[INDOLOGY] INDOLOGY Digest, Vol 7, Issue 7

[Ken Robbins]

On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:05 PM, indology-request at list.indology.info wrote:

> Send INDOLOGY mailing list submissions to
> 	indology at list.indology.info
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology_list.indology.info
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	indology-request at list.indology.info
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	indology-owner at list.indology.info
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of INDOLOGY digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: Sacrificial Tortoise? (George Hart)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:06:11 -0700
> From: George Hart <glhart at berkeley.edu>
> To: Indology List <indology at list.indology.info>
> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Sacrificial Tortoise?
> Message-ID: <330C623F-C398-4B81-9521-EE2922236E58 at berkeley.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> In the poems, it is common for the hero to address his heart and blame it for motivating him to leave his woman and go into the wilderness to acquire wealth.  In such poems -- and there are many of them -- the hero and his heart are treated as different beings.  In Akam 9, for example, the hero's heart has already reunited with the heroine while the hero is still on his way home.  In this poem, the hero blames his heart for making him set out, and then, in the middle of the wilderness, tells his heart it must stop thinking of the heroine.  This is all quite clear in the poem.
> 
> As for the sacrifice -- what can we say or know?  It is possible the priest Staal spoke to did not want to admit to killing the turtle -- since Nambudris are strict vegetarians and would lose status if people think they roast turtles.  But assuming the agnicayana does not involve actually burning the tortoise, that doesn't tell us what happened in the ritual in this poem, which seems to suggest pretty clearly that it was burned and may not even be referring to the agnicayana.  It's also possible the person who wrote the poem misinterpreted the ritual he saw.  As for the sarcasm I and others see in this poem, obviously there is no way to be absolutely sure.  But there is no question, I think, that our sympathies lie with the tortoise and that the ritual is likened to the burning wilderness.  This would seem to indicate that there is some sarcasm involved.  As for periy?r, we cannot know if it was intended sarcastically or not.  The fact that it is nowhere else used for the gods in the Sangam corpus (to my knowledge) indicates the poet may have have meant it in a sarcastic way.  I've tried to convey that possibility by translating the word as "great beings."
> 
> I don't think we can say much more about this poem.  My thanks to Palaniappan, Prof. Tieken, and others for their suggestions.  George Hart 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 1:10 AM, "Tieken, H.J.H." <H.J.H.Tieken at HUM.LEIDENUNIV.NL> wrote:
> 
>> Earlier I tried to send the mail below to the list, but I think that it went only to Dr. Palaniappan. Therefore I try again. H.T.
>> 
>> Dear Professor Hart,
>> I am not sure if you have properly understood Akananuru 361. In paraphrase: in the poem a traveler is speaking to his heart, that is, to himself. When he started on his journey he managed to convince himself that work was more important than love. During his travels, however, his heart/he could think only of his wife. All he wanted was to go back home. Now that he is almost home he can stop wanting and longing for her.
>> 
>> If there is any ?sarcastic intent? involved it concerns the helplessness of the speaker, or rather, the paradoxical situation he finds himself in. As I have argued elsewhere, always look for the paradox (pace the translation of the Sattasa? by Peter Khoroche and me, and my review of Selby's translation of the Ai?ku?un??u; for exact references, go to my website: hermantieken.com). I am unable to follow you where you make the gods (periy?r) the object of sarcasm. Probably, however, that has to do with the fact that you put the Tamil poets and the representatives of the Sanskrit tradition in entirely different, if not opposite, worlds. Poems like the one under discussion only show that this position is untenable. See in this connection my ?Early Tamil poetics between N??ya??stra and R?gam?l?? published in the proceedings of a seminar held a few years back in Cambridge. I am unable to supply the bibliographical details as I have not received ?my? copy of the book as yet.
>> 
>> I am not a specialist of Vedic ritual, but Palaniappan may well be right about the tortoise. Note that according to theN??ya??stra the stage floor, a mimicry of the sacrificial area, may have the form of a tortoise, that is, sloping to the sides. Probably the verb ?ra in the poem does not mean ?eat? but ?be happy, satisfied?, in which case periy?r may well refer to the officiating priests.
>> 
>> Herman Tieken 
>> 
>> Herman Tieken
>> University of Leiden
>> The Netherlands
>> website: hermantieken.com
>> Van: INDOLOGY [indology-bounces at list.indology.info] namens George Hart [glhart at berkeley.edu]
>> Verzonden: donderdag 1 augustus 2013 20:44
>> To: Indology List
>> Onderwerp: Re: [INDOLOGY] Sacrificial Tortoise?
>> 
>> Thanks to everyone for intriguing and useful replies. The poem is interesting enough, I think, to quote in its entirety, along with the text (from Project Madurai). I am grateful to V. S. Rajam for pointing out the use of words that is the key to the poem.  The original says "flowers that do not char," not "flowers that do not wither," as the commentators would have it, and the gods are described as periy?r, "great ones," probably with sarcastic intent.  One can imagine the gods coming and consuming the poor tortoise that has been cooked alive in the pit without even their flowers getting scorched by the heat.  It is also notable that the sacrifice is likened to the wilderness, a barren, uncivilized place, while the pond from which the tortoise has been taken is compared to the civilized, family life that the hero has left behind.  I would certainly agree with Jean-Luc that our sympathies are supposed to be with the tortoise.  George
>> 
>> 361. P?lai
>> 
>> The hero, who has left (the heroine) to go for wealth, speaks to his heart as he is going.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> As they dart on her lovely face, the cool, exuberant eyes of my woman
>> 
>> are like dark-petaled waterlily flowers tied together
>> 
>> over the pure flower of a lotus. Her wrists wear fine bangles, her lips are beautiful.
>> 
>> She gets angry if there is even the distance of a thread separating us
>> 
>> when I embrace her ample breasts encircled by a band.
>> 5
>> 
>> But when I told you kindly that there is nothing more wonderful
>> 
>> than knowing the joy of such great passion, you didn?t agree,
>> 
>> O deluded heart so anxious to acquire wealth!
>> 
>> Now, you must not be like the tortoise longing to go
>> 
>> to its wide, shadowed pond after it?s been put in a fiery sacrificial pit
>> 10
>> 
>> as food for the great beings whose flowers never char in the heat.
>> 
>> You must stop thinking of the arms
>> 
>> of our woman whose words are few,
>> 
>> whose teeth are like thorns,
>> 
>> for we have suffered and crossed into the wide wasteland
>> 15
>> 
>> filled with mountains and burning hills.
>> 
>> Eyi?antai Maka??r I?a?k?ra??r
>> 
>> This poem seems to be a subtle but effective put-down of the Vedic sacrifice, perhaps because its author was influenced by Jaina or Buddhist thought.  It is notable that the sacrificial pit with its fire is compared to the wilderness while the tortoise who is about to be burned alive normally lives in a place likened to civilized, family life.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 5. ?Band? is v?r, which was apparently tied around the breasts to keep them from sagging, much like a brassiere.
>> 
>> 9. ?You must not be? is added.
>> 
>> 11. One of the characteristics of the gods in Hinduism is that their garlands never fade.  ?Great beings? is periy?r, ?great ones,? probably used here with sarcastic intent, and ?never char? is kariy?, which the commentaries take as ?unwithering? (even though that is not one of its meanings).  I am grateful to V. S. Rajam for pointing out that the commentators seem to have missed the sarcastic intent here.  One can imagine the gods coming and consuming the poor tortoise that has been cooked alive in the pit without even their flowers getting scorched by the heat.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ???????? ????? ?????????? ???? 
>> ??????????? ??????? ???????? ???????? 
>> ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? 
>> ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????????
>> 5
>> ????????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? 
>> ??????? ????????????? ???????????? ?????? 
>> ??????? ??????? ??????? ????????
>> ?????????? ????? ????? ??????!-
>> ??????? ?????? ???????? ??   10
>> ?????? ????????? ?????? ???? 
>> ??????? ?????????? ????????? ??????? 
>> ???????? ???????? ????? ??????????????
>> ???????? ????? ????- ?????? 
>> ??????? ????????? ?????????? 
>> ?????? ??? ???????? ????!   16
> 
>