Hi Allan,

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

I think I wrote to you about just this feature of English 'of' earlier. An example would be 'the state of michigan' which simply means 'the state (which is) michigan'.

> 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.

Genitive doesn't only express literal ownership or part/whole relationships. It is something of a catch-all case that expresses all sorts of relationships between nouns. avijjaanirodha is most certainly a tappurisa which be resolved: avijjaaya nirodho 'cessation of ignorance' in the genitive sense of english 'of'.

This vaguer sense of the genitive could be conveyed in English with expressions like 'pertaining to' or 'with regards to'. In the above you could say (not in a translation, but as an aid to analysing the compound) cessation with regards to ignorance, cessation pertaining 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.

My guess would be that avijjaapaccayaa is a kammadhaaraya, but avijjaanirodha is a tappurisa.

>
>Is this also your understanding, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I think you're barking up the right tree by thinking about these issues and asking good questions about them, even if I disagreed with a couple of your conclusions in the above.

best regards,

/Rett