[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 00:37:48 CST 2015


I agree with you it is Bahuvrihi. Like महाधनम् is stand alone
Napumsaka Linga because Dhana is Napumsaka. It means a lot of wealth.
But when we say महाधनः पुरुषः  here Mahaadhana is adjective for
Purusha. Mahadhana must also become Pullinga. It means a Man having a
lot of wealth. When we say महाधना नारी the adjective is for Naaree in
Stri Linga. The adjective Mahadhana must also become Strilinga only.
It becomes Mahadhanaa Naaree. It means a Woman having a lot of wealth.

2015-12-18 11:06 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
> तदेतत्सत्यं मन्त्रेषु कर्माणि कवयो यान्यपश्यंस्तानि त्रेतायां बहुधा संततानि
>> तान्याचरथ नियतं सत्यकामा एष वः पन्थाः सुकृतस्य लोके ॥ १ ॥  1.2.1
> Here occurs the word तदेतत्सत्यं, which also occurs again in 2.2.1. The
> distinction between the two 'satyam' words in the 1.2.1 and 2.2.1 has to be
> brought out.  In 1.2.1, the meaning of the word 'satyam' is explained in the
> bhāṣyam thus, with a prelude:
> अतः परमनयोर्विद्ययोर्विषयौ विवेक्तव्यौ संसारमोक्षावित्युत्तरो ग्रन्थ आरभ्यते
>> Henceforth, the subject matter, viṣaya, of the two vidyās, aparā and parā,
> have to be clearly set forth.  What are those subject matters of the two
> vidyā-s? They are: samsāra for aparavidyā and mokṣa for paravidyā. So, the
> bhāsyam itself gives the vigraha vākyam here:
> तत्रापरविद्याविषयः कर्त्रादिसाधनक्रियाफलभेदरूपः संसारोऽनादिरनन्तो
> दुःखस्वरूपत्वाद्धातव्यः प्रत्येकं शरीरिभिः सामस्त्येन
> नदीस्रोतोवदविच्छेदरूपसम्बन्धः तदुपशमलक्षणो मोक्षः
> परविद्याविषयोऽनाद्यनन्तोऽजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयः शुद्धः प्रसन्नः
> स्वात्मप्रतिष्ठालक्षणः परमानन्दोऽद्वय इति । पूर्वं तावदपरविद्याया
> विषयप्रदर्शनार्थमारम्भः ।
> From the above we can see that the compound is ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa, in both the
> cases. Shankara uses the compound as well as gives the vigraha vākyam for
> both the cases of para and apara. He gave the vigraha for both the
> compounds, in dvivachana: anayoḥ vidyayoḥ viṣayau. Then he uses the compound
> singly: aparavidyāviṣaya and paravidyāviṣayaḥ.  In both these cases the
> vidheya are in masculine: aparavidyāviṣaya is samsāra (masculine) and
> paravidyāviṣaya is mokṣa (masculine). Hence there is no problem here with
> the gender of the word 'viṣaya.' So, no problem here.
> Now coming to the 2.2.1 bhāṣya, I think there is the possibility of there
> being a bahuvrīhi which is strongly indicated by the other word there:
> कर्मफललक्षणम् .
> This is the bhāṣya vākyam:
> यदपरविद्याविषयं कर्मफललक्षणम्, सत्यं तदापेक्षिकम् ।
> Here,
> कर्मणः फलं कर्मफलम् [षष्ठीतत्पुरुषसमासः] कर्मफलं (एव) लक्षणं यस्य (सत्यस्य)
> तत् सत्यम्  कर्मफललक्षणम् । I think there is no other way of explaining this
> कर्मफललक्षणम् than by a bahurvrīhi.  Since this word is used as an adjective
> to 'satyam' (viśeṣaṇa), the other word there too यदपरविद्याविषयं has to be
> an adjective. I think what applies to the second adjective applies to the
> first too:
> अपरविद्यायाः विषयं अपरविद्याविषयम् (षष्ठीतत्पुरुष). अपरविद्याविषयं यत् तत्
> (सत्यम्) अपरविद्याविषयम् सत्यम् । Here, the compound word, as a bahuvrīhi,
> is serving as an adjective to the word satyam, in the prathamāvibhakti.
> There is nothing wrong in a bahuvrīhi being in the prathamāvibhakti. For
> example वीरपुरुषः रामः . वीरश्च असौ पुरुषश्च वीरपुरुषः
> [विशेषणपूर्वपदकर्मधारयः]. This adjective,  no doubt a compound, qualifies
> Rāma.  वीरपुरुषः (अयं) रामः or वीरपुरुषः यः स रामः . In such a case this
> very adjective becomes a bahuvrīhi where the anyapadapradhānatva is conveyed
> by the compound word and such anyapada being 'rama.'  There mere word
> 'वीरपुरुषः ' when used will call for an apekṣā: who is that वीरपुरुषः ?
> Unless the anya pada, 'rāma' is stated, the apekṣā will remain unfulfilled.
> Thus this adjective is to be seen as a bahuvrīhi.
> In the next bhāṣya sentence इदं तु परविद्याविषयम्, परमार्थसल्लक्षणत्वात्
> too it can be seen to be bahuvrīhi: The word 'satyam' in this mantra is
> about the Paramārthasatyam, brahman. [In the 2.1.1 the word 'satyam' is
> vyavahārika satyam indicated by 'the certainty of fruits accruing from
> karmas performed'. ] In contrast, the 'satyam' of this mantra 2.2.1 is
> pāramārthika. Here too, the two words: परविद्याविषयम्, परमार्थसल्लक्षण(णम्)
> are adjectives for the word (सत्यम्). The second adjective is explained
> thus: परमार्थं च तत्सौ सत्   च परमार्थसत्. तदेव लक्षणं यस्य (सत्यस्य) तत्
> परमार्थसल्लक्षणम् (सत्यम्). So, we get a bahuvrīhi easily here. The other
> adjective परविद्याविषयम् also has to qualify 'satyam' in the same manner:
> परविद्यायाः विषयम् परविद्याविषयम् . By itself it does not say what that is.
> किम् तत्? सत्यम्. Hence this adjective too, as a bahuvrīhi, since it has an
> apekṣā of an anya pada, 'satyam', is an adjective to that anya pada,
> 'satyam.'
> Hence, in the 2.2.1 bhāṣya, despite the bhāṣyakāra himself showing the
> tatpuruṣa in 2.1.1, since the words are used as direct adjectives to the
> word 'satyam', the compound appears to be bahuvrīhi.
> In the third sentence: तदेतत् सत्यं यथाभूतं विद्याविषयम् ;
> अविद्याविषयत्वाच्च अनृतमितरत् । too, we can say it is bahuvrīhi thus:
> एतत् सत्यम् कीदृशम्? यथाभूतम् । पुनः कीदृशम्? विद्याविषयम्.  [ विद्यायाः
> विषयं  यत् तत्   सत्यम् ] So, here too we have the anyapada paradhānatvam,
> the anya pada being 'satyam.'.
> अविद्याविषयत्वाच्च अनृतमितरत् ।
> अविद्याया विषयत्वं कस्य? सत्यस्य (इतरत्) [of the 2.1.1 aparavidyaa]. तच्च
> कीदृशम्? अनृतम्.
> In my opinion, since these adjectives are not standalone, they qualify to be
> bahuvrīhi.
> Your opinion on this is welcome.
> warm regards
> vs
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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.
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list