Graha epithets (tArA,tArakA and tAraka)

Dominique.Thillaud thillaud at UNICE.FR
Thu Dec 11 17:45:29 UTC 1997

At 16:40 +0100 10/12/97, DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA wrote:
>If tAra can represent tArA, I have one interpretation
>tArakAmah = one who desires tArA . It is just like `svargakAmah', `bhUtikAmah'
>tArakAmayOh will be possessive dual form i.e., the two who desire tArA
>saGgrAmah tArakAmayOh = war of the two who desire tArA
>If the visarga at the end is lost and somebody interpreted `O' at the end
>as due to transformation of visarga, you will get saGgramah tArakAmayah.

        Very subtle, indeed. I would like such a victory of the sense!

        I can add that, in devanAgarI text, a 'tArakAmayoryuddhaH' can very
easily loose the 'r', a very small mark.
        The last problem is the responsability of a scribe, changing a new
'tArakAmayo yuddhaH' (read with unsticked sandhi: 'tArakAmayas yuddhas') in
a compound 'tArakAmaya-yuddhaH'. (Here, we can't suppose the lost of the
'o' mark: it would give 'tArakAmayA yuddhaH').
        In westerner Middle-Age, monk-scribes took easily such liberty.
        Extension of compounds in the Sanskrit's story can play a role ?
        Do have the specialists of manuscripts an advice on this possibility ?

        But, I've kept the better for the end. In MBh VIII,6,46:


        the only 'taarakaamaya' passage in MBh where it's not question of
the Indra's fight against the Asura, the Poona edition give in the
manuscript G3 (Tanjore, Sarasvathi Mahal Library, No. 11828. Palm leaf.
Undated) the variant taarakaamayoh.
        You're an happy man ;^)


PS: by a fortuit chance, you can remark with interest at the begin of the
third pada, one of the terrific mistakes of Pr. Tokunaga, impossible to
correct without referring to the printed text ! But, to be impartial, the
cut .taarakaa.maye. of the sensei is perhaps today erroneous !

Dominique THILLAUD
Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list