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]