Dear Nina and Yong Peng,

> (3) DN31 Sigalovada Sutta para.245 [PTS3.181]
> Imassa cattaaro kammakilesaa pahiinaa hontii"ti
>
> Thanks also for pointing out the mistake on imassa. Can I say it is
> genitive - "his"? On the other hand, it may be dative - "for him".

N: I would be inclined to dative: for him.

J: I'd have to agree with YP in saying that 'imassa' here is more likely to
be in the genitive case (in a special use) -- 'of him' -- but 'for him' is a
better translation (one doesn't have to read a dative into the 'for').

Y: For "kammakilesaa", I am not sure if it is a dvanda compound. I

> refer to Practical Grammar of the Pali Language by Charles
> Duroiselle. According to the book §542-543, if "kammakilesaa" is a
> dvanda compound, it would mean "kammaa ca kilesaa" - actions and
> defilements.

N: The relevant Co: <kamma-kileso ti kamma~nca ta.m
kilesa-sampayuttattaa kileso caati kamma-kileso.
There is the word ca just before ti: caati. the ta.m could be here:
therefore, as . kilesa-sampayittattaa: sampayuttattaa: the fact of being
accompanied, thus, sampayutta is made into an abstract noun by adding taa,
fem. (Warder Ch 25) Thus it could still be a dvanda, but I like to wait for
the opinion of others.

J: The Pali commentaries very often give the resolution of a compound
(samaasa) and "kamma-kileso ti kamma~nca ta.m kilesa-sampayuttattaa kileso
caati kamma-kileso" is a good example but it does not name the compound
(dvanda, digu, etc.) which is up to the reader to determine. This kind of
knowledge can be acquired from a careful and detailed study of compounds as
explained in the native Pali grammars such as the Saddaniti where many
examples with their resolutions like the ones seen in the at.t.thakatha-s
are found. From my limited understanding so far of this vastly complex and
difficult subject, I can at least recognize that a resolution of the type --
kamma~nca ta.m . . . kileso ca -- indicates a kind of kammadhaaraya
compound. The 'ta.m' is the give-away for without it one would have to take
it as a dvanda. The Saddaniti divides the kammadhaaraya into nine subtypes
(the same ones found in Duroiselle's online grammar). The one that seems to
come closest in my mind is the visesanobhayapada-kammadhaaraya in which both
members are attributes or qualifiers. So it seems to me that paa.naatipaato,
for example, is an action (kamma) as well as a defilement (kilesa) according
to my reading of the resolution. The problem I have with this is in saying
that paa.naatipaato is also a defilement (is it logical?) as I normally
think of defilements along with words like raaga, dosa, maana, etc. The
'kilesa-sampayuttattaa' might help solve this but I'm not sure how to
correctly interpret it. Incidentally, a kilesa-sampayuttaa occurs in one of
the Abhidhamma couplet in the maatikaa of Dhs.

Another example of a kammadhaaraya is satipa.t.thaana (sati ca saa
(u)pa.t.thaan~nca) which one will find in the MN10 cty along with some
other resolutions of it.

Best wishes,

Jim


______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca