भुन्जीथाः
Nityanand Misra
Following the discussion on the form विजुगुप्सते, I remembered another debatable interpretation by श्रीशङ्कराचार्य in the commentary on the first verse of the ईशावास्योपनिषद्. श्रीशङ्कराचार्य interprets भुञ्जीथाः as पालयेथाः = [you] preserve or protect. The root is भुज् (भुजँ पालनाभ्यवहारयोः) which is रुधादि, सकर्मक and अनिट्. The two meanings are पालन = अवन = preserve/protect, and अभ्यवहार = to consume or take food. By the Sutra भुजोऽनवने (1.3.66), भुज् is आत्मनेपद when the meaning is other than अवन (i.e. when it is अभ्यवहार). From अनवने it is clear that the root being referred to is भुजँ पालनाभ्यवहारयोः and not the तुदादि भुजो कौटिल्ये. So when the meaning is पालन it is परस्मैपद from शेषात्कर्तरि परस्मैपदम् (1.3.78).
भुञ्जीथाः is आत्मनेपद form. श्रीशङ्कराचार्य has given the meaning of पालन which is परस्मैपद. The परस्मैपद form is भुञ्ज्याः and not भुञ्जीथाः.
Has he [again] ignored the Paninian system? What could be the reasons or alternate explanations?
Other interpretations
- श्रीमध्वाचार्य and श्रीजयतीर्थभिक्षु retain the form भुञ्जीथाः in their commentary and the context shows they mean it in the भोग or अभ्यवहार sense.
- श्रीदयानन्दसरस्वती interprets भुञ्जीथाः as भोगमनुभवेः. In the Hindi commentary he cites 1.3.66 and says "व्याकरण के अनुसार भी श्रीशङ्कराचार्य कृत भुञ्जीथाः की पालयेथाः व्याख्या अशुद्ध है" (The explanation of Śrīśaṅkarācārya is incorrect even according to grammar).
- श्रीरामभद्राचार्य interprets भुञ्जीथाः as भोगं कुर्वीथाः. He further says "यत्तु भुञ्जीथाः इत्यस्य पालयेथाः इत्यर्थो व्याख्यायते तदशास्त्रीयम्".
Thanks, Nityanand
--
Nityānanda Miśra
Member, Advisory Council, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University
Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com
http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/jrhu/donate
|| आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो ||
(Thou art from/for/of/in That Ātman, O Śvetaketu)
- Ṛṣi Uddālaka to his son, Chāndogyopaniṣad 6.8.7, The Sāma Veda
Sivasenani Nori
"Again, let's keep the discussion limited to grammar only."
Yet, just before this he quoted two sentences:
a) "...In the Hindi commentary he cites 1.3.66 and says "व्याकरण के
अनुसार भी श्रीशङ्कराचार्यकृत भुञ्जीथाः की पालयेथाः व्याख्या अशुद्ध है"
(The explanation of Śrīśaṅkarācārya is incorrect even according to
grammar)."
b) "...He further says "यत्तु भुञ्जीथाः इत्यस्य पालयेथाः इत्यर्थो
व्याख्यायते तदशास्त्रीयम्".
Both the interpretations later quoted would have stood by themselves,
without these additional remarks. Such remarks naturally will trigger
counter-remarks. And, yet, the last sentence urges that discussion be
limited to grammar only, thereby acknowledging the stated policy of
BVP not to encourage such polemics.
All this, not on something which would make a serious difference to
doctrine, but on a statement which is fundamentally acceptable not
only to all Vedantins, but all people - Hindus, Buddhists, Christians
etc., may be excepting the Caarvaakas.
Clearly, for whatever reason, there is a sustained effort to denigrate
a particular acharya. It is sad that BVP is being so subverted.
Regards
N. Siva Senani
Nityanand Misra
2012/9/3 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> says:Yet, just before this he quoted two sentences:
"Again, let's keep the discussion limited to grammar only."
a) "...In the Hindi commentary he cites 1.3.66 and says "व्याकरण के
अनुसार भी श्रीशङ्कराचार्यकृत भुञ्जीथाः की पालयेथाः व्याख्या अशुद्ध है"
(The explanation of Śrīśaṅkarācārya is incorrect even according to
grammar)."
Sorry to say but the comment from उत्तरपक्ष that I quoted is completely confined to grammar only. Here is the complete quote which you can check yourself from ईशावास्य commentary under http://agniveer.com/ishopanishad/
व्याकरण के अनुसार भी श्रीशङ्कराचार्यकृत 'भुञ्जीथाः' की 'पालयेथाः' व्याख्या अशुद्ध है। यह 'भुज पालनाभ्यवहारयोः' धातु का रूप है। यद्यपि 'भुज' धातु का पालन करना तथा अभ्यवहार करना=खाना दोनों अर्थ हैं। किन्तु 'भुजोऽनवने' (अ. १/३/६६) इस पाणिनीय सूत्र से पालन से भिन्न अर्थ में आत्मनेपद होता है। पालन अर्थ में परस्मैपद होता है. मन्त्र में आत्मनेपद का रूप है। अतः उसका अर्थ 'पालन करना' व्याकरणनियम से भी अशुद्ध है।
(The explanation of 'bhuñjīthāḥ' as 'pālayethāḥ' by Śrīśaṅkarācārya is incorrect even according to grammar. This is a form of the 'bhuja pālanābhyavahārayoḥ' root. Although the root 'bhuja' has both meanings of pālana and abhyavahāra=eating. But by the Pāṇinīya sūtra 'bhujo'navane' (A. 1/3/66) there is ātmanepada in the meaning different from pālana. When the meaning is pālana, there is parasmaipada. The Mantra has the ātmanepada form. Therefore its meaning as 'performing pālana' is incorrect even as per the rules of Vyākaraṇa.)
b) "...He further says "यत्तु भुञ्जीथाः इत्यस्य पालयेथाः इत्यर्थो
व्याख्यायते तदशास्त्रीयम्".
Again the comment from उत्तरपक्ष being quoted is completely confined to grammar. Here is the complete quote which you can read from ईशावास्य commentary under http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/downloads
यत्तु भुञ्जीथाः इत्यस्य पालयेथाः इत्यर्थो व्याख्यायते तदशास्त्रीयम्। 'भुजोऽनवने' (पा. सूत्र. १-३-६६) इति सूत्रेणावनभिन्नार्थादेव भुज् धातोरात्मनेपदविधानात्। भुज् पालनाभ्यवहारयोः पा धातुपाठ १४५४ रुधादि। इति पाणिनीयानुशासनेन भुज् धातोः द्वयोरर्थयोः सतोः पालनभिन्नस्याभ्यवहाररूपार्थस्येव द्योतकमिदमात्मनेपदम्।
Both the interpretations later quoted would have stood by themselves,
without these additional remarks.
Such remarks naturally will trigger
counter-remarks.
As clarified above these remarks are in the context of Paninian grammar only. As long as counter-remarks are confined to Paninian grammar, what is the harm? A healthy debate always involves subjecting the statements of the विपक्ष to critical examination in our great परम्परा of शास्त्रार्थ.
Clearly, for whatever reason, there is a sustained effort to denigrate
a particular acharya. It is sad that BVP is being so subverted.
Please do not get paranoid and do not float conspiracy theories. There is no such effort of subversion. In any case the moderators are there.
Thanks, Nityanand
--
V Subrahmanian
Namaste
Following the discussion on the form विजुगुप्सते, I remembered another debatable interpretation by श्रीशङ्कराचार्य in the commentary on the first verse of the ईशावास्योपनिषद्. श्रीशङ्कराचार्य interprets भुञ्जीथाः as पालयेथाः = [you] preserve or protect. The root is भुज् (भुजँ पालनाभ्यवहारयोः) which is रुधादि, सकर्मक and अनिट्. The two meanings are पालन = अवन = preserve/protect, and अभ्यवहार = to consume or take food. By the Sutra भुजोऽनवने (1.3.66), भुज् is आत्मनेपद when the meaning is other than अवन (i.e. when it is अभ्यवहार). From अनवने it is clear that the root being referred to is भुजँ पालनाभ्यवहारयोः and not the तुदादि भुजो कौटिल्ये. So when the meaning is पालन it is परस्मैपद from शेषात्कर्तरि परस्मैपदम् (1.3.78).
भुञ्जीथाः is आत्मनेपद form. श्रीशङ्कराचार्य has given the meaning of पालन which is परस्मैपद. The परस्मैपद form is भुञ्ज्याः and not भुञ्जीथाः.
Has he [again] ignored the Paninian system? What could be the reasons or alternate explanations?
Namaste
Here is reproduced the first mantra of the Isha Upanishad along with the shAnkara bhAShyam:
ईशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च जगत्यां जगत् । तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् ।
भाष्यम् -
....इदं सर्वं यत्किञ्च यत्किञचिज्जगत्यां पृथिव्यां जगत्सर्वं स्वेनात्मना ईशेन प्रत्यगात्मतयाहमेवेदं सर्वमिति परमार्थसत्यरूपेणानृतमिदं सर्वं चराचरमाच्छादनीयं स्वेन परमात्मना ।.....एवमीश्वरावनया युक्तस्य पुत्राद्येषणात्रयसंन्यास एवाधिकारो, न कर्मसु । तेन त्यक्तेन त्यागेनेत्यर्थः । न हि त्यक्तो मृतः पुत्रो वा भृत्यो वा आत्मसम्बन्धिताया अभावात् आत्मानं पालयति, अतः त्यागेन इत्ययमेव वेदार्थः - भुञ्जीथाः पालयेताः ।
The following are the points that have gone into the above meaning/explanation by Shankara:
- The Upanisahad(s)' upadesha is in tyAga alone and not in bhoga.
- By the vAkyasheShanyAyaH (of pUrvamImAmsA) the upanishad in the second line says: मा गृधः कस्यस्विद्धनम् which only means that one should give up desires: एषणात्यागः.
- The teaching of the Upanishad therefore is in renouncing desires and the means for enjoyment.
- The 'abhyavahAra' meaning culminates in bhoga
- The vAkyaartha is therefore: त्यागेन आत्मा रक्षितव्यः
- रक्षण (पालन) is also another meaning of the bhuj-dhAtu
- भोग and tyaaga are contradictory to each other
- On these considerations Shankara takes the भुञ्जीथाः’ which is in Atmanepada as पालनार्थे which is parasmaipada but stated by the mantra as Atmanepada, आर्षप्रयोगः
- Such vedic usages are not unusual and they have been covered by the Panini sutra: व्यत्ययो बहुलम्.
- That the mantra's paramatAtparyam is in tyAga alone is known from the next mantra: कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेत् शतं समाः ...
- For those who are unable to adhere to the सर्वैषणात्याग, तन्मूलकात्मपालनम् the next best alternative is the teaching of the second mantra: perform the vihita karma with due ardour.
- In the bhashya for the second mantra Shankara cites a scriptural statement: न जीविते मरणे वा गृधिं कुर्वीताः अरण्यमियात् इति च पदम्, ततो न पुनरियात् - इति संन्यासशासनात् ।
- In explaining what take precedence are: the meaning, the context, the pUrvAparavAkyasheSha, etc.
- Thus there is no room for the charge of 'ashAstrIyam' with respect to the shAnkara bhAshyam which amply takes care of the Vedanta shAstra, the pUrvamImAmsA shAstra nyayas and the vyakaraNa shastra perfectly.
subrahmanian.v
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
High caliber scholars of vyAkaraNa who are on this list are keeping quiet on the Paninian or otherwise nature of the interpretations in question, so it does seem to me (also) that the atmosphere sought to be created in this thread is not necessarily congenial to a free discussion.
In any case, may I mention a few salient points?
Firstly, as a general observation, the said verse is Sruti, so that its words are not strictly bound by rules created by Panini and the vyAkaraNa beginning with ashTAdhyAyI. An interpreter of Sruti need not make his source text adhere strictly to rules of Paninian grammar, so long as the overall meaning provided in his commentary is self-consistent and conveys a larger meaningful picture. This one exception trumps all the tomes of grammar that anyone can cite in this regard. As such, Paninian grammar would be the weakest basis to applaud or criticize a commentator's understanding of a Sruti text.
Secondly, for anyone who understands well the central value of nivRtti dharma and saMnyAsa in the vedAnta tradition, taking the root bhuj in the sense of abhyavahAra is quite at odds with the message of "tena tyaktena," "mA gRdhaH" and "kasya svid dhanam?" in the same verse. One could surely write a lot along these lines, but as that will not necessarily be about vyAkaraNa, I will skip that for now. Suffice it to say that resorting to another well attested meaning of the same root is well within reason, especially given the Sruti exception already cited above and taking into account that in practical usage, there is a lot of flexibility in usage of parasmaipada and Atmanepada verb terminations, notwithstanding the strict rules of vyAkaraNa. Creation (of words) precedes (their) analysis, to paraphrase patanjali.
Thirdly, with all due respect to Sri Dayanand Saraswati of the Arya Samaj (or is the Hindi citation from the pen of Shri Rajveer Shastri?) and Sri Ramabhadracharya, much as you would like to project their comments as being only about vyAkaraNa, the conclusions they make and the words they choose to use (aSuddha and aSAstrIya) are less about the grammar and more about the content of Sankara's interpretation. There is, self-confessedly, a good deal of polemics involved in their interpretation, citing grammar almost as an afterthought, and only as an additional scoring point in their criticism of the SAnkara bhAshya. For example, the grammar comment in the Hindi text from the Arya Samaji camp comes after seven and a half pages of criticizing Sankara in a discussion that is not about grammar.
This is indeed par for the course in debates amongst different vedAnta schools. By the same token, however, the words of the authors whom you cite are also subject to a similar kind of polemical countering by those who think Sankara's interpretation is better or by those who may have their own interpretation to offer. And needless to say, in the best SAstrArtha traditions of critically examining vipaksha-s, such countering need not confine itself strictly to grammar. After all, for the authors whom you cite, grammar rules are one of the smallest tools in their kit, not the only one nor even the main tool in their understanding or misunderstanding of advaita vedAnta. By trying to cast this as purely an exercise in grammatical analysis and nothing more, you are indeed stacking the deck, so to speak.
Best regards,
Vidyasankar
ps. I should have thought that Sruti not being constrained by Paninian grammar would be more than obvious to those who wish to supply a host of prepositions and make the word tat directly yield meanings of tasmai / tasmAt / tasya / tasminn. As an aside, I wonder why tena is left out. And I don't mean this postscript to be personally about you. Although it is occasioned by your digital signature, I intend it in a general sense.
As clarified above these remarks are in the context of Paninian grammar only. As long as counter-remarks are confined to Paninian grammar, what is the harm? A healthy debate always involves subjecting the statements of the विपक्ष to critical examination in our great परम्परा of शास्त्रार्थ.
... ... Please do not get paranoid and do not float conspiracy theories. There is no such effort of subversion. In any case the moderators are there.
Thanks, Nityanand
--
Aditya B.S.A
but the precise English preposition for this तृतीया sense is elusive to me,
'Thou art with that atman' could be the other sense of the compound.
I think Sri Vidyashankar was only stating the obvious: that rebuttals of the advaita interpretation are not confined to grammar. But Sri Nityananda clearly sought only a grammatical explanation, as he made clear from the first post.
The upanishad starts with 'Ishavasyam idam sarvam...' and ends with '...Yat te roopam kalyanatamam...' and 'poornam eva'vashishyate,' particularly with repeated segments in the middle saying '...amrutam asnute...' To a mind that is not befuddled by polemics or grammar, there is ample indication that paramatAtparya of the first mantra is not merely tyaaga but bhagavatpraapti. As Bhagavad Ramanuja puts it, 'bhagavad-anubhava-janita-anavadhika-atishayapreetikaarita-asheshaavasthochita-asheshasheshataikaratiroopa-nitya kainkaryam'.
Polemics were resorted to in an attempt to defend the Advaita position. Fair enough. But the very fact that polemical diatribe can lead to divergent understanding should drive the point of grammar's importance in the final import.
Regards,
Aditya.
Regards,
Aditya.
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
Aditya B.S.A
As a purely grammatical question, is there no rule that states that vyatyayo bahulam and aarsha prayoga cannot be resorted to when there are simpler, coherent explanations, irrespective of whether the context is vaidika or loukika?
Veeranarayana Pandurangi
I hope everybody will understand the importance of harmonious maintainance of this group. It is more importamt than these grammatical poimts
Very bold statement by Adithya, igniting already heated discussion.व्यत्ययो बहुलम् । । ३,१.८५ । ।बहुलग्रहणं सर्वविधिव्यभिचारार्थम्। सुप्तिङुपग्रलिङ्गनरणां कालहलच्स्वरकर्तृयङां च। व्यत्ययमिच्छति शास्त्रकृदेषां सो ऽपि च सिध्यति बहुलकेन।is the commonly accepted view in respect of Vedic Literature.2012/9/5 Aditya B.S.A <amrd...@gmail.com>
--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,
Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry16 & 19, Rue DumasPondichéry - 605 001
Aditya B.S.A
तदिह भागवतं गतमत्सरा मतमिदं विमृशन्तु विपश्चितः॥
Veeranarayana Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।