Do you think Abhidhammika means "Abhidhamma of KA"?ToVincent wrote:Rittaka [ritta+ka]
Ritta [pp．of riñcati]:
- devoid of, empty of．
DEVOID OF KA.
Presuming you mean "KA" to be some sort of shorthand for kāya, of course, substantiated here:
ToVincent wrote:Sakkāyadiṭṭhi (S/self-view) [saṃ+Ka+iya - lit. (identifying) "with what belongs to Ka"]; that is to say the identity-view with Atta (Self), as well as the identity-view with one of his attas (selves), is just about believing that one's satta is Ka (Atman>>Brahma>>Prajāpati) - in an extensive, spreading, constant & continual way. To the point that ka (the body*) becomes one and immortal with Brahma or Brahma/Ātman.
As believed in late Vedic times (and particularly in the Upaniṣads, quite contemporary with the Buddha).
*here "body" has a larger range in Indian philosophy, than the meaning we usually attach to it.
It doesn't obviously , this is a rhetorical question asking you to defend your use of ancient vedic etymologies, few of which would have been generally known at the time of the Buddha, to define Pāli words, designed to be "known" at the time of the Buddha (or, at the very least, by the sangha at the time of the standardizing of the Pāli texts). "Ancient (and defunct and largely unknown, by the time of the Buddha,) etymology is not contemporaneous meaning" being the critique at hand.