Re: Dhammapada commentary

Dear Khristos,

Thanks. The observations you have made are quite reasonable.

Mahinda


On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...>wrote:

> Dear Mahinda,
>
> with due respect, I can't quite agree with your analysis, but only inasmuch
> as you say that "upasaṅkamitabbaṃ" is 'nominative' in the first sentence,
> but that "apasādetabbaṃ" is accusative in the second.  I follow your
> reasoning and interpretation, but would like to make the following
> suggestion.
>
> It seems to me that both of these sentences follow the same pattern (and
> this is the point, I believe, that Wijesekera and Perniola were trying to
> make).  The key to the pattern is the verb "ma~n~nati", which in this
> particular pattern occurs in the optative.  I would suggest that
> "ma~n~neyya" actually refers to and, so to speak, 'takes an object'; i.e.,
> it is transitive, here (not just "he may think" per se, but "he may think
> (something)").  It seems to me that "ma~n~nati" occurs in the canon
> typically with such a transitive usage, e.g.:
>
>     “yassadaani bhava.m kaala.m maññatii”ti  (MN 91, M ii.142), where I
> assume that "kaala.m" (acc.) is 'object' of the verb; or again, perhaps
> more
> clearly,
>
>     "akkheyyañca pariññaaya, akkhaataara.m na maññati"  (SN 1.10, S i.11)
> "having fully understood what can be expressed, one does not conceive 'one
> who expresses (akkhaataara.m (acc.))'".
>
>
> In the type of sentences we're discussing, the 'object', as it were, is
> more
> complex, being part of an indirect statement governed by "ma~n~neyya".  As
> seen in the preceding examples (and as one would expect), the direct object
> of the verb would be in the accusative.  I would translate the first
> example
> as follows, and would suppose that in this case, "upasa"nkamitabba.m" is
> itself the 'object' of the verb "ma~n~neyya" (and although "parisa.m"
> (acc.)
> is already the object of "viditvaa", sense dictates that it is also the
> implied correlate of the -tabba.m participle):
>
>     "appeva naama appasadda.m parisa.m viditvaa upasa"nkamitabba.m
> ma~n~neyyaa"ti.
>
>     "Perhaps, finding the assembly quiet, he may think it should be
> approached."
>
> The second example is perhaps more straightforward, since we have in fact
> two direct objects, "sama.na.m vaa braahma.na.m vaa" (both acc.), and
> "apasaadetabba.m" would be their predicate, and therefore would (also) be
> in
> the accusative.  So this would be a 'double accusative' structure (direct
> object + predicative object) with a verb of 'thinking, knowing,
> perceiving',
> just as Wijesekera has hypothesised.
>
> This analysis is suggested only for this particular kind of pattern,
> governed by "ma~n~nati", which perhaps seems fairly frequent in the canon.
> The main focus of our previous/ongoing discussion of -tabba participles
> has,
> however, concerned certain other (and wider) issues..
> It should be borne in mind, of course, that these suggestions merely
> represent the learning process of a novice student (although a devoted
> one).
>
> With metta,
> Khristos
>
>
>
> On 21 September 2010 18:02, Mahinda Palihawadana <mahipal6@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > 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]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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