Dear Nina

I made a mistake in my explanation of the sentence "cha, etc." So here
is the correction posted before you and others members can get a chance
to be confused.

I wrote:

> Cha, bhikkhave, aanisa.mse sampassamaanena alameva bhikkhunaa
> sabbadhammesu anodhi.m karitvaa anattasa~n~na.m upa.t.thaapetu.m.
>
> [Com: anodhi'm karitvaati "ettakaava sa'nkhaaraa aniccaa, na ito
> pare"ti eva'm siima'm mariyaada'm akatvaa]
>
> The keystone of this sentence is "ala.m", an indeclinable meaning
> "possible, fit, proper, etc." I have already said in one previous post
> that indeclinables are viewed as nouns with invisible cases.
>
> The key relation in this sentence is:
> upa.t.thaapetu.m ---> ala.m (NIO/PUR) [Nominal Identity (Ordinary) and
> Purposive relations. See RG - 16]
> The translation would be: "(It) is possible to bring about. . . (for
> PUR) / Bringing about is possible . . . ( for NIO)"

From the above, it would appear as if NIO and PUR were two
alternatives, with different translations. But no: they are in reality
two relations bundled into one --- two different translations are
reflections of these relations.

with metta

Ven. Pandita