Georg von Simson g.v.simson at EASTEUR-ORIENT.UIO.NO
Fri Dec 19 16:11:18 UTC 1997

On  Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:32:43, Rasik Vihari Joshi wrote:
>I have been following the correspondance on tArakAmaya. It
>seems to me that the answer to the question of its meaning is
>quite simple. We have here a clear case of the use of the
>suffix mayaT as marked by PANini "mayaT ca" in the sense of
>"hetuvAcakAdAgataH". Thus tArA is tArakA plus mayaT. It
>qualifies samaraH. Meaning there was a battle for the sake of
>I hope this is of some use for the people who posed the question.

That is a very interesting suggestion indeed (PANini4.3.74: tata AgataH,
plus 4.3.81: hetumanuSyebhyo 'nyatarasyAM rUpyaH, plus 4.3.82: mayaT ca)!
But then, in order to include the Skanda-TAraka myth, we should not
translate *(a battle) for the sake of tArA*, but *(a battle) caused by a
star (or: by stars) (tArakA)*.
On the other hand, -maya has normally the meaning *consisting of*, and hetu
might just mean *material cause*. The grammarians give as examples
Devadatta-maya and VAyudatta-maya to account for -manuSyebhyo in P. 4.3.81,
but what does that really mean? I found BhImasenamaya in MahAbhArata
5.50.25 and 11.11.14, but here the meaning is nothing but *consisting of
BhImasena* (in a simile). Can you (or anyone else) give an example from the
literature for the actual use of -maya in the sense *for the sake of* or
*caused by*?
Otherwise I would still think that Amaya was originally intended,
especially since Ya. Vassilkov (thank you for your elucidating message
which arrived just now when I was writing this!) now found this
interpretation attested with NIlakaNTha.

Best wishes

        Georg v.Simson

Professor Georg von Simson
University of Oslo
Department of East European and Oriental Studies
Box 1030, Blindern
0315 Oslo, Norway

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list