Re: asaṅkhyeyyāni

Dear Venerable,

Yes, the PTS edition also has asaṅkheyyāni. The verb is saṅkhāyati (< S saṅ + khyā) and per Geiger §202, verbs ending in a vowel take a future passive participle in -eyya or -eya.

The presence of the additional -y- (saṅkhy-) appears to be a Sanskritization, a restoration of the conjunct which does not exist in the Pāli verb (saṅkhāyati < S saṅ+ khyā) or in the other Prakrits (e.g. ArdhaMāgadhī saṃkhā verb and nominal form; samkhada in Gāndhārī, p.p.) - it is found, however in the P noun saṅkhyā, ("calculation" as an alternate form to saṅkhā) so even in Pāli there was a tendency to Sanskritize, which is what I think you're witnessing here in the Burmese edition,

Best wishes,

Bryan

From: "Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu yuttadhammo@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: "palistudy@yahoogroups.com" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:50 AM
Subject: [palistudy] asaṅkhyeyyāni

Dear friends,

It has come to my attention that the CST may have an error in the following section:

catukkanipātapāḷi, 4. catutthapaṇṇāsakaṃ, (16) 1. indriyavaggo, 6. kappasuttaṃ n (AN 4.156)

♦ 156. “cattārimāni, bhikkhave, kappassa asaṅkhyeyyāni. katamāni cattāri? yadā, bhikkhave, kappo saṃvaṭṭati, taṃ na sukaraṃ saṅkhātuṃ — ettakāni vassānīti vā, ettakāni vassasatānīti vā, ettakāni vassasahassānīti vā, ettakāni vassasatasahassānīti vā.

Specifically, "asaṅkhyeyyāni" should be "asaṅkheyyāni". I am not certain, since it appears more than just a typographical error (appearing twice as it does). The Thai tipitaka has "asaṅkheyyāni", which I guess is more likely.

Any thoughts?

Yuttadhammo

Previous in thread: 4252
Next in thread: 4256
Previous message: 4254
Next message: 4256

Contemporaneous posts Posts in thread all posts