tArakAmaya

[Joshi Rasik]

Dear Prof. Simson
I read your message only today after Christmass vacations.
I am quoting the gita Press edition of BhAgavata IX.14.7 
"samarastArakAmayah" translated as "There raged a battle for 
the sake of Tara which caused the annihilation of gods an 
asuras." This interpretation is attested by VaMZIdhara in
his commentary as "tAraiva tArakA tasyA hetorAgataH 
PrAptastArakAmayaH "mayaT ca" iti hetuvAcakAdAgata ityarthe mayaT.
The suffix mayaT is added in three senses: 1.vikAra, meaning 
made of, or transformation of. ex. mRnmayo ghataH; kASThamayam 
gRham, a jar made of earth, a house made of wood or jar is the 
transformation of earth; a house is the transformation of wood.
The analysyss of the example mRnmayo gataH is mRdo vikAraH. 
The question arises how there is SaSthi vibhakti i mRdah 
because SaSthi is always in vaiyadhikaranya and prathamA is in 
sAmAnAdhikaranya. Thus SaSthi in bheda or difference and 
prathamA is in abheda or non difference. 
In the example devadattaH brAhmaNaH, devadatta is not 
different from brAhmaNaH, therefore prathamA. But in the 
examples mRdo ghatah, pASANasya pratimA or mama gRham, there 
is difference. Why there is SaSthi vibhakti in mRdo ghataH in 
the absence of identity?
2. prAchurya, meaning profusion or excess or abundance. ex. 
ghRtamayo yajñaH. The sacrifice having abundant clarified butter.
3. hetuvacakAdAgata. ex. a) viSamamayah and samamayah "kAZikA"
b) anyA jagad-dhitamayI manasaH pravRttiH (paNDitarAja 
jagannAtha bhAminIvilAsa 1.68)
c) tathAtma paramAtmanorupaniSanmayI saNgame
   vilAsa muralI bhavA virutiradya vairAyate.(rUpagoswami, 
vidagdhamAdhava 6.11)
I hope that this will answer your query.
Sincerely
R.V. Joshi


 On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Georg von Simson wrote:

> 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
> >tArA.
> >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
>