What does your dictionary give you as masculine singular present participle case endings for vedeti?
According to CPED, the present participle is vediyamāna - the masc nom sng form is vediyamāno
Thanks - that kind of makes sense.
That would be for the the vediy- base.
Have a look at the PED entry for vindati, which includes mention of the causative vedeti.
It says the present participle of that is vindanta.
I think the verb actually is vindati, @srkris, as it can have both meanings, a) find/obtain, b) know.
The PED entry shows both meanings. See:
And it also tells us that vidvā is an old form of the present participle.
Next question is why the “m” between vidvā and anubruhaye. And my take is that this is a simple sandhi insertion of this consonant between a word ending in a vowel and another starting with a vowel, for euphony. Very common in Pāli. Think, adukkhamasukha meaning “neither painful nor pleasant”.
3 Likes
Thank you John.
I pointed originally, too, to vindati but was corrected. In any case, it is a rare form.
Interesting that the nasal is a niggahita, not the labial m. I wondered if, in an attempt to match the Sanskrit form ‘vidvān’ , vidvāṃ is used to make it look like a typical masculine nominative pres part (like, e. g. gaccham) as well as providing the euphonic link.
PS. I notice the commentary glosses the word as ‘vidvā’.
I don’t see it as a niggahita, Stephen. On SC it shows as:
taṃ vidvā manubruhaye
And srkris posted the whole Pāli verse as:
paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati,
asaṃhīraṃ asaṃkuppaṃ, taṃ vidvām-anubrūhaye
2 Likes
Thank you John, it makes more sense.
His post has “ yo vidvāṃ = a man who is enlightened/intelligent” in the first line.
Looking at CST I do see
‘vidvā manubrūhaye. ‘
A very tricky verse indeed.
Thanks, this makes more sense. Once again, tripped by sandhi!!!
I mean this verb in Pāli (√vid)
The noun vidvā(n) is declined as follows in Pāli (cf. bhagavā(n), maghavā(n) etc.)
In Sanskrit grammar the nominal stem for vidvān is grammatically explained as
√vid + vas (or √vid + kvasu in Pāṇinian terminology)
It is declined as follows:
| Masculine | Singular | Dual | Plural |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | vidvān | vidvāṃsau | vidvāṃsaḥ |
| Vocative | vidvan | vidvāṃsau | vidvāṃsaḥ |
| Accusative | vidvāṃsam | vidvāṃsau | viduṣaḥ |
| Instrumental | viduṣā | vidvadbhyām | vidvadbhiḥ |
| Dative | viduṣe | vidvadbhyām | vidvadbhyaḥ |
| Ablative | viduṣaḥ | vidvadbhyām | vidvadbhyaḥ |
| Genitive | viduṣaḥ | viduṣoḥ | viduṣām |
| Locative | viduṣi | viduṣoḥ | vidvatsu |
The derivation of the word vidvān according to Pāṇinian system is generated from the stem vidvas as follows:
vidvas
→ vidvas + su [ svaujasamauṭchaṣṭābhyāmbhisṅebhyāmbhyasṅasibhyāmbhyasṅasosāṅṅyossup 4.1.2] - adds nominative singular declension affix su
→ vidvans + s [ ugidacāṃ sarvanāmasthāne’dhātoḥ 7.1.70 ] - nominatives of vas stems get an n inserted after the last vowel
→ vidvāns + s [ sāntamahataḥ saṃyogasya 6.4.10] - by this rule, the last vowel of such stems get lengthened in the nominative.
→ vidvāns [ halṅyābbhyo dīrghāt sutisyapṛktaṃ hal 6.1.68] - by this rule the final ‘s’ appearing after another consonant is elided.
→ vidvān [ saṃyogāntasya lopaḥ 8.2.23] - by this rule words cannot end in a complex consonant cluster, and the last consonant in the cluster is elided - to finally produce the grammatically correct form vidvān.
Vidvān is a very common word in Sanskrit (and it appears approx. 100 times in the Pali canon).
About the ṃ being a sandhi insertion, in my understanding there is no such sandhi rule (in Pali) to insert foreign letters from nowhere (simply to prevent vowel sandhi), and where such an insertion is suggested regardless, it would be unlikely that the ṃ undergoes further sandhi transformation into m.
1 Like
Could this rule from Kaccāyana possibly apply?
37, 57.Niggahitañca.
Niggahitañcāgamo hoti sare vā byañjane vā pare kvaci.
Cakkhuṃudapādi, avaṃsiro, yāvañcidha bhikkhave purimaṃ jātiṃ sarāmi, aṇuṃthūlāni sabbaso, manopubbaṅgamā dhammā.
Kvacīti kasmā? Idheva naṃ pasaṃsanti, pecca sagge pamodati, na hi etehi yānehi, gaccheyya agataṃ disaṃ.
Caggahaṇena visaddassa ca pakāro hoti. Pacessati, vicessati vā.
It doesn’t explain the m vs ṁ though - perhaps that was spelling error?
Edit: the ṁ to m change is possibly due to this rule?
34, 52.Madā sare.
Niggahitassa kho sare pare makāradakārādesā honti vā.
Tamahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇaṃ, etadavoca satthā.
Vāti kasmā? Akkocchi maṃ avadhi maṃ, ajini maṃ ahāsi me.
This is how I’ve always seen it too. In Pāli you also can’t have syllables ending in āṃ. The only options with niggahita are aṃ, iṃ, and uṃ. A slightly better example may be idhamāhu, because idha and āhu are two separate words, not a compound.
1 Like
Yes, but the ‘kvaci’ in the explanation indicates that such an insertion of ṃ is not grammatically regular or predictable. The rule exists to account for such irregular insertions in the canonical language.
Is there is a further rule in Kaccāyana to account for the inserted ṃ to further undergo sandhi (or a rule for insertion instead of m directly in place of ṃ). Also, do such insertions exist in non-Canonical Pāli (for eg. in the commentaries)?
That would seem to fit this case. Rule 34 seems to also fit, the example it gives is taṁ ahaṁ changing to tamahaṁ
That would be normal sandhi between two regular words (word-final ṃ before a word-initial vowel becoming m in sandhi). But for the artificially inserted ṃ, intended specifically to prevent sandhi from happening between the words, it looks odd that the ṃ would then undergo further sandhi.
Perhaps there is a rule about irregularly insertimg m directly (instead of ṃ) in similar situations?
The nouns Dukkha and Sukha are neuter nouns (so have the forms dukkhaṃ and sukhaṃ in their nominative singular normally i.e. they are anyways ‘m’-ending - so the m appearing in sandhi doesn’t look irregular).
Taking the other examples from Kaccāyana cited by Christie above:
- Cakkhuṃudapādi – here the stem cakkhu is consonant ending in sanskrit (like vidvas) - i.e. Skt. cakṣus. So the ṃ in Pāli likely appears as a replacement for the final consonant
- avaṃsiro – doubtful if this is an example of sandhi between two words (does ava appear independently in Pali as a word?).
- yāvañcidha – here the first word is consonant ending in sanskrit (yāvat), the t changes to n, and thereafter to ñ (before palatals) via normal sandhi even in sanskrit. So here too there doesn’t seem like an ṃ is inserted irregularly in Pāli. In sanskrit yāvat + ca + iha = yāvañceha
- aṇuṃthūlāni = here too the ṃ doesnt appear to be inserted to prevent sandhi between two independent words, as it is not separating two vowels, and it forms part of a single compound.
- manopubbaṅgamā = here too the ṃ (or ṅ) is not separating two vowels and isnt an insertion - pubbaṅgama is a single word i.e. compound (= Skt. pūrvaṃgama)
So I am not confident that the ṃ is being irregularly inserted into these examples to prevent vowel sandhi - in accordance with Kaccāyana’s rule cited above.
I wanted to check if the theory (replacing ṃ in place of an original Sanskrit consonant is a feature of the early Epigraphic language) - and it seems to be the case.
In Aśokan edicts (which I consider a forerunner of our Pāli) - there is the conversion of diverse consonants to ṃ - as in these examples:
- r replaced by ṃ – Skt. dharma > Aśokan dhaṃma, see Major Rock Edicts 1,3,4 etc (not dhamma as in our Pāli).
- r replaced by ṃ – Skt karma > Aśokan kaṃma, see Major Rock Edicts 3,4,6 etc (not kamma as in our Pāli)
- j replaced by ṃ – Skt kṛtajñatā > Aśokan kataṃñatā, see Major Rock Edict 7 (kataññutā in Pāli)
- ṇ replaced by ṃ – Skt. pāṣāṇda > Aśokan pāsaṃḍa, see Major Rock Edicts 5,7,12 etc (pasaṇḍa in Pāli)
- ṅ replaced by ṃ – Skt. maṅgala > Aśokan maṃgala, see Major Rock Edict 9 (maṅgala in pāli)
- t replaced by ṃ – Skt. yat > Aśokan yaṃ, see see Major Rock Edict 10 (yaṃ in pāli)
- ṇy replaced by ṃñ – Skt. apuṇyam > Aśokan apuṃñaṃ, see Major Rock Edict 10 (apuññaṃ in pāli)
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati,
asaṃhīraṃ asaṃkuppaṃ, taṃ vidvā manubrūhaye.Instead, being one who discerns a present phenomenon, [arisen] here and there,
the wise one should foster that, the unshakable, non-agitated.
I would offer the above rendition. The relative pronoun yo (subject) in the nominative I would take in the permissible sense of viewpoint (in the meaning of “as,” “being”), with dhammaṃ and its qualifier paccuppannaṃ obviously in the accusative singular (object). The verb vipassati agrees with the subject yo in number (third person present indicative singular).
The words asaṃhīraṃ asaṃkuppaṃ refer both to attributes associated with vipassanā or nibbāna itself, as per the commentary; they are in the accusative singular. The subsequent demonstrative taṃ refers back to these and agrees with them grammatically. The “wise one” (vidvā, subject; see below) engaged in insight meditation “should foster” (verb in the third person optative singular) these qualities.
Here, it is the possessive adjective (-vantu; “the one possessing wisdom” in our case) in the nominative singular suffix ā used as a substantive noun, with an insertion (āgamo) of labial m as per Kacc 35. The commentary simply glosses vidvā, explaining it to mean “knowledgeable bhikkhu” (vidvā paṇḍito bhikkhu). Also, interestingly, the Thai edition of that discourse has viddhā instead of vidvā, which PED gives as a poetic gerund (aka absolutive), in the meaning of “having penetrated”, which could also make sense, I think.
Hmm, all the major editions (PTS, Thai, Burmese) have transmitted it in this way. I would wager that this rendering is due to metrical license in the form of flexible sandhi, remaining as separate words in the text. Of course, the insertion of labial m before a vowel is commonplace (see Kacc 35).
2 Likes
Indeed there is (35), as pointed out by @Thanuttamo, which I missed when I was scanning through Kaccāyana last night.
35, 34.Ya va ma da na ta ra lā cāgamā.
Sare pare yakāro vakāro makāro dakāro nakāro takāro rakāro lakāro ime āgamā honti vā.
Nayimassa vijjā, yathayidaṃ cittaṃ. Migī bhantā vudikkhati, sittā te lahu messati, asittā te garu messati. Asso bhadro kasāmiva, sammadaññā vimuttānaṃ. Manasādaññā vimuttānaṃ, attadatthamabhiññāya. Ciraṃnāyati, ito nāyati. Yasmātiha bhikkhave, tasmātiha bhikkhave, ajjatagge pāṇupetaṃ. Sabbhireva samāsetha, āraggeriva sāsapo, sāsaporiva āraggā. Chaḷabhiññā, saḷāyatanaṃ.
Vāti kasmā? Evaṃ mahiddhiyā esā, akkocchi maṃ avadhi maṃ, ajini maṃ ahāsi me, ajeyyo anugāmiko.
Caggahaṇena idheva makārassa pakāro hoti. Cirappavāsiṃ purisaṃ.
Kakārassa ca dakāro hoti. Sadatthapasuto siyā.
Dakārassa ca takāro hoti, sugato.
Thank you. I like this interpretation, it seems to fit all the words (I was still having doubts yesterday, mainly because of the presence of tattha tattha but you have managed to incorporate that convincingly).
1 Like
Thanks to all of you for this extensive discussion and analysis. Although Q & A topics should be treated in brief:
I’m so glad this thread didn’t stop at one response being: No it doesn't. "yo" refers to "vidvā", not to dhammaṁ 
I think Ṭhānuttamo last reply summarizes in brief the consensus and marked it as the solution.
1 Like