Re: abhihat.thu.m

Dear Ole,

Yes, it makes good sense, but the understanding of the early tradition
of abhiharati does not seem to support it. The passage I quoted from the
Vibhanga is an early commentary.

Regards,
Bh. Nyanatusita


Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> Dear Bh. Nyanatusita,
>
> It is correct that abhiharati means to bring, to offer or the like. I was
> extrapolating from recorded Sanskrit usage where
> Abhiharati also means to carry off, cf. derivatives like abhihara/haara that
> denotes the action of bringing near as well as that of taking away, robbing.
> This I thought would make sense in this particular case: I thought that it
> would make sense if the upaasaka invited the monk to bring (with him) i.e.
> to take away the parikkhaaras he had brought him.  The difference depends
> upon whether or not the agent of abhiha.tthu.m is the monk or the upaasaka.
> I thought that if we assume that the agent is the monk, we can make sense
> out of it without having to make assumptions about the infinitive being an
> absolutive. Does this make sense?
>
> Best wishes,
> Ole
>
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
> af Nyanatusita
> Sendt: 1. maj 2006 12:31
> Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Emne: Re: SV: [palistudy] 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
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  
>>    
>
>
>
>
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>