On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Jim Anderson <jimanderson.on@...>wrote:

>
>
> The only word I find
> problematic is 'jinamate' in both the verse and the prose part. It's
> as if Aggava.msa is projectng words into the Buddha's mind. Other than
> that, I think the verse is compatible with the prose part in the way I
> understand it.
>
> Dear Jim,
>

I agree. Before I read this post I had penned this amended translation and
comment:

,

I tentatively suggest that the prose passage be taken as broadly meaning the
following. (This makes the prose passage just an addition to explain the
irregularity in �tato gotami dhaatuuni�. There will then be no disagreement
between the stanza and the prose explanation.)

Or (further): In the canonical usage (found ) in (the expression) �Tato
Gotami dhaatuuni� (Hence, O Gotami, the relics), the word DHAATU occurs
with irregular gender-change, like the word PABBATANI in (the Dhammapada
line) �Pabbataani vanaani ca�. It should not be objected that the neuter
indication (here) is due to the the refererence being to bones, (i.e., that
bones being �things�, the neuter gender is legitimate). (Why?) because the
(word DHAATU is) seen in the feminine gender, as DHAATUYO, even when
referring to bones.

Here I took �jinamata� as �canonical usage�. The initial �atha vaa� is a bit
problematic, but we can let that be for now. The import of usages like these
two will become clearer as one advances in the study of this text.

So I accept the major amendment you proposed. The translation I offered
earlier is to be discarded.

Regards.

Mahinda

>
>
>
>

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