[INDOLOGY] Re: On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems

Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan palaniappa at aol.com
Wed Feb 24 20:07:19 UTC 2021

Oops, I meant to correct 'urāak kutirai' to be 'ūrāk kutirai'.



On 2/24/21, 2:04 PM, "Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan" <palaniappa at aol.com> wrote:

    Sorry, please correct 'urāk kutirai' to be 'ūrāk kutirai'.


    On 2/24/21, 1:55 PM, "Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan" <palaniappa at aol.com> wrote:

        Dear JLC,

        Thank you for this link. I should acknowledge that long time ago, it was Rajam who pointed out this type of usage in Classical Tamil to me. It should also be noted that some commentators call this technique by the term 'veḷippaṭai'. This is how Tamil Lexicon explains the term, "(Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the meaning of an ambiguous word is made clear by the use of a qualifying word, as pāyā- vēṅkai; பல்பொருள் குறிக்குஞ் சொல்லை ஒரு பொருட்கு நியமிக்கும்பொருட்டு ஏற்றதோர் அடை கொடுத்துக் கூறும் அணிவகை. (புறநா. 17, உரை.)" It should be noted that by this definition, even affirmatively explaining a homonym is called 'veḷippaṭai'.  Indeed, the example cited by the Tamil Lexicon is one such usage in Puṟam 17.13, i.e., 'aṭu poruna' making clear that by 'poruna' the warrior-king is indicated and not a bard. The commentators also use this term in regards to 'pūvā vañci (Puṟam 32.2), uḻāa nāñcil (Puṟam 139.8), and urāak kutirai (Puṟam 168.14). However, one can see that most of the examples use NAP in these usages.

        That is why I was surprised that commentators like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār missed the significance of the expression 'eḻāap pāṇaṉ'. 


        On 2/22/21, 2:53 AM, "Jean-Luc Chevillard" <jean-luc.chevillard at univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:

            For a recent discussion (in Tamil) of the topic in a Tamil mailing list,


            1. வேளாப் பார்ப்பான் (அகநானூறு)
            2. பொராஅப் பொருநன் (புறநானூறு)
            3. எழாஅப் பாணன் (அகநானூறு)
            4. பறாஅக் குருகு (கலித்தொகை)
            5. சூடா நறவு (பரிபாடல்)
            6. நோக்கல் நோக்கம் (தொல்காப்பியம்)
            7. பாடாத கந்தருவம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல்)
            8. பத்தி கோணாத கோணம் (காளமேகப் புலவர் பாடல)

            -- Jean-Luc Chevvillard


            On 22/02/2021 09:31, SUDALAIMUTHU PALANIAPPAN via INDOLOGY wrote:
            > Dear Herman,
            > Thank you for your comment. Earlier I have discussed in Indology, why 
            > the popular interpretation of ‘paṛppāṉ’ as ‘brahmin’ in all occurrences 
            > should be set aside in favor of treating it as meaning ‘a priest’ in 
            > general, who could be either brahmin or non-brahmin. (I have discussed 
            > the reading vēḷārp paṛppāṉ in Aka. 24 earlier in Indology.)
            > Coming to other occurrences, there are many instances where a homonym is 
            > used in an expression following a verb used as a negative adjectival 
            > participle (NAP). The verb used in the expression cannot be used with 
            > the intended subject and thereby indicates the other unique meaning. 
            > Here are some examples.
            > /tuvvā naṟavu/ - (Pati. 60.12)
            > Here /naṟavu/  can mean toddy as well as a city in the Cēra domain. The 
            > NAP 'non-eaten/non-consumed’ is used to indicate the city.
            > /vāṭā vaḷḷi /- (Peru. 370)
            > Here /vaḷḷi/ can mean either a creeper or a type of dance. The NAP 
            > 'non-withering' is used to indicate the dance.
            > /vāṭā mālai / (Puṟ. 364.1)
            > Here /mālai /can mean either a garland or necklace. The NAP vāṭā 
            > ’non-withering’ is used to indicate a necklace.
            > /eyyā varivil/  (Aka. 192.4)
            > Here /varivil/ can mean either a bow with lines (of material tied around 
            > the bending material) or a rainbow with lines and ‘/ey/’ means ’to 
            > discharge an arrow’. The NAP 'non-arrow-discharging’ is used to indicate 
            > the rainbow.
            > The multiple objects indicated by the homonym can sometimes be linked by 
            > an obvious etymological connection and sometimes not. They can also be 
            > connected by metonymy. When multiple subjects indicated by the homonym 
            > can use the same verb we need to look at other contextual information 
            > provided.
            > Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram Kiḷaviyākkam (/nūṟpā/s 50-54 or 52-55 or 52-56 
            > according to different commentators) deals with this use of homonyms.
            > In the case of porāap porunar and eḻāap pāṇaṉ, we are not dealing with 
            > disparate things like toddy versus city or creeper versus dance. 
            > Moreover, as I have discussed earlier in Indology 
            > (https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA 
            > <https://list.indology.info/empathy/thread/F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA?hash=F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA#F2E2TBAGDGGHNC45MKHVVLBO64ZOYEDA>), 
            > the same word maḷḷar is used to describe both the bards and warriors. 
            > So, in these cases, we are talking about different subsets of a single 
            > community that perform different functions and the poets use the same 
            > general technique we described above to uniquely identify the subset.
            > Regards,
            > Palaniappan
            >> On Jan 24, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Tieken, H.J.H. 
            >> <H.J.H.Tieken at hum.leidenuniv.nl 
            >> <mailto:H.J.H.Tieken at hum.leidenuniv.nl>> wrote:
            >> Dear Palaniappan,
            >> One more remark on the/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ and the other examples 
            >> given mentione by you. >From these constructions it would appear that 
            >> the terms/pārppaṉ/,/porunar/ and///pāṇaṉ/refer to something like a 
            >> (sub)caste called/pār̥ppaṉ/ etc, whose members are not restricted to 
            >> brahmins performing sacrificial duties. However, before being able to 
            >> say something more in this line we have to have more examples of this 
            >> type of compound.
            >> Herman
            >> Herman Tieken
            >> Stationsweg 58
            >> 2515 BP Den Haag
            >> The Netherlands
            >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127
            >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/>
            >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:indology-bounces at list.indology.info>> namens Tieken, H.J.H. 
            >> via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
            >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 09:34:26
            >> *Aan:*Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan; indology
            >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
            >> Dear Palaniappan,
            >> I think your interpretation of/eḻā pāṇaṉ/ is correct, as is that 
            >> of/porāa porunar./I like to add another instance of this type of 
            >> compound (about this, more below), from AN 24:/vēl̥āp pārppaṉ/ Wilden's 
            >> (ad hoc) interpretation of this compound runs as follows: we would 
            >> have to do with a non-sacrificing brahmin (/pārppaṉ/) making a living 
            >> by, in this case, cutting bangles, when he is unable to do so by 
            >> officiating at sacrifices. Also here, your interpretation applies: we 
            >> have to do with a craftsman referred by the same name as a brahmin 
            >> priest. The craftsman is distinguished from the latter by/vēl̥ā/.
            >> I have dealt with the passage in "Translating Tamil Caṅkam Poetry: 
            >> Taking Stock" (OLZ 118 (4-5) (2020), pp. 287-303, esp. p. 294-5 and 
            >> ftn 60) (By contract I am not allowed to place a pdf link on my website)
            >> As to the type of compound, I do not have the article at hand, but I 
            >> think it is precisely the one dealt with by Leendert van Daalen in "A 
            >> Note on/vidhūma/ or/sadhūma/ /iva pāvaka/ at/Rāmāyaṇa/...." in IT 7 
            >> (1979), 171-189.
            >> With kind regards
            >> Herman
            >> Herman Tieken
            >> Stationsweg 58
            >> 2515 BP Den Haag
            >> The Netherlands
            >> 00 31 (0)70 2208127
            >> website:hermantieken.com <http://hermantieken.com/>
            >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >> *Van:*INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:indology-bounces at list.indology.info>> namens Sudalaimuthu 
            >> Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>
            >> *Verzonden:*zondag 24 januari 2021 02:08:14
            >> *Aan:*Indology List
            >> *Onderwerp:*Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
            >> I am reposting after correcting some typos.
            >> I recently came across Auvai Turaicāmip Piḷḷai’s interpretation of 
            >> some key details of Akam 113, and Akam 226. He makes these comments in 
            >> his introduction to the decad called Pāṇaṉ Pattu of his commentary on 
            >> Aiṅkuṟunūṟu (1958: 1028-29). (See attachment.) I do not know if he has 
            >> provided detailed commentaries for the two poems.
            >> With respect to Akam 113, Pillai says that the ruler Pāṇaṉ belonged to 
            >> a section of the bardic community of the Pāṇar that did not engage in 
            >> music and dance but excelled in wrestling and ruling the land. He 
            >> refers to Perumpāṇappāṭi, etc., which we had discussed earlier in the 
            >> thread. Pillai adds that the descendants of that Pāṇāṉ were later 
            >> called  Vāṇar, Vāṇātirāyar, Vāṇataraiyar, and Vāṇakōvaraiyar. Pillai’s 
            >> interpretation has been accepted by many later scholars such as Ve. 
            >> Varatarācan (1973: 15) and Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ (1987: 141). This confirms 
            >> my interpretation of/eḻāa/in Akam 113.17 as 'not making music’. (For 
            >> the affirmative use of/eḻīi/in the sense of music making, see 
            >> Patiṟṟuppattu 29.7-8.)
            >> In this context, it should be noted that the critical edition of 
            >> Akanāṉūṟu by Eva Wilden (2018) interprets the text ‘/eḻā[a]p pāṇaṉ/’ 
            >> as ‘the bard who does not rise’. In my view, Wilden got only half of 
            >> it right. She is right to translate/pāṇaṉ/as ‘the bard’. But, Wilden 
            >> has interpreted/eḻā/as deriving from DEDR 851/eḻu/- 'to rise'. It 
            >> should be related to DEDR 5156/yāḻ, ñāḻ/, stringed musical instrument; 
            >> eḻu- 'to emit sound’… The correct interpretation is ‘the bard who does 
            >> not play the lute/make music’. This usage is the converse of/'porāap 
            >> porunar/' in Puṟam 386.19, where 'non-fighting warriors’ is used to 
            >> refer to bards, where both the bards and warriors can be denoted by 
            >> the word ‘porunar’.
            >> One may argue that the fact Akam 113 uses ‘/eḻā[a]’ to describe 
            >> ‘Pāṇaṉ/’ may simply indicate the homophonous nature of the name of the 
            >> ruler ‘/Pāṇaṉ/’ and the word for the bard, ‘/pāṇaṉ,’/and not 
            >> necessarily show that the ruler was of bardic origin/./ But, we know 
            >> that the bards had received villages as gifts from Puṟam 302. But, 
            >> with respect to bards receiving a bigger territory, we have that 
            >> possibility supported by Ciṟupāṇāṟṟuppaṭai 109 according to which the 
            >> chief Ōri  gave ‘the good country with small hills to Kōṭiyar’. Pillai 
            >> (1958: 1030) states that depending on what they did, Pāṇar were known 
            >> by several names such as Pāṇar, Akavunar, Kūttar, Kōṭiyar, Iyavar, and 
            >> Porunar. In a similar manner, the Pāṇar could have received some 
            >> territory in the northern border area of the Tamil region, which could 
            >> have become the base of the Pāṇar, who later became the Bāṇas.
            >> As for the bards becoming warriors, it is not impossible for one to 
            >> have both skills. In the famous Tanjavur temple inscription South 
            >> Indian Inscriptions, vol 2, no.66, there are several members of the 
            >> crack troops of Ṛājarāja I (Terinta Valaṅkai Vēḷaikkārar, Terinta 
            >> Parikkārar) who have been given grants as musicians (pp.299-300).
            >> The dynastic drift of the Bāṇas from the northern Tamil border area 
            >> into Telugu or Kannada regions is nothing unusual. As I already noted 
            >> in an earlier post, a branch of Cōḻas settled in the Cudappah district 
            >> of the Telugu region in the 7^th century can be seen to drift all the 
            >> way to Sonepur in South Kosala (Orissa) in the 12^th century Mahadā 
            >> plates of Somesvaradevavarman.
            >> In Akam 226, Pillai does not interpret Pāṇaṉ as an ally of Kaṭṭi who 
            >> fled without fighting in the court of the Cōḻa king Tittaṉ Veḷiyaṉ. 
            >> Rather, it was Pāṇaṉ, who was in the court of the Chōḻa king, the 
            >> intended adversary of Kaṭṭi. Modern scholars like Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār 
            >> and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai (1946: 454) unnecessarily add a word 
            >> ‘/kūṭi/’ meaning ‘having joined’ to “/Pāṇaṉoṭu/’ to come up with the 
            >> misinterpreted meaning. The verb ‘/poru/’ ‘to fight’ is preceded by 
            >> the adversary being fought/intended to be fought by the subject of the 
            >> verb with the case marker ‘/oṭu/'. Perhaps Nāṭṭār was influenced by 
            >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār (1923: 1670), who interpreted Pāṇaṉ as an ally of 
            >> Kaṭṭi in his earlier edition. Hart (2015: 232) has followed Nāttār’s 
            >> interpretation.
            >> George L. Hart, 2015. The Four Hundred Songs of Love.Institut Français 
            >> De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
            >> Irā. Iḷaṅkumaraṉ, 1987. Pāṇar. Maṇivācakar Patippakam, Citamparam.
            >> Rā. Irākavaiyaṅkār, 1923. Eṭṭuttokaiyuḷ Neṭuntokai Ākum Akanāṉūṟu 
            >> Mulamum Uraiyum. Vē. Irājakōpālaiyaṅkār Patippu, Mayilāppūr.
            >> Na. Mu. Vēṅkaṭacāmi Nāṭṭār and R. Vēṅkaṭācalam Pīllai, 1946. 
            >> Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟāṉa Akanāṉūṟu Maṇimiṭai Pāvaḷam. Tirunelvēli, 
            >> Tennintiya Caiva Cittāṇta Nuṟpatippuk Kaḻakam, Ceṉṉai.
            >> Auvai Turaicāmip Pillai, 1958. Eṭṭuttokaiyil Oṉṟākiya Aiṅkuṟunūṟu 
            >> Mulamum Viḷakkavuraiyum. Part III. Mullai. Aṇṇāmalaip palkalaik 
            >> kaḻakattārāl veḷiyiṭappeṟṟatu.
            >> Ve. Varatarācaṉ, 1973. Tamiḻppāṇar Vāḻvum Varalāṟum. Pāṇṇaṉ 
            >> Patippakam, Ceṉṉai.
            >> Eva Wilden, 2018.  A Critical Edition and an Annotated Translation of 
            >> the Akanāṉūṟu, 3 volumes.École Française D’Extrême-Orient and Institut 
            >> Français De Pondichéry, Pondicherry.
            >> Regards,
            >> Palaniappan
            >>     On Oct 22, 2012, at 11:13 PM,palaniappa at aol.com
            >>     <mailto:palaniappa at aol.com>wrote:
            >>     Dear George,
            >>     I appreciate your comments.
            >>     As for the fonts, I like to use the diacritic fonts too whenever
            >>     possible. In my first post, I did use the diacritic fonts. But,
            >>     when Dr. Tieken replied to my post the diacritic fonts in my
            >>     earlier post showed up as question marks in my Mac. Since there
            >>     were not too many participants in the thread, to be safe, I
            >>     resorted to the transliteration I used.
            >>     Thanks
            >>     Regards,
            >>     Palaniappan
            >>     -----Original Message-----
            >>     From: George Hart <glhart at BERKELEY.EDU <mailto:glhart at BERKELEY.EDU>>
            >>     To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
            >>     <mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>>
            >>     Sent: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 3:53 pm
            >>     Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] On the Date of Classical Tamil Poems
            >>     Dear Palaniappan,
            >>     I think you have made a good case for Pāṇaṉ and Bāṇa, and
            >>     especially like the perumpāṇaṉ / bṛhadbāṇa, as even the
            >>     alliteration works.  I hope you publish this, as it is
            >>     significant, I think.  I am still not convinced by what you say
            >>     about pāṇar in the Kuṟuntokai poem -- after reading many Sangam
            >>     poems and working through much of the Akananuru, your
            >>     interpretation just doesn't sound right to me.  Of course, that
            >>     doesn't mean you aren't correct, but there's really no way to
            >>     tell.  If the Pāṇar were standing to one side (or, more likely, in
            >>     the middle of one side playing their drums), and a battle started,
            >>     they'd still be looking in front and behind them to avoid being
            >>     killed.  Thanks for an intriguing and informative analysis.
            >>     One remark: Why not use roman unicode, as it's very hard to read
            >>     the transliteration that eschews diacritic marks.  I believe every
            >>     OS and email program is capable of handling 8-bit unicode.
            >>     George
            >>     On Oct 21, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan
            >>     <Palaniappa at AOL.COM <mailto:Palaniappa at AOL.COM>> wrote:
            >>         Dear George,
            >>         Please see the attached inscription. What can one say about
            >>         the perumpANan here? Is he a pANan2 or bANan2? Which comes
            >>         first - perumpANan2 or bRhad-bANa? The modifier 'peru' is
            >>         found in other names such as perumuttaraiyar (mentioned in
            >>         nAlaTiyAr), ko-p-peruñ-cOzan2, peruñ-cEral, etc. The title
            >>         peru- is very common in Tamil. It was also used in connection
            >>         with different professions as in perumpANan2 and perunAvican2.
            >>         Then how about the title bRhad in bRhadbANa?
            >>         First of all, the title bRhad-bANa for a dynasty is very
            >>         unusual. The only other so-called dynastic title I know of,
            >>         bRhatphAlAyana, is not a dynastic title at all. In fact, in
            >>         the case of bRhatphAlAyanas and sAlankAyanas, according to K.
            >>         A. Nilakanta Sastri, the scholars have simply used the gotra
            >>         names in the absence of dynastic names.  (Early History of the
            >>         Andhra Country, p.151, n.1). Moreover, it is only in the
            >>         tALagunda inscription we find the occurrence of 'bRhad-bANa'.
            >>         Everywhere else in non-Tamil inscriptions, the members of the
            >>         dynasty are called bANarAja, bANAdhirAja-. In other words we
            >>         only find bANa- but not bRhad-bANa. But in Tamil we find many
            >>         instances of perumpANaraicar, permpANan, etc.
            >>         This leads one to infer that the author of the tALagunda
            >>         inscription was simply translating the name perumpANan2 into
            >>         Sanskrit. Since in Tamil -p- following nasal -m- is pronounced
            >>         as -b-, the author of tALagunda has rendered the first
            >>         component as bRhad and kept the second part as bANa. This
            >>         suggests that the original form of the dynastic name should
            >>         have been Ta. pANan2. It is also possible that in the Kannada
            >>         and Telugu areas 'pANa-' was being pronounced as 'bANa' either
            >>         independently or influenced by the pronunciation of '- pANan2'
            >>         in perumpANan2 as '-bANan2' .  Once the stand-alone form
            >>         'bANa' becomes widespread, a re-branding using a Sanskrit
            >>         mythological pedigree tracing the lineage to mahAbali, father
            >>         of bANAsura is carried out with the dynastic title as 'bANa'.
            >>         Later when this form 'bANa' is imported back into Tamil, Skt.
            >>         bANa > Ta. vANa-.
            >>         In the book "ceGkam naTukaRkaL" inscription no. 1971/54 of the
            >>         2nd year of Narasimhavarman II mentions a vANakO atiraicar. In
            >>         the same collection, no. 1971/73 of the 10th year of the same
            >>         king mentions a perumpANatiyaraicar.
            >>         The phrase "ezAap pANan2" further points to the homophon
            >>         indicating bard as well as the chieftain suggesting in this
            >>         case that the chieftain was called 'pANan2' too with
            >>         word-initial p-.
            >>         As for the domicile and area controlled by the pANan2/bANa
            >>         chiefs, it has varied historically. They might have started
            >>         near Gingee where the paRaiyan2paTTu inscription is found
            >>         mentioning 'pANAtu'. (At least one variant of akam.155
            >>         mentions pANATu. See Early Tamil Epigraphy, p. 629 for a
            >>         discussion of this.) Then they could have moved north so that
            >>         by the 4th century they are found near zrIparvata hill. After
            >>         serving the Chalukya, Pallava, and Chola dynasties, in the
            >>         13th century, we see bANa chieftains with titles such as
            >>         mAvali vANAdirAyan, mAbali vANarAyar, etc., controlling parts
            >>         of the pANTiya country under the pANTiyas. As a parallel case,
            >>         it should be noted that a branch of the Cholas, Telugu Cholas,
            >>          were controlling areas around Sonepur in Orissa in the 12th
            >>         century issuing inscriptions in Sanskrit tracing their descent
            >>         to Chola karikAla and uRaiyUr (EI 28, p. 286) progressively
            >>         moving northeast from the area to the north of the Tamil
            >>         country over several centuries.
            >>         In my opinion, the pANan2 mentioned in Akam 113 and 226
            >>         referred to one or more members of the same lineage later
            >>         called the bANas.
            >>         kaTTi mentioned in akam 226 is also mentioned in akam 44 as
            >>         well as kuRuntokai 11. See below.
            >>         /tun2 arum kaTum tiRal kaGkan2 kaTTi (akam. 44.8)/
            >>         /pal vEl kaTTi nal nATTu umpar/
            >>         /mozipeyar tEettar Ayin2um/(kuRu. 11.7-8)
            >>         We should take the dynatic names mentioned here as individuals
            >>         belonging the dynasty being mentioned. Like the bAnas, these
            >>         dynasties were also in the northern border of the Tamil
            >>         country. 'kaGkan' referred to the Western Ganga dynasty.
            >>         Vicciyar were also in the northern area. So it is not
            >>         surprising that pANar allied themselves with vicci or kaTTi.
            >>         The use of the plural form pANar in kuRu. 328 is of the same
            >>         nature as in akam. 336 below.
            >>         /mAri ampin2 mazai tOl cOzar/
            >>         /vil INTu kuRumpin2 vallattup puRa miLai/
            >>         /Ariyar paTaiyin2 uTaika en2/
            >>         /nEr iRai mun2kai vIgkiya vaLaiy/E (akam. 336.20-23)
            >>         Here 'cOzar' (in plural) could refer to the cOza fighters.
            >>         Similarly, you can see 'cOzar' used below referring to the
            >>         cOza fighters
            >>         /koRRac cOzar kogkarp paNIiyar/
            >>         /veNkOTTu yAn2aip pOor kizavOn2/
            >>         /pazaiyan2 vEl vAyttan2n2a nin2/(naR. 10.6-8)
            >>         So in kuRu. 328, pANar (bANa) forces would have joined the
            >>         battle on the side of the vicciyar who might be led by their
            >>         chief, 'perumakan2'. It is possible the pANan2 chief might
            >>         have sent his forces without joining them.
            >>         As for non-fighters standing between the two armies, I
            >>         consider it highly unlikely they were standing in between the
            >>         fighting armies. They have to be really standing on the side
            >>         while the battle is raging and in that case they will only
            >>         move their gaze from side to side and not front and back. So I
            >>         do not think simhAvalokanyAya will be valid here. At least if
            >>         the description applies to the fighters, then their behavior
            >>         will parallel the warriors whether it is their fierce look or
            >>         looking forward and backward, So, the looking persons should
            >>         be fighters and not bards.
            >>         Regards,
            >>         Palaniappan
            >>         <Perumpanan_0004.jpg>
            >> _______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing 
            >> listINDOLOGY at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>indology-owner at list.indology.info 
            >> <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info>(messages to the list's 
            >> managing committee)http://listinfo.indology.info 
            >> <http://listinfo.indology.info/>(where you can change your list 
            >> options or unsubscribe)
            > _______________________________________________
            > INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology at list.indology.info
            > To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave at list.indology.info
            > indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
            > http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
            INDOLOGY mailing list -- indology at list.indology.info
            To unsubscribe send an email to indology-leave at list.indology.info
            indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
            http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list