English
Now, following the method extracted from the Nirutti Piṭaka, like "puriso, purisā, purisa", the nominal declension of the base form "bhūta" (being) is stated: A being, beings. A being, beings. By a being, by beings, by beings. To a being, to beings. From a being, from a being, from a being, from beings, from beings. Of a being, of beings. In a being, in a being, in a being, in beings. O being, O beings. Or else, "O beings" should be understood as plural. Just as here the nominal declension of the base form "bhūta" is applied according to the "purisa" pattern, so too the nominal declension of "bhāvaka" and others similar to it should be applied according to the "purisa" pattern. Here, other similar names are the base forms like "buddha" for words like "buddho" and so on. Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, path, Aggregate, body, desire, aeon; Month, fortnight, spirit, food, Nāga, cloud, enjoyment, sacrifice. Greed, hatred, delusion, conceit, Denigration, obstinacy, anger, covetousness; Laughter, enmity, burning, splendor, Will, cough, breath, sickness. Horse, crop, lord O student, Lion, tiger, tree, rock; Indra, Sakka, god, village; Moon, sun, flood, island. Side, sacrifice, giving, speech; Hand, bowl, dryness, greed; Soma, warrior, plant, bear; House, mansion, tower, hall. Man, elephant, deer, hare; Dog, crane, goat, bird; Horse, elephant, donkey, lake; Tree, palm, cloth, banner. Serpent, kite, bird, snake; Donkey, Sarabha, bull, wild ox; Buffalo, bull, demon, Garuda; Youth, Varuna, hook, bolt. Sal tree, Dhavo, and Khadira; Wheat, sixty-day rice, barley; Peas and horse-gram; Sesame, mung bean, and rice. Warrior, brahmin, merchant; Sudra, rogue, and Pukkusa; Outcaste, watchman, chief; Human, charioteer, chariot. Renunciant and householder; Ox, camel, and donkey; Woman and royal women; And so on, one should understand. Some here might say, "Indeed, sir, seeing the text 'harem women and princes,' the word 'orodha' is feminine." That is not so. For there, "orodhā" is indeed a masculine word (ending in -o), not a feminine word (ending in -ā). But you, thinking it is a feminine word ending in -ā, say so. This is not a feminine word ending in -ā, but rather a word ending in -ā spoken in the plural, like the word "mātugāmā" (women). But sir, isn't the femininity of the word 'orodha' clear in texts like the Sammohavinodanī and others? How so? "A deity dwelling in a tree, angry with the elder, first tempted his mind and announced in a dream, 'Your patron king will die seven days from now.' The elder, hearing this, told it to the royal harem women. They immediately let out a great cry." Here, by saying "to the royal harem women" and then "they" (feminine plural), isn't the femininity of the word 'orodha' clear? That is not so, because the meaning has been misunderstood. Indeed, the meaning here has been misunderstood by you. Here, because the meaning of "women" is expressed by the word "orodha," and "they" (feminine plural) is used with reference to the meaning of "women," therefore "they, women..." This is the meaning of "iyo." But you, not having been raised by a mother and father, and not having completed your studies in a teacher's household, do not understand this subtle meaning, and you say whatever comes to your mouth. For eating, for speaking, do not say the mouth exists; Whatever comes to the mouth, that is what a wise person says. "We, sirs, do not say whatever comes to our mouth. We speak by taking the words of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers. The Aṭṭhakathā is our refuge. We do not believe you." Whether you believe us or not, do not slander the Aṭṭhakathā teachers by saying, "We speak by taking the words of the Aṭṭhakathā teachers." For there is no place where the Aṭṭhakathā teachers said, "The word 'orodha' is feminine." Therefore, to slander the Aṭṭhakathā teachers is not proper, as slandering teachers like the Buddha leads to great harm. For it was said by the Blessed One, "By what he has wrongly grasped, he slanders us, and generates much demerit, and thereby harms himself." Having shown that such slander is improper and blameworthy, they should be told this again: "Even in the Jātaka Aṭṭhakathā, there is an example similar to the one you cited. Listen to it. In the Kosiyajātaka Aṭṭhakathā, the passage 'The Teacher, dwelling in Jetavana, spoke concerning a certain woman in Sāvatthī. She, it is said, was the unvirtuous and wicked wife of a faithful and devoted lay follower, a brahmin' is found. Here, having said 'spoke concerning a woman,' and then 'she' being said, according to your view, the word 'mātugāma' (woman) would be feminine, not masculine. Why do you not see this Aṭṭhakathā statement? But you see only that Aṭṭhakathā statement. Is that Aṭṭhakathā alone your refuge, and no other?" If, expecting the word 'tā' (she/they), you wish for the word 'orodha' to be feminine, here too, expecting the word 'sā' (she), the word 'mātugāma' (woman) would be feminine. Do you wish to move? Thus spoken, they were speechless, without ready wit, embarrassed, shoulders drooping, faces downcast, they would brood. Here too, by the word 'mātugāma' (woman), the meaning of 'itthi' (woman) is stated, and referring to the meaning of 'itthi', because 'sā' (she) is used, the meaning is precisely "that woman". For sometimes, even when a quality-word in apposition to a principal word, which is masculine or neuter, should follow the gender of the referent, and thus be masculine or neuter, disregarding the gender, and only considering the meaning of 'itthi', a feminine gender designation is seen. How is that? "Here, Visakha, a woman is well-organized in her work, her household is well-managed, she serves pleasant food, she protects what is gathered." And, "What, venerable sir, is the reason, what is the cause, whereby some woman here is ugly, ill-favored, unpleasant to behold, and poor, with little property, little wealth, little influence?" "Here, Mallika, some woman is angry, full of vexation, even when spoken to a little, she gets angry, rages, becomes hostile, shows anger, ill-will, and discontent." And, "That jewel of a woman, monks, of the universal monarch, rises early, lies down late, is obedient to his commands." These are the usages. Sometimes, however, even when a quality-word in apposition to a principal word, which is neuter, should follow the gender of the referent, and thus be neuter, disregarding the gender, and only considering the meaning of 'purisa' (man), a masculine gender designation is seen. How is that? "Five hundred Paccekabuddhas were long-time residents on this Isigili mountain." "That jewel of a guide of the universal monarch, introduces the known, restrains the unknown." Sometimes, a designation is seen for a quality-word in apposition to a principal word of any of the three genders, according to the gender of the referent. How is that? That woman, "virtuous, good..." unrighteous. Indeed, Nakulamātā, a woman endowed with eight qualities, after the breaking up of the body, after death, reappears in the company of the delightful devas. A faithful person, a faithful family, a mind tamed brings happiness. The word "seyya" (better) mostly stands in the -o ending, and is suitable for all three genders, remaining in one form. How? A better enemy is endowed with wisdom. This is better worship, one day of life is better. And the gain that is unrighteous, And the gain that is unrighteous; The righteous loss is better, Than the unrighteous gain. And the fame of the unwise, and the disrepute of the wise; The disrepute of the wise is better, not the fame of the unwise. And the praise from the foolish, and the blame from the wise; The blame from the wise is better, than the praise from fools. And the happiness that is sensual, and the suffering that is secluded; The secluded suffering is better, than the sensual happiness. And life by unrighteousness, and death by righteousness; The righteous death is better, than life by unrighteousness. Thus, this word "seyya" stands in the -o ending and is suitable for all three genders. Sometimes, however, it is seen standing in the -ā ending, suitable for the feminine gender, as in "some women, O lord of men, are better." But it is not established as ending in a nasal, suitable for the neuter gender. Why do you not see such usage? When told this, they will be speechless. Even if they were to say this: "In various suttas and commentaries, the word 'mātugāmo' or 'mātugāmenā' is seen as a masculine noun ending in -o. Disregarding the masculine noun 'mātugāma' and considering only the meaning of 'woman,' we accept the connection of 'sā' with the feminine word 'itthī' as 'that woman.' But since the word 'orodha' or 'orodhenā' is not seen as a masculine noun ending in -o, you we do not accept the former meaning.” Then, these words from the Vinaya Piṭaka should be shown to them: “At that time, King Udena was enjoying himself in the park with his harem, and then King Udena’s harem said this to King Udena.” Having shown these Sutta words, and also the statement from the Suttanipāta Aṭṭhakathā: “King Rāma, afflicted with leprosy, was disgusted by his harem and actors,” they should be encouraged: “Go, you, having approached the teacher’s family, learn the words and meanings well for the long-lastingness of the Bhagavā’s True Dhamma.” Now, we will explain some determinations regarding the words such as *mātugāma* (woman) – the words *mātugāma*, *orodha* (harem), and *dāra* (wife/wives) – these, although they denote feminine meanings, are exclusively masculine in gender. Among these, grammarians desire the word *dāra*, even when referring to a single meaning, to be exclusively plural, not singular. However, we allow the word *dāra* to be singular when referring to a single meaning, but mostly plural; there is no need to speak of it in the plural sense for multiple meanings. For in Pāli, the word *dāra* is mostly plural, and rarely singular. Here are these usages: