svArtha derivation and subtypes of taddhita pratyaya affixes

[Ulrich T. Kragh]

Dear Indology list members,
thank you very much to Stefan Baums and Dipak Bhattacharya for their responses to my inquiry about svArthika derivation and taddhita affixes. Both mails contained several leads that were helpful to me.
 
I am still left with one question I would like to pose to the list. I have been considering the possibility that the grammatical term tacchiila "having that (action) as its nature or habit, characterized by that" might be the term I have been looking for (for the Tibetan translation "de dang mthun pa'i rkyen). However, I see in Tubb and Boose's "Scholastic Sanskrit" page 58 that this function only seems to be applicable to primary derivation (kRt pratyaya) from verbal stem to noun, and in the case of my passage, I am dealing with a secondary nominal derivation (taddhita pratyaya). 
 
So here is my new question: would it at all be possible for a tacchiila interpretation to be applied to a taddhita derivation?
 
Now, shortly in response to the postings by Baums and Bhattacharya. Bhattacharya's explanations of the svArthika and its application to my passage were very helpful - thank you very much. Baums asked whether the Tibetan word "byams pa" might reflect Skt. maitraka/maitreya here. The answer is no, the word is taken from Nagarjuna's Mmk root-text verse 17.1 on which the passage comments, and the root-text (extant in Skt) clearly has maitram. Secondly, Baums suggested that the Tibetan phrase "de dang mthun pa'i rkyen" might be an unusual translation for taddhita (the regular translation is "de dang phan pa'i rkyen). I appreciate this idea very much, and I have also been toying with that possibility. However, the only problem is that it cannot account for how the subcommentator Avalokitavrata substitutes the word "de" (= Skt tad) with "bdag" (= Skt. sva-) and "gzhan" (= Skt. any- or para-) in his explanation of the passage, where he writes "bdag dang mthun pa'i rkyen" and "gzhan dang mthun pa'i rkyen". I do not think that *taddhitapratyaya could be turned into *svahitapratyaya and *anyahitapratyaya. So, though the solution is tempting, then it does not solve all the problems. Further, Baums suggested that the Tibetan translations of Bhavaviveka's Mmk commentary and Avalokitavrata's subcommentary might be closely related, and could have been adjusted to each other in the translation process. I agree, and consider this quite likely. Both texts were translated by the same translators, namely Jnanagarbha and cog ro klu'i rgyal mtshan. 
 
Once again, thank you to both of you for taking time to help me.
 
With best regards,
Tim
 
Dr. Ulrich Timme Kragh
Assistant Professor
Geumgang Center for Buddhist Studies
Geumgang University, Dae-myeong Ri, Sang-wol Myeon
Nonsan-si, Chungnam 320-931, Republic of Korea
Tel. +82-41-731 3618