[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[V Subrahmanian]

Thank you Sri Praveen ji, for the replies.  Would you consider the two
words highlighted here as viśeṣaṇas for 'satyam'?

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?

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? 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?



regards
subbu

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 ।
>> Here,
>> 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
>> prathamāvibhakti.
>>
>
>  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.
>
> गुरुपादुकाभ्यामर्पणमस्तु।
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
> [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>
>>