[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,


On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:05 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> 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.'
>

Yes, that is how I meant it too, just that I explained with a विग्रह वाक्य।
My understanding holds even if you say वीरपुरुषः रामः धीरः अस्ति। Also,
वीरपुरुषः will remain कर्मधारयः and not become बहुव्रीहि for the same
reasons mentioned before and also below.


>
> Can we not have a bahuvrīhi compound as a viśeṣaṇa at all?
>
>
Surely we can, except that the पदs in the समास should not be denoted. If,
for example I had to take the stock example दृष्टसमुद्रः and use it as an
adjective to say दृष्टसमुद्रः रामः, I would be saying दृष्टः समुद्रः येन सः
रामः। What you were expecting to do though is to have the उत्तरपद
प्राधान्यम् as well as बहुव्रीहि।


>
>
>> 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’.
>

That may well be. It could be बहुव्रीहि here, representing not सत्यम् but
अपरविद्याविषयम्। The विग्रह changes but the meaning doesn't change.


> 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'.
>

Sorry, I am back to my subjective complement argument. सत्यम् is विधेय not
विशेषण here.



> I do not see any reasonable meaning in the vigraha suggested as
> कर्मफलानाम् लक्षणम्.
>

The reasonable meaning is brought out by Swami Paramarthananda ji so: "It
has been said that the nature of karma phalam is satyam, the truth".


praNam,
--praveen