Which of these versions of SN 22.59 have correct grammar?

[manas]

Am learning this sutta in the pali, however I note differences in versions. Does anyone know which is correct, or where we can find definitively grammatically correct pali texts?

For example

Version 1: Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca h·idaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, na·y·idaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā, tasmā vedanā ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. (from https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/sam ... 2-059.html)

Version 2: Vedanā bhikkhave, anattā, vedanañca hidaṃ bhikkhave, attā abhavissa nayidaṃ vedanaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha [PTS Page 067] [\q 6/] ca vedanā "evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanaṃ mā ahosī'ti. Yasmā ca kho bhikkhave, vedanaṃ anattā, tasmā vedanaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati. Na ca labbhati vedanā "evaṃ me vedanaṃ hotu, evaṃ me vedanaṃ mā ahosī"ti. (from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... ml#pts.066)

In the second version from Access to Insight, 'vedana' is sometimes 'vedanam'.
.. which version is better / correct? Or can anyone suggest a perfect one? Thank you for reading

[pulga]

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

[DooDoot]

In the second version from Access to Insight, 'vedana' is sometimes 'vedanam'.
.. which version is better / correct? Or can anyone suggest a perfect one? Thank you for reading

I cannot offer an authoritative answer but I am happy to brainstorm with my scant learning:

Version 1: Vedanā anattā. Vedanā ca h·idaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, na·y·idaṃ vedanā ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, vedanā anattā, tasmā vedanā ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati vedanāya: ‘evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanā mā ahosī’ti. (from https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/sam ... 2-059.html)

Version 2: Vedanā bhikkhave, anattā, vedanañca hidaṃ bhikkhave, attā abhavissa nayidaṃ vedanaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha [PTS Page 067] [\q 6/] ca vedanā "evaṃ me vedanā hotu, evaṃ me vedanaṃ mā ahosī'ti. Yasmā ca kho bhikkhave, vedanaṃ anattā, tasmā vedanaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati. Na ca labbhati vedanā "evaṃ me vedanaṃ hotu, evaṃ me vedanaṃ mā ahosī"ti. (from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... ml#pts.066)

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

What do you regard as the case of vedanāya? Thanks

[pulga]

What do you regard as the case of vedanāya? Thanks

I take it to be in the genitive singular.

[DooDoot]

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.

[pulga]

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.

You're correct it is the locative. The inflection āya is used in most of the cases in the feminine singular. Here it means that it does not obtain "with regards to" (one of the senses of the locative). I originally took it to mean it does not obtain "of" (one of the senses of the genitive).

[DooDoot]

"with regards to" (one of the senses of the locative)..

OK. Thanks

The seventh case (sattamī = Skr. saptamī) or the loc. serves to denote the where, i.e., the scene of an action. But it is capable of expressing such nuances as are denoted by the English prepositions in, on, at, among, with, by, near, over or about. Moreover its employment is not restricted to actual space as normally understood by ‘where’, but extends into other spheres of thought (cp. SS §38.6) Consequently there are various uses of the loc. which can be classified as those denoting, for instance, the varying conceptions of time, of circumstance, of motive, (the nimitta-sattamī of local grammarians), of relation, the loc. absolute with its various subdivisions and so on. Though fundamentally the loc. denotes just where, i.e. the place where an action takes place and thus appears to express a static notion, it is nevertheless capable of having a dynamic import as when it signifies the aim reached with verbs of motion and allied meaning, being in most such instances parallel to the acc. But in spite of all these syntactical variations of application, logically the fundamental unity of conception underlying all its uses appears more markedly in the case of the loc. than with most other cases. Apart from these adverbal uses the loc. is also employed adnominally in the Nikāyas with a descriptive sense, but even here some verbal concept seems to be implied

https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... e.htm#toc0

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

Note: each aggregate in the 2nd text after the "idam" ends with "am".

[pulga]

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 treating each of the khandha as neuters to be in agreement with idam. Neither the PTS nor the Chattha Sangayana editions do so. The PTS edition which is very good at providing variant readings doesn't make note of it at all. So I'm puzzled where the second version is actually coming from. Is it a modern alteration of the text?

[DooDoot]

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":

1.3 What five?
Katame pañca?

1.4‘I had such form in the past.’
‘Evaṃrūpo ahosiṃ atītamaddhānan’ti—

1.5 Recollecting thus, it’s only form that they recollect.
iti vā hi, bhikkhave, anussaramāno rūpaṃyeva anussarati.

1.6‘I had such feeling …
‘Evaṃvedano ahosiṃ atītamaddhānan’ti—

1.7 iti vā hi, bhikkhave, anussaramāno vedanaṃyeva anussarati.

1.8 perception …
‘Evaṃsañño ahosiṃ atītamaddhānan’ti …

1.9 choices …
‘evaṃsaṅkhāro ahosiṃ atītamaddhānan’ti …

1.10 consciousness in the past.’
‘evaṃviññāṇo ahosiṃ atītamaddhānan’ti—

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato#1.3

[pulga]

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":

Might the pronoun ahaṃ in its nominative form be implied here? The series of "such a khandha" could be taken as singular words, masculine compounds inflected in the nominative singular to agree with ahaṃ. But I'm speculating here. It may just be an irregular use of the grammar.

[manas]

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.

I had the expectation, that Access to Insight's version, would be more likely authoritative, but for now I'm still not sure which version to use. I am still beginning in learning pali. A scholar might be able to finally clear it up, I would expect there are a few pali experts here.

[DooDoot]

A scholar might be able to finally clear it up, I would expect there are a few pali experts here.

Yes. Venerable Dhammanando or Volo.

It appears vedanaṃ can only be accusative; therefore does this make sense?

[manas]

A scholar might be able to finally clear it up, I would expect there are a few pali experts here.

Yes. Venerable Dhammanando or Volo.

It appears vedanaṃ can only be accusative; therefore does this make sense?

In any case, I learned a bit reading over the conversation between yourself and pulga, so thank you both for that. More study is needed...