English
“Servants and maids, and dependents, Sons and wives, and all of us; We practice Dhamma for the sake of the other world, Therefore, our young ones do not die” and, “Whoever is seen with the wives of relatives or friends, Suddenly, with affection, that one should be known as an outcast” and, “Dissatisfied with his own wives, he is seen with courtesans; He is seen with other men’s wives, that is a gateway to ruin” and, “The attachment to sons and wives” in analysis; but in compounds, “sons and wives, front and back, with one’s sons and wives” and such plural usages are many. Singular usages, however, are few. For example: “with the wives of teachers, one should practice Dhamma even if one is a scavenger, and supporting a wife with little.” and, “Those householders who do good deeds, virtuous lay followers; Who support their families righteously, them I salute, Mātali,” and, “One should not go to another’s wife, one should be devoted to one’s own wife,” and, “Whoever wishes to be a man, life after life, again and again; Should avoid another’s wife, like one whose feet are washed avoids mud,” and Such singular usages are few. However, sometimes this word ‘dāra’ (wife/family) can be in the neuter gender, singular number, in the sense of a collective. “Taking one’s children and family. The support of children and family.” Thus, by discerning the gender and meaning in the way described here, and relying on the paradigm of the word ‘purisa’ (man) as it occurs in “puriso, purisā” (man, men), the devoted young men of good families should develop skill for the establishment of the true Dhamma in all such words as “bhūto, bhāvako, bhavo” (being, becoming, existence) and other words derived from the root ‘bhū’, and other words ending in ‘o’ in their nominal declensions. Are all words ending in ‘o’ entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects as exactly the same? They are not entered. For some words ending in ‘o’ are entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects, and some are entered partially. And some words ending in ‘o’ are entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm partially, and partially not entered. And some words ending in ‘o’ are not entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm at all. Among these, which are some words ending in ‘o’ that are entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects, and some entered partially? Such as “saro, vayo, ceto”. For if this word ‘saro’ refers to a vowel, or a sound like ‘a’ in ‘ususa’ (reed), it is entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects. If it refers to a lake, being part of the ‘mana’ group, it is entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm partially. If the word ‘vayo’ refers to decline, it is entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects. If it refers to a portion of life, being part of the ‘mana’ group, it is entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm partially. If the word ‘ceto’ refers to a concept, it is entered into the ‘purisa’ paradigm in all respects. If, however, it refers to mind, being part of the ‘mana’ group, it is partially entered. And the group of mind is called – Mind, speech, age, splendor, Austerity, thought, darkness, fame; Iron, milk, head, will, Essence, chest, privacy, day – These sixteen. Now, to clarify what has been said, we will explain the declension of the word "mano" and others: Mano, manā. Manaṃ, mano, mane. Manasā, manena, manehi, manebhi. Manaso, manassa, manānaṃ. Manā, manasmā, manamhā, manehi, manebhi. Manaso, manassa, manānaṃ. Manasi, mane, manasmiṃ, manamhi, manesu. Bho mana, bhavanto manā. Or, "bho manā" should be understood as plural. Similarly, "vaco, vacā. Vacaṃ, vaco, vace. Vacasā" and so on, the declension should be applied. For the word "aha," in the locative singular, "ahasi, ahe, ahasmiṃ, ahamhi, ahu, ahanī" should be applied. Now, to show the specific differences in forms, we will state the declension of the word "mano" in the neuter gender; it should not be criticized that this is mentioned out of place. Manaṃ, manāni, manā. Manaṃ, manāni, mane. Manena, manehi, manebhi. Manassa, manaso, manānaṃ. Manā, manasmā, manamhā, manehi, manebhi. Manassa, manaso, manānaṃ. Mane, manasmiṃ, manamhi, manesu. Bho mana, bhavanto manā. Or, "bho manāni, bho manā" should also be understood as plural. The same method applies hereafter. Here, for the masculine word "mano," excluding the forms "mano, manasā, manaso, manasī" for nominative, instrumental, dative/genitive, and locative singular respectively, all the remaining forms, and for the neuter word "mano," excluding the nominative forms "manaṃ, manāni" and the two forms "manaṃ, manāni" for the eighth case (vocative), all the remaining forms are exactly the same in order. Some say that the word "mano," ending in "o," is neuter. They should be told – if it were neuter, then similar words like "vaco, vayo" and so on should also be neuter, not "they are not neuter." They say "gā" and they say "pulliṅga." And because in Pāli, "The body is impermanent; the mind is impermanent," and "The body is suffering, the mind is suffering," and "Permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, venerable sir," and many such masculine usages are seen. Therefore, it is known that the word "mano" is exclusively masculine. If it were neuter, then "anicco dukkho" and hundreds of such words in apposition to it would also be neuter. But they are not neuter; rather, they are words whose gender follows the gender of the referent. Thus, the masculinity of the word "mano" should be understood. If the word "mano" is not neuter, how is the neuter form "manāni" seen? It is true that "manāni" is indeed neuter, but it is not the form of the word "mana" ending in "o" which is taken as primary in the "mana" group. Then what is it? It is the form of the word "mana" ending in "ṃ" (niggahīta), which is not included in the "mana" group, even though it has the same sound and gender as the word "citta." For the word "mano" is divided into two, masculine and neuter, as "mano manaṃ," just like "ajjavo ajjava." For the Pāli says: "If the mind is not corrupted, its mind becomes peaceful." And if that word "mano" is not neuter, then in this verse: "The venerable one, devoted to the Cetiyapabbata, A woman, a woman, a woman, without intoxication, Having well heard the ascetic, she laughed, The mind of the sage fallen into impurities." Here, why is the word "patita," which is in apposition to "manosaddena," placed in the neuter gender? And because the word in apposition is placed in the neuter gender, therefore, it is known that the word "mano" is neuter due to the proximity of another word? That is not so, because a word in apposition does not always indicate a specific gender. For if a word in apposition always indicated a specific gender, then in "cattāro indriyāni" (four faculties), the word "cattāro" would indicate the masculinity of the word "indriya." can do, nor is it able to do. For the word 'indriya' is always neuter. If you, relying on the concordant word "patitaṃ" (fallen), wish for the word 'mano' to be neuter, then in "cattāro indriyāni" (four faculties), relying on the concordant word "cattāro" (four), you would wish for the word 'indriya' to be masculine. "No, sirs, we do not wish for the word 'indriya' to be masculine, but rather we wish for it to be neuter. The word 'cattāro' (four) stands in a gender inversion, so we take it as 'cattārī' (four, neuter). Therefore, we hold the meaning 'cattāri indriyāni' (four faculties)." "If so, then in 'patitaṃ asubhesu munissa mano' (the mind of the sage fallen in impurities), you should also consider the word 'patitaṃ' (fallen) as standing in a gender inversion, and hold the meaning 'patito' (fallen, masculine)." "We do not hold that meaning here, because gender inversion is not desired here. If the word 'mano' were masculine, then the concordant word should be 'patito'. Did the teacher not know how to say this? Knowing it, he did not say 'patito', but he said 'patitaṃ'. By this, it is known that 'the word mano is neuter'." "Do not say this! A concordant word sometimes follows the main gender, and sometimes it does not. Therefore, it is not an absolute criterion for indicating gender distinction. Specific forms like 'mātugāmo' (woman), 'orodho' (harem), 'āvuso visākha' (friend Visākha, vocative masculine), 'ehi visākhe' (come Visākhā, vocative feminine), 'cittāni aṭṭhīni' (minds/thoughts and bones) are the criteria. If gender distinction were to be found only in concordant words, then there would be no gender determination in phrases like 'cattāro ca mahābhūtā' (and the four great elements). However, in such places too, gender determination does occur. How? 'Cattāro' is masculine, 'mahābhūtā' is neuter. Therefore, in 'patitaṃ asubhesu munissa mano' (the mind of the sage fallen in impurities), there is also a determination that 'patitaṃ' is neuter and 'mano' is masculine." Hearing this, they will become silent. Then, to them, being silent, this should be said: Because the co-referential words of the words occurring in the mano-group are sometimes to be construed in the neuter gender, therefore, the co-referential words of the word mano, which is prominent in the mano-group, are sometimes construed in the neuter gender. Indeed, the ancient teachers made word constructions like these: "The darkness in the hearts of those to be trained perishes in a moment, struck down by the power of the True Dhamma. One who is difficult to speak to, because of this, is 'dubbaco' (difficult to speak to). One whose head is bowed is 'avaṃsiro' (one with a bowed head). Those who have little dust (of defilements) like lust in their eye of wisdom are 'apparajakkhā' (those with little dust in their eyes)." But such word constructions were not made by them to demonstrate the neuter gender of the words vaco, siro, rajo, etc. Rather, they were composed out of compassion, with the intention of making others know that even for the masculine words siro and mano, which occur in the mano-group,