SV: abhihat.thu.m

Dear Nyanatusita,

This is a very interesting problem. Andersen and Smith assumed that
abhiha.t.thu.m is an absolutive. Their opinion was evidently influenced by
the commentators who invariably, so it seems, gloss the term by means of an
absolutive. Now the use of an absolutive immediately before a finite verb
is, I believe, uncommon i Pali. The idea to interpret it as a .namul would
in fact make much better sense. The only problem is the termination. A
regular .namul, of which there are quite a few in the canon, and several in
the Paatimokkha, sometimes unrecognised, should have a regular nominal
ending in the accusative, like, for instance, abhihaara.m.
I have gone through the limited number of examples of the use of the term
and I have come to the conclusion that it is a regular infinitive < Sanskrit
abhihartum. One passage e.g. M I 222, describing an anavasesadohii, a monk
who "milks" the pool of parikkhaaras that lay people present him with to
such an extent that nothing is left over, explains that he knows no measure
to taking matta.m na jaanaati patiggaha.naaya (the text is using a dative
with the syntactical function of an infinitive). Abhiha.t.thu.m must refer
to the action of taking of the monk: he is presented with parikkhaaras to
take away (abhiha.t.thu.m). Whenever the old commentary included in the
Vinaya-vibha.nga explains the phrase abhiha.t.thum pavaar- it says: take as
much as you want. This becomes fully understandable if we assume that the
phrase means: present(s) a monk (acc.) with bhesajja etc. (instr.) to take
away (abhiha.t.thum) i.e. when he starts wandering after the rains
residence. The monk is the agent of the action denoted by the infinitive. I
think the problem originates in identifying the agent of abhiha.t.thu.m as
the lay people.

With kind regards,

Ole Pind


Dear Ole Pind,

Do you think that abhiha.t.thu.m, which only occurs with forms of the verb
pavaareti, could be a .namul absolutive ending in -u.m, rather than an
absolutive similar to da.t.thu.m (in which the absolutive ending -tu.m is
used as an absolutive)?  If it is a .namul, then it is used adverbially, and
this would make more sense in expressions such as abhiha.t.thu.m pavaareyya
in the Paatimokkha.

Best wishes,
                              Nyanatusita




Yahoo! Groups Links