George Bedell wrote:
> This is not really Jim Anderson's term, but appears in K. V. Abhyankar's Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar(1961) under tulyaadhikara.na: "having got the same substratum; denoting ultimately the same object; expressed in the same case; the same as samaanaadhikara.na in the grammar of Paa,nini. cf. Kaat. II. 5.5." (p. 189) This passage was called to the group's attention by Mahinda Palihawadana. Abhyankar also has an entry for adhikara.na alone: "(1) support; a grammatical relation of the nature of a location; place of verbal activity. cf. aadhaaro 'dhikara.nam P. I. 4.45;" (p. 14) But in the usual understanding of this suutra, it is aadhaara which means 'support', 'location' or 'substratum', and adhikara.na (the kaaraka) is being defined as having that sense.
Thanks for the information. I don't have access to Abhyankar's work.
> There is a perhaps significant difference between what you say and what Abhyankar implies: tulyaadhikara.na 'having the same substratum' is a relation between two things. According to your explanation, these are puriso and pacati, but I think Abhyankar would say they are puriso and the suffix -ti. Only this interpretation is consistent with 'denoting ultimately the same object', since verb forms like pacati do not denote objects.
In my understanding, two words 'having the same substratum' can be compared to two different labels on the same bottle. Are the labels related to each other or to the one and single bottle?
And please see the footnote (3) of my newly uploaded paper how traditional grammarians view verb forms denoting objects.
> I think I agree that 'having the same substratum' is a possible translation of tulyaadhikara.na, but I have two reservations about it. (i) I would prefer to avoid using obscure Latin terms to translate obscure Pali terms, and
How about 'having the same referent'?
>(ii) I think we should be surer that Aggava.msa in fact understood it in that way. Tulyaadhikara.na is not his term, since it appears in the corresponding suttas of Kaccaayana, and (according to Abhyankar) in the earlier Kaatantra Sanskrit grammar.
I believe Aggava.msa belonged to the Kaccaayana school. Then why did he choose to write a grammar of his own suttas rather than comment on Kaccaayana suttas like Nyaasa or Ruupasiddhi did? I think there are two reasons:
1. He wished to be much more comprehensive. There are many Pali forms that cannot be resolved by Kaccaayana suttas; he aimed to resolve them by his own suttas.
2. Some Kacccaayana suttas are interpreted differently by Nyaasa and Ruupasiddhi. If he had chosen to interpret Kaccaayana suttas, he could not avoid such controversial points. By setting up his own suttas, he could avoid such problematic points.
> You also wrote, concerning tulyaadhikara.na:
>
> >I would like to suggest a working principle to be used in the meantime. It is what is
> >understood by this term in the Burmese tradition.
>
> That sounds like a useful principle, but it is a little difficult for us non-Burmese to practice. Aside from the materials that you have made available, how can we access the Burmese tradition?
This is the real problem. Even an ordinary Burmese citizen cannot access the traditional literature unless he or she has been trained in the monastic atmosphere. I should tell you a real story here.
One of my professors who taught me at the monastic university in Burma is a modern Pali scholar. He got his MA by doing research under under the supervision of Prof. Brough. But he has no monastic training. One day, the Vice-Chancellor told him to translate the curriculum of the university into English so that it could be sent to universities abroad.
The problem is not the prescribed texts but all the methodologies of textual analysis which the teacher and students must use. (Relational grammar and Thematic units are only two of them). My professor did not understand these concepts which have never seen the light in modern Pali scholarship. So he asked the senior monk professors. They tried to explain to him. But he still could understand. And he could not translate something that he did not really understand. Finally he gave up and just mentioned the prescribed texts of the curriculum and omitted all these methodologies.
Therefore I am sorry to say that I cannot see any other alternative to access the Burmese tradition. Even if you learn Burmese, it will not help you to understand the "monastic Burmese" that only monks really know.
> Finally, thank you for the Pali tools paper which I received a few minutes ago. * * * * *
I hope you can give comments.
with metta
Ven. Pandita