Dear Alan,

It is my understanding that the two examples you cite are indeed
kammadhaarayas.

avijjaapaccayaa = from the ignorance-condition (i.e. from the
condition which is ignorance).

Similarly, avijjaanirodhaa = from the ignorance-cessation (i.e. from
the cessation which is ignorance).

Quoting Warder, p.108: "Kammadhaaraya Compounds. A class of compunds
similar to the tappurisa compound (and sometimes included in it as a
sub-variety). The two component words refer to the same locus or
object. First word can be an adjective or noun. English example:
"blackbird" (bird which is black). In place of relation we have
identity of locus, the first member being an attribute of the second.
If they were not compounded, the members would have to be in the same
case, since they would be noun and attribute, or two nouns in apposition."

Hope this helps.

--- In Pali@... metta, Johnoogroups.com, Alan McClure
<alanmcclure3@...> wrote:

> Hello Rett, all,
>
> Would you be able to tell me if my thinking on this issue is on

target.....

>
> I am trying to distinguish between a kammadhaaraya and a tappurisa that
> could be written quite similarly in English but not with the same
> meaning. Here are examples of would-be English translations of pali
> tappurisa compounds with a genitive case relation.
>
> English translations:
>
> the horse of the king
> the tree of the field
> the wheel of the cart
> the face of the man
>
> It is a feature of these translations that they all contain the
> preposition "of." However, it is clear that not all English
> translations using "of" are tappurisas. Example:
>
> a shiny bowl of glass = a shiny bowl that is made out of glass
>
> This would be a kammadhaaraya in pali as I understand it. However,

what

> about a case where we have "avijjaanirodhaa" and the translation

could be:

>
> With the cessation of ignorance
>
> Again we have "of" as a preposition but it doesn't seem to be
> designating possession of cessation by ignorance to me as in a thing
> that belongs to ignorance.
> This is even more confusing to me on the issue of "avijjaapaccayaa"
> about which I still don't feel comfortable.
>
> I think that maybe both of these compounds, the one with "nirodha" and
> the one with "paccaya" should be kammadhaaraya compounds.
>
> Is this also your understanding, or am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
> I appreciate your help. I am trying to figure this out before I make
> incorrect "corrections" to the grammatical analyses of a large

number of

> suttas.
>
> Metta,
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> >
> >