The Pali words: saṅkhaya & parikkhaya???

[DooDoot]

In plain English, how can we differentiate between saṅkhaya & parikkhaya?

saṃ˚
indeclinable
prefix, implying conjunction & completeness; saṃ˚; is after vi˚; (19') the most frequent (16') of all Pāli prefixes. Its primary meaning is “together”

pari
a prefix denoting completion
all round; altogether; completely.

I am considering this verse:

With the ending of relish for becoming,
Nandībhavaparikkhayā,

the finishing of perception and consciousness,
Saññāviññāṇasaṅkhayā;

Doot. I think I worked this out.

* 'Nandībhava' ('delight in becoming') is one thing comprised of two sub things ('delight' & 'becoming') therefore the 'destruction' (khaya) of nandībhava is called 'parikkhaya' or 'all round destruction".

* Therefore, 'saññāviññāṇa' must be two separate things; thus their dual 'destruction' (khaya) is called 'saṅkhaya' or 'co-destruction".

* Compare to MN 38, which has 'taṇhāsaṅkhayavimuttiṃ', which means 'destruction-together-with-freedom'.

* A search for 'taṇhāsaṅkhaya' finds nothing.

* Compare to MN 26, which has one thing destroyed, namely: taṇhākkhayo; thus no prefix of 'saṃ' or 'pari'.

Based on the above, your theory in your previous post that "saññāviññāṇa" means "discriminations towards consciousness" appears wrong. If this was correct, "saññāviññāṇa" would 'parikkhaya' instead of 'saṅkhaya'. For now, you appear to owe Bhikkhus Bodhi & Sujato an apology. However, this does not alter your theory "saññāviññāṇa" has a Brahmanistic meaning.

[DooDoot]

Based on the above, your theory in your previous post that "saññāviññāṇa" means "discriminations towards consciousness" appears wrong. If this was correct, "saññāviññāṇa" would 'parikkhaya' instead of 'saṅkhaya'. For now, you appear to owe Bhikkhus Bodhi & Sujato an apology.

Not necessarily Doot. Don't conclude so fast. The 'saṅkhaya' may possibly refer to the 'co-destruction' of 'saññāviññāṇa' with 'nandībhavaparikkhayā'. Therefore, the translation might be:

With the ending of relish for becoming,
Nandībhavaparikkhayā,

Together with ending discrimination towards consciousness,
Saññāviññāṇasaṅkhayā;

Which includes the cessation [of influence of] and stilling of feelings:
Vedanānaṃ nirodhā upasamā,

that, sir, is how I understand liberation,
Evaṃ khvāhaṃ āvuso jānāmi;

emancipation and seclusion for beings.
Sattānaṃ nimokkhaṃ pamokkhaṃ vivekan”ti

[perkele]

hi perkele

can you tell me if the below is correct about the prefixes?

thanks

Subject: The Pali words: saṅkhaya & parikkhaya???

Hello Master Doot!

Since you asked, I will try to come up with an opinion about this matter, although as mentioned earlier, I have no real understanding of Pali. I just read this now (after almost one week having not been logged in).

My opinion so far (about saṅkhaya & parikkhaya): Your first interpretation seemed to make much sense to me:

Therefore, i guess "parikkhayā" might be similar to "sabba", i.e., the destruction of all types of becoming. Where "saṃ+khayā" might mean "thoroughness", such as a cloth is thoroughly cleaned.

pari
a prefix denoting completion
all round; altogether; completely.

saṃ˚
indeclinable
prefix, implying conjunction & completeness; saṃ˚; is after vi˚; (19') the most frequent (16') of all Pāli prefixes. Its primary meaning is “together”

But can "sam" not also denote "thoroughness", like in samma-sambuddha? I thought I had heard/read/learnt somewhere that that was the meaning of some of the "sam" in "samma-sambuddha".

Therefore, your first interpretation seemed to make much sense to me.

Your following interpretations, trying to pin down the exact link/conjunction (of two things) that the "sam" might refer to made less sense to me, seemed quite arbitrary:

'taṇhāsaṅkhayavimuttiṃ', which means 'destruction-together-with-freedom'.

I believe it means rather something like "freedom through the thorough/complete destruction of craving".
I believe the "sam"/"saṅ" prefix is always used as a prefix for one word, not as a prefix denoting the relationship of two (concatenated) following words.
And also not as a sneakily embedded back-reference like this:

With the ending of relish for becoming,
Nandībhavaparikkhayā,

Together with ending discrimination towards consciousness,
Saññāviññāṇasaṅkhayā;

But maybe I am wrong.

Probably someone versed in Pali grammar could provide a more definite/reasoned opinion.

[DooDoot]

...

Thank you Sir, for your consideration & opinion.

[DooDoot]

Probably someone versed in Pali grammar could provide a more definite/reasoned opinion.

I am still stuck on my "co-ending" hypothesis for "sam-khayo" . I found these verses:

Yehāyaṃ
desito dhammo,

They have taught this Dhamma
dhammabhūtehi tādibhi.

out of compassion for living creatures—
Cattāri ariyasaccāni,

suffering, origin, path,
anukampāya pāṇinaṃ;

and cessation, the ending of suffering.
Dukkhaṃ samudayo maggo,

In these four noble truths,
nirodho dukkhasaṅkhayo.

the endless suffering of transmigration
Yasmiṃ nivattate dukkhaṃ,

finally comes to an end.
saṃsārasmiṃ anantakaṃ;

When the body breaks up,
Bhedā imassa kāyassa,

and life comes to an end,
jīvitassa ca saṅkhayā;

https://suttacentral.net/thag7.5/en/sujato

It seems two or more related things are part of the two uses of saṅkhayo above: (a) nirodha + dukkha khayo; and (b) body-break-up + life.

Duve imā cakkhumatā pakāsitā,
Nibbānadhātū anissitena tādinā;
Ekā hi dhātu idha diṭṭhadhammikā,
Saupādisesā bhavanettisaṅkhayā;
Anupādisesā pana samparāyikā,
Yamhi nirujjhanti bhavāni sabbaso.

Ye etadaññāya padaṃ asaṅkhataṃ,
Vimuttacittā bhavanettisaṅkhayā;
Te dhammasārādhigamā khaye ratā,
Pahaṃsu te sabbabhavāni tādino”ti

These two Nibbāna-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.

https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland

Also above: (a) saupādisesā + bhavanetti and (b) vimuttacittā + bhavanetti



I also found this:

Bhante nāgasena, akāle maraṇaṃ atthīti yaṃ vadesi, iṅgha me tvaṃ tattha kāraṇaṃ atidisāti”.

‘Venerable Nāgasena, the death out of due time that you also speak of—come now, tell me the reason for that.’

“Yathā, mahārāja, mahatimahāaggikkhandho ādinnatiṇakaṭṭhasākhāpalāso pariyādinnabhakkho upādānasaṅkhayā nibbāyati, so aggi vuccati ‘anītiko anupaddavo samaye nibbuto nāmā’ti; evameva kho, mahārāja, yo koci bahūni divasasahassāni jīvitvā jarājiṇṇo āyukkhayā anītiko anupaddavo marati, so vuccati ‘samaye maraṇamupagato’ti

‘As a great and mighty fire, O king, on to which dry grass and sticks and branches and leaves have been heaped, will nevertheless, when this its food has been consumed, die out by the exhaustion of the fuel. Yet such a fire is said to have gone out in fullness of time, without any calamity or accident (having happened to it). Just so, O king, the man who, when he has lived many thousands of days, when he is old and stricken in years, dies at last of old age, without any calamity or accident having happened to him, is said to have reached death in the fullness of time.