Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[BRAHMACHARI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

is it because iyengars believe that the position of the planets do not impact their lives that navagrahas are found in few vishnu temples?

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Do Navagrahas have relevance and play any role to Horoscopes of Brahmins, including Iyengars?

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Chandru ji,

I dont take the word Ishwara too seriously becos it seems to be Multidimensional.

BTW in the Svetasvatara upanishad there is a verse that goes:


Eko Hi Rudro na dvitiyaya tasthurya
imanllokanisata isnibhih
Pratyan janamstisthati sancukocantakale
Samsrjya visva bhuvanani gopah.

meaning:

Since Rudra exists, those who know Brahman see no reason to recognize any other deity.
Rudra is he who by his powers control all the world.He is the inmost being in everyone.He creates this universe,maintains it and destroys it in the end.

So you see the term Rudra here is used to denote and almost "Brahman" like state.


That is why the more we read we get a feeling that every terminology is used in a different context as I said its multidimensional and the best of finally just abandon every Dharma as Lord Krishna says.

It is not so as far as Brahmins in South India are concerned. Only Smarthas are preferring names ending with Easwara, including the one Vaishnavite name, which I come across, Venkateswara. If it is a common name applicable to all sects, why is that Vaishnavite Brahmins are not preferring it?

 

[sangom]

I have given the URL with regard to an alternate view about the entire Bhagavad Gita itself as I am right now studying the Bhagavad Gita purely from the Traditional View point based on the Commentray of Sri Adi Shankara as explained by Swami Dayananda and his disciple Swami Paramarthananda and while I concur with the Traditional View ,I want to edcuate myself on the alternate views of Bhagavad Gita by Rationalists , Atheists , Buddhists etc . This is just for my own self enrichment .I am just a beginner to the Gita and may be in few years time I may have more information to share about Bhagavad Gita .

Shri mkrishnaji,

I have read Dr. Kamath's papers and find that there is lot of similarity in my views about BG and what the Dr.says. The only point that has not come out clearly is whether Buddhism gave the original seed for the BG. I am now re-reading the book, "Early Buddhism and the Bhagavadgeeta" by Kashinath Upadhyaya, to find out the details.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

is it because iyengars believe that the position of the planets do not impact their lives that navagrahas are found in few vishnu temples?

As per legends even Narayana in Rama Avathar is supposed to have prayed after installing the navagrhas in Devipatnam near Ramanathapuram ( Navapashanam ) You can see Iyengars visiting this please in huge numbers to perform Tharpanam.You have an iyengar Vathiar to help you out!!

 

[mkrishna100]

Shri mkrishnaji,

I have read Dr. Kamath's papers and find that there is lot of similarity in my views about BG and what the Dr.says. The only point that has not come out clearly is whether Buddhism gave the original seed for the BG. I am now re-reading the book, "Early Buddhism and the Bhagavadgeeta" by Kashinath Upadhyaya, to find out the details.

Sangomji

It is not just BG but even other ancient texts I am curious whether they were in response to the Buddhist Influence here or whether the ancient Vedic Teachings got lost in the extremely ritualistic approach of the Brahmins at that time and when Buddha Came and criticzed the rituals etc he led a war on the entire Vedic Teachings and so the good also got lost along with the bad and Adi Shankara along with Other Acharyas came to revive the same and seprated the ritual from the knowledge portion and gave a more santized version of the vedic teachings and in this process they also absorbed some of the good portions of Buddhism and added to their teachings .

 

[renuka]

If it is a common name applicable to all sects, why is that Vaishnavite Brahmins are not preferring it?

I feel we might need to ask the In-house Vaishanava turned Neelakantha Vaagmi ji on this.

 

[KRN]

Shri KRN Sir,All those commentators, Abhinavagupta (10th. century A.D.), Sankara (9th. century A.D.) and Ramanuja (11th. & 12th. century A.D.), were all very late-comers, if we grant the scholars' view that M. Bh. is a pre- Christian era composition. It is possible that the Kashmiri texts contained a few more slokas which were effectively edited out in the south indian versions of the text. Is this not possible?

Bhasa of the 3rd Cent BCE in his drama Dutavakyam shows Krishna manifesting Vishwaroopam. He has written other dramas showing the stories associated with Harivamsam and the MBH just as we know them now. Similarly as I have mentioned elsewhere Chanakya and Megasthenes of 4th BCE also mention the preponderance of Krishna worship in their time. Hence the Gita as a work closely related to Krishna must have attained canonical nature before 3rd Cent BCE. After over 2 millennia Bhasa¡®s works are found preserved intact (Quotations by later dramatists found matching) in Kerala in the remote South - despite those works not following any of the later rules of dramaturgy.This shows the level of accurate transmission and preservation of ancient texts in the South. Editions if locally made would have been caught out.

The date of Sri Shankara that you have given is subject to dispute as it is based merely on a reference to the reign of King Vikramaditya. Now there have been many Vikramadityas in India. For example there was a famous Vikramaditya who died in 457 BCE and Arab historian Alberuni who visited as late as 10th CE mentions the Vikrama Era as starting from 457 BCE. There have been a Chandragupta of the 4th CE who took upon himself the epithet Vikramaditya. The literary style of Sankaracharya indicates a simplicity that is not characteristic of the ornate style that was used by scholars of the 8th and 9th CE. The digvijayams were written much later. The only thing that can said with certainty is that his works reveal an awareness of early Buddhist and Jain philosophies. But the date of Buddha is also relative. Anyway Sankaracharya from South India who is likely to be of pre Christian era mentions other Gita commentators before him. This shows a level of intellectual discourse which is not possible unless the original work itself is considered stable.

 

[KRN]

Some how this Bhagavadgita was introduced, at some stage, into the lengthy M. Bh. with a view to launching the folk-hero Krishna into superhuman status, viz., the viswarupam episode so as to help the objectives of spreading krishna worship which was fast gaining popularity even with the higher castes. Harivamsam and bhagavatam, the two seminal texts of Krishna-cult were also rolled out to bolster krishna's avatar status. And then some people might have critically gone through the Gita and edited out those slokas which were"inconvenient" or antagonistic to theemerging philosophies.

This piece of fiction only shows your ignorance of these works as no scholar worth his salt and with some familiarity with the works Harivamsam and Bhagavatham will club them together. The literary style - the organization - the historical information inside - all point out to a period of many centuries - even millennia - between them.

The idea of Bhagavad Gita as a later introduction to the MBH originally came from Western scholars who couldnt accept that such a lengthy discussion could have taken place in the battlefield. However they themselves admitted a difficulty in that the ideas espoused by the Gita are widely scattered all over the MBH - as to rule out any interpolation of a separate work into the main one. Also it was widely accepted that the Gita must have been written after before Buddhism came into prominence. It was reluctantly accepted as a compromise that the Gita as a text grew up side by side with the growth of MBH with lots of borrowings and lendings until they were conveniently merged together. This of course was admitted as mere guesswork without evidence. However all this (including the incongruity of such a long lasting discussion in the battlefield) can be explained in other ways too.

 

[KRN]

And then some people might have critically gone through the Gita and edited out those slokas which were"inconvenient" or antagonistic to theemerging philosophies.

The interesting thing with the Gita is that it is a composition that lends itself free to interpretation by diverse philosophies without anyone needing to go into all the trouble of editing out. In fact the editing - assuming it really happened - itself could give us an interesting interpretation of the Gita - how the Gita is not all-inclusive - rather it could be *seen to be* working against some philosophy !!

2. As you are in possession of the Gita of 745 slokas please post the extra 45 slokas or a sample of them here. I am curious as to what Krishna-inconvenient or Krishna - antagonistic or anti Vishwaroopam philosophies - according to you - they represent - so much so someone thought it essential to edit them out?

As you have referred to the date of MBH you must also be knowing what the MBH stands for and how it came to the present state over centuries. To say that someone edited out verses in the MBH since they appear inconvenient or antagonistic to some philosophies is as silly as saying that since a Gorilla looks ugly let us remove it from the zoo.

 

[sangom]

Bhasa of the 3rd Cent BCE in his drama Dutavakyam shows Krishna manifesting Vishwaroopam. He has written other dramas showing the stories associated with Harivamsam and the MBH just as we know them now. Similarly as I have mentioned elsewhere Chanakya and Megasthenes of 4th BCE also mention the preponderance of Krishna worship in their time. Hence the Gita as a work closely related to Krishna must have attained canonical nature before 3rd Cent BCE. After over 2 millennia Bhasa¡®s works are found preserved intact (Quotations by later dramatists found matching) in Kerala in the remote South - despite those works not following any of the later rules of dramaturgy.This shows the level of accurate transmission and preservation of ancient texts in the South. Editions if locally made would have been caught out.

The date of Sri Shankara that you have given is subject to dispute as it is based merely on a reference to the reign of King Vikramaditya. Now there have been many Vikramadityas in India. For example there was a famous Vikramaditya who died in 457 BCE and Arab historian Alberuni who visited as late as 10th CE mentions the Vikrama Era as starting from 457 BCE. There have been a Chandragupta of the 4th CE who took upon himself the epithet Vikramaditya. The literary style of Sankaracharya indicates a simplicity that is not characteristic of the ornate style that was used by scholars of the 8th and 9th CE. The digvijayams were written much later. The only thing that can said with certainty is that his works reveal an awareness of early Buddhist and Jain philosophies. But the date of Buddha is also relative. Anyway Sankaracharya from South India who is likely to be of pre Christian era mentions other Gita commentators before him. This shows a level of intellectual discourse which is not possible unless the original work itself is considered stable.

You are very prolific when it comes to making posts, and that too perhaps from a smartphone! This way you probably outshine the scribe who took down Vyasa's dictation of the M. Bh.!!

I am very slow in typing - using only two fingers - and that was the main reason for my abandoning any attempt to reply to your avalanche of posts regarding bhakti cult emaviating the martial spirit of this land and corrupting the erstwhile vedic beliefs as well. Anyway, now I find that Dr. Kamath, the url for whose papers Shri mkrishnaji has given, also thinks on similar lines. That said, Shri KRN ji, you are very learned and it is a pleasure interacting with you.

Regarding the first para of your above post, even critics like myself hold the view that there might have been a folk hero Vasudeva of remote past whose story and worship might have been prevalent among the non-vedic (i.e., non-dwija) people there. The bhakti cult from the south, which had the ancient Tamil god mAyOn as its object of worship and adoration, spread northwards and as a result, the vasudeva cult and the mAyOn cult merged, creating the Krishna cult (Krishna means dark in Sanskrit and mAyOn in Tamil also meant the same.) and when the vedists found this cult attracting the fringe people, usually the Vaisyas, they possibly thought it better to incorporate vasudeva, krishna into their belief system and equated these two with Vishnu who became nArAyaNa, who was not at all a deity in the rigveda.

Bhasa's dramas not being edited and transmitted 100% correctly from remote Kerala, we have only the Kerala version and nothing to compare to. "Quotations by later dramatists" will not equal a complete comparison of even one play of Bhasa! I thought you will not resort to such methods, just to win an argument. ;( And, by the same token, it means that whatever the Late Ganapati Sastri unearthed might be, after all, edited versions.

Hence foreign travellers, native dramatists etc., talking about krishna does not necessarily mean that krishna had become part and parcel of the mainstream vedic religion as it is today.

Regarding Adishankara, we people in Kerala take the epigraphical record that the Kollam era was started (in 825 A.D. August-September) coinciding with Adishankara's visit to the king of Kollam. I don't know your counter to this. May be there were more than one Adi Shankara. And, because some dramas were found along with one copy of swapnavasavadattam, it is illogical to jump to conclusions like (i) all those were faithful compositions of Bhasa only, (ii) that texts were mandatorily transmitted with cent percent accuracy from north to south at a time and in a country, when vedas, the paramount scriptures had textual and swara differences amongst their numerous Shakhas.

 

[Vaagmi]

I feel we might need to ask the In-house Vaishanava turned Neelakantha Vaagmi ji on this.

Renukaji,

Because you have asked for it I am giving the answer to you only.
The answer is "I do not converse with Evangelists who come here calling themselves smarthas".

 

[sangom]

This piece of fiction only shows your ignorance of these works as no scholar worth his salt and with some familiarity with the works Harivamsam and Bhagavatham will club them together. The literary style - the organization - the historical information inside - all point out to a period of many centuries - even millennia - between them.

The idea of Bhagavad Gita as a later introduction to the MBH originally came from Western scholars who couldnt accept that such a lengthy discussion could have taken place in the battlefield. However they themselves admitted a difficulty in that the ideas espoused by the Gita are widely scattered all over the MBH - as to rule out any interpolation of a separate work into the main one. Also it was widely accepted that the Gita must have been written after before Buddhism came into prominence. It was reluctantly accepted as a compromise that the Gita as a text grew up side by side with the growth of MBH with lots of borrowings and lendings until they were conveniently merged together. This of course was admitted as mere guesswork without evidence. However all this (including the incongruity of such a long lasting discussion in the battlefield) can be explained in other ways too.

I agree I am not a sanskrit scholar who can identify and appreciate sanskrit literary styles. But despite the organization and historic information etc., is not the legend that the same vyasa composed both H.V. and M. Bh.? If so do you agree that Vyasa, the person lived for millennia and also changed his literary style as time passed?

As I have observed from your posts, you are probably a very orthodox-minded person who cannot look upon the various scriptures, puranas, itihasas, and the vedas as what they are — literary pieces at best. Hence, for you B.G. of the 700 verses has always formed part of M. Bh. right from creation and it is mentally impossible to admit that all these granthas (tomes) might have been transmitted orally for a long time till palm-leaf writing became common practice, and even thereafter, the copyists could have made honest errors or deliberate alterations etc. Interpolations, later additions of whole books, etc., will be even more unthinkable for a person of your type. The fact that long-lasting harangue amidst two armies all set for battle, could be explained away because the audience was ensured to be gullible and hence unquestioning. Anyway, Sanjaya did not, I think, get the power to read thoughts but only the ability for TV capture and transmission of the audio part only.

 

[Vaagmi]

I agree I am not a sanskrit scholar who can identify and appreciate sanskrit literary styles. But despite the organization and historic information etc., is not the legend that the same vyasa composed both H.V. and M. Bh.? If so do you agree that Vyasa, the person lived for millennia and also changed his literary style as time passed?

As I have observed from your posts, you are probably a very orthodox-minded person who cannot look upon the various scriptures, puranas, itihasas, and the vedas as what they are — literary pieces at best. Hence, for you B.G. of the 700 verses has always formed part of M. Bh. right from creation and it is mentally impossible to admit that all these granthas (tomes) might have been transmitted orally for a long time till palm-leaf writing became common practice, and even thereafter, the copyists could have made honest errors or deliberate alterations etc. Interpolations, later additions of whole books, etc., will be even more unthinkable for a person of your type. The fact that long-lasting harangue amidst two armies all set for battle, could be explained away because the audience was ensured to be gullible and hence unquestioning. Anyway, Sanjaya did not, I think, get the power to read thoughts but only the ability for TV capture and transmission of the audio part only.

When I am unable to marshal arguments to counter a member on points he has presented here, I do the next best thing. Brand him, typecast him add a tag and then put him in a pigeon hole and declare to the world at large that here is a specimen from the distant past in a pigeon hole. LOL.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

For a Muslim, who pretends to be a Vaishnavite, it is quite natural that some Smarthas will look like Christians. It is actually Namaz time.

 

[mkrishna100]

The answer is "I do not converse with Evangelists who come here calling themselves smarthas".

For a Muslim, who pretends to be a Vaishnavite, it is quite natural that some Smarthas will look like Christians. It is actually Namaz time.

So Christians and Muslims also visit and participate in TB forum . This really proves that TBs are broad minded .:rockon:

 

[sangom]

The interesting thing with the Gita is that it is a composition that lends itself free to interpretation by diverse philosophies without anyone needing to go into all the trouble of editing out. In fact the editing - assuming it really happened - itself could give us an interesting interpretation of the Gita - how the Gita is not all-inclusive - rather it could be *seen to be* working against some philosophy !!

2. As you are in possession of the Gita of 745 slokas please post the extra 45 slokas or a sample of them here. I am curious as to what Krishna-inconvenient or Krishna - antagonistic or anti Vishwaroopam philosophies - according to you - they represent - so much so someone thought it essential to edit them out?

As you have referred to the date of MBH you must also be knowing what the MBH stands for and how it came to the present state over centuries. To say that someone edited out verses in the MBH since they appear inconvenient or antagonistic to some philosophies is as silly as saying that since a Gorilla looks ugly let us remove it from the zoo.

IMO, the BG has been edited and interpolations carried out by different interest groups with the result that Krishna ends up talking of many things and Arjuna says, in one instance, "My intelligence is bewildered by Your equivocal instructions. Therefore, please tell me decisively which will be most beneficial for me." (III-2). The original scribe who wrote the Chapter was compelled to admit this much when he commenced writing Chapter III, or else Arjuna was really perplexed by Krishna's equivocation. Yet, despite Arjuna's request, Krishna carries on, chapter after chapter until it became necessary for him (Krishna) to frighten Arjuna into complete submission. I feel probably the usage சும்மா இருக்கியா, ஸொரூபத்தெக் காட்டட்டமா? (cummā irukkiyā, sorūpattek kāṭṭaṭṭamā?) might have originated from BG, after all.

It will be difficult for me to post all the 45 additional slokas here. You may like to get a copy of the book published recently; The Original Bhagavad Gita by Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya, Parimal Publications, Delhi.

M. Bh. has internal evidence of having been tampered with or abridged, etc. It will be quite easy for anyone with some working knowledge of Sanskrit to edit out verses from such a behemoth work because such deletions will rarely be noticed. Even as it was, there were many rescensions of M. Bh. and that was why the Poona (BORI) critical edition was thought of I think.

 

[KRN]

I don't see anything new in your message other than a reluctance to post the so-called edited verses. I had clearly stated "As you are in possession of the Gita of 745 slokas please post the extra 45 slokas or a sample of them here. I am curious as to what Krishna-inconvenient or Krishna - antagonistic or anti Vishwaroopam philosophies - according to you - they represent - so much so someone thought it essential to edit them out?"


So why beat around the bush? Have you really read the book? Or is it a case of much ado about nothing?

 

[KRN]

Regarding the first para of your above post, even critics like myself hold the view that there might have been a folk hero Vasudeva of remote past whose story and worship might have been prevalent among the non-vedic (i.e., non-dwija) people there. The bhakti cult from the south, which had the ancient Tamil god mAyOn as its object of worship and adoration, spread northwards and as a result, the vasudeva cult and the mAyOn cult merged, creating the Krishna cult (Krishna means dark in Sanskrit and mAyOn in Tamil also meant the same.) and when the vedists found this cult attracting the fringe people, usually the Vaisyas, they possibly thought it better to incorporate vasudeva, krishna into their belief system and equated these two with Vishnu who became nArAyaNa, who was not at all a deity in the rigveda.

Thanks for the story. As you never seem to give evidence for your assertions, I abandon all attempts at asking you how you got all this.

Bhasa's dramas not being edited and transmitted 100% correctly from remote Kerala, we have only the Kerala version and nothing to compare to. "Quotations by later dramatists" will not equal a complete comparison of even one play of Bhasa! I thought you will not resort to such methods, just to win an argument. ;( And, by the same token, it means that whatever the Late Ganapati Sastri unearthed might be, after all, edited versions.


And, because some dramas were found along with one copy of swapnavasavadattam, it is illogical to jump to conclusions like (i) all those were faithful compositions of Bhasa only, (ii) that texts were mandatorily transmitted with cent percent accuracy from north to south at a time and in a country, when vedas, the paramount scriptures had textual and swara differences amongst their numerous Shakhas.

Verification through quotations from independent sources is a standard practice of verifying the authenticity of a work. Many are the instances where this is used.

As I have stated earlier, these texts do not conform to standard rules of dramaturgy. There was every possible reason to edit them, yet in the form they appear now, they retain their unique characteristics. The fact that they were found intact in Kerala is of most significance and indicates the extreme reach of the texts.

Without doubt, as you seem to question the scholars who have accepted these dramatic texts as Bhasa's, you must have solid reasons for the same. Kindly state them.

As for the Vedas, do you mean they belong to the same period as Bhasa or the Gita?

 

[KRN]

IMO, the BG has been edited and interpolations carried out by different interest groups with the result that Krishna ends up talking of many things and Arjuna says, in one instance, "My intelligence is bewildered by Your equivocal instructions. Therefore, please tell me decisively which will be most beneficial for me." (III-2). The original scribe who wrote the Chapter was compelled to admit this much when he commenced writing Chapter III, or else Arjuna was really perplexed by Krishna's equivocation. Yet, despite Arjuna's request, Krishna carries on, chapter after chapter until it became necessary for him (Krishna) to frighten Arjuna into complete submission. I feel probably the usage சும்மா இருக்கியா, ஸொரூபத்தெக் காட்டட்டமா? (cummā irukkiyā, sorūpattek kāṭṭaṭṭamā?) might have originated from BG, after all.

Conversation via Question - Answer is a common way of sharing information in our spiritual texts. Sometimes when a different point is to be taken up, suitable questions are included, to indicate the significance of the answers coming afterwards. If you mean our texts should only be in a format dictated to an unquestioning listener, you would have to eliminate the bulk of the Upanishads, Puranas, Ithihasas, Tantras and parts of the Vedas themselves.

 

[KRN]

M. Bh. has internal evidence of having been tampered with or abridged, etc. It will be quite easy for anyone with some working knowledge of Sanskrit to edit out verses from such a behemoth work because such deletions will rarely be noticed. Even as it was, there were many rescensions of M. Bh. and that was why the Poona (BORI) critical edition was thought of I think.

I am aware that there are multiple rescensions but the point is, how many of the changes could be attributed to their being *inconvenient or antagonistic to some philosophies*?
That is against the very nature of MBH.

 

[sangom]

When I am unable to marshal arguments to counter a member on points he has presented here, I do the next best thing. Brand him, typecast him add a tag and then put him in a pigeon hole and declare to the world at large that here is a specimen from the distant past in a pigeon hole. LOL.

How come you are making such a confession! Noted for future guidance please.

 

[a-TB]

When I am unable to marshal arguments to counter a member on points he has presented here, I do the next best thing. Brand him, typecast him add a tag and then put him in a pigeon hole and declare to the world at large that here is a specimen from the distant past in a pigeon hole. LOL.

Nice expression though I do not know who all it is directed at,


In American politics President Clinton used to use the expression - 'Politics of personal destruction' being applied when one is unable to deal with the policies of the opponent.



This forum is very interesting - some people even call the other a Muslim or Christian as if those are bad words - LOL

 

[கால பைரவன்]

This forum is very interesting - some people even call the other a Muslim or Christian as if those are bad words - LOL

Dear a-TB sir,

I don't think the intention is to call "Muslims" or "Christians" bad per say; only those Muslims and Christians pretending to be Brahmins are called out. Of course, some of these may be wild shots and may not achieve anything.

The general thinking is that anything can be said or written against Brahmins as long as the critic also claims to be a brahmin. So the clamor to declare oneself a Brahmin even though it becomes quite evident in due course of time that the person declaring so despises Brahmins. This act of spitting on oneself if I may say so is not easily reconciled and so accusations such as these fall out.

 

[prasad1]

Kbji,
You seem to have taken the mantle of "defender" of brahminism or Brahmins.
Can you define what is "brahminism" or who is a "brahmin"? Just because you find fault with your child, you do not become your "child hater". We try to shape our children's views. Similarly if a TB (what ever that means) tries to bring the misguided ways of some community TB's ways, they are not TB haters.
No one appointed you (even if they did), it is just your opinion. Just because you say so, you do not become the Oracle of India, Hindu, or brahmins.

Let us get down from the lofty pedestal and stand on the ground and see the points others are making.