English
"purisānaṃ" is the same for the fourth and sixth cases, nevertheless, their distinctness should be understood by their meaning. How? "A man stands, men stand. He sees a man, he sees men." - and so on. And there, "bho" is a particle used in addressing. It is not only singular, but also plural, hence the plural usage "bho purisā" is included. However, "bhavanto" is only plural, so "purisā" is mentioned again. Thus, the Elder Yamaka stated "bho purisa" as the short form of the vocative singular, and "bho purisā" as the long form of the vocative plural. Indeed, in Pāli texts and commentaries, the particle "bho" is divided in two ways, according to singular and plural. Here are examples: "Does this, then, of the Brahmins with families, skilled in the three Vedas, correspond and agree with the Brahmā without family?" "No, indeed, good Gotama." "Wonderful, good Ānanda! Marvellous, good Ānanda! Come, good ascetic! Good renunciant!" These are examples of the singular usage of "bho" from Pāli and commentaries. "Therefore, good sirs, listen to me as well..." . Just as we are worthy to approach that Blessed Gotama for an audience, “Friends, I do not approve of the recluse Gotama’s well-spoken words as well-spoken.” “Look, friends, at this young man of good family.” “Friends, O yakkhas, I would divide this and give it to you.” “But I am impure, friends. O rogues, your actions do not please me.” He said to those men, “Friends, if you kill me, kill me only after showing me to the king.” Thus, from the Pāli and commentaries, there are examples of the use of the plural of the word ‘bho’. In the Kaccāyana grammar, however, the two words “bho purisa” and “bho purisā” are stated as vocative singular. This should be understood in a way that does not contradict the suttas. Some, however, desire the vocative singular “bho purisa” with a short vowel for addressing someone nearby, and “bho purisā” with a long vowel for addressing someone far away. They say nothing about addressing men and women, whether nearby or far away. Similarly, regarding addressing a woman, whether nearby or far away, they should be asked, “How should one address men, whether nearby or far away?” Surely, when asked thus, they will not be able to say anything further. Even if they were to say, “The addressing of men, whether nearby or far away, is done with ‘bhavanto purisā’ (venerable sirs).” Then they should be told, “If the addressing of men, whether nearby or far away, is done with this unambiguous phrase ‘bhavanto purisā’, then in that case, the addressing of a man far away should also be said with the short word ‘bho purisa’. Why, without saying this, do you desire the vocative singular ‘bho purisa’ with a short vowel for addressing someone nearby, and why do you desire ‘bho purisā’ with a long vowel for addressing someone far away?” Is it not the case that in phrases like “Indeed, Blessed One, the factors of awakening, indeed, Fortunate One, the factors of awakening,” the word used for address "Bhagavā" is a long word; it can be a vocative for the Buddha, whether he is near or far, and similarly, "Sugata" is a short word, also serving as a vocative. Since the vocative "Bhagavā" is nowhere seen to be short, and the vocative "Sugatā" is nowhere seen to be long, therefore, disregarding the distinction of long and short, the word "purisa" spoken with a short sound, when calling a man standing near, with a normal tone, becomes a vocative for one not far away, and when calling a man standing far away, with an elongated tone, it becomes a vocative for one far away— this should be understood. Similarly, vocative plural words spoken with a long sound, such as "bhavanto purisā" (sirs, men), "bho yakkhā" (oh yakkhas), "bho dhuttā" (oh rogues), and so on, when calling men standing near, with a normal tone, become vocatives for those not far away, and when calling men and others standing far away, with an elongated tone, they become vocatives for those far away— this should be understood. For thus, brahmins, in some places, even in short positions and long positions, recite the Veda with an elongated tone, with a medium elongated tone, and with a very elongated tone, like a chanted tone that cannot be written down. Thus, in all syllables, pronunciation with an elongated tone is indeed obtained, which cannot be written down. Therefore, without descending into confusion, by the phrase "bho purisa" (oh man), a man far away and a man not far away are addressed, and by the phrases "bho purisā" (oh men), "bhavanto purisā" (sirs, men), men far away and men not far away are addressed— this should be seen. Thus, for those far and not far, calling with an elongated tone is the only measure, not the distinction of long and short. Therefore, oh teacher, oh king, oh tree, oh sage, oh staff-bearer, oh monk, oh self-existent one, oh maiden, oh leaf, oh woman, oh gruel, oh bride, oh family, oh bone. "O eye," and so on, by such words, there is an address for those near and an address for those far. It should be understood that by such words as "Venerable teacher (sg), Venerable teachers (pl), Lady maiden (sg), Lady maidens (pl)," there is also an address for those near. This is the conclusion here: Having heard his words, They showed the king's son. And the son, seeing his father, Spoke from afar. Let the sword-bearing doorkeepers come, To kill me, O king, with yellow robes; Tell me, when asked, this matter, What offense is there of mine today? Thus by the King of True Dhamma, Indeed skilled in usage, In the well-taught Somanassa Jataka, By the All-Seeing One. Even in a distant address, there is shortness, As seen in "O king". There is no length anywhere, Thus is the rule considered by me. This should be said here: "From where, sirs, does this come, 'addressing those far and addressing those near'?" From grammar. Grammar, however, is not entirely helpful for the Buddha's word, but it is so in part. In this treatise, "bahuvacana" (plural), or "puthuvacana" (multiple number), or "anekavacana" (many number) are one in meaning; only the expression differs. Therefore, everywhere, the usage of "bahuvacana" or "puthuvacana" or "anekavacana" should be made. "Puthuvacana" and "anekavacana" are the usage of those skilled in etymology in the Dispensation; the other (bahuvacana) is for those skilled in grammar. But why is the dual number not mentioned in this treatise? Because there is no such thing as a dual number in the Buddha's word, therefore it is not mentioned. But surely there are three numbers in the Buddha's word? For example, "āyasmā" (venerable) is singular, "āyasmantā" is dual, and "āyasmanto" is plural? That is not so. If "āyasmantā" were dual number, then which would you say is dual in "puriso, purisā" (man, men) and so on? Therefore, there is no such thing as dual number in the Buddha's word. For this very reason, by "si, yo, aṃ, yo, nā, hī" and so on, the singular... only plural forms are shown. But sirs, in the Pāli passage, "May the venerable ones listen to me, today is the fifteenth day of the Uposatha. When it is suitable for the venerable ones, we shall perform the Uposatha of mutual purification," the word "āyasmantā" is said referring to two. But in other Pāli passages like "The four pārājika rules have been recited, venerable ones," "āyasmanto" is said referring to many. And it cannot be said, "it is said however it is said," because even in announcing parivāsa and so on, the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, having understood the Buddha's intention, said, "one announcing to two should say 'āyasmantā dhārentū' (may the venerable ones remember), and one announcing to three should say 'āyasmanto dhārentū' (may the venerable ones remember)." Is this truly said? That is said in terms of Vinaya usage. But is the Vinaya not the word of the Buddha? Why do you say "there is no dual number in the word of the Buddha"? Truly, the Vinaya is the word of the Buddha, yet it is merely an indication, being said in terms of Vinaya actions, not included in the plural number common to all. For if "āyasmantā" were a dual number, then the verbs used with it would also be dual, but such verbs do not exist. For no one skilled in grammar, even a jhānalābhī with divine sight, examining for a hundred years or a thousand years, would see a single dual verb in the word of the Buddha. Thus, because of the absence of dual verbs, there is no dual number in nominal forms. The absence in nominal forms should be understood from their absence in verbs. In Sanskrit, there are dual numbers even for two, but in Māgadhī (Pāli), there are none. Furthermore, the grammatical term "puthuvacana" also indicates this meaning: "there is no dual number in the word of the Buddha." For it is a number distinct from the dual and plural numbers mentioned in Sanskrit, or it is the expression of a meaning distinct from the meanings expressed there, which is called "puthuvacana." How is this distinct from the dual and plural numbers mentioned in Sanskrit? And if it is called a distinct number? Because in the Sanskrit language there is no term "puthuvacana", therefore this is called a number of meaning distinct from the dual and plural numbers spoken of in the Sanskrit language. And how then is it a number of meaning distinct from those spoken of in the Sanskrit language, if it is "puthuvacana"? Because in the Sanskrit language, taking two, the dual number is spoken, not taking three, four, five, etc., many; but taking many, the plural number is spoken, not taking two. This is the distinction in the Sanskrit language. But in the Magadhan language, taking two, three, four, five, etc., many, the "puthuvacana" is spoken. Therefore, it is called "puthuvacana", a number of meaning distinct from the meanings spoken of in the Sanskrit language. This is the distinction in the Magadhan language. Therefore, the meaning of "puthuvacana" should be understood as the number of a separate, or diverse, meaning.