back to questions
Yoga-sūtra with Vyāsa's bhāṣya · 1.8
7 viparyayo mithyājñānam atadrūpapratiṣṭham
Translation. Misconception (viparyaya) is false cognition (mithyājñāna), not grounded in the actual form of its object.
Grammar check: 3 words pass / 0 flagged / 0 beyond the checkerPāṇini-verified
Every word's claimed grammar is re-derived with vidyut-prakriya, software implementing Pāṇini's rules. Flags are shown, never hidden; some are the text taking epic or Vedic liberties the classical rules do not generate.
Word by word
| surface | lemma | grammar |
|---|
| viparyayaḥ | viparyaya | pass |
| mithyājñānam | mithyājñāna | pass |
| atadrūpapratiṣṭham | atadrūpapratiṣṭha | pass |
How the commentary settled it
Where the verse alone is ambiguous, the reading follows Vyāsa's commentary; the deciding lines are quoted below each decision.
Take viparyayaḥ as the definiendum and mithyājñānam as its predicate definition: viparyaya is an epistemic misconception or false cognition, not merely a ‘reversal.’ The commentary treats it as something excluded from pramāṇa because it is sublated by pramāṇa.→ ‘Misconception (viparyaya) is false cognition (mithyājñāna).’
ys [1, 2, 3, 4]sa kasmān na pramāṇam.
yataḥ pramāṇena bādhyate.
bhūtārthaviṣayatvāt pramāṇasya.
tatra pramāṇena bādhanam apramāṇasya dṛṣṭam.
Why is it not valid cognition? Because it is sublated by valid cognition, since valid cognition has an existent reality as its object. In such a case, the sublation of non-valid cognition by valid cognition is observed.
ys [6]seyaṃ pañcaparvā bhavaty avidyā.
This ignorance has five divisions.
Construe atadrūpapratiṣṭham as denying that the cognition is grounded in the actual form of its object. The pronoun tad is therefore understood anaphorically of the object known, and rūpa denotes its actual character. The commentary’s contrast between double-moon and single-moon perception supports this rather than the unrelated sense ‘formless.’→ ‘not grounded in the actual form of its object’
ys [2, 3, 4, 5]yataḥ pramāṇena bādhyate.
bhūtārthaviṣayatvāt pramāṇasya.
tatra pramāṇena bādhanam apramāṇasya dṛṣṭam.
tadyathā dvicandradarśanaṃ sadviṣayeṇaikacandradarśanena bādhyata iti.
Because it is sublated by valid cognition, since valid cognition has an existent reality as its object. The sublation of non-valid cognition by valid cognition is observed—for example, seeing two moons is sublated by seeing one moon, whose object is real.
Analyze atadrūpapratiṣṭha as a tatpuruṣa complex: privative a- negates tad-rūpa-pratiṣṭha, whose final member has a locative relation to tad-rūpa (‘established in that object’s form’). This preserves the commentary-supported scope of the negation.→ A tatpuruṣa compound ending in pratiṣṭha: na tad-rūpe pratiṣṭham.
ys []
Both mithyājñānam and atadrūpapratiṣṭham are neuter nominative singular predicate expressions. Although either -am form is morphologically compatible with the accusative in isolation, the nominative viparyayaḥ and the definitional syntax require nominative predication.→ Neuter nominative singular for both forms.
ys []
Classify mithyājñāna as an inflected tatpuruṣa rather than an avyayībhāva: its semantic head is jñāna and the compound bears ordinary neuter nominal inflection. Its sense ‘false conception’ is also explicitly recorded in the dictionary [MW s.v. mithyājñāna, 817,1].→ Tatpuruṣa: mithyā jñānam, ‘false cognition.’
ys []
Vyāsa's commentary on this unit
1sa kasmān na pramāṇam.
2yataḥ pramāṇena bādhyate.
3bhūtārthaviṣayatvāt pramāṇasya.
4tatra pramāṇena bādhanam apramāṇasya dṛṣṭam.
5tadyathā dvicandradarśanaṃ sadviṣayeṇaikacandradarśanena bādhyata iti.
6seyaṃ pañcaparvā bhavaty avidyā.
7avidyāsmitārāgadveṣābhiniveśāḥ kleśā iti.
8eta eva svasaṃjñābhis tamo moho mahāmohas tāmisro 'ndhatāmisra iti.
9ete cittamalaprasaṅgenābhidhāsyante.
101.8
11śabdajñānānupātī vastuśūnyo vikalpaḥ