Re. dakSiNAmuRti -1
Palaniappa at AOL.COM
Sat Jan 23 03:31:43 EST 1999
Because of the length, I am splitting this post into two parts.
In a message dated 1/21/99 10:55:17 AM Central Standard Time,
naga_ganesan at HOTMAIL.COM writes:
> CilappatikAram (ca. 400 AD) is the first Indian text mentioning
This is not correct. If dakSiNAmUrti as one sitting under a banyan tree is the
one being referred to, CT texts mention it in many places as Dr. N. Ganesan
has noted in an earlier posting. If it is the "southern" aspect of
dakSiNAmUrti is what is being specifically referred to, then the earliest
reference is in the CT text, maturaikkAJci, as given in the following lines.
ten2n2avan2 peyariya tun2 aru tuppin2
tol mutu kaTavuL pin2n2ar mEya
varai tAz aruvi poruppin2 poruna (maturaikkAJci 40-42)
Here the Pandiyan king is praised as the "warrior who posseses the mountain
with cascading waterfalls where reside the disciples/followers of the ancient
god with unapproachable prowess who has the same name as the Southern One".
The mountain here refers to "potiyil' even though it is not explicitly named
here. This will become obvious when we compare these lines with the following
lines from cilappatikAram
maRai mutu mutalvan2 pin2n2ar mEya
poRai uyar potiyil poruppan2
Translation: "the one possessing the "potiyil" mountain where the followers of
the ancient first one of the vedas live"
The lines from maturaikkAJci have not been properly understood till now. Old
commentators such as naccin2Arkkin2iyar as well as modern commentators such as
perumazaippulavar have been influenced so much by the Agastya myth that they
have overlooked a basic grammatical flaw in their interpretation. The lines
actually talk about multiple followers and not a single person. For instance
if a single person were to be referred to, we should have maRai mutu mutalvan2
pin2n2an2/pin2n2On2. The use of honorific singular is not likely given the
style of CT poems or the use of singular for the god ziva himself .
More information about the INDOLOGY