Dear Mahinda,

<< Dear Jim,
I do not wish to split hairs, but this is perplexing. Even in terms
of this interpretation,it seems to me that we
cannot take paade ( the paade which you have put within
parenthesis) as an acc, pl. To get the sense "feet being honoured by
the king", we must assume that paade is in a locative absolute
construction, isn't it? But in that case, it should be "padesu
vanditesu", because otherwise it would mean that the king worshipped
only one foot. Are you thinking of an accusative absolute? >>

Jim:
Yes, but only after Lance Cousins said " I would call that construction
'accusative absolute'. " (his words). Now I have never seen the accusative
absolute being described in any of the Pali grammars I'm aware of --- just
locative and genitive absolutes --- so it's rather new to me.

>The same usage of 'vandite' with 'paade' also occurs at D
> II 164.

Mahinda:
<< What we have at D. ii 164 is "vandite ca pana aayasmataa mahaa-
kassapena ...sayam eva bhagavato citako pajjali" wich is similar
to "vandite pana ra~n~naa" in our passage. It means "when worshipped
by the venerable Mahaakassapa the Blessed One's pyre lighted of its
own accord. Here we have the locative absolute "vandite .. citake"
the latter word being again "understood". There is no 'paade' here. >>

Jim:
The relevant D II 164 passage is: ". . .bhagavato paade sirasaa vandi.msu.
vandite ca pana aayasmataa. . ." Ole Pind says there shouldn't be a period
after 'vandi.msu". Hence, ". . .they honoured the feet of the Bhagavant with
the head and, furthermore, while (the feet) were being honoured by the
Venerable. . ." or " . . .when (the feet were) worshipped by. . ." The
problem with an understood "citake" in a locative absolute construction is
that the object of honouring has shifted from the feet to the pyre. The
"paade" (acc. pl.) also occurs earlier in our Ja I 88 passage but its
connection to "vandite" would be more convincing if we had "vandite
ca pana ra~n~naa" instead of "ra~n~naa pana vandite". I cannot decide for
sure which of the two interpretations (yours or Ole's) is correct if only
one of them can be correct and, if so, for what reason. I simply do not know
enough Pali grammar to decide.

I have also been thinking about the "snehaanvayamiv osadhaa" passage which I
find even harder to interpret.

Best wishes,
Jim