SV: eva.m me suta.m

>  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 ?

No I don´t. me as genitive agent has to be constructed with the
ta-participle. The knowledge I come into possession of .....

The commentators often gloss me by mayaa, which is understandable.


nibbinnaa me kaamaa (Thig. 480)

If this were genitive then it would be not the bhikkhunii but the sensual
desires that are disgusted. On the genitive agent interpretation this would
mean "I am disgusted with sensual desires" or rather "disgusted with the
ojects of sensual desire"

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

This is one of the many examples of a genitive agent constructed with a
so-called gerundive. There are many of them in the canon. Interestingly this
construction is also mentioned by the Sanskrit grammarian Paa.nini.

Best wishes,
Ole Holten Pind