Hello Rene,
I think that I may have confused the issue when my preliminary gloss had
"upanisaa" translated as "caused." I did this while trying to make
sense out of things, but actually it should be "cause" and not
"caused." This being the case, it then makes sense to say 'sa'nkhaaraa'
which has 'avijjuupanisaa.' 'Avijuupanisaa' would be a
substantive+substantive kammadhaaraya meaning 'cause which is
ignorance.' As such, we can say "kammic formations which have a cause
which is ignorance" or more fluently " kammic formations which have
ignorance as cause."
This is how I understand things, and this is what my current gloss
says. I, too, am always interested in corrections, however.
Metta,
Alan
rsalm wrote:
>Dear Flobert, Alan, Ole, Rett, and group,
>
>
>
>Regarding Tr. Problem #3, I'm still trying to sort this one out. Warder writes (p.137): 'A bahubbiihi compound is always equivalent to a relative (subordinate) clause: "who has/was....". "which has/was....'. But this does not seem to fit Alan's passage:"iti kho, bhikkhave, avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa, sa'nkhaaruupanisa.m vi~n~naa.na.m, vi~n~naa.nuupanisa.m naamaruupa.m, naamaruupuupanisa.m sa.laayatana.m...." I don't see the relative clauses in this passage. One would have to extend the various parts, it seems to me, e.g., "avijjuupanisaa sa.mkhaaraa dukkhassa sa.mvattanti." Then have a relative clause, "Kammic formations which are ignorance-caused conduce to suffering." Perhaps in this case the first word is bahubbiihi (but why not tappurisa?). In other words, "avijjuupanisaa sa.mkhaaraa" seems a complete statement to me: "Kammic formations [are] ignorance-caused." In this, "Ignorance-caused" sounds to me like tappurisa 3 or 5 (instr.or ablative), "caused by/from ignorance." For example, if we say: rukkhapatitaa manusaa, this is T5 (Buddhadatta/49), "the men [are] fallen from the tree." Is not this grammatical form just like 'avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa'?
>Of course, I am quite a novice at compounds, and am happy to be corrected on these and other interesting Paali points of grammar by those more expert than I.-- Rene
>