A Garuda Purana question

[Dominic Goodall]

The passage is clearly related to this one, from the uttarakha.n.da  
of the Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa (in the "Sivapuraa.na)
10:67c--71:

a.s.tadhaa lak.sa.na.m praahurmama dharmaadhikaari.naam //
madbhaktajanavaatsalya.m puujaayaa.m caanumodanam //
svayamabhyarcana.m caiva madarthe caa.mgace.s.titam //
matkathaa"srava.ne bhakti.h svaranetraa.mgavikriyaa.h //
mamaanusmara.na.m nitya.m ya"sca maamupajiivati //
evama.s.tavidha.m cihna.m yasmin mlecche .api vartate //
sa viprendro muni.h "sriimaansa yatissa ca pa.m.dita.h //
na me priya"scaturvedii madbhakto "svapaco .api ya.h //
tasmai deya.m tato graahya.m sa ca puujyo yathaa hyaham //

The last verse of this is quoted, without attribution, by Jayaratha  
in his commentary
on Tantraaloka 4:203.

Cf. this, from the 12th ullaasa of the Kulaar.navatantra:

na me priya"scaturvedii madbhakta.h "svapaco.api vaa |
tasmai deya.m tato graahya.m sa tu puujyo hyaha.m tathaa || 27 ||
vipra.h  .sa.dgu.nayukta"scedabhakto  na  pra"sasyate |
mleccho.api gu.nahiino.api bhaktimaan "si.sya ucyate || 28 ||

While I am sure Professor Aklujkar's interpretation is correct, I  
have come across one passage where the phrase has been reused by a  
redactor who, oddly, seems to have misunderstood it or understood it  
differently. Towards the end of the tantraavataara pa.tala (1st or  
2nd) of the unpublished Viiraagama, the sources I have seen seem  
corrupt, but I think that the text probably read something like this:

a.s.tavi.m"satibhedena "saivabheda.m vidhiiyate|
ete.saa.m sa.mkara.m caiva na do.saaya prakalpate|
diik.sitasya sudhiirasya "sivabhaktiratasya ca|
tasmai deya.m tato graahya.m traivar.nikamihocyate|
adiik.sitair na "srotavya.m na deya.m yasya kasya cit|

which may mean:

``The "saiva division [of knowledge] is taught divided into 28  
[principal scriptures].  Mixing up [the ritual teachings] of these  
[28] does not create problems for one who is initiated, steadfast,  
devoted to love of "Siva.  To such a person one should give ["Saiva  
scripture]; from such a person one may receive ["Saiva scripture].  
This [teaching?] is here [viz. according to the "Saiva view] taught  
to belong to those of the [top] 3 var.nas. It should not be studied  
orally by non-initiates.  It should not be given to just anyone."

Dominic Goodall





On 19 Apr 2006, at 22:35, Richard Salomon wrote:

> Ashok's remarks make me wonder if this is related in any way to the  
> curious term "mleccaacaarya" which occurs (I think) in the  
> Mahaabhaarata. I studied this expression many years ago (but never  
> published the results), and I don't remember the details off hand.  
> But I could try to dig up my old notes if anyone is interested.
>
> Richard Salomon
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ashok Aklujkar"  
> <aklujkar at INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>
> To: <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:39 PM
> Subject: Re: A Garuda Purana question
>
>
> Dear Dr. Palaniappan,
>
> I cannot answer your question regarding the commentators'  
> explanations (I do
> not even know if the GMP has any commentators).
>
> Grammar requires that yasmin and yati.h of your passage should be read
> respectively as yo 'syaam (= ya.h asyaam = ya.h asyaa.m bhaktau/ 
> bhaktyaam)
> and yaati.
>
> The passage is important for its liberal outlook. It teaches that  
> even a
> mleccha having certain qualities should be treated like a saint, a  
> brahmin
> and  God himself (apparently at least a few Hindus followed this  
> valuation;
> some Hindu saints are spoken of as disciples of Muslim fakirs or  
> Sufis).
>
> The phrase tasmai deya.m tato graahyam is grammatically two  
> sentence: 'One
> should make offerings to him; one should take things from him (without
> worrying about pollution etc.?).' While I do not know if it occurs
> elsewhere, I would expect it to be an easily formable phrase not  
> having any
> special role to play as a unit.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> ashok aklujkar
>
>
> On 18-04-2006 13:32, "Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan"  
> <Palaniappa at AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> Dear Indologists,
>>
>> The Garuda Maha Puranam 227.9-10 I am looking at has the  
>> following  text:
>>
>> bhaktiraSTavidhA  hyeSA yasmin mleccho Opi varttate||
>> sa viprendromuniH zrImAn sa yatiH paramAM  gatim||
>> tasmai deyaM tato grAhyaM sa ca pUjyo yathA hariH||
>>
>> This  could be in 219.6-10 in other versions. Can anybody tell me  
>> how "tasmai
>> deyAM  tato grAhyaM" is explained by different commentators? Does  
>> this phrase
>> occur  anywhere else prior to Garuda Purana? What is the date of this
>> particular  line?
>>
>> Thanks  in advance.
>>
>> Regards
>> S.  Palaniappan
>>
>>