Dating of the Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa ?

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

Dear Dr. Goodall,
 
I have referred to "Garu.da Puraa.na - A Study" by N. Gangadharan  (Varanasi, 
1972) who discusses the dating by different scholars including  Hazra and 
says that "In the same manner as in the case of several other  Puraa.nas date 
could be suggested only for the sections of the GP and not for  the whole 
Puraa.na as such." I wanted to know if there had been any study of GP  after 
Gangadharan's which might have addressed the dating of the passage in  question. 
Scholars seem to have looked into the Sanskrit texts  alone for a comparative study 
of GP. In much the same way Bhaagavata  Puraa,na was studied in relation to 
the Tamil Tivviyappirapantam of Aa.lvaars  (although since BhP and GP have been 
compared one could say indirectly GP  and Tamil materials have been 
compared). My own feeling is that in the  absence of any firmly dated earlier Sanskrit 
text, the Sanskrit passage in  question is inspired by the bhakti poetry of 
To.n,tara.tippo.ti Aa.lvaar.  (Gangadharan also concludes that the Vi.s.nu 
Bhakti section of Brahmakha.n.da  was most probably added in South India. This 
kha.n.da, of course,  is different from the Puurvakha.n.da which has the passage 
we are  discussing.)
 
As for the liberal nature of the passage, the Sanskrit passage may not  
convey the full message. Also, I had not translated the relevant Tamil verses in  
full in order to keep the post short. The message in this Aa.lvaar's poems is  
not simply what bhakti can do for the devotee or what the devotee can achieve  
but also how others, especially Brahmins, should treat the devotee.  Also the 
Tamil Bhakti movement terms for saints meaning 'lords' were based with  
respect to how they should be viewed by other people and not on their  relationship 
to their god. 
 
The liberality of the message of Aa.lvaar is also underscored by the  
hagiographic story of Ramanuja, a brahmin, desiring to eat the leftovers of  
Tirukkacci Nampi, a non-brahmin teacher who because of his own perception  of his 
lower caste status deliberately avoided the possibility of  Ramanuja getting 
access to his leftovers. The hagiography is a few centuries  later than the poetry 
of the Aa.lvaars.
 
Regards
S. Palaniappan
 
In a message dated 4/23/2006 10:19:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
dominic.goodall at GMAIL.COM writes:

Dear Dr.  Palaniappan,

I don't think that it is likely to be possible to pin down  the date  
of your lines very precisely.  Have you already had a  look at R.C.  
Hazra's "Studies in the Puraa.nic Records on Hindu  Rites and  
Customs" (Dacca, 1940), pp.141--5, where he discusses the  dating of  
the Garu.dapuraa.na and comes to the conclusion that it is  probable  
that much of the extant Garu.dapuraa.na was composed  between 850 and  
1000 AD ?

Other list-members are no doubt  better informed than I am about  
current thinking on the dating of  this text and of the  
Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa, which Hazra does not  discuss (at least not in  
this book, except to make clear that he  thinks it later than the  
Vaayupuraa.na).

As for the  "liberalism" of these puraa.nic passages, it seems indeed  
to be not  strong, since the point of both is of course rather to  
emphasise  rhetorically the extraordinary potency of bhakti.

Dominic  Goodall