Re: abhihat.thu.m

Dear Ole,

Today I was looking again at the abhiha.t.thu.m pavaareyya construction
and the solution you suggested end March (see below).

I like your suggestion as it would make good sense. However, the only
problem is that the basic meaning of the verb abhiharati in this
context, and also other contexts, appears to be: ''brings toward'' or
''presents'', not ''takes away''.

See the Suttavibhanga explanation to Paacittiya 35 in Vin IV 82:

Vin IV 82: “Pavaarito naama aasana.m pa~n~naayati, bhojana.m
pa~n~naayati, hatthapaase .thito abhiharati, pa.tikkhepo pa~n~naayati.”
: ''Invited: a seat is evident; food is evident; he presents standing
within arms-length ; the refusal is evident.''

What do you think about this?

Regards,
Bh. Nyanatusita


Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> 
>