Ole Holten Pind wrote:

>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
>

Dear Dr. Pind,

Yes, this makes things crystal clear. All of the points on which I was
confused are not problematic anymore.

I am very appreciative of your help.

With metta,

Alan
-------------------------
E-Sangha Pali Forum:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?s=e2023933702dc6420f362d319c29c7c1&showforum=50