kArSNeya_upAkhyAna?

[Guest guest]

I'm trying to clarify a reference made by Madhusudana Sarssvati in

his paramahaMsapriyA commentary on the first zloka of the bhAgavata.

He refers to the "Karsneya, Adhyatma, and other upakhyanas." Has

anyone heard of these texts. Parts of the Mahabharata? Pancaratra?

 

Here's the passage:

 

kevala-bhakti-rasikAs tu, kevala-vAsudevAvatAra-zrIkRSNa-mAtra-

paratayA yojayanti | saMkarSaNa- pradyumnAniruddhAnAM sva-

samAkhyayaiva pRthag-avatIrNatvAd vAsudevAvatAra eva zrIkRSNaH

kArSNeyAdhyAtmAdy-upAkhyAneSv api tathaiva pratipAdyate

 

Rough trans: The connoisseurs of pure bhakti, however, interpret [the

verse] as referring exclusively to Sri Krishna. Since Sankarsana,

Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are incarnated separately, each with his own

name, Sri Krishna is the avatara of Vasudeva alone. Just this is

taught in the Karsneya, Adhyatma, and other upakhyanas [or: in

upakhyanas such as the Karsneyadhyatma and others(?)].

 

Thanks,

 

Lance Nelson

University of San Diego

[Guest guest]

> I'm trying to clarify a reference made by Madhusudana Sarssvati in

> his paramahaMsapriyA commentary on the first zloka of the bhAgavata.

> He refers to the "Karsneya, Adhyatma, and other upakhyanas." Has

> anyone heard of these texts. Parts of the Mahabharata? Pancaratra?

>

 

Dear Lance,

 

No, there is no part of the MBh recognized in the text itself as the

kArSNeya or the kArSNeyAdhyAtma, though, of course, the text does refer to

itself twice in the Adi Parvan as the kArSNa veda (1.12.5 & 56.17). Nor do

I remember ever seeing NIlakaNTha use such a label for anything inside or

outside his text of the epic, but my lack of memory on this doesn't prove

anything.

 

kArSNeya is a plausible label for the received text of the MBh, primarily in

connection with its being the "veda" of KRSNa D. VyAsa; but, plausibly,

also, or instead, as an interpretive label referring to KRSNa VAsudeva's

central importance in the received text of the MBh. So it is plausible

there might well have been an abstract or epitome of the MBh called the

kArSNEyAdhyAtma.

 

It is quite possible that MadhusUdana S. intended the NArAyaNIya (MBh

12.321-339) as a, or the, adhyAtma of 'The KArSNeya (i.e., the MBh).'

Besides the aptness of the label is the fact that it teaches a doctrine of

Krsna's uniqueness as a form of NArAyaNa, and of course it sets forth the

doctrine of the vyUha-s. I've never heard of any "kArSNeyAdhyAtma," so it

would seem the NArAyaNIya is the best candidate at the moment.

 

Best wishes, Jim Fitzgerald

 

James L. Fitzgerald jfitzg1, jfitzge1

Dept. of Religious Studies office: (865) 974-2466

501 McClung Tower fax: (865) 974-0965

Univ. of Tennessee home: (865) 539-2881

Knoxville, TN, 37996-0450

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, ln108 wrote:

> I'm trying to clarify a reference made by Madhusudana Sarssvati in

> his paramahaMsapriyA commentary on the first zloka of the

bhAgavata.

> He refers to the "Karsneya, Adhyatma, and other upakhyanas." Has

> anyone heard of these texts. Parts of the Mahabharata? Pancaratra?

 

The subject matter discussed, relating to the vyUha doctrine, seems

to clearly indicate that the Pancaratra is being referred to. Unlike

modern studies, the traditional Vaishnava commentaries also generally

interpret the Bhagavata in the light of the Pancaratra tradition.

 

An organization called Pancaratra Samshodhana Parisad was established

in Madras in 1982, and brought out four volumes of PR texts; among

these are multiple texts that could be the referent: adhyAtma,

nArAyaNAdhyAtma, vAsudevAdhyAtma, yAdavAdhyAtma. I am not aware of

an extant or quoted Pancaratra text called Karsneya, but there is a

Krsna Samhita that might perhaps be called so. A search of the Adyar

Library (publications and manuscripts) might help. Prof. H. Daniel

Smith (I don't know address or affiliation) who was associated with

the Parisad would know more also.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

> Lance Nelson

> University of San Diego

[Guest guest]

Dear Professors,

 

Greetings.

 

Does kArSNeya anything to do with cow-dung?

Words like karISAgni, karISa, karSU show up on online M-W dictionary.

 

In old Tamil texts and village India, the altars

are cleansed with cow-dung, and lakshmi is said to reside there.

Cow-dung relationship with zrI is in the zrI-sUktam

(D. R. Kinsley, Hindu goddesses).

 

In ancient times, sacred dancers danced on altars smeared

with cow-dung. Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Durga are in a sense

"sacred dAsis" like Inanna.

 

Any chance kArSNeya and karSU are related?

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

 

INDOLOGY, "James L. Fitzgerald" <jfitzge1@u...> wrote:

> > I'm trying to clarify a reference made by Madhusudana Sarssvati in

> > his paramahaMsapriyA commentary on the first zloka of the

bhAgavata.

> > He refers to the "Karsneya, Adhyatma, and other upakhyanas." Has

> > anyone heard of these texts. Parts of the Mahabharata?

Pancaratra?

> >

>

> Dear Lance,

>

> No, there is no part of the MBh recognized in the text itself as the

> kArSNeya or the kArSNeyAdhyAtma, though, of course, the text does

refer to

> itself twice in the Adi Parvan as the kArSNa veda (1.12.5 & 56.17).

Nor do

> I remember ever seeing NIlakaNTha use such a label for anything

inside or

> outside his text of the epic, but my lack of memory on this doesn't

prove

> anything.

>

> kArSNeya is a plausible label for the received text of the MBh,

primarily in

> connection with its being the "veda" of KRSNa D. VyAsa; but,

plausibly,

> also, or instead, as an interpretive label referring to KRSNa

VAsudeva's

> central importance in the received text of the MBh. So it is

plausible

> there might well have been an abstract or epitome of the MBh called

the

> kArSNEyAdhyAtma.

>

> It is quite possible that MadhusUdana S. intended the NArAyaNIya

(MBh

> 12.321-339) as a, or the, adhyAtma of 'The KArSNeya (i.e., the

MBh).'

> Besides the aptness of the label is the fact that it teaches a

doctrine of

> Krsna's uniqueness as a form of NArAyaNa, and of course it sets

forth the

> doctrine of the vyUha-s. I've never heard of any "kArSNeyAdhyAtma,"

so it

> would seem the NArAyaNIya is the best candidate at the moment.

>

> Best wishes, Jim Fitzgerald

>

> James L. Fitzgerald jfitzg1@b..., jfitzge1@u...

> Dept. of Religious Studies office: (865) 974-2466

> 501 McClung Tower fax: (865) 974-0965

> Univ. of Tennessee home: (865) 539-2881

> Knoxville, TN, 37996-0450

[Guest guest]

Forgot to add:

 

Devadasis are cANi in Tamil inscriptions(= telugu sAni).

cANi/cANam is cow-dung. Also, cANan2 = intelligent person, visionary,

etc., k-/c- alternate in Dravidian (eg., kai (tam.) = ceyi (tel.)

= hand). kaNNuLar (those with 'auspicious' eye as opposed to

'evil' eye) are dancers in sangam texts.

 

If at all connected kArSNeya is connected with cow-dung,

it will be something like "visions/revlations got on an altar".

 

INDOLOGY, naga_ganesan@h... wrote:

>

> Dear Professors,

>

> Greetings.

>

> Does kArSNeya anything to do with cow-dung?

> Words like karISAgni, karISa, karSU show up on online M-W

dictionary.

>

> In old Tamil texts and village India, the altars

> are cleansed with cow-dung, and lakshmi is said to reside there.

> Cow-dung relationship with zrI is in the zrI-sUktam

> (D. R. Kinsley, Hindu goddesses).

>

> In ancient times, sacred dancers danced on altars smeared

> with cow-dung. Lakshmi, Sarasvati, Durga are in a sense

> "sacred dAsis" like Inanna.

>

> Any chance kArSNeya and karSU are related?

>

> Regards,

> N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Doesn't -eya typically form matronymics (like kaunteya,

vainateya), so that kaarSNeya = kRSNaa's son?

 

Regards

Nath

[Guest guest]

> Yes, this is the normal Classical Sanskrit usage. In the UpaniSads it can

> form patronymics, but I think only from -i stems, not -a stems. In any

> case, "kaarSNeya" can't be linked to "karISa".

>

 

Yes, the older usage of the suffix is more varied than simply forming

matronymics.

 

1) At MBh 8.31.66 Zalya, speaking to KarNa, sums up an enumeration of the 5

mighty PANDavas as 5 kArSNeyas:

 

dRzyanta ete kArSNeyAH paJca paJcAcalA iva /

vyavasthitA yotsyamAnAH sarve 'rjunasamA yudhi //8.31.66//

 

Should we take this as a patronymic, "grandsons of KRSNa (D. VyAsa)?" As a

metaphorical patronymic, "'sons' of KRSNa (VAsudeva)?" Or as an adjective

of more general relation to KRSNa (VAsudeva) ? a) "these five

friends/associates/proteges of KRSNa," or b) "these five husbands of KRSNA

(DraupadI)?" Ganguli translated simply "the five sons of Krishna."

 

NIlakaNTha has nothing to say about this because his text, along with a few

other Northern mss (B1 Dn1 D 3.4.7.8 and T2) changed 66a to read AmI sthitA

draupadeyAH, evidently out a sense of discomfort with kArSNeya not being a

matronymic. Some other mss. (K 2.4 B 2.3.5 and D 2.6 read vArSNeyAH,

connecting the PANDavas here to "the VRSNi." K3 gives us instead a

matronymic "kaunteyAH." (Some may wonder which manuscripts actually read

"kArSNeyAH" here: They would be 9 Southern mss. [T 1.2, G 1.2.3, and M

1.2.3.4] and 8 Northern ones [ZAradA 1 and 2, K 1, MaithilI 1, B1, Da1, and

D 1.5].)

 

2) It may be possible to understand kArSNeya in MadhusUdana S.'s text as

coming from the feminine kArSNA if we speculate that the MBh might have been

described as a kArSNA saMhitA, or as the kArSNI, meaning the same thing,

both referring at a primary level to KRSNa Dv. VyAsa, but having other

harmonic tones as well. Perhaps for PANcarAtrikas such a name, if it ever

existed, would have referred primarily to KRSNa VAsudeva. The MBh does

refer to itself as a saMhitA a couple of times in the Adi Parvan, most

famously at 1.1.61.

 

3) Marginally relevant to this discussion is the fact that Abhimanyu is

often referred to as "kArSNi" (because his father, Arjuna, is also a "kRSNa"

in the MBh), but obviously the question of the kArSNeyAdhyAtma does not get

back to him at all.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Fitzgerald

 

James L. Fitzgerald jfitzg1, jfitzge1

Dept. of Religious Studies office: (865) 974-2466

501 McClung Tower fax: (865) 974-0965

Univ. of Tennessee home: (865) 539-2881

Knoxville, TN, 37996-0450

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "James L. Fitzgerald" <jfitzge1@u...> wrote:

 

> 3) Marginally relevant to this discussion is the fact that

>Abhimanyu is often referred to as "kArSNi" (because his father,

>Arjuna, is also a "kRSNa" in the MBh), but obviously the question

>of the kArSNeyAdhyAtma does not get back to him at all.

 

Hiltebeitel in History of Religions wrote about two Krishnas

in the chariot. But I heard powerful arguments from an Indologist

that Arjuna is white. "Two Krishnas in the chariot" may be

an understanding from a Sanskrit expression that may just mean

Krishna and the second person. I have to see my old correspondence

to be more precise.

 

Arjuna is like vAlin in Ram., who is white, and both

are promiscuous.

 

Appreciate comments on 1) Arjuna is white

or 2) Arjuna is black.

 

Kind regards,

N. Ganesan

PS:

Thanks to all who told why kariSu/karSu is not the explanation.

[Guest guest]

> INDOLOGY, "Naga Ganesan" <naga_ganesan

 

> Hiltebeitel in History of Religions wrote about two Krishnas

> in the chariot. But I heard powerful arguments from an Indologist

> that Arjuna is white. "Two Krishnas in the chariot" may be

> an understanding from a Sanskrit expression that may just mean

> Krishna and the second person. I have to see my old correspondence

> to be more precise.

>

> Arjuna is like vAlin in Ram., who is white, and both

> are promiscuous.

>

> Appreciate comments on 1) Arjuna is white

> or 2) Arjuna is black.

>

 

I think that *one aspect* of the blackness or darkness of the kRSNa-s of the

MBh that has not been sufficiently brought out, even in the very insightful

writings of Biardeau and Hiltebeitel, is the idea of "obscurity" as opposed

to "clarity" or "overtness." This theme is explicitly recognized in the

epic in a few passages that speak of the devarahasya or devaguhya, which

typically refer to certain major characters having a relatively hidden or

obscure identity below, or within, or beyond their main, overt identity

(e.g., the fact that Duryodhana was born [as the asura Kali] to bring about

the destruction of the kSatra). Whatver the exact historical status of this

thread within the text (part of the original composition; part of a later,

carefully designed redaction; or commentatorial pieces interpolated kAmam,

ad libitum, by one or more later editors, or something else), it does

connect with the text's actually laying down a series of covert identities

or connections for its major characters. This opposition of covert and overt

also resonates with a very deep-seated and basic theme of the MBh story, the

regular alternation on the part of the Pandava heroes between seclusion (and

relative weakness) and public activity (and relative strength). This

element of the Pandava story parallels some of the epic's accounts of the

Indra-VRtra battle, especially that found in the Indra-Vijaya episode at the

beginning of the Udyoga Parvan, and I think this episode was the version of

that ancient story that the epic authors had in mind and used as a partial

paradigm for their own story of Indra combatting VRtra (represented by

KarNa, son of the sun) and the asuras--the five Pandavas considered as a

single instatiation of Indra (this in addition to their actually being the

sons of five different devas and it is at this level, I think, that their

common marriage to Draupadi should be understood).

 

There are also oppositions between black and white, or dark and bright, that

various scholars have noted (Ruth Katz discussed this at one place in her

book on Arjuna), and I think that *one* basis of such oppositions might well

be the constant alternation of the moon between dazzling fullness and

complete disappearance. The importance of this latter celestial paradigm

for ancient brahminic culture in India hardly needs to be emphasized, and of

course it also provides a model not only of white vs. black, but of present

vs. absent, strong vs. weak, and overt vs. covert.

 

So at one level in the MBh there are various oppositions of black or dark

figures over against white or light ones: KRSNa vs. Arjuna, KRSNa vs.

BalarAma, KRSNA DraupadI vs. Arjuna, KRSNA DraupadI vs SubhadrA as wife of

Arjuna, PANDu vs. the (blind) DhRtarASTra), etc. I am not sure that any

overall pattern could be teased out of all such dyads considered together as

a set.

 

But I do think this about the word kRSNa in the MBh, that *one* of its

important uses is to signify a character who works in the story in a

"veiled" or "obscure" way. The major "kRSNa" of course is well known as

such a "secret agent" of the Gods. And while the work of Dumezil, Biardeau,

Hiltebeitel, and Sullivan has emphasized various other aspects of the

kRSNatva of Draupadi, Vyasa, and Arjuna, it has not pointed out that the

fact that their being "kRSNa" underscores their having identities generally

"secret" from the main participants in the events described. K. VAsudeva,

K. DraupadI, and K. VyAsa are, I would argue, all covert agents of the Gods

(against the Asuras) over against the "overt" agents of the Gods, the

"PANDavas" (PANDu being a name on the "bright" side of the ledger). The

"bright" Arjuna, of course, is also KRSNa in this sense insofar as he is

also part of the secretly incarnate dyad Nara & NArAyaNa, in addition to his

somewhate obscure, but not-secret, fathering by Indra. As I think

Hiltebeitel suggested in the paper Ganesan mentions about the dvau kRSNau

ekarathe, it is important to recognize that there are multiple, simultaneous

encodings of the epic's main characters, something that makes the MBh

frequently very *kRSNa.*

 

With best wishes, Jim Fitzgerald

 

James L. Fitzgerald jfitzg1, jfitzge1

Dept. of Religious Studies office: (865) 974-2466

501 McClung Tower fax: (865) 974-0965

Univ. of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN, 37996-0450

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "James L. Fitzgerald" <jfitzge1@u...> wrote:

> As I think Hiltebeitel suggested in the paper Ganesan mentions

>about the dvau kRSNau ekarathe, it is important to recognize that

>there are multiple, simultaneous encodings of the epic's main

>characters, something that makes the MBh frequently very *kRSNa.*

 

Same is true for sangam poems, highly "veiled" and extra-ordinarily

brief.

 

N. Ganesan