Re: Saddatthabhedacintaadiipanii, verse 1

Dear Jim

I have given some comments here.

[Note: Nina, you should follow the translation I have given here using RG]

You wrote:

>>Saddatthabhedacintaadiipanii:
>>
>>jinavarassa niravasesadevamanussaana.m pavarabhaave satipi attanaa abhidheyyamaanapakara.naanuruupa.m bhagavato thomana.m kattukaamo
>>
>>"saddatthabhedavaadiina.m pavara.m varavaadina.m abhivaadiya saddatthabhedacintaa'bhidhiiyate" ty'ettha *saddatthabhedavaadiina.m pavaran* tyaaha.
>>   
>>
>
>Translation:
>With respect to the excellent Conqueror's foremost state existing among all devas and men and wishing to do a salutation to the Blessed One which is fitting for the treatise being spoken by himself,  he said "the Foremost of speakers of the analysis of sadda and attha" in this (introductory verse):
>      Having saluted the Foremost of speakers of the analysis of sadda
>           and attha,
>      the Speaker of the Excellent; the Saddatthabhedacintaa shall now
>           be spoken.
> 
>
You translation has ignored "pi", a single indeclinable yet very
important for this context. I would rather translate it as:

"Even though there is the highest state of the excellent Conqueror among
all devas and men, (the master), who wishes to do for the Blessed One a
salutation that is fitting for the treatise to be delivered by himself,
said . . ."

What the commentator means is this: the Buddha is the greatest among all
men and gods --- not only in the circle of grammarians. However, the
author wishes to make his salutation fitting for his work. That is why
he chooses to praise the Buddha as the greatest grammarian.

>>tattha *saddatthabhedavaadiinan* ti saddabhedavaadii- atthabhedavaadii -saddatthabhedavaadiihi aacariyehi pavarantyattho. dvandato suyyamaanattaa ekasesattaa ca.
>>   
>>
>Notes:
>For "pavarantyattho. dvandato...", I think a semi-colon or something similar (even no punctuation mark) would be better than a full stop as the phrase beginning with dvandato doesn't seem to be a sentence.
>
Yes, I agree. It isn't a sentence.

>I also wonder if there should not be a "pavara.m" in *saddatthabhedavaadiinan* ti. This was my reason for putting <the Foremost> in angled brackets below.
> 
>
I think it is not necessary. The commentator has the right to quote the
text he wishes to comment upon either in full or in part. It is up to
the readers to understand the missing parts.

Cf: Pubba'ngamaati  tena  pa.thamaghaaminaa hutvaa  samannaagataa.
(Dh-.a-1-21)

The example above is a comment on "manopubba'ngamaa" even though only
"pubba'ngamaa" is quoted.

>Translation:
>Therein, for "saddatthabhedavaadiina.m", the meaning is "<the Foremost> with teachers who are speakers of the analysis of sadda,speakers of the analysis of attha, and speakers of the analysis of sadda and attha" -- from the fact of it being heard as a dvanda
>compound and from the fact of the 'retention of one' (ekasesa).
> 
>
I have to disagree again. The phrase "sadda . . .vaadiihi aacariyehi" is
of ablative case, not of instrumental. When we use RG:

sadda . . .vaadiihi ---> vaadiihi (IAD - Identical Adjective relation:
see RG - 15)
vaadiihi ---> aacariyehi (COC - Contrast Comparison relation: see RG - 11)

Then it should be translated as ". . . greater than the teachers who are
speakers of . . . sadda and attha"

The intent of the commentator is to indicate that the genitive case of
"saddatthabhedavaadiina.m" takes on the role of ablative case. See
Kaccaayana sutta (309):  "Dutiyaapa~camiina~nca"

Moreover, "dvandato" should not be translated as "as a dvanda compound"
Notice the ablative sense of the suffix "to" here. To understand this
usage, I would have to quote from one of my earlier posts.

" Next there is the problem of the ablative case in dhaatumhaa, though
no one has raised it. It is in fact a convention used in building
grammatical suttas. It isn't explicitly defined in Kaccaayana nor
Ruupasiddhi, but it can be found in Moggallana (See the sutta
"pa~ncamiya.m parassa" --- its meaning, in short, is that whenever a
grammatical entity is given in ablative case within a sutta, the
particular process or treatment denoted by that sutta is concerned with
what follows that entity, not with what precedes it. This convention,
and other given there, come to be used in vutti and commentaries like
Ruupasiddhi. I think these conventions come from the Sanskrit
grammatology and those fluent in Sanskrit should try to find out their
origin" (Digest - number - 387)

According to that convention, "dvandato suyyamaanattaa" should be
translated as "from the fact of its being heard after a dvanda compound"

But what does it exactly mean?

A rule of thumb in the Burmese tradition is that any word related to a
dvanda compound can be interpreted as related to each member of the
dvanda compound.
[Cf: .
Kaamaraagaabhinivesavinibandhapaligedhapariyu.t.thaanajjhosaanahetuuti 
kaamaraagaabhinivesahetu, kaamaraagavinibandhahetu,  
kaamaraagapaligedhahetu,  kaamaraagapariyu.t.thaanahetu, 
kaamaraaga-ajjhosaanahetuuti  attho. (An-a-2-139)]

Here we should notice that "sadda" and "attha" are combined into a
dvanda compound. When the resulting "saddattha" is combined with the
following "bheda" to become "saddatthabheda", it can be interpreted to
be equivalent to a dvanda compound  "saddabheda-atthabheda" ("the
analysis of sadda and the analysis of attha") When it is copounded to
the following "vaadii", it becomes "sa ddabhedavaadii-atthabhedavaadii
(the speakers of the analysis of sadda, and the speakers of the analysis
of attha)".

But there is still one class left: the speakers of the analysis of both
sadda and attha. To get this sense, "saddattha" is related to "bheda" as
a whole, and subsequently, "saddatthabheda" is related to "vaadii" as a
whole. It is to embrace this class that the commentator says,
"ekasesattaa ca"

What is "ekasesa"? It is a philosophical attempt to explain a seeming
inconsistency in the language.

For instance, take the word "purisaa" in nominative plural. It may mean
two men in one context but one hundred in another. If the sense is
different, why should the linguistic form be the same? Some grammarians
answer that if purisaa means one hundred men, it is really a dvanda
compound of one hundred forms of "purisa" resulting in the form
"purisapurisa, etc". Then one "purisa" is retained (ekasesa) with all
others dropped. On the other hand, if it means two men, it is a dvanda
compound formed of two "purisa"s.

In other words, they claim that "purisaa" meaning two men and "purisaa"
meaning one hundred men are in fact different words even though similar
in form.

In our case, the commentator indicates by "ekasesattaa" that there are
actually two forms of "saddatthabhedavaadiina.m" combined into a dvanda
compound --- one meaning "the speakers of the analysis of sadda, and the
speakers of the analysis of attha" and another meaning "the speakers of
the analysis of sadda and attha". Since they have the same form, one is
dropped.

When we try to translate the verse in accord with the commentary, it
should be:

"Having saluted the Speaker of the Excellent, who is greater than the
teachers who speak of the analysis of linguistic forms, than the
teachers who speak of the analysis of meaning, and than the teachers who
speak of the analysis of both linguistic forms and meaning . . ."

with metta

Ven. Pandita


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]