Different morphological interpretation of a Sanskrit compound word would imply signifi cant difference in its semantic indication. The Mahayana concept of Obstruction of Knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa) can be explained differently, according to two compounding principles. The tatpuruṣa format of Jñeyāvaraṇa is read as “Obstruction OF Knowledge”, while the karmadhāraya reading is “Obstruction BY Knowledge”. Apparently, they have different emphasis. Some modern scholarship in Buddhist Studies is tried to argue that, the two readings are in logical contradiction, thus, they are incompatible. However, the purpose of this article is tired to suggest that the conclusion above is still debatable. This article will agree that, although the two readings have different emphasis, they are not merely logically, and hermeneutically, compatible, but also mutually supportive. The argumentation is based on firstly, the analysis of the direct and indirect logical implications of the concept; and secondly, three “counter cases”, from East Asian and Tibetan presentations of various intellectual traditions of Mahayana.
