Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolutive

Dear Bryan,

perhaps this is also an example:

      “katamā nesaṃ seyyo, yaṃ vā te mantā vācaṃ bhāseyyuṃ yaṃ vā amantā”ti?
“mantā, bho gotama”. (M II 202)

      "katamaa nesa.m seyyo, ya.m vaa te mantaa vaaca.m bhaaseyyu.m ya.m vaa
amantaa"ti?  "mantaa, bho gotama."



      “Which is better for them, that they should speak statements having
thought (about them), or having not thought (about them)?”  “Having thought
(about them), Gotama, Sir.”

If mantā can be an alternative form of mantvā, then perhaps it is also
possible here?

      na sākaṭikacintāya mantā dhīro parakkame.  (SN 2.22 at PTS S I 57)

      na saaka.tikacintaaya mantaa dhiiro parakkame.



Ven. Bodhi takes mantā here to be the nom. sg. of mantar, ‘thinker’ (cf.
also Sn 4.14 cited below), translating: “The thinker, the wise one, should
not advance / With the reflection of the carter.”  (Bodhi, Connected
Discourses, p. 154)  But if mantā were taken as absolutive, perhaps this
could alternatively be read along the lines of: "The wise one should not
proceed (after) having thought with the opining of the carter."



I prefer Ven. Bodhi’s reading of the verse, however, in that it provides a
positive equation between mantar and dhīra, as distinct from the clearly
'negative' connotation for mantar in Sn 4.14 (where the criticism is
arguably directed mainly at the notion 'asmī' (asmii) rather than at the
notion 'mantā' (mantaa)):


      mūlaṃ papañcasaṅkhāya, (iti bhagavā)
       ‘mantā asmī’ti sabbamuparundhe (Sn 4.14 at PTS Sn 179)

      muula.m papa~ncasa"nkhaaya, (iti bhagavaa)
       ‘mantaa asmii’ti sabbamuparundhe

With metta,
Khristos


On 1 July 2012 01:12, L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Bryan,
>
> At D III 106 we have:
> /mantā mantā ca vācaṃ bhāsati nidhānavatiṃ kālena. etad ānuttariyaṃ,
> bhante, bhassasamācāre/.
>
> Sv III 892 glosses:
> /*mantā mantā ca vācaṃ bhāsatī* ti ettha mantā ti vuccati paññā, mantāya
> paññāya. puna mantā ti upaparikkhitvā/.
>
> This seems to be taking the second occurrence of /mantā/ as an absolutive.
>
> K.R. Norman (Sn Trsl. note to v.159) seems to understand Pj II 402 as
> taking /mantā/ as an absolutive, but that appears doubtful.
>
> Lance
>
>
> On 30/06/2012 16:04, Bryan Levman wrote:
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > The normal absolutive of the verb man, maññati (ma~n~nati) is mantvā
> (mantvaa, "having thought, having considered, etc."), but Fahs Grammatik
> (page 327) says that the form mantā (mantaa) also occurs. Has anyone ever
> seen this form in this usage (as opposed to the plural of the noun manta,
> "spells")?
> >
> >
> > Metta, Bryan
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]