English
is called 'tulyādhikaraṇatā' (same substratum). Therefore, because it is endowed with the characteristic of 'tulyādhikaraṇa', it is also called 'tulyādhikaraṇasamāsa' (compound of same substratum). And that same (compound) is also called 'visesanasamāsa' (qualifier compound) because it illuminates specific qualities by means of the qualifying word. In that qualifier compound – 346. The qualifier with one meaning. The word ending in 'sya' etc., which is a qualifier, becomes one in meaning with the word ending in 'sya' etc., which is the qualified. Here, that by which a substance is qualified, made distinct, is 'visesana' (qualifier). That which has one meaning is 'ekattha' (one meaning). 'Eka' means 'same'. 'Attha' means 'expressed meaning', 'causal meaning'. That same (meaning) is also called 'adhikaraṇa' (substratum) because it is the basis for the two causes of application. When there is a basis for the causes of application, the basis for the words is also established. Thus, 'ekattha' means 'tulyādhikaraṇa' (same substratum), 'samānādhikaraṇa' (co-referential), by that one meaning. 'Ekatthaṃ hotī' means 'it becomes one in meaning'. And that compound is of nine kinds: with the qualifier as the first word, with the qualifier as the latter word, with both words as qualifiers, with the simile as the latter word, with the possibility as the first word, with the determination as the first word, with 'na' particle as the first word, with 'ku' particle as the first word, and with 'pa' etc. as the first word. There, how is the qualifier as the first word? Great man, great river, great fear. And here, "that army appears great" [Jā. 2.22.771], "the kingdom of Bārāṇasī, named great..." “ā” appears in the Jātaka Commentary, Mahāsīlava Jātaka, 1.1. Therefore, in a compound, the great word (mahā) as an indeclinable form is used in all three genders. Mahā ca so puriso cāti mahāpuriso (He is great and he is a man, thus a great man), Mahā ca sā nadī cāti mahānadī (She is great and she is a river, thus a great river), Mahā ca taṃ bhayañcāti mahabbhayaṃ (It is great and it is a fear, thus a great fear), with doubling and shortening in conjunction. It is also appropriate to show the sentence with the word mahanta, as a synonym of mahā: Mahanto puriso mahāpuriso (A great man, a great man), Mahantī nadī mahānadī (A great river, a great river), Mahantaṃ bhayaṃ mahabbhayaṃ (A great fear, a great fear). It is also appropriate to show it fully with ca and taṃ words: Mahanto ca so puriso cāti mahāpuriso (He is great and he is a man, thus a great man), Mahantī ca sā nadī cāti mahānadī (She is great and she is a river, thus a great river), Mahantañca taṃ bhayañcāti mahabbhayaṃ (It is great and it is a fear, thus a great fear). The word mahanta becomes mahā. By the rule “ṭa ntantūnaṃ”, the whole nt becomes a when followed by a subsequent word, and it is lengthened by the meaning of mahā. Here, the two “ca” words indicate the distinctness of the meanings of the two words. The word “taṃ” indicates the oneness of the substance, which is the locus of the inherent meanings, even when the inherent meanings are distinct. In this grammar, there is no separate process of form derivation. By observing the rules for each particular word and the corresponding analytical sentences shown, and by understanding the determination of the meaning of the derived word, the process of form derivation is accomplished. Santo ca so puriso cāti sappuriso (He is good and he is a man, thus a good man), setahatthī (a white elephant), nīluppalaṃ (a blue lotus), lohitacandanaṃ (red sandalwood). Even words of different gender and number can have a single meaning. Vinayo ca so pariyatti cāti vinayapariyatti (It is discipline and it is learning, thus discipline-learning), Vinayo ca so piṭakañcāti vinayapiṭakaṃ (It is discipline and it is a basket, thus discipline-basket), Avijjā ca sā paccayo cāti avijjāpaccayo (It is ignorance and it is a condition, thus ignorance-condition), Avijjā ca sā nīvaraṇañcāti avijjānīvaraṇaṃ (It is ignorance and it is a hindrance, thus ignorance-hindrance). Similarly, itthiratanaṃ (a jewel of a woman), Sīlañca taṃ guṇo cāti sīlaguṇo (It is virtue and it is a quality, thus virtue-quality), Sīlañca taṃ patiṭṭhā cāti sīlapatiṭṭhā (It is virtue and it is a foundation, thus virtue-foundation), and so on. Likewise, vīsati ca sā purisā cāti vīsatipurisā (They are twenty and they are men, thus twenty men), Satañca taṃ purisā cāti satapurisā (They are a hundred and they are men, thus a hundred men), Saṅkhārā ca te paccayo cāti saṅkhārapaccayo (They are formations and they are a condition, thus formation-condition), Aṅgā ca te janapadañcāti aṅgajanapadaṃ (They are Anga and they are a country, thus Anga country), Magadhā "And that country" means Magadha country. Similarly, Kasi country, etc. Here it is not, Puṇṇa Mantānīputta, Citta the householder, Sakka the king of devas, Brahmā Sahampati, etc. Sometimes an invariable compound, black snake, red garland, etc. How is the qualifying latter term? Elder Sāriputta, Teacher Buddhaghosa, or Teacher Guttila, Mahosadha the wise, the best of men, the excellent man, the distinguished man, etc. How is the qualifying both terms? That which is cut and grown again is cut-and-grown-again. That which is cold and hot is cold-and-hot. He who is lame and hunchbacked is lame-and-hunchbacked. Similarly, blind-and-deaf. That which is done and undone is done-and-undone. pierced-and-perforated, cut-and-broken, That which is sprinkled and swept is sprinkled-and-swept. The state of being peaceful is truth. That which is suffering in the sense of insecurity and truth in the sense of not being otherwise is the truth of suffering, etc. How is the comparative latter term? Like a lion means a lion. He is a sage and a lion, thus a sage-lion. Similarly, chief of sages, Buddha-nāga, Buddha-sun, Like a ray means a ray. The good Dhamma is a ray, thus the Dhamma-ray. Similarly, ocean of discipline, monk-lotus, monk-white-lotus, etc. How is the presumptive former term? A condition being a cause is a cause-condition. Similarly, an object-condition, become a human, become a deva, that which is called Dhamma is Dhamma-called, Dhamma-approved, Dhamma-perceived, Dhamma-marked, The word called "eva" is the word "eva". Similarly, the word "ca", the word "vā", the Sangha having become noble is the noble Sangha. Similarly, Buddha-sage, Pacceka-Buddha-sage, etc. And here, "presumption" means a strong commendation, a special indication of the nature of the latter term, which has become common, not merely an indication of quality, so is the meaning. However, teachers also bring in here examples like: "Dhamma" as a thought is Dhamma-thought. Similarly, Dhamma-perception, impermanence-perception, element-perception, mother-perception, life-perception, self-view, etc. But these are: "gone to refuge" is u like the word "pagato saraṇagato" first tatpurisa compounds with "iti" elided are formed. How about a compound with an emphasizing prior term? Quality alone is wealth, not jewels, gold, etc., thus "guṇadhanaṃ" (wealth of quality). Similarly, "saddhādhanaṃ" (wealth of faith), "sīladhanaṃ" (wealth of virtue). The eye alone is the door, not a village gate, etc., thus "cakkhudvāraṃ" (eye-door). Similarly, "cakkhuvatthu" (eye-base), "cakkhundriyaṃ" (eye-faculty), "cakkhāyatanaṃ" (eye-sphere), "cakkhudhātu" (eye-element). The aggregates alone are burdens, thus "khandhabhārā" (aggregate-burdens). And here, if "burdens" means things to be carried, then only the five aggregates are burdens, not head-burdens, shoulder-burdens, etc. For the aggregates are constant burdens, while others are temporary and rooted in the aggregates. Thus, the emphasizing statement "the aggregates alone are burdens" is used to suggest an extreme meaning, not to completely deny the burden-nature of head-burdens, etc. Similarly everywhere, ignorance alone is defilement, not the defilement of bronze, etc., thus "avijjāmalaṃ" (defilement of ignorance). Ignorance alone is an influx, not an influx of honey, etc., thus "avijjāsavo" (influx of ignorance). Similarly, "taṇhāsallaṃ" (thorn of craving), "paññāsatthaṃ" (weapon of wisdom), "paññāloko" (light of wisdom), "paññāpajjoto" (illumination of wisdom), "rāgaggi" (fire of lust), "dosaggi" (fire of hatred), "mohaggi" (fire of delusion), etc. But teachers explain it as: "wealth is like wealth, faith alone is the wealth of the noble ones, thus 'saddhādhanaṃ' (faith-wealth); weapon is like weapon, wisdom alone is the weapon, thus 'paññāsatthaṃ' (wisdom-weapon)." If explained this way, the meaning of emphasis is not achieved. 347. In a compound with "na" particle as the prior term, "na". The "ñ" suffix is for the purpose of negating the other (non-ñ) meaning from the negation. This "na" (nau) ending in "sya" (or similar suffixes) becomes one meaning with another word ending in "sya". By this "na" (ñ), having made a specific designation – 348. "Ṭa" for "na". When a subsequent word follows, the "ṭa" suffix of "na" becomes "a". Thus, "na" becomes "a". Not a brahmin, (thus) a non-brahmin. Here it might be asked – Is this a negation of something existing, or of something non-existing? And what here – If it is a negation of something existing, then all brahmins existing in the world... would be non-brahmins. Therefore, to deny the existence of a brahmin in the world, without specifying a place, saying "this person here is not a brahmin, that person there is not a brahmin," is not appropriate. Or is it a denial of what does not exist in the world? And if so, what is the point of denying what does not exist, since what is to be denied itself does not exist? It is said: This is a denial of that term in the sense of "similar to that," and so on. For indeed, some people perceive as brahmins those non-brahmins who are similar to brahmins. And in accordance with that perception, the term "brahmin" is applied to them.