Why वर्तेयम् and not वर्तेय in Gita 3:23?

[Sandeep Nangia]

The following verse comes from Gita 3:23

यदि ह्यहं न वर्तेयं जातु कर्मण्यतन्द्रितः ।

मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ॥ ३- २३ ॥

My understanding is that वर्तेयम् is उत्तम पुरुष, एकवचन of वृत् धातु in विधिलिङ्लकार. But isn't वृत् धातु आत्मनेपदी? In that case I am wondering why it is not वर्तेय? Is this an instance of अपाणिनीय प्रयोग in gItA or I am missing something else.

Thanks and regards,

Sandeep

[Hnbhat B.R.]

This is not the reading of Sri Sankara commented:

ªÉÊnù Ê½þ {ÉÖxÉ& +½Æþ xÉ ´ÉiÉæªÉ VÉÉiÉÖEònùÉÊSÉiÉ Eò¨ÉÇÊhÉ +iÉÎxpùiÉ& +xɱɺÉ& ºÉxÉ ¨É¨É ¸Éä¹`öºªÉ ºÉiÉ& ´Éi¨ÉÇ ¨ÉÉMÉǨÉ +xÉÖ´ÉiÉÇxiÉä ¨ÉxÉÖ¹ªÉÉ& ½äþ{ÉÉlÉÇ, ºÉ´ÉǶÉ& ºÉ´ÉÇ|ÉEòÉ®èú&** 

 

Sanskrit Commentary - Sri Purushottamji 


**3.23**xÉxÉÖ i´ÉnùEò®úhÉä ËEò ºªÉÉiÉÂ? <iªÉiÉ +ɽþ -- ªÉnùÒÊiÉ* +½Æþ VÉÉiÉÖ EònùÉÊSÉnùÊ{É Eò¨ÉÇÊhÉ +iÉÎxpùiÉÉä ÊxÉ®úɱɺªÉ& ºÉxÉ xÉ ´ÉiÉæªÉ xÉ |É´ÉÞkÉÉä ¦É´ÉÉʨÉ;

All others read as वर्तेयम्। which is obvisiously अपाणिनीय or आर्ष usage as you have noted rightly.

[vasantha syamalam]

That means वर्त्यम् can also be used in this context. Is it so?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
*Self help is the best help.*

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:55 AM, vasantha syamalam <vasantha...@gmail.com> wrote:

That means वर्त्यम् can also be used in this context. Is it so?

What is this form and why you should use it in भगवद्गीता written by वेदव्यास?

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

All others read as वर्तेयम्। which is obvisiously अपाणिनीय or आर्ष usage as you have noted rightly.

Sorry. Neelakantha dikshita also reads वर्तेय like Shankaracarya and Purushottamaji which is also पाणिनीय. Others did not comment anything on the form as अपाणिनीय in their commentary, but ony read वर्तेयम् without any comment on its grammar.

[Sandeep Nangia]

Bhatt Mahodaya, I am unable to view what have posted (perhaps in Sanskrit) because you might be using a specific Sanskrit font which I don't have on my computer. May I request you to use a screenshot or unicode font. 

Many thanks and regards,

Sandeep

[Sandeep Nangia]

Mahodaya, 

Just an observation. On Gita super site2.0 I see the following reading of the Shankarabhashya

यदि हि पुनः अहं न वर्तेय जातु कदाचित् कर्मणि अतन्द्रितः अनलसः सन् मम श्रेष्ठस्य सतः वर्त्म मार्गम् अनुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः हे पार्थ, सर्वशः सर्वप्रकारैः। 

But both in Shrimadbhagavadgita with Shankarabhashya (in Hindi) by Gita Press Gorakhpur and Shankara commentary by Swami Gambhirananda (of Ramakrishna Mission) I see varteyaM only. 

So looks like even the Shankarabhashya has different readings. Many thanks for you validating the observation that varteyaM is apaNiniiya but ArSha prayoga. 

Regards,

Sandeep

[valerio virgini]

To me it looked like a regular optative parasmaipada 1 pers. singular
It is not a form not Paninian.

As for the meaning, the parasmaipada seems to me appropriate.

2014-09-06 6:51 GMT+02:00 Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>:

All others read as वर्तेयम्। which is obvisiously अपाणिनीय or आर्ष usage as you have noted rightly.

Sorry. Neelakantha dikshita also reads वर्तेय like Shankaracarya and Purushottamaji which is also पाणिनीय. Others did not comment anything on the form as अपाणिनीय in their commentary, but ony read वर्तेयम् without any comment on its grammar.

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:43 PM, valerio virgini <valerio...@gmail.com> wrote:

To me it looked like a regular optative parasmaipada 1 pers. singular
It is not a form not Paninian.

As for the meaning, the parasmaipada seems to me appropriate.

There is no doubt it is a regular optative parasmaipada form. But only that it is not sanctioned by Paninian, any of the rules governing the  परस्मैपद or आत्मनेपद, but the forms for the verb वृत् only approved as आत्मनेपद for the root covered by the rule अनुदात्तङित आत्मनेपदम्. This was meant by अपाणिनीय by the first poster,  form not approved by Panini directly.

It could be forced to be approved, a loophole in Sutra, as Panini has himself suggested that it may be sometimes overruled which is indicated making even the अनुदात्तेत् verb चक्षिङ् appending ङ् which is also indicator of आत्मनेपद. You can call them irregular forms for the verb, if you feel it is not अपाणिनीय. 

There is no provision directly for this verb, governing both परस्मैपद and आत्मनेपद according to meaning covered by स्वरितञितः कर्त्रभिप्राये क्रियाफले P.I.3.72. and the rules following it. Hence the परस्मैपद forms are not governed by पाणिनि's rules and अपाणिनीय in that sense. Or irregular usage covered by आर्ष usage and not in the regular usage परस्मैपद usages are found in the classical literature, but archaic usages.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Sandeep Nangia <sandeep...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bhatt Mahodaya, I am unable to view what have posted (perhaps in Sanskrit) because you might be using a specific Sanskrit font which I don't have on my computer. May I request you to use a screenshot or unicode font. 

Many thanks and regards,

I have used only Baraha Unicode Font in my writings. For others I have only copied from Gita Supersite. and I have not used any non-Unicode font.

And, the Bhagavadgita Edition with 11 commentaries also give the same reading for Shankarabhashya, and and other commentaries as I have mentioned..

 

[valerio virgini]

Thank you Dr. Bhat

Now it is clear.

valerio

--