SV: creation of human kind

[Mani Varadarajan]

Dear Ganesan,

You wrote:
>  Krishna in the garbha grha with only the Conch shell signifies
>  the Call for battle, his aiding of Pandavas.
>  We daily sing :"aDiyAmODum ninnODum ...
>  paDai pOr pukku muzangum ap pAnjacannyamum pallaaNDE!".

This can only mean that the Venkatakrishna mUlabEra is
none other than Arjuna's charioteer, Parthasarathy.
Tirumangai Alvar's verses on this temple describe
the god within as "paarthan tan tEr mun ninRAnai", the one
who "stands" in front of Arjuna's chariot -- a reference
to none other than the Gitopadesam.

With respect to Periyalvar's verse, the penultimate
line is "vaDivAr cOdi valatturaiyum cuDar Aziyum pallANdu...",
"Azi" meaning discus.  This verse of Periyalvar has
absolutely nothing to do with the Mahabharata war; it is
a general song of benediction to all the attendants and
weapons of Vishnu. It certainly should not affect our
understanding of the Venkatakrishna mUlabEra. The mUlabEra
in Tiruvallikkeni is shown without any weapons whatsoever,
which is highly unusual for Vishnu, who is normally inseparable
from his discus, and who is usually shown with many weapons.
The only episode from the Mahabharata and Puranas where this
absence is singularly important is when Krishna resolves
not to fight while being Arjuna's charioteer.

>  Krishna advising Arjuna - an individualistic
>  counselunknown to Hinduism.

Need I remind you that the Vedic teaching method is almost
characteristically individualistic? The Upanishads are full
of such "individualistic counsels" -- Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi,
Uddalaka to Svetaketu, Sanatkumara to Narada, Indra to
Pratardana, Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi...

Furthermore, such individualistic counsels are rampant
throughout the Mahabharata itself.

>  In Alvars' zrIvaiSNava world, Gita played little role
>  if any.

This statement cannot be justified in any way. The Alvars
rarely speak of specific statements from the Vedas; yet,
would it be proper to conclude that they were ignorant
of or mindless of them? This can hardly be sustained,
based on an analysis of their philosophy.  Similarly
with the Gita; we have agreed that the Gita is mentioned in
the Prabandham, but not with the frequency of other stories
of Vishnu.  The simplest explanation for this is that
the Gita is not a "heroic" episode in Vishnu's life, but
more illustrative of Vishnu's role as teacher.  Frankly,
the Alvars are not interested in singing about this aspect;
perhaps they did not write about it because the Gitopadesam
also does not fit neatly into the cankat tamizh categories
of akam or puRam. To conclude in the same breath that they
did not know or value the Gita is rash.

I suspect your theory is that Sankara brought the Gita to
prominence. Have you wondered why he would do so? It is
not hard to see that the Gita needs to be twisted and
stretched before Sankara's Advaita can be read from it.
The Upanishads lend themselves easily to Sankara's
interpretation, but not the Gita.  Why would he have
strived to bring such a non-Advaitic text to prominence?

I am sorry to be so argumentative in this thread; but these
unsubstantiated one-line theories are quite annoying.

Mani