From: Soe Naung
Message: 4959
Date: 2017-12-04
On following up, I see a problem with the abhikkamo esānaṃ interpretation in that esānaṃ is listed by Aggavaṃsa and Geiger as a masc. or neuter gen. or dat. plural form of the pronominal base ima. But only imāsaṃ (also imāsānaṃ in Geiger) is given for the feminine. I’m assuming that the masc./neut. pronoun esānaṃ is being used here to qualify an implied vedanānaṃ which is feminine and therefore a mismatch.
Jim
--Ven. Pandita (Burma)
Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies,
University of Kelaniya,
Sri Lanka