SV: creation of human kind

[Mani Varadarajan]

N. Ganesan wrote:
>
>> Are you implying that this is the origin of the Vaishnava
>> doctrine? I find this a highly suspect premise, and I
>> urge you to do further research before throwing presumptive
>> statements out in a scholarly forum.

>
> I am not implying this. It is Har Dayal, Bodhisattva doctrine, 1932
   [deleted -- further quotes excerpted below]

I have read much of the record on this subject, and
I have to say that most of the research is highly
suspect, because there is absolutely NO concrete
evidence that lends credence to the authors'
conclusions.  They are all mere guesses, usually
made without exhaustive knowledge of the source
material, without investigating traditional opinions
in detail, and furthermore, when reading the traditional
opinions, without giving them any credence whatsoever,
even when the pandits have read far more than the
researchers!

I am not saying that all research is suspect, or suffers from
these flaws; but I am constantly surprised at how much is
simply assumed as fact when all they are are mere guesses.

> One author who has worked for decades on MBh. told me:
> "For a brief formulation, I would say I agree with those who see
> the Gita as in some aspects (and not minor ones) an answer to
> Buddhism."

Where is the evidence for this? I am willing to accept that
Buddhism (and other philosophies of the time) had an influence
on the Gita, but declaring the Gita as a "answer" to Buddhism
constructed in the mind of an author and then interpolated
into the MBh is just a guess, with no evidence whatsoever.

> Indira Vishvanathan Peterson, Prof. of Sanskrit writes in
> The Norton Anthology, World Masterpieces, p. 958, 1995:
> "There is reason to believe  [deleted]
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> .. The Gita appears to have been [deleted]
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I ask for evidence, manuscript or otherwise. I am confident,
based on what I have read, that there is not much.

[end quotes]

> I am confidant of these theories
> especially when they are apparently well researched and
> therefore highly substantiated.

I think you should be a lot more skeptical.
There is not even any manuscript evidence that the Gita was
interpolated into the Mahabharata, or at what time it was
done, if that were the case.

I have read scholars and popular exponents (e.g., Huston Smith,
whose writing is simply egregious in its assumptions
about Indian culture and philosophy) who constantly
repeat the same old sentences about the content and philosophy
of the Gita when there is simply no solid evidence to
back them up.

To give you my mindset, so I'll be taken seriuosly: I'm not
a Hindutva-vAdi, I hate the VHP/RSS, etc. I'm a secularist.
I don't believe that Krishna lived in 4302 B.C. or whatever
the Hindutva date is. But I also think that Indologists
need to reassess their assumptions before repeating things
that simply are based on guesses.

> no line in nAlAyira divya prabandham of Alvars
> speaks of KRSNArujuna saMvAdam!!

The Alvars rarely repeat an entire myth. Their purpose
is not to retell stories, but to _use_ ideas from the
Puranas to illustrate emotion and aspects of Vishnu.
Therefore, their telling of stories will be very piecemeal.

However, when Tirumangai Alvar says Krishna stood
in front of Partha (Arjuna) and the chariot, and graced him,
to what is he referring if not to the Gita? When Tirumalisai
Alvar refers to the great words Krishna the king of Dvaraka
said long ago, what else is this but the Gita? Recall that these
Alvars are contemporaneous or slightly after Sankaracharya,
so it's not as if the Gita is an unknown text at this time,
based on your own assumptions.

At the very least, if you are going to make the highly
tenuous assumption that some "anonymous brahmins" interpolated
the Gita into the MBh based simply on another scholar's
guesswork, you should extrapolate that the Alvars knew the
Gita and respected it based on the passages cited above.
This is far less of a stretch.

Mani