tArakAmaya (another)

[Georg von Simson]

Since I was told that the following message has not reached the group, I
try to send it once again. If you already know it, please ignore it!
(This is a rather late reply - I was temporarily disconnected from the list
because of a change of my e-mail address, see above).
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:47:47, D. V. NARAYANA SARMA wrote:

>It is getting "curiouser and curiouser" (Alice in Wonderland).
>
>We have another tArakAmaya in harivamza purANA. It has nothing to do
>with either tArA or tAraka. (Because it talks about viSNu as KriSNa
>it is perhaps a latter addition.) In this war candra fights for the devAs
>instead of against them. The only justifications I could find for calling
>the battle tArakAmaya are (Gita Press, Gorakhpur Edition)
>
>        EtasminnantarE mEghA nirvANAGgAravarSiNah
>        sArkacandragrahagaNam chAdayantO nabhasthalam (1.42.13)
>
>which can be thought as a tArakA+Amaya. Stars are effectively covered to
>prevent them from shining.
>
>The other is
>
>        tamRkSayOgAnugatam zizirAmzum dvijEsvaram
>        jagacchAyAGkitatanum naizasya tamasah kSayam (1.44.25)
>
>candra is followed by stars into the battle. So the interpretation is
>tArakA+mayah i.e., full of stars.
>
>Though the passage most probably may be an interpolation, we can here
>perhaps see interpretation of tArakAmayA as "full of stars".
>
>As I do not have critical edition of harivamza purANA I do not know
>whether this portion is treated as prakSipta or not.
>
>regards,
>
>sarma.

Indeed, the matter is getting "curiouser and curiouser". The passages you
quote, are also to be found in the critical edition of the HarivaMza (32.13
and 34.24). The battle between dAnavas and devas is called saMgrAmas
tArakAmayaH at the beginning of the whole episode, in vs. 32.10. And though
a certain TAra is mentioned (and his chariot described) in 33.9 among the
dAnavas, he does not play any major part in this story. We thus observe the
application of the term tArakAmaya on a battle that is neither particularly
concerned with TAraka nor with TArA. You suggest that the term could be
interpreted as tArakA-Amaya in vs. 1.42.13 = Crit. Ed. 32.13, but that the
other passage, 1.44.25 = Crit. Ed. 34.24, suggests the interpretation
tArakA+mayah i.e., full of stars. But would one call, e.g., a battle where
the gods participate, (yuddhaM) devamayam? That would sound odd to my ears.
I would still prefer tArakA+Amaya, and considering the description of the
HarivaMza, where sun, moon and stars are obscured in a kind of cosmic
upheaval, the interpretation "(a battle) in which the stars are impaired"
does not seem impossible.
I would - considering all the evidence that has turned up so far -
nevertheless prefer the interpretation: "(a battle) destructive by the
influence of (bad) stars". We may compare the English term 'disastrous'
(from Greek dys-, 'bad', and astEr- 'star'), meaning approximately the
same. Before the MahAbhArata battle starts, lots of inauspicious
configurations of planets and stars are mentioned (Mbh. VI), and,
conversely, after KRSNa/ViSNu's intervention in our HarivaMza story, the
whole cosmos becomes peaceful again, which includes that: na vigrahaM
grahAz cakruH (Hariv., Crit. Ed., 32.36), "the planets do no longer fight
each other". Thus, the term tArakAmaya might have had a more general
meaning before it normally was applied to the Skanda-TAraka and the
TArA-Soma-BRhaspati  myths, where single stars were personified, but still
called 'Star'. One possible objection to this hypothesis is the
circumstance that HarivaMza usually is considered to be later than
MahAbhArata. But does this preclude the possibility that it, for once,
preserves an older meaning of a word?
Perhaps you find still more evidence??

Best regards,

Georg v. Simson