[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[Praveen R. Bhat]

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.
>