tArakAmaya again

Thu Dec 18 00:08:04 UTC 1997

At 07:50 PM 12/17/97 +0100, George V. Simson writes:
> Have I forgotten any relevant argument?

Yes. Your attempt to read tArakA=tArA based on the reading of
`tArakAnimittas' in the edition of viSNu purANa available to you
is unreliable because the reading occurs in a prose passage and
the commentator could have altered the reading in order to explain
the word `tArakAmaya'. He must have got into the dilemma in which
we are now. In the metrical passages we have only tArA everywhere
as I have pointed out in my earlier postings. So I think for
the present tArakA=tArA identification is unreliable.

You have also forgotten the explanation of the word `tArakAmaya'
as `full of stars' based on the matsya purANa reading. It is not
everyday that stars take part in the battles as they did in this.
This participation might have been commemorated by naming the
battle as `tArakAmaya'.

At 09:44 PM 12/17/97 +0300, Yaroslav Vassilkov writes:
>A Puranic example referred to
>in the last contribution by D.V.N.Sarma - I mean the verse where nakSatras
>and stars take part in the battle - may represent an intermediate stage of
>reinterpretation when *tArakAmaya* was understood as "disastrous/fatal/
>destructive FOR THE STARS".

The war was not distructive to the stars. The purANAs do not say that.
It was distrucive only to the daityAs and devAs. The interpretation of
`tArakAmaya'as tArakA+Amaya i.e., distructive to the stars, does not
seem to be possible. Anyway we know that they are still there in the
heavens we see them everyday.



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list