Dear Yuttadhammo,
It is proper that the Bhagavat is saying such and such a thing. The agent is
Bhagavat, the Arhat, I believe.
Best wishes,
Ole
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu" <yuttadhammo@...>
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
Dear Ole,
Thanks for the reply; I am guessing that what you are saying is that
this sort of sentence is proper:
"there is the fact of being proper to say (vattabbata) this (iti) of the
blessed one (bhagavato)"
as meaning:
"It is proper to say this of the Blessed One."
is that correct?
The question is where does "arahato" fit in, if at all? Do you think it
could be an adjective of "bhagavato" or is that not correct?
The temptation to just assume a typo is great; after all, "vattabbata.m
arahati" is quite common in the commentaries.
Best wishes,
Yuttadhammo
On 06/03/2012 03:09 PM, Ole Holten Pind wrote:
>
> Dear Yuttadhammo
> The Genitive is often used to express agency in the canon, not only with
> ta-participles, but also with fut.paritcip. in tabba.
> Best wishes, Ole Pind
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuttadhammo" <yuttadhammo@...
> <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>
> To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 4:24 AM
> Subject: [palistudy] 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
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links