English
there are sometimes such co-referential words that stand in a gender inversion. Even here, according to your view, if the word mano were in the neuter gender, then vaco, siro, etc., would also become neuter, because their co-referential words are indicated in the neuter gender. Do you then wish these also to be in the neuter gender? Certainly, hearing this too, being unable to resolve it, they will remain silent. Although, seeing no other reason to accept, they might say this: "If, sirs, the word mano is not neuter, why do grammarians say 'the word mano is neuter'?" They should be told: "If you, taking the view of grammarians, prefer the word mano to be neuter, is not the Buddha himself the unequalled great grammarian in the world, the great person, the expert, the crusher of others' doctrines? Indeed, grammarians like Padaka, and Brahmins like Ambaṭṭha, Pokkharasāti, Soṇadaṇḍa, and wanderers like Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha, could not contend with the Buddha in debate. On the contrary, the Buddha himself, like a lion with a mane amidst a herd of mad elephants, fearlessly crushed their doctrines, a great And established them in the meaning, since by the Fortunate One, skilled in expression, of such a kind, many Pāli texts are seen, indicating the masculine gender of the word "mano" (mind), as stated in "the body is impermanent" and "the body is suffering, the mind is impermanent, the mind is suffering," and so on. Therefore, it should be essentially understood that the word "mano" is masculine. Thus spoken, they will be speechless, without ready wit, dismayed, with drooping shoulders, downcast, pondering. Now the declension of words like 'sara' is specifically stated – Arrow, arrows. Arrow, arrows. By an arrow, by arrows. To an arrow, to arrows. From an arrow, from arrows. Of an arrow, of arrows. In an arrow, in arrows. O arrow, O arrows. This is the declension of the word 'sara' which denotes an arrow, sound, vowel, etc., and is entirely included in the masculine paradigm. This, however, is the declension of the word 'sara' which denotes a lake, partially included in the masculine paradigm, belonging to the 'mano' group – Lake, lakes. Lake, lake, lakes. By a lake, by a lake, by lakes. To a lake, to a lake, to lakes. From a lake, from a lake, from lakes. Of a lake, of a lake, of lakes. In a lake, in a lake, in lakes. O lake, O lakes, or O lakes. Loss, losses. Loss, losses. By loss, by losses, to be known by the masculine paradigm. This is the declension of the word 'vaya' which denotes decay, entirely included in the masculine paradigm. This, however, is the declension of the word 'vaya' which denotes a portion of life, partially included in the masculine paradigm, belonging to the 'mano' group – Age, ages. Age, age, ages. By age, by age, by ages, to be known by the 'mano' paradigm. His mind responded. A hunter in the forest. Minds killed the knowable. Mind, minds. Mind, minds. By mind, by minds, to be known by the masculine paradigm. This is the declension of the word 'cetas' which denotes a concept, entirely included in the masculine paradigm. The declension of words. This is the declension of the word "cetas" which denotes mind, and is partially included in the masculine paradigm – ceto, cetā. Cetaṃ, ceto, cete. Cetasā, cetena, cetehi, cetebhi – should be understood according to the paradigm of "manas". "Yaso kulaputto", "yasaṃ kulaputtaṃ", "yasena kulaputtena" – should be conjugated according to the masculine paradigm in the singular, or in both singular and plural. Thus, some o-ending words are fully included in the masculine paradigm, and some are partially included. By this method, having examined all words with the eye of wisdom, the distinction should be understood. For those who do not know the distinction, not understanding such divisions, by applying any letter whatsoever, they miss the intended meaning. Therefore, the division explained by us here, should be diligently learned by faithful young men. Which o-ending words are partially included in the masculine paradigm and partially not included? The words mano, vaco, tejo, and others, and the word ayya. Among these, the declension of mano and similar words has been explained below. However, in the declension of the word ayya, having said "ayyo, ayyā. Ayyaṃ, ayye" according to the masculine paradigm, in the vocative case, "bho ayya, bho ayyo" as two singular forms, and "bhavanto ayyā, bhavanto ayyo" as two plural forms should be said. Here, the word "ayyo" is singular in the nominative case, and both singular and plural in the vocative case. These are the usages: "It is said that Ayyo Sāgato fought with the Nāga from Ambatittha, Venerable sir, let Ayyo Sāgato drink the clear pigeon soup" – these are singular usages of "ayyo" in the nominative case. "Then that woman said to that man: 'That bhikkhu did not make me fall, rather, I myself go with that bhikkhu, that bhikkhu is not the doer, go and ask for his forgiveness'" – these are singular usages of "ayyo" in the vocative case. "Come, sirs, to the royal residence, sit down and listen..." Then, sir. Come, sir, we will go forth among the Sakyaputtiya ascetics. Such are the vocative plural usages of the word 'ayyo'. And here it is: This word 'ayyo', Is singular in the nominative; In the vocative, it is plural, And can also be singular. Thus, some o-ending words are partly included in the masculine paradigm, and partly not included. Which o-ending words are entirely not included in the masculine paradigm? Only the word 'go' (cow). Indeed, this is the declension of the word 'go': Go, cows, cows. Cow, cow, cow, cows, cows. By a cow, by a cow, by cows, by cows. To/of a cow, to/of a cow, to/of a cow, to/of cows, to/of cows. From a cow, from a cow, from a cow, from a cow, from a cow, from a cow, from cows, from cows. Of a cow, of a cow, of a cow, of cows, of cows. In/on a cow, in/on a cow, in/on a cow, in/on a cow, in/on a cow, in/on a cow, in/on cows, in/on cows, in/on cows. O cow, O cows, O cows. This is the declension of the word 'go', which is entirely not included in the masculine paradigm. But sir, isn't the word 'go', by means of the declension of 'goṇa' (ox) derived from it, partly included and partly not included in the masculine paradigm? True. Although the word 'goṇa' is derived from the word 'go', according to the saying 'word usage follows common practice', we have taken it separately from the word 'go' and placed it in the masculine paradigm. Indeed, there is justification for taking it separately, as it remains in a single form in the 'syā' (nominative singular) and other cases. Therefore, disregarding the word 'goṇa' even though it is derived from 'go', and taking only the pure word 'go', it is stated that the word 'go' is entirely not included in the masculine paradigm. But sir, isn't the word 'go', which is in the nominative singular, partly included in the masculine paradigm because of its similarity to the word 'purisa' (man)? That is not so. Indeed, the word 'go' is always o-ending, not like words such as 'purisa' which first exist as a-ending and later acquire an o-ending. For this very reason, it remains 'go' even in the nominative singular and in the vocative singular. If it were nominative singular... Regarding the word 'go', its partial inclusion in the masculine declension is to be desired. The discussion of 'o'-ending words, as stated, "some 'o'-ending words," what purpose would it serve? That discussion would be fruitless. Therefore, the method we have stated should be kept in mind by the venerable ones. Thus, the complete non-inclusion of the word 'go' in the masculine declension should be understood. Some here might ask: "We understand the complete non-inclusion of the word 'go' in the masculine declension, following forms like 'go, gāvo, gavo. Gāvuṃ, gāvaṃ, gavaṃ,' etc. But where are words like 'jaraggava' and 'puṅgava' included?" To them, it should be answered: "Words like 'jaraggava' and 'puṅgava' are completely included in the masculine declension." Indeed, they have this distinction from the word 'go': 'jaraggava' means 'old and a bull'. Here, the 'n' is dropped, and the 't' becomes 'g' because it is a compound word. And in a compound, when 'si' follows, the 'o' of 'go' takes the 'ava' substitution. Therefore, in Pāli, the singular form "visāṇena jaraggavo" (by the horn of an old bull) is seen. Indeed, elsewhere, due to not being a compound, only the plural form 'gavo' is seen. But here, due to being a compound and having a preceding word, only the singular form 'jaraggavo' is seen. Indeed, in 'jaraggavo', the interpretation as a plural, "they are old and they are bulls," is not accepted, because it is established in a single meaning by common usage. The nominal declension should be formed in the masculine declension: "jaraggavo, jaraggavā. Jaraggavaṃ, jaraggave. Jaraggavenā." This method applies also to 'puṅgavo', 'sakyapuṅgavo', etc. There, 'puṅgavo' means a chief of cattle, a bull, a leader. It appears in Pāli as: "Just born, like a lord of cattle, he touched the earth with even feet," and "If the chief of cattle goes straight when the cows are hurrying." In such places, some explain the meaning as "a male and a bull, thus 'puṅgavo'." But we hold that this word is established in the sense of 'chief'. Let us speak. For this (word 'puṅgava'), it is not capable only of expressing masculinity, like words such as 'puṅkokila' (male cuckoo) etc., are capable only of expressing the masculinity of cuckoos etc. Rather, it is also capable of expressing pre-eminence. Therefore, in phrases like "Sakyapuṅgavo" (bull of the Sakyas) etc., the meaning of the compound word should be understood as 'puṅgava' (bull) like a 'nisabha' (bull), or 'puṅgava' among the Sakyas, or 'puṅgava' of the Sakyas, etc. Or, because words like 'sīha' (lion), 'byaggha' (tiger), 'nāga' (elephant/serpent) etc., when placed as the latter part of a compound, denote superiority,