English
For with respect to another cut portion, when compared with the previous one portion, it is indeed a division into two. He cuts, he causes to cut. "He who cut off your hands and feet, And your ears and nose; Be angry with him, great hero, Lest this kingdom be destroyed." "He who cut off my hands and feet, And my ears and nose; May that king live long, For those like me do not get angry." Chada in covering. He covers, he causes to cover. An umbrella. He covers the man's food. Īdī in shining. He shines, he causes to shine. Since it is indicated with an ī-vowel, forms with an inserted n-sound do not occur. Dda in the sense of harming. He harms, he injures. Vada in the sense of speaking. He speaks, he says. A saying. There, the meaning of "vādeti, vādayati" should be understood as "vadati" (he speaks) in the pure active voice, not in the causative. For thus, "Having made a promise, he deceives." "He should advise and instruct." "And they say, 'This alone is true.'" "He is not a deceiver of the world." These are seen in the explanatory Pāli texts. And in grammar, the word "vādayati" is seen as a pure active word. There, "visaṃvādeti" means he speaks falsely, or he deceives. "Vāda" means speech. Among such three kinds of discourse as "Vāda, Jappa, Vitaṇḍā," the discourse called Vāda. "Vādāpeti, vādāpayati" are the only two causative active words. Chadī in the sense of liking. This root ends in `ī`, therefore its forms with the `niggahīta` augment do not occur. "The man's food pleases him," "it pleases," is the meaning. The man's food remains pleasing, or pleasing. Vadī in the sense of salutation and praise. This root also ends in `ī`, therefore its forms with the `niggahīta` augment do not occur. "Vādeti, vādayati" means "he salutes," or "he praises." These are forms without a prefix. And in grammar, the word "vādayati" is stated with the meaning of salutation and praise without a prefix. But in the scriptures, forms with a prefix such as "abhivādeti, abhivādayati, abhivādanaṃ, having saluted the Blessed One" are seen. There, "abhivādetvā" means having saluted, or having praised. This is our preference. But in the Agama Commentary, the meaning of the word "abhivādana" is stated in the causative sense: "abhivādetvā" means "having caused to say, 'May you be happy and free from illness,' for one who salutes indeed causes this to be said in essence." But by us, taking the word "vandana" according to the grammar rule, the meaning is explained in the pure active voice. For "abhivādana" is indeed salutation itself, not "causing to say," because of its connection with the prefix "abhi," as in "abhivādanasīlissā" (those accustomed to saluting). For this was not said as "abhivādāpanasīlissā" (those accustomed to causing salutation). And if in grammar the meaning of causing to speak were intended, then the unequivocal statement “vadi in causing to speak and praising” should have been made. But it was not said so. Instead, it was said: “vadi in saluting and praising.” Therefore, it is understood that causing to speak is not intended. Or it might be said: “causing someone superior to speak is salutation.” Even so, it is not appropriate, because the meaning of the root is not stated in the causative sense. Thus, with statements like “paca in cooking, chidi in dividing,” only the meaning is revealed in the sense of being, and from these, forms like “pacati, paccati, pāceti. Chindati, chijjati, chedāpeti,” which are active, passive, and causative, are derived. And for that purpose, separate root definitions are not made. Therefore, in “vadi in saluting and praising,” it cannot be said that the meaning of the root is stated in the causative sense, because roots are by nature actions. Just as “takketi, vitakketi. Takko, vitakko” are synonymous, so too “vādeti, abhivādeti” are synonymous. Therefore, even in grammar, by grammarians, for roots like “takka in thinking, vadi in saluting and praising,” forms like “takkayati, vādayati” are shown without prefixes. And these are indeed simple active forms, not causative active forms. Therefore, the meaning “causing to speak and praising” for “saluting and praising” is not appropriate. What's more— “abhivādeti, abhivādayati. Abhivādetvā, abhivādayitvā” are synonymous, differing only by the ṇe and ṇaya suffixes. If the meaning of the word “abhivādetvā” were “having caused to say, ‘May you be happy and free from illness!’” then the word “sirasā” (with the head) in “sirasā abhivādayi” (he saluted with his head) should not have been used, as it would be unrelated to causing to speak. Since that word is used, it is understood that the meaning of causing to speak is not desired in “abhivādetvā” and so on. The meaning of venerating and the meaning of praising are desired. Since in the Bhūvādi group, “vanda” Regarding the root "abhivādānathutīsū" for the word form "vandatī" (worships), the meaning "abhivandati, thometi cā" (worships and praises) should be accepted, not the meaning of causing to speak. Thus, even by the commentator explaining the meaning of the words "vande sugataṃ gativimuttaṃ" (I worship the Fortunate One, freed from destinies), the meaning "vandeti vandāmi, thomemi cā" (I worship, I praise) was shown as the meaning of worship and praise, not the meaning of causing to speak in relation to the word "abhivādana" (salutation). Therefore, in "abhivādetvā" (having saluted), the meaning of worship and praise should be accepted, not the meaning of causing to speak. Even if it were said, "In the word 'vande,' there is no causative suffix, but in 'abhivādetvā,' there is; therefore, there the meaning of causing to speak is not obtained, but here it is obtained." That is not so, just as the pure active verb "karotī" (does) can be explained as the causative verb "nipphādetī" (causes to produce), so too the word "vande" (I worship) can be explained as "sukhī arogo hotū'ti vadāpetvā" (having caused to say 'May he be happy and free from illness'). And "abhivādetvā" (having saluted) is not a word ending in a causative suffix like "vande." Why? Because for pure active verbs of the curādi group like "cinteti, cintayati" (thinks), "manteti, mantayati" (consults), only "cintāpeti, cintāpayati" (causes to think), etc., are seen as causative verbs. Therefore, if a causative verb were intended, it should have been said "abhivādāpetvā" or "abhivādāpayitvā." Since it was not said thus, it is established that it is not a word ending in a causative suffix. To clarify this meaning, in this place, we shall cite the passage from the Vidhurajātaka with its commentary. "How would he salute, or cause to be saluted, the one whom a man wishes to kill? That action does not occur." This is the Jātaka Pāḷi. And this is the commentary text: "Indeed, how would he salute the one whom a man wishes to kill, or how would he cause himself to be saluted by him? For that action does not occur for him." There, in the Pāḷi, "abhivādeyyāti" is a pure active verb because it expresses that. "Abhivādā" "payetha" is a causative form, because it is a causative verb. Thus, knowing this division, the meaning of the Pāli and the commentary should be understood as: "If a man wishes to kill a person, how would that killer greet that victim? Or how would that killer make that victim greet him, saying, 'Let that victim greet me'?" Here, the word "tena vajjhena" is used in the instrumental case, as in "Kings make dogs eat thieves," and so on. But the meaning should be seen in the accusative case, "taṃ vajjhaṃ," because of the double object of the causative suffix in a transitive verb. If this is so, is it not a fault of the commentary teachers that "they do not see what should be seen, they plunge into the wrong ford"? No, it is not. Listen to our clarification. Indeed, the commentary teachers, not taking the meaning of the root "vadī" in "abhivādanathutīsu" for "abhivādetvā," but being skilled in common usage, to make the subtle and profound meaning clear to the listeners, took the meaning of the root "vada" in "viyattiyaṃ vācāya" (to express with speech), and by conceiving a causative suffix, and taking the causative meaning, they stated the meaning of the word "abhivādana" as a causative meaning: "abhivādetvā means 'having caused to say "May you be happy and free from illness." ' For one who greets actually causes this to be said." Thus, there is no fault of theirs. For those venerable ones are worthy of veneration; we only pay homage to them. This point, too, is subtle and should be carefully borne in mind. For by doing so, wisdom grows. Verb forms ending in "d". Verb ending in "dh". Randha, to cook. The cook cooks the rice. He cooks. Cook the crow for sorrow. A cook. The rice is cooked by the cook. Cooked. Cooking. A man makes the cook cook the rice, or makes the rice cooked by the cook. To cook. Having cooked. Having cooked, etc. Dhū, to tremble. He trembles. He causes to tremble. Gandha, to indicate and to hurt. Indication. Manifestation. Hurting, being overwhelmed. He indicates. He hurts. i, scent. Here, "scent" means it scents, it indicates, it reveals its own substance, thus it is scent. Or, it reveals something hidden, like a flower or fruit, as if bringing a tale, "this is here," thus it is scent. The meaning of the word "scent" should also be explained by the two roots "gam" and "dhar": "that which is held while going is scent." And it is said, "that which is held while going is scent, or from indicating." And the word "scent" should be understood as meaning "cutting" in "uppalagandhatheno" (thief of lotus scent). Vadha, in restraint. He restrains, he causes to restrain. Budhi, in harming. He harms, he causes to harm. He obstructs, he causes to obstruct. Obstruction, the prefix "pari" is an upasagga, it has become otherwise due to change. There, obstruction means obstruction of dwelling, etc. Also, obstruction means the trio of craving, conceit, and views. Vaddha, in cutting and filling.