Madhu

[Advayananda]

Respected Scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

The term 'madhu' has been interpreted by Śrī Śaṅkarācārya as karmaphala. The usual Sanskrit dictionaries do not give this meaning for 'madhu'. I kindly request for clarity with regards to this interpretation. The reference is to verse of the Kathopaniṣad, 2.1.5: ya imaṁ madvadaṁ veda … 

I am aware that Ṛg Samhita 1.22.134.22 also has a reference to madhu as karmaphala. Shall be grateful if the Ṛg verse can be quoted in its original. I do not have access to that.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[subodh kumar]

Sir,

'madhu' word and its use with about 100 adjectives occures in Vedas in nealy 1000 places.

I  am afraid your reference to madhu in rigved as Ṛg Samhita 1.22.134.22  is not omplete.

There is no madhu in Rg samhita sookt 1.22 and 1.134.

However following note on madhu vidya from Aurobindo Ashram  may be considered for the present

Madhu Vidya or the Doctrine of Delight

The Madhu vidya or the doctrine of mystic honey is found in the 5th chapter of the second book of the Bŗhadāraņyaka Upanishad which is itself part of the Shatapatha Brāhmaņa. Often this Upanishad is quoted by some monists to demonstrate this world to be an, “utter illusion” and that world is irrelevant to the attainment of the highest spiritual experience called as nirguņa brahman. Such passages upholding the, “lofty illusionism” are found in the maitreyi brāhmaņa of the same Upanishad which precedes the Madhu Vidya chapter. Madhu Vidya provides the required corrective and teaches us that the, “diversity in creation is the manifestation of a secret delight, that all things, however heterogeneous and warring they may appear, are held together by a secret harmony effected in them by the hidden creative self delight of the supreme who is the effulgent self, immortal”. The Upanishad states, “This earth is honey for all beings and all beings are honey for this earth- and he who is in this earth the effulgent, immortal puruşha and he who is within one's being, in the body, the effulgent, immortal puruşha are indeed the same. He who is this self, this immortal, this brahman, this all”. It gives fourteen illustrations to reinforce the above statement. It further adds that, “this self does not merely represent the basic principle of madhu, the bliss that abides in the heart of things but he is the master of all things and beings and holds together all beings, all Gods, all worlds, all selves and all lives”. Next the Upanishad quotes three verses of the Rigveda Samhitā (1.116.2, 1.117.2, 6.47.18) stating that the doctrine of mystic honey given here is not new, but was already revealed to the sages of the Rigveda, specifically dadhyan atharvan by Ashvins, the twin powers. Sri Sāyaņāchārya explains these verses by using a legend in the Shatapatha Brāhmaņa involving the God Indra, Dadhyan, son of Atharvan, and the twin powers Ashvins. Sri Kapāli Sāstry explains that these verses make much more sense if they are interpreted along esoteric lines, using the clues supplied by the meanings of names of personages like Dadhyan Atharvan. The two parts of the word Dadhyan, dadhi and anc, gives us the meaning that, “it is a distinct lustrous power moving in the yield of Light fixed in the intellectual mind”. Dadhyan, like the Atharvan or the Angirasa, is either a deified sage or humanized God. Ashvins are an inseparable dual Godhead who always appears together. The Ashvins embody the twin forces of harmony and beauty, health and joy. Their own archetypical interdependence and harmony in the cosmic functioning brings to bear on us the necessity of realizing the interdependence of things and beings, the balance and harmony that is preserved by a great unifying principle referred to as the madhu. It is the delight of being in all existence which explains and unfolds the necessity of diverse forms in the manifest existence and gives them their value. The particular chapter in the Upanishad closes with the following Rig Vedic verse due to the sage Bhāradwāja RV (6.47.18), “To every form he has remained the counter form: that is his form for us to face and see. Indra by his creative conscious powers (māya powers) moves on endowed with many forms; for yoked adore his thousand steeds”. The purport is that just as we can make various objects having different shapes by pouring the sugary syrup into various moulds, all the different aspects of manifestation are made from the vital force and the moulds which are represented by Indra himself.

Madhu is interpreted by Shankara as the principle of mutual aid. The beginning line, “This earth is like madhu honey to all beings and all beings are like honey to this earth”, is interpreted as follows by Shankara. “Honey is like effect; just as a beehive is made by a great many bees, so this earth is made by all beings. Thus all beings are the honey or effect of this earth.”

Kindly recheck your reference and send your query again.

 

Subodh Kumar

--
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

--

Subodh Kumar,
C-61 Ramprasth,
Ghaziabad-201011
Mobile-9810612898

Maharshi Dayanand Gosamwardhan Kendra , Delhi-96

http://subodh-vedainspirations.blogspot.com
http://subodh-cowsinindia.blogspot.com

A bird sitting on a tree is never afraid of  the branch breaking, because his trust  is NOT  on the branch but on it's own WINGS !!

Believe in yourself & WIN the world..

.

[Advayananda]

Dear Subodhji,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Yes, your are right. The right reference for madhu as karmaphala is in Ṛg Samhita: 1.22.164.22. In case you can track it out please send me the Mantra.

Thanks for your note on Madhuvidyā.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Here is the Rik verbatim

 यस्मिन् वृक्षे मध्वदः सुपर्णा निविशन्ते सुवते चाधि विश्वे |

तस्य यद् आहुः पिप्पलं स्वाद्व् अग्रे तन् नोन् नशद् यः पितरं न वेद ||21|

Below is the Sayana Bhashya on the verse:

Hope both the images will be readable by enlarging the view.

With regards

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[subodh kumar]

Normally Rig Veda references  made to Mandal, Sookt, Mantra contain only  three numbers. They can also refer to the other system of Rig ved mantra identification based on Ashtak, Adhyaay and varg. These also refer to three numbers.

 

You are referring to Rg samhita 1.22.164.22.

I. could be taken as mandal or ashtak

22.can be taken as sookt only because  there are only 8 ashtaks

164 could not match because there are only 22 mantras in Madal1.sookt 22.

thus I am not able to find any mantra that will correspond to your address.

Subodh  

[Hnbhat B.R.]

You can see both the counting and No. of Sukta and referenced mantra doesn't differ.

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

In my understanding the Rg. mantra referenced and the bhashyam provided by Shri Bhat mahodayaH gives two levels of
meanings: 1. adhidaivam: where the madhu is water and the Sun is said to draw water thru the rays in the day time.  And this
surya devata is to be meditated upon for high phalam. I am reminded of a somewhat similar sayana bhashyam for the
'keshi suktam' that we got to discuss a few months ago.  2. The adhyAtmam meaning is that who ever attains this 'madhu' sweet
knowledge of the Atman who is the Controller of the whole universe attains the moksha phalam.  I do not think the meaning 'karma
phalam' is given in the Rg bhashyam for the word 'madhu' in either of the interpretations.

The Kathopanishat context is different and the body is the place where the jiva resides experiencing fruits of action: madhu.
This is reminiscent of the 'dvA suparNa' mantra of the Mundaka upanishad (and the 'Rtam pibantau sukRtasya loke' of the Katho-
nishat, here too the word 'Rtam' means avashyambhAvI karmaphalam ) where the jiva and parama Atma are residing in the body.  The pippalam, the fruit of the samsara tree, is being
experienced, svAdvatti, by the jiva-bird.  The other bird simply remains as the witness.  When the jiva bird knows about the
kevala sAkshi rUpa of the 'other' bird, it starts to realize it and finally attains the state of the other bird.  Actually there
are no two birds, for only one consciousness can be there.  The division is aupAdhika for the jiva bird. 

I thank Shri Bhatt for the bhashyam reproduction.

Regards
subrahmanian.v 

[Advayananda]

Dear Scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Grateful for the inputs regarding 'madhu'. 

1. Where else is the Śaṅkarabhāṣya or in the Sāyanabhāṣya do we find such interpretation of 'madhu' as karmaphala? 

2. That Ṛtam can be taken as karmaphala because it is avaśyambhāvi is understandable. But 'madhu' as karamphala, how?

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

On 28-Aug-2012, at 11:07 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote:

Namaste

In my understanding the Rg. mantra referenced and the bhashyam provided by Shri Bhat mahodayaH gives two levels of
meanings: 1. adhidaivam: where the madhu is water and the Sun is said to draw water thru the rays in the day time.  And this
surya devata is to be meditated upon for high phalam. I am reminded of a somewhat similar sayana bhashyam for the
'keshi suktam' that we got to discuss a few months ago.  2. The adhyAtmam meaning is that who ever attains this 'madhu' sweet
knowledge of the Atman who is the Controller of the whole universe attains the moksha phalam.  I do not think the meaning 'karma
phalam' is given in the Rg bhashyam for the word 'madhu' in either of the interpretations.

The Kathopanishat context is different and the body is the place where the jiva resides experiencing fruits of action: madhu.
This is reminiscent of the 'dvA suparNa' mantra of the Mundaka upanishad (and the 'Rtam pibantau sukRtasya loke' of the Katho-
nishat, here too the word 'Rtam' means avashyambhAvI karmaphalam ) where the jiva and parama Atma are residing in the body.  The pippalam, the fruit of the samsara tree, is being
experienced, svAdvatti, by the jiva-bird.  The other bird simply remains as the witness.  When the jiva bird knows about the
kevala sAkshi rUpa of the 'other' bird, it starts to realize it and finally attains the state of the other bird.  Actually there
are no two birds, for only one consciousness can be there.  The division is aupAdhika for the jiva bird. 

I thank Shri Bhatt for the bhashyam reproduction.

Regards
subrahmanian.v 

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can see both the counting and No. of Sukta and referenced mantra doesn't differ.

<image.png>

[Advayananda]

Respected Sri Surendramohanji and other scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Thank you very much for your inputs on the derivation of the word 'madhu' as well as how the word can come to mean karmaphala with reference to the honey bee. I find great value in your explanation. 

1. Where else do we find the word madhu used in the context of karmaphala? I have not come across this meaning for madhu elsewhere. My knowledge of the Vedic literature in indeed minimal.

2. How have the Vedānta Ācāryas (other than Śrī Śaṅkara) interpreted this word? 

I am thankful to all in the forum who have given me inputs.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

On 29-Aug-2012, at 9:12 PM, Surendra Mohan Mishra wrote:

Dear Swamiji,
Om namo narayaNaya !
This is fine discussion on 'madhu'.My humble view is that the word is
from 'mananc jnAne'.Thus the word 'madhu' means that which is
experienced or relished.This finally refers to joy and sorrow which
are results of one's karman.'pippalaM svAdu atti' also points to this.
In Ktha.Upa 'ya evaM madhvadaM veda AtmAnaM jIvam antikAd',individual
self is said to be the enjoyer of madhu.
A honey bee produces honey through it's action for it's subsequent
consumption.So also an individual self in it's state of ignorance.
Regards,
SMMishra

--
*****
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
           http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Dear Swamiji,

I have not interfered in this discussion. 

As I have often repeated in my several posts in different topics, only dictionary meaning is not the conclusive factor of meaning in all the contexts. Especially, in Vedic Literature, it is the maxim of Yaska, as

नैकपदानि निर्ब्रूयात् i.e.

any word should not be explained in isolation, out of its context. Surendramoran and Subrahmanyam  have pointed out to the similar contexts, where मधु could be interpreted as the कर्मफल. 

In other words, you need not look for the same meaning in other context which would not be justifiable. Even Yaska, gives the etymology supported by the relevant ऋक् and ब्राह्मण for his derivation. It is not simple derivation here, but it is the explanation for the word मध्वद - मधु अत्तीति मध्वद, bu context as it refers to philosophical discussion, it naturally points out to the individual self as in the other cases. Only according to that you have to derive the word if you want and otherwise can be satisfied with the interpretation of the word, than looking into the dictionaries, which doesn't convey all the contexts where मधु is used. It is only in the word मध्वद which would literally mean the one enjoying the honey, which has no meaning in the context of philosophical context and which baffled you with the dictionary meaning like any student of Sanskrit Language would be. 

Now what other commentator have interpreted the word मध्वद would differ to their tenets of the school they follow and has nothing to do with understanding the interpretation given by शङ्कर according to अद्वैत. Instead it would worsen the confusion already created with dictionary meaning, added with the interpretations according to the different schools other than Shankara.

Now finally, you asked for the word मधु as taken for honey, while the real word is मध्वद and the question is out of place according to Yaska also. In addition, there are many other factors that count for the meaning of a word in Sanskrit, than the dictionary meaning.

शक्तिग्रहं व्याकरणोपमानकोशाप्तवाक्याद् व्यवहारतश्च।

वाक्यस्य शेषाद् विवृतेर्वदन्ति सांनिध्यतः सिद्धपदस्य सिद्धाः॥

The above is general sources for deciding the meaning, out of which व्याकरण and कोश are only two, while major portion is shared by व्यवहार and the context, including the commentaries. Even in the case of नानार्थ words, the context will be decisive factors along with some more factors, totally numbering 17. Further, especially for the Vedic scripture, the maxim for concluding the purport, the factors are as follows:

उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूर्वता फलम् । अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिर्णये ॥ 

which is generally followed in commenting उपनिषत् literature also. Different आचार्य-s may differ in their opinion, is another thing. It is not a general phenomenon, otherwise, there would have been hundreds of Vedanta- schools each commenting differently. But only we have only few like श्रीरामानुज and मध्व and not innumerable. 

This is my humble opinion. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Om

We have this famous mantra:

ऊँ मधु वाता ऋतायते मधु क्षरन्ति सिन्धवः। माध्वीर्नस्सन्त्वोषधीः। मधुनक्तमुतोषसि मधुमत्पार्थिवँ रजः। मधु द्यौरस्तु नः पिता। मधुमान्नो वनस्पतिर्मधुमाँ अस्तु सूर्यः। माध्वीर्गावो भवन्तु नः ॥  ऊँ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥८॥

We can notice that the entire nature is spoken of as being sweet, madhu.  This prayer, a wish, by the sadhaka/devotee is for having a trouble-free but happiness-filled life.  The word 'bhavantu', 'astu' show this.  The forces of nature can be terrible too, like tsunami, hurricane, floods, अतिवृष्टि/अनावृष्टि, unfavourable parents, sun-stroke, heat waves, cold waves, etc. and bring devastation in life.

Man naturally longs for sukha and abhors duhkha - सुखं मे भूयात्, दुःखं मे मा भूत् .  Yet, as the famous saying goes:
पुण्यस्य फलमिच्छन्ति पुण्यं नेच्छन्ति मानवाः । न पापफलमिच्छन्ति पापं कुर्वन्ति यत्नतः || the fruits of karma can be unpredictable, depending on the inputs that have gone in while the karma is performed.  But even while indulging in an unrighteous act, man longs to get some pleasant result out of it; otherwise he would not indulge in it.  So, at the doing level the expectation is only happiness/sukha.  This is what is denoted by the word 'madhu' in the above shanti mantra. And the one who consumes this fruit of his karma is called मध्वदः.  

We have the sankalpa, wish, in the Rudram saying: मधु मनिष्ये मधु जनिष्ये, मधु वक्ष्यामि मधु वदिष्यामि मधुमतीं ...

One can see in the shAnkara bhashya for the mantra 'ऊर्ध्वमूलोऽवाक्शाखः’ of Kathopanishat 2.3.1 where the fruit is described as: .....सुखदुःखवेदनानेकरसः प्राण्युपजीव्यानन्तफलः...ब्रह्मादिभूतपक्षिकृतनीडः प्राणिसुखदुःखोद्भूतहर्षशोकजातनृत्यगीतवादित्रक्ष्वेलितस्फोटितहाहामुञ्चमुञ्चेत्याद्य-
नेकशब्दकृततुमुलीभूतमहारवः....to describe the samsaravRkShaH.

From all this we can conclude that the word 'madhu' to indicate karma phalam by the Upanishad is only an upalakShaNa for both puNya and pApa phala.

subrahmanian.v

[Ramanujan P]

घृतं च वै मधु च प्रजापतिरासीत् । यतो मध्वासीत् । ततः प्रजा असृजत । तस्मान्मधुषि प्रजननमिवास्ति । तस्मान्मधुषा न प्रचरन्ति ।

(तै.ब्रा. 3.3.4.1) इत्यत्र प्रजासृष्टिहेतुभूतं किञ्चिद् द्रव्यं मधुनि विद्यत इति भट्टभास्करव्याख्यानेन कर्मरूपहेतुना तत्फलभोगाय सृष्टिरिति

मध्वदनं प्राणाधिपः सञ्चरति स्वकर्मभिः, रमणीयचरणाः रमणीयां योनिमापद्येरन्, .. कपूयचरणाः कपूयां योनिमापद्येरन् इति उपनिषदा च

मधुनः कर्मोपलक्षकत्वं स्यात् इति भाति ।

रामानुजः

--

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Advayananda]

Respected Scholars,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Grateful to Sri Ramanujan for the pointed reference from Taiitiriya Brahamana on Madhu. Yes, here it does seem to indicate karmaphala. 

Thankful to Sri Subrahmanian for showing another context wherein madhu is upalakshana for punya and papa.

Beholden to Sri Hari Narayana Bhat for the detailed explanation that any word should be seen in its wider context to understand what it could mean and not just stay put with the dictionary. 

From my end this topic is complete; yet, I will still be very happy to know how the Acharyas (other than Shri Shankara) have construed the word 'madhvada' in the context of Kathopanishad 2.1.5 without going into any bickering on what could be a better interpretation.

Thank you all very much. This is indeed a very useful forum for students like me.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[Shashi Tiwari]

Namaste, Perhaps scholars are taking about RV I.164.22 which has a pada " Madhvadah".  Shashi Tiwari   --- On Tue, 28/8/12, subodh kumar <subod...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: subodh kumar <subod...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Madhu

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Advayananda <advay...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you all very much. This is indeed a very useful forum for students like me.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

From my end this topic is complete; yet, I will still be very happy to know how the Acharyas (other than Shri Shankara) have construed the word 'madhvada' in the context of Kathopanishad 2.1.5 without going into any bickering on what could be a better interpretation.

Respected Swami Advayananda

Pranama. This is response to your request of interpretations from other schools. References follow at the end. Please pardon any typos as I have not proofread the below post fully.

A different interpretation
I can talk about the श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् which gives three different meaning of the term मध्वदम्. While शङ्कराचार्यपाद splits the compound मध्वद as मधु (meaning कर्मफल) + अद  (in the sense of अत्ति, meaning one who eats or consumes), रामभद्राचार्यचरण has split it as मध्व (with three meanings of कर्मफल, भजनानन्द and मोहमदिरा) + द (in the sense of ददाति for two cases and द्यति for one case which mean one who provides or destroys, respectively).

A note on मध्व
The word मध्व is formed by adding the उणादि suffix अ in the sense of स्वार्थ to the word मधु, i.e. मधु + अ = मध्व. मध्व occurs in the Vedas at several places e.g. RV 1.141.3 and RV 10.5.5. While I have not checked सायण's commentary on the these verses, but Griffith's commentary which is based on the former translates मध्व as "sweet drink". I therefore assume that सायण would have given a similar meaning for मध्व in these to verses - scholars can correct me if I am wrong. As the scholars from मध्व schools on this forum can testify, RV 1.141.3 (in what is also known as the बलित्था सूक्त) is interpreted by the followers of मध्वाचार्य to be a prophesy which predicts that वायु will incarnate as मध्वाचार्य. Although from the viewpoint of सन्धि the name मध्वाचार्य can be split as both मधु + आचार्य or मध्व + आचार्य, it is definitely the latter given that we see terms like मध्वपरिषत्, मध्वसम्प्रदाय, et cetera. So even the name of मध्वाचार्य then comes from the word मध्व which means "sweet drink". A related word is माध्वीक which also is related to मध्व.

Three different interpretations of मध्वद
Coming back to मध्वद, the श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् interprets मध्व which literally means the "sweet drink" as having three meanings of कर्मफल, मोहमदिरा and भजनानन्द. Accordingly the term मध्वदम् is interpreted as
1. मध्वदं मध्वं कर्मफलं ददाति इति मध्वदः तम्
2. यद्वा मध्वं मोहमदिरां द्यति इति मध्वदः तम्
3. यद्वा मध्वं भजनानन्दं भक्तेभ्यो ददाति इति मध्वदः, तम्

Don't forget the context
Why are the meanings different? The reason is that in the श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम्, मध्वद is the विशेषण of the सगुण परमात्मा श्रीराम who is the परिपूर्णतम and परात्पर ब्रह्म in the रामानन्द सम्प्रदाय. Readers may want to read the full commentary of the verse to get the full context, along with the commentaries of the preceding and following verses to understand better.

Differences in interpretation of विजुगुप्सते
Another notable difference from शाङ्करभाष्यम् in श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् for this verse is that while the former interprets "न विजुगुप्सते" as "न गोपायितुमिच्छति", the latter takes the meaning of "न विजुगुप्सते" as "न घृणां करोति", citing the Sutra गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5) and saying that the सन् suffix is applied to the root गुप् in the meaning of घृणा only and not in the meaning of गोपन/रक्षण. On गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5), the काशिका says - "गुप गोपने (९७१), तिज निशाने (९७२), कित निवासे (९९४) एतेभ्यो धातुभ्यः सन्प्रत्ययो भवति। प्रत्ययसंज्ञा च अधिकृतैव। जुगुप्सते। तितिक्षते। चिकित्सति। निन्दाक्षमाव्याधिप्रतीकारेषु सन्निष्यतेऽन्यत्र यथाप्राप्तं प्रत्यया भवन्ति। गोपयति। तेजयति। सङ्केतयति।" Meaning, as per the काशिकाकारs, the root गुप् gets the affix सन् in the sens of निन्दा (गुपँ गोपने in the sense of "to censure or despise"), in other meanings like रक्षण (गुपू रक्षणे in the sense of "to protect"), the form is गोपयति and not जुगुप्सते. The शाङ्करभाष्यम् disagrees with the काशिका in this respect, while श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् follows the काशिका.

Coda

As Swami Advayananda has very commendably suggested, let us not get into which commentary is better or worse, or which is correct or wrong. Let's bring out the alternate explanations and the differences and the reasons behind the differences, and let the readers follow their own discretion in which version they choose to agree with.

References

Rāmabhadrācārya, Jagadguru (2000) [In Samskrita, Hindi]. Kaṭhopaniṣadi Śrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣyam [Śrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣya commentary on the Kaṭhopaniṣad]. Chitrakoot: Shri Tulsi Peeth Seva Nyas. p. 118 (68). Available from http://jagadgururambhadracharya.org/downloads, retrieved August 31, 2012.

Stiel, Ulrich and Griffith, Ralph T. H. (2009) [896]. The Hymns of the Rigveda - Translated by Ralph T. H. Griffith. pp. 78, 422. Available from http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/griffith.pdf, retrieved August 31, 2012.


--
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

[Advayananda]

Respected Sri Nityanada Misra and Sri P. Ramanujan,

Hari Om! Salutations. 

Liked very much your inputs of Madhvada as well as vijugupsate. Thank you all very much for all the patient and detailed explanations. I have found them very useful for my reflections.

In Shri Guru Smriti,
Advayananda

[V Subrahmanian]

2012/8/31 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

On Friday, August 31, 2012 1:44:22 AM UTC+8, Nityanand Misra wrote:

Differences in interpretation of विजुगुप्सते
Another notable difference from शाङ्करभाष्यम् in श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् for this verse is that while the former interprets "न विजुगुप्सते" as "न गोपायितुमिच्छति", the latter takes the meaning of "न विजुगुप्सते" as "न घृणां करोति", citing the Sutra गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5) and saying that the सन् suffix is applied to the root गुप् in the meaning of घृणा only and not in the meaning of गोपन/रक्षण. On गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5), the काशिका says - "गुप गोपने (९७१), तिज निशाने (९७२), कित निवासे (९९४) एतेभ्यो धातुभ्यः सन्प्रत्ययो भवति। प्रत्ययसंज्ञा च अधिकृतैव। जुगुप्सते। तितिक्षते। चिकित्सति। निन्दाक्षमाव्याधिप्रतीकारेषु सन्निष्यतेऽन्यत्र यथाप्राप्तं प्रत्यया भवन्ति। गोपयति। तेजयति। सङ्केतयति।" Meaning, as per the काशिकाकारs, the root गुप् gets the affix सन् in the sens of निन्दा (गुपँ गोपने in the sense of "to censure or despise"), in other meanings like रक्षण (गुपू रक्षणे in the sense of "to protect"), the form is गोपयति and not जुगुप्सते. The शाङ्करभाष्यम् disagrees with the काशिका in this respect, while श्रीराघवकृपाभाष्यम् follows the काशिका.

Namaste

Thanks for presenting the above points.  I am reminded of another occurrence of the word विजुगुप्सते:

IshAvAsyopanishat:
यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि आत्मन्येनानुपश्यति ।
 सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ।। ६ ।।

Here the शांकरभाष्यम् is: ...सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं निर्विशेषं यस्त्वनुपश्यति स ततस्तस्मादेव दर्शनान्न विजुगुप्सते विजुगुप्सां घृणां न करोति ।  प्राप्तस्यैवानुवादोऽयम् । सर्वा हि घृणा आत्मनोऽनयद्दुष्टं पश्यतो भवति, आत्मानमेवात्यनतविशुद्धं निरन्तरं पस्यतो न घृणानिमित्तं अर्थान्तरमस्तीति प्राप्तमेव । ततो न विजुगुप्सते इति ।

In the Kathopanishat context the bhashya is:

...ततस्तद्विज्ञानादूर्ध्वं आत्मानं न विजुगुप्सते न गोपायितुमिच्छति अभयप्राप्तत्वात् ।  यावद्धि भयमध्यस्थोऽनित्यमात्मानं मन्यते तावद्गोपायितुमिच्छत्यात्मानम् ।  यदा तु नित्यमद्वैतमात्मानं विजानाति तदा किं कः कुतो वा गोपायितुमिच्छेत् ।

In the Isha bhashya Shankara reasons that owing to the sarvAtmabhAva the jnani gets he does not 'hate' (’घृणा) anyone as he sees his own self in everything/everyone.  In the kaTha bhashya Shankara says that since the knowledge of the Supreme Self has arisen, the jiva has no longer any fear (भय’) arising from the paricchinnatva bhranti and therefore does not try to protect the self.  Only when there is fear there is pravRtti for protecting oneself.  This anvaya-vyatireka is applied and in the absence of fear the resultant protection is not sought.  भयकार्यं गोपायितुमिच्छां न करोति इत्येतत् Shankara is seeing a nimitta naimittika bhAva between bhaya and seeking protection.  [ ऐसा जानने के बाद भय, घृणा नहीं करता; ]

Thus the stated kAshikA meanings of both घृणा and भय are complied with by Shankara in the two instances of the term विजुगुप्सते occurring in the two Upanishads. 

regards
subrahmanian.v


Addendum: Note that गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन्  does not have the इच्छायाम् sense of the सन् affix, rather it has the स्वार्थे meaning. The forms जुगुप्सते, तितिक्षते and चिकित्सति are not in the desiderative mood, so they do not mean "wishes to censure/despise" et cetera rather they mean "hates" et cetera. In several other commentaries on this verse, विजुगुप्सते is interpreted as घृणां करोति. Here is a Hindi commentary on the IIT Bombay website (do not know the title of the commentary), in which the term विजुगुप्सते is interpreted in the sense of भय and घृणा as per the काशिका.

http://www.cfilt.iitb.ac.in/~corpus/hindi/findcontext.php?id=166644&word=विजुगुप्सते

Thanks, Nityanand

[Nityanand Misra]

2012/9/1 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Thus the stated kAshikA meanings of both घृणा and भय are complied with by Shankara in the two instances of the term विजुगुप्सते occurring in the two Upanishads. 

Dear Sri Subrahmanian

Namaste. In my opinion, your conclusion is not correct. The absence of fear (अभयप्राप्तत्वात्) may be a कारक here but that has nothing to do with the तिङन्त form विजुगुप्सते, which is determined by the तिङन्त प्रक्रिया. Also, the ईशावास्य commentary is not relevant to the point here as there is no doubt that जुगुप्सते has the meaning of घृणां करोति by गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5) as explained by काशिका and कौमुदी. The प्रक्रिया is also very clear in this case and I show it below for your reference:

गुप् -> गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् -> गुप् सन् (स्वार्थ) -> द्वित्व -> अभ्यास -> गुप् गुप् सन् -> गुगुप् सन् -> पूर्वोऽभ्यासः -> हलादि शेषः -> कुहोश्चुः -> जुगुप् सन् -> सनाद्यन्ता धातवः -> धातुसंज्ञा -> वर्त्तमाने लोट् -> पूर्ववत्सनः -> जुगुप्स त -> जुगुप्सते

The point I highlighted was that आचार्यशङ्कर has explained विजुगुप्सते as "गोपायितुमिच्छति". Since this has the आय suffix before तुमुन् (गोपायितुम्, and not गोप्तुम् or गोपितुम्) this must be the from the गुपू रक्षणे root which gets the mandatory आय suffix in the स्वार्थ sense from the Sutra गुपूधूपविच्छिपणिपनिभ्य आयः (3.1.28). The questions वैय्याकरणs then need to answer are (under the Paninian system):

1. Does गुपू रक्षणे get the optional सन् suffix in the sense of इच्छायाम् after getting the आय suffix?
• If yes, what are the Sutras/Vaarttikas/commentaries which cover this case.
2. Assuming it does get the suffix, is the form जुगुप्सते possible from the root गुपू रक्षणे + आय + सन्?
   
• If yes, what is the प्रक्रिया for the same?

I think the answers to above questions are no. This is based on my limited knowledge, and वैयाकरणs like Dr. Bhat. Dr. Narayanan, Dr. Korada, Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Ramanujan would know the best. I will be more than willing to change my opinion if somebody shows the complete पाणिनीय प्रक्रिया generating जुगुप्सते from गोपाय + सन्. The reasons for my understanding are several and are shown below.

Firstly, I understand 3.1.5 to be a पूर्वापवाद of 3.1.7 and so गुप् gets the mandatory सन् in the sense of स्वार्थ from 3.1.5 and not the optional सन् in the sense इच्छा from 3.1.7. As Kashika observes, गुपू रक्षणे does not get this सन्. This is seen in traditional meanings of many सन्नन्त words beginning with जुगुप्स् in Amarakosha and Hemachandra lexicons from गुप्. All such words that I know of have the meaning of "censure/despise" and not "wish to protect" - जुगुप्सन and जुगुप्सा mean abhorrence/dislike (and not desire to protect/hide), जुगुप्सनीय and जुगुप्स्य mean disgusting (and not desirable for protection), जुगुप्सित means something that is disliked (and not something that one wishes to protect), similar case with जुगुप्सिततम/जुगुप्सितत्व, जुगुप्सु means one who dislikes or abhors (and not one who is desirous of protection). Because of different affixes in स्वार्थ - सन् and आय - the forms of गुपँ निन्दायाम् are quite different from those of गुपू रक्षणे. In this context I am reminded of a verse from कविरहस्य which notes the distinction of different तिङन्त form of गुप् for different meanings of the root गुप् -
गोपायति क्षितिमिमां चतुरब्धिसीमां पापाज्जुगुप्सत उदारमतिः सदैव
वित्तं न गोपयति यस्तु वणीयकेभ्यो धीरो न गुप्यति महत्यपि कार्यजाते
गोपायति = protects, जुगुप्सते = abhors, गोपयति = hides, गुप्यति=gets perturbed

Secondly, the root गुपू रक्षणे is परस्मैपदी (गोपायति). By पूर्ववत्सनः (1.3.62), the सन्नन्त form has to be परस्मैपदी. However विजुगुप्सते is an आत्मनेपदी form. We sometimes see the आत्मनेपदी form गोपायते but that is from the चुरादिगण उभयपदी धातु गुप् which means "to hide" and not "to protect".

Thirdly, by 3.1.28 गुपू रक्षणे gets the mandatory आय in the sense of स्वार्थ from 3.1.28 which followed by गुण results in the root form as गोपाय. So if it is to get the optional सन् in इच्छायां from 3.1.7, we should have आय in the resulting तिङन्त forms unless there is लोप/अदर्शनम् of आय. जुगुप्सते does not have the आय. I do not know of any Paninian Sutra which says that the स्वार्थक आय suffix when followed by the इच्छार्थक सन् suffix results in the लोप of the आय suffix. Then how this आय vanishes changing गोपाय सन् to गुप् सन्?

Finally I would like to say that saying that an interpretation is not in accordance with Panini's system is not the same as saying that it is incorrect. आचार्यशङ्कर may have relied on some older grammar (ऐन्द्र, चान्द्र, काश्यप, शाकटायन, स्फोटायन) for this explanation which admits the form विजुगुप्सते in the meaning of गोपायितुमिच्छति.

Thanks, Nityanand

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Meaning of जुगुप्सा -- विजुगुप्सा 

सूत्रवार्तिकभाष्याणि - काशिका - प्रदीपः - न्यासः - पदमञ्जरी - माधवीयधातुवृत्तिः - कौमुदी - प्रौढमनोरमा - शब्दरत्नः - उद्योतः -  बृहच्छब्देन्दुशेखरः - रामाश्रमी( / सुधा - अमरव्याख्या)

सूत्रम् - गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् ( अनिर्दिष्टार्थाः स्वार्थे - परिभाषा)

वार्तिकम् --  गुपादिष्वनुबन्धकरणम् आत्मनेपदार्थम्

भाष्यम् -- गुप्तिज्कितमाना अनुदात्तेतः....अवयवे कृतं लिङ्गं तस्य समुदायस्य विशेषकं भवति यं समुदायं यो’वयवो न व्यभिचरति । सन्नन्तमेव न व्यभिचरति ।

So it is suggested by Patanjali that सन्नन्त will be there in आत्मनेपदम् - जुगुप्सते  and  तिङन्त will not be there .

Now the question is - what is the meaning of  जुगुप्सते ( we will discuss विजुगुप्सते latter) --

According to Panini it is स्वार्थ   (may not be अत्यन्तस्वार्थ) ।

Under 2-1-1 , समर्थः पदविधिः , Patanjali declares - अथवा अर्था नादिश्यन्ते -  and explains that चार्थे , अपत्यम् etc. are already there and they are taken but nothing is newly assigned - it is शब्दानुशासनम् and not अर्थानुशासनम् (निरुक्तम्) ।

Under at least three Sutras Patanjali states that the सन् by गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् is in स्वार्थ -- सुपि स्थः ( 3-2-4) , अकर्तरि कारके संज्ञायाम्(3-3-19) , तुमर्थे सेसेनसेअसेन्क्सेकसेनध्यै...(3-4-9) |

अकर्तरि च -- भाष्यम् --

कारकग्रहणं क्रियते । किं कारणम् ? अनादेशे स्वार्थविज्ञानात् । अनादेशे अनिर्दिष्टार्थाः प्रत्ययाः स्वार्थे भवन्तीति -- तद्यथा गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् , यावादिभ्यः कन् इति।

तुमर्थे से - भाष्यम् --

ज्ञापकात्तावदयं कर्तुरपकृष्यते । न चान्यस्मिन्नर्थे आदिश्यते । अनिर्दि .....

इति । सो’सौ स्वार्थे भवन् भावे भविष्यति ।

As far as Patanjali is concerned  here सन् is in स्वार्थ ।

The other usage of this word is in अपादानकारकम् -- अधर्मात् जुगुप्सते 

- ध्रुवमपाये’पादनम् (1-4-24) -- ' जुगुप्सा...उपसंख्यनम्’ (वार्तिकम्)

भाष्यम् -- तत्तर्हीदं बहु वक्तव्यम् ? न वक्तव्यम्। इह तावत् - अधर्मात् जुगुप्सते । य एष मनुष्यः प्रेक्षापूर्वकारी भवति , स पश्यति , दुःखो’धर्मो नानेन कृत्यमस्तीति । स बुद्ध्या  संप्राप्य निवर्तते । तत्र ’ध्रुवमपाये’पादानम्’ इत्येव सिद्धम् ।

Here Kaiyata - संश्लेषपूर्वको विश्लेषो’पायः , स चात्र नास्ति । बुद्धिकल्पितस्तु गौण इति भावः ( about वार्तिकम्) (न्यास also)

On भाष्यम् - जुगुप्सादयो निवृत्यङ्गे जुगुप्सादौ वर्तन्ते ।

Nagesa - जुगुप्सा निन्दा ।

 Let us see the root and different opinions(  in भ्वादि )  --

काशिका  3-1-5 -- गुप = गोपने  -- निन्दायां सन् , अन्यत्र यथाप्राप्तं प्रत्ययाः - जुगुप्सते ....गोपयति | गुपादिषु अनुबन्धकरणम् आत्मनेपदार्थम् (भाष्यम्)

न्यासः -3-1-5 - न च अनिर्दिष्टार्था इति स्वार्थ एव सन् भविष्यतीति युक्तं परिकल्पयितुम्, गोपनादेः स्वार्थस्य सन्नन्तादप्रतीतेः ।..  अस्त्येव सनो’र्थः । कः पुनरसौ ? निन्दादिः । यदाह - निन्दाक्षमाव्याधिप्रतीकारेषु सनिष्यते (वा 178).... कुतः पुनरेतदवसितम् -- सनो’र्था निन्दादयः इति ? अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्याम् । सति हि सनि जुगुप्सते इत्यादौ ते’र्थाः प्रतीयन्ते , असति तु सनि सत्स्वपि गुपादिषु गोपयतीत्यादौ ते न प्रतीयन्ते । त्स्मादर्थवानेव सन्निति भवत्येव प्रत्ययसंज्ञा ।

निन्दाक्षमा इत्यादि । कथं पुनर्निन्दादिष्विष्यमाणो लभ्यते ? वक्षमाणं वाग्रहणं (  it means धातोः कर्मणः ...वा , 3-1-7) सर्वस्य शेषो विज्ञास्यते , सा च व्यवस्थितविभाषा । तेन निन्दादिषु नित्यं सन् भवति अन्यत्र न भवति।

प्रायिकं चैतत् व्याधिप्रतीकारग्र्हणम् ...।

पदमञ्जरी - 3-1-5 - गुप गोपने । निन्दादयस्तु गुपादीनामर्थाः न सनः , अन्यथा गुपादीनामानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् । धातूनां  चानेकार्थत्वं  तत्र तत्र दृश्यते ।

निन्दाक्षमा... इति ।प्रायिकमेतदुपाधिवचनम् । तथा च ’क्षेत्रियच्...’(5-2-92) इत्यत्र ग्रन्थः - चिकित्स्यो निगृहीतव्यः(काशिका)

पूर्ववत्सनः (1-3-62) - अयमुच्यते - गुप गोपने इत्यस्य सन्विधौ ग्रहणम् , तस्माच्च नित्यं सनेव भवति .... गोपायतीत्यादिद्कस्तु प्रयोगः गुपू रक्षणे इत्यस्य ।

According to Nyasa निन्दा is the meaning of  सन् - refutes Patanjali's स्वार्थ ।   Haradatta says it is that of गुप - supports Patanjali.

Now the meaning of गुप --

= गोपने -- माधवीयधातुवृत्तिः

= गोपनकुत्सनयोः -- मैत्रेयः

= गोपनकुत्सनयोः -- भानुजिदीक्षितः सुधाकारः

माधवीयधातुवृत्तिः --

एवं च गोपते तेजते इति स्वाम्युक्तः(क्षीरस्वामी) केवलात् तिङः प्रयोगः प्रत्युक्तः ।

अत्र नन्दिमैत्रेयौ ’नह्येतेभ्यः’ इत्यादिना भाष्येण तिङामभावः प्रतीयते इति निन्दादेरन्यत्र कृतमुदाजह्र्ः । हरदत्तस्तु एतन्नानुमन्यते ... ।

So finally we can conclude - if there is any usage in other sense to the word जुगुप्सते it may be taken . अर्थः , प्रकरणम् etc. can be the deciding factor .

Since the word in question is विजुगुप्सते we cannot say it is also in निन्दा only - उपसर्गानां द्योतकत्वस्यापि सत्त्वात् ।

All the commentators followed काशिका as they , probably, did not find any other usage . 

Earlier to काशिका , and in other Vyakaranas it  might have beeen there - the other meaning and Samkaracarya must have resorted to it .

धन्यो’स्मि

2012/9/1 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

--

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

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Dr. Korada,

Thanks for your reply quoting from multiple commentaries. See below for my response.

2012/9/3 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

According to Panini it is स्वार्थ   (may not be अत्यन्तस्वार्थ) ।

As far as Patanjali is concerned  here सन् is in स्वार्थ ।

I agree completely with you till here.
 

According to Nyasa निन्दा is the meaning of  सन् - refutes Patanjali's स्वार्थ ।   Haradatta says it is that of गुप - supports Patanjali.

I do not think you are correct here. For गुपँ गोपने (भ्वादिगण सकर्मक सेट् आत्मनेपदी), the स्वार्थ is the same as निन्दा/घृणा. Then where is the contradiction? One of the meanings of गोपन is निन्दा, and from the घतुपाठ there are four roots गुप् (see below for more) of which only one has the meaning of निन्दा/घृणा - गुपँ गोपने which is its स्वार्थ. So there is no contradiction between Nyaasa and Panini/Patanjali.
 

So finally we can conclude - if there is any usage in other sense to the word जुगुप्सते it may be taken . अर्थः , प्रकरणम् etc. can be the deciding factor .

Since the word in question is विजुगुप्सते we cannot say it is also in निन्दा only - उपसर्गानां द्योतकत्वस्यापि सत्त्वात् ।

The question is if a meaning of "wishes to protect" can be taken from विजुगुप्सते. That is possible only if विजुगुप्सते (and therefore जुगुप्सते) can be generated as a सन्नन्त forms from the root गुपू रक्षणे. My argument is that it cannot be generated from गुपू under Paninian system as I show below.

Below, I give the complete प्रकिया of the सन्नन्त forms (लट्लकार प्रथमपुरुष एकवचन) of all four गुप् roots. I request you and other scholars to critique the प्रकियाs and please correct where I am wrong. From this comprehensive exercise, I do not see any possibility of जुगुप्सते coming as a सन्नन्त form from any of the four roots - गुपँ गोपने, गुपू रक्षणे, गुप भाषायाम् or गुप व्याकुलत्वे. My computations show it can only be the non-सन्नन्त form (लट्लकार प्रथमपुरुष एकवचन) from गुपँ गोपने.

क्रम	धातु	गण, कर्मकत्व, सेट्त्व, पद	लट् प्रथमपुरुष एकवचन	सन्नन्त लट् प्रथमपुरुष एकवचन
१.	गुपँ गोपने	भ्वादिगण सकर्मक सेट् आत्मनेपदी	जुगुप्सते	जुगुप्सिषते
२.	गुप व्याकुलत्वे	दिवादिगण अकर्मक सेट् परस्मैपदी (पुषादिः)	गुप्यति	जुगोपिषति, जुगुपिषति
३.	गुप भाषायाम्	चुरादिगण सकर्मक सेट् उभयपदी	गोपयति, गोपयते	जुगोपयिषति, जुगोपयिषते
४.	गुपू रक्षणे	भ्वादिगण सकर्मक सेट् परस्मैपदी	गोपायति	जुगोपायिषति

गुपँ गोपने – जुगुप्सिषते

गुप् -> गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् (3.1.5) -> गुप् सन् (स्वार्थे) -> सन्यङोः (6.1.9) -> द्वित्व -> अभ्यास -> गुप् गुप् सन् -> गुगुप् सन् -> पूर्वोऽभ्यासः (6.1.4) -> हलादि शेषः (7.4.60) -> कुहोश्चुः (7.4.62) -> जुगुप् सन् (इच्छायाम्) -> जुगुप्स -> सनाद्यन्ता धातवः (3.1.32) -> धातुसंज्ञा -> धातोः कर्मणः समानकर्तृकादिच्छायाम् (3.1.7) -> जुगुप्स सन् (इच्छायाम्) -> सन्यङोः (6.1.9) -> अनभ्यासस्य (6.1.8) -> द्वित्वाभाव -> जुगुप्स सन् -> यस्मात् प्रत्ययविधिस्तदादि प्रत्ययेऽङ्गम् (1.4.13) -> अङ्गसंज्ञा -> आर्धधातुकस्येड् वलादेः (7.2.35) -> जुगुप्स इट् सन् -> षत्व -> जुगुप्सिष् -> वर्त्तमाने लट् (3.2.123) -> पूर्ववत्सनः (1.3.62) -> जुगुप्सिष् त -> जुगुप्सिष् शप् त -> जुगुप्सिष् अ त -> ट्येत्व -> जुगुप्सिषते

गुप व्याकुलत्वे – जुगोपिषति/जुगुपिषति

गुप् -> धातोः कर्मणः समानकर्तृकादिच्छायाम् (3.1.7) -> गुप् सन् (इच्छायाम्) -> सन्यङोः (6.1.9) -> द्वित्व -> अभ्यास -> गुप् गुप् सन् -> गुगुप् सन् -> पूर्वोऽभ्यासः (6.1.4) -> हलादि शेषः (7.4.60) -> कुहोश्चुः (7.4.62) -> जुगुप् सन् -> पुगन्तलघूपधस्य च (7.3.86) -> लघूपधगुण -> नाभ्यस्तस्याचि पिति सार्वधातुके (7.3.87) -> लघूपधगुण निषेध -> जुगुप् सन् -> यस्मात् प्रत्ययविधिस्तदादि प्रत्ययेऽङ्गम् (1.4.13) -> अङ्गसंज्ञा -> आर्धधातुकस्येड् वलादेः (7.2.35) जुगुप् इट् सन् -> षत्व -> जुगुपिष् -> वर्त्तमाने लट् (3.2.123) -> पूर्ववत्सनः (1.3.62) -> जुगुपिष् तिप् -> जुगुपिष् शप् तिप् -> जुगुपिष् अ ति -> जुगुपिषति

 

जुगोपिषति is an optional Vedic form. This comes from the वार्त्तिक of कात्यायन on नाभ्यस्तस्याचि पिति सार्वधातुके (7.3.87) (बहुलं छन्दसीति वक्तव्यम्) which makes the निषेध of लघूपधगुण optional in the Vedas. Otherwise the प्रक्रिया is exactly the same.

गुप भाषायाम् - गोपयति/गोपयते - जुगोपयिषति/जुगोपयिषते

गुप् -> सत्यापपाशरूपवीणातूलश्लोकसेनालोमत्वचवर्मवर्णचूर्णचुरादिभ्यो णिच् (3.1.25) -> गुप् णिच् (स्वार्थ) -> गुप् इ -> पुगन्तलघूपधस्य च (7.3.86) -> लघूपधगुण -> गोप् इ -> गोपि -> सनाद्यन्ता धातवः (3.1.32) -> धातुसंज्ञा -> धातोः कर्मणः समानकर्तृकादिच्छायाम् (3.1.7) -> गोपि सन् (इच्छायाम्) ->  सन्यङोः (6.1.9) -> द्वित्व -> अभ्यास -> गोप् गोपि सन् -> गोगोपि सन् -> पूर्वोऽभ्यासः (6.1.4) -> हलादि शेषः (7.4.60) -> कुहोश्चुः (7.4.62) -> जोगोपि सन्  -> ह्रस्वः (7.4.59) -> एच इग्घ्रस्वादेशे (1.1.48) -> जुगोपि सन् -> यस्मात् प्रत्ययविधिस्तदादि प्रत्ययेऽङ्गम् (1.4.13) -> अङ्गसंज्ञा -> आर्धधातुकस्येड् वलादेः (7.2.35) -> जुगोपि इट् सन् -> सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः (7.3.84) -> जुगोपे इ सन् -> एचोऽयवायावः (6.1.78) -> जुगोप् अय् इ सन् -> षत्व -> जुगोपयिष् -> वर्त्तमाने लट् (3.2.123) -> पूर्ववत्सनः (1.3.62) -> जुगोपयिष् तिप्/त -> जुगोपयिष् शप् तिप्/त -> अनुबन्धलोप, ट्येत्व -> जुगोपयिष् अ ति/ते -> जुगोपयिषति/जुगोपयिषते

गुपू रक्षणे – गोपायति – जुगोपायिषति

गुप् -> गुपूधूपविच्छिपणिपनिभ्य आयः (3.1.28) -> गुप् आय (स्वार्थ) -> पुगन्तलघूपधस्य च (7.3.86) -> लघूपधगुण -> गोप् आय -> गोपाय -> सनाद्यन्ता धातवः (3.1.32) -> धातुसंज्ञा -> धातोः कर्मणः समानकर्तृकादिच्छायाम् (3.1.7) -> गोपाय सन् (इच्छायाम्) -> सन्यङोः (6.1.9) -> द्वित्व -> अभ्यास -> गोप् गोपाय सन् -> गोगोपाय सन् -> पूर्वोऽभ्यासः (6.1.4) -> हलादि शेषः (7.4.60) -> कुहोश्चुः (7.4.62) -> जोगोपाय सन्  -> ह्रस्वः (7.4.59) -> एच इग्घ्रस्वादेशे (1.1.48) -> जुगोपाय सन् -> यस्मात् प्रत्ययविधिस्तदादि प्रत्ययेऽङ्गम् (1.4.13) -> अङ्गसंज्ञा -> आर्धधातुकस्येड् वलादेः (7.2.35) -> जुगोपाय इट् सन् -> सार्वधातुकार्धधातुकयोः (7.3.84) -> जुगोपाय इ सन् -> षत्व -> जुगोपयिष -> वर्त्तमाने लट् (3.2.123) -> पूर्ववत्सनः (1.3.62) -> जुगोपयिष तिप् -> जुगोपायिषति

Thanks, Nityanand

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

Dear Dr Misra 

Please follow --

1. whether it is जुगुप्सा or विजुगुप्सा , the root is गुप गोपने only . No need to go for other roots .

Nyasakara opines - here निन्दा , due to वा in the next Sutra which is taken as व्यवस्थितविभाषा ।

2. स्वार्थ means प्रकृत्यर्थ , here it is गोपनम् ( neither निन्दा nor  घृणा) । Nyasa and Haradatta differ as to which is the meaningful unit - root or suffix . 

3. Even for Patanjali  - सन् is स्वार्थिक + ( निन्दा etc) , and क (अवेः कः) is अत्यन्तस्वार्थिक  as he offers two examples , i.e. सन् is just like ’अतिशायने तमप्’ , स्वार्थ + अतिशायनम् ।

4.As far as meaning is concerned , as has already been stated , it depends upon प्रयोग and generally we take the commentator's words as an authority - व्याख्यानतो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः ।
Bhimasena et al assigned the meanings to different roots which are just उपलक्षणम् - धातूनाम् अनेकार्थत्वम् ।

5.Even in other usages can we say that the meaning 'निन्दा’ is there directly - सुधियो विभावयन्तु ---

1. वेदे ( स्वाध्यायब्राह्मणम्  - तैत्तिरीयब्राह्मणम् - 2 )

जुगुप्सेतानृतात् पयो ब्राह्मणस्य व्रतम् यवागू राजन्यस्यामिक्षा वैश्यस्य सौम्ये’प्यध्वर एतद्व्रतं ब्रूयात्|

जुगुप्सेत = निवर्तेत

2.साहित्ये --

बीभत्सरसस्य  स्थायीभावः जुगुप्सा

’दोषेक्षणादिभिर्गर्हा जुगुप्सा ’ -- साहित्यदर्पणम्(3-179)

3.लोके

अधर्मात् जुगुप्सते -- ’निवर्तते’ - भाष्यम्।

In Telugu the word जुगुप्सा is used in the sense of 'असह्यम्’ 

In all the cases indirectly निन्दा is there . 

I shall close the discussion from my side .

धन्यो’स्मि

2012/9/3 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

[narayanan er]

Respected scholars,

Namaskarah. It is clear from Sh. Nityanand Misra's explanation that जुगुप्सते is an atmanepada formation from the root गुपँ गोपने with a स्वार्थे सन् and normal लट् form. For all those four separate group roots, the सेट् factor is well there. It comes to a meaning that गोपनं जुगुप्सा where there is no optional इच्छासूत्रप्रसक्ति. Here I find a few problems beyond my understanding, which attracts an explanation:
1. What is role of meaning of the preposition वि in विजुगुप्सते?
2. There is a verse fraction called सन्नन्तान्न सनिष्यते etc. If then how the second optional सन् is justified in जुगुप्सिषते?
3. How the स्वार्थे सन् (3.1.5) is blocked to the other group गुप्-s of divadi, curadi and even for a partially गुप् of गुपू रक्षणे in the same bhvadi?
3. The Mahabharata uses a term, गोपायते as it reads: गुप्तो गोपायते ब्रह्मा श्रेयो वस्तेन शोभनम्।। (Mahabharata-13-70-5). Is it a causative form here? Which root group this गोपायते has come from?
4. Moreover, I think गुप भाषे in Curadi is not an Ubhayapadi, but a Parasmaipadi only. Svaritet or Udattet? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I appreciate with salute Sh. Nityanand Misra's efforts for demonstration of the classification with derivation of verbs, which is a laborious act with at most dedication to grammar. Thanks.
Regards,
Narayanan

---

From: Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>
To: subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
Cc: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 7:35 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Madhu

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

Here is another Vedic usage:
Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.8
अथैतयोः पथोर्न कतरेण च न तानीमानि क्षुद्राण्यसकृदावर्तीनि भूतानि भवन्ति जायस्व म्रियस्वेत्येतत्तृतीयँस्थानं तेनासौ लोको न सम्पूर्यते तस्माज्जुगुप्सेत तदेष श्लोकः ॥ ८ ॥

Here the shAnkarabhAShyam is:

तस्माच्चैवंविधां संसारगतिं जुगुप्सेत वीभत्सेत घॄणी भवेन्मा भूदेवंविधे संसारमहोदधौ घोरे पात इति ।

For गोपायते -

गोपायते य: स: गोप:। जो जन-जन को आनन्द देना ही अपना कर्तव्य समझते हैं, वह गोप हैं, न कि वे जो गाय पालते हैं।

क्रियारूपम्shiva.iiit.ac.in/SabdaSaarasvataSarvasvam/index.php/गुप
गोपायति गोपायते। अरे तु आयस्याप्राप्तिपक्षे परस्मैपदमेव। अगोपीत्। जुगोप गोरूपधारामिवोर्वीमिति रघुः॥ ऊ गोपिष्यति गोप्स्यति। अवलम्बः दुर्गादासः॥

DASAVATARA STOTRAM (VEDANTA DESIKA) | GLEANINGS ...

...र्भूयोऽपिर्भुवानान्यमूनि कुहनागोपाय गोपायते । कालिन्दीरसिकाय कालियफणिस्फारस्फटावाटिका. रङ्गोत्सङ्गविशङ्कचंक्रमधुरापर्यायचर्याय ते ॥१०॥

अलङ्कारसङ्ग्रहः/परिच्छेदः ४ - Wikisource

sa.wikisource.org/wiki/अलङ्कारसङ्ग्रहः/परिच्छेदः_४

"तस्याः सान्द्रविलेपनस्तनतटप्रश्लेषमुद्राङ्कितं किं वक्षश्चरणानतिव्यतिकरव्याजेन गोपायते ।

मनोज: भारतीय काव्यशास्त्र – 60 : भावों के रूप

manojiofs.blogspot.com/2011/04/60.html - Translate this page

3 अप्रैल 2011 – किं वक्षश्चरणानतिव्यतिकरव्याजेन गोपायते । इत्युक्ते क्व तदित्युदीर्य सहसा तत्सम्प्पमार्ष्टुं मया.

2012/9/3 subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Qn. There is a verse fraction called सन्नन्तान्न सनिष्यते etc. If then how the second optional सन् is justified in जुगुप्सिषते?
qn. How the स्वार्थे सन् (3.1.5) is blocked to the other group गुप्-s of divadi, curadi and even for a partially गुप् of गुपू रक्षणे in the same bhvādi?

Dear Narayanan,

That jugupsā means ‘detesting’ is a convention authorized by the vārttika guper nindāyām. So this is svārthe san. What is the objection to san here?

A convention is a received tradition.  One cannot make a general rule out of it and force the same in analogous cases. Hence one has to take √jugupsa- as a readymade dhātu only formally derived by adding san to gup irrespective of class.  Moreover, to whichever gup do you add san the resultant √jugupsa will yield the same sense. How to know which gup is at the base?

A note. I wrote from common sense. If any colleague is aware of any available śāstric discussion I shall be glad to know that.

Best

DB

---

From: narayanan er <drerna...@yahoo.com>
To: "nmi...@gmail.com" <nmi...@gmail.com>; subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com>
Cc: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 10:55 AM

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Dear Prof. Korada and other scholars,

I had been following this this topic closely and was aware of the point raised by Mr. Nityananda and Subrahmanyam also in this respect, which are far from touching the point raised. I was expecting Prof.Korada to touch the point in any possible way to defend accepting the interpretation of Kahika, of the sUtra "गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन्" modifying or limiting its scope to निन्दा, which is not present in the महाभाष्य as Prof. Korada suggested. 

Now, coming to the point raised by Mr. Nityananda, with his detailed procedure of derivation of the different roots of गुप् to highlight his point, I can say it can be easily understood by any student of Grammar as customized by grammarians from the authors of Jayadithya and Vamana and the commentators on Kahsika, Mahabhashya and finally we are taught by Bhattoji Dikshita and followers. I grasped it from the very beginning when first raised by Mr.Nityananda and did not think of any satisfactory way to defend his interpretation on the usage in Katha Bhashya, as गोपायितुमिच्छति considering all the possibilities raised by him in the first post itself. Hence I didn't interfere in the discussion which was far away from any solution to the problem or defending the interpretation of shankara.

Having said these, I would like offer some considerations beyond Grammar.  First let me present my understanding of the problem:

1. It is clear that Shankara took the interpretation of गुपू रक्षणे for his explanation of the form as the suffix "समानकर्तृकादिच्छायां वा" which makes the सन् optional variable with the sentence. It is clear from his interpretation itself:

विशेषेण गोपायितुम् इच्छति - which is a तुमुन् affixed to गुप् for which आय is added. The alternative form would be गोपितुम्, गोप्तुम् as both are possible and only one optional form used by Shankara, to make it clear that it is the same root he is taking and not the other one which doesn't have the meaning रक्षण. 

Now as a rule, it would take the सन् suffix as per समानकर्तृकादिच्छायां वा and would yield the forms as we know, as given by माधवाचार्य, according to whom, it is not अनुदात्तेत्, but उदात्तेत् and would take the forms - with the suffix सन् only in the परस्मैपद. so we expect 

जुगोपायिषति, - with आय, 

without आय, as per "आयादय आर्धधातुके वा"

जुगोपिषति - जुगुपिषति or जुगुप्सति in the case of the absence of आय and with or without इट्.

The first is with इट् and the second without इट् as it is variable as per 

"स्वरति-सूति-सूयति-धूञ्-ऊदितो वा । । PS_७,२.४४|"

 

I am not going produce the whole प्रक्रिया for सन् in each case, but only point out the difference in the final form. In the first, it takes as usual the लघूपधगुण and in the second, the सन् without इट्, becomes कित् as per "हलन्ताच्च॥ १।२।१०" and gets the firnal form जुगुप्स् with the same प्रक्रिया without लघूपधगुण. So we can get जुगुप्सति। 

Now the question comes narrower, whether this गुपू is उदात्तेत् or स्वरितेत् as we see both usages as presented in different texts. It is only उदात्तेत् according to Madhava. If we take स्वरितेत्, we get both forms गोपायति or गोपायते. Of course, it can be गोप इवाचरति, which would take गोपायति, and शत्रन्त of the same, or this one with आय in the चतुर्थी - गोपायते। All the cases should be checked. If it is the same in meaning, as verbal form, गोपायते  - रक्षति, as गोपायति, then the question is solved, as per the धातुपाठ he could have स्वरितेत् and उभयपदी. and in which case, "पूर्ववत् सनः" will give आत्मनेपद also and make the form विजुगुप्सते. This is just proposition based on the interpretation of shankara as given in the quoted lines. Now it would give the meaning as intended by him and also from the same root he had intended by saying "गोपायितुमिच्छति". All the धातुपाठ-s available to him would have been consulted by माधव as available to him. The other way would be to explain, गोपायते as अगोपः गोपो भवति - with क्यङ्  as per  सूत्रम्. भृशादिभ्यो भुव्यच्वेर्लोपश्च हलः(॥ ३।१।१२) cannot be ruled out. This is a possible way of defending his interpretation following his own way and not conclusive opinion.

He might have followed any earlier interpretatin in the commentaries available to him which justify them with some other grammar than that of Panini or himself followed some other धातुपाठ. Both are possible things. Conisidering his date about the last half of 8th century, he could have followed some other commentary than Kashika, which could not have gained populatity at his time, composed in 7th century, only 100 years before shankara.

I think the above has precisely answered the question of Sri Nityananda - 

 My argument is that it cannot be generated from गुपू under Paninian system as I show below. 

to which I can add, as we know from the interpretations, available to us as customized up to Bhattoji and Nagesha. Hence we cannot adjudge the possibility suggested by me, at shankara's time and the interpretations available to him. I have narrowed the scope of the problem to only to जुगुप्सति ow वि-जुगुप्सति could not be accepted, as we have only उदात्तेत्. If it is स्वरितेत्, it could well be accepted without any doubt we have expressed.

Now, to the question,

Assuming it does get the suffix, is the form जुगुप्सते possible from the root गुपू रक्षणे + आय + सन्? 

If yes, what is the प्रक्रिया for the same?

 if I remember, correctly, raised by Nityananda, as it is optional before any आर्धधातुक suffix, and without आय, the form with सन् is already shown above, following the explanation of माधवाचार्य, both जुगुपिषति and जुगुप्सति are already available therein. 

For the other variation of meaning with different suffixes, for विजुगुप्सा depending on the context as suggested by Prof. Korada, I can add some more examples from the same सूत्र. But it is out of the scope of the discussion, as now the focus has narrowed.

In addition, to the one already given by Nityananda, in his tabular statement, the complete list of forms with सन् from the same गुपू रक्षणे as a परस्मैपदिन् verb are consolidated here as given by T R Krishnamacharya, which includes the ones I had shown above following माधव-s धातुवृत्ति -

जुगोपायिषति,  जुगुपिषति, जुगोपिषति, जुगुप्सति. The derivational process are already given for the others by Sri Nityananda. and I have given only the प्रक्रिया for the form in question, with a simple solution that the verb could also have been used as आत्मनेपद as some usages are cited in some of the posts. The other way is to resort to the common solution, he might have been referring to some other Vyakarana, and accepting this, it may not be necessary in this case as Sankara has not violated the गुप्तिज्किद्भ्यः सन् rule any how.

Typo errors and omissions are to be excepted. Thanks for all those who contributed their view to this thread.

[V Subrahmanian]

नमस्ते

For the Ishavasya mantra 1.6 the bhashya by Sri Madhwacharya cites a shruti:

 

॥१.६॥

 

यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि

आत्मन्येवानुपश्यति ।

सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं

ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥

 

सर्वगं परमात्मानं सर्वं च परमात्मनि ।

यः पश्येत्स भयाभवान्नात्मानं गोप्तुमिच्छति ॥ इति सौकरायणश्रुतिः ॥६॥

I think this is the exact way in which Shankara has commented in the Kathopanishad instance that we have seen just now:

...ततस्तद्विज्ञानादूर्ध्वं आत्मानं न विजुगुप्सते न गोपायितुमिच्छति अभयप्राप्तत्वात् ।  यावद्धि भयमध्यस्थोऽनित्यमात्मानं मन्यते तावद्गोपायितुमिच्छत्यात्मानम् ।  यदा तु नित्यमद्वैतमात्मानं विजानाति तदा किं कः कुतो वा गोपायितुमिच्छेत् ।

regards,

subrahmanian.v

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I think, though differing in many other things, the parallel idea between the two lines

make it in accordance with Shankaracharya's interpretation, which was in question, in Katha line, if we take it as the retaking of सन् वृत्ति for न विजुगुप्सते or Shankara might be following the line of the श्रुति quoted above or the reverse also.may be the cse, as in many recent Upanishad-s running in number nearly comoing around 300 or so. In  the later case, it appears it applies the same interpretation given by Shankara, to the present Isha too which is explained in its own way.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Shri Misra,

Today I had a talk with a renowned scholar about the question on hand.  I read out to him the tabular presentation of yours.  At the 4th item he said the word 'jugupsate' will have to be included in addition to what you have stated:  जुगोपायिषति.  He gave a detailed explanation which I am unable to produce here for the simple reason that it is quite beyond my grasp as I am not a student / scholar of grammar.  The scholar summed up saying the usage of Shankara is perfectly within the confines of the Paninian system and there is no need to think that the shAnkaran usage could have basis in any pre-pANinian system.  The sutra, which provides for a विकल्प, he said that governs this usage is:

3-1-31 आयादय आर्धधातुके वा

  http://tinyurl.com/cxl7ev4

When I pointed out the shruti passage I cited in my latest post:

//सर्वगं परमात्मानं सर्वं च परमात्मनि ।

यः पश्येत्स भयाभवान्नात्मानं गोप्तुमिच्छति ॥ इति सौकरायणश्रुतिः ॥६॥

I think this is the exact way in which Shankara has commented in the Kathopanishad instance that we have seen just now:

...ततस्तद्विज्ञानादूर्ध्वं आत्मानं न विजुगुप्सते न गोपायितुमिच्छति अभयप्राप्तत्वात् ।  यावद्धि //

the scholar said it perfectly fits the solution to the question on hand and said the same dhaatu can take these three forms:  गोपायितुम्, गोपितुम् and गोप्तुम् .

In case you are interested in talking to him I can provide you the contact details by private email.  You can discuss this with him and report the details in this forum for the benefit of the other members who are scholars in the vyAkaraNa shAstram.  Since the stated scholar is not a member here and does not write in such a forum my suggestion to you to have a talk with him.  You may also mention to him the latest question on the Isha bhashyam that you have raised and get a reply.  I have not spoken to him about this as I saw this post of yours only subsequently.

Best regards
subrahmanian.v  

 

2012/9/3 Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com>

--

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Sh. Subrahmanian

Thanks you for your email. I will follow up with you separately. Dr. H N Bhat has already mentioned 3-1-31 and listed the alternate forms possible from applying 3-1-31. Still I would like to speak to the scholar some time in future to get his perspective and also to speak on other common interests. As I am in Hong Kong, I will probably make the call the next time I am in India.

Thanks, Nityanand

2012/9/4 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>