Karmadharayahnika: Analysis of the topics
1.1.1. Before taking up the first Vt. Patanjali discusses the meaning of the term samahara. He first raises the question whether we should take samahara to mean grouping together' (action noun) or rather that which has been grouped together' (passive sense) (Bh. No. 1). If we take it in the passive sense, the difficulty is that we cannot justify the cp. pancakumari. This cp. would mean five girls grouped together. Here the constituent kumari cannot be regarded as upasarjana either by P. 1.2.43 or 44. Consequently, the final vowel of the constituent kumari cannot be shortened by P. 1.2.48 (Bh. No. 3). Therefore the term samāhāra should rather be taken as an action noun (Bh. No. 4). Now pancakumari is to be technically analysed as [(pancan+am) + (kumarl + am)] + *samahara + sU. Here, no matter whether the case ending of the cp. as a whole varies, the constituents retain one and the same case ending (ekavibhakti), namely, that of the genitive. Thus kumari receives the designation upasarjana by P. 1.2.44, and we have no difficulty in deriving the correct form (see Note (2) (b) (1)).
Patanjali's next question is, what do we mean by saying that samahara means samaharana grouping together' (Bh. Nos 5-13)? Patanjali successively mentions five interpretations:
(1) Grouping together means heaping together (Bh. No 6). This meaning works in the case of pancapuli: a grouping together of five bundles, but it cannot work in the case of pancagavam: 'a grouping together of five cows', because cows are not heapable (Bh. No. 7). Therefore we must look for another interpretation.
(2) Grouping together means grouping together in view of some purposive activity (Bh. No. 8). This meaning works in the case of pancapuli and pancagavam, since bundles and cows can be grouped together in view of a purposive activity like buying. Here Patanjali takes the point of view of the speaker who knows on beforehand for what purpose the group has been formed. But the difficulty is, that this purpose which lies behind the formation of the group cannot be clear to the listener from the mere use of the samaharadvigu. The speaker has to mention a verb indicating the purposive activity, otherwise the listener will simply not understand that the cp. conveys samahara (Bh. No. 9). Therefore, since this interpretation is not satisfactory either, Patanjali proposes another interpretation.
(3) Grouping together means bringing near to each other (Bh. No. 10). According to this interpretation, we may speak of a samahara as long as we see objects near to each other, even if a purposive activity responsible for the grouping is not apparent or not indicated by the use of a word standing for that purpose. This meaning works in the case of pancapuli and pancagavam, but not in the case of pancagrami: the grouping together of five villages (Bh. No. 11). Obviously, villages, being non-movable objects, cannot be brought near to each other. Therefore, again, we must look for another interpretation.
(4) Grouping together means grouping together in view of resemblance (Bh. No. 12). The root hr may, after all, mean to resemble, as, for instance, in matur anuharati: he resembles his mother'. According to this interpretation, we may speak of samahara, as long as we observe some resemblance in the items to be grouped. This meaning works in pancapuli. pancagavam and pancagrami. Objects may resemble each other whether they are movable or not. Thus the objection stated in Bh. No. 11 has been answered.
In Bh. No. 12 Patanjali again takes the point of view of the speaker. He thinks that the speaker has already knowledge of the resemblance between the items to be grouped before he uses cps like pancapuli. For the speaker, this knowledge does not come from the use of words, but from observation. Therefore, since he has the idea of samahara, i. e. resemblance, he can form the samaharadvigus pancopuli etc. by P. 2.1.51. From the speaker's point of view, there is no need of a word specifying the point of resemblance. But the objection raised against Bh. No. 8 applies here also: how can the listener have the idea of samahara from the mere use of a cp. like pancapuli? After all, why does a speaker use words? The answer is, to convey his intention to the listener. Now the difficulty is, that the listener cannot grasp the idea of samahara, i.e. resemblance, unless the speaker, in addition to the cp., uses a word specifying the resemblance. In the next Bhasya Patanjali admits that the objection is valid.
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Manage Wishlist