Re: Dhammapada commentary

: <k@...%3E%20wrote:>
> appeva nāma appasaddaṃ parisaṃ viditvā upasaṅkamitabbaṃ maññeyya 'on
> seeing that assembly is silent, he might think of coming' (MN II
> 2:7)

> I'm not at all clear about the usage and meaning of the fpp in this
> quote and the preceding explanation which strikes me as ambiguous.


> I believe the following is just one typical example:
>
> >`kathañhi nāma mādiso samaṇaṃ vā brāhmaṇaṃ vā vijite vasantaṃ
> apasādetabbaṃ
> maññeyyā'ti.  (D i.53)
>
>
> May i add what i think about these two, just depending on my understanding,
> i.e. without quoting authority. In the first sentence, upasankamitabba.m is
> is a whole clause, which could only be *literally* rendered as "it should
> be approached (by me)' - which of course finally means I should or could
> approach. This passive  usage, without the agent word, is quite common in
> Indic languages, including modern languages. "ma~n~neyya" of course is no
> problem. This is a very common usage in later Sanskrit, though, i believe
> not in Vedic. So this is probably one of the indigenous  South Asian
> contributions to Sanskrit idiom. Now, what is the case of upasankamitabba.m?
> It is nominative, since it qualifies an implied 'it'. Some grammarians may
> say the implied word is 'upasankamana.m'. (The "going should be gone" or
> "the going should be done").
>


> In the second sentence, apasaadetabba.m is a fpp (we used to call  them
> potential participles) from apasaadeti, which is a causative form. The
> meaning is: How could one like me think that a recluse or a Brahmin living
> in my realm  could be exiled, i.e. , literally  "possible to be caused to
> leave" . It is of course acc. sing. since it qualifies sama.na.m/
> braahma.na.m .
>

Mahinda


> Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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