Olivelle, J P jpo at austin.utexas.edu
Thu Aug 11 11:48:20 EDT 2016

Yes, Ashok, clearly svāmin refers to Skanda, with or without “tilaka”. That much is clear also from Vācaspati’s verse that Tim Lubin cited. The issue is why “tilaka” is compounded with it and, with Tim’s other sources with different compounds: tilakeśvara, etc, it is clear that this is a compound. But what is the meaning of tilaka in these contexts?

On Aug 11, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.aklujkar at gmail.com<mailto:ashok.aklujkar at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Aug 11, 2016, at 5:17 AM, Olivelle, J P <jpo at austin.utexas.edu<mailto:jpo at austin.utexas.edu>> wrote:

… clearly the Vulgate and Vijñāneśvara are wrong in their reading here.

If Vijñāneśvara uses ādityaskandagaṇapatīnām, he must have seen a source for skanda in the verse and he must have seen the source between āditya and gaṇapati. Either he was undecided about the reading and tried to accommodate both the readings you discuss or he thought of svāmin as standing, by itself,  for skanda.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/attachments/20160811/bf6da5c7/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list