[Advaita-l] Grammatical question about Mundaka 2.1.1 bhashyam

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Venkateshji,

I'd written my last mail on the subject as conveyed to respected Subbuji,
except that you gave Sw. Gambhiranandaji's translation, proving *my* point.
So let me say my last words on the topic to you too, since you seem to have
completely ignored the points I am trying to drive home. If you are unaware
of Paninian grammar, please ignore them, else I strongly urge you to look
up the sutras I quoted in my mail to Subbuji yesterday. If still in doubt
and I didn't sound convincing there, please consult a Paninian vyAkaraNa
teacher. Of course, the other choice is to hold on to your own view,
regardless. Rest of my response is below please.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> In Swami Gambirananda translation of Mundaka Upanisad 2-1-1 we read -
>
> 'That truth that is constituted by the results of karma, the subject
> matter of the lower knowledge, is only relatively so.'
>

Please understand the vigraha here, else quoting the translation is really
of no use. What do you understand by the words "subject matter of lower
knowledge"? If you were to write this in Sanskrit, would you really be
saying अपरविद्या विषयः यस्य तत् or would you say अपरविद्यायाः विषयम्? I
really hope the latter. Then it is षष्ठी तत्पुरुषः not बहुव्रीहि। (Although
its not my contention here, also consider the vigraha "that is constituted
by the results of karma". षष्ठी तत्पुरुषः followed by तृतीया तत्पुरुषः )


>
> You can see the Visheshya is truth only. Satyam - Napumsakalinga. The
> Visheshana is Karmaphala lakshanam in Napumsaka Linga 'constituted by
> results of karma'. There is one more Visheshana. What is it? 'The
> subject matter of the lower knowledge'. This is AparaVidyaaVishayam.
> Napumsaka Linga. Two Visheshanas for the same Visheshya that is
> Satyam. Therefore AparaVidyaaVishayam is a Bahuvrihi Samasa because it
> is Visheshana for Satyam.
>


There is one more Visheshana. What is it? Apekshikam.
>
>
You can have a hundred विशेषणs, but that will not make a तत्पुरुषः
बहुव्रीहि just because you think the gender proves it. Please understand
that gender hints a possibility of bahuvrIhi, but only a vigraha makes a
samAsa type. You can't have a tatpuruSha compound, qualify a word in
another gender, change the compound's gender, keep its vigraha and say its
bahuvrIhi. Refer to any non-bahuvrIhi compound ending in a masculine pada
that goes together with the following feminine word देवता। Will you make a
बहुव्रीहि because there is a feminine word following and change the gender
of the masculine deity?

I will give you another example. वीरपुरुषः = वीरश्च असौ पुरुषः। Its a
कर्मधारय। Now, you decide to take this word and qualify देवदत्त and say
वीरपुरुषः देवदत्तः। As per your logic, its बहुव्रीहि now. I am not sure if
you are aware of the implications of calling it बहुव्रीहि, but it is a
compound that's अनेकम् *अन्यपदार्थे*। देवदत्त becomes an अन्यपद now and you
will end up saying that देवदत्त is by a brave person, has a brave person,
is from a brave person, or even in a brave person, but who is himself
neither वीर nor पुरुष, irrespective of whether you intended so or not! BTW,
this is why I chose not to use Rama here. :) Ergo, it should and remains a
कर्मधारय।


> Apekshika means 'relative'. The Bhashyakara is saying this Truth is
> relative only. It is not Absolute Truth.


Why are you even mentioning this? I said this exact thing in my mail to
which you have responded!

This is the third Visheshana
> for the same Visheshya.
>



> Therefore Satyam in this sentence has three Visheshanas - Karmaphala
> Lakshanam, Apekshikam and AparaVidyaaVishayam
>

Thats an interesting sentence indeed without a विधेय। Please refer to my
mail earlier on why a subjective complement is separated out in a sentence
like this, which you made use of two lines before in your anvaya "this
Truth is relative only" and forgot right away and ended up implying "this
relative truth only is"!


>
> Things cannot be more clear than this. Why the confusion???
>

Really? If sticking to the TIkAkAra, Paninian vyAkaraNa rules, Sw.
Paramarthanandaji, Kailash ashram, Sw. Gambhiranandaji, not to mention my
own Vedanta teacher is confusion, you will need an English dictionary as
well, my friend. :)



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