FW: bandhu issue

Dear Jim,
I frwd this from Suan.
----------
Van: "suanluzaw" <suanluzaw@...>
Datum: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:52:09 -0600
Aan: nina van gorkom <nilo@...>
Onderwerp: Re: bandhu issue (Complete One)

When the noun "bandhu" means the relatives of Devil in the
compound "bandhupaadaapaccaa", it is Kammadhaaraya sammaasa.

For many Brahmins, the expression "Paadaapaccaa" must have been vey
obvious and understood to refer to the sons born from the feet of the
Great Brahmaa. There are many modern examples in English of the
understood phrases with the missing terms. For example, the US where
the missing noun is A for America.

The following is the definition of the two compounds from Ruupasiddhi
(Commentary on Kaccaayana Saddaa).


Kammadhaaraya sammaasa

ayam   samaaso   ekassa   atthassa   dve naamaani   dhaarayati,
tasmim   samaase  sati  ekatthajotakassa naamadvayassa sambhavato.

“This compound carries two nouns. Why? It is due to the fact of the two
nouns illustrating a single meaning.”

Section 339, Ruupasiddhi, (Commentary on Kaccaayana Saddaa)

Tappurisasamaasa

Yathaa hi tappurisasaddo  gu.namativatto,  tathaa  ayam samaasopi.
Uttarapadatthappadhaano hi tappurisoti.

“As the term “tappuriso” goes beyond the attribute (i.e, the
adjective), so does this compound (give weight to the nound that comes
after).  Indeed, it should be noted that the tappurisa compound is the
determinant of the meaning of the noun that follows.”

Section 341, Ruupasiddhi, (Commentary on Kaccaayana Saddaa)

Jim: <So far, I haven't been able to come up with a definitive solution
to
this problem of the apparent inconsistency between the two
interpretations of 'bandhupaadaapacca' at Sv I 254 & Sv III 862.
Taking the first as a tappurisa compound and the second as a
kammadhaaraya could account for the difference in the two
interpretations. I thought of another possibility while comparing the
two interpretations in the commentary. I noticed that, in the second,
Buddhaghosa does not quote the compound in full but just comments on
'bandhu' and 'paadapacce' as if they were separate words in the
original text: 'bandhuu paadaapacce' instead of 'bandhupaadaapacce'.
Perhaps the scribes mistakenly joined the two (shortening the 'u') at
D III 81 for consistency with the normal reading but by doing so they
inadvertently created a problem in the commentarial interpretations.
This is only speculation. Also, it seems possible that the phrase
might have been understood differently among the Brahmins themselves
depending on which part of India they lived in and other factors.>
*******