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?). >>
Yes.
<< Is braahma.nakule in the locative or could this be acccus. plural (object
of hii.lento)? >>
Locative singular.
This is how I would translate: "aya.m pana aparipakka~naa.nattaa
braahma.nakule uggahitavohaaravaseneva hii.lento evamaaha."
But he (Jotipaala), from there being an opposite understanding through the
influsence of terms acquired in a Brahmin family, looking down, spoke thus.
By using the diminutive suffix 'ka' after mu.n.da and sama.na he is showing
disrespect.