Sorting out compounds is important to me, so please be patient. Maybe some of us can learn something about these darn things in this difficult process.

> iti, kho, bhikkhave, avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa...

Whatever these words mean, I think we can be sure that they must form a complete statement. I don't think anyone will contest that the passage in Paali is a series of self-contained statements or "clauses." Some of the translations which have already been submitted on this thread reflect this, while others don't seem to fit and are incomplete. I review the second type here:



INCOMPLETE ("open")

(1) Thus, indeed, monks, kammic formations which have a cause which is ignorance...

(2) Thus, indeed, monks, 'sa'nkhaaraa' which has 'avijjuupanisaa'...

(3) Thus, indeed, monks, sa'nkhaaraa having avijjaa as upanisaa...



As one can see, in each of these cases we need more words (within the clause, of course-not in another clause). These are bahubbiihis. Warder writes (137): "A bahubbiihi compound is always equivalent to a relative (subordinate) clause: "who has/was...", "which has/was..." We see this in the above constructions 1-3.

So, to have a bahubbiihi here it seems that we would need more words in the Paali. For example:

> iti, kho, bhikkhave, avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa dukkha.m, sa'nkhaaruupanisa.m vi~n~naa.na.m dukkha.m... etc.

> "sankharas *which have avijja as cause* are suffering, consciousness *which has sankharas as cause* is suffering..." etc. This construction includes the relative clause that the bahubbiihi requires.

But the Paali doesn't have "dukkha.m." It has only "avijjuupanisaa sa'nkhaaraa." This is a closed (complete) statement in itself, which we see in a second category of submissions to this thread in recent days:



COMPLETE (not necessarily correct translations)

(4) Thus, indeed, monks, kammic formations are ignorance-caused,

(5) Thus, indeed, monks, having avijjaa as upanisaa [are] sa'nkhaaraa, (awkward)

(6) Thus, indeed, monks, sa'nkhaaraa have avijjaa as upanisaa, consciousness has sa'nkhaaraa as upanisaa, etc.



These translations have no subordinate clause. They are complete units and fit the Paali. In other words, I respectfully suggest that the construction that fits is not bahubbiihi, unless there is some kind of bahubbiihi that has escaped Warder. I would like clarity on this, but understand if people think this thread has gone on too long...



As mentioned in a previous post, Tp3 (intrumental) or Tp5 (ablative) seem to fit the context better:

(7) Thus, indeed, monks, sa'nkhaaraa are caused by (through)ignorance, consciousness is caused by (through) sa'nkhaaraa... (Tp3)

(8) Thus, indeed, monks, sa'nkhaaraa are caused from ignorance, consciousness is caused from sa'nkhaaraa... (Tp5)

I am always ready to be corrected.

-- Rene

----- Original Message -----
From: Ole Holten Pind
To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: SV: [Pali] Translation problem # 3 SN XII.23


Not quite. You should translata sankharas having avijja as cause.

Ole Pind

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]