Sadd: TOC (linga)

Hi Jim,

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I got into your discussion of
the puzzling definition of linga at the beginning of the Sadd
Naamakappo. This is what I would call a difficult text to read and
interpret. But first a translation of your example of the use of
pakatiruupa:

>
>Jim:
>I would take it to refer to 'purisa'. The word 'pakatiruupa' appears
>for the first time in the Saddaniti (section 5) in the following quote
>immediately after the declensional paradigm of purisa is given:
>
>ayam aayasmataa mahaakaccaanena pabhinnapa.tisambhidena katasmaa
>niruttipi.takato uddharito purisa iccetassa pakatiruupassa
>naamikapadamaalaanayo. -- Sadd I 87ff

Rett:,

translating the above:

This is the course of the nominal paradigm of this basic form
'purisa' taken from the semantic-analysis collection made by the
venerable Mahaakaccaana of overflowing analytical insight. -- Sadd I
87ff


>Jim: Note the 'purisa' form

Noted, and it looks convincing for pakatiruupa, thanks.

>Jim:
>Aggava.msa does not seem to give a definition of this particular term
>but does for 'li"nga' on page 641 where he gives two different
>definitions....

I even found a third directly after (Sd 197). I'm pretty sure that he
is defining different senses of the term, so there need not be a
conflict between the definitions.

Monier Williams has 'linga' in grammatical contexts as meaning both
'gender' and 'praatipadika' (as you remarked on below)! And it looks
likely that 'pakatiruupa' in Sadd is more or less equal to
'praatipadika'.

>In the first definition he defines
>it as a derived expression (nipphannavacana) having gender, etc. and
>gives the example of puriso [sic. shld read Buddho],

Rett:

Here is Sd 192, which you just referred to:

192 Visadattaadisahita.m liinatthagamaka.m nipphannavacana.m linga.m

Linga is a derived expression clarifying what is obscure
(liinatthagamaka) and accompanied by gender. (lit: accompanied by
purity/brightness etc, i.e purity, impurity and
neither-purity-nor-impurity)

I have some questions and proposals about this sutta and about its
explanation which follows.

First, Visadatta < visadda (clear, bright, manifest) + tta. I don't
really see the connection to gender in the word Visada. But the
following suttas (Sadd 193,194, 195) seem to define a visada
expression as masculine, an avisada expression as feminine, and a
neither-visada-nor-avisada expression as neuter.

So Visadattaadi (visada tta aadi) perhaps shouldn't read 'gender
etc', but simply 'gender'. The aadi in this case would be the
feminine and neuter. If expressed with an etc-phrase you might say
'masculine etc' meaning all genders.

Is this connected to some idea of purity, where males are considered
more pure than females? Or is it connected to an idea of light and
dark, where males are light and females are dark? Or is visada a
grammatical term that I just haven't found defined? I've looked in MW
and Apte, as well as the lean, unlovely PED without luck.

Sd 192's exp has a fairly straightforward syntactic breakdown of the
sutta, then continues:

vutta.m hi: "rukkho ti vacana.m linga.m, lingattho tena diipito;
eva.m lingañ ca lingatta.m ñatvaa yojeyya pa.n.dito" ti.

What exactly is the point here? I'd translate roughly:

For it is said: the expression 'rukkho' is linga, the linga-meaning
is illuminated by it; the learned should construe (it) knowing linga
and the linga-meaning thusly.

Is it possible, that the second sense of linga you wondered about
(which resembles praatipadika, and is coming below) is what is being
called 'lingattha' here?: a sign-sense, while linga in this sutta
refers to gender (as a further sign placed onto the bare form)? Or
are there other ways to make sense of this quotation, and what it has
to contribute here?

The quotation (about rukkho) appears to be from the Mmd (53), which
you're working on anyway. Would it be possible to look more closely
there?


>but in the second (Sd 196) it is defined
>as the first form to be established in the derivation of words and
>gives the uninflected example of purisa which is identical to how I
>interpret pakatiruupa.

Back to this after a break.

>  But I'm not sure if Aggava.msa takes them both
>to refer to the same thing. Having two different definitions of li"nga
>is also confusing to me. The second defn. of li"nga is similar to
>Panini's defn. of praatipadika.

Do you have handy where in Panini that definition occurs?

>  There is also the 'a"nga'
>(inflectional base) term used in Panini that I still haven't sorted
>out.

How did you read pa.tichanna.m anga.m ?

Back with more in a bit.

best regards,

/Rett