Dear Professors Desnitskaya and Veille,
I hope you don't mind if I chime in. I have no familiarity with this text, or indeed with this literature. However, I have an ongoing
interest both in relative clauses and the placement of the coordinators `ca' and `vaa'. I would be interested to know what you or
others might think of the following analysis of the two sentences mentioned. Please see below.
Cordially yours,
Brendan
ANALYSIS
Below I comment on the syntax of each sentence and then how the two sentences might be taken together.
1. Syntax of the two sentences:
In the syntactic parse below,k RC stands for relative clause and NP1 for nominative noun phrase. I have broken up the sandhi in the parse to make the structure clearer.
1.1 Sentence 1:
idam eva mūrtaṃ yad anyat prāṇāc ca yaś cāyam antarātmannākāśaḥ (2.3.4) |
Parse:
[NP1 idam eva] [NP1 mūrtaṃ ] [RC yad anyat prāṇāc ca ] [RC yaś ca ayam antarātmann ākāśaḥ ]
Because of the indeterminacy of which constituent is being predicated
of which, we have two translations, depending on whether "idam eva" is
taken as the subject or "mūrtaṃ" is.
Case 1: "idam eva" is the subject
Literal translation:
Only that both which is different from prāṇa and which is the space within the self is mūrta.
Less literal translation:
Only that which is both different from prāṇa and is the space within the self is mūrta.
Case 2: "mūrtaṃ" is the subject
Literal translation:
mūrta is indeed that both which is different from prāṇa and which is the space within the self.
Less literal translation:
mūrta is indeed that which is both different from prāṇa and is the space within the self is mūrta.
Remark:
1. "ca":
We have two constituents each marked by "ca". (Compare the double
use of "et" both in Latin and in French.) Typically "ca" appears
as the second word in the constituent which it is serving to
coordinate, as in the second relative clause above and as in the
second sentence. What is unusual, then, is the appearance of the
first "ca", not right after "yad", but at the end of the relative
clause. It seems to me that I have seen the occurrence of "ca" in
positions after the first position, but I have no record of having
seen this. Nonetheless this seems plausible in light of the
parallel with the second sentence.
1.2 Second sentence:
athāmūrtaṃ prāṇaś ca yaś cāyam antarātmannākāśaḥ (2.3.5) |
Parse:
amūrtaṃ [NP1 prāṇaś ca ] [RC yaś ca ayam antarātmannākāśaḥ ]
Translation
amūrta is both praa.na and the space within the self.
Remark:
1. Here the coordination is the typical one.
2. Both sentences
Let us distinguish between a word's domain of application and what it is either true or false of. The domain of application of the
English adjective "happy" is, say, the set of human beings. (This is a simplification.) The word is true of some human beings and not of
others. Outside of its domain of application are inanimate objects (e.g., stones) and abstract objects (e.g., numbers).
It looks as though the pair of sentences give exactly this information about "amūrta". Both sentences identify with the relative clause
"yaś ca ayam antarātmannākāśaḥ" the domain of application. The first sentence identifies what "mūrta" is true of, the second sentence identifies "amūrta" is true of, which in effect tells you what "mūrta" is false of.
On 2/28/25 09:38, Evgeniya Desnitskaya via INDOLOGY wrote:
Dear Christophe,
Thank you for your response.
>>>it is like if some correlative tasmād (usually skipped)
Yes, it makes sense to suggest a skipped pronoun in this phrase.
May be you know some studies on this kind of ellipsis in similar texts?
Best,
Evgeniya
--
Evgeniya Desnitskaya
Institute of Oriental Manuscripts
Russian Academy of Sciences
----------------
Тема: [INDOLOGY] Bṛhadārṇayaka 2.3.4;
Dear Evgeniya,
I do not think that there is an inconsistency in the text. In
idam eva mūrtaṃ yad anyat prāṇāc ca yaś cāyam antarātmannākāśaḥ (2.3.4) |
it is like if some correlative tasmād (usually skipped) was implied between the first
ca and yaś ca
following the usual translations:
this mūrta is what is different from the prāṇa and [from] what (masc.) is this space within the self
It may be also possible to understand:
this mūrta is what is different from the prāṇa which is also this space within the self
therefore differently from
athāmūrtaṃ prāṇaś ca yaś cāyam antarātmannākāśaḥ (2.3.5) |
the
amūrta is the
prāṇa and what is this space within the self
(again, prāṇa = what is the space within the self)
Bw
Christophe
Dear all,
BAU 2.3 describes two Brahmans, namely mūrta and amūrta. From 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, we learn that
mūrta Brahman is different from vāyu and antarikṣa, while
amūrta Brahman is identical with them.
Further, BAU 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 provide a similar description on the adhyātma
level:
idam eva mūrtaṃ yad anyat prāṇāc ca yaś cāyam antar ātmann ākāśaḥ (2.3.4) |...
athāmūrtaṃ prāṇaś ca yaś cāyam antar ātmann ākāśaḥ (2.3.5) |
Similarly to the previous passage, mūrta Brahman differs from prāṇa
and amūrta is identical with it. Still, both Brahmans are identified with the space within the body, which is indeed inconsistent.
Olivelle translates BAU 2.3.4 as "distinct from breath and the space within the body" and does not comment on this point.
I wonder, if this inconsistency in the text can be explained? Is it simply a result of the oral transmission of the text, a kind of
lapsus linguae that became fixed in the normative form of BAU?
--
Evgeniya Desnitskaya
Institute of Oriental Manuscripts
Russian Academy of Sciences
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
--
Brendan S. Gillon email: brendan.gillon@mcgill.ca
Department of Linguistics
McGill University tel.: 001 514 398 4868
1085, Avenue Docteur-Penfield
Montreal, Quebec fax.: 001 514 398 7088
H3A 1A7 CANADA
webpage: https://sites.google.com/view/brendangillon?usp=sharing