Dating of the Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa ?

[Peter Bisschop]

For what it's worth, here are some thoughts on the relative dating of  
the Li"ngapuraa.na and the "Sivapuraa.na's Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa.

 From a preliminary comparison of textual parallels of the Dak.sa  
myth in the original Skandapuraa.na (SP 32), Li"ngapuraa.na (LiP  
1.100) and Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa ("SiP VaayaviiyaS 1.19--20) I have  
concluded (in my as yet unpublished thesis, p. 180) that the  
Li"ngapuraa.na here presupposes the Skandapuraa.na, and that the  
Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa in its turn has adapted material from the  
Li"ngapuraa.na. Note that my conclusion regarding the priority of the  
Li"ngapuraa.na to the Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa is contrary to the one  
voiced by Annemarie Mertens in her book Der Dak.samythus in der  
episch-pura.nischen Literatur, Wiesbaden 1998, p. 231.

An early testimony of the Li"ngapuraa.na is Yaamuna's  
Aagamapraamaa.nya. Yaamuna quotes two verses  which he attributes to  
the Lai"nga (GOS edition, pp. 87 and 90), and they are attested in  
the Puurvabhaaga (LiP 1.23.143) and the Uttarabhaaga (LiP  
2.1.7cd--8ab) of the Li"ngapuraa.na. Another one on p. 100 remains  
unidentified. Yaamuna also quotes a Vaayaviiya, but that refers to  
the Vaayupuraa.na (p. 90: VaaP 7.66cd = B.dP 1.2.6.63cd). Thus at  
least part of the Li"ngapuraa.na must have been in existence by the  
10th century, but not much earlier I would say. The "Sivapuraa.na's  
Vaayaviiyasa.mhitaa (at least its Dak.sa episode) would have to be  
dated after this. This conclusion is in line with the general  
impression that the "Sivapuraa.na is later than the Li"ngapuraa.na.

Peter Bisschop

On 23 Apr 2006, at 05:46, Dominic Goodall wrote:

> 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
>
> On 22 Apr 2006, at 13:52, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>