Hi Alan,

>
>
>1)
>cakkhu[n-u] eye
>aayatana.m [n-a/nom/sg] sense base
>Cakkhaayatana.m [?] the sense base of the eye
>
>2)
>cakkhu[n-u] eye
>vi~n~naa.na.m [n-a/nom/sg] consciousness
>cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m [?] the consciousness of the eye
>
>In both of the above cases, I'm not sure if eye is acting like an adjective
>related to sense base and consciousness respectively, or if it should be
>more like "the sense base of the eye" with a genitive relationship. I read
>up on Kammadhaaraya compounds and their seem to be four types:
>
>adj+substantive(noun)= black-bird
>substantive+substantive=girl-friend
>adjective(or adverb)+adjective(or participle)='intensely lovely' or 'soft
>spoken'
>substantive+adj=ice-cold
>
>If the two examples I gave above were to fit in here, they would have to be
>"substantive+substantive" but then it seems to me like they would have to
>mean "consciousness which is an eye" and this is not right. So, my guess
>is that they must be Tappurisas??

These questions can't always be answered on purely internal, formal grounds, but depend on what the words mean in their doctrinal environment. I'm imagining a situation where visual sense perception is described as involving a meeting between three items: eye, form, consciousness. (similarly, hearing is described as a meeting between ear, sound and consciousness). Eye and form are (internal and external respectively) aayatanas, and consciousness is divided into six modes, corresponding to the six senses.

Given that, 1) would then be a kammadhaaraya along the lines of girl-friend. It would be determinative (specifying), since of all possible friends, it's the _girl_ friend that is meant, and of all 12 (internal and external) sense bases, it's the _eye_ sense-base that is meant. The eye really is one of the sense bases.

But if the doctrinal context were different that sort of compound might have to be taken another way. If the heretics believed that the eye has several components, for example it has a 'sense base' it has a 'pupil', it has an 'iris', it has a 'viññaana' etc, then when reading their books you might have to read it as a tappurisa: the sense-base of the eye, the eye's sense-base (as opposed to all the other components it possesses).

Still I'd expect that in your text the former is right, that the eye _is_ one of the sense bases, hence it's a kammadhaaraya.

Basically, many compounds could be interpreted in various ways, and commentators sometimes argue about how to interpret them.

Also beware that English allows statements like "the state of Michigan" which sounds like a genitive relationship, but actually means: "the state which is Michigan". So the English can throw you off if you read it too mechanically and always interprest 'of' as indicating a tp6. "The sense base of the eye" could mean "the sense base which is the eye" in the context of a list of sense bases, just like "the state of Michigan" is used against the background of there being fifty states, of which we've specified one.

2) Here I'm inclined to agree with you that the cakkhu and the viññaana are not the same thing, hence it would be a tappurisa. The word cakkhu is specifying which sort of viññaana is intended. Of the six modes of viññaana, it's the sort pertaining to the eye which is meant.

Hope this is of help. I'm always grateful if someone points out mistakes, even in private email.

best regards,

/Rett