[INDOLOGY] Query

[Olivelle, J P]

Thank you so much, Tim. This is exactly what I needed. We still have to find out why Skanda is called tilakasvāmin, but the identity is clearly established, and clearly the Vulgate and Vijñāneśvara are wrong in their reading here. Thanks again.

Best,

Patrick



On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:50 PM, Lubin, Tim <LubinT at wlu.edu<mailto:LubinT at wlu.edu>> wrote:

Patrick

Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī on Brahmasūtra begins with some maṅgalam  verses, one of which reads:

mārtaṇḍa-tilakasvāmi-mahāgaṇapatīn vayam  I
viśvavandyānnamasyāmaḥ sarvasiddhividhāyinaḥ  || 4

This parallels Vijñāneśvara’s "āditya-skanda-gaṇapatīnām”

Govindānanda's Ratnaprabhāvyākhyā on BrS 3.3.1 is similarly introduced:

mārtaṇḍaṃ dhvāntanāśāya tilakasvāminaṃ mude |
vighneśaṃ vighnavidhvastyai praṇamāmi muhurmuhuḥ ||

Yours,

Tim

Timothy Lubin
Professor of Religion and Adjunct Professor of Law
Chair of the Department of Religion
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia 24450

http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint
http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=930949
ḷ

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info<mailto:indology-bounces at list.indology.info>> on behalf of Patrick Olivelle <jpo at austin.utexas.edu<mailto:jpo at austin.utexas.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:55 PM
To: indology <indology at list.indology.info<mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Query

In the Yājñavalkya Smṛti (1.290 — but 1.294 in Vijñāneśvara’s enumeration and 1.292 in Aparārka’s) we have the verse:


ādityasya sadā pūjāṃ tilakasvāminas tathā |

mahāgaṇapateś caiva kurvan siddhim avāpnuyāt ||

My critical edition has the reading “tilakasvāminas” following the Malayalam mss. and Viśvarūpa’s commentary. Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka (as also all the Vulgate manuscripts) read “tilakaṃ svāminas”. Vijñā explains tilakam as: ādityaskandagaṇapatīnām anyatamasya sarveṣāṃ vā tilakaṃ svarṇanirmitaṃ rūpyanirmitaṃ vā kurgan. So he takes “tilaka” as a forehead mark (ornament) made out of gold or silver and, probably, attached to a statue of one of these gods.

If, however, Viśvarūpa is correct, and the verb kurvan has a single object “pūjām”, then we have the compound “tilakasvāminas”, which nicely parallels “mahāgaṇapateś”.

My query is, has anyone seen the epithet “tilakasvāmin” applied to Skandia. I’d be much obliged for any comments on this.

With thanks and best wishes,

Patrick






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160811/d444246a/attachment.htm>