Hello Rene,

Yet again, I am no master at these compounds, but I think I see some
problems with your below comments.

>
>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)
>
>
>
>

They can't be tappurisa compounds because "upanisaa" means "cause" and
not "caused."
It is not a past participle but a noun meaning "cause." It was my
mistake to translate it as "caused." I am going to rework your
sentences below, then:

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

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

Neither of these sentences makes sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph. You can't make the noun "cause" into "caused" simply to make it work as I unskillfully attempted to do. Additionally, the word "upanisaa" is not functioning as a noun as it would in a regular tappurisa, but is rather functioning as an adjective and is agreeing with sa'nkhaaraa. Because of this, we have a hint that this a bhaubbiihi (in kammadhaaraya form). I was not aware of this before, but bahubbiihi compounds, as qualifiers of nouns, must agree with them. So, even though the word "upanisaa" is a feminine noun ending in "aa" it agrees is gender, number, and case with the following words such as sa'nkhaaraa. This would not happen if it were a simple tappurisa; rather the two nouns would simply agree in case and perhaps number, but not in gender.

Here is an exmaple that clarifies this point:

"sa.laayatanuupaniso phasso,"

If upanisa were functioning normally as a feminine noun, then it could not possibly be writted as "upaniso" which agrees in every way with "phasso."


Your idea above, about bahubbiihi as a subordinate clause from Warder page (137)still works, but you are not constructing the sentence correctly. You put:


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



but it should be written like this in order to see the clause:


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


This is a re-writing that includes the verb "to be" which technically is always there. However, as we know, there is no need to keep all these words in the translation and so both Rett and Dr. Pind have given us a shortened and smoother version of sentence 6 which seems the best:

(6) Thus, indeed, bhikkhus, kammic formations (sa'nkhaaraa) have ignorance (avijaa) as cause(upanisaa--agreeing in case, gender and number with sa'nkhaaraa).

Hopefully my thoughts haven't confused anything.

Metta,

Alan