From: Bryan Levman
Message: 5019
Date: 2018-03-23
505. yujjate yujjanaṃ yogo bhāvasādhanam īritaṃ.
kasmā ettha itisaddaṃ na saṃyujjanti paṇḍitā.
[OBJECTION:]bhāvasādhana is stated [exemplified?] as yujjate yujjanaṃ yogo. Why don't panditas use the word "iti" in this case?
506. kriyāmattaṃ labhitattā na saṃyujjanti paṇḍitā
byuppattinimittāpekkhā chasu yujjanti paṇḍitā.
[ANSWER:] Because the panditas take into consideration [cty labhitattā = icchitattā] only the action, that is why they do not add the word iti. However, when it comes to the six kārakas, they do employ due to the requirement (apekkhā) of the cause of application (byuppattinimitta = pavattinimitta?, see following verse:).
507. byuppattinimittaṃ nāma kiṃ va [cty kiñ ca] vuccanti kusalā
kriyābyuppattinimittaṃ jātyādipavatti mataṃ.
[OBJECTION:] But what is it that the experts call byuppattinimitta?
[ANSWER:] The kriyābyuppattinimitta "cause of the appearance of the action" is considered to be the application of class, etc.
Apologies for the orthopedic translation. I hope the following not will clarify things a bit: This discussion derives from an objection based on examples such as: yujjanaṃ yogo. kāmabhavādīsu satte yujjatī ti vā yogo (Kārikā-ṭīkā 365,14-15). So the question is why don't we say yujjanan ti yogo and we say simply yujjanaṃ yogo when it is bhāvasādhana. The answer in verse 506 is that in the case of bhāvasādhana only the meaning of action noun is taken into account, and since both are action nouns, there is no ambiguity that one is the gloss of the other, and they are both in nominative "uniting [is] union". However, when other kārakas intervene, then we use the iti in order to separate the lemma from the gloss and to determine in which sense the word [e.g. yogo] is being used in a particular context: kāmabhavādīsu satte yujjatī ti vā yogo "alternatively, it is called union in the sense that it unites beings to desire, existence, etc.' In this case yogo has the meaning of agent or cause, kattusādhana. Before, in yujjanaṃ yogo it was simply bhāvasādhana and iti was not needed (always according to the panditas, of course!).
This is how I understand it. But I will look into it in more detail. Thank you again for your comment.
Best wishes,
Aleix
Dear Aleix,
Is labhita-ttā past participle of labhati (usually laddha, isn't it?)
Would you mind translating this verse for us?
Best wishes,
Bryan
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 12:51:45 PM EDT, Aleix Ruiz Falqués ruydaleixo@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Jim,I think kariyā is indeed a wrong spelling of kiriyā (kriyā). We cannot rely on the reading of manuscripts. Especially copies like this Sadd-ṭīkā were made by people who did not know any Pali at all. If we read kiriyā the sentence seems to make some sense. There is also this reference in the Nyāsa-ṭīkā 33,14: ākhyāyati kriyaṃ pākaṭaṃ karotī ti ākhyātaṃ.tathāpi byuppattinimittabhūtāya kriyāya saha kattādīnaṃ vācakattā kriyaṃ ākhyāyatī ti ākhyātan ti vuttaṃ."However, since it "explains" (ākhyāyati) the action by expressing the agent, etc. together with the action which is the cause/context (nimitta) of [their] production/derivation (byuppatti), it is called verb (ākhyāta)"Consider also Saddasāratthajālinī 506-507:kriyāmataṃ labhitattā na saṃyujjanti paṇḍitābyuppattinimittāpekkhā chasu yujjanti paṇḍitā.byuppattinimittaṃ nāma kiṃ va vuccanti kusalākriyābyuppattinimittaṃ jātyādipavatti mataṃ.This "chasu" refers to the six kārakas beginning with kattā, etc. (kattādīnaṃ).Best wishes,Aleix2018-03-21 21:10 GMT+05:30 'James Anderson' jimanderson.on@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>:Dear members.
My work on the personal endings of Pali verbs has led me to resume my study of the chapter on verbs in the Saddanīti (Sadd III 811ff) which has also brought me back to the Saddanīti-ṭīkā Burmese MS I obtained from William Pruitt of PTS some time ago. On folio 242a there is a discussion of the term 'ākhyātaṃ' (verb) which involves another term 'kariyā' which comes up repeatedly and I have no idea what it refers to. It is not in CPD and it is definitely not a typo for 'kāriyaṃ' nor 'kiriyā'. Accordring to the following comment it serves as a cause (nimitta) for production and is related to the kārakas.
<< tathāpi byuppattinimittabhūtāya kariyāya saha kattādīnaṃ vācakattā kariyaṃ ākhyāyatīti ākhyātanti vuttaṃ. >> (folio 242a, line 3)
I think there would be an entry for 'kariyā' in the Pāḷi-Myanmar dictionary. I don't have the volume containing it as I only managed to download 7 of the volumes before the website went offline.
Any help would be appreciated.
Best wishes,
Jim