Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[biswa]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Yes, I agree with JR ji, that insults and ridicule should not be the order of the day. But I question monotheistic Vaishnavas as well as Shaivas precisely for this reason.

No regular Hindu would be insulting either Shiva or Vishnu because they would be scared of a divine curse. But anybody who says that my God is the only true God and everybody else has false faith is inviting trouble. All the religious conflict in the world is because of monotheism and that is what I hope Hinduism stays away from.

 

[renuka]

. Another member called Pancha Pandavas as "pimps" (maama pasanga) in another thread (all Vaishnava acharyas and Vaishnavas believe the pandavas as virtuous people) and then she said that our Acharya Sri Ramanuja's guru Yadava Prakasa did not plot for killing Ramanuja and it is all the "imagination" and "handiwork" of us Vaishnavas and in yet another thread called all Vishishtadvaitins as "dim-witted, less intelligent", etc... One can chastise such attitudes in the TB forum first, IMO.

PS: Ofcourse one can speak out one's heart, but it should not offend others following a particular faith!

dear JR,

As far as I know that member did NOT call the Pandavas PIMPS..that member called them WHIMPS.

WHIMPS is not the Mama Pasanga as you wrote.

WHIMPS means cowards/weaklings who do not have guts..becos you see they did not stand up for the wife when she was being disrobed.

I think you have misread WHIMPS as PIMPS.

You can go back to that thread and look for the word PIMPS and you will never find it cos it was never typed in the first place.

Then that member felt that Yadav Prakash was trying to help Ramanuja get over his Vishnu fixation.

That dim witted less intelligent post is subject to interpretation..I think you are talking about the AI thread where that member recommended to make a Dualist AI instead.

In fact that member did not type the word Vishisthadvaita AI and neither was the word dim-witted or less intelligent used.In fact that member was explaining the risk of an Advaita AI which might just terminate the human race and a comparison of the quantity of synapses were done too.

The member used the word Dualism becos Dualism can mean anything ranging from Vishisthadvaita of Ramanuja or Dvaita of Madhavacharya or even Abrahamic religions.

It was another member who always has a cuckoo outside his window telling him something or the other who assumed that the Dualism only meant Vishisthadvaita.

 

[biswa]

I have read the Mahabharata so many times, and I have never thought of Pandavas as Vaishnava icons. So this is news to me. Whether they were good people, bad people or regular people can be debated. Just like real life the story has many shades of gray and that is the beauty of it.

 

[renuka]

I have read the Mahabharata so many times, and I have never thought of Pandavas as Vaishnava icons. So this is news to me. Whether they were good people, bad people or regular people can be debated. Just like real life the story has many shades of gray and that is the beauty of it.

This I surely have to agree..I too never thought of Pandavas as Vaishnava Icons cos the best example is Arjuna who did Tapasya to win over the favour of Lord Shiva to get the Pasupatha weapon...in the famous Kiratarjuniya.

The Pandavas did not seem to only worship Lord Vishnu.

 

[JR]

Dear Renuka,

Thank you for the clarification. However,

1. 'Maama' in Tamil language means only 'pimps' not 'whimps'.

2. Such an explanation (that Yadava Prakasa did all that he did to Ramanuja to 'correct' Ramanuja from Vishnu bhakti) is not recorded in history for a fact.

3. Thanks for the clarification.

@Biswa:

Pl. listen to Sh. Velukkudi Krishnan Swami's and Prof. Ilampirai Manimaaran's upanyasas, they offer the Vaishnava take on Pandavas, which are also supposedly from the Vaishnava text of Mahabharata.

 

[renuka]

1. 'Maama' in Tamil language means only 'pimps' not 'whimps'.

.

Dear JR,

Thank you for understanding the situation.

Maama in Tamil language as far as I know means:

1)Mother's brother

2)Also used to address married TB males.


The Maama meaning PIMP must be a corruption or slang word and does not find its place in pure Tamil.

The real Tamil word for pimp is வழங்கி.

 

[biswa]

Sure there could be a Vaishnava version of something, but that does not automatically make the subject Vaishnava. Of course everybody wants to pull the hero in their camp. Mahabharata is quite neutral, hence I questioned your original characterization of both Ramayana and Mahabharata as Vaishnava epics.

If a Vaishnava person sings praises of Narendra Modi, does that make Modi an avatar of Vishnu?

 

[Raji Ram]

........ The real Tamil word for pimp is வழங்கி.

That Tamil word is not specific, Renu.

Here is a better translation:

''pimp : காமத் தரகர்''

Source: English to Tamil dictionary translation online | Tamilcube

 

[renuka]

That Tamil word is not specific, Renu.

Here is a better translation:

''pimp : காமத் தரகர்''

Source: English to Tamil dictionary translation online | Tamilcube

Thank you RR ji.

This will add more words to my vocabulary.

 

[biswa]

Tsk, tsk. Maami discussing naughty words!

What has this thread come to?

 

[renuka]

Tsk, tsk. Maami discussing naughty words!

What has this thread come to?

Its not naughty...Naughty is 50 Cent!!

 

[biswa]

50 cent is like a Graha. So he cannot reside in the same thread as Vishnu!

 

[renuka]

50 cent is like a Graha. So he cannot reside in the same thread as Vishnu!

LOL! If 50cent is a Graha...then I will do daily Graha Pooja!LOL

 

[Vaagmi]

I don't think anyone should bash Vaishnavas since they are also Hindus and Hinduism is inclusive. However monotheism can and should be questioned. The notion that only one group knows the true God is quite ridiculous. And BTW all Vaishnavas are not monotheists. It is only a certain subset.

Vaishnavas do not live out of the indulgence shown to them by any others. If any one bashes them he will get bashed in return by the vaishnava. Period.

Vaishnavas are part of the vedic religion that is Hindu/sanatan dharma. They have differences with some other religions-again part of Hindu-when it comes to interpretation of vedas and upanishads as well as the philosophy of the religion. They are strict monotheists. For them there is only one God and he is srimannarayana/Vishnu. They worship his avatars for convenience(avatars are one of the five forms in which God manifests himself to the jivas on earth. The five forms are Para, vuha, vibhava, antaryami and Archa) without diluting their loyalty to the Single God principle. The other "gods" of Hindu religion are all devatas (the rough equivalent is angels in English) for them and they have their respect for them. But they are all not Gods for them and they do not fear them. They are all subservient to their God Srimannarayana/Vishnu. So they prefer to worship Srimannarayana alone. They do not worship other Gods; they just show their respect to them. Monotheism can be questioned like all theisms and people have in the past questioned it. It is in the realm of philosophical discussion of a high order. It can never be the subject of a kuzhai chandai in the street corner in which name calling and derisive humour are all game.

Vaishnavas never claim that knowledge about God is exclusive to them. They just say that they know their God well and it should not result in consternation in others. If others think they know the God better let it be so. Who is bothered as long as they do not come and rub it on vaishnavas. When they try to rub, vaishnavas will certainly hit back.

All vaishnavas are not monotheists is not true. The very name vaishnava represents one who believes in Vishnu. All vaishnavas are just monotheists and nothing else. all vaishnava subsects do not compromise on one rule. That rule is that Narayana/Vishnu is the God. If someone does not accept this basic tenet he is not a vaishnava.

 

[Vaagmi]

Yes, I agree with JR ji, that insults and ridicule should not be the order of the day. But I question monotheistic Vaishnavas as well as Shaivas precisely for this reason.

No regular Hindu would be insulting either Shiva or Vishnu because they would be scared of a divine curse. But anybody who says that my God is the only true God and everybody else has false faith is inviting trouble. All the religious conflict in the world is because of monotheism and that is what I hope Hinduism stays away from.

The understanding is flawed. Vaishnavas do not insult any Godhead though they have no fear for any Godhead. Neither do they say until provoked that their faith is logical and hence is the best. Even when they say that it need not be immediately interpreted that they rubbish all other faiths in the world. Monotheism is not a crime and monotheists are not criminals. The religious conflicts in the world have their origin elsewhere. The conflicts occur only when a monotheism is imposed on others, other theisms like polytheism etc. are rubbished, or other theists go and impose their isms on monotheists. A society like indian society has been able to live with all kinds of religious thoughts and schools of thought because of this tolerance and practical wisdom. While there are very prominent religions in the world who believe and work for conversion India has no such struggles. There had been crusades and jihads in those countries while what India had was just a Tharkkam and change of mind at the end of a tharkkam. That is India. So those who say monotheism is bad or those who say polytheism is bad are as bad as those crusaders.

A certain amount of intellectual argument and winning over of heart is not bad or criminal and it is part of the ethos here. Those who are not at that level can best be mute witnesses when such discussion takes place free from malice and bitterness. And it would be really fun if one has the ability to look at the funny side of life's events/episodes. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

dear JR, ............................
It was another member who always has a cuckoo outside his window telling him something or the other who assumed that the Dualism only meant Vishisthadvaita.

That member is none other than yours truly. May I know what was objectionable in what my cuckoo sitting on the tree said. And I am not so dimwitted to presume that dualism can mean only Visishtadvaitam. Please give supporting evidence for your charge.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sure there could be a Vaishnava version of something, but that does not automatically make the subject Vaishnava. Of course everybody wants to pull the hero in their camp. Mahabharata is quite neutral, hence I questioned your original characterization of both Ramayana and Mahabharata as Vaishnava epics.

If a Vaishnava person sings praises of Narendra Modi, does that make Modi an avatar of Vishnu?

Yes perhaps every one wants to pull the hero to their camp and paint him as their God. Thus we have the situation in Tamil where we call The Bible as Vedagamam (puthiya Erppadu and pazhaiya erppadu) and a church being called Vedakkoil. LOL. The hero being veda the desire to own it is understandable.

Mahabharata as a story is just neutral. It is about a clan war. Rather a family dispute that took the final form of a apocalyptic war. But Krishna is certainly a prominent hero of that Epic and the BG he gave is major religious text for all schools of Hindu religious thought. Krishna being an avatar of Vishnu, there is logic in calling the text an epic of Krishna's fame and so vaishnava Epic. One may agree or disagree but no one can claim it as another Shivpurana or Christ purana or even a Brahma purana. Ramayana is 100% about Vishnu's Ramavatar and so we call it a vaishnava epic/text. If other Hindu faiths want to claim ownership of these epics vaishnavites will just chuckle and be happy.

When a vaishnava or a smartha sings praise of Modi , Modi certainly does not become an avatar of Vishnu or Siva, Subrahmanya, Ganapathy, Sakthi or Surya. But when a smartha sings an avatar of Vishnu like Rama or Krishna he becomes a vaishnava at least for the vaishnavas. Thjis is the reason why vaishnavas consider Siva as a leading vaishnava. LOL.


And there is a "smart" member who has asked why vaishnavites worship Hanuman even though he is not an avatar of Vishnu. For vaishnavas Hanuman is not God because vishnu/srimannarayana can only be the God. Vaishnavites show respect and even worship God's Adiyars. Thus you will find vaishnavas worshipping all alwars, acharyas, nithya suris like Garuda, Sudarsana, adisesha and other parama bhAgvatas . Hanuman belongs to the last category and so deserves respect and worship.

 

[P.J.]

My OP is not to criticize Vaishnava Practice, just to share information. (Post no21)
Again I explained in detail why
Sri Vaishnavas never considers Nava grahas as moorthies to be worshiped. (Post no 195)

I am really sorry that it has created so much of heated exchanges questioning one sect faith so much.

 

[Raji Ram]

Naughty words for naughty guys, right?
No more discussions because I have given the dictionary link! :ranger:

 

[biswa]

Vaishnavas never claim that knowledge about God is exclusive to them. They just say that they know their God well and it should not result in consternation in others. If others think they know the God better let it be so. Who is bothered as long as they do not come and rub it on vaishnavas. When they try to rub, vaishnavas will certainly hit back.

All vaishnavas are not monotheists is not true. The very name vaishnava represents one who believes in Vishnu. All vaishnavas are just monotheists and nothing else. all vaishnava subsects do not compromise on one rule. That rule is that Narayana/Vishnu is the God. If someone does not accept this basic tenet he is not a vaishnava.

This is utter BS! You certainly dont know all the Vaishnavas in the world. It is your folly to believe that your own interpretation of Vaishnavism is absolute. I personally know Vaishnavas who also enjoy celebrating other festivals. If you look around, there are even some in this forum, maybe they own this forum as well.

It is your loss that you only know narrow-minded Vaishnavas. And btw, I know that you don't ask for permission to hit back. In fact you make racists and casteist remarks without provocation.

 

[JR]

Dear Biswa,

I'm afraid what Vaagmi ji is saying is correct - staunch Vaishnavas who have taken 'sarangathi' to Lord Narayana's feet do not pray to other devatas. This is the reason I did not take Saranagathi yet, because sometime back I found out that once someone takes Saranagathi, they become loyal and obedient to Sriman Narayana alone and do not pray to other devatas at all. (Whereas I worship Ganapathi and Shiva too...). Many Vaishnavas who celebrate other devatas' festivals, (including my own home) do not really belong to the 'SriVaishnava' category although by birth we are...

 

[prasad1]

Any form of extremisim is bad. I do not consider myself belonging any organized sext. I do believe in Adi Sankara's advaita, but I worship god in all its form.

Having said that it bothers me that some of the Radha swami group believe Radha to Lakshmi, or really Lakshmi to be an incarnation of Radha.
According to Krishna's time line Krishna left Nanda's land when he was 10 years old and never returned. In the south Indian tradition Radha is enchanted by the young Krishna just as other gopies were.

 

[a-TB]

The understanding is flawed. Vaishnavas do not insult any Godhead though they have no fear for any Godhead. Neither do they say until provoked that their faith is logical and hence is the best. Even when they say that it need not be immediately interpreted that they rubbish all other faiths in the world. Monotheism is not a crime and monotheists are not criminals. The religious conflicts in the world have their origin elsewhere. The conflicts occur only when a monotheism is imposed on others, other theisms like polytheism etc. are rubbished, or other theists go and impose their isms on monotheists. A society like indian society has been able to live with all kinds of religious thoughts and schools of thought because of this tolerance and practical wisdom. While there are very prominent religions in the world who believe and work for conversion India has no such struggles. There had been crusades and jihads in those countries while what India had was just a Tharkkam and change of mind at the end of a tharkkam. That is India. So those who say monotheism is bad or those who say polytheism is bad are as bad as those crusaders.

A certain amount of intellectual argument and winning over of heart is not bad or criminal and it is part of the ethos here. Those who are not at that level can best be mute witnesses when such discussion takes place free from malice and bitterness. And it would be really fun if one has the ability to look at the funny side of life's events/episodes. LOL.

Responding to points is good to read. But this is attack on a member (bolded part) . Who determines who is at what intellectual level. I see a pattern - one member is called arrogant, another is called cynical, and here a member (or others as well) being told they do not have intellectual capacity. Such comments are uncalled for and diminish the stature of the forum

 

[renuka]

I get a strong feeling when one uses the Ignore option..another Avatar is born to un-ignore!LOL

Yuga Yuga Ke Avatara!

 

[Vaagmi]

This is utter BS! You certainly dont know all the Vaishnavas in the world. It is your folly to believe that your own interpretation of Vaishnavism is absolute. I personally know Vaishnavas who also enjoy celebrating other festivals. If you look around, there are even some in this forum, maybe they own this forum as well.

It is your loss that you only know narrow-minded Vaishnavas. And btw, I know that you don't ask for permission to hit back. In fact you make racists and casteist remarks without provocation.

Thanks for indicating that you know all the vaishnavas in the world and their mind. From now on I will consult you as their representative before posting anything about vaishnavam. LOL. I was wondering how am I going to get another vaishnava to tell you what is a vaishnavites take on worshipping other Gods. Luckily Vishnu brought in someone. Please refer to post # 421 and you have your answer. I do not want to say anything more. As for the ownership, I see a threat held out there by you. I am game for that and I just do not care. Period. If some of the holy cows here have to be shown as having an unclean butt, I dont mind doing that even if it is considered blasphemy by some bull sh** worshippers.

Point out one instance where i have come on my own and made an out of context remark that you refer to. I will take sanyas. I hit back(as you have yourself admitted) when hit. And I intend to continue doing that. LOL.

There is an ignore button. Don't waste your time on me. Go and pray. You need all the time for that because you have too many to pray to. LOL.