Re: Dhammapada commentary

Dear Khristos,

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your double accusative explanation.
My reading of:

tasmaa `mara.nadhamma.m mata.m, bhijjanadhamma.m bhinna'nti yoniso
paccavekkhitabba.m, na socitabba.m. -- Dhp-a on verse 212

is:

therefore, it should be reflected upon, not grieved over in the
following way: what has died was subject to dying; what has broken up
was subject to breaking up.

Alternatively: "...what is dead had the nature of dying; what is
broken up had the nature of breaking up."

"mara.nadhamma.m" is an adjectival compound qualifying the neuter noun
"mata.m". Both words are in the nominative singular.

If you read "mara.nadhamma.m" as the subject of "paccavekkhitabba.m"
in a passive construction, both words would have to be in the
nominative case ending in the masc. -o and you would also have to have
a 'ti' after 'mata.m", i.e., matanti and then there is the absurdity
of the nature or property of dying being reflected upon as a dead
thing.

,Best wishes,
Jim