[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 00:58:23 CST 2015
अपरविद्याविषयः is stand alone Pullinga. It is Tatpurusha. It means
Subject matter of Apara Vidyaa.
अपरविद्याविषयः अध्यायः It is Bahuvrihi with Anyapada Adhyaya in
Pullinga. Chapter having Subject Matter of Apara Vidyaa.
अपरविद्याविषया चिन्ता It is Bahuvrihi with Anyapada Cintaa in
Strilinga. Thought having Subject Matter of Apara Vidyaa.
अपरविद्याविषयं वस्तु or अपरविद्याविषयं सत्यम् It is Bahuvrihi with
Anyapada Vastu or Satyam. Thing having subject matter of Apara Vidyaa.
2015-12-18 12:07 GMT+05:30 Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>:
> 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 ।
>> 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,
>> 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
>> Your opinion on this is welcome.
>> warm regards
>> 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
>>> vigrahavAkya with the anyapada. What is your vigrahavAkya with the
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> original question on which pratyaya is the TikAkAra using likely via an
>>> uNAdisutra for his vyutpatti? Any reference from anyone would be helpful.
>>> 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/
>>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>> For assistance, contact:
>>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list