Re: Sv-p.t I 1 (ta.m)

Dear Jim,

Today I happen to check out your group mails, and notice your question. I
will try to give my version by modifying your own (I am lazy [?]). Before
doing so, I should note that such pieces of text are commonly found in the
sub-commentarial literature to answer the implicit question: "If the
commentator wishes to explain the Piṭaka, why doesn't he go ahead with his
business but choose to waste time by writing verses of homage to the Triple
Gem?" Only when we know the hidden question that we will be able to
understand the answer.

Saṃvaṇṇanārambhe ratanattayavandanā saṃvaṇṇetabbassa dhammassa
pabhavanissayavisuddhipaṭivedanatthaṃ = "The veneration of the jewel-triad
at the commencement of the commentary is
for the sake of making known the purity of the  source and the basis of the
Dhamma to be commented upon."

You should notice that I analyze the compound "pabhava ..." differently.
Why? The Buddha is the source of the Dhamma while the Sangha is the basis on
which the Dhamma relies for its survival. If the source and the basis are
pure, it goes without saying that the Dhamma must be pure too.

taṃ pana dhammasaṃvaṇṇanāsu viññūnaṃ bahumānuppādanatthaṃ = "It (that is,
making known the purity of the  source and the basis of the Dhamma to be
commented upon) is for the sake of generating the
respect of wise ones for commentaries on the Dhamma."

If the Dhamma is pure, its purity must also be reflected upon its
commentaries. Therefore the knowledge of the Dhamma's purity will lead the
wise ones to love its commentaries.  Here the pronoun taṃ refers to the
"pabhanissayavisuddhipaṭivedana" of the last compound. This is why taṃ is in
neutral gender, for paṭivedana, the last and predominant compound member is
neural gender itself.

Hope it helps.

with metta

Ven. Pandita


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