Hi Alan,
op 13-09-2005 16:48 schreef Alan McClure op alanmcclure3@...:

>
> As for avijjaapaccayaa I've been thinking about this and here are my
> musings:
>
> I have said that this is a tappurisa compound. However, I am wondering
> if this is actually the case. After all what is the case connection?
> condition of ignorance (gen as in "belonging to")
> condition for ignorance (dat)
> condition from ignorance (abl)
> condition by ignorance (ins)
> condition at/in ignorance (loc)
>
> I'm not sure that any of these work. paccayaa is definitely ablative
> meaning "with condition/from the condition"
> Would any of the above make sense in this context? I am thinking no.

------
N: Through the condition of, by means of the condition of, this would do.
Instr.

A: (ins) From the condition by ignorance (doesn't make sense)
N: Through the condition of ignorance.

The pacayas are working in this or that way, and there are different ones:
ignorance is one, abhisankhaara is one, vinnñaa.na is one. There are
conditioning dhammas and condiitoned dhammas, and the conditioned dhammas in
their turn condition other dhammas.
There are 24 classes of conditions. And one dhamma can be conditioned by
several others in different ways, even at the same time. It is very complex.
That is why I think of a rather general term to use, such as; conditioned by
ignorance, activities arise, etc.
A: What about a kammadhaaraya compound:

>
> (nom) From the ignorance-condition arises kammic formations (In other
> words from the condition which is ignorance [arises] kammic formations.
> This seems right to me)

------
N: It may not fit all types of conditions. Some are hetu paccaya, some are
vipaaka. Some do not produce but consolidate other dhammas. Some are
sahajaata paccaya, some are purejaata paccaya or pacchajaata paccaya.
Take contact and feeling: they are sahajaata and condition one another.
---------
A: However, am I right or am I just fooling myself with a confused newly

> acquired knowledge of compounds? I don't know. In light of what you
> have commented below, however, I think that we may have a kammadhaaraya
> compound and that I mis-analyzed it as tappurisa. Hopefully someone
> else will weight in to clarify this for us.

------
N: Yes, I hope someone will help.
Nina.