> I have a question regarding the 3rd verse:
> So bajjhata.m paasasatehi chamhi
> he / binding / [with] hundred snares / [with] six / [from]
> How would you exactly translate "bajjhata.m"? I suppose it is a
> Passive Present Participle the active root being "bandh". Would it
> then mean "being bound"? Why does it not agree with the subject "so"
> and not written "bajjhanto". It looks like a genitive or dative
> plural here and I don't understand why.
I think "bajjhata.m" is a passive verb derived from the root /bandh/,
middle imperative, 3rd person singular, and constructed with "so" as
the subject (the object in the nominative case) --- "may he be tied up
with a hundred ropes". I find "chamhi" rather puzzling because of the
readings in other versions such as: chambhii, chabbhi, even jambhi.
The regular form of "cha" (six) in the instr. and abl. is "chahi". The
commentary at J IV 311 interprets the word in the verse as "in six
places" (i.e., the four legs, the neck, and the waist).
You can upload your picture to the photo section of the group's home