Re: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Ole,

We clearly read the passage somewhat differently. My understanding is
as follows:

D II 241 lines 8-11 Mahaagovinda ask Brahma Sana.mkumaara how one
reaches the Brahma world

lines 12-16 give Brahma Sana.mkumaara's verse reply

As regards 3 words or phrases in lines 12 and 13 (each cited with ti) we have:
aha.m bhoto aajaanaami followed in each case by a paragraph
explaining the meaning. I take these as the words of Mahaagovinda.
Then afterwards something like e.g.:
iti ekodibhuuto ti p' aha.m bhoto aajaanaami
"In this way I understand your <word/utterance> 'one-pointed'.
Here the first iti refers to Mahaagovinda's paragraph explaining the meaning.

As regards niraamagandho in line 14 we have the sentence I gave as 1) below.

Your point, of course, is that the absence of bhaasamaanassa in the
initial occurrences seems to rule out a genitive absolute - there, at
least. But it seems to me that the ti construction implies speech.
Or, we should read bhaasamaanassa in the earlier cases.

I do not have the full version of PW and my abridged version does not
seem to have the usage you cite. Do you know any other occurrence in
Pali ? The problem I find is that the sense of 'approve' doesn't seem
to fit the context. And I can't quite imagine that Mahaagovinda will
say that he 'approves' of Brahma Sana.mkumaara.

In any case we still have the correspondence between: 'aha.m  bhoto
aajaanaami' in 2) and 'me suta.m Brahmuno' in 3).

As regards jaanaati jiivitaana.m, your suggestion is interesting. My
own thought is that it ought to mean 'who knows about life-spans?'
i.e. we don't know how long we have to live, but I cannot see how to
justify that.

Lance

>Dear Lance,
>
>I think we confront one grammatical problem on top of the other: aajaanaami
>occurs for the first time on p.241 of the PTS edition. It is there
>constructed with the gen. bhoto. It is, I believe, one of the rare examples
>of aajaanaaati used in in the sense of to approve or the like. It is
>constructed with the genitive of the person approved. Only PW has this
>information. As I understand the passage Brahma addresses Mahaagovinda´s
>definition of the conditions of access to brahmaloka. Brahma quotes some of
>them but says that he does not acknowledge his definition of aamagandha.
>Then Govinda asks Brahma about the aamagandha. He answers and Govinda says
>that he approves of him explaining the aamagandhe and concludes that they
>are difficult to get rid of by someone living in a house and decides for
>pabbajjaa. There is another unusual use of jaanaati p. 246 ff. It is
>constructed with gen. pl. jiivitaana.m. This is to the best of my knowledge
>the only example in the canon where it is used in the sense of to recall,
>remember, known from the Mahaabhaarata. The expression ko ... jiivitaana.m
>jaanaati seems to mean, who remembers the spans of life. Paa.nini II 3:52 is
>interesting in this connection.
>
>Ole
>
>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
>>af L.S. Cousins
>>Sendt: 26. september 2007 21:51
>>Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
>>Emne: Re: SV: [palistudy] te suta.m/me suta.m
>>
>>Dear Ole,
>>
>>I think this example is clearer if we go back to the original occurrence at
>>D II 242-3. There when Mahaagovinda is addressing Brahma, we have first:
>>1. aamagandhe  va kho aha.m bhoto bhaasamaanassa na aajaanaami
>>
>>and then after hearing Brahma's explanation:
>>2. yathaa kho aha.m bhoto aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa aajaanaami, te na
>>sunimmadayaa agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.
>>
>>then later when Mahaagovinda addresses King Re.nu, we have:
>>3. yathaa kho pana me suta.m Brahmuno aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa, te na
>>sunimmadayaa agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.
>>
>>Therefore 'aha.m  bhoto aajaanaami' in 2) corresponds to 'me suta.m
>>Brahmuno' in 3).
>>
>>I would translate:
>>
>>1. It is just corruptions that I do not understand when you speak of them.
>>
>>2. As I understand corruptions when you speak of them, they are not ...
>>
>>3. As I heard when Brahma was speaking of the corruptions, they ...
>>
>>So the construction is a genitive absolute in each case. And the present
>>'aha.m aajaanaami' corresponds to the past 'me suta.m'.
>>
>>Or, do you understand differently ?
>>
>>Lance
>
>>  >Dear Jim and Lance,
>>  >
>>  >As I see it the problem is if suta.m is a noun like other neuter
>>  >ta-participles (there are many of them in the canon) or a ta-participle
>>  >in the neuter that does not depend on any noun in the neuter, but
>>  >notheless functis as a verb. It is invariably constructed with the
>>  >genitive. me and te are clitics and they cannot be interpreted as
>>  >anything but genitives inspite of the grammarians´claims. How about
>>  >this example from the wonderful Mahaa-Govinda-suttanta D II 247: yathaa
>>  >kho pana me suta.m Brahmuno aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa te na sunimmadayaa
>>agaara.m ajjhavasataa etc.
>>  >I have come to the conclusion that the genitive Brahmuno etc. is
>>  >governed by suta.m as su.naati like in Sanskit is constructed with
>>  >genitive of the person speaking , but acc. of the things heard. There
>>  >are some examples in the canon that would corroborate this. However, it is
>>puzzling.
>>  >
>>  >Best,
>>  >Ole