[Advaita-l] Fwd: Panchapadika and Prapanchasara-vivaranam of Bhagavan Padmapadacharya

[jaldhar at braincells.com]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023, Natraj Maneshinde wrote:

> I have come acroos couple references where Vinayaka is described as a
> semi-divine being/kshudra-graha causing fear, disturbing dreams etc.

The vinAyakas (plural) are troublesome and chaotic devayonis who cause 
problems for people such as bad dreams and the like.  vinAyaka (singular) 
i.e. gaNesha is their lord and controller so by propitiating Him, one gets 
power against vinAyakas.  For instance in YaGYavalkyasmR^iti one adhyAya 
is called vinAyakadishAntikalpa and it gives a procedure for worshipping 
mahAgaNapati for this purpose.


> But his identity with Tumburu is a news to me.
> I was curious to know if there are any
> references in the tantras which equate Tumburu with Vinayaka? 

The identities are mostly distinct but there is some overlap.

tumburu is also worshipped in the vAmashrota for the prevention of 
misfortune.

There is a Tantrik form of gaNesha called ucchiShTagaNapati who can be 
worshipped for magical purposes. In this form He carries a vInA which is 
the distinctive attribute of Tumburu.

tumburu is usuaally shown with a horse head but occasionally with an 
elephants head.

The mAtR^is mentioned in the bhAShya are not the seven or sixteen named 
ones we are familiar with today but an undifferentiated multitude 
(mAtR^igaNa)  gaNesha is not associated with mAtR^is.  (The gaNas he is 
Isha of are male.)  However tumburu is.  Furthermore only tumburu is 
accompanied by chaturbhaginIs.  So it doesn't make sense that vinAyaka in 
that dvandva refers to gaNesha even though I do admit tikAkAras have 
interpreted that way.

Also in gaNeshasahasranAma from upAsanAkANDa of gaNesha upapurAna, tumburu 
is the 40th name (shloka 12.)

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023, Bhaskar YR wrote:

> As you remember we have discussed this bhAshya earlier also in detail. 
> If I remember right geeta commentary based on shankara bhAshya by somany 
> Acharya-s like madhusUdana in gUdArtha Deepika, shivananda, 
> chinmayananda, gaMbhirananda, shankaraananda (geeta tAtparya bOdhini), 
> DVG Kannada commentary, Sri SSS Kannada explanation do not talk about 
> these references and interestingly Prof. SKR who has written extensively 
> on Tibetan philosophy and Sri vidyA has not justified this bhAshya vAkya 
> from this angle.  Anyway thanks for giving additional output with regard 
> to this.



The Muslim invasions were a tragedy for dharma in general but particularly 
deadly for a lot of these tantrika traditions which were secretive and 
restricted to initiated practitioners.  Those that could not escape to 
Nepal or Southern India did not survive.  Even outside India, the popular 
religion changed to Buddhism in southeast asia and later Islam in places 
like Java so lineages were broken and tantras were no longer transmitted.

By the time Swamis Shankarananda, Madhusudana Saraswati etc. wrote, the 
Vamashrota was extinct and forgotten.  So they chose different examples of 
bhautika devatas.

Even for historians this is new.  It is only because of an ongoing joint 
venture between the German and Nepali governments to catalogue and record 
manuscripts in the Kathmandu valley that a lot of this information has 
come to light.  For example this Vinashikha Tantra was only edited and 
printed in 1985.  Other tantras are still only known in quotations and may 
be lost for ever.  An erudite scholar like Shri SK Rao from an earlier era 
cannot be faulted for not knowing about such things.


> If possible kindly elaborate prabhuji, tumburu is a form of bhairava, 
> and vinAyaka mentioned in bhAshya is not popular gaNesha but it is tumburu 
> in the form of bhairava.  We have ashta bhairava-s like kAla bhairava, 
> unmatta bhairava, ruru bhairava, krOdha bhairava, saMhAra bhairava etc. 
> and he and veerabhadra are bhUta gaNa-s and shivAmsha saMbhuta-s but I 
> have not come across the relationship with tumburu and vinAyaka in any of 
> the puranic allegories.

I must apologize for a mistake.  Tumburu in this sect is a form of Shiva 
but not specifically of Bhairava.  However it is true that He is not the 
same as the Gandharva Tumburu though they share music in common.

As for the relationship, see above.

This post is already a bit long and I will need to research and write more 
in order to answer the other questions raised so I shall stop here for 
now.


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>