se.t.tho -- derivation 3

Derivation 3

Text: santehi sappurisehi esitabbo gavesitabboti vaa se.t.tho.
santasadduupapado isa gavesane ta, santasaddassa so, ikaarasse,
tassa.t.tho.  -- Namakkaara.tiikaa, p.11

Translation: Or, (he) is to be sought out, searched for by wise ones,
by virtuous men. The dependent word 'santa', (the root) 'isa' in (the
sense of) seeking, (the past participle affix) 'ta'; (the substitute)
'sa' for the word 'santa', 'e' for the letter 'i', '.t.tha' for 'ta'.

Comments:
1) On 'santehi sappurisehi'. I take 'santehi' to be a present
participle noun in the instrumental plural from the root 'as' (to be).
'santa' is also a past participle from two identical roots 'sam'
having three meanings: calmed, wearied, ceased. In several
commentaries the nom. plural 'santo' is explained like this: santo ti
pa.n.ditaa sappurisaa. ('santo' means 'pa.n.ditaa' or 'sappurisaa') --
Ppk I 267. This shows that 'santehi' is from the root 'as' since I
doubt one would find a 'santo' nom. pl. form derived from 'sam'.
Following the explanation in the Ppk (or SA), I take the 'sappurisehi'
to be a synonym of 'santehi' rather than take 'santehi' as an
adjective modifying 'sappurisehi'. At abhidhaanappadiipikaa 841, seven
meanings for 'santo' (deriving from the roots 'as' and 'sam') are
given and at Sadd p.488, six are given. The one that I think is meant
here is 'saadhuu' (wise or virtuous men) where Sadd quotes an example
in: ``santo have sabbhi pavedayantii''ti [Dhp 151] aadiisu
saadhuusu.<endquote> 'santo' comes from the root 'as' with the initial
'a' elided (Kc 506: sabbatthaasassaadilopo ca) and the addition of the
present particple affix 'anta' (Kc 565: vattamaane maanantaa).

2) On 'esitabbo gavesitabbo'. This is another pair like the previous
pair where the second word explains the first which is a very useful
device. The 'gavesitabbo' also helps to determine which root the first
word comes from. The form of these two words is that of the future or
potential passive participle with the kicca affix 'tabba'. From a
cursory reading of the relevant suttas in Kc, Ruup, and Sadd it
becomes evident that the meanings and tenses that can be read into
this type of participle is more extensive than that given in Warder
(104ff.). I don't know too much more than what's in Warder and I think
I'd need a full week to study what's written about the kicca affixes
in the texts which I'd better defer for another time when a word with
one of these affixes comes up in Kc. One problem I see: Can the
interpretation of 'i.t.tha' (sought) with the kicca word 'esitabbo' be
supported by a sutta? One interpretation of 'esitabbo' could be 'he
(the Buddha) is worthy of being sought (by the wise) or he is worth
seeking out'. See Ruup 545 and Warder, p.107. Unlike the 2nd
derivation, this one takes 'se.t.tho' as the object (kamma) of seeking
by the agent (wise ones).

3) On 'isa gavesane ta'. I find it odd that the commentator switched
from 'esa' in the 2nd derivation to 'isa' here where in both cases
they share the same root meaning. I think the use of the past
participle affix 'ta' differs from its use as an agent (kattu) defined
at Kc 557 (budhagamaaditthe kattari) as I described in my earlier
post. I think the rule for its use as an object here is covered by Kc
556 (bhaavakammesu ta) but the rule states that the tense is past only
so that presents some problems for the 'esitabbo' interpretation which
by the way does include a past tense (hiyyattanii or the imperfect).

4) On 'santasaddassa so'. This is the substitution of 'sa' for
'santa'. I have found a rule for this but I'm not sure if it applies
here as it seems to be restricted to words like sabbhi, sabbhaavo,
etc.

Kc 185: santasaddassa so bhe bo cante.
Translation: 'sa' in the room of the word 'santa' before (the letter)
'bha' and there is the (insertion of the letter) 'b' at the end (of
'sa').

It might depend on how one interprets the 'ca' in 'cante' (= ca
ante). Perhaps the rule could be saying that in the case of 'bha'
there is an inserted 'b'. I hope Ven. Pandita will be able to clear up
this matter for us.

5) The formation of the word is sa + i.t.tha (Kc 573) > se.t.tha by
the two sandhi rules Kc 12 for the elision of the first 'a' and Kc 14
for changing the 'i' to 'e' as discussed before.

Best wishes,
Jim