Re: Question from Alavaka Sutta

 

​​

Yes, so the adjective is either manussaa, or manussii. It can't be manussa. That's all. :)

Balaji

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear Balaji,

I am not sure what the problem is.

Adjectives are not masculine only, but vary according to the gender of the modificand (the noun which is modified or qualified). So manussa as an adj. has three genders, manussa masc. and neut. and manussā fem. (Skt =  manuṣya masc. and neut. and manuṣyā, fem, see MW) which in the locative case modifying pajāya is manussāya, which follows the gender (fem.) number (sing.) and case (locative) of the noun.

Best wishes,

Bryan

---

From: "Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 1:16 AM

Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question from Alavaka Sutta

 

Or the adjective is perhaps sadeva-manussā, not sadeva-manussa. If that were the case, it would work out fine too.

Thanks,

Balaji

Balaji

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Balaji <balaji.ramasubramanian@...> wrote:

Hi Bryan,

That would not work for two reasons. Adjectives have to normally follow the gender, number, and declension of the noun. The only exception is for numbers greater than or equal to five. If the adjective were the masculine word sadeva-manussa, then the noun can't be a feminine pajā - it will have to be masculine noun paja, as I had initially thought. In fact this is precisely how the confusion even arose for me.

Furthermore, if the masculine sadeva-manussa were the adjective, then the declension should also be in the locative case - which should be sadeva-manusse. So if here it says sadeva-manussāya, it may be that sadeva-manussa is not an adjective of pajā at all. That would make perfect sense in the case of the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta or other suttas, but in this particular case, it wouldn't make much sense.

Thanks,

Balaji

Balaji

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear Balaji,

I think the adjective is manussa (< Skt. manuṣya), not manussī. The locative case in feminine (modifying pajāya) would be manussāya. It is a bit confusing as the PED doesn't show manussa as an adj., but as a noun. However Monier Williams clearly shows it as both, and it is certainly used here as an adjective.

pajā comes from Skt. prajā which is from the root pra + jan "to be born, to generate",

Best wishes,

Bryan

---

From: "Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 10:17 AM

Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question from Alavaka Sutta

 

Hi Brothers in the Dhamma,

You're right that pajā being a feminine word, the locative case is pajāya. I stand corrected.

The sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇī, and sadeva-manussī are the adjectives of pajā, and both are in locative case just like pajāya.

I got misled by the pajāya being similar to kassakāya, or manussāya. But I should have remembered that the -āya suffix is very uncommon in Pali, and more common in Sanskrit.

Just as a side note, along with the noun pajā, (which is what is used in this case), there is another noun paja (not pajā). It is related to degeneration, decay, aging etc. pajā is related to jā root, and paja is related to jarā. So if we think in that way, a dative case would make sense. But I think the usage here is of pajā and not of paja (which wouldn't make much sense).

So I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me. :)

Thanks,

Balaji

Balaji

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:51 AM, KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear Balaji,

I have already found out that locative suffixes in the textbook The New Pali Course of Venerable Buddhadatta

However, your explaination is still amazing, too

Could I confirm my understanding of your meaning explaination of the sentence:  "I do not see anyone in this world, friend, with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, who could drive me insane or split my heart or grab me by the feet and hurl me across the Ganges FOR BENEFIT OF the generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans", right?

Sincerely yours,

---

From: "Bryan Levman bryan.levman@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: "palistudy@yahoogroups.com" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2015 1:32 AM

Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question from Alavaka Sutta

 

Dear Balaji,

I had always thought that pajāya (and its modifiers) were also in the locative case, the basic sense of the pericope being "I do not see anyone in the world.... in the generation of.... who can (do such and such)".

I don't see how it makes sense in the dative.

pajā is a fem. noun so pajāya(m) is a normal locative ending (although it could be dative)
brāhmaṇiyā ("of brahmans, relating to brahmans") is a loc. sing. of brāhmaṇi which is a fem. adjective modifying pajāya

mannussāya (= Skt. manuṣya, adj. "human") also seems to be a fem. adjective modifying pajāya.

If the second phrase were dative, how would one construe the sentence?

Bhikkhu Bodhi (2000: 315) translates this sentence as

"I do not see anyone in this world, friend, with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, who could drive me insane or split my heart or grab me by the feet and hurl me across the Ganges".

Best wishes,

Bryan

---

From: "Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] Question from Alavaka Sutta

 

Here is the commonly heard phrase:

...sadevake loke samārake sabrahmake sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadeva-manussāya...

The case in the words are slightly different.

sadevaka, samāraka, and sabrahamka are adjectives that describe loka. The 'sa' prefix means "with". and the 'ka' suffix has many meanings. In this context it what makes the word an adjective. For example,

sapushpakaṃ udyānaṃ - a park which has flowers in it.

sakuṭumbaka gahapati - a householder, who has a family

One point to note: the 'ka' suffix here was not really necessary, but it is added to add a flavor of similarity in ending sound. The noun loka has 'ka' in the end, so adding this 'ka', makes the rest of the adjectives flow poetically well. In English we have such formations like alliterations. This is a similar thing in the middle-Indic languages.

Now the words from sadevake upto sabrahmake, are all in the locative case, because their case follows the case of the noun they describe - loka.

The rest of the words: "sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadeva-manussaāya", this part is actually in the dative case. Here paja is the noun and the rest sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇi and sadeva-manussa are adjectives of paja.

So the phrase has a little bit of tautology, but a curious sort of meaning which might be interesting:

"...in the loka with māra and the various devas and brahmās, for the sake of the samaṇa-brāhmaṇas, for the sake of this paja (~generation is an approximate meaning) of humans along with the gods..."

Note: Interesting point is that in the world with māra, devas, and brahmā gods, the teaching is meant for humans and gods! What happens to the brahmā gods and māra themselves?

Another similar phrase is as follows, and a common misunderstanding in Pali classes that I would like to explain here:

yo imaṃ lokaṃ sadevakaṃ samārakaṃ sabrahmakaṃ sassamaṇa-brāhamaṇiṃ pajaṃ sadeva-manussaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā saccikatvā pavedesi

Now the same words we saw before are all in accusative case, including sadevaka, samāraka, sabrahmaka, sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇi, paja, etc., and they all follow the accusative case of loka. This doesn't however mean that they are all adjectives of the word loka! Only sadevaka, samāraka, and sabrahmaka are adjectives of loka. The rest are actually the ones that benefit from the action described in the end - pavedanā - the action. This is because the verb of telling has two different kamma-pada associations. It is like the following sentence:

ācariyo pañhaṃ pucchati - here pañha is in the accusative case.

ācariyo bālaṃ pañham pucchati - here both bāla and pañha are in accusative case, but for different reasons.

In the same way, the loka and the paja are both in accusative case, but for different reasons! In this case, the Buddha knows the loka through abhiññā, but teaches what he knows about the loka to the paja! The rest of the adjectives should be associated with these two nouns.

I hope I didn't confuse you more in my excitement to explain the beauty of this little phrase.

​Thanks,​

Balaji

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:16 PM, KHANH TRONG HUYNH testsuda@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Dear all,

Na khvâhaṃ taṃ, āvuso, passāmi sadevake loke sabrahmake (sassamaṇa-brāhmaṇiyā) pajāya (sadevamanussāya) yo me cittaṃ vā khipeyya hadayaṃ vā phāleyya pādesu vā gahetvā pāragaṅgāya khipeyya

“Indeed I do not see, friend, anything in the world with its Brahma and gods, among the generation of ascetics and Brahmins, gods and men, that could confuse my mind, rend my heart asunder, and pick me up by the feet and throw me to the other side of the Ganges

It seems that (brāhmaṇiyā) and (manussāya) are locative case, but I can not look up the way they are created, I can only guess that they were added the suffix ya/yā or iya

Please kindly give my your advices

Sincerely yours,