A paradoxical doxology 1

Today I am going to present yet another gem from the literary treasure trove of Vijayanagara. But first I must mention my sources – something I forgot to do in my previous post. All the Sanskrit quotes in my collection that come from the Vijayanagara Empire were gleaned either from the book Prachina-Lekha-Mala, mentioned in this post, or from some the earliest volumes of Epigraphia Indica, the official publication of the Archeological Survey of India, available here. 

Now that we have got the issue of attribution out of the way, let us get to the point. The following couplet has been used as the introductory benediction of the inscriptions of several Vijayanagara emperors. 

कल्याणायास्तु तद्धाम प्रत्यूहतिमिरापहम्|

यद्गजोऽप्यगजोद्भूतं हरिणापि च पूज्यते|| 

Harvard-Kyoto transliteration:

kalyANAyAstu taddhAma pratyUhatimirApaham|

yadgajo'pyagajodbhUtaM hariNApi ca pUjyate||

As the title of this post suggests, there is a paradox in the above verse, specifically in the second half. To be more precise, the author has employed an interesting type of shabdaalankaara – a literary trope that relies on wordplay – called virodhaabhaasa (विरोधाभास) or "the appearance of a contradiction": this alankaara is characterized by a piece of text that has multiple readings, only one of which is admissible in the given context, the other readings being self-contradictory (hence nonsensical or shocking). Here are the two most relevant readings of the stanza above (of course, the language being Sanskrit, other readings might also be possible).

Reading 1 (self-contradictory and inadmissible): May that luster produce welfare – which dispels the darkness of obstacles, and which, though an elephant, was born from a non-elephant, and is revered even by a lion. 

Reading 2 (admissible): May that luster produce welfare – which dispels the darkness of obstacles, and which, though an elephant, was born from the daughter of a mountain, and is worshiped even by Hari (i.e. Vishnu).

N.B. The above loose translations are heavily influenced by the translation of Indologist E. Hultzsch in Epigraphia Indica. 

Notes:

1. The apparent contradiction here is effected by the use of two ambiguous words, agajodbhoota (अगजोद्भूत) and hari (हरि). The first can be split either as अगज (=non-elephant) + उद्भूत (=born) or as अगजा + उद्भूत, where Agajaa (अगजा; literally, "mountain-born", feminine gender) is one of the names of Ganesha's mother Parvati. Hari is a word with a ridiculously large number of meanings: as most of us know, it is a popular name of Vishnu or Krishna (or sometimes "God" in general; find out more on the Wikipedia page) but it also denotes several animals including the lion. The word occurs in the Rigveda where it refers to certain shades of green, yellow or brown (Sanskrit color terminology is quite interesting!) and is especially applied to bay horses, as noted by Monier-Williams. Presumably, the lion got this name from the color of its hair coat which, as Wikipedia notes, 'varies from light buff to yellowish, reddish, or dark ochraceous brown'. 

In most lexicons and literary references, hari is just a synonym for "lion" but the 13th century Jain author Hamsadeva, in his Mrigapakshishaastra (मृगपक्षिशास्त्र) or "The science of animals and birds", identifies six varieties of lion and gives the name hari to only one of them! A lion of this kind, according to said author, is 'very short', 'whitish-red' and 'very fond of moon-light'; for a more detailed description of the physical and behavioral characteristics of this and other purported types of lion, please refer to an English translation of said treatise, available here (pages 3 - 7 of main text). Of course, there is no way to tell how much of this work was based on actual observation and how much on hearsay or imagination.

2. What is so surprising  about a lion revering an elephant? In Indic literature, the lion is portrayed as an arch-enemy of the elephant and the only beast capable of taking down the otherwise invincible giant; the technique that the ferocious feline is said to employ to this end is to pounce upon the pachyderm's head and rip apart one or both of the fleshy protuberances on the latter's forehead, called kumbhas (कुम्भ; literally, "pitcher") in Sanskrit. This belief appears to have some basis in reality – a Google image search with the keywords "lion hunting elephant" throws up quite a few photos of lionesses taking on elephants, although mostly from behind. This is also the source of a Sanskrit cliché: if Tom defeats or destroys Harry, then Tom may be described as "a lion unto the elephant that is Harry", or, in classic Sanskrit agglutinative style, "Harry-elephant-lion"! Even beyond the realm of literature, the motif of a stylized lion subduing an elephant is ubiquitous in Indian temple architecture, and is given various symbolic meanings by scholars. Hence, in Sanskrit literature, an elephant-revering lion is nothing but an oxymoron!  

Statue of a lion rearing over an elephant, Sun Temple at Konark (photo taken: 1890)
source: Old Indian Photos

3. By this time, the reader must have got thoroughly acquainted with the literary device of indirect reference: Ganesha is referred to here as the light (dhaama (धाम)) that is  the remover of the "darkness'' of impediments: 

प्रत्यूहतिमिरापह = प्रत्यूह (obstacle)+तिमिर(darkness)+अपह(repelling/keeping back). 

The word pratyooha (प्रत्यूह) or "obstacle" used in this context deserves special mention; it shows up repeatedly in the Ganesha-centric literature since the elephant-headed god's primary role in the Hindu religion is to remove obstacles.

4. The fact that Vishnu here is presented as a worshiper of Ganesha might raise some eyebrows. It goes on to show that our poet and presumably his patron as well were anything but devout Vaishnavas. Moreover, the Sanskrit verb pooj (पूज्) that is used here, whence we obtain the word poojaa (पूजा), is usually translated as "to worship" but does not carry the same connotations as said English verb. Although the term poojaa has now taken on an entirely religious color (a one-way symbolic service performed by a devotee in honor of a divinity), it originally simply denoted a show of respect or a greeting. There are frequent casual mentions in Sanskrit literature of two parties exchanging poojaas regardless of their age and social standing, and there is even a term pratipoojaa (प्रतिपूजा) for a poojaa that you offer a person in return for the poojaa they have accorded to you! 

An elephant in its natural habitat

Here is another alliterative snippet from the Vijayanagara empire – the introductory blessing of the Satyamangalam 'copperplate' inscription of Emperor Deva Raya II. In ancient India, mainly in the South, such inscribed copperplates usually recorded land grants, royal genealogies, and suchlike, and today serve as reliable aids for the reconstruction of history (you can find more information here). Although these were official documents, their language was often no less flowery than that of court poetry! 

भूयस्यै भवतां भूत्यै भूयादाश्चर्यकुञ्जरः|

विहारविपिनं यस्य विदुर्वेदान् पुराविदः||

 Harvard-Kyoto transliteration:

bhUyasyai bhavatAM bhUtyai bhUyAdAzcaryakuJjaraH|

vihAravipinaM yasya vidurvedAn purAvidaH||

Loose translation: May the extraordinary elephant bring about a prosperous existence for you all – knowers of the events of yore are aware that the Vedas themselves serve as the grove where this elephant wanders about playfully. 

Notes:

1. The word Aashcharyakunjara (आश्चर्यकुञ्जर), which denotes Ganesha here, is a combination of aashcharya (आश्चर्य) which means 'astonishing/marvelous/extraordinary' and kunjara (कुञ्जर), another word for elephant. The grammarian Panini explains that kunja refers to an elephant's tusk or jaw, and the suffix ra denotes 'laden with' or 'characterized by', hence the name. Instead of taking the usual route of describing Ganesha as an elephant-faced humanoid, our poet insinuates that the god is a sort of super-elephant with a human torso. And, as we shall see later, they are not the only person to have done so.

2. The second half-verse is a roundabout way of asserting that Ganesha is a deity sanctioned by the Vedas – it is as natural for Ganesha to be spoken of in the Vedas as it is for an elephant to roam around in a grove of trees. The word used here in this connection, vihaaravipina (विहारविपिन), is a compound of विहार, which will be explained shortly, and विपिन which means 'grove' or 'forest'.

Vihaara (विहार) originally referred only to walking for amusement but over time came to denote engagement in any recreational activity (usually outdoors). It has been used repeatedly in the literature as a euphemism for amorous dalliance! It also means "a place for walking or making merry", and was adopted by Buddhists and Jains as the name of their sanctuaries where monks could move around freely, meeting each other and carrying out delightful intellectual discourse. And the current Indian state of Bihar derives its name from the large number of Buddhist viharas it used to house.  

A male Indian elephant (Elephas maximus indicus), Bandipur National Park

source: Wikipedia

3. Is Ganesha as we know him today really mentioned in Vedic texts? Well, that is a hard question to answer. Throughout the centuries, several ideological communities have emerged in the Indian Subcontinent that have claimed to be aastika (आस्तिक) or believers in the supremacy of the Vedas, as opposed to naastika (नास्तिक) or repudiators of the Vedas (there is more information here and here), and it is these aastika schools of thought that are the major components of the huge collage of beliefs and practices that we call Hinduism today. And each of these aastika philosophies, no matter how different from each other they appear prima facie, asserts that it is the most accurate interpretation of the Vedas. The samhitaa (संहिता) texts, that constitute the core of the Vedic corpus, are essentially anthologies of 'mystical' poetry, and hence open to interpretation. Even the philosophical treatises – the aaranyakas (आरण्यक) and upanishads (उपनिषद्) – that are said to form the 'concluding' part of the Vedas have been painstakingly interpreted and reinterpreted in unique ways by different scholars over the ages. The scope of Vedic literature is also defined variously: the number of 'canonical' Upanishads varies across traditions, and sometimes even the itihaasas and puraanas are subsumed under "Vedic scriptures"! But what is common to all aastika traditions that believe in a God or a group of divinities is the conviction that the object of their devotion is the entity actually eulogized in the Vedic hymns – a conviction often based on subjective definitions and interesting interpretations. Hence, devotional poetry is replete with such allusions to the Vedas as we have seen in today's quote.

The curious case of Ganesha's grandfathers

Today's quote is a mangalashloka (मङ्गलश्लोक) or couplet of prayer/benediction placed at the beginning of an official land-grant document from the Vijayanagara Empire (14th-17th century). My source is the book Prachina-Lekha-Mala (प्राचीनलेखमाला) Vol. I published by the Nirnaya Sagara press in 1892 (available here; see page 178).

कारणं जगतां वन्दे कण्ठादुपरि वारणम्|

मातामहमहाशैलं महस्तदपितामहम्|| 

Harvard-Kyoto transliteration:

kAraNaM jagatAM vande kaNTHAdupari vAraNam|
mAtAmahamahAzailaM mahastadapitAmaham||

Loose translation: I eulogize the powerful entity that is the origin of all worlds, is an elephant above the throat, has a great mountain for a maternal grandfather, and has no paternal grandfather at all.

Aside: I admit that this is one of those writings that lose their charm in translation. This is because it relies mainly on wordplay for effect :)

Notes:
1.  Anupraasa (the repetition of sounds) appears again: the first half-verse begins and ends with the rhyming words कारणम् and वारणम्, and the second is strewn with copies of the sequence mah (मह्)!  

2. Ganesha's matrilineal connection with Himaalaya -- or more properly Himavat (हिमवत्), the personification of the majestic Himalayas -- has seldom been the subject matter of art, the above composition being an exception, of course. There are also quite a few colonial-era paintings from Bengal depicting Himavat's wife Menakaa, or very rarely the Mountain King himself, receiving Parvati (identified with Durga) with open arms while an infant Ganesha couched in his mother's lap seems eager to jump into the embrace of his grandparent. Called Agamani (Bengali: আগমনী, Devanagari: आगमनी) paintings, they are based on the local belief that Shiva's wife visits her parents along with her children during Durga Puja (I mentioned this in my post White, yellow, and red). In this regard, I am also reminded of a popular yet anonymous Bengali Agamani song, "Giri, Gonesh aamaar shubhokaaree!" ("O Mountain, Ganesha is beneficial to me!") in which Menakaa pours her heart out to her husband in praise of Ganesha. But as in most other songs of this genre, Menakaa here has merged with the common Bengali mother: she goes from admitting to having worshiped the elephant-headed god for her daughter's safe arrival to expressing her grandmotherly yearning for a glimpse of Ganesha!

Himavat in Mughal attire greets daughter Uma and grandson Ganesha in front of his Georgian mansion. Oil on canvas. 
Bengal c. 1890-1900.

source: The British Museum Images, special thanks: Halley Goswami

3. The word used for elephant here -- vaarana (वारण) -- literally means 'warding off', 'preventing' or 'opposing', and is used to refer to the mighty pachyderm for 'its power of resistance' (according to Indologist Monier-Williams). Ironically, vaarana is also another name for the hooked goad, more commonly called an ankusha (अङ्कुश), traditionally used by Indian mahouts to control elephants and carried by Ganesha  in most depictions as one of his attributes! You will be treated to several other Sanskrit words for elephant in future posts, for obvious reasons.

4. Yet again, the deity is not mentioned by name, and is indirectly addressed as 'महस् तत्' or 'that power'!

5. The stanza under consideration captures within its tiny scope the fluid and chaotic notion of divinity that is generally (but debatably) celebrated as the hallmark of Oriental thought. Ganesha is the source of all creation ('कारणं जगतां') but he is also the grandchild of the spirit of a mountain range that is obviously part of creation. On top of that, the reference to the non-existence of Ganesha's paternal forebears implies that the author believes Shiva to be an uncreated (or self-created) primordial being! Such seemingly self-inconsistent snippets are a dime a dozen in Indic religious literature, and date all the way back to the Rigveda itself! 

The renowned philologist Max Müller had to coin the tongue-twister 'kathenotheism' in order to describe the peculiar Vedic practice of extolling one god, say Agni, as all-powerful and supreme in one hymn, and then promptly demoting them while conferring their powers and titles on another god, say Indra, in another hymn. In later ages, it became fashionable for religious encomiasts to equate their object of adulation (whether an established high god or a deified human being) with the all-encompassing mystical entity called Brahman (ब्रह्मन्) that reveals itself in multiple illusory forms in spite of being formless in reality. At the same time, they would also allude to popular myths and beliefs associated with said object of adulation, so that their opuses would often end up being potpourris of inconsistencies, ambiguities, exaggerations, conflations, and other such things with nice big names. 

Here, the basic principle is that Brahman is beyond the scope of thought and words, so human logic does not apply to it. Hence, human logic was forgone with complete creative abandon by many a writer of sacred poetry. The useful theory of  absolute and partial incarnations of divinities also provided a convenient justification for such writings which might otherwise be deemed nonsensical. Finally, it is worthwhile to mention here that the display of religious pluralism in the above verse is very much in keeping with the spirit of tolerance that is said to have prevailed in the empire where it was produced. A staunch Shaivite, while revering Ganesha deeply as the chief of Shiva's ganas (गण) or minions, would probably not go to the extent of addressing him as the source of creation!