[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 04:54:33 CST 2015
(Apologies for overshooting my quota of mails today)
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> य*दपरविद्याविषयं कर्मफललक्षणम्* सत्यं तदापेक्षिकम् ।
> Leaving out the 'yat' (which is completed by the 'tat' at the end), of
> the two words are adjectives, is not the second one a bahuvrīhi according
> to you?
Sir, let me state my understanding of adjective first. In the sentence,
वीरः रामः धीरः अस्ति, वीरः is an adjective while धीरः is a subjective
complement. If I say both are adjectives to Rama, then the sentence will
mean that the brave,steady Rama exists! My विवक्षा is clearly to say that
the brave Rama is steady. Similarly here, कर्मफलानाम् लक्षणम् अपरविद्यायाः
विषयम् (उक्तम्) आपेक्षिकम् सत्यम् अस्ति । सत्यम् becomes a subjective
complement, IMHO. Of course, you could have other अन्वयs still the विग्रहs
for the compounds will remain तत्पुरषs. So not bahuvrIhis as per my
previous mail again.
> I also meant that when a compound, even though is tatpuruṣa per se, when
> used as a viśeṣaṇa (to another word that is a viśeṣya), such a compound
> becomes a bahuvrīhi. Is this view not correct?
Not in my understanding of Panini. Perhaps, someone more knowledgeable can
> Also, is it incorrect to hold that a bahuvrīhi compound can have prathamā
> vibhakti like yāh saḥ (as distinct from the very popular 'yasya saḥ', yena
> saḥ yasmāt saḥ, etc?
Again, IMHO, yes. That will either be a karmadhAraya or another kind of
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
>> Namaste Subbuji,
>> Thanks for your response. My reply is inline please.
>> 2015-12-18 11:06 GMT+05:30 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>:
>>> From the above we can see that the compound is ṣaṣṭhī tatpuruṣa, in both
>>> the cases.
>> There you go. This same applies to the later compounds also because the
>> same topic continues. More below.
>> Shankara uses the compound as well as gives the vigraha vākyam for both
>>> the cases of para and apara.
>>> 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 .
>> Possibility, yes, I too thought so before writing my first mail, but that
>> is not so in this context, which is precisely why टीकाकार Anandagiri gives
>> a व्युत्पत्ति for विषय justifying नपुंसकलिङ्गम्, in as many words.
>> 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.
>> सत्यम् here is the subjective complement for the समास, not अन्यपद.
>>> 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
>> This is surprising! My understanding differs, as explained below.
>> 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.
>> Then, one could use the अपेक्षा/ आकाङ्क्षा and make any compound,
>> especially, all कर्मधारयs बहुव्रीहि; दशरथपुत्र, for example! My
>> understanding of Panini's definition of बहुव्रीहि is different from this.
>> What is definitely a तत्पुरष *also* in any विग्रहवाक्य, cannot be a
>> बहुव्रीहि because all the समाससंज्ञाs in Panini sutras operate with the
>> restriction via the अधिकारसूत्र १.४.१ आकडाराद्-एकासंज्ञा। The अधिकार सूत्र
>> that gives the संज्ञा of बहुव्रीहि is २.२.२३ शेषो बहुव्रीहि। That being so,
>> whatever you are trying to make a बहुव्रीहि with an आकाङ्क्षा on a समास
>> will already have become कर्मधारय or some other तत्पुरुष via other
>> preceding sutras since the उत्तरपद प्रधानत्वम् will remain. Not only can it
>> not get another संज्ञा but is also not शेषः anymore.
>> In my opinion, since these adjectives are not standalone, they qualify to
>>> be bahuvrīhi.
>> I differ, as discussed above and previously. What would be your opinion
>> on why टीकाकार took the pain to bring a different करणव्युत्पत्ति that goes
>> against the regular derivation of विषय via masculine अच् प्रत्यय which
>> could easily be done away with by just saying its a बहुव्रीहि since it
>> qualifies something else. Not only that, he could have even said that it
>> represents वस्तु/ object.
>>> Your opinion on this is welcome.
>> My opinion remains the same, as already expressed with the question
>> relating to the प्रत्यय, because I exhausted all possibilities of those
>> being बहुव्रीहिs, including the ones you gave here. That is the reason I
>> started my first mail by saying that they are तत्पुरषs.
>> Thanks once again for your time.
>> --Praveen R. Bhat
>> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
>> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list