SV: te suta.m/me suta.m

Dear Lance,

I am still puzzled by the syntax of the passages we have been discussing. I
think that we must start with finding a solution to the syntax of the phrase
ekodibhuuto ti caaha.m bhoto aajaanaami, because it determines how we
interpret other statements like aamagandhe  ... Bhoto bhaasamaanassa na
aajaaanaami, and me suta.m Brahmuno aamagandhe bhaasamaanassa etc.
I am uncertain about how to interpret them, but I do not think that we are
confronting instances of genitive absolute as they do not entail
constructions with an accusative as the two last examples show. I have to
admit that at the moment I have no solution to the problem, and the Sanskrit
rewriting of this text as found in the Mahaavastu III 197 ff. tries to solve
some of the problems, but in my opinion without success.

Ole 
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: palistudy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:palistudy@yahoogroups.com] På vegne
af L.S. Cousins
Sendt: 27. september 2007 22:15
Til: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: [palistudy] 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




Yahoo! Groups Links