English
Moreover, sometimes the usage "bhuñjati" is seen even for what is to be chewed. For it is said, "Eat, O king, the small fruits, Good and bad." "Paribhuñjati" means enjoys a robe. he partakes of almsfood, he partakes of requisites for the sick and medicine, it is said that he makes use of them. And therefore, the meaning of 'he makes use of' is 'he partakes of'. Moreover, since it is seen that 'he partakes of sensual pleasures' and 'he partakes of the five strands of sensual pleasure', it should be understood that the words 'bhunjana' and 'paribhunjana' are sometimes synonymous in the sense of 'making use of'. 'Sambhuñjati' means 'he makes a common enjoyment', 'he lives together'. Here it might be asked, "But sir, here the root 'bhuj' is said to be in the sense of 'protecting' and 'using', so how does it apply to so many meanings?" It does apply, for roots have many meanings, and when they obtain the help of prefixes, they become even more multimeaningful. From now on, we will not explain forms like 'tumanta'. But where a distinction is seen, we will explain it. 'Kati' is in the sense of cutting. He cuts, he cuts up. A surgeon. 'Bhidi' is in the sense of splitting. He splits. When speaking in the future tense, the forms 'bhejjissati' and 'bhindissati' become two-fold. He who splits evil unwholesome states is a bhikkhu. Therefore it is said: "He is not a bhikkhu by that, by which he begs from others; Having adopted a poisonous doctrine, he is not a bhikkhu by that. He who, having cast off merit and demerit, lives the holy life; He who lives discerningly in the world, he is called a 'bhikkhu'." And this is said with reference to one whose taints are destroyed, but ordinary persons and trainees who are renunciants also attain the appellation 'bhikkhu' as appropriate. He who splits the Saṅgha is a schismatic. The Saṅgha was split by Devadatta. 'Bhindiyati' means 'bhinna' (split) is indeed the derivation. Those sticks are not split. 'Bhindati' means 'splitter'. 'Chidi' is in the sense of dividing into two. 'Chindati' means 'cutter', and so 'chetṭā' (cutter). It is proper to cut hair. 'Chindiyati' means 'chinna' (cut). Even a cut tree grows again. But this pair 'bhidi' and 'chidi', when they enter the 'divādi' group, generate the two forms 'bhijjati' and 'chijjati' which are passive, therefore 'bhijjati' means 'bhinna' and so on. An explanation should be made even by the power of the agent. Tadi in harming and disrespecting. He harms. Sloth, a frog. Itches the scab. Udi in flowing and defiling. Flowing is oozing. Defiling is wetness. He flows. A rat, the ocean. Vida in gaining. He gains. Govinda, joy. Here "vitti" means experiencing, or feeling. Vida in satisfaction. He is satisfied, he is disgusted. Disgusting. He becomes dispassionate. Disgusted with sensual pleasure. Joy, wealth, knowledge. He obtains knowledge of meaning, knowledge of Dhamma. Here "vitti" means joy. For it is said: "Joy indeed finds me, having heard and seen." "Vitta" (wealth) is called wealth because it generates joy. "Veda" is said to be a text, knowledge, and joy. For in phrases like "one who has gone beyond the three Vedas," "Veda" means text. In phrases like "know the Brahmana, the knower of Veda, who is unattached to sensual existence, possessing nothing," it means knowledge. In phrases like "those who wander in the world, born of joy," it means joy. It operates in the Veda-text and in knowledge, and in joy; The word "Veda" arises from these various roots. Lipa in smearing. He smears, a smearing one. Smearing. "Avalepa" means ego. Lupa in cutting off. He cuts off. A plunderer, plundered, plundering. A man plunders, as long as it benefits him; And when others plunder, he, plundered, plunders. Pisa in crushing. He crushes. A crusher. Slanderous speech. However, in the Agama commentary, it is said: "That speech by which one speaks of one's own dearness and another's emptiness, that is slanderous speech." This should be understood as stated according to the characteristics of etymology. Hisi in harming. He harms, he injures. A harmer. "Non-harmer" is my name, though formerly a harmer; Today I am truly named, I harm nothing at all. He who harms what should be harmed, is a lion. The formation of the word is by inversion of initial and final letters, just as "takka" (curd) by the meaning of "kantana" (churning). An oppressor, oppression. Sumbha in striking. He who strikes us like an ox. He strikes around. He strikes. Here are usages from the Pāli: "We are tormenting ourselves, we are wasting time." "With hair-grasping and pulling up, and tearing from the ground; Having given, he does not depart, much suffering, not a little." "I tear the ground with speed." Other things are said elsewhere. They are not mentioned here due to irrelevance. Some might think here, just as in the Bhūvādi group, from roots like "saki to doubt, khaji to limp" forms like "saṅkati, khañjati" arise due to the acquisition of a final consonant and the insertion of a niggahīta; similarly, in this Rudhādi group, from roots like "muca to release, kati to cut" forms like "muñcati, kantati" arise due to the acquisition of a final consonant and the insertion of a niggahīta. If this is so, what is the difference between these and those? Here it is said: Those in the Bhūvādi group which are polysyllabic, not ending in a conjunct consonant, and specified as ending in 'i', when they become verbs and nouns, in the contexts of agentive and causative, their forms are exclusively produced with a niggahīta insertion. Nowhere is their form seen to occur without a niggahīta insertion. How is that? Saṅkati, saṅkā, khañjati, khañjo, etc. This is the distinction of the Bhūvādi roots that are polysyllabic and specified as ending in 'i'. And those in the Rudhādi group which are polysyllabic, not ending in a conjunct consonant, and specified as ending in 'a' or 'u', when they become verbs, only in the agentive context, their forms are exclusively produced with a niggahīta insertion, not in the causative context. However, as nouns, their forms are produced both with and without a niggahīta insertion. Where forms are produced without a niggahīta insertion, they are always forms with a conjunct consonant. How is that? Muñcati, muñcāpeti, moceti, mocāpeti. Chindāpeti. Chedeti, chedāpeti. Chindanaṃ, chedo. Muñcanaṃ, mocanaṃ. Kantati, kantanaṃ, sallakatto. "You yourself tear and eat your own back flesh," etc. There, u having cut off, this is the meaning. But good sir, if this is the case, having attained the state of a noun, in the domains of agentive and causative verbs, it must be that only those of the Rudhādi group like saki, khaji, etc., with an invariably inserted augment, are to be considered, and not muc, chidi, etc.? That is not so. It must be that muc, chidi, etc., are of the Rudhādi group, because they have the same behavior as the root ruc. Just as in "rundhissa, rundhayati, rundhāpeti, rundhanaṃ, rodho, virodho" and so on, two kinds of forms are seen, with and without the inserted augment, so too with muc, chidi, etc. But in Kaccāyana's grammar, the rule "and from Rudhādi, with the augment before" is stated to prescribe the augment as constant? That is true, but that was said with reference to verbal forms. If it had been said with reference to nominal forms as well, then, since "virodho" and so on are seen, it would have to be stated by inserting the word "vā" (or). But the word "vā" is not inserted. Therefore, it is known that it was said with reference to verbal forms only. But good sir, if this is the case, can it be thought that this "and from Rudhādi, with the augment before" was said with reference to the verbal forms of saki, khaji, etc., which invariably have the augment? It cannot be thought so. Because saki, khaji, etc., do not have the same behavior as the root rudh, and the two kinds of forms are not possible in their nominal state. Indeed, for those for whom there is a two-fold nature in the nominal state, with and without the inserted augment, that alone is the characteristic of their being of the Rudhādi group. And that is not present in saki, khaji, etc. For in "saṅkā, khañjo" and so on, only one kind is seen in the nominal state, that with the inserted augment. But for "kamu padavikkhepe" (to step, to move) and so on, even though a two-fold nature is possible in the nominal state as in "kamo, kamanaṃ, caṅkamo, caṅkamanaṃ" and so on, since the inserted augment occurs in the reduplication domain, that two-fold nature is not a characteristic of being of the Rudhādi group. Therefore, excluding the inserted augment that occurs in the reduplication domain, that two-fold nature... Such a characteristic, that very thing should be concluded as the mark of being in the Rudhādi group. This method is extremely subtle, it should be properly borne in mind. So many Rudhādis are seen, these roots, by me, according to my strength; Having looked at others in the suttas, you should take what is suitable for the meaning. This is the Dudhādi group. The Divādi group The root Divu (is used) in the meanings of play, desire for victory, conduct, radiance, praise, loveliness, going, and power. Here, 'play' means sport, or dwelling. 'Sport' means delighting by experiencing grace. 'Dwelling' means existing by changing postures etc. 'Desire for victory' means wish for triumph. 'Conduct' means behavior. 'Radiance' means splendor. 'Praise' means commendation. 'Loveliness' means desirability. 'Going' means movement. 'Power' means capability. The root 'divu' operates in these meanings. He plays/shines. A god. A goddess. A deity. Here, 'deva' refers to three kinds of devas: conventional devas, rebirth devas, and purified devas. Among these, kings, princes, etc., are called conventional devas because they have been conventionally regarded as 'devas' by people since the time of the Great Elect. Those reborn in the deva realm are called rebirth devas.