Hi John,

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

To expand on what I mentioned in my recent post to Alan, I believe a pali commentator resolving the compound might write:

avijjaanirodhaa = yo avijjaaya nirodho tasmaa

"that which is the cessation of ignorance, because of that"

Here avijjaaya is genitive, not ablative (despite the coincidence in form, due to avijjaa being feminine).

Since the whole compound, avijjaanirodhaa, is in the ablative case, if it were a kammadhaaraya then if you separated the members of the compound, both would have to be in the same (here ablative (5) case) avijjaaya5 nirodhaa.

Now because avijjaa is feminine the ablative and genitive endings are indistinguishable, so my point doesn't look as convincing as it would if the first member were in another gender. So let's suppose we were talking about dukkhanirodha instead.

because of the cessation of suffering: dukkhanirodhaa
commentator: dukkhanirodhaa = yo dukkhassa nirodho tasmaa

If you accept this resolution of the compound, then you have a tappurisa.

The following resolution, which would indicate it were a kammadhaaraya, seems to me not to work: dukkhanirodhaa = dukkhaa nirodhaa.

A basic rule of the resolution of kammadhaarayas is that if you split up the words, both members would be in the same case in the sentence.

best regards,

/Rett