Dear Bryan

 

How are you?

 

Thank you for your feedback.

 

You wrote:

 

“My question was where the reading vinnyānaṃ in the passive sense of "it is known" comes from - not viññātabbaṃ which does mean "it is to be known," ”

The reading ‘vinnyānam’ was provided in my first post instead of ‘viññānam’ as I did not have a chance to find my Unicode diacritical input method.

 

You quoted my translation and commented as follows.

_________________________________________________

 

>“Vinnyaatabbanti vinnyaanam nibbaanassetam naamam.”  >“It is called ‘Knowable’ because it is known uniquely; it is the name of nibbaana.”

 

Where you translated vinnyānaṃ (instead of viññāṇaṃ) as "it is known uniquely."

 

 

 

Bryan, I did not translate vinnyānam as “it is known uniquely”.

No, I did not translate viññānam as “it is known uniquely”.

 

You also wrote:

 

“My question was where the reading vinnyānaṃ in the passive sense of "it is known" comes from …”

 

Bryan, you came to the stage of asking a wrong and unnecessary question only because you thought that I translated viññānam as “it is known uniquely”.

 

By commenting as if I translated what I did not, and by asking a wrong question consequently, you certainly seemed to have a serious problem with the syntax of Kevatta Sutta commentary Pāli line “viññātabbanti viññāṇaṃ nibbānassetaṃ nāmaṃ.” 

 

To solve that problem, you need to carry out a syntax walk-through the commentary Pāli line in question and my translation. To get the best results, before you do your syntax walk-through, please study carefully the 4 suttas of Padarūpasiddhi I provided.

 

In my post “Interpretation of ‘tabba’ in light of Padarūpasiddhi,” I wrote the following using the Unicode input system.

 

___________________________________

 

“Yes, I have another reading in light of my Pāli resources that have enabled me to offer the following.

 

“viññātabbanti viññāṇaṃ nibbānassetaṃ nāmaṃ.” 

“It is called ‘Knowable’ because it is known uniquely; it is the name of nibbāna.”  ”

_________________________________________

 

When I wrote in the above quote “I have another reading …”, I meant that understanding ‘viññātabbam” as the future passive participle of vijānāti as found in PED and elsewhere was not adequate at best and partly wrong at worst.

 

And, to prove my point, I have provided 4 suttas from Padarūpasiddhi.

 

But, you wrote:

 

“I do not see this answered in the commentary where -tabba (or anīya) clearly seems to have the sense of "to be Verbed." Am I missing something?”

 

Which commentary did you mean? Padarūpasiddhi or Kevatta Sutta commentary?

 

If you meant either of them, then you certainly are missing something.

 

That was _ either because you did not read carefully the 4 suttas of Padarūpasiddhi, or because you were not serious enough to make effort to fully understand them. I don't know which.

 

Please let me know your progress.

 

With regards,

 

Suan Lu Zaw