[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Subbuji,


On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:50 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I consider these two questions to explain the two compounds:
>
> किंलक्षणं इदं सत्यम् ? कर्मफललक्षणम् - कर्मफलं लक्षणं यस्य सत्यस्य ।
>
> किंविषयमिदं सत्यम् ? अपरविद्याविषयम् - अपरविद्या (एव) विषयं यस्य सत्यस्य ।
>
>  Even if the vigraha changes (from tatpuruṣa to bahuvrīhi), the meaning
> does not change.
>

I meant that too, but only with reference to the compound,
karmaphalalakShaNam, not aparavidyAviShayam.

'Satyam' of the earlier Mundaka mantra (āpekṣikam) is in the domain of
> aparavidyā and hence that is the viṣaya of the aparavidyā (veda purva
> bhāga) (त्रैगुण्यविषया वेदाः..).
>

Please mark your own words, "viShaya of aparavidyA. You yourself are using
ShaShThi tatpuruSha, since its the most befitting meaning and comes
naturally. :)


>
> I do not think 'satyam' is विशेषण here. On the other hand, it is viśeṣya.
> That is why the two expressions are there to qualify, explain it and
> therefore are विशेषणs here.
>

That satyam is visheShya and then vidheya also alright; there is no
disagreement there. However, the vivakSha changes. What you're saying, as
far as I can tell, is that the aparavidyAvishayam is karmaphalalakShaNam
satyam. I am saying that the karmaphalalakShaNam (hetu-garbha-viSheShaNa;
hetu for its being satyam) aparavidyAviShayam is ApekShikam (visheShaNa)
satyam. The background for this is that in two mantras, this one and
former, there were the words tat etat satyam, one w.r.t. aparavidyA and the
other w.r.t. paravidyA. Bhashyakara differentiates the former as ApekShika,
while the latter as pAramArthika.


>
> I also think that the Anandagiri gloss considered in this thread is
> irrespective of what samāsa the expressions are.
>

I disagree. He clearly says that that the napuMsakatvam is due to the
vyutpatti used, while you are saying that the napuMsakatvam is due to
bahuvrIhi. Moreover, bahuvrIhi doesn't fit as per my understanding of the
context. Since tatpuruSha is inline with the TikA, Swami Paramarthananda
ji's explanation, Kailash ashram explanation and I think (I don't have the
book right now) Swami Gambhirananda ji's too, I have no clue as to why you
would like to see bahuvrIhi. I rest my case. Thank you.

praNAm,
--praveen