Hotim hū, and bhū

[ToVincent]

Bhavati/hoti does indeed have the sense of 'to become' sometimes, but it also has the basic sense of 'to be' which in the present tense singular = 'is'.

But what does the √as/√bhū commutability, has to do with the use of √hve, in the context of the (subtle) Vedic "call", that applies to "idaṃ hoti"?

.
.

[Coëmgenu]

Nothing? It doesn't apply to that at all?

[Coëmgenu]

I remember Coëmgenu sharing a paper with me discussing how bhavati/atthi had started to become used interchangeably by even the Rig veda. Perhaps he could comment further.

Page 4 gives a chart with a distribution of "hoti" and "atthi" copulae: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24655267?r ... b_contents

On terms of their interchangeable usage, several examples given in the paper (which requires a Google account to access) illustrate the arbitrary choice of copula when it is functioning as a copula paired with a past participle. The two retain separate meanings as well.

From the paper:

anupaṣṭo bhavaty eṣo asya yaḥ ... na sunoti somam
He who does not press soma is spied out by him.

tasyām evāsya tad devaitāyāṃ hutaṃ bhavati ya evaṃ veda
Thus that is offered in this divinity by him who knows thus.

yā imā oṣadhayo grīṣmahemantābhyāṃ nityaktā bhavanti tā varṣā vardhante
The plants, which are shrunken in the summer and winter, grow during the rains.

Examples with the "atthi-type" copula are even more plenteous. Here it is in the imperfect:

ye ta āsan daśa jātā devā devebhyaḥ purā
Those ten gods who were born from the gods previously [...]

[ssasny]

idaṃ hoti = 'there is this'. Or if I suppose if one wants to be fancy one could say, 'this comes into being.'
But the Buddha is speaking simply here, not like a German philosopher!

[sphairos]

Yes, I also confirm that what toVincent is saying is pure fantasy and delusion, and it doesn't work phonetically.

And I also confirm that bhavati and asti are interchangeable in the Ṛgveda and in later literature.

Idaṃ hoti is simply (literally) "this is". In literary English you need to transform it into "there is this", but many languages allow such statements without copula formula (being expressed as "there is").

[ToVincent]

idaṃ hoti = 'there is this'. Or if I suppose if one wants to be fancy one could say, 'this comes into being.'
But the Buddha is speaking simply here, not like a German philosopher!

This kind of rationale is ostensibly valid, but not actually valid.
Buddha simply says "this calls", like a philosopher of his time, moving past the ritualistic "call", to the symbolic meta-ritualistic "call" — that explains perfectly the growth (virūḷha*) of consciousness.
* vi-√ ruh : to grow out , sprout , bud (RV. AV. TBr)

No German philosophy applies.

______

As this conversation is veering towards the obvious "hoti" and "atthi" (√bhū/√as) commutability, I might as well stop being interested and engaged in this dead end discussion.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

But he doesn't say "calls" at all in the idaṃ hoti pericope.

[ToVincent]

The logic of some people is just killing me.
.
.

[Sam Vara]

The logic of some people is just killing me.
.
.

Killing, or calling?

[sphairos]

The logic of some people is just killing me.
.
.

Killing, or calling?

[ToVincent]

I've got confirmation that hoti comes from bhū and not from hū.
For once you've got it right!
I supposed that this "slightest fault" will haunt me the rest of my life. Maras have invented the irremissible "slightest fault", that therefore brands everything said (before or after), as wrong and defective - haven't they?

Grammar will always remain my weak point.
Not only am I an "amateur" as "unprofessional" - but I don't even have an affection (amare) towards grammar, to be called an "amateur" for that particular anga.
I should - I know.

At least this little diversion had the opportunity to show the lineament of the "growth of consciousness".
I say little diversion, because things (dhammas) have to "upajjati" anyway - Am I right?
"Call" or not "call", dhammas will be born and become visible (utpad) to sense-consciousness - won't they?

Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti,
Imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati.
That turns out there - this becomes,
From the coming forth of that, this originates (and becomes visible).

"But where is that "growth of consciousness" triggered from?
"Growth of consciousness" as explained here:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=41503&p=649216#p649216
Maybe from the possible implied Vedic "call" or "invocation", that comes from the saḷāyatana nidāna.
Somewhat a necessary part of the all-encompassing feedback (paccaya)?
.
.

[ssasny]

The verb uppajjati (with 2 p's) is formed from ud + √pad. The basic sense of √pad is to go

PED gives for a definition: "to come out, to arise, to be produced, to be born or reborn, to come into existence"
for the related uppāda PED gives "coming into existence, appearance, birth"

[ToVincent]

The verb uppajjati (with 2 p's) is formed from ud + √pad. The basic sense of √pad is to go

PED gives for a definition: "to come out, to arise, to be produced, to be born or reborn, to come into existence"
for the related uppāda PED gives "coming into existence, appearance, birth"

This has already been covered

√ पद् pad
- to fall, fall down RV. AV. VS. Br.
- to cause to fall AV. AitBr.

उत्पद् utpad [ut-pad]
- to arise , rise , originate , be born or produced ; to come forth , become visible , appear ŚBr. (MBh.- post-Buddhist)

The basic sense of √pad is NOT "to go".
"To go" is a post-Buddhist meaning.

The basic sense of √pad is "to fall" , "fall down", or "to cause to fall".
This is the historical meaning of √pad.

imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati.
From the coming forth of this (viz. "by falling down" / viz. "avakkanti"), this originates.

One cannot always rely on the PED or the PTS, without checking for the historical etymology.

At least the PED has it right on uppajjati/utpad as:
"to come out, to arise, to be produced, to be born or reborn, to come into existence".
Just adding the "become visible" meaning to "appearance" — and the "come forth" meaning, would have been perfect.

Utpāda is the act. of utpad.
As for utpad, it takes on the underlying meaning of "falling down" (cf. avakkanti/stepping down upon [ava-√ kram]), when it refers to the above meanings.
.
.

[ssasny]

I'm afraid I don't really follow you.
I have never seen any source that associates the Pāli verb uppajjati with the idea of 'falling down'.

Here is the Monier Williams Sanskrit Dictionary entry:
(if anything, the sense given is to come up and out of, not to fall)

utpad
ut-pad (ud-√pad), Ā. -padyate, to arise, rise, originate, be born or produced
• to come forth, become visible, appear
• to be ready ŚBr. MBh. R. Mn. Yājñ. Kathās. BhP. Prab. &c
• to take place, begin Kāś. on Pāṇ. 3-3, 111: Caus. P. -pādayati (rarely Ā. -te), to produce, beget, generate
• to cause, effect
• to cause to issue or come forth, bring forward

Also perhaps have a look at Whitney's Roots.

In any case, perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree on this point.

[ToVincent]

I'm afraid I don't really follow you.
I have never seen any source that associates the Pāli verb uppajjati with the idea of 'falling down'.

:::::::::::::::::::::::
√ पद् pad
:::::::::::::::::::::::
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/pad/125972/1

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
उत्पद् utpad [ut-pad]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/utpad/36334/1
As said before, utpad has the underlying meaning of coming forth by falling down.
(Like when consciousness descends (avakkanti,) away from (ut/ud) the viññana nidana, towards the namarupa nidana.)

I hope you know what is pre-Buddhist literature, and what is post- Buddhist literature, in the Literary Sources referenced.

-----------

Withney is not referencing in which Sanskrit text he gets his roots' meanings — this is useless.
He might as well give us some meaning from the Puranic literature.

-----------

I agree to disagree.
.
.