SV: creation of human kind

[N. Ganesan]

NG>>  Krishna advising Arjuna - an individualistic
NG>>  counsel unknown to Hinduism.

MV> The Upanishads are full
MV>of such "individualistic counsels" -- Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi,
MV>Uddalaka to Svetaketu, Sanatkumara to Narada, Indra to
MV>Pratardana, Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi...

 What I originally meant was God-to-Human conversations.
Counsels between humans, mostly men, are rampant in Sanskrit.
The radical difference in Gita is it is God's counsel to
a Man which is unknown even after the advent of Gita in Hinduism.

 Like Bodhisattva Maitreya descending from Tushita heaven
 onto earth to save humans.

--------------

MV>I also don't think the Saiva Siddhanta has a tradition of
MV>interpreting the Upanishads or other Vedic texts;
MV>they tend to stick to Saiva Agamas and the songs
MV>of the Nayanmars.

 To gain acceptability in India, every religious cult
must say it is descended out of Vedas. Everything under
the sun must come from Veda.

Uttara kAmikAgama announces "siddhAnto vedasAras syAt".
Helene Brunner, 'Saiva siddhAnta, Essence du Veda,
Indologica Taurinensia, 1980-1, p. 51-66.

KaasivAsi CentinAtaiyar wrote in 19th century
Tevaram VedasAram in 400+ pages. My copy is in India
right now.

In South Tamil Nadu, Christians are known as VedakArar.
In the Muslim stalapurANams including CiiRaa, vEdam
or maRai means Koran. This aspect is being studied by
Prof. Vasudha Narayanan nowadays.

--------------

Prof. G. v. Simson asked whether chariot and charioteer
are denoted by the same term in Tamil.

As far as I know, definitely tEr is only the chariot,
never its driver.

I read Tirumangai Alvar's 10 pAsurams on Tiruvallikkeni.
Definitely, what Mani says is not there:
These poems do NOT repeatedly speak of Krishna
as the charioteer. Only twice, Krishna as charioteer
along with repeating many other legends from
all avatAras - mainly from Krishna and Rama.
Nowhere the Alvar mentions Bhagavad Gita.

Let me give a clue why Krishna as charioteer only is
told in the first poem:
The first 1.2 line explains killing of Kamsa,
The Second line talks of 'Siva killing tripuras
and Vishnu gracing 'Siva,
The third line says "to destroy enemies, standing in
front of Partha's chariot"
The fourth line is on the orders of step mother, Rama
going to forest. (eventually to kill Ravana)

The tripura dahanam of "siva riding in a chariot
is brought in here by Tirumangai mannan/aalvar to
highlght the Krishna riding the chariot. (Partha Sarathy)
Killing Kamsa, Elephant, mahout, Tripurams,
Kauravas is what Alvar says.

Here Krishna as charioteer to Arjuna is all Alvar
says. Thru' Bhakti, we can imply Gita. That's all.
Want to see what medieval commentator says. Does
PeriyavAccAn Pillai (vyAkhyAna chakravarti) talk of Gita for
 this poem??

In the seond instance (Poem 6) where Alvar talks of Krishna as
charioteer, Alvar is mostly describing PAJjAli's
call for help and Krshna giving clothes. Alvar could
have used the space for Gita in that poem if he
had felt it necessary. Obviously, he did not feel that
way.

Poem 2 is taken up for Vishnu being vedas, their essence,
fruit eaten by sages, primordial one, ambrosia.

Poem 3 describing vivdly the killing the demoness and becoming mOhini.

Poem 4 a detailed description of govardana giridAri.

Poem 5 describes in many words, Krishna as emissay of Pandavas.

Poem 7 is fully used for killing Ravana.

Poem 8 in Tiruvallikeni decad, he describes completely
Narasimha avatAr.

Poem 9 portrays fully the gajendra mOksha episode.

Poem 10 benefits of reading the above verses.

The absence of Gita in Tiruvallikeni Paasurams is puzzling,
Krishna as charioteer to Arjuna comes in 2 places only.

In the whole 4000 poems, only at one instance we can imply
Gita. Compared to the position of BhG in India's national
discourse, BhG was occupying a miniscule, if any, postion
in Alvars' days.

Regards,
N. Ganesan



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com