1.4
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā / 1. Pratyaya (प्रत्यय) / 1.4
क्रिया न प्रत्ययवती नाप्रत्ययवती क्रिया प्रत्यया नाक्रियावन्तः क्रियावन्तश् च सन्त्युत
kriyā na pratyayavatī nāpratyayavatī kriyā pratyayā nākriyāvantaḥ kriyāvantaś ca santy uta
The line
An action is not one that has conditions, nor is an action one that lacks them. The conditions are not without an action. And do they, then, have an action?
नेपालीमा
क्रिया न त प्रत्यय भएको हो न प्रत्यय नभएको। प्रत्ययहरू क्रिया बिनाका होइनन्, अनि के तिनीहरूसँग क्रिया छ त?
Where it sits
Verse 1.3 removed svabhāva (स्वभाव) from the conditions. Verse 1.4 says the relation 'action plus conditions' cannot be stated either way. Verse 1.5 defines a condition as 'these, depending on which, it arises,' and asks how they are conditions before the arising.
Split: kriyā (क्रिया) + na (न) + pratyayavatī (प्रत्ययवती) + na (न) + apratyayavatī (अप्रत्ययवती) + kriyā (क्रिया) + pratyayāḥ (प्रत्ययाः) + na (न) + akriyāvantaḥ (अक्रियावन्तः) + kriyāvantaḥ (क्रियावन्तः) + ca (च) + santi (सन्ति) + uta (उत)
Sanskrit, in depth
The words
| Word | Grammar | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| kriyā (क्रिया) | nominative singular, feminine | an action, the arising as a doing. |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| pratyayavatī (प्रत्ययवती) | nominative singular, feminine | possessing conditions. -vat (-वत्) here is the possessive suffix, not the comparison. |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| apratyayavatī (अप्रत्ययवती) | nominative singular, feminine | not possessing conditions. |
| kriyā (क्रिया) | nominative singular, feminine | an action, repeated. |
| pratyayāḥ (प्रत्ययाः) | nominative plural, masculine | the conditions. |
| na (न) | indeclinable | not. |
| akriyāvantaḥ (अक्रियावन्तः) | nominative plural, masculine | without an action. |
| kriyāvantaḥ (क्रियावन्तः) | nominative plural, masculine | possessing an action. |
| ca (च) | indeclinable | and. |
| santi (सन्ति) | present, third person plural | they are. |
| uta (उत) | indeclinable | or rather? A questioning particle. |
The phrases
The first line refuses both: an action with conditions, and an action without them. The second line turns the question onto the conditions. They are not actionless, or else nothing would come of calling them conditions. Are they, then, possessed of the action? uta (उत) leaves that as a question the next verses will not let stand.
Possessive -vat (-वत्) in pratyayavatī (प्रत्ययवती) means 'having,' which is a different job from the comparative -vat (-वत्) 'like.'
Sanskrit in this line
uta (उत) at the end of a line is a question, not a conjunction like ca (च). It means the speaker is pressing: or is it this?
Say it back
Which two descriptions of kriyā (क्रिया) does the first line refuse?