are different from Advaita, I practice Advaita Vedanta. I would like to practice Vaishnava Sahajiya but have not yet had the opportunity to immerse myself or meet the appropriate guru.
One need not only look through one reality tunnel, especially where satsang is concerned. One may find oneself in the spiritual company of those of different sects who, nonetheless, are quite obviously infused with divine power and even being around them is like being drunk with realization. Should this rejected because different words and images are used to train the finite mind towards the same infinitude?
Not to Smartas if you claim to be Hindu. To a Smarta, those deities are perfectly fine to worship if you are a pagan. The emphasis is mine.
Exactly. As has been said before, and I agree with it, there is no need to go outsided Hinduism if one considers oneself Hindu.
I have no problem with Jesus or Buddha or Sri Guru Granth Sahib being great teachers, but I wouldn't and don't worship them as Hindu deities.
Uh yeah... that's a pretty safe bet.
The Fourth Amendment... a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
Jainarayan,
I don't agree with this, I think it is absolutely fine to worship whichever deity from whatever tradition. For me it is all about getting in the right mind for meditation which lead to Self Realization. If an image of a Native American feather gets you there, great. If an image of Ganesha get you there, great.
It's like Shuddhasattva said:
I may have mentioned this before, I have a photo of Harriet Tubman on my altar. She was a very devout Christian, but she is the embodiment of someone who devoted her whole life to Selfless Service in the most awe inspiring way possible.
Maya
I don't agree with this, I think it is absolutely fine to worship whichever deity from whatever tradition. For me it is all about getting in the right mind for meditation which lead to Self Realization. If an image of a Native American feather gets you there, great. If an image of Ganesha get you there, great.
It's like Shuddhasattva said:
I may have mentioned this before, I have a photo of Harriet Tubman on my altar. She was a very devout Christian, but she is the embodiment of someone who devoted her whole life to Selfless Service in the most awe inspiring way possible.
Maya
Last edited:
This is where I think I fall, syncretic at the very least, given the strictest definition of Smarta, if this article is by any stretch correct: Smartha Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If this is the true definition of Smarta, then I'm more syncretic than Smarta. "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to borrow from Jerry Seinfeld.
I can't get my head wrapped around anything other than Advaita. 
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Not Vaishishtadvaita or Shuddhadvaita?
I only meant as an orthodox/conservative Smarta. They frown on worshiping non-Hindu deities except for followers of those non-Hindu religions. For non-Hindus, they don't have any problem with other religions and deities. At least according to the Wiki definition.
Their are two types of Smartas, the old traditional types ... (you'll probably know one when you meet one), and the modern liberal Hindua heavily influenced by Smartism, but not Smarta in the truest traditional sense. In the old traditions, Smarta was the only one that has much of a syncretic approach at all.