… sandiṭṭhika (BHS sandṛṣṭika), which the Commentary explains as meaning “that which is to be seen for oneself” (sayaṁ passitabbako, AA 4:207). The word sandiṭṭhika is derived from “seen (diṭṭhika) for oneself (saṁ).”
Commentarial “etymologies” are often not true etymologies but teaching tools, reminding the reader of certain ideas. For example, the Vism derives bhikkhu from bhaya + ikkhati (danger seeing), which is clearly not etymologically right, because it comes from the verb bhikkhati (to beg for alms).
That’s similarly the case here.
The prefix sam often has no distinct meaning. For example there are the sambojjhanga, which doesn’t really mean anything different from bojjhanga.
In general, you can’t derive the meaning of word from its components (prefix+root). You instead have to see how it is used in context. Good grammar books, like Warder’s and Ven. Bodhi’s, will say something to this effect in the introduction, so you can find more information there.
Thank you. I would imagine the various bojjhanga function together, which is why they are also (in a collective) called sambojjhanga.
Yoniso manasikara is not overthinking.
I would imagine both etymology & context are important.
Since you appear to know these books, could you kindly offer the relevant quotes from them. Thank you
Thank you for your dana Sunyo. However, my reading finds Warder is not exactly saying what you are suggesting. My reading finds Warder may have been justifying what they didn’t know. Can we please return to the topic and others contributing to the discussion. Thank you
Bodhi wrote in Reading the Buddha’s Discourses in Paali: “one cannot deduce the meaning of a verb simply by adding the nuance of the prefix to the meaning of the basic verb”
In my view, following the etymology often leads to a completely different meaning. If you notice, sometimes Buddha used the same word to express two different notions based on the context.
I haven’t noticed this, at all; never, ever. I try to develop the view the Buddha was precise with words & language rather than was vague, confused & erratic.
I thought about the ‘saṁ’ . If the prefix is ’ ‘saṁ’, I think the ‘saṁ’ points to what is expressed in SN 22.87, namely, one who sees the dhamma sees me: Yo kho dhammaṁ passati so maṁ passati. What I mean by this is the knower & the dhamma are all dhamma; such as the not-self mind sees the not-self dhamma. Its all dhamma; both the discerning mind & the discerned reality. This is different to the duality of say God vs the believer. In Dhamma, the dhamma is seen by dhamma. Thus ‘saṁ’ refers to this ‘collectiveness’ or ‘togetherness’ of ‘seeing’, where only the selfless discerner can see the selfless dhamma.
And what is the result of perceptions? Katamo ca, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko?
Communication is the result of perception, I say. Vohāravepakkaṁ, bhikkhave, saññaṁ vadāmi.
You communicate something in whatever manner you perceive it, saying ‘That’s what I perceived.’ Yathā yathā naṁ sañjānāti tathā tathā voharati, evaṁ saññī ahosinti.
This is called the result of perceptions. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko.
The above quote, Communication, is essentially about language. At the time, language was used primarily to convey messages or notions, rather than relying on a fixed, concrete meaning for words in every context or situation.
This is not relevant to the topic & is also a personal speculative view; unrelated to any knowable fact or event. Thanks
This is the opposite of the Buddha. Returning to the topic & to the Buddha, this topic is about the following verse which is part of the Triple Gem.
The teaching is well explained by the Buddha
svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo
We should ideally respect the Buddha as a Teacher that was Fully Enlightened; thus a Teacher that spoke with precise clarity & precision. This topic is now concluded.
