Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sir
I studied Sanskrit long after the Travamcore state ended. What you said of the authority of the ruler might be true of Travancore state of that time. I am not claiming nor ever claimed that these works were never altered. But the point I had emphasized and which you ignored is - none of these works were altered as per later rules of dramaturgy even
though there was every reason for doing so since these dramatic texts were regularly used over centuries for performance - along with other later dramas conforming to such rules. These are mere drama texts after all - and compared them to a work of canonical nature like Bhagavad Gita - which has been regularly commented upon by diverse philosophers and accorded the status of one among the leading texts of Hinduism - it is all the more difficult to see how the Gita has been edited as you still claim without showing the verses.

Are you saying that ideas like bhakti and Prapatti started like an atom bomb in the 8th Cent? They are found prominently in the Ramayana Harivamsam and Gita and been part and parcel of our 18 Puranas too. And these works are dated many many centuries before the 8th Cent AD. I had clearly mentioned the thousands of inscriptions like by the Gupta rulers (4th-6Th cent)�0È3 Sungas (1BCE - 1CE) and many more regional rulers wherein they declared their bhakti to deities like Siva Vishnu etc. Their coins show the deities pictures. Even you can consider Scholars like Kalidasa Bhasa Bhartruhari whose works reveal bhakti to Vishnu and Siva. I wonder why I have to repeat all this especially when you never replied 10 days back. I mentioned Lalitaditya not because he belonged to 8th CE but since he was a Sun worshipper who destroyed the Arabs. Ditto Bappa Rawal of 7th CE a Saiva. When you say bhakti and Prapatti led to the downfall of Hinduism and the country - you are effectively saying all our successful rulers (at least from the date of Bhagavad Gita onwards) were fools. Given that both Ramayana and Mahabharata are given a pre Christian date by scholars there was ample time for bhakti to Vishnu Siva etc to spread across the country.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom Sir
Thank you for the appreciation. As I have been slow in acknowledging it please accept my apologies. I do appreciate your erudition and seniority and mentioned it earlier in this thread itself. If my words have hurt you I apologise. I dont belong to any vested interest group here as you seem to indicate... nor am I against anyone. All I know of the people posting here is from what read in the past 2-3 Weeks.


I believe spirituality transcends time. I dont agree with the view that *anything in the Vedas* is more spiritual or right-er while anything in the puranas or MBH should by default be *less right* or polluted or leads to our downfall. I do admire the works for their literary beauty as well. Its just that when you make assertions without proof I dont have much value addition. Hope you cant deny that I tried my best in giving good counter examples at least a few of which might have added value.

Shri KRN Sir,

In the above post you have written,

"1. I believe spirituality transcends time.
2.I dont agree with the view that *anything in the Vedas* is more spiritual or right-er while anything in the puranas or MBH should by default be *less right* or polluted or leads to our downfall."

Are not these two statements which are "assertions without proof"? What proof have you furnished to support the many assertions which you have made similarly, in your older posts?

So, you want your assertions without any proof whatsoever, to be accepted without question, whereas, when you find assertions which go against your "pet beliefs" your rational mind leaps up immediately and aggressively, because it is the characteristic of any indoctrinated mind to behave in this manner. FYKI, the jihadists also come from the same mold, so to say!

I do not think you produced any proof or argument either to disprove my statement that the spread of the Bhakti cult, Prapatti concept, etc., did a great disservice to the various small countries of this sub-continent, nor did you prove that the opposite was the truth—viz., that, with the spread of the bhakti cult, this whole sub-continent rose up to become a group of countries which had paramount fighting spirit and that it was extremely difficult to conquer even an inch of land from this area and so all the foreign invaders and colonizers attacked and subjugated this sub-continent despite this himalayan difficulty (of subjugating the mighty, courageous and invincible warriors).

 

[Vaagmi]

post #98 by Sangom Sirji,

I said "inconvenient or antagonistic to the emerging philosophies. What I had in mind was the post-upanishadic developments like Vaishnavam, Bhakti, etc., which did not synchronize with the advaitic viewpoint of the veda/s and upanishads and not opinions against the vaishnava or krishna cults. Does it not follow that it would have been foolish to create any anti-krishna, anti-vaishnavism or anti-bhakti cult message out of the BG which had already formed part of M.Bh. which was a pro-krishna, pro-bhakti itihasa although it does not project krishna as the divine but as a human prince with a decided penchant for intimate female company right from adolescence?

When advaitam itself was a post-upanishadic development (Sankara came much later to the scriptures and he has written bhashyas to upanishads) the attempt to assert that the post- upanishadic developments like vaishnavam, bhakti etc., did not synchronize with the advaitic viewpoint of the veda/s and upanishads is just hollow-to put it politely. To understand the place of bhakti movement (not cult, stupid) the first and foremost requirement is to get out of the mindset that advaitam is the greatest ever philosophy ever happened to humanity. As long as one wallows in this mindset-being a slave to the nonsense of Universal consciousness and the whole lot of rubbish that accompanies it-there is no chance that one will ever understand anything about bhakti/love. It would be just a Eunuch speaking about multiple, synchronized orgasm. LOL.

 

[sangom]

Sir
As you asked - I have reproduced your earlier statements wherein you said some slokas are missing.from the present version of the Gita and the reason you ascribed to the so-called editing. Whether or not to post a sample from the 45 here is your decision.

I dont want to enter into another verbal joust but I cant help asking. Have you ever read the MBH fully. It is simply a huge assortment of philosophies - often mutually contradictory - and the story part is very thin - and the part occupied by Krishna is much thinner. If there is one Vishnu Sahasranama in it that we know of - by the same token there are TWO siva sahasranamas in it. There is hardly any mention of Krishnas adolescence in it - what to say about the rest pf your message. To learn about Krishnas adolescence you need to look into Harivamsam and the puranas. But then you would still keep inventing your fictional accounts.

No sir, I have not read the whole M. Bh. fully, even once. But I have read many portions of the M.Bh. as and when necessity arose, and I have also read a few critical books on M. Bh. I agree that Krishna's adolescence is not there in M.Bh. and, accordingly, I have suitably edited my post also. I am sorry for the mistake. But, irrespective of that, the central point raised by me, viz., "Does it not follow that it would have been foolish to create any anti-krishna, anti-vaishnavism or anti-bhakti cult message out of the BG which had already formed part of M.Bh. which was a pro-krishna, pro-bhakti itihasa although it does not project krishna as the divine but as a human prince?" is valid still and you are possibly evading it because you seem to excel in asking the opposite party for more info. and then finding some escape clause to further your own pov, without ever substantiating any of your own assertions. If what I write are fictional accounts, are not Harivamsam and the puranas, equally fictional? Please furnish proof that they are not, and that they are all 100% factual. Even if you do not respond, I will not be calling into question your 'intellectual honesty" because I realize your predicament of battling rationality with an indoctrinated mind. Thank you. But don't ask me for proof, again, to substantiate that Harivamsam and the puranas are fiction; it will be like asking proof to prove that a mouse is a mouse only, and not an tiger!

 

[KRN]

Sir,

Now, coming to Prapatti, itihasas etc., you had, on very similar lines made references to Lalitaditya Muktapida (8th. century) of the Kashmir's Karkotaka dynasty. When the bhakti cult itself started spreading at around this time, do you think it is like an atom bomb to make its presence felt within seconds over such a vast territory as from old Tamil Land to the north-western end of Kashmir? Either you think you can prove your point by such irrelevant propositions or else you consider the opposite party as an ignoramus. That was why I distanced myself.

When we talk about items like bhakti cult etc., it goes without saying that some period of time, a few centuries, will be required for it to spread and subdue the minds of the people irrevocably. If you look at the spread of Advaita, Visishtadvaita, etc., philosophies, you will find that neither Shankra nor Ramanuja could convert the whole lot of people as followers in one day, weeks, months, years, etc., and that it was a slow process. Hope this point is clear.

Sir - the irrelevant proposition was made by you when you concluded that the *bhakti cult* (your words - I dont agree with the phrase) started spreading only around the 8th CE. This is such an unbelievable statement coming from someone like yourself. In one single line you have exterminated all the crores of bhaktas who lived. in the scores of centuries after the MBH Ramayana Puranas etc and before 8Th cent CE.

 

[sangom]

post #98 by Sangom Sirji,



When advaitam itself was a post-upanishadic development (Sankara came much later to the scriptures and he has written bhashyas to upanishads) the attempt to assert that the post- upanishadic developments like vaishnavam, bhakti etc., did not synchronize with the advaitic viewpoint of the veda/s and upanishads is just hollow-to put it politely. To understand the place of bhakti movement (not cult, stupid) the first and foremost requirement is to get out of the mindset that advaitam is the greatest ever philosophy ever happened to humanity. As long as one wallows in this mindset-being a slave to the nonsense of Universal consciousness and the whole lot of rubbish that accompanies it-there is no chance that one will ever understand anything about bhakti/love. It would be just a Eunuch speaking about multiple, synchronized orgasm. LOL.

It is indeed a revelation to me at least, that bhakti takes the place of and works as a stand-by for multiple, synchronized orgasms!!

As to the 'cult, stupid' pronouncement, the word cult comes from the Latin Colere>Cult > Cultus (literally the "care" owed to God or gods and to temples, shrines, or churches, and cult images) which morphed later to Cult. The single godhead Narayana as its focus further adds to the applicability of the term Cult. I therefore feel there is nothing wrong or demeaning in the use of the term Cult to denote Vaishnavism or the Saivism (as different from the rest of mainstream Hinduism of today) as cults.

However, with the new "revelation" and its general acceptance by society at large, the term "movement" may become more apt to describe the cult of Vishnu, I feel ! LOL

My views on advaita, etc., will follow.

 

[KRN]

Shri KRN Sir,

In the above post you have written,

"1. I believe spirituality transcends time.
2.I dont agree with the view that *anything in the Vedas* is more spiritual or right-er while anything in the puranas or MBH should by default be *less right* or polluted or leads to our downfall."

Are not these two statements which are "assertions without proof"? What proof have you furnished to support the many assertions which you have made similarly, in your older posts?

So, you want your assertions without any proof whatsoever, to be accepted without question, whereas, when you find assertions which go against your "pet beliefs" your rational mind leaps up immediately and aggressively, because it is the characteristic of any indoctrinated mind to behave in this manner. FYKI, the jihadists also come from the same mold, so to say!

Sir
First of all I stated my belief. I never stated anywhere that you or anyone else should accept it without questioning. Pls dont put words into my mouth. By all means question my beliefs with evidence and counterexamples.

In the thread titled "poonal" you showed me my ignorance of the Sutras. I had no answer to your message.

I do not think you produced any proof or argument either to disprove my statement that the spread of the Bhakti cult, Prapatti concept, etc., did a great disservice to the various small countries of this sub-continent, nor did you prove that the opposite was the truth—viz., that, with the spread of the bhakti cult, this whole sub-continent rose up to become a group of countries which had paramount fighting spirit and that it was extremely difficult to conquer even an inch of land from this area and so all the foreign invaders and colonizers attacked and subjugated this sub-continent despite this himalayan difficulty (of subjugating the mighty, courageous and invincible warriors).

Even in the Vedic period our country had been disunited. We had Kuru and Panchala and the battle of ten kings. I can show that under the Bhakta rulers too, the border countries at times stood united successfully in common cause against the enemy. Lalitaditya's (ardent Aditya worshipper) success against the Arabs occurred because he had common cause with his dire enemy Yasovarman. Bappa Rawal (ardent Saiva) had a temporary alliance with enemy Nagabhata and that's why he had the wonderful victory against the numerically strong Arabs in the battle of Rajasthan.

This is what I showed in the other thread :
1. Bhakti and Prapatti are very old concepts. - at least as old as the last redacted date of Ramayana and Mahabharata. (which you agree is pre-Christian era)
2. Many ardent bhakta kings have achieved significant success in wars within and outside until 10th CE.
3. The simple fact that Bhaktas have been around for a millennium at least (for proof - inscriptionsͺ temples constructedͺ coinageͺ literature and maybe more) shows that we need to look elsewhere for reasons for our downfall in 10th CE.

 

[KRN]

post #98 by Sangom Sirji,



When advaitam itself was a post-upanishadic development (Sankara came much later to the scriptures and he has written bhashyas to upanishads) the attempt to assert that the post- upanishadic developments like vaishnavam, bhakti etc., did not synchronize with the advaitic viewpoint of the veda/s and upanishads is just hollow-to put it politely. To understand the place of bhakti movement (not cult, stupid) the first and foremost requirement is to get out of the mindset that advaitam is the greatest ever philosophy ever happened to humanity. As long as one wallows in this mindset-being a slave to the nonsense of Universal consciousness and the whole lot of rubbish that accompanies it-there is no chance that one will ever understand anything about bhakti/love. It would be just a Eunuch speaking about multiple, synchronized orgasm. LOL.

Vaagmi Sir,
I think there were many pre-Sankara Advaitic philosophers. Upanishads have many advaitic passages (Dwaitins might interpret them differently)

 

[a-TB]

There is this incidence stated about the appearence of Sri Krishnavatara. As you may know, Sri Krishna's parents Devaki and Vasudeva were in the prison at the time of Sri Krishna's birth. It is said that Sri Vishnu appeared before Devaki and Vasudeva and announced that he was going to be the 8th child to grow in the womb of Devaki. Owing to the power of the lord, Devaki and Vasudeva were made to forget this incident. When Sri Krishna was born, he was born with 4 arms. Upon the request of Devaki the Supreme Lord turned Himself into an ordinary child. This shows that Sri Vishnu is Sri Krishna.

I know a deep debate is going on that I do not understand. Thanks to educate me with the right story that is the basis basis of your belief

 

[Vaagmi]

It is indeed a revelation to me at least, that bhakti takes the place of and works as a stand-by for multiple, synchronized orgasms!!

So be labouring at it more. Your peculiar interpretational skills are showing themselves here.

As to the 'cult, stupid' pronouncement, the word cult comes from the Latin Colere>Cult > Cultus (literally the "care" owed to God or gods and to temples, shrines, or churches, and cult images) which morphed later to Cult. The single godhead Narayana as its focus further adds to the applicability of the term Cult. I therefore feel there is nothing wrong or demeaning in the use of the term Cult to denote Vaishnavism or the Saivism (as different from the rest of mainstream Hinduism of today) as cults.

Cult as it is understood today by common English knowing people is not from your wiki dictionary's list. So vaishnavam and saivam are not cults. There is a more respectable term for it. Religion.

 

[Vaagmi]

Vaagmi Sir,
I think there were many pre-Sankara Advaitic philosophers. Upanishads have many advaitic passages (Dwaitins might interpret them differently)

The term advaitam got coined and came into use after Sankara. Advaitam as a thought as juxtaposed to dwaitam as another branch of human thought process to understand the "given situation" might be as old as humanity/veda itself. This is my understanding of the situation.

 

[KRN]

But, irrespective of that, the central point raised by me, viz., "Does it not follow that it would have been foolish to create any anti-krishna, anti-vaishnavism or anti-bhakti cult message out of the BG which had already formed part of M.Bh. which was a pro-krishna, pro-bhakti itihasa although it does not project krishna as the divine but as a human prince?"

Sri Sangom Sir
It all depends on what you do/did mean by emerging philosophies? FYKI the MBH can be considered a pro-bhakti pro-Krishna philosophy but in the same way it can be considered a pro-Siva/Mahadeva text too. There is one episode where Krishna consoles the Pandavas and says something like *Aswatthama was able to do all this only because of the energy of Mahadeva. Noone can withstand a person imbued with Mahadevas energy* so it can be argued that Krishna admitted the superiority of Siva. Many are the chapters devoted to the greatness of Siva. There is an episode where Krishna gets blessed with a son only due to Sivas blessings after worshipping Siva intensely for 12 yrs. Siva on the other hand when worshipped by Jayadratha tells him *except for Arjuna you can defeat all Pandavas. Arjuna has Krishna with him who is invincible even to me*. The birth of Skanda and his worship is mentioned in detail. Before the battle Krishna asks Arjuna to worship Durga to get success in battle.

 

[sangom]

Sir - the irrelevant proposition was made by you when you concluded that the *bhakti cult* (your words - I dont agree with the phrase) started spreading only around the 8th CE. This is such an unbelievable statement coming from someone like yourself. In one single line you have exterminated all the crores of bhaktas who lived. in the scores of centuries after the MBH Ramayana Puranas etc and before 8Th cent CE.

I believe (please note the word 'believe'; just as you said elsewhere "I believe spirituality transcends time.") that many people over the many millennia could have devoted themselves to the worship of certain heros, divinities, demi-gods and so on. Individually each of these might have been a case of bhakti or it might have stopped being mere hero worship, I cannot say. But there are no records available to prove that crores of bhaktas lived and died before or after the Ramayana, M. Bh., Puranas, etc.

Ramayana or the characters of Ramayana are not seen in Panini's Ashtadhyayi or even in Kalidasa's works. Since you are in the habit of asking for proof, I give it below.

The Society of the Ramayana by Ananda W.P. Guruge page-39 : Abhinav Publications, New Delhi

Since Kalidasa's time is generally fixed in the 5th. century A.D., it follows that Valmiki Ramayana cannot be earlier than the 5th. century A.D. Even granting your view that many people would have been devoted to Rama right from the vedic period, it stands to reason that the number of such people would have been minuscule and that Ramayana as an itihasa and so Rama as a deity, etc., would have commenced some time later than Kalidasa's time. I therefore believe (once again) that the compilation of Valmiki- and the subsequent Adhyatma- kind of Ramayanas may have coincided with the nascent stages of the rise of the bhakti cult and its slow spread to the gangetic plains.

Mahabharata has also been dated differently by different authorities, but the one which I consider the most logical is the archeological dating (vide: Mahabharata Date based on Archaeology - varnamvarnam). Taking the date of happenings of the core M. Bh. as stated therein, as between 1100 BC-900 BC, still much research is needed to establish that the reference to Krishna therein really depicted a widespread cult centred on Krishna, and so on. As the present M. Bh. contains references to Yavana, Huna etc., its date may be the 4th. century BC and not much earlier. I have not gone into the dates of Harivamsam and Bhagavatham, but my hunch is that these two texts also would be seen to have been compiled in the second half of the first millennium AD and the bhakti cult would have got a lot of "push" on account of these two also.

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in my statement that "the bhakti cult started spreading only around the 8th CE". I was talking about its spread, whereas you perhaps imagine that the whole Jambudvipa was filled with bhaktas only from time immemmorial! I cannot help you to change your view, just as I cannot change my views in the absence of any proof to establish your 'belief'.

 

[biswa]

So be labouring at it more. Your peculiar interpretational skills are showing themselves here.



Cult as it is understood today by common English knowing people is not from your wiki dictionary's list. So vaishnavam and saivam are not cults. There is a more respectable term for it. Religion.

Whatever is out of the mainstream is denoted as a cult. If your religious belief is out of the mainstream, it can be rightfully designated as such. Typically it also refers to well-organized and extremely defensive, insular groups which revolved around one individual or concept. E.g. Hare Krishna cult, Tantric cult, Rajneesh/Osho cult.

 

[KRN]

I believe (please note the word 'believe'; just as you said elsewhere "I believe spirituality transcends time.") But there are no records available to prove that crores of bhaktas lived and died before or after the Ramayana, M. Bh., Puranas, etc.

There are written records about the wide spread of Krishna worship in the pre Christian era. I have mentioned them earlier.

Ramayana or the characters of Ramayana are not seen in Panini's Ashtadhyayi or even in Kalidasa's works. Since you are in the habit of asking for proof, I give it below.

The Society of the Ramayana by Ananda W.P. Guruge page-39 : Abhinav Publications, New Delhi

You are very much mistaken. In Raghuvamsam Kalidasa devotes entire chapters (the entire 4th Canto if I am not mistaken) to the story of Rama. In fact it is well known that Kalidasa has written Raghuvamsa Mahakavyam and one of the famous epithets of Rama is Raghu-Kula-Thilakam so how could Rama be ever ignored in the magnum opus??

Kumarasambhavam is all about Siva and Skanda worship. Vikramorvashiyam is about the story of King Purooravas in MBH. Sakunthalam is sourced from the story of Sakuntala and Dushyanta in MBH. Bhasa who is revered by Kalidasa (hence earlier than him) has also written natakas with stories borrowed from VR and MBH. The names of Bhasas natakas themselves sometimes indicate their connection with the Ithihasas.

I dont want to see any links. I am so sure because I have studied these books and have them right with me. Why dont you verify with Raghuvamsam directly instead of some websites??

Since Kalidasa's time is generally fixed in the 5th. century A.D., it follows that Valmiki Ramayana cannot be earlier than the 5th. century A.D.

Wrong. Kalidasas date is commonly fixed at 1st BCE coinciding with the reign of Agnimitra Sunga (on whose story the drama Malavikagnimitram is based) I have shown above how Kalidasa heavily borrowed from VR and MBH. So VR and MBH can be dated any number of centuries before the date of Kalidasa and certainly not after. Kalidasa mentions stories in the Uttarakandam of VR which some scholars believe to be a later addition to the original VR. This shows that VR must have attained the present form long before Kalidasa - and the non-Uttara kanda portions including the part where Vibheeshana comes with Saranaagathi to Rama much older still.

Even granting your view that many people would have been devoted to Rama right from the vedic period, it stands to reason that the number of such people would have been minuscule and that Ramayana as an itihasa and so Rama as a deity, etc., would have commenced some time later than Kalidasa's time. I therefore believe (once again) that the compilation of Valmiki- and the subsequent Adhyatma- kind of Ramayanas may have coincided with the nascent stages of the rise of the bhakti cult and its slow spread to the gangetic plains.

Already responded to. Since your entire deduction is based on an incorrect understanding that Kalidasa NEVER mentions Rama -you can easily correct yourself by perusing Raghuvamsam.

In addition there are numerous iron copper and stone insciptions from BCE to Gupta period and beyond all over India - with quotations from VR and MBH.

Mahabharata has also been dated differently by different authorities, but the one which I consider the most logical is the archeological dating (vide: Mahabharata Date based on Archaeology - varnamvarnam). Taking the date of happenings of the core M. Bh. as stated therein, as between 1100 BC-900 BC, still much research is needed to establish that the reference to Krishna therein really depicted a widespread cult centred on Krishna, and so on. As the present M. Bh. contains references to Yavana, Huna etc., its date may be the 4th. century BC and not much earlier.

Devakiputra Krishna is mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad. The slokas with references to Yavanas show only the date of last redaction and not the bulk of the textual ideas. This is accepted by all scholars. There are a lot of prose passages etc in MBH reminiscent of the early Upanishads - hence indicate a much earlier date. This is a deep topic but for our purpose its clear that MBH has come to the present state by pre Christian times (and which you too agree) which indicates a huge period (1200 yrs between 4 BCE and 8 CE) in which Bhakti can spread throughout the country.

In addition - Buddhist sources and evidence found in the subcontinent indicate that due to the proselytising efforts of King Ashoka Buddhism spread rapidly within India even to remote countries within 50 yrs of Ashoka. This shows how closely networked the various parts were. If you could admit this of Buddhism - and given the existence of all the evidence I mentioned earlier - like inscriptions temples coinage dramas scupltures - why are you reluctant to admit the spread of Bhakti too in 1200 yrs or more?

I have not gone into the dates of Harivamsam and Bhagavatham, but my hunch is that these two texts also would be seen to have been compiled in the second half of the first millennium AD and the bhakti cult would have got a lot of "push" on account of these two also.

They need to be treated very differently. You have not accounted for the major players in bhakti !! The Puranas and upapuranas - 18 + 18 = 36 in all. If my memory is correct most of them have been proved to be of ancient origin.

Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in my statement that "the bhakti cult started spreading only around the 8th CE". I was talking about its spread, whereas you perhaps imagine that the whole Jambudvipa was filled with bhaktas only from time immemmorial!

No I dont - I know for sure that bhakti for various gods and goddesses did play a huge role for many centuries before 8th CE. Its so simple really that I am amazed as to why you persist with this idea.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Sri Sangom Sir
Noone can withstand a person imbued with Mahadevas energy* so it can be argued that Krishna admitted the superiority of Siva. Many are the chapters devoted to the greatness of Siva. There is an episode where Krishna gets blessed with a son only due to Sivas blessings after worshipping Siva intensely for 12 yrs. Siva on the other hand when worshipped by Jayadratha tells him *except for Arjuna you can defeat all Pandavas. Arjuna has Krishna with him who is invincible even to me*. The birth of Skanda and his worship is mentioned in detail. Before the battle Krishna asks Arjuna to worship Durga to get success in battle.

There are contradictions in your above statement. Does Mahadeva energy mean Lord Shiva or just a strength? Krishna admitted superiority of Lord Shiva and in the last para Shiva appeared to tell 'Krishna is even invincible to me'. It seems you are trying to substantiate the theory 'ARIYUM SIVANUM ONNU' (if Krishna is an avatar of Hari) thru MBH or is getting a clear meaning from Sanskrit a difficult one?

If MBH is pro-Shiva/Mahadeva text, why is not explained so far? Till now, it is being treated only as a Vaishnavite text. Can you please clarify?

 

[KRN]

There are contradictions in your above statement. Does Mahadeva energy mean Lord Shiva or just a strength? Krishna admitted superiority of Lord Shiva and in the last para Shiva appeared to tell 'Krishna is even invincible to me'. It seems you are trying to substantiate the theory 'ARIYUM SIVANUM ONNU' (if Krishna is an avatar of Hari) thru MBH or is getting a clear meaning from Sanskrit a difficult one?

If MBH is pro-Shiva/Mahadeva text, why is not explained so far? Till now, it is being treated only as a Vaishnavite text. Can you please clarify?

Mahadeva means Siva only as explained elsewhere in the book. I just wanted to be faithful to the text as much as possible.

No MBH scholar will treat it as a Vaishnavite text alone - like you consider Bhagavatham Vishnu Puranam etc. Thats why I told you *to say that MBH was edited to remove some philosophies is like saying we removed the gorilla from the zoo as it looks ugly* (Just for conveying the idea - I worship all Gods and admire all our philosophies)

Yes there are significant chunks where Vishnu is praised but so was Siva and So are Skandha (lesser) Durga (Lesser still) Surya etc.

 

[KRN]

I am now getting some light on why there is a disconnect : Some of you have an opinion that
1) Mahabharata is just another pro-Krishna and Vaishnavite work
2) Bhakti means the bhakti started by Azhvars and Nayanmars only and not before their period

Both these ideas are totally wrong. You dont have to take my word. Independently verify with the MBH etc and the other evidence I mention above like stone and copper plate inscriptions of various Kings all over India.

 

[KRN]

No sir, I have not read the whole M. Bh. fully, even once. But I have read many portions of the M.Bh. as and when necessity arose, and I have also read a few critical books on M. Bh. I agree that Krishna's adolescence is not there in M.Bh. and, accordingly, I have suitably edited my post also. I am sorry for the mistake. But, irrespective of that, the central point raised by me, viz., "Does it not follow that it would have been foolish to create any anti-krishna, anti-vaishnavism or anti-bhakti cult message out of the BG which had already formed part of M.Bh. which was a pro-krishna, pro-bhakti itihasa although it does not project krishna as the divine but as a human prince?" is valid still and you are possibly evading it because you seem to excel in asking the opposite party for more info. and then finding some escape

Sri Sangom Sir

Earlier I ignored your query only because it seemed a little silly but after reading Sri Chandras similar query I see light. My answer is simple. There are N number of deities in the MBH and N times N philosophies in it. Your reference to the MBH as a pro-Krishna pro-Bhakti text - I would call the biggest understatement heard in recent times!! Yes pro-Krishna parts are there. Yes pro-bhakti parts are there. But such a lot more is there !!!!

 

[renuka]

As long as one wallows in this mindset-being a slave to the nonsense of Universal consciousness and the whole lot of rubbish that accompanies it-there is no chance that one will ever understand anything about bhakti/love. It would be just a Eunuch speaking about multiple, synchronized orgasm. LOL.

LOL! I cant stop laughing.

Well lets dissect what Vaagmi ji said...it seems that Bhakti/love has been compared with multiple and synchronized orgasms!

Next he says that a eunuch has no idea what multiples O's are.

But Vaagmi ji forgot that even males have no idea what a multiple O is!LOL

Therefore only females can have Bhakti/Love!

So 'Yes and Yes and Yes"....only females go to heaven!LOL

 

[renuka]

The term advaitam got coined and came into use after Sankara. Advaitam as a thought as juxtaposed to dwaitam as another branch of human thought process to understand the "given situation" might be as old as humanity/veda itself. This is my understanding of the situation.

Are you sure?

The phrase Ekam Advaitam Brahman is found in the Chandogya Upanishad.

So which came first? Shankara or the Chandogya Upanishad?

Kindly find out which pre dates the other.

 

[mkrishna100]

So which came first? Shankara or the Chandogya Upanishad?

If Shankara came before Chandogya Upanishad how could he have written a commentray on the same ? The Only possibily in such a case is that he muct have himself composed Chandogya Upanishad and written a commentray for it LOL

 

[renuka]

If Shankara came before Chandogya Upanishad how could he have written a commentray on the same ? The Only possibily in such a case is that he muct have himself composed Chandogya Upanishad and written a commentray for it LOL

Thank you..so Vaagmi ji will have to take note of this.

Chandogya Upanishad pre dates Shankara.

So Vaagmi ji..do you still want to say that the term Advaita was only coined after Shankara?

 

[zebra16]

If Shankara came before Chandogya Upanishad how could he have written a commentray on the same ? The Only possibily in such a case is that he muct have himself composed Chandogya Upanishad and written a commentray for it LOL

Or is there a possibility that Chanogya UpaniSad is a commentary on Sankara? lol

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Mahadeva means Siva only as explained elsewhere in the book. I just wanted to be faithful to the text as much as possible.

No MBH scholar will treat it as a Vaishnavite text alone - like you consider Bhagavatham Vishnu Puranam etc. Thats why I told you *to say that MBH was edited to remove some philosophies is like saying we removed the gorilla from the zoo as it looks ugly* (Just for conveying the idea - I worship all Gods and admire all our philosophies)

Yes there are significant chunks where Vishnu is praised but so was Siva and So are Skandha (lesser) Durga (Lesser still) Surya etc.

I have heard stories of Mahabharatha several times by various harikatha exponents, both Smarthas and others. Even on one occasion, did I not come across Shiva has been given equal importance by harikatha exponents like Krishna.

When Mahabharatha was first telecast in the late 1980s, in one scene, Shiva was shown as worshipping Krishna. A Veera Shaiva filed a case, but it was dismissed.

If it is a common religious text, giving importance to many Hindu Gods, Vaishnavite religious people, especially in Tamil Nadu, would not have given credence to it.

Is MBH not a Vaishnavite text? If it is not, Hindus are not being taught properly on MBH for centuries together. Then, it is nothing but hoodwinking.