SV: eva.m me suta.m

Dear Jim,

Sv is interesting because the explanation takes me in the sense of mayaa
i.e. not as an instrumental form, but with a similar function. The
commentators were, I believe, well aware of the corresponding Sanskrit
formulation of Buddhist Sanskrit lit. Interestingly, the exegesis suggests
that suta.m presupposes an underlying dvaara. (n.), which supposedly would
explain suta.m (n.). On the other hand, it also suggests the action noun
interpretation. This would indicate that the commentators were puzzled by
the syntax of the phrase.

Best wishes,
Ole

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af Jim Anderson
Sendt: 20. september 2007 16:50
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: [palistudy] eva.m me suta.m

Dear Ole,

The following commentary at Sv I 28 allows for two interpretations of 'me'
and 'suta.m':

'me' saddassa hi 'mayaa'ti atthe sati 'eva.m mayaa suta.m'
sotadvaaraanusaarena upadhaaritanti yujjati.  'mamaa'ti atthe sati eva.m
mama suta.m sotadvaaraausaarena upadhaara.nanti yujjati.

So, if you take 'me' as an instrumental agent, 'suta.m' is taken as a
regular passive participle in the past tense 'heard' but if you take 'me' as
a genitive, 'suta.m' is then taken as an action noun 'hearing". The
difference is between 'upadhaarita.m' and 'upadhaara.na.m'. Cone gives the
following meanings for the latter as "the act of considering, reflecting on,
comprehending; consideration, keeping in mind".

Best wishes,
Jim

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




Yahoo! Groups Links