GItOpadesa/Arjuna/Tamil Nadu temples/AzvAr texts

[Chandrasekaran, Periannan]

About Krishna/Arjuna/Gita:

Gist:
ThiuvallikkENi temple *the* gItOpadEsa temple does not
have that form as the image for the main deity.
The history of the temple also does not clearly explain how
that temple came to be assocaited with Krishnaa the charioteer.
Another important temple near pUmpuhaar also has the same status.
Only the auxiliary deity (uRchavar or festival deity) has that form.
auxiiary deities are vulnerable to "adaptation" ;) as the socio-reliogious
environment changes over the centuries.

1. Found in the book titled "108  VaiNava Thivya ThEsa VaralARu":
(blessed by the Sriperum pudhUr matam and won the Tamil Naadu govt
prize for the best book in spiritual/religious category)

There is a temple called "(Thirup)paarthan paLLi" in the Thirun-aangkUr
near pUmpuhaar. This is part of the 11-temple cluster in that town.

 A poem in "periya thirumozi" (#1318 or 4:8:1) by Thirumangkai aazvaar (7th
century AD)
says:
"
kavaLa yaanaik komposiththa kaNNanenRum kAmarusIrk
kuvaLa mEkam annamEni koNta kOn ennaanai yenRum
thavaLamatu n-Itu n-aangkaith thaamaraiyaaL kELvanenRum
pavaLa vaayaaL en matan-thai paarthan paLLi paatuvaaLE".

That book also quotes "paathma puraaNam" to state
 that this was named after Arjunan oen of whose many names
is PArththan. It says he was provided water at a critical state of thirst
by Thirumaal when he could not get water even from Agaththiyar.
even though that book also states  "it is *also* said in explaining the
basis for its
name that Thirumaal revealed himself
as per the goal of varuNan's penance in the form of "paartha saarathi" and
its original name
of "paarththa saarathip paLLi" ended up in the current form.

In any case the god's main image in the temple is not in the  "paarththa
saarathi" format;
the uRchavar is called "paarththa saarathy". It says the main image is
called
"thaamaraiyaaL kELvan" as the above paasuram says.

neither is there is any quote of any aazvar's text that refers to "gIta
upadEsA".
The closest it comes to is the name of the town quoted in the above text.
By the way, "is paarththan" in ancient Tamil texts clearly a reference to
Arjunan?
I am asking this because because the above poem quoted as the main paasuram
by the aazvaar does not even care to mention Arjunan even though it
describes
other characteristics/episodes (such as breaking the tusk of an elephant)
 of Thirummal as related to this temple like "thaamaraiyaaL
kELvan". By the way, the "alliyath thokuthi" involving  breaking off
elephant tusk
by Thirumaal is one of the 11 prototypical dances of the ancient Tamil drama
perofrmed
by Maathavi during Indira festival at pUmpuhaar as described in
Cilppathikaaram
(2nd century AD)
 Note also that there is another temple in this cluster called "Thiru
arimEya
viNNakaram" in Thirun-aangkUr housing the Thirumaal whi performed
the "kutam" dance or "vessel" or "pot" dance another one of the 11
prootypical
dances of ancient Tamil drama. (cilapp. chapter 5)
And note that these temples are within the limits of the erstwhile
metropolis
of pUmpuhaar.  I feel that ancient pUmpuhaar (and Cauvery delta area)  was
*the* Indian centre
for  Hinduism of its era until the unfortunate tsunami attacked it. I feel
that India and
Tamil country suffered a great set back due to this and caused the sudden
change
in Tamil's cultural history such as loss of Sangam era literary tradition,
Sangam era
religious practices directly related to Tamil agam tradition etc (letting it
vulnerable to
Jain/Budhha forces) If you think, the
pioneering Hindu revivalists such as Sambandhar were from sIrkaazi which is
said to
have been within the metropolitan limits of anceient pUmpuhaar (actually
these temples
are very very near sIrkaazi).

2. And now for ThiruvallikkENi: the biggy...;-).

The paasuram quoted in the specific book I am looking at *does* not
seem to mention Arjua/Gita upadEsam! It only mentions that
thirummal served as an ambassador for pANtavar!

"
inthuNaip pathumaththu alarmakaL thanakkum inpan, n-aRpuvi thanakku iRaivan
thanthuNai aayar paavai n-appinnai thanakkiRai, maRRaiyOrk kellaam
vanthuNai, panjcha paaNtavarkkaaki vaayurai thUthu chenRu iyangkum
enthuNai, en-thai than-thai thammaanaith thiruvallikkENi kaNtEnE"

Absolutely no mention of "paarththa saarathy'!!!!
The name of the mUlavar (main deity):
vEngkata KrishNan
vEngkata KrishNan facing the east accompanied by
 RukmiNi, Balaraaman, Saathyaki, an-ruththan, pradhyumnan .

The auxiliary deity (uRchavar or utsavar) is however
'paarththa saarathy".


 The section of the chapter history of the temple makes a weak attempt at
reaching how
paarththa saarathy got associated with this temple. It says
a king called Sumathi requested Thirummal to reveal his "paarhtha saarathi"
form after visiting vEngkatam and he was told to go to BrindhaaraNyam
(thuLasi (basil?) forest) for that. Then the text in this book (page 365/
para 3)
does not complete the story and abruptly says "..the lrod commanded him
to go to ...aaraNyam and Sumathi did accordingly and that is the history of
the
temple". It does not say that the lord did accordingly! Then the text
contnues to
give another version of the history of the temple where it does not talk
about
"paarththa saarathy'! In a gist says that "a *rishi* (sage) by the name of
sumathi
(and the book adds that he was different from the Sumathi the  king) brought
a statue of Thirumaal in the form of KaNNan (KrishNaa) with one hand
carrying
sangku (conch) and another in "thaana muththirai" (or "dhaana mudhraa"?)
pointing to his feet. Then it says the rishi also installed additional
statues of
RukmiNi and Saathyaakiyai one on each side of the main statue.

In later notes in the chapter (page 367, item number "I" (that is Tamil "I"
)
on this temple, the book says "the lord, as per the desire of King sumathi,
appeared here as *vEngkata KrishNan*" which contradicts the already
weak attempt at associating this temple with "paarththa saarathy".

It even goes so far as to say "since the lord of vEngkatam appeared here
as vEngkata krishNan, this temple is also called "iraNtaam thiruppathi"
(or second Thiruppathi)". We all know that The Lord VEngkata at Thiruppathi
is not associated with "paarththa saarathy".[ refer cilappathikkaram
probably the earliest text referring to VEngkatam Thirumaal where
the author ILangkO describes kOvalan and kaNNaki encountering
a brahmin coming all the way from the TuLu coast (mangalore) to
visit Thirumaal in reclining posture at Srirangkam island and in standing
posture
at vEngkatam hills].

The book says that the utsavar (festival deity) has marks on its face
to signify the injuries received from the arrows when he served as
charioteer.
It also notes that this is one of the three important VaishNava temples
along with arangkam (Sriragkam) and kachchi (KaanjchIpuram).
Which also raises even more questions about the the antiquity of
the KrishNaa/Arjunan/GItOpadEsa/charioteer theory.



Well...
I hope I have helped the discussion in an objective and substantial fashion.

Thanks
Chandra