Hi Yong Peng and group,

>
>"satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa"
>
>It is exactly people which I think satasahassa.m (one hundred
>thousand) refers to. I don't think the monks are distributing money
>just because they are upset with the food offered. Please correct me
>if I am wrong.

I think I see what might be causing the confusion. Were you thinking of the rule that an absolutive has the same agent as the agent of the main clause? And therefore you assumed that the agent of vissajjetvaa must be the same as the monks who complain (garahanti) ?

The important thing to remember is that this rule applies within the scope of a single governing verb. In a complex sentence with several clauses and subordinated verbs, you can come across absolutives with a different agent than the main agent of the sentence. I've seen this several times in the Dhp-a. This can even be the case when the secondary 'verb' is introduced in the form of a participle.

In this case, I believe it's not the monks who are the agent of vissajjetvaa, but rather the doner (whoever that may be). This is because the direct object of the sentence, 'katadaana.m', which is the thing being complained about, includes a participle 'kata' which is further qualified by a subordinate clause: 'satasahaassa.m vissajjetvaa'. I'll try to explain what I mean by analysing the sentence in stages.

Here's the relevant part of the text:

satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa katadaanam pi "ki.m daana.m naam' etan" ti garahanti.


Here's what I would call the kernal of the sentence:

[te bhikkhuu] daana.m garahanti.

[Those monks] find fault with the donation.

The monks are the agent, the donation is the object and 'finding fault' is the finite verb (using the present tense ending to indicate a general state of affairs).

The quotation "ki.m daana.m naam 'etan" expands on the above idea by showing what they say or think while finding fault. So we can expand the above kernal to:

[te bhikkhuu] "ki.m daana.m naam' etan" ti daana.m garahanti.

[Those monks] find fault with the donation [saying] "what kind of donation is this!"

So far so good. Now the donation is further described in the earlier part of the sentence. It's actually called a 'katadaana.m' literally a 'done donation' or a 'donation performed...'.

I believe the absolutive clause 'satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa' is entirely subordinated to the participle 'kata' (done) in the compound 'katadaana.m'. This is why it can have a different agent than the main sentence built around the finite verb form garahanti.

satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa katadaanam pi

Even (pi) a donation (daanam) performed (kata) by distributing (vissajjetvaa) a hundred-thousand (satasahassam) [pieces of money].


So a literal (and awkward) translation of the entire sentence would be

satasahassa.m vissajjetvaa katadaanam pi "ki.m daana.m naam' etan" ti garahanti.

They even complain about a donation performed by donating a hundred thousand, saying "what kind of donation is this!"

Some further notes:

'Complain' might not be the best word in the above. 'Find fault with' is probably closer, since they might keep their thoughts to themselves.

Burlingame translates vissajjetvaa with 'dispensing' which has a nice sound to it.

Sums of money are very commonly referred to as some number of thousands. I've seen this idiom many times both in Dhp-a and in Mhvs.

As always, I offer this reading with the reservation that I might have missed something along the way. But it's the best reading I can come up with at the moment. Corrections or criticsims are very welcome. Hope it's of interest.

Best regards,

/Rett