Dear Bryan,
That does seem logical, except, first, that it's "vattabbataṃ arahato"
which makes it seem a strange sort of genitive relationship for prose.
Second, vattabba need not come from vattati, it can also be derived from
vatti as per the PED entry (q.v.). The latter seems more likely, since
we are dealing with a quotation. Third, as Petra says, it's hard to
think it a coincidence that "iti vattabbataṃ arahati" occurs so
frequently in the commentaries with no indication of referring to the
Buddha in most cases.
My question was more whether "arahato" could be considered to mean
something similar to "arahati", i.e. instead of "the fact of it being
proper to say so is proper", we might have "[there is] the fact of it
being proper to say so of the blessed one, one of whom it is proper [to
say so]."
I guess, if I am not missing something, a typo seems more likely :)
Best wishes,
Yuttadhammo
On 06/06/2012 07:51 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I am sorry, I have been treating vattabbataṃ as a gerundive or future
> passive participle of vadati, but I realize now that I was mistaken:
> the future passive participle of vadati is vattabbaṃ, not vattabbataṃ;
> the latter is a compound vatta-bbataṃ which means "the usual custom"
> per the PED (s.v. vatta- < vattati). It is a nominal compound, not a
> future passive participle. Therefore I think arahato vattabbataṃ
> simply means "this/that is the usual custom of the arahat (i. e. the
> Buddha),"
>
> Metta,
>
> Bryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: petra kieffer-Pülz <kiepue@...
> <mailto:kiepue%40t-online.de>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 10:47:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] vattabbataṃ arahato
>
>
>
> 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@... <mailto:kiepue%40t-online.de> (priv.)
> petra.kieffer-puelz@... <mailto:petra.kieffer-puelz%40adwmainz.de>
>
> 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>
> > > <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>>
> > > To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]