Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolut ive

Dear Bryan,

Roy Norman takes jānitvā as glossing mantā in Pj II 402, but I think
this must be wrong. Later on mantā is explained as equivalent to paññā.
So we must take mantā jānitvā in Pj as meaning 'after knowing by means
of wisdom'.

Pj II 402: rāgādikiñcanānaṃ pana abhāvena so akiñcano, mantā jānitvā
ñāṇānuparivattīhi kāyakammādīhi carati, tenâha: gottaṃ … pe … loke” ti;
mantā vuccati paññā, tāya c'esa carati, ten' evâha: manta carāmi loke
ti, chandavasena rassaṃ katvā.
(Be reads mantaṃ for manta in error; Ee and Se have manta.)

Norman discusses this in his notes to Sn vv 159 & 455 (the page
references differ in each of the three editions I have). He takes it
that the commentary is giving two explanations, but there is no
indication of that.

Lance

> Dear Lance and Khristos,
>
> Thanks very much for the references.
>
> The DN reference (3, 106) I think is definitely an absolutive as the commentary glosses the second mantā, upaparikkhitvā.
>
> The Sn 455 erference is glossed as jānitvā, so  I think that is also an absolutive, although Norman translates it as an agent noun (noting the discrepancy with the commentary)
>
>
> The others could be an agent noun (nom. sing.) or an absolutive as they are homonyms. Norman translates them all as the former, but has a good discussion on page 190 and 191 of his Group of Discourses.
>
> Once again thanks very much for your help,
>
> Metta, Bryan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>   From: L.S. Cousins <selwyn@...>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [palistudy] Re: mantā (mantaa) as absolutive
>  
>
>   
> 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