[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 17 22:40:31 CST 2015

Namaste Sri Praveen Mahodaya

You yourself have given the Tikakara's words

 TikAkAra Anandagiri glosses over the व्युत्पत्ति of the
word विषय as विषीयते विशेष्यते विद्याऽनेनेति व्युत्पत्त्या विषयशब्दस्य
वस्तुपरत्वान्नपुंसकलिङ्गत्वं ।

In this the Anyapada in the Bahuvrihi is Vastu. Vastu is Napumsaka
Linga word in Sanskrit.
Therefore it is AparaVidyaa Vishayaha Yasya Vastunaha Tat Vastu

I cannot see what is the problem in accepting Bahuvrihi Samasa with
Vastu as Pradhanapada?

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Namaste Venkateshji,
> Please note that I am not denying the possibility of the compound being
> neuter in a bahuvrIhi; but just because its neuter, you can't make it
> bahuvrIhi. It has to be contextual. You will have to justify it by giving a
> vigrahavAkya with the anyapada. What is your vigrahavAkya with the anyapada
> for the three words of Mundakabhashyam? Please refer the context before
> making the vigrahavAkya. For quick reference, the mantra has developed out
> of dve vidye veditavye, parA ca aparA ca. Then there is a talk of which is
> the *viShaya*, *subject matter* of which vidyA. In that background, this
> following bhashya is about the viShaya and so are the compounds have it as
> pradhAna. Therefore, tatpuruSha.
> There is no point in hunting other compounds which end in non-masculine form
> of viShaya, which may be bahuvRIhi and which I did NOT say are tatpuruSha.
> Since you quoted both the cases let me say that they do look bahuvrIhi to
> me. You identified the anyapada of aparavidyAviShayA as cintA where your
> vigrahavAkya seems to be aparA vidyA viShayaH yasyAH cintAyAH sA cintA
> aparAvidyAviShayA. You didn't identify the anyapada in your own quoted
> vaishvAnaravidyAviShayam and give the vigrahavAkya, let alone the three
> compounds of Mundakabhashyam. The anyapada is li~NgadarshanaM.
> To summarize, if you think the three quoted samAsas from Mundakabhashyam are
> bahuvrIhi, I will be more than happy to see the following from you:
> vigrahavAkyas with anyapadas, not just yasya tat please. :) Kindly also note
> that if you are indeed able to prove that they are bahuvrIhis, you will have
> an additional task left to justify TikAkAra's vyutpatti for viShaya or,
> unfortunately, outright reject it!
> After an interesting digression, that I am thankful for too, I return to my
> original question on which pratyaya is the TikAkAra using likely via an
> uNAdisutra for his vyutpatti? Any reference from anyone would be helpful.
> gurupAdukArpaNamastu,
> --praveen
> 2015-12-17 23:10 GMT+05:30 Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>:
>> ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । पुरुषार्थाधिकरणम्
>> । सूत्रम् ९ - भाष्यम्
>> ...  अपि च ‘यक्ष्यमाणो वै
>> भगवन्तोऽहमस्मि’ (छा. उ. ५-११-५) इत्येतत् लिङ्गदर्शनं
>> वैश्वानरविद्याविषयम् ; सम्भवति च सोपाधिकायां ब्रह्मविद्यायां
>> कर्मसाहित्यदर्शनम् ; न तु अत्रापि कर्माङ्गत्वमस्ति, प्रकरणाद्यभावात् ॥
>> ९ ॥
>> In this Sutra Bhashya the Bhashyakaara has said Ityetat Lingadarshanam
>> Vaishvanara Vidya Vishayam. This is Napumsaka Linga.
>> ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । चतुर्थः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । तदोकोऽधिकरणम् ।
>> सूत्रम् १७ - भाष्यम्
>> समाप्ता प्रासङ्गिकी परविद्यागता चिन्ता ; सम्प्रति तु अपरविद्याविषयामेव
>> चिन्तामनुवर्तयति । समाना च आसृत्युपक्रमात् विद्वदविदुषोरुत्क्रान्तिः —
>> In this he is using Apara Vidyaa Vishayaam. It is Feminine Gender.
>> That Apara Vidyaa Vishayaa is about Cintaa. Cintaa is Feminine. So
>> AparaVidyaaVishayaa is also Feminine.
>> This is only because these words are Bahuvrihi Samasas. It is not
>> correct to say it is Tatpurusha Samasa.



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list