Re: Dhammapada commentary

Dear Bryan and Jim,

I'd like to share a couple more thoughts with you on the same topic.

1. The question came to mind of how 'paccavekkhitabba.m' is used, i.e.,
personally or impersonally, in situations other than when it refers directly
to an iti-clause.  And in what case we would find its corresponding term in
an impersonal construction.  It's surprising how often 'paccavekkhitabba.m'
occurs with a nt. sg., which doesn't help clarify the issue.  But it didn't
take long to find an example with a masc. sg. (I've rendered this awkwardly
because I wanted to distinguish the two instrumental forms):

      bhikkhunaa attanaava attaana.m eva.m paccavekkhitabba.m (M i.98)

      By a bhikkhu, the self (attaana.m) by the self, even, (attanaa eva),
should be reflected upon thus...

      (Or: With a bhikkhu's own self his self should be reflected upon, in
the following way...)

This is followed by an iti-clause, but it's very clear that the iti-clause
is there to explain with what thoughts the reflection should take place.  It
is clear that 'paccavekkhitabba.m' here is directed to 'attaana.m', which is
of course the acc.. sg. of the masc. noun 'attan', 'self'.

I certainly wouldn't want to argue with anyone about this point, but I have
to say that I think this is surely an impersonal usage of
'paccavekkhitabba.m', not a personal one.  (It would seem to occur many
times, primarily in MN, AN and Vin., with a great variety of corresponding
terms.)  That is to say, it's definite that 'attan' is in the acc. here, and
it wouldn't make much sense (to me, at least, but I'm happy to be corrected
if I'm wrong) to take 'paccavekkhitabba.m' as a masc. acc. sg. agreeing with
'attaana.m', as though it were a personal construction.  I would have
expected, in a personal construction, something like 'attaa
paccavekkhitabbaa'.  But in a (quite formulaic or stereotypical) impersonal
construction, in which 'paccavekkhitabba.m' is just nt. sg., it could 'take
an object', which would be in the acc., just as 'attaana.m' is here.

In any case, I'm going to continue my inquiry into this topic, as I'm
finding it a good learning exercise.


2. An observation about a somewhat different situation, but not completely
unrelated to the present topic, is made by Wijesekera, which I'll simply
quote here, for your general interest, and without any particular discussion
(except just to note that §58.b. which he refers to below is the passage I
cited a couple of days ago - but of course I'm not going back to that
initial reading, given what I've already learnt and set out in my last
couple of mails).

"The passive potential participle (-*tabba*) used in the acc. nt. sg. as
predicate of the clause in an indirect statement takes an acc. of its
original object, e.g., *Tathaagate arahante sammaasambuddhe aasaadetabba.m
ma~n~nati* D iii.24 “thinks the Tathāgatas, the holy and perfectly
enlightened ones should be *appeased*”.  Buddhaghosa, surprised by this
peculiar employment of the acc. with the passive potential participle and
ignoring the possibility of a legitimate construction with the *impersonal*‘-
*tabba.m***’, says the ending –*e* stands for the plural and -*tabba.m* for
–*tabbe*.  The suggestion is at any rate syntactically plausible since the
verb *ma~n~nati* **is capable of taking the double acc. (§58.b.).  But the
reading need not be altered as it appears also in other places, e.g., *amhe
ovitabba.m ma~n~nanti* M i.460."  (Wijesekera, *Syntax of the Cases*, p. 77,
§60.)


With my respectful best wishes,
and metta,
Khristos


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