Dear Alan,

I have to admit that the passage below is not quite easy either

katha.m .... dhammassa caanudhamma.m byaakareyyaama, na ca koci

>sahadhammiko vaadaanu v aa d o gaarayha.m .thaana.m aagaccheyyaa''ti?

First, I should have mentioned that the genitive Gotamassa that is
syntactically dependent upon vutta is an instance of the use of the genitive
to denote the agent of the action denoted by a ta-participle. This usage is
quite common in the canon, but is often overlooked.
Now anudhamma.m is an adverb meaning "in accordance with the dhamma "and
paradoxically dhammassa has to be construed with dhamma like the compound
dhammaanudhamma: "How shall we explain the dhamma accordingly (this is an
instance of paronomasia) and how does any given exposition of a doctrine
that is accompanied by reasons (sahadhammiko) avoid getting into a point
that is reproachable."

Does this clarify things a bit?

Regards,

Ole






<http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El=&SG=&RAND=44850&pa
rtner=hbtools> Upgrade Your Email - Click here!



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