Hi Jim,
<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.
mara.na.m is a neuter noun and dhamma in this case is an adjective (see PED: as
adj.: being constituted, having the inherent quality (as based on Natural Law or
the rational constitution of the Universe), destined to be . . ., of the
(natural) property of . . ., like) meaning "being subject to" so I'm not sure
why the compound mara.nadhammam is not the nom. subject of the sentence with
mata.m (which is a past participle/adjective, not a noun as far as I know),
modifying it? Why does there have to be a 'ti' after mata.m? It does occur now
after bhinna, which is the end of the quote. I read "what is subject to dying"
(mara.nadhamma.m) as the subject "has died" (mata.m, adj. modifying the subject)
"is to be contemplated" (the verb in the neuter nom., modifying mara.nam),...
etc. I suppose it could work the other way around with mata.m as a neuter noun,
but is it attested anywhere? In any case, it seems to me the meaning comes to
the same thing: what has died was subject to dying (as you put it) or what was
subject to dying has died (as I have it).
Now whether the writer means that what is subject to death has died as a remark
on the obvious fact that everything passes away, or whether he/she means it in
Lennart's sense of Nibbaana conquering all is open to question (that was my
original question). I suppose it's ambiguous,
Metta,
Bryan
________________________________
From: Jim Anderson <jimanderson_on@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 13, 2010 10:09:21 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]