I’m pondering on bhava and two suttas in which Buddha explains bhava
My main question is
What is the meaning and classification of the word nābhavissa
na + abhavissa - so is it a double negative?
n + ābhavissa - doesn’t seem right or I can’t understand this variant
nā + bhavissa - also seems to be wrong to me
If it’s optative and expresses “potential”, used for any hypothetical action.
Then why it’s not
bhaveyya = “should, would, could be” and what difference bettween
Bhaveyya and bhavissa
Please help clarifying that
Ps And additional question is: may be you can advise some other suttas where I can get deeper understanding of bhava.
I haven’t looked at your links, but ‘abhavissa’ is the conditional form of bhavati.
Formed with the aorist a augment plus the future tense ‘ss’ termination.
The ‘na’ would negate it.
You can find the conditional explained in any grammar book, Duroiselle, et al.
How it should sound in English I can’t connect future and aorist past together.
The best I can get “Will not existed” or kind of “wouldn’t came to existence”
But both sound wrong.
“…ānanda, kammaṁ nābhavissa”
“If, Ānanda, there were no deeds…”
A well known instance of ‘bhavati’ in the conditional is found in the Anattalakkhaṇa sutta:
Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa,…
For if, bhikkhus, this form were self,…
bhavissa = abhavissa
na + bhavissa = na + abhavissa
na bhavissa = nābhavissa