Kashmir, Tamilnadu, Panini, Abhinavagupta, etc.-3

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

The mahAbharata says: "in the land of the pANDyas the Fords-of-agastya-and-
varuNa; there too are the Holy-maidens said to be, bull among men. I shall now
mention the tAmraparNi, listen, Kaunteya, where the Gods, longing for a great
reward, did austerities." (The Mahabharata, translated by van Buitenan, Book
of the forest, p. 401)

Of course, in an earlier posting I have mentioned the association of
potiyil/malaya region with grammarian tolkAppiyan2. We also have myths of the
Agastya and siddhas in potiyil. trikUTa is a name of kuRRAlam a part of
potiyil. potiyil has been a place of pilgrimage mentioned in cilappatikaram
and maNimEkalai. malaya is invariably mentioned as one of the famous mountains
in Sanskrit literature. (Even when only four are mentioned himAlaya,
pariyAtra, vindhya, and malaya as in The Mahabharata, translated by van
Buitenan, Book of the forest, p. 799)

In his article, "Agastya Legend and the Indus Civilization" (Journal of Tamil
Studies, Dec. 1986, no. 50, p. 25-27), Iravatham Mahadevan says, "According to
the tradition recorded in the Matsyapurana (202, 12-13), Agastyas are
classified as 'rakshasas". Ghurye notes, "The Bhagavata purana significantly,
and the Vishnu, too, vouchsafes to us the relationship between Visravas and
Agastya, both being proclaimed to have been born to Havirbhuva by Pulastya.
Thus Agastya becomes the paternal uncle of Kubera and of Ravana too..."
(p.42).  The association of Agastya with rakshasas fits well with the TIkA
author mentioning rAvaNa and rakSas imediately after the statement regarding
VP 2.486.

Thus, except one, all the various factors  associated with vAkyapadIya 2.486
discussion such as dAkSiNAtya, parvata, ascetic on a mountain, rAvaNa, brahma-
rakshas, trikUta, etc., can be explained by just one location - potiyil
mountain - from where candrAcArya obtained the knowledge of Paninian
scholarship. (No other location has explanation for so many factors.) However,
the mentioning of tiliGga by the TIka is a problem.

Aklujkar writes, "The attitude that may be implicit in Peterson's and
Scharfe's attempts at identification also needs comment. Both these scholars
write as if the TIkA identification does not exist or need not be taken
seriously. This is hardly a justifiable view to take of a piece of information
that is about one thousand years old; that is unlikely to have been given
unless it was known to earlier students and commentators of the VP.." From
this, if we take TIKa to be from about 10th century AD, how many years (5
centuries?) earlier was VP written ? What are the currently accepted dates for
vAkyapadIya and TIkA? If the intervening period was long, could it be that the
identification of tiliGga was a mistake made on the basis of similarity in
names? Since I do not have access to some of the critical references, any
information from the list will be appreciated.


Regards
S. Palaniappan