pataJjali and pANini myths

[Jean-Luc CHEVILLARD]

A 01:10 27/05/99 EDT, vous avez écrit :
>Dear List Members,
>
>The results of my investigation into the myths linking (1) pataJjali and
>AdizESa and (2) pANini and zivasUtras (following M. M. Deshpande's important
>earlier article in JAOS, 1997) are presented at the Indology web site with
>the following address. I thank Dominik for mounting this at the Indology web
>site.
>
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/members/palaniappan-patanjali.html
>
>....
>
>The findings underscore the importance of the use of Tamil materials for
>arriving at a proper understanding of some ancient Indian cultural elements
>and the need for collaboration between Sanskrit and Tamil scholars.
>
>Comments are welcome.

Dear S. Palaniappan,

I read your paper and thought it was very interesting,
and thought-provoking. I had the same feeling that, if I understand
you well, Agastya was very useful in making the jain work tolkAppiyam
acceptable to a society of scholars where Siva had become supreme.
tolkAppiyan2ar being one of his 12 disciples, he was an acceptable
character, even though he had slightly "misbehaved" with Agastya's wife
by rescueing her from drowning.

Concerning this reappraisal of earlier texts in a new religious context,
I, too, drew inspiration from an article of prof. M. Deshpande.
"Evolution of the notion of Authority (pramanya)
 in the Paninian Tradition", that appeared in 1998
in the 20th issue (1st fasc.) of the journal HEL (_Histoire,
Epistémologie, Langage_, PARIS, Presses Universitaires de France).
This is the text of a talk he gave in Paris in january 1995.

Of course, it would be good to state the arguments that induce you
to give the date of 2nd century BC for tolkAppiyam since it is not
the date which is usually accepted, but, this not being really the topic,
has little bearing on the paper and we can just skip this point.

BTW, how do you evaluate the mention of aintira viyAkaraNam
in the commentary of aTiyArkku nallAr for cilappatikAram XI_98-99
and XI_152-164, when he elucidates the dialogue between a brahmin
and a jain ascetic? is it a real grammar book that he could have seen
or heard of? Is it a kind of mythical reference?

To come back to the topic of your paper (myth-making stimulated by
competition between cities or kingdoms), I would like to know
how you view the role of the city of cIkAzhi in this emulation
between maturai and citamparam? It is the most important
site of tEvAram. On a total of 799 hymns, it has 71 hymns for itself
while citamparam only had 11. Was it left out after tEvAram time?
Did it lack a minister-politician-cum-saint-and-cum-poet
(as was mANikka vAcakar?)?
Why was citamparam given the first place on the list?
How do you fit kAzhi into the global picture?
Any light you can throw is welcome.

Regards

-- Jean-Luc CHEVILLARD (Paris)

>
>Regards
>S. Palaniappan
>