Hotim hū, and bhū

[ssasny]

You have linked to the very same Monier Williams entry that I pasted in my last post.

https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/utpad/36334/1

"to arise, rise, originate, be born or produced ; to come forth, become visible, appear ; to be ready"

Glad that we agree!

[ToVincent]

You have linked to the very same Monier Williams entry that I pasted in my last post.
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/utpad/36334/1
"to arise, rise, originate, be born or produced ; to come forth, become visible, appear ; to be ready"

Glad that we agree!

No we don't — context wise.

Uppajjati means "to come forth" in a debased way (fall).

Uppajjati occurs when there is a descent, a falling down - as in a debasement - a lower state.

Diversity of passions come forth (come out of) desire, (as feedback).
chandanānattaṁ paṭicca uppajjati pariḷāhanānattaṁ
SN 14.9

See the debasement? — (unless you're a mara).
Passion is the debasement of desire.

-----------

Note:

I am not good at grammar, but I wonder how Sujato has come up with dhammadhātuṁ as a nominative.
Also, where and why did he leave paticca behind?

dhammadhātuṁ paṭicca uppajjati dhammasaññā
The thought element gives rise to the perception of thoughts
(Sujato)

- Dhātu is feminine — it can only be a singular accusative.
- Saññā is feminine — Hence the singular nominative.
- We have already seen that paṭicca fairly means "feedback" (lit. "to be returned" - "returning", etc.) — it has this underlying meaning, like paccaya, (and even nidāna).

The proper translation might preferably be:
Perception of thought comes out of the element of thought (as feedback).
No?

.
.

[ssasny]

dhammadhātuṃ paṭicca uppajjati dhammasaññā (Dhātusaṃyutta 7)

I don't think Ven. Sujāto is taking dhammadhātuṃ as nominative, it's just a free translation.

Ven. Bodhi has:
"In dependence on the mental-phenomena element there arises (uppajjati) perception of mental phenomena."

'paṭicca' has the literal sense of 'going back to' - paṭi + eti. So, "dependent on, because of". It takes the accusative, as you say.

I think a simple causal relationship is being stated: when there is the thought (mental) element there is the perception of mental phenomena (thoughts). (when there is this, there is that)

Or as Ven Sujāto says, "The thought element gives rise (uppajjati) to the perception of thoughts."
I think this says the same thing and don't read any more into it.

I personally believe it's important to separate out interpretations of texts (which are indeed important) from grammatical/ syntactic analysis.
It's not always necessary to find what we personally believe the message is within the grammatical structure.
Imagine if I tried to give a interpretive talk on Hamlet by analyzing the etymology and syntax of all the lines!

[ToVincent]

...

Paṭicca and paccaya both come from paṭi + √ i
(Eti is just the third present singular of √ I).

Prati-√ i
- to go towards or against , go to meet (as friend or foe) RV.
- to come back , return RV.

Note:
Nidāna (instr. nidā)
nidā (ni-√ dā)

ni = down , back
√ dā = to bind VS.

Nidāna = (what) binds down (and back) — ("down" regarded as a debasement). -------

Cause is hetu.
There is no cause in paṭicca or paccaya. Not even a condition. There is just this double way relationship of (coming forth/coming out of, ) going towards a debased state, and have a feedback, a response to an inquiry.

Paṭicca = pratītya
https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/p/paṭicca/
https://www.sanskritdictionary.com/pratītya/145826/1

_________

Or we could also see paṭicca as pratyaya (as usually used in the SF of the nidāna saṃyukta) — in which case, we would have:

Diversity of passions come forth the conception of desire.
chandanānattaṁ paṭicca uppajjati pariḷāhanānattaṁ
SN 14.9

प्रत्यय pratyaya
- conception, assumption, notion, idea - KātyŚr
Yet the meanings of the Kātyāyana śrauta sūtra could be a bit debatable chronologically speaking.
And there might also be a problem with how paṭicca is declined as a word, in this sentence.

Note:
Samutpād being the causative of samutpad - and samutpāda being the act. of samutpād, we would have paṭicca-samuppāda as something like this:
The conception (notion) of what is brought forth (or born), (to appear).


My take is to stick with pratītya.
.
.

[ssasny]

Imagine I make an announcement, "we will have an outdoor concert tomorrow depending on the weather."
Based on the weather conditions there will be a concert. Bad weather will cause the concert to be cancelled.

So, when the statement is made "depending on the weather", causes and conditions are referred to.
There is no need to say, "hey, you said the concert would take place depending on the weather, you did not say weather conditions had to be correct!"
Also, there would be no need to analyze my words, "depending on" based on roots, Indo-European, philology, etc. to understand what I meant. The meaning is plain.
The same for so much of what the Buddha says in the Pali Canon. He speaks simply and clearly.

[ToVincent]

...
So, when the statement is made "depending on the weather", causes and conditions are referred to.
...

But there is nothing in paṭicca (pacceti), or paccaya — both from paṭi+ √ i — in the literature of the time of Buddha, that has the meaning "depending on" (as cause or condition).
That meaning did not even come on later on.

---------

For instance:

Birth, (hetu) has death for feedback (paccaya) - [viz. to be returned to birth].
In other words, death is to be returned to birth, as a feedback.

Birth is neither a condition for; or a cause of death — that's beside the point.
Death is just the feedback of birth.

What imports is to "learn" from that feedback. This is another historical meaning of praṭi+ √ i; namely "to known , understood" (Pāṇ.)
.
.

[ssasny]

You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that all the English language translators and all the English language reference materials have gotten this wrong. And you have discovered the real meaning? You have discovered something everyone else has missed?

[ToVincent]

You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that all the English language translators and all the English language reference materials have gotten this wrong. And you have discovered the real meaning? You have discovered something everyone else has missed?

It's just mere historical etymology.

And avijjā requires vijjā.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

Etymology is not meaning, however. It's a history of past meanings.

[ToVincent]

Etymology is not meaning, however. It's a history of past meanings.

And?
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

...and it's not meaning.

[ssasny]

Using the word 'mere' implies something simple and obvious.
Yet you claim everyone who has come before you has gotten it wrong, which is quite a statement.

[ToVincent]

...and it's not meaning.

Etymology is about the history of a word, and the study of the sources and development of words.

One has to use the proper meaning of a word, as it has developed up to the time of Buddha.
One cannot use a meaning that has developed after the time of Buddha. Let alone inventing a new meaning.

And you know exactly what I meant.
.
.

[Coëmgenu]

One has to use the proper meaning of a word, as it has developed up to the time of Buddha.

And this is precisely why you can't used generalized etymological stems, abstractions derived from a Vedic period, closer to Proto-Indo-European than the Buddha's Prākrit in many ways, to divine new meanings for words, as you do.

The abstract meanings of the stems to not trump the particular meanings of the words themselves.

[ssasny]

Imagine if I wanted to tell someone what the meaning of the word "relevant" was, and I cited a dictionary definition like,
"having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand" (Merriam Webster)

And the other replied, "Merriam Webster?? what do they know? Dictionaries are wrong. If you look at the etymology of 'relevant' one can see that the PIE root means, 'not heavy, having little weight.' And it's related to Sanskrit laghuh 'quick, small'. It's obvious that the meaning of 'relevant' is 'insubstantial, not important'.

Would I then have to redefine the word for all English speakers based on this?