Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Just looking at the textual issues, this case looks somewhat tough to resolve. The manuscripts often leave no space between words, and hence issues like this are left to be resolved by the logic of the context alone. Assuming that the manuscript has no gaps between words, tathAsthitiH, could be anything, tathA+sthitiH / tathA+asthitiH, with or without compounding. I do not know enough of the context of this verse, but perhaps the commentaries provide enough reasoning why it must be tathA asthitiH. Consider the problems of the BG verse: nAsatovidyatebhAvonAbhAvovidyatesataH (as it would appear in the manuscripts, or oral recitation). Shankara takes it as: na asataH vidyate bhAvaH, na abhAvaH vidyate sataH However, Madhva take it as: na asataH vidyate abhAvaH, na abhAvaH vidyate sataH Each commentator has his own logic to defend their own peculiar way segmenting the line, and it is clear that manuscripts alone do not help. Best, Madhav INDOLOGY, "Harry Spier" <harryspier@H...> wrote: > > Madhav wrote: > > > >Can you cite the actual example you are looking at? That may > >help a lot. While one can obviously have both 'tathaagata.h' and > >'tathaa gata.h', there would be sometimes a differrence of > >meaning. > > > Dear Madhav, > > The verse is I.8.3 of the IPK > > sukhAdiSu ca saukhyAdihetuSvapi ca vastuSu . > avabhAsasya sadbhAve 'pyatItatvAt tathAsthitiH .. > > With " tathAsthitiH " to be construed as either from " tathA- asthitiH " > or from " tathA asthitiH ". The editors main point being that it is not to > be construed as " tathA-sthitiH " because of meaning and the commentaries, > but since he mentioned (if only in passing) that it could be either tathA > asthitiH or tathA-asthitiH I was curious if there was any difference in > meaning between these two, but from Ashok Aklujkar's explanation I think > that in this case tathA asthitiH and tathA-asthitiH are equivalent. > > Many thanks, > Harry > > Harry Spier > 371 Brickman Rd. > Hurleyville, NY > USA 12747 > > _______________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Now that I know the specific passage, I should add that, although the compounded and non-compounded forms can be thought of as yielding just about the same meaning,only the non-compounded (but sandhi-effected) form comes across as natural in the passage. Generally, we do not find a negative word as the second member of the tathaa-compounds (as is borne out by tathaa-gata, tathaa-ruupa, tathaa-vidha etc.). Secondly, tathaasthiti.h, taken as a compound of tathaa and asthiti.h, will make sense only as a bahu-vriihi compound (on the lines of tathaa-ruupa, tathaa-vidha etc. standing for tathaa ruupa.m yasya, tathaa vidhaa yasya etc.) . But in that case it should have some noun to qualify, which is not present in the verse concerned. Interpreting tathaa asthiti.h as two words brought together only by sandhi and meaning 'that situation/reality is not like that' seems far simpler. ashok aklujkar On 13-01-2002 06:47, "Harry Spier" <harryspier wrote: > The verse is I.8.3 of the IPK > > sukhAdiSu ca saukhyAdihetuSvapi ca vastuSu . > avabhAsasya sadbhAve 'pyatItatvAt tathAsthitiH .. > > With " tathAsthitiH " to be construed as either from " tathA-asthitiH " > or from " tathA asthitiH ". The editors main point being that it is not to > be construed as " tathA-sthitiH " because of meaning and the commentaries, > but since he mentioned (if only in passing) that it could be either tathA > asthitiH or tathA-asthitiH I was curious if there was any difference in > meaning between these two, but from Ashok Aklujkar's explanation I think > that in this case tathA asthitiH and tathA-asthitiH are equivalent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Firstly many thanks to Madhav and Ashok, Secondly as a slight aside, Madhav wrote: >The manuscripts often leave no space between words, and >hence issues like this are left to be resolved by the logic of the >context alone. Its always struck me as somewhat curious that some symbol didn't develop to indicate in the manuscripts where xxxAxxx was from xxxA+axxx . Harry Spier 371 Brickman Rd. Hurleyville, NY USA 12747 _______________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.