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

Thank-you Bryan, Petra, and Ven. Pandita for your helpful answers to my
question. I haven't decided which is the most plausible but I have more to
go on now. Petra's suggestion of ta.m as the object of viññūnaṃ is very
interesting as the idea of an agent-nonn taking an object in the accusative
is new to me. I think this also occurs in ". . .tathārūpiṃ vācaṃ bhāsitā" in
the Brahmajālasutta. And also Ven. Pandita's suggestion that part of a
compouud could be the referrent for a subsquent pronoun is interesting.

I have started a long-termed project of working through the commentaries
(the aṭṭhakathā and its 2 ṭīkās) on the Brahmajālasutta and this includes
the introductory parts in its entirety (i.e. ganthārambhakathā and
nidānakathā). I'm at the beginning of the old and new ṭīkās and will proceed
with these until ī get to the parts that start to comment on the actual
words in Buddhaghosa's first introductory verse. At this point I will jump
ahead to the part that deal with the beginning of the sutta (i.e. the four
parts of speech), then back to verse 1 on page 1 of Sv. There will be lots
of going back and forth in this way until the end of the nidānakathā.is
reached.

Best wishes,
Jim