[Advaita-l] Paninian grammar question on Katha II.1.1 bhashyam

Siva Senani Nori sivasenani at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 1 14:17:52 CDT 2015

This is a longish post, so first let me present the summary. Sri Praveen Bhat is spot on with his analysis; only a very minor addition to his observations is given here:
1. अत सातत्यगमने + मनिण्  (सातिभ्यां मनिन्मनिणौ ॥ उणादि० ४.५९२)अत + मनिण् --> अत् + मन् (अनुबन्धलोपात्) --> आत् + मन् (अत उपधायाः॥7.2.116॥) --> आत्मन्This is the standard and regular derivation.
2. आप् व्याप्तौ + मनिन् (सर्वधातुभ्यो मनिन्॥उणादि० 4.584) --> आप् + मन् --> आत् (पृषोदारिद्वात्) + मन् --> आत्मन्.This is derived by Pandit Mukund Jha Sharma, who wrote a commentary निरुक्तविवृत्तिः on Niruktam.
3. अद् भक्षणे + मनिन् (सर्वधातुभ्यो मनिन्॥उणादि० 4.584) --> आत् (पृषोदारिद्वात्) मन् --> आत्मन्4. आ-डुदाञ् मनिन् (सर्वधातुभ्यो मनिन्॥उणादि० 4.584) --> आत्मन् (पृषोदारिद्वात्) (This dhatu was used because the verb आदत्ते  is formed with डुदाञ् and neither by दद दाने nor by दाण् दाने)The last two are not real derivations; they merely indicate the lack of prakriyA with the Vyakaranam known to us now, following Mukund Jha Sharma.

Now, the explanations.
Since Niruktam is the science of etymology and since the word AtmA is derived in Niruktam, it bears examination. Yaskaacaarya while explaining the use of यथा (which occurs in the twelve words classified as "upamas" in the NighaNTu 3.13) offers three mantras as examples. The last example is the Rk आत्मा यक्ष्मस्य नश्यति पुरा जीवगृभो यथा (10.97.11) [1]. While explaining this mantra, Yaskaacaarya gives the etymologies of the word AtmA - and these are closed to the Smriti quoted by Bhagavatpada. Yaska's words are (3.3.15): आत्माऽततेर्वाऽऽप्तेर्वाऽपिवाप्त इव स्याद् यावद्व्याप्तिभूत इति।
Here Yaska offers the etymology of AtmA from two roots - अततेः, आप्तेः . These are explained by Durgaacaarya (the commentator of Niruktam) as सर्वमेव हि तेनातितं भवति, सर्वगतत्वात्। Here the derivation given by Sri Praveen Bhat fits in, only the uNAdipratyaya is held to be maniN (मनिण्) [2]. The second derivation in Nirukta is explained by Durgaacaarya as सर्वमेव हि तेन व्याप्तं भवति सर्वगतत्वादेव। Here the derivation is not offered by Durgaacaarya, but Mukund Jha Sharma who wrote a Niruktavivritti (following the commentary of Durgaacaarya) gives the following Vyutpatti (p 136): व्याप्तर्थस्याप्धातोः (स्वा० प०) (i.e आप् व्याप्तौ) मनिनि पस्य तत्वं पृषोदरादित्वात् [3]। That is: आप् + मनिन् --> आत् (पृषोदरादित्वात्) + मन् (अनुबन्धलोपः) --> आत्मन् । For the two other roots also, we have to resort to पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टानि ॥6.3.109॥ or बाहुलकम् as indicated by Sri Praveen Bhat.
As Patanjali indicates in the Mahabhashya (under 3.3.1), the Unaadi pratyayas are an attempt to respect the views of Yaaska and SaakaTaayana who believe that all nouns are derived from verbal roots. Further, "that which is not said to be derived from base and affix must be imagined" (यन्न पदार्थविशेषसमुत्थं प्रत्ययतः प्रकृतेश्च तदूह्यम्॥). So having given one pratyaya मनिण् to derive आत्मन् further pratyayas are not listed, as there is no end. So either through baahulakam or prishodaaritvam, we must explain the other derivations. Etymologists believe that while Vyakaranam is like an ocean, PaaNineeyatantram is like a goshpada. So, without any disrespect to Bhagavaan PaaNini (who himself accommodates these through 3.3.1, 6.3.109 etc., rather than teach the full VyaakaraNam, keeping in view the limited Sakti of generations after him), it might not always be possible to have a grammatical explanation for the vyutpatti of a word.

RegardsN. Siva Senani
[1]. The meaning of this Rk is: As I praise these medicines and take them in hand (यदिमा वाजयन्नहमोषदीर्हस्ते आदधे।), the AtmA of the disease is destroyed before [the administration of the medicine], i.e the disease will not recur, just like the AtmA of a captured bird [perishes before it is actually killed] (आत्मा यक्ष्मस्य नश्यति पुरा जीवगृभो यथा).
[2] In the sUtra सातिभ्यां मनिन्मनिणौ, the principle of yathAkramam is applied. Therefore मनिन् is taken after षो  अन्तकर्मणि (सा + मनिन् --> सामन्) and मनिण् is taken after अत सातत्यगमने. The इत् "ण्" in मनिण् serves the purpose of satisfying the condition णिति for application of अत उपधायाः॥7.2.116॥ 
[3] According to the sUtra पृषोदरादीनि यथोपदिष्टानि ॥6.3.109॥, Panini teaches that the open-ended list of words starting with Prishodara (one who has spots on his stomach) are to be received as taught by, i.e. as used by, SishTas. In other words, these words cannot be analyzed and their form cannot be derived.
      From: Praveen R. Bhat via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2015 11:18 PM
 Subject: [Advaita-l] Paninian grammar question on Katha II.1.1 bhashyam
Namaste all,

Bhagavatpadacharya quotes लिङ्गपुराणः in the context of the Katha II.1.1
mantra to justify that the रूढ्यार्थः as well as व्युत्पत्त्यार्थः of the
word आत्मा (आत्मन्) is प्रत्यक्।

‘यच्चाप्नोति यदादत्ते यच्चात्ति विषयानिह । यच्चास्य सन्ततो
भावयस्तस्मादात्मेति कीर्त्यते’ ; इत्यात्मशब्दव्युत्पत्तिस्मरणात् ।

  - आप् व्याप्तौ + मनिँन्।
  - आ + दा दाने + मनिँन् ।
  - अत् भक्षणे + मनिँन्।
  - अत् सातत्य-गमने + मनिँन्। अतति सातत्येन गच्छति, इति आत्मा।

Out of the four धातुs, only the last derivation seems to be clear to me by

  - उणादिसूत्र ~४.१५४-- सातिभ्याम् मनिँन् मनिँणौ।
  - ७.२.११६ अत उपधायाः (वृद्धिः)।

Is there any better way for the रूपसिद्धिः of first three derivations other
than बहुलम् by the following?

  - उणादिसूत्र ~४.१४८ सर्वधातुभ्यः मनिन्।
  - ३.३.१ उणादयो बहुलम्।

Thanks much,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
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