Dhamma Wheel

Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:26 pmThanks, C. Yes, if it were evaṃ it would be more obvious, and that's what this parallel suggests. The general meaning is pretty clear, but I hadn't come across that particular form before.

I don't think it is evaṃ, but rather eva. An emphatic particle. The e is elided.

The Critical Pali Dictionary sites the verse, though it reads ajjhagā as being in the 3rd person singular.

aor. (a), 3 sg. ajjhagā, Sn 204 (amataṁ santiṁ); 225 (khayaṁ virāgaṁ, etc.; Pj); 723 (monaṁ); 956 (ratiṁ); Dhp 154 (taṇhānaṁ khayaṁ);

https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=3325

Ajjhagā can also be 3rd person singular aorist. This would make it correspond to cittaṃ which is in the nominative singular. "The mind has attained to the destruction of craving and is without saṅkhāras."

Pali is inflectional like Latin. The person is reflected in the ending of the verb.

4. In most cases necessary to supply an English translation with a personal pronoun, I would say. For example, the aorist diṭṭhosi implies the first-person ("I") with the si suffix. The "I" in English would be the way to capture that since there is no inflectional form to express it. Wouldn't diṭṭh...

Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:41 am
The hoti doesn't seem to get into the English. How are ninno, poṇo, and pabbhāro supposed to be verbs here as Ven Bodhi has them rendered?

Hoti is sometimes used as an auxiliary in periphrastic verbs.

It's the conditional tense, cf. Warder pg. 331 ff.

So I'm puzzled where the second version is actually coming from. Is it a modern alteration of the text? SN 22.79 from the 1st source has all khandha in the follow verse ending in "o": :shrug: Might the pronoun ahaṃ in its nominative form be implied here? The series of "such a khandha" could be take...

The first version is correct. Vedanā should be declined as a feminine nominative. Though idaṃ is neuter, so there is some ambiguity. Are you suggesting the 2nd text used vedanam due to the idam (rather than declined vedana into the accusative case)? Thanks The Buddhajayanthi Tipitaka seems to be tr...

I take it to be in the genitive singular. It appears it might be locative (which sounds strange to me) because the rupa, sankhara & viññāṇa in the same context are rūpe, saṅkhāresu & viññāṇe; which all only share locative case. :shrug: You're correct it is the locative. The inflection āya is used i...

DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:24 am What do you regard as the case of vedanāya? Thanks

I take it to be in the genitive singular.

The first version is correct. Vedanā should be declined as a feminine nominative. Though idaṃ is neuter, so there is some ambiguity.

Though it's going to be expensive Ven. Bodhi has a book coming out in December Reading the Buddha's Discourses in Pali. From the description it appears to have great potential in facilitating the learning of Pali. It may be well worth its price.

Personally I consider Bhikkhu Bodhi's contextual reading of that passage to be the most plausible one. The use that Ñāṇavīra makes of it, by contrast, strikes me as a fine illustration of that biblical exegete's warning: "A text without a context is a pretext." Though I question the context that Ve...

What are we to make of the passage from the Culasakuludayi Sutta? `Udayin, if someone should recollect his manifold past life thus: one birth, two births . . . thus with all its details and particulars, should he recollect his manifold past life, then either he might ask me a question about the past...