Dear Jim,
I appreciate very much your explanations of the compounds, I always like to
learn more about them.
And very useful: imassa, it occurs so often, a genitive, but making it a
better trs. by saying: for him.
As to the word tam, I was thinking of what Rob Ed wrote before: tam: there,
therefore, now, as, he exxplained this also in connection with yam.
See below for remarks.

op 05-03-2003 21:29 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@...:

>
>> (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.

Incidentally, a kilesa-sampayuttaa occurs in one of
the Abhidhamma couplet in the maatikaa of Dhs.
N: Yes, also in Dhammasangani (first Book of Abhidhamma, tr as Buddhist
Psychological Ethics), Ch XIII: group on the vices (kilesa-gocchaka.m):
lobha, dosa, etc.
In the Co to this, the Atthasaalinii (Expositor), part II, Summary, Ch 2:
here the transl is <corruption>: It explains that the kilesas are
accumulated by contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya, meaning: each citta
is succeeded by a next one (anantara: no [time] in between) and all the
kilesas are in this way accumulated from one moment to the next one, from
life to life. <Because here those corruptions also, which arise by means of
such causal relations as contiguity, are said to live [dwell], therefore
they are the dwelling-places of [present] corruptions...>
(For those who want more info: on dsg yahoo we discuss these matters more
extensively, as well as vipassana, and all kinds of daily life issues.)
Thank you very much Jim,
Nina.