S IV 163

I have spent some time on the problems of the syntax of the sentence yañ ca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojanan ti (S IV 163). In all occurrences of the phrase paṭicca uppajjati the subject of the sentence follows immediately after uppajjati. Consequently chandarāgo must be the subject of uppajjati. tattha is as I have mentioned in another post no doubt used with the value of a demonstrative pronoun in the locative (singular or plural as Sanskrit tatra). See S III 166 yo tattha (i.e. ruupa.m) chandaraago, ta.m tattha saññojana.m. A parallel about saññojana.m. without tattha and devoid of the ambiguities of the samyutta passages is found at M I 61. S IV 163 is odd. How are we, for instance, to interpret na yida.m brahmacariyavaaso on p. 163? The on-glide /y/ is understandable, bur what about ida.m ?

O.H.P.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]