A Garuda Purana question
Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
Palaniappa at AOL.COM
Sat Apr 22 08:22:35 UTC 2006
Dear Dr. Goodall,
Thanks for your post. I too agree with Prof. Aklujkar regarding the liberal
message of the passage. In fact, it looks like what we have here is only a
pale reflection of a much more extremely liberal or revolutionary view
presented by the Tamil bhakti tradition.
While the unit 'give, receive' may not have any special significance in the
Sanskrit tradition, in the Tamil tradition, it also can signify giving a girl
in marriage or receiving a girl in marriage between families. In fact,
periyavAccAn2 piLLai, the 13th century commentator makes a deliberate effort to
rule out this interpretation in connection with the following verse in
tirumAlai 42 (given in translation) belonging to 9th century AD.
“O the one who is in high-walled Srirangam, you said, “O many brahmins of
the four Vedas, who follow the blemishless path! even if my devotees are of
low caste, worship them, give to them and receive from them”, and graciously
made them worship the devotees as they do you.”
(In tirumAlai 39, the author says that viSNu prefers his devotees who are
outcastes by birth rather than caturvedis who are not his devotees. In
tirumAlai 40, he says that devotees of viSNu even if they have earned the sin of
killing and burning many animals, they will escape the results of those sinful
acts. In tirumAlai 41, the author declares that the leftover food of lowly
persons is holy if they are devotees of viSNu. So the issue of pollution in
ordinary material transaction is already dealt with by the saint-poet.
'caturvedi' also has a special significance with respect to Tamil Nadu where many
brahmadeya villages were named caturvedi mangalam)
Advocacy of intercaste marriage is probably too much for the commentator who
interprets 'giving and receiving' as referring to sharing the knowledge
regarding viSNu. (This interpretation is similar to the one in vIrAgama you have
mentioned.)
The unit 'give, receive' is first seen in a zaivite tEvaram verse by appar
(6-7th century AD). The emotional nature of bhakti suggested by the contexts
in garuDa purANa and ziva purANa, seems to suggest the Tamil emotional bhakti
tradition to be the source of inspiration for the passage in question. But
the commentator considers the Sanskrit passage to be the original. This is a
common phenomenon one can see with respect to many medieval Tamil texts which
were presented by their authors as translations of Sanskrit originals as in
the case of the tiruviLaiyATaRpurANam dealing with the stories ziva in
Madurai.
I would be very interested in the dates of the passages you have quoted.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Palaniappan
In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:51:02 A.M. Central Standard Time,
dominic.goodall at GMAIL.COM writes:
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
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list