--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "flrobert2000" <flrobert2000@...> wrote:

>
> Dear Jim,
>
> In this case would the translation be:
>
> "When the king worshipped (the Blessed One), there wasn't a single
> Sakiyan who was able to stay without worshipping the Blessed One."?

Dear Florent,

You're getting close to my reading of the sentence. I'm
interpreting ".thaatu.m" in the sense of "to stand" (lit.)i.e. they
couldn't get up because of the Buddha's power. I would place "without
worshipping..." in an earlier position.

"...there wasn't a single Sakiyan who was, without worshipping
the Blessed One, able to stand (up)."?

> Would it mean then that a second "Bhagavanta.m" is understood here
> or can Bhagavanta.m be the object of both "Ra~n~ne vandite" and
> "bhagavanta.m avanditvaa .thaatu.m"?

It may be possible that "bhagavanta.m" is the object of
both "vandite" and "avanditvaa" but I'm not sure whether or not this
is permissible in Pali grammar. It's a bit of a problem. If two are
required then we could assume ellipsis for one of them. Another
problem to think about is the timing. Were they unable to stand while
the king was worshipping the Buddha or was it just after he
worshipped the Buddha? Sometimes a past participle can have a present
tense meaning but I think this would depend on which verb is used.

Best wishes,
Jim