Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

 

[KRN]

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 thesetwo 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?

Sir
I perfectly understand your sentiment. For Upanishadic scholars like you all these Aakhyayikas might not be needed (Vaacho Viglaapanam as the Upanishads say). Or as it is said for the Brahmajnanis Vedo avedo bhavati. I would never ask any Upanishadic scholar to regard MBH or BG as scripture. But I doubt if it is easy for the vast majority to reach that level.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sangom sirji's #147:

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?

The attempt to cosy up to the vedas and upanishads is pathetically artificial. Smarthas, as the very name suggests, are people who gave up sruthis and adopted smrithis as sacrosanct. Whereas Vaishnavas boldly declared that they will accept only srutis in preference to smritis and thus came the division. And smarthas when they found themselves in need of a philosophical mooring plumped for Sankara's metaphysics and declared themselves advaitins. Even Sankara did not have the advaitam of the smarthas kind in his mind when he wrote his bhashyams. And what more, when these same smarthas found themselves at loggerheads with every evolved group of the society wanted to appropriate Siva to themselves and started following some of the practices of the saivism of Tamilnadu. That the pure saivites group of Tamilnadu disowned them is a different matter. So they had to take to panchayatana puja etc., and they are ultimately neither here nor there. This is the true story of smarthas. They, among brahmins, are the group who have the least respect for vedas and upanishads as ultimate scriptures. They will always qualify it with smritis.

 

[KRN]

Sir

By not including Santhi and Anusasana Parvan stories Rajaji did a disservice to an otherwise excellent abridged version of MBH. There are many stories in these Parvas where Siva is extolled as Supreme God. In one Krishna does 12 yrs Tapas to worship Siva and gets blessed thereby a son is born to Krishna and wife Jambavathi whom they name Samba (another name of Siva)

 

[zebra16]

Sangom sirji's #147:



The attempt to cosy up to the vedas and upanishads is pathetically artificial. Smarthas, as the very name suggests, are people who gave up sruthis and adopted smrithis as sacrosanct. Whereas Vaishnavas boldly declared that they will accept only srutis in preference to smritis and thus came the division. And smarthas when they found themselves in need of a philosophical mooring plumped for Sankara's metaphysics and declared themselves advaitins. Even Sankara did not have the advaitam of the smarthas kind in his mind when he wrote his bhashyams. And what more, when these same smarthas found themselves at loggerheads with every evolved group of the society wanted to appropriate Siva to themselves and started following some of the practices of the saivism of Tamilnadu. That the pure saivites group of Tamilnadu disowned them is a different matter. So they had to take to panchayatana puja etc., and they are ultimately neither here nor there. This is the true story of smarthas. They, among brahmins, are the group who have the least respect for vedas and upanishads as ultimate scriptures. They will always qualify it with smritis.

In post after post you continue to exhibit your total ignorance of what is Sruthi and what is Smruthi. Your paramaacharya Sri Ramanuja has not a single upaniSad bhashya to his credit. You have a khichdi of Divya prabhandhams and vedas as Sruthi and have zero knowledge of what Smarthas do.

Smarthas follow the Sruthis codified by Sutrakaras like Apasthamba, Yajnavalkya etc as contrasted to your highly spurious puraNas with their additions deletions interpolations and redactions and their home made classificationas Satvika and Tamasa puraNas. Except for BG which is once again a SMRITHI if you are not aware, there is no case of Krishna being hoisted as Avatara.

In your zeal to take on a member or a few members posting, it would be wise for you to use restraint instead of calling smArthas names. Please do not assume that non posting members are ignoramuses.

 

[KRN]

Whereas Vaishnavas boldly declared that they will accept only srutis in preference to smritis and thus camethe division.

Vaagmi Sir

This is the message of Srutis.
Etameva pravrajino lokamichchantah pravrajanthi. Ethaddha sma vai tat poorve vidvamsah prajaam na kaamayanthe. kim prajayaa karishyaamo yeshaam noayam atmaayam loka iti tey ha sma putra eshanaayaascha vitta eshanayaascha loka eshanayaascha Vyuththaya Bhikshaacharyam charanthi Yaa hyeva putraishanaa saa vittaishanaa yaa vittaishanaa saa lokaishanaa Ubhe hyete eshane eva bhavatah. (Brih Up 4.4.22)

How many Vaishnavas accept and follow this Sruti?

 

[sangom]

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.

Since neither the post to which the above is a response is quoted/referred, nor addressed to anyone, I take it that this is in response to post #147 from me. Is it your case that because of the great size of the two Parvas, they automatically qualify as great scriptures, or, that because of the large sizes of these two Parvams and since you say so, it must be accepted that "the vast panorama and diversity of Indian religionus and philosophic growth" is there?

As a person who has been insisting on proof for any statement made which was not favourable to your pov, decency and gentlemanliness requires that you provide a list containing the nucleii of Indian religionus and philosophic, or the philosophies themselves which are embedded in these two Parvas and also give evidence that such religious and philosophical ideas did not exist before the time of M.Bh. For doing this, first of all, the date of the latest interpolations (spurious, inserted into the original) in M.Bh. has to be arrived at. This is because it will be impossible to certify that whatever remains in the M. Bh. may contain also such interpolations which were done very intelligently. Then it will be necessary to compare the date of the various religious and philosophical growths and establish that they are all antecedent to M. Bh.

I don't know whether any scholar has so far attempted such an exercise. Perhaps, and this is what I believe, it is more likely that the M. Bh., just like the B.G. within it, contains the contributions from different persons, professing different philosophical viewpoints, religions, etc. and what we have is a cocktail of all such contributions. If proof to the contrary is adduced, I will change my view.

 

[sangom]

Vaagmi Sir

This is the message of Srutis.
Etameva pravrajino lokamichchantah pravrajanthi. Ethaddha sma vai tat poorve vidvamsah prajaam na kaamayanthe. kim prajayaa karishyaamo yeshaam noayam atmaayam loka iti tey ha sma putra eshanaayaascha vitta eshanayaascha loka eshanayaascha Vyuththaya Bhikshaacharyam charanthi Yaa hyeva putraishanaa saa vittaishanaa yaa vittaishanaa saa lokaishanaa Ubhe hyete eshane eva bhavatah. (Brih Up 4.4.22)

How many Vaishnavas accept and follow this Sruti?

KRN Sir,

Vaagmi Sir will readily declare that Upanishads are not Sruti!!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Vaagmi Sir

This is the message of Srutis.
Etameva pravrajino lokamichchantah pravrajanthi. Ethaddha sma vai tat poorve vidvamsah prajaam na kaamayanthe. kim prajayaa karishyaamo yeshaam noayam atmaayam loka iti tey ha sma putra eshanaayaascha vitta eshanayaascha loka eshanayaascha Vyuththaya Bhikshaacharyam charanthi Yaa hyeva putraishanaa saa vittaishanaa yaa vittaishanaa saa lokaishanaa Ubhe hyete eshane eva bhavatah. (Brih Up 4.4.22)

How many Vaishnavas accept and follow this Sruti?

KRN sir, would you say the Smarthas follow this Sruti?

 

[sangom]

Sir

By not including Santhi and Anusasana Parvan stories Rajaji did a disservice to an otherwise excellent abridged version of MBH. There are many stories in these Parvas where Siva is extolled as Supreme God. In one Krishna does 12 yrs Tapas to worship Siva and gets blessed thereby a son is born to Krishna and wife Jambavathi whom they name Samba (another name of Siva)

Shri KRN Sir,

If I were a vaishnava, I will think, "Soooooo, that was why this fellow Samba brought about the utter ruin of the entire yadavas, including Krishna himself! We should never, never do tapas to demi-gods like Siva, etc., and propitiate only Sriman Narayana and his vyuhas. How nicely Vyasa Rishi has told us the correct path, without directly criticising those wretched Smarthas and Saivites!! வேணும் அந்தப் பயலுகளுக்கு, நல்லா வேணும்!! (veṇum antap payalukaḷukku, nallā veṇum!!) .

Kindly try to read and understand M. Bh. along with such very nice nuances, Sir! Then you may better understand why our forefathers, who were not unwise, did not recognise M. Bh. as an authority, but more of a tome which is best avoided except by scholars in Sanskrit.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

If I were a vaishnava....

If I were an agnostic, I too would rejoice pitting vaishnavas against saivas, smarthas against vaishnavas, theists against theists etc.

Hope vaishnavas and smarthas understand the nuances contained within Sangomji's posts at the least if not M.BH.

 

[KRN]

Sri Kalabhairava Sir

I was about to ask the same question to Sangom Sir but you preempted me.

Sangom Sir
As you said you are a follower of Sruti - may I ask - what are doing in this forum? Doing Vacham viglapanam contrary to what the Sruti says? Why havent you started your Vyuthanam?

If you are unable to put into practice what you learnt - why dont you allow the same weakness to others? What right do you have to attack bhaktas with statements like *Bhakti has led to the downfall of the country*? (As a newcomer to the forum I dont know whether there were any provocations from the other side to make you issue such statements)

You are mistaken in assuming that I am trying to make you accept that MBH or BG are scriptures. I have never tried to convert anyone but all I did was to respond to your above assertion correlating bhakti to the downfall of the country - to the best of my knowledge.

 

[sangom]

Sri Kalabhairava Sir

I was about to ask the same question to Sangom Sir but you preempted me.

Sangom Sir
As you said you are a follower of Sruti - may I ask - what are doing in this forum? Doing Vacham viglapanam contrary to what the Sruti says? Why havent you started your Vyuthanam?

If you are unable to put into practice what you learnt - why dont you allow the same weakness to others? What right do you have to attack bhaktas with statements like *Bhakti has led to the downfall of the country*? (As a newcomer to the forum I dont know whether there were any provocations from the other side to make you issue such statements)

You are mistaken in assuming that I am trying to make you accept that MBH or BG are scriptures. I have never tried to convert anyone but all I did was to respond to your above assertion correlating bhakti to the downfall of the country - to the best of my knowledge.

Shri KRN Sir,

So, at last when there is no answer, you have started going on the offensive! Good!

I never said I am a "follower" of sruti; I am an agnostic, leaning towards Advaita than any other vedanta or philosophy. I only said I am a smarta, an ordinary smarta brahmin who may or may not follow Sruti in everything in his day's work, just as you may be, for all that I can imagine. As for vācaṃ viglāpanaṃ, don't you think all of us here are engaged in this same activity only?

If I say "Bhakti has led to the downfall of the country" and it affects you so much - to this extent, the only conclusion is குற்றமுள்ள நெஞ்சு குறுகுறுக்கிறது (kuṟṟamuḷḷa neñcu kuṟukuṟukkiṟatu), what else? If you are so confident that my belief is wrong, you should have proved as to why we have been a subservient nation for many centuries and why, now that we have become independent for 67 years, we are still struggling whereas oue neighbour China has leaped up so high in about the same time (two years less, actually). Instead, you have been trying one method after another to project, somehow, a very glorious past for this sub-continent by cherry-picking some instances here and there.

It appeared to me, for the last many posts, that you were trying to impress that M. Bh. is a very valuable scripture. Hence my response. If you now say, that was not your intention, so be it; let us forget it.

 

[sangom]

If I were an agnostic, I too would rejoice pitting vaishnavas against saivas, smarthas against vaishnavas, theists against theists etc.

Hope vaishnavas and smarthas understand the nuances contained within Sangomji's posts at the least if not M.BH.

Shri KB Sir,

There was no "nuance" in my post, nor do I think vaishnavas and smartas, saivas etc., will end up fighting with each other just because of one post in a certain web forum. But the linkage is too obvious to one who knows the flow of the M. Bh. story line. Your post is a supreme example of the nuance about which you are cautioning. And, I am sure that all the readers of this Forum will know you, your usual styles and tactics as also my points of view.

 

[Vaagmi]

In post after post you continue to exhibit your total ignorance of what is Sruthi and what is Smruthi. Your paramaacharya Sri Ramanuja has not a single upaniSad bhashya to his credit. You have a khichdi of Divya prabhandhams and vedas as Sruthi and have zero knowledge of what Smarthas do.

Smarthas follow the Sruthis codified by Sutrakaras like Apasthamba, Yajnavalkya etc as contrasted to your highly spurious puraNas with their additions deletions interpolations and redactions and their home made classificationas Satvika and Tamasa puraNas. Except for BG which is once again a SMRITHI if you are not aware, there is no case of Krishna being hoisted as Avatara.

In your zeal to take on a member or a few members posting, it would be wise for you to use restraint instead of calling smArthas names. Please do not assume that non posting members are ignoramuses.

Thank you for your enlightening me about the non-posting members.

As for your assertions about the spurious puranas and non-spurious ones, will you please explain the story in the non-spurious purana of your choice which explains how aswini devas were born. Please make it public here so that the non-posting members will benefit from that knowledge. LOL. If you do not know which non-spurious holy pruna to look up to for the information, ask the inhouse intellectual here who is cynicism personified. He will help you with the story in full. Or else please let me know. I will let you know the story through P.M. It is not a story which can be publicly told here.

And please let me know why you do not call yourself a srouthi and call yourself a smartha.

God is great. But your understanding of that God is spurious. Your puranas are sleazy and spurious. Your philosophy and metaphysics are spurious to the core. So please try to learn from us so that you earn some punya and reach the God.

 

[KRN]

Sangom Sir

In one of your older messages you had stated ....
“““““ 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 also said.
“““““““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? “““““

Which led me to think that you are a practising smarta.

I have also seen you stating that advaita appeals more to the intellect - And I actually agree with you there. Be that it mayͺ to call oneself an agnostic and attack other philosophies is easier since *no philosophy is perfect* in the world!

Its not that I am upset with your statement related to bhakti- I just found it utterly illogical - and its you who failed to prove anything except making assertions and imaginative stories.

So, at last when there is no answer, you have started going on the offensive! Good!

Answer to what?
Where we left the discussion last - you said Kalidasa never quoted Rama hence Ramayana must have a later date. As your whole deductions depended on that assertion I had asked you to just peruse his magnum opus Rahghuvamsam which will be enough to correct yourself.

You asked me for proof for my statement that Rajaji in his work just passingly mentioned two big Parvans in the MBH. Thats why I gave you the quote from Rajajis work as well as the details on number of slokas in the Parvans.

 

[KRN]

Shri KRN Sir,If I were a vaishnava, I will think,"Soooooo, that was why this fellow Samba brought about the utter ruin of the entire yadavas, including Krishna himself! We should never, never do tapas to demi-gods like Siva, etc., and propitiate only Sriman Narayana and his vyuhas. How nicely Vyasa Rishi has told us the correct path, without directly criticising those wretched Smarthas and Saivites!! �2”1�2•9�2’3�2•3�2“4�2–5 �2�3�2’8�2–5�2’4�2“0�2–5 �2“0�2“5�2“8�2•3�2�9�2“9�2•3�2�9�2–5�2�9�2•3, �2’8�2“8�2–5�2“8�2•0 �2”1�2•9�2’3�2•3�2“4�2–5!! (ve�5õ5um antap payaluka�5ó9ukku, nall¨¡ve�5õ5um!!) .Kindly try to read and understand M. Bh. along with such very nice nuances, Sir! Then you may better understand why our forefathers, who were not unwise, did not recognise M. Bh. as an authority, but more of a tome which is best avoided except by scholars in Sanskrit. [/b]

Sir
I have many differences with Vaishnavas in their exclusivity. Thats why I particularly liked the MBH for its catholic nature. It shows a Siva-worshipping Durga worshipping Krishna - contrary to what some might think given the BG etc in it. For that matter even Bhagavatham says that Krushnas kuladeivam is Durga. I also totally diasgree with you that MBH is best avoided. IMO - by portraying the events that led to a cataclysmic war - it slowly takes us to Nirvedam - or Saantha rasam as Anandavardhana says in Dhvanyalokam. It gives us the detachment that is the first step to the eshana-Tyagam expected by Srutis. As for the stories - even Sankaracharya revered Krishna as god incarnate.

 

[zebra16]

Thank you for your enlightening me about the non-posting members.

As for your assertions about the spurious puranas and non-spurious ones, will you please explain the story in the non-spurious purana of your choice which explains how aswini devas were born. Please make it public here so that the non-posting members will benefit from that knowledge. LOL. If you do not know which non-spurious holy pruna to look up to for the information, ask the inhouse intellectual here who is cynicism personified. He will help you with the story in full. Or else please let me know. I will let you know the story through P.M. It is not a story which can be publicly told here.

And please let me know why you do not call yourself a srouthi and call yourself a smartha.

God is great. But your understanding of that God is spurious. Your puranas are sleazy and spurious. Your philosophy and metaphysics are spurious to the core. So please try to learn from us so that you earn some punya and reach the God.

Please stop proffering unsolicited advice as to which source to be approached for enlightenment and knowledge gathering.

And ironically your question on the Ashwins is right on the money for reasons which you are not aware of. Before asking me to refer to the spurious and non spurious puraNas, let me know if you know that the Ashwins are referred to as ***DONKEYS***** in the Sruti?. If you know the relevant sruthi post it here. If you do not know then ask me and I will post the original verses.

Sruti is too vast for vain persons, notwithstanding your claims of being a Srouthin and silly LOLs. I am not interested in smartha vs. vaishnava veeN-vAdham and polemics. So do not provoke other members unnecessarily.

And also please do not fool yourselves into believing that you are srouthi. A vaishnava is never a full time srouthi.

I let the matter rest here and hope there is not any unnecessary provocation.

 

[sarang]

agnostic zakir naik with his own negatively biased interpretation and crude translation samskrit scriptures is harmless as he is his own authority.

One octogenarian relative, returned back to his own house after a decade in an old people's home, because very few bothered to visit him there. His rantings to his visitors - I don't believe in God, I don't believe in rituals, I don't want samskaras to be done after my death, just secular cremation is enough, has prompted many to tell him point blank - then it is better to donate your body to a hospital and they will do what is necessary for safe disposal.

Another relative who was a card carrying communist and a journalist, expressed a similar wish, but his sons performed all the rituals and still do shraddham.

Though there is no explicit evidence that justice Krishna Iyer wanted ritual-free cremation, his sons did. I support the sons who defy their fathers' diktat, and do what they believe, and ensure that the fathers get 'nalgati'.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Though there is no explicit evidence that justice Krishna Iyer wanted ritual-free cremation, his sons did. I support the sons who defy their fathers' diktat, and do what they believe, and ensure that the fathers get 'nalgati'.

When I read the news about VRK's death in NDTV.com, the photograph of Justice VRK displayed shows sporting of gopi chandanam by Justice VRK. But I coultn't come to a conclusion about his actual sub sect, as the mark is not very clear. Though he was a minister in a Communist Govt., I presume he was not an atheist. But this requires confirmation from other members who know well about him.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Sir
I have many differences with Vaishnavas in their exclusivity. Thats why I particularly liked the MBH for its catholic nature. It shows a Siva-worshipping Durga worshipping Krishna - contrary to what some might think given the BG etc in it.

I have many differences with Vaishnavas in their exclusivity. Thats why I particularly liked the MBH for its catholic nature. It shows a Siva-worshipping Durga worshipping Krishna - contrary to what some might think given the BG etc in it. For that matter even Bhagavatham says that Krushnas kuladeivam is Durga. I also totally diasgree with you that MBH is best avoided. [/QUOTE]

What is the sanctity about Mahabharatha? This book, with lot of additions and deletions with equal controversies, belonged to a period when Varnasrama Dharma was in practice. It belonged to Pshatriya clan, giving primary importance to vices like war between brothers, gambling, misbehaviour with woman etc.

We are now in a civilized society being governed by various laws with mixed races and Varnasrama Dharma absolutely has no place. Hence, MBH must be treated only as an incident happened some years back (exact period is not known) which can very well be ignored or may be read to pass time, especially by senior Smarthas like me (I don't read).

Do you really think MBH has more relevant good verses about Shiva than Dhevaram, Periya Puranam, Thiruvasagam, Thiruvembavai etc.?

The more you give importance to MBH, the more will be the increase in fighting qualities and negative thinking. Already Smarthas (I believe you are a Smartha) are not united fully and each group has its own thinking. Let us not aggravate by propagating books like MBH, which will not help Smarthas in any way.

If you still believe that MBH has contents of good verses about Shiva, Ambal, please enlighten me.

 

[KRN]

In interviews published upto 10 yrs before death he has admitted his daily routine consisted of visiting the nearby temple. His books which state his views on life after death and his repeated assertions that he used to communicate with his wife after her death were popular in Kerala.

 

[KRN]

Sri Chandru Sir

All the things you state about MBH can be said about the Srutis too. Chandogya and Brih Up can be quite unwieldy. Even there we have passages where Kshatriyas have importance though they are not quarrelling. Varnasrama dharma does occupy space in MBH but it is within limits.

Sir - As I stated earlier - for one Vishnu Sahasranama there are two Siva sahasranaamas in MBH. These are regularly recited by Smartas both for their intrinsic value as well as for some graha dosha pariharas. There are many many chapters in MBH dealing with the greatness of Siva. It is simply difficult if not impossible for me to give all the details here but what I have written should be sufficient to generate interest.

Sir - this is just a superstition that reading MBH leads to quarrelsome nature. This is what comes from a very superficial understanding. The main story itself is all about how the avarice of Duryodhana led to Kulanaasam (to put it very very very simply). When you read it in detail - and I am telling you to read without any preconceptions - you can as well read it for timepass as a literary classic - it will effect a transformation in you. There are N number of upadeshams discussions on various philosophies and modes of worship. I simply cant do justice to its content in this way. Kindly read my msg posted yesterday - how it will slowly give rise to Saantha Rasam and detachment from all silly matters quarrels etc - and makes one eligible for the truths of Sruti.

 

[KRN]

There are many Siva stotrams in it. There is Durga stotram by Yudhishtira. Another Durga stotra which Krishna teaches Arjuna. There are Surya stotras. It is by reciting one of the Surya stotra that Yudhishtira gets *akshaya pathram*. As you might be knowing its story I am not writing here. Many Vishnu stotras. Stotra vedic deities like ashwini devas. Agni.... the list is huge.

 

[sarang]

Mahabharatam is a limitless ocean. I agree with you that it can transform all people who read the original or translations which are verbatim. One can always skip passages he is not comfortable with.

Sri Chandru Sir

All the things you state about MBH can be said about the Srutis too. Chandogya and Brih Up can be quite unwieldy. Even there we have passages where Kshatriyas have importance though they are not quarrelling. Varnasrama dharma does occupy space in MBH but it is within limits.

Sir - As I stated earlier - for one Vishnu Sahasranama there are two Siva sahasranaamas in MBH. These are regularly recited by Smartas both for their intrinsic value as well as for some graha dosha pariharas. There are many many chapters in MBH dealing with the greatness of Siva. It is simply difficult if not impossible for me to give all the details here but what I have written should be sufficient to generate interest.

Sir - this is just a superstition that reading MBH leads to quarrelsome nature. This is what comes from a very superficial understanding. The main story itself is all about how the avarice of Duryodhana led to Kulanaasam (to put it very very very simply). When you read it in detail - and I am telling you to read without any preconceptions - you can as well read it for timepass as a literary classic - it will effect a transformation in you. There are N number of upadeshams discussions on various philosophies and modes of worship. I simply cant do justice to its content in this way. Kindly read my msg posted yesterday - how it will slowly give rise to Saantha Rasam and detachment from all silly matters quarrels etc - and makes one eligible for the truths of Sruti.