rauravaagama

[H. Isaacson]

I am grateful for Dr. Ganesan's clarification about the 
Civa~naanapotam.  I must point out that though Meyka.n.ta Teevar 
claims to draw on the Rauravaagama, no connection between what has 
been transmitted as the Raurava and the Civa~naanapotam has yet been 
proved.

I quote from the introduction of the first volume of the first 
edition of the Rauravaagama (Pondicherry, 1961---3 years after M. 
Balasubramania Mudaliyar's death---p.xiv):

`Un des traite's classiques fondamentaux de cette e'cole [scil. le 
Saivasiddhaanta du pays tamoul], le Civa~naaNapotam de Meyka.n.ta 
Teevar, se pre'sente comme un de'veloppement de douze stances 
sanskrites donne'es comme tire'es du Rauravaagama.  Pourtant ces 
stances ne se sont jusqu'ici retrouve'es dans aucun des manuscrits de 
ce texte.'

I should be interested to know how  M. Balasubramania Mudaliyar 
argues; but the book you mention is not available to me.

Yours,
Dominic Goodall
 


> From THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV 17 1995 Aug EST 11:26:11
Date: 17 Aug 1995 11:26:11 EST
Reply-To: THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
From: ALLEN W THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject: REF FOR PAPER BY ALEXIS SANDER

          A search of  OCLC shows  no listing for  v.  1  of Essais sur  le 
          rituel.  Library of Congress only has this vol. as well. 
           
          Allen Thrasher                                                    
 


> From THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV 17 1995 Aug EST 12:29:12
Date: 17 Aug 1995 12:29:12 EST
Reply-To: THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
From: ALLEN W THRASHER <THRASHER at MAIL.LOC.GOV>
Subject: BRAHMAN AND BRAHMIN

          Re: Brahmins and Brahmans. 
           
          Yule  and  Burnell's classic "Hobson-Jobson" cites  the  spelling 
          Brahmins  from  William  Cureton's  Spicilegium  Sacrum  Syriacum 
          (1855).  Greek  and  as  far  as  I  know  Latin retain the  "a": 
          Brakhmanoi, Brahmani.  A citation that may indicate the source of 
          the  "i"  is  Marco  Polo,  who  has  as  a  plural Abraiaman  or 
          Abraiamin, "which  seems  to represent an incorrect Arabic plural 
          (e.g. Abrahamin) picked  up  from  Arabic  sailors;  the  correct 
          Arabic plural is Barahima.  Camoes, Lusiades, 1572 has Brahmenes. 
          Another Portuguese, Acosta, Tractado de las Drogas y Medecinas de 
          las Indias Orientales, 1578,  has Bragmen.  I  wonder  if English 
          got  the  "i"  from Portuguese or  Arabic.   Modern  French  (and 
          Portuguese) have  "a."  Is  there  any Middle Indo-Aryan language 
          where the  "a"  has become "i"  or "e?"  Any Dravidian?  Time  to 
          consult the new unabridged OED. 
           
          Allen Thrasher