Dear Friends,

In the Gha.tiikaara sutta, the brahmin student
Jotipaal replies to Ghaṭ.tiikaara’s suggestion of visiting the Buddha Kassapa with

 kiṃ pana tena mu.n.dakena samaṇakena diṭṭhenaa'ti?
 (“What is the use of seeing that bald-pated recluse?”).

The commentary states

mu.n.dakena sama.nakenaa ti mu.n.da.m mu.n.doti, sama.na.m vaa sama.noti vattu.m va.t.tati, aya.m pana aparipakka~naa.nattaa braahma.nakule uggahitavohaaravaseneva hii.lento evamaaha. (3.280)

which I tentatively translate as

mu.n.dakena sama.makena: It is proper to call a shaved person a "mu.n.do" or an ascetic a "sama.no" - because of using these terms, this person [i. e. Jotipaal] spoke thus, looking down upon [those] whose knowledge is not developed in respect of a brahmanic family.

I find the commentary a bit confusing and the grammar awkward (unless of course I am misreading it which is very possible) but it appears that the commentator is explaining why Jotipaal (who is a brahmin) is calling the Buddha Kassapa these names (mu.n.da and sama.na).

Is the form aparipakka~naa.nattaa in the ablative? (Skt.aparipakvaj~naanatvaat?). Is braahma.nakule in the locative or could this be acccus. plural (object of hii.lento)?

I would appreciate anyone's comments as to the meaning,

Thanks, Bryan






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