Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca

Expand Messages
  • Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    Dear Yong, ... Mahesii meaning the chief consort of a king and mahesii as an epithet of the Buddha are two different and unrelated words. The former is formed:
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Yong,

      > 1. Should mahesii (chief queen) be mahesi (great sage)?

      Mahesii meaning the chief consort of a king and mahesii as
      an epithet of the Buddha are two different and unrelated
      words. The former is formed:

      mahiiyatii ti "mahesii" -- "She is to be honoured, thus she is
      a mahesii"

      while the latter is formed: mahaa + isi = mahesii

      > 2. As given on pg 114 of the book, lokahito is a Tappurisa:
      > lokahito = lokassa+hito, beneficial to the world
      >

      > 3. The subject of the first pair is hence:
      > naatho lokahito mahesi: the Great Sage, the Protector,
      > one who benefits the world.

      Possibly, but I'm not sure. I am used to seeing lokahito in
      the dative form lokahitaaya, "for the benefit of the world".
      I don't know if it can also mean a person who benefits the
      world.

      > Therefore, the sentence would be:
      > "Attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca."
      > "The meaning (is) truly the refuge," spoke the Protector.

      Yes, I think this is right. Concerning the first two lines
      as a whole, another possibility occurred to me. We could
      divide them into two sentences, and take avoca as a
      predicate that applies to the main subject of both of them.
      An ellipsis like this is not uncommon in Pali verse:

      attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca
      na bya~njana.m lokahito mahesii

      "The meaning is truly the refuge," said the Lord;
      "It is not the letter that is the benefit for the world,"
      [said] the Great Sage.

      Best wishes,

      Dhammanando
    • Ong Yong Peng
      Dear Ven. Dhammanando, Gunnar and friends, thanks again. I shall reflect the changes in the solutions. I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun,
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Ven. Dhammanando, Gunnar and friends,

        thanks again. I shall reflect the changes in the solutions.

        I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun, if lokahita
        applies to bya~njana, it should have been bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am
        I correct?


        metta,
        Yong Peng.

        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:

        > Therefore, the sentence would be:
        > "Attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca."
        > "The meaning (is) truly the refuge," spoke the Protector.

        Yes, I think this is right. Concerning the first two lines as a
        whole, another possibility occurred to me. We could divide them into
        two sentences, and take avoca as a predicate that applies to the main
        subject of both of them. An ellipsis like this is not uncommon in
        Pali verse:

        attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca
        na bya~njana.m lokahito mahesii

        "The meaning is truly the refuge," said the Lord; "It is not the
        letter that is the benefit for the world," [said] the Great Sage.
      • Dhammanando Bhikkhu
        Dear Yong, ... No. If bya~njana and lokahita are both taken to be nouns as in my suggested translation, there would be no call for them to agree in gender.
        Message 3 of 7 , May 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Yong,

          > I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun, if
          > lokahita applies to bya~njana, it should have been
          > bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am I correct?

          No. If bya~njana and lokahita are both taken to be nouns as
          in my suggested translation, there would be no call for them
          to agree in gender.

          Best wishes,

          Dhammanando
        • Ong Yong Peng
          Dear Ven. Dhammanando and friends, ... It seems like you are qualifying bya~njana.m with lokahito, but now I see you are not. It is just a way of putting it in
          Message 4 of 7 , May 12, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Ven. Dhammanando and friends,

            Bhante: thanks again. I was referring to your sentence:

            > "The meaning is truly the refuge," said the Lord;
            > "It is not the letter that is the benefit for the world,"
            > [said] the Great Sage.

            It seems like you are qualifying bya~njana.m with lokahito, but now I
            see you are not. It is just a way of putting it in English. Thanks.


            metta,
            Yong Peng.

            --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Dhammanando Bhikkhu wrote:

            > I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun,
            > if lokahita applies to bya~njana, it should have been
            > bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am I correct?

            No. If bya~njana and lokahita are both taken to be nouns as in my
            suggested translation, there would be no call for them to agree in
            gender.
          • Jim Anderson
            Dear Ven. Dhammanando and Yong Peng, ... I think Yong Peng is correct. I take it that lokahito refers to a person and is the agent of avoca . Here s the
            Message 5 of 7 , May 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Ven. Dhammanando and Yong Peng,

              YP:
              > > I have a further question. bya~njana is a neuter noun,
              > > if lokahita applies to bya~njana, it should have been
              > > bya~njana.m lokahita.m, am I correct?

              Ven. Dhammanando:
              > No. If bya~njana and lokahita are both taken to be nouns as in my
              > suggested translation, there would be no call for them to agree in
              > gender.

              I think Yong Peng is correct. I take it that 'lokahito' refers to a
              person and is the agent of 'avoca'. Here's the verse again:

              attha.m hi naatho sara.na.m avoca
              na bya~njana.m lokahito mahesii

              My reading is as follows: 'attha.m', 'sara.na.m', and 'vya~njana.m'
              are all in the accusative singular and are objects of the
              verb 'avoca' whereas 'naatho, 'lokahito', and 'mahesii' are all in
              the nominative singular and are agents of the verb 'avoca'. A
              translation should go like this:

              For the Protector, the World's Benefactor, the Great Seer,
              Has said the meaning is the refuge, not the phrasing.

              Best wishes,
              Jim
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.