ब्राह्मण चर्चा

Google+ Gmail Web Orkut more ↰ भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्  Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} व्युत्पत्तौ सम्शयः 3/18/13hnbhat 2013/3/18 sreedasan ब्राह्मणः इत्यस्य पदस्य व्युत्पत्तिः कीद्रुशा ? कः संशयः ब्राह्मणपदस्य व्युत्पत्तौ इति प्रथमं निरूप्यताम्, अनन्तरं संशयस्य निवारणाय प्रयत्नः क्रियताम्। ब्राह्मणपदस्य अर्थानुसारेण निर्वचनानुसारेण च व्युत्पत्तिः साध्या। कस्तत्र संशयः इति, कीदृशः संशय इति निरूप्यताम्! 3/18/13V Subrahmanian पृच्छकस्याभिप्रायः प्रायेण एवं स्यात् - http://brahman-ki-pratikriya.blogspot.in/ हमारा प्राचीन धर्मशास्त्र कहता है, जन्मना जायते शूद्रः, संस्कारात् द्विज उच्च्यते | वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः, ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः | अर्थात्‌, हर व्यक्ती जन्म से शूद्र होता हैं। संस्कारों से द्विज (द्विजः :- द्वि-वारः जातः = जो दो बार जन्मा हो) होता हैं। वेदाध्ययन से विप्र (विप्रः :- विशेषया प्रज्ञाया भूषितः = जिसे विशेष बुद्धी है ) होता है, और ब्रह्मज्ञान से ब्राह्मण बन जाता है। सुब्रह्मण्यशर्मा 2013/3/18 Hnbhat B.R. - show quoted text - -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 3/19/13hnbhat ब्राह्मणः पुं०। ब्राह्मणो विप्रस्य प्रजापतेर्वा अपत्यम्। ब्रह्म वेदस्तमधीते वा सः। इति भरतः॥ ब्रह्मन्+अण् ब्राह्मोऽजातौ। ६। ४। १७२। http://shiva.iiit.ac.in/SabdaSaarasvataSarvasvam/index.php/%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A3%E0%A4%83 ब्रह्मम् जानातीति असाधुरेव, ब्रह्मन् इति नकारान्तत्वात्, लोके ब्रह्म इत्येव प्रयोगः। अमरश्च --- ३.३.५८३ "वेदस्तत्त्वं तपो ब्रह्म ब्रह्मा विप्रः प्रजापतिः" इति ब्रह्मशब्दस्य नानार्थकत्वमाह। ब्राह्मणशब्दस्य विशेषाः, ब्रह्मपदवाच्यस्य विप्रस्य वर्णस्य धर्मेभ्यो भिन्ना एव व्युत्पत्तिः ब्राह्मणपदस्य इति बोध्यम्। वर्णाश्रमधर्माः, तद्विशेषाश्च श्रुतिस्मृतिग्रन्थचोदिताः, व्याकरणप्रक्रिया व्याकरणग्रन्थेभ्योऽवगन्तव्या इति अनयोर्भेदः। उभयोर्यथायोगं निर्वचनानि भवन्ति, स्मृतिग्रन्थेषु, इति न तत्र सन्देहः कार्या। व्युत्पातिस्तु व्याकरणशास्त्रलभ्या इति यावत्। ब्रह्मन् शब्दस्य नपुंसकलिङ्गेऽपि प्रयोगः, अर्थविशेषे। विप्रसामान्ये पुंलिङ्गे इति लिङ्गभेदादर्थभेदः। व्युत्पत्तिभेदश्च कल्प्यते व्याकरणप्रक्रियानुसारेण। शब्दसर्वस्वे तेऽर्थविशेषा द्रष्टव्याः। 3/19/13hnbhat ​क्षमा याचे। ब्रह्मणः = विप्रस्य, प्रजापतेर्वा अपत्यं ब्राह्मणः, ब्रह्म = वेदः, तमधीते इति वा स इति परिष्कृत्य पठनीयः पूर्वस्मिन् सन्देशे। अत्रार्थे अण्प्रत्यये ब्रह्मन्+अण् इति - ब्राह्मणः इति वैयाकरणानां व्युत्पत्तिः ब्राह्मणपदस्य। "ब्राह्मोऽजातौ" इति सूत्रनिर्देशः। व्युत्पातिलभ्योऽर्थः दर्शितः पूर्वमेव। प्रक्रियायां सन्देहश्चेत् इत्थं समाधानाम् --- योगविभागः क्रियते। तेन सर्वार्थसिद्धिः। "नस्तद्धिते ॥ पा.सू.६,४.१४४ ॥" इति टिलोपस्य अजातावेव नियमनाद् जातौ ब्राह्मण इत्याद्यसिद्धेः, अपत्याधिकारे तन्न सिद्ध्यति, अनपत्येऽपि, द्वितीया व्युत्पातिर्न सिद्ध्यति, तत्र "न मपूर्वस्य" इति निषेधात् इत्यादिदोषपरिहारश्च तत्रैव व्याकरणग्रन्थेभ्योऽवगन्तव्यः। तेन अपत्याधिकारे जातिविशिष्टेऽपत्ये विवक्षितेऽणि परतो ब्राहृण इत्यत्र टिलोपो न भवतीत्यर्थः। जातिमात्रविवक्ष्यां ब्राह्मी ओषधिरित्येतदपि सिद्धं भवतीति योगविभागकरणम्।  Attachments (1) image.png 105 KB View Download 3/19/13hnbhat  2013/3/19 Hnbhat B.R. - show quoted text - -- Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D., Research Scholar, Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry 16 & 19, Rue Dumas Attachments (2) image.png 105 KB View Download image.png 105 KB View Download 3/19/13Nityanand Misra On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:31:47 AM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote: पृच्छकस्याभिप्रायः प्रायेण एवं स्यात् - http://brahman-ki-pratikriya.blogspot.in/ हमारा प्राचीन धर्मशास्त्र कहता है, जन्मना जायते शूद्रः, संस्कारात् द्विज उच्च्यते | वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः, ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः | This above verse, often quoted these days, is obviously wrong as "ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः" has nine syllables which does not fit the eight-syllable Anushtup metre. The other version which is often quoted as जन्मना जायते शूद्रः संस्काराद्द्विज उच्यते। वेदपाठाद्भवेद्विप्रो ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः॥ is of dubious origins. The verse is nowhere to be found in our scriptures. The actual verse attributed to याज्ञवल्क्य reads जन्मना ब्राह्मणो ज्ञेयः संस्काराद्द्विज उच्यते। वेदपाठी भवेद्विप्रो श्रोत्रियो वेदपारगः॥ This does not use the word ब्राह्मण but श्रोत्रिय. The dubious verse जन्मना जायते शूद्रः is often used these days to give the व्युत्पत्ति of the word ब्राह्मण as ब्रह्म जानाति इति. This is totally wrong as per Paninian grammar. First of all there is no suffix ordained by Panini in the entire Ashtadhyayi in the sense of जानाति. There is the Sutra तदधीते तद्वेद (4-2-59) which ordains अण् from ब्रह्मन्, but as Dr. Bhat has explained, Panini has explicitly done the निपातन of टिलोप of ब्राह्मण in meaning others than the ब्राह्मणजाति by the Sutra ब्राह्मोऽजातौ (6-4-171). As a result, as per Paninian grammar, somebody who is not from the ब्राह्मणजाति but knows ब्रह्म (=ब्रह्मन् or वेद) is to be called a ब्राह्म but not ब्राह्मण. 3/19/13Nityanand Misra On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:15:54 AM UTC+8, hnbhat wrote: ​क्षमा याचे। ब्रह्मणः = विप्रस्य, प्रजापतेर्वा अपत्यं ब्राह्मणः, ब्रह्म = वेदः, तमधीते इति वा स इति परिष्कृत्य पठनीयः पूर्वस्मिन् सन्देशे। अत्रार्थे अण्प्रत्यये ब्रह्मन्+अण् इति - ब्राह्मणः इति वैयाकरणानां व्युत्पत्तिः ब्राह्मणपदस्य। "ब्राह्मोऽजातौ" इति सूत्रनिर्देशः। व्युत्पातिलभ्योऽर्थः दर्शितः पूर्वमेव। ब्रह्मन् + अण् -> हलन्त्यम् (1-3-3), तस्य लोपः (1-3-9) -> अनुबन्धलोपः -> ब्रह्मन् अ -> तद्धितेष्वचामादेः (7-2-117) -> आदिवृद्धिः -> ब्राह्मन् अ -> ब्राह्मन -> रषाभ्यां नो णः समानपदे (8-4-1), अट्कुप्वाङ्नुम्व्यवायेऽपि (8-4-2) -> णत्वम् -> ब्राह्मण Till this step the Prakriya is common. Hereafter the Prakriya differs based on whether the विवक्षा is of the ब्राह्मणजाति or otherwise. जात्यर्थे -> ब्राह्मण -> ब्राहमण सुँ -> ब्राह्मणः अजात्यर्थे -> ब्राह्मण -> ब्राह्मोऽजातौ (6-4-171) -> टिलोपः -> ब्राह्म सुँ -> ब्राह्मः 3/19/13Shankarji Jha saadhu pratipaaditam, Nityaananda-mahaabhaagaah. Atra madeeyaa shankaa-- 'अजात्यर्थे ब्राह्मण-पदस्य टिलोपेन णकारलोप इति प्रतिपादितम् भवद्भिः। अचां मध्ये योSन्त्यः स आदिर्यस्य तादृशो व्यञ्जनवर्णः टि संज्ञकः इति। अत्र पदान्ते अकारस्वरो व्यपदे िशवदेकस्मिन्निति परिभाषया टिसंज्ञाम् लभमानो लोपतामर्हति। ततः ब्राह्मण् इत्येव स्यात्। अतः णकारसहिताकार लोपः कथम्? येन ब्राह्मेति पदम् सिद्ध्येत। Shankarji Jha, Professor of Sanskrit, Deptt of Sanskrit, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014, INDIA Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:46:16 -0700 From: nmi...@gmail.com To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com CC: v.subra...@gmail.com; sree...@gmail.com Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} व्युत्पत्तौ सम्शयः - show quoted text - -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 3/20/13V Subrahmanian 2013/3/19 Nityanand Misra - show quoted text - The syllable problem apart, I cited the verse only for the part: brahma jAnAti iti...to mean a brahmavit, one who knows/realizes Brahman, the Upanishadic paratattvam and not in the sense of the knower of the Veda. There are several instances of the Upanishad referring to a brahmajnAni by the term 'brAhmaNa'. Whether it is unpANinian or not I am not aware. Anyone can coin an appropriate vyutpatti for the upanishadic instances some of which are enumerated here along with Shankaracharya's bhAShyam: (I have not done a thorough spell check) The Brihadaranyaka upanishad 4.4.23 says: तदेतदृचाभ्युक्तम् - एष नित्यो महिमा ब्राह्मणस्य न कर्मणा वर्धते नो कनीयान् । तस्यैव स्यात्पदवित्तं विदित्वा न लिप्यते कर्मणा पापकेनेति । तस्मादेवंविच्छान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वात्मन्येवात्मानं पश्यति । सर्वमात्मानं पश्यति । नैनं पाप्मा तरति । सर्वं पाप्मानं तरति । नैनं पाप्मा तपति । सर्वं पाप्मानं तपति । विपापो विरजोऽविचिकित्सो ब्राह्मणो भवति । एष ब्रह्मलोकः सम्राट् । एनं प्रापितोऽसीति होवाच याज्ञवल्क्यः । सोऽहं भगवते विदेहान् ददामि मां चापि सह दास्यायेति ॥ ४,४.२३ ॥ In the BhaShyam, at the very beginning Shankaracharya says: अयं तु तद्विलक्षणो महिमा स्वाभाविकत्वान्नित्यो ब्रह्मविदो ब्राह्मणस्य... At the end of the bhashyam for this very mantra portion we see: ....छिन्नसंशयोऽहमसि सर्वात्मा ब्रह्मेति निशोतमतिः ब्राह्मणो भवति । अयं त्वेवंभूत एतस्यामवस्थायां मुख्यो ब्राह्मणः प्रागेतस्माद्ब्रह्मस्वरूपावस्थानाद्गौणमस्य ब्राह्मण्यम् । ...एवं ब्रह्मभूतो जनको याज्ञवल्क्येन ब्रह्मभावमापादितः प्र्त्याह - सोऽहं त्वया ब्रह्मभावमापादितः सन्भ्गवते तुभ्यं विदेहान्देशान्मम राज्यं ददामि...दासकर्मणि ददामि....परा गतिरेतन्निःश्रेयसमेतत्प्राप्य कृतकृत्यो ब्राह्मणो भवत्येतत्सर्ववेदानुशासनमिति । In the same upanishad 3.5.1 we read: ...तस्माद्ब्रामणः पाण्डित्यं निर्विद्य बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत् ।बाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च निर्विद्याथ मुनिः । अमौनं च मौनं च निर्विद्याथ ब्राह्मणः ।स ब्राह्मणः केन स्याद्येन स्यात्तेनेदृश एव । अतोऽन्यदार्तम् ।ततो ह कहोलः कौषीतकेय उपरराम ॥ ३,५.१ ॥ Here in the concluding part of the bhashyam we have: ...अथ ब्राह्मणः कृतक्त्यो भवति । ब्रह्मैव सर्वमिति प्रत्यय उपजायते । स ब्राह्मणः कृतकृत्योऽतो ब्राह्मणः । निरुपचरितं हि तदा तस्य ब्राह्मण्यं प्राप्तमत आह - स ब्राह्मणः केन स्यात्केन चरणेन बवेद्य्न स्याद्येन चरणेन भवेत्तेनेदृश एवायम् । येन केनचिच्चरणे स्यात्तेनेदृश एवोक्तलक्षण एव ब्राह्मणो भवति । येन केनचिच्चरणेनेति स्तुत्यर्थं येयं ब्राह्मण्यावस्था सेयं स्तूयते न तु चरणेऽनादरः । In the same upanishad 4.4.9 bhashyam Shankaracharya cites: "निराशिषमनारम्भं निर्नमस्कारमस्तुतुम् । अक्षीणं क्षीणकर्माणं तं देवा ब्राह्मणं विदुः" ॥ "नैतादृशं ब्राह्मणस्यास्ति वित्तं यथैकता समता सत्यता च । शीलं स्थितिर्दण्डनिधानमार्जवं ततस्ततश्तोपरमः क्रियाभ्यः" ॥ इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यश्च । (here too it is from the MB) In the Taittiriyopanishat bhashyam 2.8 for the portion 'रसो वै सः’ we read: बाह्यानन्दसाधनरहिता अपि निरीहा निरेषणा ब्राह्मणा बाह्यरसलाभादिव सानन्दा दृश्यन्ते विद्वांस; नूनं ब्रह्मैव रसस्तेषाम् । In the Bh.Gita bhashyam 12.19 Shankaracharya cites a verse from the Mahabharatha:१९. तुल्य इति .. तुल्यनिन्दास्तुतिः निन्दा च स्तुतिश्च निन्दास्तुती ते तुल्ये यस्य सः तुल्यनिन्दास्तुइतिः . मौनी मौनवान् संयतवाक् . सन्तुष्टः येन केनचित् शरीरस्थितिहेतुमात्रेण; तथा च उक्तम् - येन केनचिदाच्छन्नो येन केनचिदाशितः . यत्र क्वचन शायी स्यात्तं देवा ब्राह्मणं विदुः .. - (शान्तिपर्व. २४५. १२. )इति | In the Mahabharatha shAnti and aranyaparvan portions one can find a number of verses with the refrain: तं देवा ब्राह्मणं विदुः - all a description of a brahmajnAni and not necessarily a brAhmaNa by birth. regards subrahmanian.v -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 3/20/13V Subrahmanian 2013/3/19 Nityanand Misra On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:31:47 AM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote: पृच्छकस्याभिप्रायः प्रायेण एवं स्यात् - http://brahman-ki-pratikriya.blogspot.in/ हमारा प्राचीन धर्मशास्त्र कहता है, जन्मना जायते शूद्रः, संस्कारात् द्विज उच्च्यते | वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः, ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः | The dubious verse जन्मना जायते शूद्रः is often used these days to give the व्युत्पत्ति of the word ब्राह्मण as ब्रह्म जानाति इति. This is totally wrong as per Paninian grammar. First of all there is no suffix ordained by Panini in the entire Ashtadhyayi in the sense of जानाति. I had seen this explanation in this site: http://tinyurl.com/a66g9em [The above shloka seems to appear in the skandapurANam too. Will anyone pl. verify in this source and report here?] यस्क मुनि की निरुक्त के अनुसार - ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मण: -- ब्राह्मण वह है जो ब्रह्म ( अंतिम सत्य, ईश्वर या परम ज्ञान ) को जानता है। अतः ब्राह्मण का अर्थ है - "ईश्वर ज्ञाता" | For the Mundakopanishad mantra: यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः ....१.१ in the Bhashyam Shankaracharya says: यः उक्तलक्षणोऽक्षराख्यः सर्वज्ञः सामान्येन सर्वं जानातीति सर्वज्ञः, विशेषेण सर्वं व्वेत्तीति सर्ववित् । subrahmanian.v 3/20/13Nityanand Misra On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 11:48:20 PM UTC+8, Shankarji Jha wrote: saadhu pratipaaditam, Nityaananda-mahaabhaagaah. Atra madeeyaa shankaa-- 'अजात्यर्थे ब्राह्मण-पदस्य टिलोपेन णकारलोप इति प्रतिपादितम् भवद्भिः। अचां मध्ये योSन्त्यः स आदिर्यस्य तादृशो व्यञ्जनवर्णः टि संज्ञकः इति। अत्र पदान्ते अकारस्वरो व्यपदे िशवदेकस्मिन्निति परिभाषया टिसंज्ञाम् लभमानो लोपतामर्हति। ततः ब्राह्मण् इत्येव स्यात्। अतः णकारसहिताकार लोपः कथम्? येन ब्राह्मेति पदम् सिद्ध्येत। Shankarji Jha, Professor of Sanskrit, Deptt of Sanskrit, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014, INDIA Sorry, my bad, टिलोप being an अन्तरङ्गकार्य of अङ्ग will take priority over वर्णसम्मेलन which is a बहिरङ्ग कार्य between अङ्ग and प्रत्यय. Here is another attempt, let me know something is still missing or if there are any mistakes. We will first look at the Prakriya of both and then come to the Sutra. Common Prakriya: ब्रह्मन् अण् -> यस्मात्प्रत्ययविधिस्तदादि प्रत्ययेऽङ्गम् (1-4-13) -> अङ्गसंज्ञा of ब्रह्मन् -> यचि भम् (1-4-18) -> भसंज्ञा of ब्रह्मन् -> हलन्त्यम् (1-3-3), तस्य लोपः (1-3-9) -> अनुबन्धलोपः -> ब्रह्मन् अ -> तद्धितेष्वचामादेः (7-2-117) -> आदिवृद्धिः -> ब्राह्मन् अ Now two paths diverge from here based on whether there is टिलोप or not. Prakriya 1: ब्राह्मन् अ -> अचोऽन्त्यादि टि (1-1-64) -> टिसंज्ञा of terminal अन् -> नस्तद्धिते (6-4-144) -> टिलोप -> ब्राह्म् अ -> ब्राह्म Prakriya 2: ब्राह्मन् अ -> ब्राह्मन -> रषाभ्यां नो णः समानपदे (8-4-1), अट्कुप्वाङ्नुम्व्यवायेऽपि (8-4-2) -> णत्वम् -> ब्राह्मण Now for the Sutra. Before coming to ब्राह्मोऽजातौ (6-4-171), there are three relevant Sutras to be understood. नस्तद्धिते (6-4-144) ordains the टिलोप of नकारान्त भ अङ्ग (deletion of अन् of ब्रह्मन् in this case) when a तद्धित suffix (अण् in this case) follows. अन् (6-4-167) blocks 6-4-144 under certain conditions by saying there is प्रकृतिभाव (i.e. no टिलोप or deletion of अन्) when the तद्धित affix अण् follows a नकारान्त भ अङ्ग which ends in अन्. न मपूर्वोऽपत्येऽवर्मणः (6-4-170) blocks 6-4-167 in some conditions by saying that if the तद्धित affix अण् is in the sense of अपत्य and the अन्-ending नकारान्त भ अङ्ग is preceded by म् (i.e. the भ अङ्ग ends in मन्), then there is no प्रकृतिभाव. When 6-4-170 blocks 6-4-167, then 6-4-144 is active again. This is like B is about to kill A, but C kills B first, and as there nobody to kill A, A is alive. With these three Sutras, two अनिष्टरूपs can result. If अण् is in sense of जातिविशेष अपत्य from ब्रह्मन् then as 6-4-170 blocks 6-4-167, 6-4-167 cannot block 6-4-144 and नस्तद्धिते would be active, i.e. टिलोप of ब्रह्मन् will take place. Then we get ब्राह्म as per Prakriya 1. This is अनिष्ट since the word seen in लोक for ब्रह्मणोऽपत्यं जातिविशेषः is ब्राह्मण not ब्राह्म. Note that the word is fine for अजाति अपत्य like नारद so we have ब्राह्मो नारदः. If अण् is not in the sense of अपत्य from ब्रह्मन् then 6-4-170 is not active. As a result 6-4-167 blocks 6-4-144 and there is प्रकृतिभाव of टि instead of टिलोप. Then we get ब्राह्मण as per Prakriya 2. This is also अनिष्ट as in लोक we see ब्राह्मो मुहूर्तः, ब्राह्मः विवाहः (मनुस्मृतिः, अर्थशास्त्र), ब्राह्मी स्थितिः (एषा ब्राह्मी स्थितिः पार्थ - भगवद्गीता), ब्राह्मं हविः, et cetera, in the sense of अनपत्य, and not ब्राह्मणो मुहूर्तः, ब्राह्मणो विवाहः, ब्राह्मणी स्थितिः, ब्राह्मणं हविः, et cetera. To discard both these अनिष्ट forms, पाणिनि wrote the सूत्र, ब्राह्मोऽजातौ (6-4-171). Here भाष्यकार has done योगविभाग. The first Sutra is ब्राह्मः. This is a निपातन and has the अनुवृत्ति of अनपत्य अण् from इनण्यनपत्ये (6-4-164) by मण्डूकप्लुति. This Sutra blocks the प्रकृतिभाव for अनपत्य अण् from ब्रह्मन् and says that for अनपत्य अण् the word is ब्राह्मः. This is to be understood as generated from टिलोप by नस्तद्धिते shown in Prakriya 1 above. The second Sutra is अजातौ - जातौ न भवति - this has the अनुवृत्ति of अपत्ये from previous Sutra न मपूर्वोऽपत्येऽवर्मणः (6-4-170), टेः from 6-4-143 and लोपः from अल्लोपोऽनः (6-4-134). The meaning is that when अण् suffix from ब्रह्मन् is not in the sense of जाति, only then the निपातन is ब्राह्म to be achieved by टिलोप by नस्तद्धिते shown in Prakriya 1 above. The implied meaning is that if the अण् suffix from ब्रह्मन् is in the sense of जाति, there is no टिलोप and the form is ब्राह्मण as per Prakriya 2. In some sources the Sutra is read as ब्राह्मो जातौ (6-4-171). Then the second योगविभक्त Sutra is to be taken as जातौ only and अनुवृत्ति of both न and अपत्ये is to be taken from न मपूर्वोऽपत्येऽवर्मणः (6-4-170). In any case we have अजातौ or न जातौ which mean the same. To summarize: ब्रह्मणोऽपत्यं जातिविशेषः -> ब्राह्मणः. To be used when the sense is offspring and जाति both, i.e. only to refer to an offspring of a ब्राह्मण from the गर्भ of a ब्राह्मणी. Examples from श्रीभार्गवराघवीयम् - निर्दोषोऽयं सुशीलश्च ब्राह्मणो ब्रह्मवित्तमः (८-१९), त्रिकालसन्ध्यो विहिताग्निहोत्रः स ब्राह्मणो देव इहास्ति साक्षात् (१०-७), ब्राह्मणो बहुविरुद्धधर्मवान् शस्यते नहि यतः स सङ्करः (१८-७५). ब्रह्मणोऽपत्यमजातिविशेषः -> ब्राह्मः/ ब्राह्मी. To be used when the sense is offspring but not the जाति. E.g. ब्राह्मो नारदः. Example from श्रीभार्गवराघवीयम् - यदीया सन्ततिर्ब्राह्मी ख्यात्यां ख्यातिमजीजनत् (१-१३). Here the जाति meaning is not intended. अनपत्ये -> ब्राह्मः/ब्राह्मी/ब्राह्मम्. To be Examples from श्रीभार्गवराघवीयम् - धृतोपवीतो महसा परीतो मूर्तो बभौ ब्राह्म इवेड्यधर्मः (१२-४३), पत्न्यै ब्राह्मीविभोपेतं तन्मात्रे क्षत्त्रियोचितम् (१-३२), बभावृचीकभवने ब्राह्मं मूर्तम्महो यथा (१-३८), प्राप्तोऽथ रामो मनुजाभिरामो ब्राह्मं मनो वेद इवाप्तबोधः (४-८२), ब्राह्मं महो मूर्तिमदेष किं वा आहो अयं वीररसः शरीरी (४-८४). Here the ईड्यधर्म, विभा, महस्, मनस् are qualified as ब्राह्मः/ब्राह्मी/ब्राह्मम्. Thanks, Nityanand 3/20/13Nityanand Misra On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:43:03 AM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote: 2013/3/19 Nityanand Misra On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:31:47 AM UTC+8, V Subrahmanian wrote: पृच्छकस्याभिप्रायः प्रायेण एवं स्यात् - http://brahman-ki-pratikriya.blogspot.in/ हमारा प्राचीन धर्मशास्त्र कहता है, जन्मना जायते शूद्रः, संस्कारात् द्विज उच्च्यते | वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः, ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः | This above verse, often quoted these days, is obviously wrong as "ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः" has nine syllables which does not fit the eight-syllable Anushtup metre. The other version which is often quoted as जन्मना जायते शूद्रः संस्काराद्द्विज उच्यते। वेदपाठाद्भवेद्विप्रो ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः॥ is of dubious origins. The verse is nowhere to be found in our scriptures. The actual verse attributed to याज्ञवल्क्य reads जन्मना ब्राह्मणो ज्ञेयः संस्काराद्द्विज उच्यते। वेदपाठी भवेद्विप्रो श्रोत्रियो वेदपारगः॥ This does not use the word ब्राह्मण but श्रोत्रिय. The dubious verse जन्मना जायते शूद्रः is often used these days to give the व्युत्पत्ति of the word ब्राह्मण as ब्रह्म जानाति इति. This is totally wrong as per Paninian grammar. First of all there is no suffix ordained by Panini in the entire Ashtadhyayi in the sense of जानाति. There is the Sutra तदधीते तद्वेद (4-2-59) which ordains अण् from ब्रह्मन्, but as Dr. Bhat has explained, Panini has explicitly done the निपातन of टिलोप of ब्राह्मण in meaning others than the ब्राह्मणजाति by the Sutra ब्राह्मोऽजातौ (6-4-171). As a result, as per Paninian grammar, somebody who is not from the ब्राह्मणजाति but knows ब्रह्म (=ब्रह्मन् or वेद) is to be called a ब्राह्म but not ब्राह्मण. The syllable problem apart, I cited the verse only for the part: brahma jAnAti iti...to mean a brahmavit, one who knows/realizes Brahman, the Upanishadic paratattvam and not in the sense of the knower of the Veda. There are several instances of the Upanishad referring to a brahmajnAni by the term 'brAhmaNa'. Whether it is unpANinian or not I am not aware. Anyone can coin an appropriate vyutpatti for the upanishadic instances some of which are enumerated here along with Shankaracharya's bhAShyam: (I have not done a thorough spell check) I do not know शाङ्करभाष्य well, but none of the cited paras give the व्युत्पत्ति of the word ब्राह्मण using निरुक्त or व्याकरण. The paras use the term ब्राह्मण as given but do not give a व्युत्पत्ति. Anyway शाङ्करभाष्य is a sectarian school of derivation/interpretation and not a standard tool for derivation/interpretation. The standard tools for interpretation are निरुक्त and व्याकरण and not शाङ्करभाष्य. So please stick to the standard tools and avoid any sectarian interpretations. As per काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् - the authority of grammar is accepted across all schools. And in Panini's व्याकरण we have सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे - nobody can change the meaning of the word ब्राह्मण which is fixed by Panini in the sense of a जाति. If you change the meaning, it is no longer Sanskrit. In fact ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः is not even a Vyutpatti, leave alone a valid Vyutpatti. I don't understand how people can call it a Vyutpatti. A Vyutpatti uses the term इति or सः. If we use इति or सः the metre breaks in the verse under question. Without इति/सः we have ब्रह्म जानाति ब्राह्मणः can at best mean "ब्राह्मण ब्रह्म जानाति" - the ब्राह्मण knows ब्रह्म. The verse is not authentic and I rest my case here. 3/20/13hnbhat http://brahman-ki-pratikriya.blogspot.in/ हमारा प्राचीन धर्मशास्त्र कहता है, जन्मना जायते शूद्रः, संस्कारात् द्विज उच्च्यते | वेद-पाठात् भवेत् विप्रः, ब्रह्म जानातीति ब्राह्मणः | It is funny that the blog does not offer प्रक्रिया but as it claims it is प्रतिक्रिया of ब्राह्मण which is entirely different from the प्रक्रिया following पाणिनीय and scholars wrangling with it for the युत्पाति of the ब्राह्मण and not for the word ब्राह्मण and its प्रक्रिया. This has to be born in mind in quoting from great texts like शाङ्करभाष्य and उपनिषद्-s. Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अदौत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. This is my opinion on the turn the topic is now taking. Anyhow, the member who asked the question has not yet cleared his intention and is silent so far in the topic. 3/20/13hnbhat - show quoted text - 3/20/13hnbhat Sorry for wrong keying in. Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अद्वैत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. ​ 3/20/13V Subrahmanian On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote: Sorry for wrong keying in. Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अद्वैत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. It is not advaita that was sought to be portrayed but the upanishadic use of the word brahmana in the sense of not a jAti (caste) but a brahmajnani. The dozens of usage in the Mahabharata I referred to are also not in the sense of a brahmana jAti or veda vyutpanna but in the sense of a brahmajnani. I showed them in order to bring out the fact that the paaninian use/meaning of a brahmana is only too restrictive and not all. The Upanishadic meaning / usages shown cannot be done away with and is quite popular. All schools have commented on these mantras and no charge of sectarianism is justified in such commentaries. The skandapurana seems to contain this verse under reference found in a google search: जन्मना जायते शूद्रः । (स्कन्द पुराण०, नागर खण्ड अ० २३९ श्लो० ३१) subrahmanian.v ​ -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 3/21/13Nityanand Misra On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote: Sorry for wrong keying in. Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अद्वैत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. It is not advaita that was sought to be portrayed but the upanishadic use of the word brahmana in the sense of not a jAti (caste) but a brahmajnani. Highly misleading. Firstly not a single quotation of yours like ब्रह्मविदो ब्राह्मणस्य (just a qualification of ब्राह्मण) or ब्राह्मणो भवति (and not ब्राह्मण उच्यते) give a definition of ब्राह्मण. Your understanding of Upanishads and Shankar Bhashya itself is suspect (actually without Paninian grammar which you claim to be deficient, even the commentary you are citing cannot be understood). Which is why I say - leave the commentaries alone and stick to standard tools - Nirukta and Vyakarana. I can cite other commentaries which interpret ब्राह्मण as जाति only, in all Upanishadic references. The dozens of usage in the Mahabharata I referred to are also not in the sense of a brahmana jAti or veda vyutpanna but in the sense of a brahmajnani. There are many verses like this - e.g. यो वै युवाऽप्यधीयानस्तं देवाः स्थविरं विदुः ॥ They do not change the meaning of स्थविर. No epic or lexicon or शिष्टप्रयोग uses स्थविर for a young man. Please read पस्पशाह्निक, especially सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे. The Upanishadic meaning / usages shown cannot be done away with and is quite popular. Uncorroborated claim. If it is popular, can you show examples in famous epics, lexicons, where ब्राह्मण is used in अजाति sense. All schools have commented on these mantras and no charge of sectarianism is justified in such commentaries. I can show commentaries that interpret ब्राह्मण strictly as जाति. So let's not go into commentaries and stick to Niruka/Vyakarana. The skandapurana seems to contain this verse under reference found in a google search: जन्मना जायते शूद्रः । (स्कन्द पुराण०, नागर खण्ड अ० २३९ श्लो० ३१) Random blogs, Google Web Search (as opposed to Google Book Search), Wikipedia are not to be relied upon. -- Nityānanda Miśra Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India http://nmisra.googlepages.com 3/21/13V Subrahmanian On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Nityanand Misra wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:46 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote: Sorry for wrong keying in. Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अद्वैत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. It is not advaita that was sought to be portrayed but the upanishadic use of the word brahmana in the sense of not a jAti (caste) but a brahmajnani. Highly misleading. Firstly not a single quotation of yours like ब्रह्मविदो ब्राह्मणस्य (just a qualification of ब्राह्मण) or ब्राह्मणो भवति (and not ब्राह्मण उच्यते) give a definition of ब्राह्मण. Your understanding of Upanishads and Shankar Bhashya itself is suspect (actually without Paninian grammar which you claim to be deficient, even the commentary you are citing cannot be understood). Which is why I say - leave the commentaries alone and stick to standard tools - Nirukta and Vyakarana. I can cite other commentaries which interpret ब्राह्मण as जाति only, in all Upanishadic references. It only shows your unfamiliarity with the Vedantic usage of the word brAhmaNa. For the Bh.gitA 2.46 verse, the word 'brAhmaNasya' is commented upon by Madhwacharya thus: ब्रह्म अणतीति ब्राह्मणोऽपरोक्षज्ञानी। स हि ब्रह्म गच्छति। विजानत इति ज्ञानफलत्वं तस्य दर्शयति ।।2.46।। Madhusudana Saraswati: ...ब्रह्मतत्त्वं साक्षात्कृतवतो ब्राह्मणस्य ब्रह्मबुभूषोर्भवत्येव। Ramasukhdas (Hindi) जो परमात्मतत्त्वको जाननेवाला है और वेदों तथा शास्त्रोंके तत्त्वको भी जाननेवाला है, उस महापुरुषको यहाँ ब्राह्मणस्य विजानतः पदोंसे कहा गया है। The dozens of usage in the Mahabharata I referred to are also not in the sense of a brahmana jAti or veda vyutpanna but in the sense of a brahmajnani. There are many verses like this - e.g. यो वै युवाऽप्यधीयानस्तं देवाः स्थविरं विदुः ॥ They do not change the meaning of स्थविर. No epic or lexicon or शिष्टप्रयोग uses स्थविर for a young man. Please read पस्पशाह्निक, especially सिद्धे शब्दार्थसम्बन्धे. The pANinian work is only valid for shabadsAdhutva and not for vAchya-vAchaka bhAva sambandha; this is derived by the author according to the context. There is no greater shiShTA than the Shruti and Veda Vyasa. In the Mahabharata there are dozens of usages of the term brAhmaNa to mean the brahmajnAni/jIvanmukta. All these will not be wrong just because the pAninian meaning fails to explain this usage. The Upanishadic meaning / usages shown cannot be done away with and is quite popular. Uncorroborated claim. If it is popular, can you show examples in famous epics, lexicons, where ब्राह्मण is used in अजाति sense. As I said lexicons are not the authority here; only a guide for shabda/arthasAdhutva. The Upanishad, Veda Vyasa and other commentators of the traditions are valid authorities who have used/commented upon the word brAhmaNa in those contexts where the jAti is both inapplicable and wrong. In fact one Upanishadic reference to the word from the Br.Up. that I cited is having for its context the episode of Janaka becoming a BrahmajnAni and the term brahmaNa used to denote one. It is illogical to expect Janaka, a kShatriya, to qualify for the term by becoming a jAtibrahmaNa. If the pANinian rule does not allow the usage of the word brAhmaNa in the sense of a brahma jnAni, it, being a vedAnga, ceases to be so. Or we will have to hold that the Upanishads are not in the Sanskrit language but something else. subrahmanian.v 3/21/13Nityanand Misra On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33 PM, V Subrahmanian wrote: For the Bh.gitA 2.46 verse, the word 'brAhmaNasya' is commented upon by Madhwacharya thus: All this is totally irrelevant and out-of-context. Dr. Bhat has also advised you not to mix up sectarian commentaries and grammar. If you are still hell-bent on quoting from everything under the sun except the standard authority (grammar works), God help you. The questioner asked the व्युत्पत्ति of ब्राह्मण. I have shown the व्युत्पत्ति with the complete प्रक्रिया in Paninian system, the broadest and most encompassing grammar of both Vedic and Sanskrit. If you do not accept the authority of Panini, please show a different व्युत्पत्ति using ऐन्द्र, चान्द्र, कातन्त्र, or any other grammar. If you cannot show , please don't unnecessarily divert the thread. ब्राह्मणः = ब्रह्मणः सकाशात्सजातीयायाम्भार्यायामुत्पन्नः [बालमनोरमा ११५८] - show quoted text - 3/22/13श्रीमल्ललितालालितः On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote: Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अदौत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. ​That's correct. But, once people supporting different systems clarify that same word means different things in different systems, there will arise no confusion. Instead it will help vyutpatti. The question asked for vyutpatti, which is essentially 'knowledge of pada-shakti'. vyutpatti doesn't essentially needs to include vyAkaraNa-prakriyA, what to say about following a specific vyAkaraNa which too has varying interpretation. This shakti-GYAna or vyutpatti occurs by various means, including vyAkaraNa, koSha, shiShTa-prayoga, etc. Usage in upaniShad-s are no different in this case. They also ​generate shakti-GYAna. So, we have to accept both meanings as valid in different context. There is no need to be biased towards anyone. श्रीमल्ललितालालितः lalitAlAlitaH 3/22/13Nityanand Misra - show quoted text - Swamin I sense that political correctness is giving way to precise communication. I request you to answer the simple question भवतां मते किं नाम ब्राह्मणत्वम् ब्रह्मकुलोत्पन्नत्वम् (ब्राह्मणवीर्यात्सजातीयब्राह्मण्यामुत्पन्न इति ब्राह्मणः) ब्रह्मवित्त्वम् (ब्रह्माधीते ब्रह्म वेद वेति ब्राह्मणः) ब्रह्मकुलोत्पन्नत्वं च ब्रह्मवित्त्वं च (स्पष्टम्) किञ्चिदन्यदेव Please choose one option. Multiple choices or answers like "it might/can be", "it depends", "may be", "different types", "depending on situation" would be dodging the question. My answer is a clear (1). (2) is never acceptable to me. This is the traditional view of my Guru Parampara. 3/22/13श्रीमल्ललितालालितः श्रीमल्ललितालालितः www.lalitaalaalitah.com On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Nityanand Misra wrote: On Friday, March 22, 2013 12:41:07 PM UTC+8, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Hnbhat B.R. wrote: Confusing between the two प्रक्रिया-s of Grammar and अदौत would not be a scholarly discussion and mixing them will not at all help such discussion. ​That's correct. But, once people supporting different systems clarify that same word means different things in different systems, there will arise no confusion. Instead it will help vyutpatti. The question asked for vyutpatti, which is essentially 'knowledge of pada-shakti'. vyutpatti doesn't essentially needs to include vyAkaraNa-prakriyA, what to say about following a specific vyAkaraNa which too has varying interpretation. This shakti-GYAna or vyutpatti occurs by various means, including vyAkaraNa, koSha, shiShTa-prayoga, etc. Usage in upaniShad-s are no different in this case. They also ​generate shakti-GYAna. So, we have to accept both meanings as valid in different context. There is no need to be biased towards anyone. Swamin I sense that political correctness is giving way to precise communication. I request you to answer the simple question भवतां मते किं नाम ब्राह्मणत्वम् ​ब्राह्मणत्वं नैकविधं मम मते ।​ ब्रह्मकुलोत्पन्नत्वम् (ब्राह्मणवीर्यात्सजातीयब्राह्मण्यामुत्पन्न इति ब्राह्मणः) वैदिककर्म्मकाण्डानुकूलं​ ब्राह्मणत्वमेतदेव स्मृत्यादिपरिपुष्टम् ।​ कर्म्मकाण्डिषु आर्य्यसमाजाननुकूलेषु वैदिकेषु प्रसिद्धिरेतस्यार्थस्य । मुख्यमेतद्ब्राह्मण्यं जन्ममूलम् । ब्रह्मवित्त्वम् (ब्रह्माधीते ब्रह्म वेद वेति ब्राह्मणः) ​ब्रह्मविदो ब्रह्मत्वं तु परमहंसबृहदारण्यकाद्युपनिषदुद्घुष्टं महाभारतादिप्रमाणैश्च प्रतिपादितं मुख्यतमम् । ​ ब्रह्मकुलोत्पन्नत्वं च ब्रह्मवित्त्वं च (स्पष्टम्) ​ब्रह्मकुलोत्पन्नत्वे सति ब्रह्मवित्त्वं यदि विवक्षितं तदैतस्मिन्नर्थे न मया कुत्रचिदपि प्रमाणं दृष्टम् । अब्रह्मविदो ब्रह्मकुलोत्थस्याब्राह्मणत्वप्रसङ्गात् ।​ Please choose one option. Multiple choices or answers like "it might/can be", "it depends", "may be", "different types", "depending on situation" would be dodging the question. ​शब्दशक्तिज्ञानं हि व्युत्पत्तिपदार्थः । तच्च न व्याकरणादेव । कोषप्रयोगादीनामपि तद्धेतुत्वस्य सर्व्वैः स्वीकारात् । अन्यथा गमनशीलमात्रस्य गोत्वादिप्रसङ्गात् डित्थादेश्चावाचकत्वापत्तेः । किञ्च शक्तिरपि पदस्य न नियन्त्रिता । देशविशेषेऽन्यार्थप्रयुक्तस्यापि पदस्य भिन्नार्थवाचकत्वेनेतरदेशे प्रसिद्धेः । अथापि सर्व्वे सर्व्वार्थवाचकाः इति शब्दमीमांसकानां प्रसिद्धिः । अत एव वाच्यद्वयं प्रदर्श्य तयोरेकस्यैव पक्षपातित्वं कथं मे कल्प्यते । एतत्तु बह्वर्थवाचकतां पदानां जानतो मे न सम्भवति । आग्रहमप्यत्र प्रदर्शयतः व्याकरणशास्त्रमात्राभिज्ञता वेदतिरस्कारश्च प्रदर्शितं भवति । अनभिज्ञता तु बह्वर्थवाचकत्वस्य प्रसक्तैव । ​ My answer is a clear (1). (2) is never acceptable to me. This is the traditional view of my Guru Parampara. ​वैष्णवानां परम्परा कर्म्मोपासनप्रधाना । ते चाधिकारसापेक्षे । अधिकारश्रैष्ठ्यञ्च जन्ममूलकब्राह्मण्यजनितम् इति तेषां शास्त्रानुकूलमाग्रहः । नात्र परमहंसानां विप्रतिपत्तिः । कर्म्मोपासनाधिकारिष्वित्थमेव तेषां वाचः प्रसरन्ति । अथापि ज्ञानप्रधानानामौपनिषदां कर्म्मतत्साधनत्यागैकव्रतानां नास्ति वैष्णवानामिव धीः । ते हि उपनिषदनुकूलं कर्म्मतत्साधनराहित्यमाहितब्राह्मण्याद्यभिमानत्यागात्मकमेव मुख्यब्राह्मणत्वेन पश्यन्ति । एतच्च ब्राह्मणत्वमनाहितत्वेन बन्धहेतुकर्म्मादित्यागानुकूल्येन मोक्षहेतुः इति मुख्यम् । प्रमाणादिकं तु वैद्यनाथेन प्रागेव प्रदर्शितमौपनिषदब्राह्मणत्वे । 3/22/13hnbhat ​That's correct. But, once people supporting different systems clarify that same word means different things in different systems, there will arise no confusion. Instead it will help vyutpatti. The question asked for vyutpatti, which is essentially 'knowledge of pada-shakti'. vyutpatti doesn't essentially needs to include vyAkaraNa-prakriyA, what to say about following a specific vyAkaraNa which too has varying interpretation. This shakti-GYAna or vyutpatti occurs by various means, including vyAkaraNa, koSha, shiShTa-prayoga, etc. Usage in upaniShad-s are no different in this case. They also ​generate shakti-GYAna. So, we have to accept both meanings as valid in different context. There is no need to be biased towards anyone. There are other means to decide meaning in addition to shaktigraha: "शक्तिग्रहं व्याकरणोपमानकोषाक्तवाक्याद्व्यवहारतश्च। वाक्यस्य शेषाद्विवृतेर्वदन्ति सान्निध्यतः सिद्धपदस्य वृद्धाः॥" धातुप्रकृतिप्रत्ययादीनां शक्तिग्रहो व्याकरणादभवति क्वचित्तु सति बाधके त्यज्यतेऽपि। This is the decision.of Naiyayika-s. And in addition, in the case of doubt, there are some other means to decide the purport of the topic in the Vedic passages: उपक्रमोपसंहारौ अभ्यासोऽपूर्वता फलम् । अर्थवादोपपत्ती च लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिर्णये ॥ http://shiva.iiit.ac.in/SabdaSaarasvataSarvasvam/index.php/%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%83 And more general : संयोगो विप्रयोगश्च साहचर्यं विरोधिता। अर्थः प्रकरणं लिङ्गं शब्दस्यान्यस्य सन्निधिः।। सामर्थ्यमौचिती देशः कालो व्यक्तिः स्वरादयः। शब्दार्थस्यानवच्छेदे विशेषस्मृतिहेतवः।। the above factors are considered to decide the meaning in the case of doubt, in the case single word. But not isolated usage is taken up and generalized. नैकपदानि निर्ब्रूयात् is the direction Yaska in his Nirukta against such attempt, in the case of Vedic usages. Given the above factors for deciding the meaning of words, now coming to the original question of व्युत्पाति which is obviously required by the member as his clarification shows: ब्राह्मणः इत्यस्य पदस्य व्युत्पत्तिः कीद्रुशा ? it is show he wanted the derivation of the word and as clarified later in reply to my query: ब्रह्मम् जानाति इति ब्राह्मणः इति श्रूयते! कित्न्तु पूर्वोक्तरीत्या कथम् ब्राह्मणत्वम् वक्तुम् शक्यते? जानाति इति ज्नः(समीचीनेन type कर्तुम् न शक्यते) इत्येवम् खलु स्वीक्रियते? तथा हि ब्रह्मज्नानेन एव कैवल्यम् उत्पद्यते! कैवल्ये जाते कथम् ब्राह्मणः इति व्यववह्रियते? ब्रह्मपदस्य वाच्यार्थम् त्यक्त्वा लाक्षणिकः अर्थः विद्यते किल?सः अर्थः कः? इति नैकाः सशयाः!! The above is his intention. Instead, ब्रह्म जानाति इति ब्राह्मणः - जा The confusion itself arose between the वैयाकरणव्युत्पत्ति and प्रक्रिया with the वेदान्तप्रक्रिया which are from different domains. It should be naturally according to वैयाकरणप्रक्रिया and व्युत्पत्ति, ब्रह्मज्ञः and not ब्राह्मणः। Very reasonable doubt. How it can be called the व्युत्पत्ति for the word ब्राह्मणः? The different व्युत्पत्ति you suggested and from the quotations from the commentators from the वेदान्त school, will increase वेदान्तशास्त्रव्युत्पत्ति of the member. But not clarify the doubt which was asked for. वेदान्तव्युत्पत्ति given for the word is called the विवरण for the word, i.e. one of the शक्तिग्रह-s or विवृति as listed in the verse from Bhashapariccheda. And not व्याकरण at all and it need not be the व्युत्पत्ति or प्रक्रिया of वैयाकरण-s which is offered. And according to वेदान्तप्रक्रिया itself, ब्रह्मन् THE TRUE nature of the Soul either जीवात्मा or परमात्मा and is beyond the प्रक्रिया of ज्ञान i.e. विषय for any knowing act. Itself ब्रह्म जानाति इति ब्राह्मणः is questioned by the member as you can see above. Only by secondary meaning one can use the word ब्राह्मण which is beyond the वैयाकरण व्युत्पत्ति of the word. and confusing with the वैयाकरणव्युत्पत्ति gave rise to the word ब्रह्मज्ञ which Subrahmanya's quotations only did not help to clear his doubt and only increase it by confirming it with quotations. This was cautioned by me in my earlier post itself. The member himself has not turned after it to the thread. And the explanation offered in Vedanta, has been suggested by वैयाकरणव्युत्पत्ति in my earlier post itself: ब्रह्म वेदस्तमधीते वा सः। इति भरतः॥ and the word ब्रह्मन् itself means as explained in my first post. And one more misleading interpretation of जाति is the cause of problem. जाति is defined to the words category of meaning, in so far as शब्दशास्त्र is concerned, while जाति seems to differentiate between the वर्ण-s as in पुरुषसूक्त and many other related literature. There is the definition of शूद्र in वेदान्तसूत्र which differenciatesशूद्र who doesn't have the chance to श्रवण of वेद-s as I have heard of it. \ १,३.३२ । शुगस्य तदनादरश्रवणात्तदाद्रवणात्सूच्यते हि । १,३.३३ । क्षत्रियत्वगतेश्च । १,३.३४ । उत्तरत्र चैत्ररथेन लिङ्गात् । १,३.३५ । संस्कारपरामर्शात्तदभावाभिलापाच्च । १,३.३६ । तदभावनिर्धारणे च प्रवृत्तेः । १,३.३७ । श्रवणाध्ययनार्थप्रतिषेधात् । १,३.३८ । (Please correct spell errors if any found on the web page from which I copied above) which is disputed in the शास्त्र and above commentaries on them which have their own objective अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा where itself the differentiation from the twin शास्त्र begins whether श्रवण is needed for ब्रह्मज्ञान or not as proclaimed by आत्मा वा अरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यश्चोपपत्तिभिः। and other similar श्रुति-s, whether वेदाध्ययन is prerequisite for वेदान्ताध्ययन or not. which yourself are familiar more than me. अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा has the objective of knowing चोदनालक्षणो धर्मः। which is the domain of ब्राह्मण texts while उपनिषद् texts have their own agenda as VedantaSutra-s tried to organize.Anyhow, श्रवण-मनन-निदिध्यासन, विधि-s apply to the ब्रह्मन् - the तत्त्व, target if ब्रह्मसूत्र-s as the name itself suggests. But only श्रवण and मनन is possible in the the world of the words as the तत्त्व is beyond these. as proclaimed यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह, and तदेव व्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते which includes all the three. and जाति of वैयाकरण-s defined as । आकृतिग्रहणा जातिर्लिङ्गानां च न सर्वभाक्। सकृदाख्यातनिर्गाह्या गोत्रं च चरणैः सह। and the सूत्र ब्राह्मोऽजातौ has been technically interpreted so as to include all the possible shades of meanings. Here one can see the different implications of जाति: http://sanskritdocuments.org/learning_tools/sarvanisutrani/4.1.63.htm according to Nyasa and Padamanjari. Now, the question is when व्युत्पत्ति of वैयाकरण-s for the word is requested, in increasing the व्युत्पत्ति of वेदान्तशास्त्र in उपनिषद् is a different thing. And clearing his doubt in the व्युत्पत्ति is postponed by the requester himself I suppose. It is said आम्रान् पृष्टः कोविदारानाचष्टे Not anything like the contradiction between व्याकरणशास्त्रव्युत्पत्ति and वेदान्तशास्त्रव्युत्पत्ति which are independent domains. But only two are different and no need to make confusion as the member got confused. Lastly it is an accepted fact काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम्॥ whether one accepts their authority or not. ... - show quoted text - 3/23/13श्रीमल्ललितालालितः श्रीमल्ललितालालितः www.lalitaalaalitah.com 2013/3/22 Hnbhat B.R. There are other means to decide meaning in addition to shaktigraha: ​I don't think the following verse said this. The verse means that there are various means of shakti-graha, which again is called vyutpatti. vyAkaraNa, upamAna, koSha, AptavAkya, vyavahAra, vAkyasheSha, vivR^iti, proximity of a known word are means to shakti-graha. ​ "शक्तिग्रहं व्याकरणोपमानकोषाक्तवाक्याद्व्यवहारतश्च। वाक्यस्य शेषाद्विवृतेर्वदन्ति सान्निध्यतः सिद्धपदस्य वृद्धाः॥" is the direction Yaska in his Nirukta against such attempt, in the case of Vedic usages. Given the above factors for deciding the meaning of words, now coming to the original question of व्युत्पाति which is obviously required by the member as his clarification shows: ब्राह्मणः इत्यस्य पदस्य व्युत्पत्तिः कीद्रुशा ? it is show he wanted the derivation of the word and as clarified later in reply to my query: ब्रह्मम् जानाति इति ब्राह्मणः इति श्रूयते! कित्न्तु पूर्वोक्तरीत्या कथम् ब्राह्मणत्वम् वक्तुम् शक्यते? जानाति इति ज्नः(समीचीनेन type कर्तुम् न शक्यते) इत्येवम् खलु स्वीक्रियते? तथा हि ब्रह्मज्नानेन एव कैवल्यम् उत्पद्यते! कैवल्ये जाते कथम् ब्राह्मणः इति व्यववह्रियते? ब्रह्मपदस्य वाच्यार्थम् त्यक्त्वा लाक्षणिकः अर्थः विद्यते किल?सः अर्थः कः? इति नैकाः सशयाः!! ​ I didn't get any such mail where he clarifies this thing. I've only one post from him in my inbox. Moreover, showing prakR^iti, pratyaya, etc. according to vyAkaraNa is not called shakti-graha, it is means to shakti-graha. So, if he just wanted to know shabdaniShpatti-prakriyA, then he must not use word 'vyutpatti' in title of this thread. Clearly, he any many other do not know meaning of word 'vyutpatti'. ​ Very reasonable doubt. How it can be called the व्युत्पत्ति for the word ब्राह्मणः? The different व्युत्पत्ति you suggested and from the quotations from the commentators from the वेदान्त school, will increase वेदान्तशास्त्रव्युत्पत्ति of the member. But not clarify the doubt which was asked for. ​As we don't see any second post from him, V's continuation with aupaniShada use of word can not be blamed. He is just showing shaktigraha from vaidika-prayoga. And his prayoga is supported by upakrama, etc. Moreover, as upaniShad-s use the word for any person who is knower of brahman, upaniShad-s are generating graha(knowledge) of shakti of brAhmaNa-pada. So, whether a person becomes vedAnta-shAstra-vyutpanna or not is another talk, he will definitely gain brAhmaNa-shabda-vyutpatti. ​ And according to वेदान्तप्रक्रिया itself, ब्रह्मन् THE TRUE nature of the Soul either जीवात्मा or परमात्मा and is beyond the प्रक्रिया of ज्ञान i.e. विषय for any knowing act. ​brahman is viShaya or not is something subtle. advaitin-s don't accept brahman viShya in the sense jaDa is accepted. But, they definitely accept it viShaya of vR^itti, otherwise what is the use of word brahma or mahAvAkya-s. ​ Itself ब्रह्म जानाति इति ब्राह्मणः is questioned by the member as you can see above. ​Yes, I just came to know by your post. But, I didn't get it myself. ​ Only by secondary meaning one can use the word ब्राह्मण which is beyond the वैयाकरण व्युत्पत्ति of the word. ​That's not a problem. It is not always needed to seek help of vyAkaraNa to know shakti of every pada in every meaning. ​ according to Nyasa and Padamanjari. Now, the question is when व्युत्पत्ति of वैयाकरण-s for the word is requested, in increasing the व्युत्पत्ति of वेदान्तशास्त्र in उपनिषद् is a different thing. And clearing his doubt in the व्युत्पत्ति is postponed by the requester himself I suppose. It is said ​Already replied. ​ आम्रान् पृष्टः कोविदारानाचष्टे अत्राम्र एव पृष्ट इति निश्चयो नास्ति । अत एव कोविदारविषयकोत्तरस्यायुक्ततैव कुतः । ​ काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम्॥ whether one accepts their authority or not. ​कणभु्क्पाणिन्योश्शास्त्रस्योपकारकत्वेऽपि तन्मतीयं सर्व्वमेवाविप्रतिपन्नम् इति कुतो नियम्यते । किञ्च वेदस्मृत्यादिविरोधे कुत एतयोः प्रमाणताऽपि । अपि च वादिनं प्रति परशास्त्रस्य प्रामाण्यं कुतः स्यात्कुत्रापि ।​ 2/16/15BIPIN KUMAR JHA मान्याः काणादं पाणिनीयं च सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् - इति कुत्र लभ्यते On Monday, March 18, 2013 at 9:12:18 PM UTC+5:30, sreedasan wrote: ब्राह्मणः इत्यस्य पदस्य व्युत्पत्तिः कीद्रुशा ? shuklavedant1998@gmail.com - Switch accounts - Desktop