Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Pali] Re: Saddaniiti XXV: 868

Expand Messages
  • Mahinda Palihawadana
    On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mahinda Palihawadana ... The analysis of ekaabhidhaane as ekatobhidhāne kātabbe (when a unified statement has to be
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mahinda Palihawadana
      <mahipal6@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > I always thought that 'ekaabhidhaane' meant "when speaking in the lump".
      >> This is a meaning that would be applicable in a non-technical context. Of
      >> course, this won't give the idea of constancy of tense.
      >>
      >
      >
      > After reading the parallel rule in the grammars of Kaccaayana and
      > Moggallaana, and the comments in Ryuupasiddhi and Payogasiddhi, ancillary
      > works of the Kaccaayana and Moggallaana schools respectively, I wish to add
      > a further comment on the rule under discussion.
      >
      > Kaccaayana’s rule (409) is: Sabbesam*ekaabhidhaane* paro puriso. The
      > vutti shows that the rule is completed by adding ‘yojetabbo’. It seems the
      > meaning then is: “When stating in one (verb) (the actions) of all
      > 'persons', the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used).”
      >
      > Aggavamsa seems to have sensed a loophole here. He sees that this does not
      > exclude the usage of one verb to indicate actions done at different times by
      > several 'persons'. So he adds the rider
      >
      > “ekaabhidhaane ti kimattha.m ? so ca pacati tva~n ca pacissasi aha~n ca
      > paci.m ti ettha bhinnakaalattaa maya.m pacimhaa ti na bhavatii ti
      > dassanattha.m.”
      >
      > For what reason (is it said), “when stating in one (verb)?” (It is) to
      > show that where “so ca pacati”, “tva~n ca pacissasi” and “aha~n ca
      > paci.m” (are the concerned sentences) ( reducing them to) “maya.m
      > pacimha”does not occur, because they pertain to different tenses.
      >
      > In view of this, he seems to take the meaning of the rule to be as follows:
      > “When stating in one (verb) (the actions of several 'persons' done at the
      > same time) the later ‘person’/ the last ‘person’ (should be used). “ This
      > will prohibit the use of one verb to indicate actions done by different
      > ‘persons’ at different times. He seems to take ‘eka’ as signifying one verb
      > as well as one time, i.e. tense.
      >
      > All this becomes very clear when we look at the comment of the
      > Ruupasiddhi :
      >
      > *441*.*Sabbesamekābhidhāne paro puriso*.
      >
      > Sabbesaṃ paṭhamamajjhimānaṃ, paṭhamuttamānaṃ, majjhimuttamānaṃ tiṇṇaṃ vā
      > purisānaṃ ekatobhidhāne kātabbe paro puriso yojetabbo. Ekakālānamevābhidhāne
      > cāyaṃ. So ca pacati, tvañca pacasīti pariyāyappasaṅge *tumhe pacathā*ti
      > bhavati. Evaṃ so ca pacati, ahañca pacāmīti *mayaṃ pacāma,* tathā tvañca
      > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma,* so ca pacati, tvañca pacasi, ahañca
      > pacāmi, *mayaṃ pacāma*. Evaṃ sabbattha yojetabbaṃ.
      >
      > *Ekābhidhāne*ti kimatthaṃ? ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi, ahaṃ paciṃ’’
      > ettha bhinnakālattā ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ti na bhavati.
      >
      > “In the case of all persons, i.e., in the case of the pa.thama and the
      > uttama, of the majjhima and uttama, or of all three of them, when it is
      > necessary to make a unified statement, the later ‘person’ must be used. This
      > is (applicable) only in a statement (about actions expressed) in the same
      > tense. In the event that the order (of sentences) is “so ca pacati” and
      > “tvañca pacasi” it (the unified statement) is “tumhe pacatha”. Similarly
      > “so ca pacati”, “ahañca pacāmi” becomes *“*mayaṃ pacāma”*. *Likewise* “*tvañca
      > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” become s “mayaṃ pacāma”, and “so ca pacati, tvañca
      > pacasi, ahañca pacāmi” becomes “mayaṃ pacāma*”*. This usage is to be
      > followed everywhere (i.e., without exception).
      >
      > Why “unified” statement? (It is because) ‘‘So ca pacati, tvañca pacissasi,
      > ahaṃ paciṃ’’ does not become ‘‘mayaṃ pacimhā’’ due to (the verbs concerned)
      > being of different tenses.
      >
      The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a unified
      statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.

      The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
      'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness from
      person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being endorsed by
      Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana tradition..

      Mahinda

      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim Anderson
      Dear Mahinda, Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate further
      Message 2 of 14 , Nov 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mahinda,

        Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion
        of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate
        further with the help of the Ruupasiddhi. I think you've dealt
        adequately with the difficulties of the wording in the sutta athough
        questions still remain in my mind about 'ekaabhidhaane'. But enough
        has been said for now and it is time to set aside these lingering
        questions for later. It does seem though that many (if not all) the
        grammatical suttas present some degree of difficulty. The next 3
        suttas relate to the personal endings as well which I have started to
        look at but here again I'm running into trouble with the term
        'tulyaadhikara.ne' just like with 'ekaabhidhaane'.

        Jim

        << The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a
        unified
        statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.

        The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
        'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness
        from
        person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being
        endorsed by
        Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana
        tradition.. >>
      • Mahinda Palihawadana
        Dear Jim, Thanks. Yes, I think we have not yet hit upon an acceptable translation for ekaabhdhaane . None of the suggestions I made were meant to be accurate
        Message 3 of 14 , Nov 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Jim,

          Thanks. Yes, I think we have not yet hit upon an acceptable translation for
          'ekaabhdhaane'. None of the suggestions I made were meant to be accurate
          translations, only broad hints at what I thought was the meaning.

          The reason why these suttas are difficult is the tendency of the authors,
          who clearly follow the style and methods of the Sanskrit grammarians, to go
          to such lengths to state a rule concisely. There s a saying that to a
          'suutra-kaara' the reduction of a syllable is as great a joy as the birth of
          a son. Packing so much meaning into 'eka' looks like a result of this
          fondness for abbreviation.

          The meaning of tulya- and bhinna- adhikara.na that I am familiar with is the
          one that is used with reference to adjectives. An adj. which agrees with its
          substantive in number, gender and case (e.g., 'setaani' in "setaani
          padumaani") is aclled a "tulyaadhikara.na visesa.na". On the other hand an
          adjective or a word doing an adjectival function, but does not agree in the
          above-mentioned manner (e.g. 'assakassa' in "assakassa visaye": "in the
          region of Assaka") is called a "bhinnaadhikara.na vises.na". Let us see how
          these words occur in the next sutta of Saddaniiti.
          Best wishes.

          Mahinda

          On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

          >
          >
          > Dear Mahinda,
          >
          > Thank-,ou. I very much appreciate your contribution to the discussion
          > of Sd 868 and the time and effort you have taken to investigate
          > further with the help of the Ruupasiddhi. I think you've dealt
          > adequately with the difficulties of the wording in the sutta athough
          > questions still remain in my mind about 'ekaabhidhaane'. But enough
          > has been said for now and it is time to set aside these lingering
          > questions for later. It does seem though that many (if not all) the
          > grammatical suttas present some degree of difficulty. The next 3
          > suttas relate to the personal endings as well which I have started to
          > look at but here again I'm running into trouble with the term
          > 'tulyaadhikara.ne' just like with 'ekaabhidhaane'.
          >
          > Jim
          >
          >
          > << The analysis of 'ekaabhidhaane' as "ekatobhidhāne kātabbe" (when a
          > unified
          > statement has to be made) clears up the problem as regards that word.
          >
          > The idea of constancy of tense cannot really be got out of 'eka' in
          > 'ekaabhidhaane'. I think it is a projection of the idea of oneness
          > from
          > person to tense. Its necessity, however, is apparent in it being
          > endorsed by
          > Buddhappiya the erudite author of Ruupasiddhi of the Kaccaayana
          > tradition.. >>
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jim Anderson
          Dear Mahinda, There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
          Message 4 of 14 , Nov 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Mahinda,

            There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate
            and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
            "ekaabhidhaane" such as the Kaccaayanasuttaniddesa,
            Kaccaayanava.n.nanaa, and the Nyaasa with its two .tiikaas but that
            will have to be left for another time.

            Currently, I have some other more pressing work to do and don't have a
            lot of time left to do much research on the next few suttas (869-871)
            which are almost the same as Kc 410-412. Aggava.msa seems to be
            following Kaccaayana quite closely, at least for the beginning suttas
            of this chapter. I hope to have something posted soon on Sd 869 (naame
            payujjamaanepi tulyaadhikara.ne pa.thamo) but I don't think I'll be
            able to translate "tulyaadhikara.ne" which is connected to "naame" (a
            substantive or pronoun other than tumha and amha). Aggava.msa's
            commentary is terse and this makes it necessary to investigate other
            grammatical commentaries for more information.

            Best wishes,
            Jim

            << The meaning of tulya- and bhinna- adhikara.na that I am familiar
            with is the one that is used with reference to adjectives. An adj.
            which agrees with its substantive in number, gender and case (e.g.,
            'setaani' in "setaani padumaani") is aclled a "tulyaadhikara.na
            visesa.na". On the other hand an adjective or a word doing an
            adjectival function, but does not agree in the above-mentioned manner
            (e.g. 'assakassa' in "assakassa visaye": "in the region of Assaka") is
            called a "bhinnaadhikara.na vises.na". Let us see how these words
            occur in the next sutta of Saddaniiti.
            Best wishes.

            Mahinda >>
          • Mahinda Palihawadana
            ... The Sinhala sanne text on Kaccaayana 411 explains ekaabhidhaane decisively. Its comment can be translated as follows: When expressed as a single
            Message 5 of 14 , Nov 18, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

              >
              >
              > Dear Mahinda,
              >
              > There is quite a bit more commentary on Kc 409 one could investigate
              > and think about that might help us to better understand Sd 868 and
              > "ekaabhidhaane" ...
              >

              The Sinhala 'sanne' text on Kaccaayana 411 explains 'ekaabhidhaane'
              decisively. Its comment can be translated as follows:"When expressed as a
              single statement with a single verb".
              It also takes this as a "paribhaasaa sutta", a rule that teaches the proper
              interpretation or application of another rule. So does the Ruupasiddhi.

              Mahinda

              >
              >
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.