From: Bryan Levman
Message: 4961
Date: 2017-12-04
Dear Jim,
I notice that Geiger seems to be giving esānaṃ as an alternative form for both the masculine (tesānaṃ) and the feminine (tāsānaṃ) in the Notes to §105 (page. 100, Note 1.), although all the examples he cites are masc. The PTS editor obviouly thought it was abhikkamo’ sānaṃ as he notates it with an apostrophe.
Dear Bhante,
Thanks for your suggestion of abbhikkama-osānaṃ as a tappurisa which I think also works, “the conclusion of going forward” is death, as you point out.
Perhaps the sandhi might give a hint?
Abhikkama-osānaṃ as a compound > abhikkamausānaṃ > abhikkamosānaṃ in Pali which is what has come down to us Abhikkamo-esānaṃ > abhikkamavesānaṃ > abhikkamesānaṃ in Pāli (?). According to Warder (214) usually the preceding vowel is elided (e.g. tiṭṭhatu + eva > tiṭṭhateva), but I know sandhi is not an exact “science” in Pāli as it is in Skt.
Of course, the simplest explanation is that the bhāṇako or scribe mixed up a masc. with a fem. form and esānaṃ refers to vedanānaṃ
Mettā, Bryan
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