Re: Kacc 271

Dear Ole,

I wrote:
<I think the ta.m in the case of Kacc 271 may be referring to what precedes
i.e. the apaadaanakaaraka >

Ole:
<< This assumption does not explain all the subsequent occurrences. >>

I'm not sure what you mean by "all the subsequent occurrences". The four
occurrences in the examples (or 5 in the Sinhalese ed.)?

I was just looking at what the Saddaniiti had to say about seyyathiida.m
which it uses instead of ta.myathaa--at least in the first few suttas. I was
surprised to find the interrogative meanings given to it at p. 892,24-6 as
follow:

" seyyathiida.m iti so katamo ti vaa te katame ti vaa saa katamaa ti vaa taa
katama ti vaa ta.m kataman ti vaa taani katamaani ti vaa eva.m
li"ngavacanavasena aniyamite atthe pi; "

I mentioned in an earlier post about the two commentarial interpretations of
ta.myathaa in Kacc 2 as "te katame" and now something similar pops up for
seyyathiida.m in the Saddaniiti. The ida.m in seyyaathiida.m seems to
suggest that the preceding pronoun sa or so which se stands for must refer
to what precedes whereas the ida.m would refer to what follows.

I also see an interesting comment at Sadd 633,19-21 about the teachers' wish
for an e instead of the o in soyyathiida.m.

Jim


---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]