[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste all,
>
> (Apologies for overshooting my quota of mails today)
>
> Subbuji,
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>

I meant a compound word as adjective like 'virapuruṣaḥ' to the noun 'rāma.'


Can we not have a bahuvrīhi compound as a viśeṣaṇa at all?



> 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 am afraid the above is not the case, at least in the bhāṣyam context.  It
will be 'कर्मफलं लक्षणं यस्य तत्’. This is because that 'satyam' in that
sentence is about the 'certainty of the actions, vedic, giving their
fruit.' So, that 'satyam' is of the nature/atribute that is 'karmaphalam'.
I do not see any reasonable meaning in the vigraha suggested as
कर्मफलानाम् लक्षणम्.

regards



>
>
>>
>>