Hi Bryan,
I go for the "simpler" explanation ("what is dead, had the nature of dying")
simply due to the fact that the commentaries typically don't entertain such
deeper thoughts on the matter of Nibbana (as the Parayana implied in that
verse quoted by Ven. Nyanananda and he points out in his discussion).
Are there any similar commentarial passages where maranadhammam etc. which
might throw some light on this? Haven't looked around yet.
much metta,
L.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Bryan Levman <bryan.levman@...>wrote:
>
>
> 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@... <jimanderson_on%40yahoo.ca>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <palistudy%40yahoogroups.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]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]