pataJjali and pANini myths

Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan Palaniappa at AOL.COM
Sun May 30 04:35:25 UTC 1999

In a message dated 5/29/99 5:51:18 AM Central Daylight Time,
jlc at CCR.JUSSIEU.FR writes:

> 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.

Have we not discussed this already? See my post of 5 July 1998 entitled, "Re:
Sanskrit, centamiz, and diglossia"

>  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?

As for as the brahmin was considered, it was almost mythical. As for the
Jain, it was part of another text. What the episode does show is the
importance of grammar as a field of study for Tamils.

>  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.

By and large, I agree with Ganesan's view. cIrkAzi's importance was
associated with campantar. Moreover, the number of hymns has no perfect
correlation with a city's importance. Like tillai, Madurai also had only 11.
But Madurai has always been more important than cIrkAzi. As I said in the
essay, Chidambaram had become associated with the royal houses. See also
Zvelebil's work where he discusses the Chola queen cempiyan2mAtEvi's interest
in Chidamparam. No wonder Chidambaram rose to the top of the sacred sites.

Apart from this, one may need to look into the possibility of different cults
associating with different temples, much like different mutts controlling
different temples today. As a cult loses its following, the associated temple
may lose its patronage also.

S. Palaniappan

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list