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]