Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

There is a huge chunk. of Vaishnava philosophy in MBH - and I have emphasised it earlier too. I too have listened to many Harikatha exponents. They tell stories from Bhagavatham Harivamsam and other Puranas and mention the Mahabharata stories and the philosophy like Gita too. I dont see anything wrong in it as the focus was on Vaishnava bhakti.

It is very rare to see an exposition focused solely on Mahabharata as it is such a huge work. But if you ever attended one and were informed that MBH is a Vaishnava text with no place for Siva or other gods - then I would call that hoodwinking. I very much doubt if that were the case.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

There is a huge chunk. of Vaishnava philosophy in MBH - and I have emphasised it earlier too. I too have listened to many Harikatha exponents. They tell stories from Bhagavatham Harivamsam and other Puranas and mention the Mahabharata stories and the philosophy like Gita too. I dont see anything wrong in it as the focus was on Vaishnava bhakti.

It is very rare to see an exposition focused solely on Mahabharata as it is such a huge work. But if you ever attended one and were informed that MBH is a Vaishnava text with no place for Siva or other gods - then I would call that hoodwinking. I very much doubt if that were the case.

You are sidetracking from the main subject.

There are exclusive discourses on Mahabharatha. What do the harikatha exponents say? Are they not implying Krishna as the main character? Gita is a part of Mahabharatha and what is the role of Bhagavatham and Harivamsam here. Mahabharatha has a clear diction about characters.

What is the crux of Mahabharatha? Was it not dealt with one of the avatars of Vishnu? If so, then it is a Vaishnavite text.

What is the role of Lord Shiva with Pandavas and Kauravas, who were the main characters in Mahabharatha? Is Lord Shiva their presiding deity?

My assumption is either Lord Shiva name has been inserted or the role of Krishna elevated to make him as the main character.

 

[KRN]

I am not side tracking from anything. What is the main subject that you are talking about? For the past several days I have been interacting with Sri Sangom Sir and my point is clearly mentioned in my posts if you go through them. You started responding yesterday and I replied per my understanding of your query.

 

[KRN]

There are exclusive discourses on Mahabharatha.

So you say you have attended exclusive discourses on MBH. So are you saying they never mentioned about Siva worship? Then yes I say you allowed yourself to be hoodwinked You could have gone there with a little preparation by going through MBH yourself and asked some questions.

What do the harikatha exponents say? Are they not implying Krishna as the main character? Gita is a part of Mahabharatha and what is the role of Bhagavatham and Harivamsam here.

!Sigh!
Hari katha means story of Hari. Without Bhagavatham and Harivamsam how could you ever know about the story of Hari? Hari katha is not merely about Gita nor MBH.

If you go through earlier discussions you would see my msg where I informed that Krishnas childhood or adolescence is not mentioned in MBH and for that you need to look into Bhagavatham Harivamsam etc. Based on my note Sangom ji also corrected his earlier message.

Mahabharatha has a clear diction about characters.What is the crux of Mahabharatha? Was it not dealt with one of the avatars of Vishnu? If so, then it is a Vaishnavite text.What is the role of Lord Shiva with Pandavas and Kauravas, who were the main characters in Mahabharatha? Is Lord Shiva their presiding deity?My assumption is either Lord Shiva name has been inserted or the role of Krishna elevated to make him as the main character.

You have already assumed without going through the book.

Well Mahabharata means many things. For example the story of the Bharata dynasty. But it cannot be compartmentalised into Vaishnava or Saiva. I have already explained above that the story part of the MBH is less. And the part dealing with Krishna lesser. It is far more than the story of Avatars of Vishnu. Though those topics are dealt with in detail.

 

[sangom]

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

Smt. Renuka,

I was just going through the various posts when I saw this. To tell the truth, I had the same doubt when I read Shri Vaagmi sir's very sAtvic post (!) yesterday, but I left that because I am not an authority on the subject, and thought that possibly even Vaishnava males may be effeminate, intrinsically, because they are ordained to long lifelong for janma after janma for the rAsalila with Krishna and the ratimUrccha therefrom! You have clarified the doubt in your typical "vettonnu, tundu rendu" style, Many Thanks! Still, why don't you grant that vaishnava males may have in-built sub-terranean feminism in their psyches and that is what attracted some people to Ramanuja's vaishnava cult, initially?

 

[sangom]

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.

Madam,

As you know very well, the vedas (and the Upanishads) contain both Abheda Srutis and Bheda Srutis. Sankara viewed that the Abheda Srutis were the highest truth depicting reality and accordingly interpreted very ably, by means of excellent logic, even the Bheda Srutis to prove his Advaita pov. Ramanuja, however, did not choose such a course; he did not directly interpret the Upanishads but hit upon an indirect route of composing Vedartha Samgraha. Here he elucidates his own philosophy at his own convenience, and even in interpreting the famous "Tat tvam asi" it is not a direct meaning but a somewhat convoluted effort. If Occam's razor principle is applied one will be able find the difference in approaches of the two Acharyas.

Even before Chandogyopanishad, there is the अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नं ।अहमन्नमन्नमदन्तमद्मि । अहं विश्वं भुवनमभ्यभवाम् । (ahamannamahamannamahamannaṃ |ahamannamannamadantamadmi | ahaṃ viśvaṃ bhuvanamabhyabhavām |)
in the Taittireeyopanishat which depicts the mind of one who has attained Brahmaanubhuti. For a mind/intellect which does not have difficulty in grasping an abstract idea like Nirguna Parabrahmam, Advaita will always appeal as more truthful, whereas, for minds/intellects which cannot get away from senses and sense-objects and their so-called reality, either Visishtadvaita or Dwaita will appeal more. It is simply a question of getting out of the feeling of "I"-ness; as long as "I"-ness continues to control, the senses, sense objects and the jagat depicted by the senses will seem to be "real" and not illusory.

 

[sangom]

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.

Shri KRN Sir,

I think you once told the forum that you are not a vaishnavite but that you are fond of reading bhagavatham. As you may know, I am a pretty old smartha. We smarthas did not even allow parayana (simple reading, I mean, without any religious paraphernalia) of M. Bh. in our houses as it was believed by the smarthas that reading M. Bh. in the house is inauspicious and will bring in fight among siblings (தாயாதிச் சண்டை) and will cause ultimate Kulanaasam as happened to the Kurus.

Hence, as children we did not even see any M. Bh. book or palm leaf grantha. Even B.G. was not permitted to be read in home and the orthodox old males in our households used to go, after their usual morning devapooja, to the banyan tree platform (அரசமரத்தடி). I don't know why they could not read the BG inside the temple Mandapam; may be that too was prohibited.

You see, thus, M. Bh. and its constituent B.G. were not considered as auspicious scriptures among smartas. After Independence, and by about the late 1950's or so, the B.G. began to get more publicity and therefore, more notice from the public, including the smarta brahmins, and I believe it was mainly due to the publicity given to it by Chinmayananda. He was a Menon from the erstwhile Cochin state and so obviously he was successful in getting a large audience especially from among the Nair and similar castes/groups, but, even then the smarta tabra community was not much influenced by him. Slowly, however, ( as I said in the case of the bhakti cult) a number of tabras from the then Bombay started becoming Chinmaya Mission activists and their influence back home in Kerala also caused many tabra smartas to become Chinmaya disciples, activists, etc., and consequently B.G. also became a very respected scripture.

This being the development, old smartas like myself do attach more importance to the original vedas and Upanishads and also our smritis rather than to M. Bh. or B.G.

You belong perhaps to the post-1980's generation and have been brought up amidst a society in which M.Bh., BG, many swamijis/gurus, yoga classes, bhakti etc., are hogging the limelight of spirituality. But these were not the surroundings some 50 or more years ago and I am one who has lived through this transition. Our older system rested more upon a sort of Karma Yoga (and not Bhakti Yoga) and under that dispensation God had His own revered place but the subservient attitude was prominent by its absence. It was leaning more towards the vedic belief system which held that if one did such-and-such-yajna, the concerned deva or deity was bound to be pleased and hence bound to grant us the boons we are asking for.

Hence, I agree that both the points given by you are, more or less, true. However, just because you say M. Bh. has to be looked upon as a scriptural authority, how can you expect people like myself to be convinced of it?
As regards Bhakti, mostly the term Bhakti cult is used to denote the bhakti cult propagated by the Azhvars and the Nayanmars. Even if bhaktas were there before these Azhvars and Nayanmar, it does not mean that that Bhakti cult was the mainstream religion of even the Kuru-Panchala regions where the story of M. Bh. gets acted out, let alone the whole sub-continent.

 

[mkrishna100]

After Independence, and by about the late 1950's or so, the B.G. began to get more publicity and therefore, more notice from the public, including the smarta brahmins, and I believe it was mainly due to the publicity given to it by Chinmayananda.

I would like to add that Pre Independence 2 great revolutionaries Bal Gangadhar Tilak's GEETHA RAHASYA and Aurobindo's ESSAYS ON GITA were quite popular among the people who were involved in the freedom struggle and both of them stressed upon the KARMA YOGA part ( as both of them belonged to the Extremist Group of the Freedom Struggle ) more but after Gandhi Came in to the National scene the extremists were sidelined and many also died and Aurobindo went in to seclusion and became a Saint and Titalk's and Aurobindo's Gita also took a backseat but Gandhi also used GITA as a source of spiritual insipration for him and he had his own version of Gita which also stressed on KARMA YOGA but not on the lines of Aurobindo and Tilak .

 

[renuka]

. For a mind/intellect which does not have difficulty in grasping an abstract idea like Nirguna Parabrahmam, Advaita will always appeal as more truthful, whereas, for minds/intellects which cannot get away from senses and sense-objects and their so-called reality, either Visishtadvaita or Dwaita will appeal more.

Dear Sangom ji,

I will have to agree here..Vishistadvaita/Dvaitam sort of allows a 50% 50% situation..that is 50% of the time there is a Bhakti frenzy and the rest of 50% time is in worldy pursuits.

Its this 50% Bhakti frenzy that gives many a mistaken notion that they have charted the flight to a Higher Realm.

 

[sangom]

There is a huge chunk. of Vaishnava philosophy in MBH - and I have emphasised it earlier too. I too have listened to many Harikatha exponents. They tell stories from Bhagavatham Harivamsam and other Puranas and mention the Mahabharata stories and the philosophy like Gita too. I dont see anything wrong in it as the focus was on Vaishnava bhakti.

It is very rare to see an exposition focused solely on Mahabharata as it is such a huge work. But if you ever attended one and were informed that MBH is a Vaishnava text with no place for Siva or other gods - then I would call that hoodwinking. I very much doubt if that were the case.

"with no place for Siva or other gods" : I would like to say that there is a certain set pattern in so far as our puranas are concerned; I look upon M. Bh. as another purana which has earned the epithet of itihasa, that's all. Of course, M.Bh. may not be satisfying the Panchalakshanas required of Puranas, but that is another topic.

The overall impression which I get, upon reading the Mahabharata as retold by C. Rajagopalachari or upon reading many of the plots of the epic, is that it is a story of a mighty royal family's decline and almost complete annihilation, just because of sibling enmity. Many many sub-plots and loosely connected stories might be there, but those are all not the crucial theme running all through the composition. At the end, the two sides go to war against each other, to claim a piece of land as theirs. Right in the middle of the battlefield the most valorous of one faction gets a doubt whether such a war is worth its losses and whether it is not better to patch up with the opposite side which has the pitamaha, the teacher, the siblings (cousins) and many other revered personalities arrayed against him. At that juncture, the bosom companion of this mighty warrior persuades him by means of a long, confusingly contradictory, philosophic-looking, unduly long lecture, to fight on and win the war. When the warrior was still undecided, this companion somehow manages to show a forbidding form of himself and frightens the warrior into submitting to his opinion. The war is fought with all its characteristic cruelty, tricks of war, stratagems, etc., and a very heavy price (1 billion, 660 million and 20,000— roughly, one-sixth of the world population today!) with 240,165 survivors.

The winners rule for some years and finally ascend the himalays in their endeavour to go to heaven in the physical bodies, but all but one fail in that.

In this core story, there are references to different gods, goddesses, etc., but the overriding impact comes from the character of the yadava prince Krishna who, ultimately, reveals himself to be the One Supreme God or Parabrahman; all other gods and goddesses lie by the wayside, so to say. It is precisely due to this reason that M. Bh. is looked upon as a Krishnite text, and that is why M. Bh. has become one of the authoritative scriptural texts for the Vaishnavites. This is what I believe.

 

[sangom]

I would like to add that Pre Independence 2 great revolutionaries Bal Gangadhar Tilak's GEETHA RAHASYA and Aurobindo's ESSAYS ON GITA were quite popular among the people who were involved in the freedom struggle and both of them stressed upon the KARMA YOGA part ( as both of them belonged to the Extremist Group of the Freedom Struggle ) more but after Gandhi Came in to the National scene the extremists were sidelined and many also died and Aurobindo went in to seclusion and became a Saint and Titalk's and Aurobindo's Gita also took a backseat but Gandhi also used GITA as a source of spiritual insipration for him and he had his own version of Gita which also stressed on KARMA YOGA but not on the lines of Aurobindo and Tilak .

Shri Krishna Sir,

What you say is perfectly right, but pre-independence, in Kerala or T.N., I believe the names of Tilak or Aurobindo were not exactly popular, although because of the wider spread of Congress Party among TN brahmins, the name of Tilak was known in some parts, and even Tilak Vidyalaya was started in Kallidaikurichi. But apart from that Tilak's or Aurobindo's works on BG were more or less unknown to the common people; why, even BG was not known to many tabras who were more conversant with the mantra and vaideeka books in grantham.

 

[sangom]

So you say you have attended exclusive discourses on MBH. So are you saying they never mentioned about Siva worship? Then yes I say you allowed yourself to be hoodwinked You could have gone there with a little preparation by going through MBH yourself and asked some questions.



!Sigh!
Hari katha means story of Hari. Without Bhagavatham and Harivamsam how could you ever know about the story of Hari? Hari katha is not merely about Gita nor MBH.

If you go through earlier discussions you would see my msg where I informed that Krishnas childhood or adolescence is not mentioned in MBH and for that you need to look into Bhagavatham Harivamsam etc. Based on my note Sangom ji also corrected his earlier message.




You have already assumed without going through the book.

Well Mahabharata means many things. For example the story of the Bharata dynasty. But it cannot be compartmentalised into Vaishnava or Saiva. I have already explained above that the story part of the MBH is less. And the part dealing with Krishna lesser. It is far more than the story of Avatars of Vishnu. Though those topics are dealt with in detail.

Shri KRN,

The crucial point is whether Vaishnavites consider M. Bh. as one of their authoritative scriptures? If so, why? Is it because M. Bh. talks about many gods including Siva, Kirata, Durga, etc?

 

[JR]

For a mind/intellect which does not have difficulty in grasping an abstract idea like Nirguna Parabrahmam, Advaita will always appeal as more truthful, whereas, for minds/intellects which cannot get away from senses and sense-objects and their so-called reality, either Visishtadvaita or Dwaita will appeal more. It is simply a question of getting out of the feeling of "I"-ness; as long as "I"-ness continues to control, the senses, sense objects and the jagat depicted by the senses will seem to be "real" and not illusory.

Namaste Sangom sir,

I do not really believe that Sri Ramanujacharya isn't / wasn't capable of thinking in abstract term and that is why he propounded the Vishishtadvaita philosophy. (So also his adherents and disciples such as the great Parashara Bhatta and so forth whose literary contributions to humanity are profound). It is because that Ramanuja did not find truth in the Advaita philosophy that he propounded the Vishishtadvaita philosophy. There is nothing wrong in that. (Wrong in the sense, propounding something else as accurate because one is not able to grasp the truth in another philosophy). Afteral, Sri Ramanujacharya wrote the bhashya to Brahmasutras in 1 single night, which shows his 'brilliance'.

Also, Sri Vaishnavam is not a 'cult' started by Ramanuja. It is a 'sampradaya' that started with mother Sri (Mahalakshmi). There was a long line of followers to it before Ramanujacharya himself including Nammazhwar, Madhurakavi Azhwar, Sri Nathamunigal, Uyyakkondar, Manakkal Nambigal, Sri Alavandar and so forth. The right word to Vaishnavam (and Shaivam too) are 'sampradaya', 'sect', 'religion' and not 'cult'.

Thanks,

JR

 

[Vaagmi]

Originally Posted by sangom
. For a mind/intellect which does not have difficulty in grasping an abstract idea like Nirguna Parabrahmam, Advaita will always appeal as more truthful, whereas, for minds/intellects which cannot get away from senses and sense-objects and their so-called reality, either Visishtadvaita or Dwaita will appeal more.

Dear Sangom ji,

I will have to agree here..Vishistadvaita/Dvaitam sort of allows a 50% 50% situation..that is 50% of the time there is a Bhakti frenzy and the rest of 50% time is in worldy pursuits.

Its this 50% Bhakti frenzy that gives many a mistaken notion that they have charted the flight to a Higher Realm.

The power of Shunya. LOL.

 

[sangom]

Namaste Sangom sir,

I do not really believe that Sri Ramanujacharya isn't / wasn't capable of thinking in abstract term and that is why he propounded the Vishishtadvaita philosophy. (So also his adherents and disciples such as the great Parashara Bhatta and so forth whose literary contributions to humanity are profound). It is because that Ramanuja did not find truth in the Advaita philosophy that he propounded the Vishishtadvaita philosophy. There is nothing wrong in that. (Wrong in the sense, propounding something else as accurate because one is not able to grasp the truth in another philosophy). Afteral, Sri Ramanujacharya wrote the bhashya to Brahmasutras in 1 single night, which shows his 'brilliance'.

Also, Sri Vaishnavam is not a 'cult' started by Ramanuja. It is a 'sampradaya' that started with mother Sri (Mahalakshmi). There was a long line of followers to it before Ramanujacharya himself including Nammazhwar, Madhurakavi Azhwar, Sri Nathamunigal, Uyyakkondar, Manakkal Nambigal, Sri Alavandar and so forth. The right word to Vaishnavam (and Shaivam too) are 'sampradaya', 'sect', 'religion' and not 'cult'.

Thanks,

JR

Smt. JR,

I have not said that Ramanujacharya was incapable of "thinking in abstract terms" but my observation was that
"For a mind/intellect which does not have difficulty in grasping an abstract idea like Nirguna Parabrahmam, Advaita will always appeal". It means that the advaita taught by his guru Yadavaprakasa did not appeal to Ramanuja, since he had probably been already influenced by a different kind of belief in which a personal god reigned supreme, instead of the nirguna parabrahman. Whether there is something wrong in advaitam or whether visishtadvaitam is the correct thing, nobody knows, including perhaps Sankara, Ramanuja, etc. They simply propounded their assumptions and because the circumstances were fabourable to them, they became revered acharyas whereas poor Chaarvaaka was reduced to ashes along with all his works because the circumstances were unfavourable to him. It is that power which dispenses such justices (or, injustices, as one may consider) which is the REAL TRUTH and I for one believe that even the acharyas were like the blind men describing the elephant.

Now that you have already agreed that "There is nothing wrong in that. (Wrong in the sense, propounding something else as accurate because one is not able to grasp the truth in another philosophy).", I feel you will grant me the permission to propound my above view (viz., that none of the acharyas has really found the Truth but were merely expounding whatever philosophy appealed to them personally). And, incidentally you admit that Ramanuja was not able to grasp the truth in advaitam and so he propounded his visishtadvaitam. Is not that the gist of what I said in my post?

I observe that there is some stigma attached to the word "cult" but I fail to understand why so. The main religious belief system of India has been called as hinduism and it is generally called as a religion. Both Vaishnavam and Saivism are offshoots, if I may say so, of the ancient vedic belief system modified by the influence of Tantra, to some extent. While Vaishnavam revolves around its central godhead vishnu, Saivam revolves around its only godhead siva. Hinduism, on the other hand has a wide array of deities, devas, gods, goddesses and even demi- and minor godheads numbering hundreds if not thousands. FYKI, this thread itself poses the original question, "Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?" and one of the answers was to the effect that for vaishnavites, vishnu is the supreme god and worshipping Him alone would suffice and that there is no need to specially worship the navagrahs who are but subsidiary and subservient to vishnu. Any belief system centred around one such entity/personality and not permitting worship of any other deity, godhead or deva, is generally known as a cult only. When we come to the thenkalai-vadakalai split within this vaishnava cult, the word schism is used. I personally don't understand what is the objection to the use of the word cult to denote vaishnavism; do you feel doubts regarding the existence of only one god Sriman Narayana, when, for the whole outside world, there is a huge Mall full of various types of gods and goddesses to worship?

I would like to know the reasons why the epithet sampradaya will better describe vaishnavam than the adjective cult?

 

[JR]

Namaste Sangom sir,

Sampradaya -- That which comes in a lineage, a 'parampara' or system of knowledge propogation through disciple succession and which includes teaching and understanding of principles that come from ancient times.

Cult -- More like a one-man show where the leader most likely influences his followers into socially-unacceptable and destructive thinking at times. More specifically, a cult is a one-man show where the leader influences the psyche of his followers to the point one loses his/her ability to free/rational thinking and questioning.

 

[KRN]

Shri KRN,

The crucial point is whether Vaishnavites consider M. Bh. as one of their authoritative scriptures? If so, why? Is it because M. Bh. talks about many gods including Siva, Kirata, Durga, etc?

If you need the Vaishnavite perspective on this you would need to ask one as to how much authority he gives to the text MBH - and how he would interpret the passages in MBH dealing with Siva worship etc. As a person who worships Vishnu and Siva and the rest of the Gods - I dont find any problem here.

 

[KRN]

Sir Sangom Sir

It was nice reading about the situation in your childhood. I have heard pretty much the same from my father too. I do belong to the 80“s generation and read all scriptures but am not into Gurus etc. Thank you for the detailed response to my messages Sir.

 

[KRN]

Sri Sangom

I have read C Rajagopalacharis book on the MBH and VR. They are masterly abridgements of the main texts. They provide a smooth grasp of the storyline. However as a scripture or as a philosophic text - as you know the MBH is far more than that. The Santi Parvam and Anusasana Parvam together occupy the bulk of MBH whereas I think Rajaji just cursorily mentions them in passing - undoubtedly to preserve the readability of the text. But it is precisely there that we find the vast panorama and diversity of Indian religionus and philosophic growth.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Hari katha means story of Hari. Without Bhagavatham and Harivamsam how could you ever know about the story of Hari? Hari katha is not merely about Gita nor MBH.

The name Harikatha came into existence since initially story telling was related to Hari only (Krishna or Vishnu). Hence, the name Harikatha. Subsequently, other deities are also included. Till mid 1950, in AP, story telling was more predominant than classical music. It is said both men and women used to perform Harikatha.

Well Mahabharata means many things. For example the story of the Bharata dynasty. But it cannot be compartmentalised into Vaishnava or Saiva. I have already explained above that the story part of the MBH is less. And the part dealing with Krishna lesser. It is far more than the story of Avatars of Vishnu. Though those topics are dealt with in detail.

A big man-made epic like Mahabharatha naturally will have so many in built topics. But the question is which topic gained prominence. I feel the importance rests with Pandavas and Gauravas with the story of Krishna as an avatar. This stand is also being taken by Vibhudhi sporting Sankara Mutts, portraying as worshippers of Lord Shiva and treating Adi Shankara an avatar of Lord Shiva. These Mutt Heads never speak about the importance of Lord Shiva's role in Mahabharatha. They also give importance only to the role of Krishna in Mahabharatha.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

If you remove portions revolving around Siva worship the MBH story itself will lose balance. There is an episode of Arjuna doing huge Tapas for worshipping Siva which leads to Kiratharjuneeyam (used by Bharavi to write his Mahakavyam Kiratharjuneeyam one of the 5 Mahakavyas in Sanskrit). Then you will have to remove Urvashi shapam on Arjuna. Then the question of how Arjuna came to be riding the chariot of Uttara. And how Arjuna is recognized by Kauravas etc. I have also mentioned some other parts of the story where Siva makes his appearance.

Vishnu Sahasranama in MBH is much revered by all Vishnu worshippers. In the same place there are two Siva sahasranamas. Saivas recite these sahasranamas regularly. Even the astrological treatise Brhat Parasara horasastra recommends reciting Siva sahasranama for Jupiter afflictions in a persons horoscope.

Dear KRN,

Hope people find your posts in this thread illuminating.

It is amusing to note that an epic such as MBH becomes disagreeable to some Hindus purely because it is revered by Vaishnavites. It is like cutting one's nose to spite the face.

 

[sangom]

Sri Sangom

I have read C Rajagopalacharis book on the MBH and VR. They are masterly abridgements of the main texts. They provide a smooth grasp of the storyline. However as a scripture or as a philosophic text - as you know the MBH is far more than that. The Santi Parvam and Anusasana Parvam together occupy the bulk of MBH whereas I think Rajaji just cursorily mentions them in passing - undoubtedly to preserve the readability of the text. But it is precisely there that we find the vast panorama and diversity of Indian religionus and philosophic growth.

Shri KRN Sir,

The point that I am making is this. Vaishnavites consider M. Bh. and the B.G. in it as their authoritative scriptures. For them the vedas and Upanishads are not as authoritative as their Tamil sacred literature. We need not go into the reasons therefor. (B.G. also became one of the Prasthaanatraya, and I believe this happened because unless it was proven that a particular philosophical pov was indeed supported by BG, it could not gain acceptance from all quarters of the scholarly brahmana community in those days. Hence Adi Shankara had to write his commentary on the Gita and he was able to establish his advaita philosophy on a firm footing.)

You have said as under:
"The Santi Parvam and Anusasana Parvam together occupy the bulk of MBH whereas I think Rajaji just cursorily mentions them in passing - undoubtedly to preserve the readability of the text. But it is precisely there that we find the vast panorama and diversity of Indian religionus and philosophic growth."
The above statement will need proof, as per your own tenets, unless it is your personal belief only.

So, when we smartas have the vedas and upanishads which are, together, known as Sruti, why is it necessary at all for us to compulsorily regard M.Bh. or BG as a scripture? Let us leave these two to the vaishnavites themselves. Or is this also a fall-out of the so-called bhakti phenomenon : bhakti not only to the god but also to the books of hagiology about him?

 

[KRN]

Sir

As I am travelling I dont have access to MBH original text - though I can still manage to connect to the internet with my smartphone. Hence perforce I will have to resort to websites (Wikipedia).

Wikipedia article on MBH Santi Parvan says :

Debroy, in 2011, notes[8]that updated critical edition of Shanti Parva, after removing verses and chapters generally acceptedso far as spurious and inserted into the original, has 3 sub-books, 353 adhyayas (chapters) and 13,006 shlokas (verses).

Wikipedia article on Anusasana Parvan says :

Debroy, in 2011, notes[5]that updated critical edition of Anushasana Parva, after removing verses and chapters generally acceptedso far as spurious and inserted into the original, has 2 sub-books, 154 adhyayas (chapters) and 6,493 shlokas (verses).

Together these Parvams coming one after the other occupy 19499 verses in all.

In comparison Srimad Bhagavatham occupies 335 chapters and 18000 verses.

Valmiki Ramayana occupies about 24000 verses in 7 Kandas. If we temporarily remove the Uttara Kandam (5000 verses) which tells the tale after the coronation of Rama - we would be left with 19000 verses.

Together - the Santi and Anusasana Parvas is bigger than Bhagavatham or the VR upto the death of Ravana and subsequent coronation of Rama.

 

[sarang]

You are not correct. Divya prabandam, especially Nmmazhwar's are treated as tamil version of vedas, simplified for access and understanding. They do not contradict vedas; in fact all acharyas have said that complex and hidden truths in vedas are well understood when one studied azhwars. They are treated as two eyes, and divya prabandam does not contradict vedas.

You are letting your imagination run wild and itihasa, puranas and smrutis are referred to clear doubts and when dealing with concepts not found in vedas, upanishad, brahma sutras, bhavad gita.

Shri KRN Sir,

The point that I am making is this. Vaishnavites consider M. Bh. and the B.G. in it as their authoritative scriptures. For them the vedas and Upanishads are not as authoritative as their Tamil sacred literature. We need not go into the reasons therefor. (B.G. also became one of the Prasthaanatraya, and I believe this happened because unless it was proven that a particular philosophical pov was indeed supported by BG, it could not gain acceptance from all quarters of the scholarly brahmana community in those days. Hence Adi Shankara had to write his commentary on the Gita and he was able to establish his advaita philosophy on a firm footing.)

You have said as under:
"The Santi Parvam and Anusasana Parvam together occupy the bulk of MBH whereas I think Rajaji just cursorily mentions them in passing - undoubtedly to preserve the readability of the text. But it is precisely there that we find the vast panorama and diversity of Indian religionus and philosophic growth."
The above statement will need proof, as per your own tenets, unless it is your personal belief only.

So, when we smartas have the vedas and upanishads which are, together, known as Sruti, why is it necessary at all for us to compulsorily regard M.Bh. or BG as a scripture? Let us leave these two to the vaishnavites themselves. Or is this also a fall-out of the so-called bhakti phenomenon : bhakti not only to the god but also to the books of hagiology about him?

 

[KRN]

Rajajis book on Mahabharata has 106 Chapters in all.Chapter 98 is titled “Yudhishthira Comforted“.

Therein we find the below paragraph.

Yudhishthira was duly crowned at Hastinapura. Before taking up the duties of the State, Yudhishthira went to where Bhishma lay on his bed of arrows awaiting his death, and took his blessing and instruction in dharma. This instruction of Bhishmacharya to king Yudhishthira is the famous Santiparva of the Mahabharata. After the discourse was over, Bhishma's soul passed out. The king went to the Ganga and offered libations in accordance with ancient custom, for the peace of the departed soul.

Thats all!!
About a massive chunk of sloka text - and NO mention of Anusasana Parvam even by name!!