vattabbataṃ arahato

Dear Friends,

Just going through the Milinda commentary, along with Bhikkhu Bodhi's
translation.  He points out the following problem:

  >Bhagavato sabbaṃ kāyakammaṃ ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Sabbaṃ
vacīkammaṃ ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Sabbaṃ manokammaṃ
ñāṇapubbaṅgamaṃ ñāṇānuparivatti. Atīte aṃse appaṭihatañāṇadassanaṃ,
anāgate aṃse appaṭihata ñāṇadassanaṃ, paccuppanne aṃse
appaṭihatañāṇadassananti, *vattabbataṃ arahato*!

with the following footnote:

  >The mention of an arahant here is difficult to account for, unless the
Sayadaw is referring to Nāgasena, one of the two protagonists in the
Milindapañha.

I wrote to him, suggesting that it actually should read "vattabbataṃ
arahati", as is common in the commentaries.  He agreed, but pointed out
that the Burmese "o" is quite different from "i", and so it is strange
that there would be such a typo.  Finding the passage in the Thai
version, it turns out to have "arahato" as well.

I think it's pretty clear that this is not referring to a person, but
simply the fact of the speech being appropriate.  The question is
whether there is any way this passage can be understood grammatically if
we accept the form "arahato".  I suggested that it might mean something
like "such (iti) [is] (hoti implied) [speech that] (vacanaṃ implied)
should be said (vattabbataṃ) of the Blessed One (bhagavato), one who is
worthy (arahato) [of such speech].  Ven. Bodhi was not inclined to
agree, but expressed interest in dicussing the issue with this list.  He
accepted my offer to have him invited, so I'll send a request to Jim as
well.

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo