English
But just as the sound of an animal in the womb or a beast is called an "indistinct sound," so the sound called speech is not called an "indistinct sound" because its meaning is understood. "He speaks, he speaks, they speak. You speak," these are active voice forms. "He causes to speak, they cause to speak," these are causative forms. "By understanding the meaning, he is called wise, a sage. They are called. Good people in the world are called divine beings," these are passive voice forms. But teachers desire forms like "said, is said, are said" by substituting 'u' for 'v', but these are not established in the Sāsana, they conform to Sanskrit. In the Sāsana, in the context of the addition of 'r', the substitution of 'u' for 'v' is established only for 'vaca' preceded by 'ni', as in "nirutti, niruttaṃ, nerutta." Speech, word, utterance, saying, spoken, proclaimed, being spoken, synonym, to be spoken, to What should be said, these are nominal words. To speak, to speak, having spoken, having spoken, these infinitives and so on, grammarians call "words of others." There, 'vattī' means 'speaks'. This is a finite verb form. Even by commentators on meaning, "speech by which one speaks" is cited as an example. And in grammar, such a finite verb form is seen. But here, some say: "vacati, vacanti" and so on, these verb forms, because they are not found in the Buddha's word, commentaries, sub-commentaries, and treatises, should be discarded. That is not so, because in the Teaching, "avaca, avaciṃsu" which are pure active forms, and "vāceti, vācenti" and so on, which are causative active forms, are seen. Therefore, even if not found in the Buddha's word and so on, "vacati, vacanti" and so on, these forms should be accepted. He should speak, let him speak, it might be spoken. All the rest everywhere should be understood in detail. We state the perfect tense forms – he spoke, they spoke. you spoke, you (pl) spoke. I spoke, we spoke. he spoke, they spoke (middle). you spoke, you (pl) spoke (middle). I spoke, we spoke (middle). We state the imperfect tense forms – he spoke, they spoke. you spoke, you (pl) spoke. I spoke, we spoke. he spoke, they spoke (middle). you spoke, you (pl) spoke (middle). I spoke, we spoke (middle). We state the aorist tense forms – he spoke, they spoke, they spoke. you spoke, you (pl) spoke. I spoke, we spoke. he spoke, they spoke (middle). you spoke, you (pl) spoke (middle). I spoke, we spoke (middle). We state the future tense forms – he will speak, they will speak. you will speak, you (pl) will speak. I will speak, we will speak. he will speak, they will speak (middle). you will speak, you (pl) will speak (middle). I will speak, we will speak (middle). But the meaning of these words should be stated as "he will tell, they will tell" and so on. And for the root 'vakkha roseti', having stated "he will speak, they will speak, you will speak" and so on, at the end, in the place of the first person singular, "I will be angry" should be said. But the meaning of these should be stated as "he is angry, they are angry" and so on. This is the method of correlating the forms of the roots 'vac' and 'vakkha' in the future and present tenses. And other future forms of the root 'vac'... are the forms with the future tense: he will speak, they will speak. You will speak, you will speak. I will speak, we will speak. He will speak, they will speak. You will speak, you will speak. I will speak, we will speak. Here is the Pāli text: “Having set aside the conduct in past existences, I will speak of the conduct in this existence; listen to me.” In the Gadratapañha, the commentary passage “the king, having exchanged greetings with you, will speak, saying ‘knowing a suitable seat, householder, be seated’” and so on, is seen. Therefore, such a word-string has been composed. For the root *vakkha* to speak, the forms with the future tense are “he will speak, they will speak,” and so on. Their meaning, however, should be stated as “he will speak, they will speak,” and so on. This is the method of correlating the forms of the roots *vaca* and *vakkha* only with the future tense. He spoke, he spoke, they spoke, they spoke. All the rest is to be understood. Here, however, without stating the meaning of the word mentioned, we will explain it later, as it is a place where much more needs to be said. *Cu* to fall. He falls. In the causative, the form is “he causes to fall.” Fallen from the divine realm. A fallen lotus. To fall, having fallen. *Loca* to see. He sees. Seeing. *Seca* to sprinkle. He sprinkles. *Saca* in distinct speech. He speaks distinctly. *Kaca* to bind. He binds. *Maca*, *muci* to rub. Rubbing is anointing the body. He rubs. He releases. *Maci* in holding, lifting, honoring. Holding, lifting, and honoring are the three meanings. There, lifting is removing dirt. He honors. A couch, honoring. A couch is that which holds a person. *Paca* to make distinct. He cooks. Cooking, ripening, result, ripe fruit. *Thuca* to praise. He praises. *Vaca*, *vaci* to shine. He shines. He shines. *Ruca* in shining and pleasing. Shining is beauty. Pleasing is liking. He shines. Verocana. Truth is pleasing to the recluse. For you who desire heaven, unity is pleasing. This *ruci* is also in the *divādi* group. Taking the meaning, it forms the word "ruccati". Hence the Pāli "going is pleasing to me" is seen. But in the Curādi group, taking the meaning of "to like/shine", it forms the words "roceti, rocayati". Hence Pāli passages like "Why do you not like birth?" are seen. This root belongs to three groups. Paca, in the sense of cooking. He cooks, they cook. But grammarians say "only active voice". Añca, in the sense of destruction/going. Byayagati is going to destruction. He goes (to destruction). Yāca, in the sense of begging. The brahmin begs the nāga for a jewel. The nāga was begged for a jewel by the brahmin. They begged him for horses. He begged him for a chariot. He begs Devadatta. Thus, forms occur in all tenses/moods. The brahmin causes the nāga to be begged for a jewel by another brahmin; he causes to beg, he causes to be begged, he causes to be begged. Thus, everywhere. The king is begged for wealth by the brahmin; he is caused to be begged, he is caused to be begged, he is caused to be begged. Thus, in the passive voice. Begging (masc.), begging (masc. nom.), begging (fem. nom.), a begging family (neuter nom.). Begging (masc. nom.), begging (fem. nom.), a begging family (neuter nom.). Beggar, begging, to be begged, to beg, having begged, having begged, having begged, having begged. Thus, nominal forms and infinitives, etc., occur. Paca, in the sense of cooking. He cooks rice. Grammarians say "both voices". But just as in the Dispensation the passive form of the root "vac" (to speak) like "he is called a wise man" is well-known, it is not so for the root "pac". Even so, teachers say its passive form is "rice is cooked by you". But in the Dispensation, for a word spoken without distinction, whether "paccate" or "paccati", the usage as an impersonal passive or as a Divādi group usage should be desired, as seen in examples like "Devadatta cooks in hell" and "as long as evil does not ripen". Some might say here, "This is an impersonal passive usage belonging to the Bhūvādi group, like 'water is drunk by itself,' therefore, by supplying the word 'by itself,' the meaning should be stated as 'Devadatta cooks by himself,' etc." That is not so, for in "water is drunk by itself," water is... It drinks, not water drinks. By humans it is drunk, not by itself. Thus, in relation to another's drinking action, though it is the object, due to its ease of drinking, it is as if it accomplishes itself, so the idiom "water drinks itself" is used. Similarly, in "the mat is made by itself," humans make the mat, the mat does not make the mat. By humans the mat is made, not by itself. Thus, in relation to another's making action, though it is the object, due to its ease of making, it is as if it accomplishes itself, so the idiom "the mat is made by itself" is used. Here, just as the word "itself" in "water is drunk by water itself, not by us," and "the mat is made by the mat itself, not by us," because these usages are in the active voice, it speaks of a specific meaning, namely the negation of another's action. But it is not so in "Devadatta cooks in hell, kamma cooks," where the word "itself" that you have supplied does not speak of a specific meaning, because these usages are in the passive voice. Thus, it should be understood that the word "Devadatta" and so on, being a nominative case word, is an agent in the passive voice, or a pure agent without an object, and "paccati" is a form from the Divādi group. If it is asked whether the root "pac" is not mentioned in the Divādi group in grammar? Whether it is or not, what will grammar do here? Pāli itself is the authority. Therefore, taking the Pāli method of the Buddha, who is skilled in worldly usage, we will include this root "pac" in the Divādi group. Indeed, Divādi group usages compiled by teachers like Dhammapāla and Anuruddha are seen: Having given there the excellent knowledge-endowed conjunction, with three roots, Afterwards, it cooks the ripenings, in the two existing aggregates. It cooks the unconditioned and conditioned results, and so on. However, for them, this does not accord with Pāli. Those who use the root "pac" in the Curādi group in the passive voice and in the Bhūvādi group in the active voice They wish for the root *pac*, which is inherently transitive when it occurs in the *bhū* group, like *bhū*, but which becomes intransitive when it enters the *div* group, to be considered transitive. But where can this be found in the Buddha's teaching, the Three Baskets with their commentaries? Therefore, to remove the doubts of those who hear the Blessed One's teaching, we establish this rule here: Even without a prefix, due to the variety of groups,