regarding the fact that there are 86 references for vattabbataṃ arahati in the Pali texts on the CSCD, mostly preceded by a quotation ending in ti, and no reference for vattabataṃ arahato, I think a fault by some copyist is much more probable.
best,
Petra
****************************************
Dr. Petra Kieffer-Pülz
Wilhelm-Külz-Strasse 2
99423 Weimar
Germany
Tel. 03643/ 770 447
kiepue@... (priv.)
petra.kieffer-puelz@...
www.pali.adwmainz.de
Am 05.06.2012 um 06:28 schrieb Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu:
> 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]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]