Re: S IV 163

Dear Lance and Ole,

Thank-you both for your contributions concerning the ya~n ca tattha passage
at S IV 163.

In Lance's message:
> Spk II 324 (to S III 144, cf. 148): _na-y-idaṃ brahmacariyavāso
> paññāyethā_ ti ayaṃ magga-brahmacariya-vāso nāma na paññāyeyya.

The "nāma" above caught my attention as a possible solution to the gender
issue concerning ya~n... chandaraago..., i.e., could we not also read a
"nāma" after "chandaraago"? "But what... arises, <namely,> chandaraago..." I
agree that tattha is tasmi.m or tesu (in the seventh case). The problem now
is to go through the various uses of the sattamiivibhatti in the traditonal
grammar and identify which one of the suttas or rules in the kaarakakappa is
applicable. We also have to be quite clear as to what "tattha" is referring
to. Another question is: why the singular and not the plural for
chandaraago? I will look further into these matters when time permits.

Best wishes,
Jim