[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 09:15:02 CST 2015
In Swami Gambirananda translation of Mundaka Upanisad 2-1-1 we read -
'That truth that is constituted by the results of karma, the subject
matter of the lower knowledge, is only relatively so.'
You can see the Visheshya is truth only. Satyam - Napumsakalinga. The
Visheshana is Karmaphala lakshanam in Napumsaka Linga 'constituted by
results of karma'. There is one more Visheshana. What is it? 'The
subject matter of the lower knowledge'. This is AparaVidyaaVishayam.
Napumsaka Linga. Two Visheshanas for the same Visheshya that is
Satyam. Therefore AparaVidyaaVishayam is a Bahuvrihi Samasa because it
is Visheshana for Satyam.
There is one more Visheshana. What is it? Apekshikam.
Apekshika means 'relative'. The Bhashyakara is saying this Truth is
relative only. It is not Absolute Truth. This is the third Visheshana
for the same Visheshya.
Therefore Satyam in this sentence has three Visheshanas - Karmaphala
Lakshanam, Apekshikam and AparaVidyaaVishayam
Things cannot be more clear than this. Why the confusion???
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Subbuji,
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:50 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> I consider these two questions to explain the two compounds:
>> किंलक्षणं इदं सत्यम् ? कर्मफललक्षणम् - कर्मफलं लक्षणं यस्य सत्यस्य ।
>> किंविषयमिदं सत्यम् ? अपरविद्याविषयम् - अपरविद्या (एव) विषयं यस्य सत्यस्य ।
>> Even if the vigraha changes (from tatpuruṣa to bahuvrīhi), the meaning
>> does not change.
> I meant that too, but only with reference to the compound,
> karmaphalalakShaNam, not aparavidyAviShayam.
> 'Satyam' of the earlier Mundaka mantra (āpekṣikam) is in the domain of
>> aparavidyā and hence that is the viṣaya of the aparavidyā (veda purva
>> bhāga) (त्रैगुण्यविषया वेदाः..).
> Please mark your own words, "viShaya of aparavidyA. You yourself are using
> ShaShThi tatpuruSha, since its the most befitting meaning and comes
> naturally. :)
>> I do not think 'satyam' is विशेषण here. On the other hand, it is viśeṣya.
>> That is why the two expressions are there to qualify, explain it and
>> therefore are विशेषणs here.
> That satyam is visheShya and then vidheya also alright; there is no
> disagreement there. However, the vivakSha changes. What you're saying, as
> far as I can tell, is that the aparavidyAvishayam is karmaphalalakShaNam
> satyam. I am saying that the karmaphalalakShaNam (hetu-garbha-viSheShaNa;
> hetu for its being satyam) aparavidyAviShayam is ApekShikam (visheShaNa)
> satyam. The background for this is that in two mantras, this one and
> former, there were the words tat etat satyam, one w.r.t. aparavidyA and the
> other w.r.t. paravidyA. Bhashyakara differentiates the former as ApekShika,
> while the latter as pAramArthika.
>> I also think that the Anandagiri gloss considered in this thread is
>> irrespective of what samāsa the expressions are.
> I disagree. He clearly says that that the napuMsakatvam is due to the
> vyutpatti used, while you are saying that the napuMsakatvam is due to
> bahuvrIhi. Moreover, bahuvrIhi doesn't fit as per my understanding of the
> context. Since tatpuruSha is inline with the TikA, Swami Paramarthananda
> ji's explanation, Kailash ashram explanation and I think (I don't have the
> book right now) Swami Gambhirananda ji's too, I have no clue as to why you
> would like to see bahuvrIhi. I rest my case. Thank you.
> 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