English
active, causative-active, passive, and impersonal verbs, and those with one object in the causative, and those with two objects in the causative, and those with three objects in the causative, have been shown according to their belonging to one, two, or three groups. Now, the occasion has arrived to speak of verbs with one and two causatives, therefore, we shall speak of them. "So antakammani" (he in the act of ending). "Arahattamaggo mānaṃ siyati" (the path of arahantship cuts off conceit), "kammaṃ pariyosiyati" (the action is completed). These are pure active verbs. Here, "mānaṃ siyati" means "destroys conceit". "Kammaṃ pari" (the action is completed). It is completed. Indeed, due to the prefixes 'pari' and 'ava', this word becomes intransitive, but its meaning, in a transitive sense, should be taken as 'it goes to an end'. One completes by oneself what was begun by oneself. This is a single causative verb, an agentive verb. Here, however, because the root 'su', intransitive due to 'pari' and 'ava', has taken a causative suffix, the causative word becomes single-transitive. One causes others to complete what was begun by oneself. This is a double causative verb, an agentive verb. And here, however, because the root 'su', intransitive due to 'pari' and 'ava', has taken two causative suffixes, the causative word becomes double-transitive. It should be understood that 'pariyosāvāpeti' is also formed by taking two suffixes 'ṇāpe ṇāpe' from the root 'su', preceded by 'pari' and 'ava', and by making the 'a' of 'ava' into 'o', and then by adding 'y', and dropping the 'ṇ' of the suffix, and by changing 'p' to 'v' in the first suffix, and by dropping the preceding vowel in both places. Now, to explain the different meanings of these Pāli texts, we shall speak of them together, as if directly taught: 'One completes by oneself what was begun by oneself, an offense entailing a Saṅghādisesa. One causes others to complete what was begun by oneself, an offense entailing a Saṅghādisesa.' Here, the agentive word 'bhikkhu' should be supplied. And here, in 'attanā vippakataṃ', 'attanā' is an instrumental word, expressing the agent of the action of beginning. 'Vippakataṃ' is an accusative word, expressing the object case. However, in 'attanā pariyosāpeti', 'attanā' is an indeclinable word, synonymous with 'sayaṃ' (self), an indeclinable word resembling an inflected word, or an indeclinable word in the instrumental case, similar to 'sayaṃ'. Thus, the meaning of the phrase 'attanā pariyosāpeti' is 'one completes by oneself', just as in 'and one is a killer of living beings' and so on. But in 'parehi pariyosāvāpeti', 'parehi' should be taken as an instrumental word expressing the object case. And, as in "making them eat even with dogs," the word "by dogs." For here, just as the meaning arises by way of usage in "Kings make dogs eat the thief," so too the meaning arises by way of usage in "A monk makes other people finish what he himself has left undone." Thus, in this teaching of the Blessed One, wonderful and varied in method, it should be essentially understood that there are also words with a double causative suffix. This subtle method should be carefully borne in mind by the venerable ones, having shown respect for the Dispensation. For whose benefit we have made this treatise, this is not our own opinion, but it should be understood as the opinion of the former teachers, having been received from them. Now the occasion has arrived for speaking of words with two objects without a causative; therefore we shall speak of them. And indeed, they should be known thus with certainty, by way of their roots. As follows: To milk, to do, to carry, to ask, To beg, to beg, and to declare; To speak, to speak, to speak, to speak, To teach, to give, to protect, to hold. To obstruct, to conquer, to gather, and so forth, Those wise ones with two objects; Even though they are separated, From the causative suffixes. From the former rule of ablative and such, They spoke of these; Of the word of usage, as signs, The ancients declared. These roots, beginning with 'duhi', Become even tri-transitive; When a causative suffix is obtained, Thus the teachers said. Here are the examples: The cowherd milks milk from the cows. The cowherd boy milks milk from the cow. There, "milk" is the word of usage, like the word "fame" in "having obtained fame, one should not be intoxicated." For a grammarian, such a word of usage can be of this kind or of another kind. The master makes the cowherd milk milk from the cows. The cows were milked of milk by the cowherd. In "He milks milk from the cows," there is no ditransitive state because it is in the domain of the ablative. However, in "milking the cow from the horn, where one finds no milk," even though it is in the domain of the ablative, because the horn, which is a part of the cow, is taken separately, the ditransitive state "milking milk from the cow" is obtained. should be understood. This is a causative usage. In the usage of "karoti" (makes/does): "He makes wood into charcoal," "He makes gold into an ornament," "If you speak the truth, I will make you a slave." Here, "makes into charcoal" is said in the sense of a cause that is abandoned. For wood is the cause of charcoal, and when charcoal is made, the wood-nature of the causal wood ceases. "Makes into an ornament" is said in the sense of a cause that is not abandoned. For gold is the cause of an ornament, and when an ornament is made, the gold-nature of the causal gold does not cease, but rather it comes to be in the state of a different modification. "I will make you a slave" is said in the sense of giving a different status, as in "I will make the viceroy a great king." There, a tri-transitive usage should also be understood: "The lord makes a man make wood into charcoal." "Similarly, he makes gold into an ornament." Likewise, a di-transitive usage: "Brahmadatta makes the kingdom rule," "When Brahmadatta makes the kingdom rule." Here, some might say: "Indeed, sirs, only one object is seen here; how is this usage a di-transitive usage?" Although only one is seen, it should be understood that in meaning, two objects are indeed seen. Thus, in "Brahmadatta makes the kingdom rule," the meaning is "Brahmadatta causes his own kingship to be made by the people." When the meaning is understood in this way, in phrases like "Make the kingdom rule, good sir, what will you do in the forest?" the meaning becomes established as: "You cause your own kingship to be made by us, cause yourself to be anointed in the kingdom, we desire to anoint you in the kingdom." In "When Brahmadatta makes the kingdom rule," the meaning is also "When Brahmadatta causes his own kingship to be made by the people." For in the Dispensation, in the context of causation, the word for "doing" only indicates the meaning of application. Therefore, we say that in meaning, two objects are indeed seen. This meaning, in the Abhidhamma commentary, in the explanation of the meaning of the definition of the eye-faculty and so on, to be explained. Thus, in the Abhidhammaṭīkā, this is said: "It causes lordship in the eye-door" means it causes its own lordship, its supreme mastery, in the eye-door state, through those connected with that door. For it makes them follow it in the apprehension of forms, and they follow it. But if the root "kara" (to do/make) is ditransitive, then in cases like "Brahmadatta causes the kingdom to be made," since it takes the causative suffix, should not words like "kāreti" (causes to be made) be tritransitive? No, because there is no such rule, and such usage has not entered the path of common speech. Wood was made into charcoal by a man. Gold was made into an armlet by a craftsman. A maidservant was made a slave by her master. In this way, ditransitive usages should be understood here. For in "He makes an armlet with gold," ditransitivity is not obtained, as it is a case of the instrument used for a specific purpose. This method should be examined elsewhere and applied as appropriate. This is the usage of "karoti." In the usage of "vahi" (to carry) and so on: Royal officials carry the chariot to the village. This king asks me my name. We ask Gotama, the man who is being defeated. Venerable Upāli was questioned about the Vinaya by Venerable Mahākassapa. Devadatta begs the king for a blanket. They begged me for horses. He begs you for wealth, my dear. The brahmin begs the nāga for a jewel. The nāga was begged for a jewel by the brahmin. The Blessed One was begged for a Dharma teaching by Brahmā. The ascetic begs the family for food. He leads the goat to the village. The goat was led to the village. The Campaka nāga, freed, said this to the king. Here, "the king" is stated as the primary object. "This" (etanti) is secondary. Similarly, "the king" is stated as the unstated object. "This" (etanti) is the stated object. This method should be examined elsewhere and applied appropriately. Similarly, in "Speak, Blessed One," and so on, ditransitivity is not obtained because it is a case of the recipient. The bhikkhu speaks the Dharma to the great king. What you say to me, charioteer. What he says to me. The Blessed One. This was said: A father speaks to his son. "That which you teach me." "Indeed, Ambaṭṭha, they burn King Okkāka, the grandfather." The Blessed One urges the bhikkhus to various beneficial practices. The cowherd blocks the cows from the pen. A rogue wins money from other rogues. Here, the Pāḷi text of the Puṇṇaka Jātaka, "We win the supreme jewel," is an example. The meaning here is, "O Lord of men, which king, which supreme jewel do we win?" A bricklayer builds a wall. Other examples should also be constructed. Here, some might ask, "Is a double-object construction found in usages like 'He circumambulates the Perfumed Chamber,' 'I go for refuge to the Buddha,' and 'May Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower'?"