Re: eva.m me suta.m

Hi Ole,

On 20 Sep 2007, at 21:07, Ole Holten Pind wrote:

>  Instrumental is not possible unless we assume that Pali unlike
> Sanskrit
>  innovates on this point.

Here are three examples where the commentators glossed me as mayaa:

aya.m kho me, braahma.na, rattiyaa pa.thame yaame pa.thamaa vijjaa
adhigataa (Vin. iii. 4)

Do you really think "me ... vijjaa adhigataa" means "my attained
knowledge" and not "knowledge attained by me" ? If so, don't you think
it strange that me is written so far apart from the thing owned ?


nibbinnaa me kaamaa (Thig. 480)

If this were genitive then it would be not the bhikkhunii but the
sensual desires that are disgusted.


gaathaabhigiita.m me abhojaneyya.m (Sn. 81)
"What has been sung over in verses should not be eaten by me."

Though I suppose one might read this as "... not mine to eat."

Best wishes,
Dhammanando