Oh!, I suppose that you call Ācariya Buddhaghosa, an early master.
You know what the Buddha said: "500 years".
I'm into suttas with parallels.
.
.
Oh!, I suppose that you call Ācariya Buddhaghosa, an early master.
Then use pratī, if there is no reference but late BSk. As seen before.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:35 pm An issue that is unaddressed is that the OP freely mixes Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit with Vedic Sanskrit. The two are not the same Sanskrit. Pratītya is likely used very differently in the Vedas and Upanishads. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is Sanskritized Prākrit, not true Sanskrit according to Vedic standards.
Ven. Buddhaghosa is drawing out the meaning of the word by using other words which are similar, which is quite common for the commentaries. For example
Ven. Buddhaghosa also quotes from the Great Commentary, which pre-dates him.It relishes (cakkhati), thus it is an eye (cakkhu); the meaning is that it enjoys a visible datum and turns it to account. It makes visible (rúpayati), thus it is a visible datum (rúpa); the meaning is that by undergoing an alteration in appearance (colour) it evidences what state is in the mind (lit. heart).
It hears (suóáti), thus it is an ear (sota). It is emitted (sappati), thus it is sound (sadda); the meaning is that it is uttered.
It smells (gháyati), thus it is a nose (ghána). It is smelt (gandhayati) thus it is odour (gandha); the meaning is that it betrays its own physical basis.
It evokes (avhayati) life (jìvita), thus it is a tongue (jivhá). Living beings taste (rasanti) it, thus it is flavour (rasa); the meaning is that they enjoy it.
It is the origin (áya) of vile (kucchita) states subject to cankers, thus it is a body (káya), origin being the place of arising. It is touched (phusiyati), thus it is a tangible datum (phoþþhabba).
It measures (munáti), thus it is a mind (mano).
Your redefining of pratītya is based in Veda-specific usage. BHS is based on Prākrit with a Sanskrit veneer. When Buddhist use the Sanskrit pratītya, they use it in its BHS sense, not in a Vedic sense.ToVincent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:42 pmThen use pratī, if there is no reference but late BSk. As seen before.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:35 pm An issue that is unaddressed is that the OP freely mixes Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit with Vedic Sanskrit. The two are not the same Sanskrit. Pratītya is likely used very differently in the Vedas and Upanishads. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is Sanskritized Prākrit, not true Sanskrit according to Vedic standards.
Where?
I strongly advise the other readers to check the verb from which paticca & paccaya come from - namely patī / pratī.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:45 pmYour redefining of pratītya is based in Veda-specific usage. BHS is based on Prākrit with a Sanskrit veneer. When Buddhist use the Sanskrit pratītya, they use it in its BHS sense, not in a Vedic sense.ToVincent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:42 pmThen use pratī, if there is no reference but late BSk. As seen before.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:35 pm An issue that is unaddressed is that the OP freely mixes Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit with Vedic Sanskrit. The two are not the same Sanskrit. Pratītya is likely used very differently in the Vedas and Upanishads. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit is Sanskritized Prākrit, not true Sanskrit according to Vedic standards.
The 6 causes and 4 conditions of the Vaibhāṣika would be an example. For the Mahāsāṃghika, we can look to the Śālistamba Sūtra.
Extracts please.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:05 pm The languages of the EBTs, in case you did not know, include Pāli, Prākrit (including Gāndhārī), BHS (a composite language of several Prākrits), Chinese, and Tibetan. The Chinese translations date from 100AD to 900AD, unless I'm remembering the dating of Ven An Shigao wrong. The Tibetan texts are from a similar period. BHS texts are very old, older than Chinese and Tibetan texts.
Didn't you talk about Śālistamba Sūtra?
If it's not an EBT, no need for that.