Kashmir, Tamilnadu, Panini, Abhinavagupta, etc.

Elliot Stern emstern at NNI.COM
Sat Jan 9 00:29:27 EST 1999

Elliot Stern:
>> The term pAtaJjalam, when it refers to a branch of learning in Sanskrit
>>  literature, generally refers to the pAtaJjalaM yogaSAstram, rather than the
>>  pAtaJjalaM mahAbhASyam. As South Indian Inscriptions Volume 14 is not
>>  available to me at home, it is not clear to me if the interpretation of
>>  pAtaJjalam as the mahAbhASyam is A.S. Ramanatha Ayyar's, or S.
>>  Palaniappan's. What is the justification for the interpretation pAtaJjalam
>>  = pAtaJjalaM mahAbhASyam for this inscription?

S. Palaniappan:

>What I gave was a direct quote of what A. S. Ramanatha Ayyar wrote on page iii
>of SII vol. 14. While some of Ayyar's paraphrasing regarding other texts may
>be imprecise, I fully agree with him on the identification of pAtaJjalam with
>maHAbhASya. This will become clear when we look at the actual Tamil text of
>the inscription (p.56).

Elliot Stern:

I have perhaps been misled by the direct quotation you gave from A.S.
Ramanatha Ayyar in your previous message:

"A. S. Ramanatha Ayyar, editor of South Indian Inscriptions Volume 14, says
'ten2n2avan2 tamizavEL, an officer of this king, is eulogized for his
scholarship in Sanskrit and Tamil in a fragmentary inscription in Tamil verse
(No. 87). He is described as a minister well-versed in the vEdas, vEdAGgas,
the different works in Sanskrit, Law, purANa, muttamiz (the three branches of
Tamil learning, viz., iyal or literature, izai <sic> or music and nATaka) and
pAtaJjalam (i.e. the original work of pataJjali).'"

In this quotation, Ramanatha Ayyar mentions the ten2n2van2 tamizavEL was
proficient in the vedAGgas, among other branches of learning. As these
vedAGgas usually include vyAkaraNam, and proficiency in vyAkaraNam surely
includes understanding of the mahAbhASyam, I almost suggested in my
previous reply that knowledge of mahAbhASyam had already been implied. But
I refrained from doing so, because lists like this may occasionally mention
particulars that would be included under general classifications already
mentioned. Mention of such particular items would tend to emphasize them. I
now see from the portion of the Tamil text of the inscription that you
cite, that it specifically mentions 6 darzanas, though Ramanatha Ayyar does
not mention them on page iii.

Does Ramanatha Ayyar his "vEdas, vEdAGgas" from maRai poruL? If so, is that
a usual or unusual interpretation? If not, is "vEdAGgas" one of the
imprecisions in his paraphrase? Or, if I may ask quite bluntly, does a term
for "vedAGgas" occur in the Tamil text at all?

I look forward to your further reply.


Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029

telephone: 215 747 6204

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list