Is there anyone in this list knowledgeable about
botanics, who could answer that question?

The reason for my asking it is the fifth stanza of the
Uragasutta in the Suttanipaata:

5. Yo naajjhagamaa bhavesu saara"m, vicina"m
pupphamiva [pupphamiva
(bahuusu)] udumbaresu;
so bhikkhu jahaati orapaara"m, urago
ji.n.namivattaca"m puraa.na"m.

(VRI:s text on line)

This is translated by Thanissaro:

The monk seeing
in states of becoming
no essence,
as he would,
when surveying a fig tree,
no flowers,
sloughs off the near shore & far --
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.

And by Nyanaponika, into English:

He who does not find core or substance
in any of the realms of being,
like flowers which are vainly sought
in fig trees that bear none,
-- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond,
just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin.

And into German:

Wer in den Daseinsformen Wesenskern nicht findet,
Wie einer, der auf Feigenbäumen Blüten sucht,
Ein solcher Mönch gibt beide Seiten auf,
Wie eine Schlange alte, abgenutzte Haut.

Now I know nothing about Ficus Glomerata, which is the
meaning of "udumbara" according to the PTS dictionary;
but I have never heard of a tree bearing fruits
without having flowers first.

So is this tree really an exception?

Or was it a popular belief when the text was created
that fig trees don't have flowers? (Nothing strange
about that, in that case - Linnaeus put mushrooms and
worms in the same category, and the authors of the
Edda thought that bears don't have sinews.)

Or might the original meaning of "udumbara" have been
some plant that really doesn't have flowers, e. g. a
fern?

Gunnar

gunnargallmo@...