Re: Dakkhi.nodaka

At 16 Nov 2007 18:54:38 +0100 Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> You are right. However, I cannot see that it makes much difference in terms
> of semantics to say that x is for y or x (which)is y (the kammadhaaraya
> solution, which interprets one member of a compound as apposition to the
> other). Clearly water is a dakkhi.naa in the traditional Indian sense: it is
> placed in front (aggato) of the recipient as a ceremonial gift. I assume
> that the word and the ceremony itself are derived from the brahmnaical
> dak.si.naa ceremony, but, of course, in a different context.
>
> O.H.Pind

My feeling is that the water is not so much a gift as it is an instrument used in the ritual of giving (viz. to dedicate merit), that is why I prefer the tappurisa solution.  It makes a great semantic difference, in that case.

a) This water is given, therefore it is water as dakkhi.na

b) This water is for the giving (ceremony), therefore it is water for dakkhi.na

If I remember correctly, there is even an instance (in the DhpA?) where Sariputta pours this water to dedicate merit on behalf of the donor.  In that case, it is clearly not a gift to the monk, as it is meant to benefit the donor (this is clear from the Thai practice).

Best Wishes,

Yuttadhammo