>
>I also prefer to take it as a bahubhiihi compound. But
>what makes me uncertain is that the exegesis does not
>use the usual pattern indicating a bahubhiihi, which
>will include a genitive such as assa or tesa.m, while
>a khammadhaaraya explanation also seems to be
>reasonable, if sabhaava means thing, not nature.
>
>The commentatry just reads,
>vayadhammanti vigacchanakasabhaava.m. (CSCD Spk II
>39).
>But, if it is meant to be a bahubhiihi, should it not
>be glossed as vigacchano sabhaavo assaati
>vayadhamma.m?

Hi Tzung Kuen,

I agree that that's the right sort of way to analyse a bahubbiihi into component parts. The question is whether it must be analysed that way every time the commentary glosses a bahubbiihi. My guess would be that such a complete analysis is done some, but not all, of the time. I'll keep an eye out for other examples could confirm or deny this guess.

Do you have examples of sabhaava just meaning 'thing'? I've always understood it as primarily meaning 'essential characteristic'.

best regards,

/Rett