English
the meaning of "Sakyapuṅgavo" etc., should be understood as "Sakyaseṭṭho" (chief of the Sakyas) etc. Thus, since words like 'jaraggava' (old bull), 'puṅgava' etc., are always used in the masculine gender, their declension paradigm should be distinguished from that of the word 'go' (cow/ox). And the word 'go' should be established as never belonging to the masculine gender. Regarding the word 'āpa' (water), there is a difference of opinion among teachers concerning its gender and number. Therefore, according to their view, it is never included in the masculine gender. In the commentary on the Pāli phrase "Aṅguttarāpesu", it is said: "Water to the north of the Mahī river." However, in the sub-commentary, referring to that, it is said: "The waters to the north of the Mahī river are to the north of that district; because of their proximity, that district is called Uttarāpa." Thus, the teachers desired that the word 'āpa' be exclusively feminine and plural. According to their view, if 'āpo' is the nominative plural form in the feminine gender, what would be the plural forms for the accusative, instrumental, ablative, and locative cases? Indeed, forms ending in 'e' or 'hi', etc., like those of a masculine word such as 'purisa' (man) ("purise, purisehi, purisebhi, purisesu"), are nowhere seen for a feminine word ending in 'o'. Therefore, according to their view, the derivation of the declension paradigm is extremely difficult. The venerable ones regarding the word 'āpa', according to the rules of grammar, declared it to be plural and feminine. Thus, it should be understood that the feminine and plural ending of the word 'āpa' is approved based on the view of the grammarians. In the Aṭṭhasālinī... But the word "āpo" is seen used in the neuter gender, singular number, as stated: "Indeed, water, having become excessively earth-like, is born." But in the Jātaka Pāḷi, its singular ending is seen. Thus: "Pure, fragrant water, water flows there." In this passage, the word "āpo" is seen standing in the singular place. Some here might say: "The water, having attained the name 'āpo', being pure and fragrant, flows there." "The singular usage is made by way of the word 'salilaṃ' (water), not by way of the noun 'āpo'." "For the word 'āpo' is exclusively feminine and plural." "Thus, though its usage should be plural 'āpo tatthābhisandantī' (waters flow there), it is stated by way of a change in number to preserve the meter." That is not so. Because it could be said "āpo tatthābhisandare" (waters flow there), like the plural usage "tāni ajja padissare" (they appear today). Since it is not said thus, and since in Pāḷi the singular usage is seen: "water is obtained, fire is obtained, wind is obtained," therefore, the singular ending of the word "āpo" is directly seen. And if they should say: "Is not its plural ending directly seen in Pāḷi itself: 'water and gods and earth, fire, wind, they came then'?" That also is not so. For here, the plural usage "āgamu" (they came) is made with reference to the word "devā" (gods), not the word "āpo". If the plural usage were made with reference to the word "āpo", then the plural usage would also be made with reference to the words "pathavī" (earth), "tejo" (fire), and "vāyo" (wind). In that case, the words earth, fire, and wind would also become plural, but they do not. For these are not plural, but indeed singular. They are used conventionally, not referring to the natural elements like water, etc. Thus, gods born after performing preliminary work on water-kasina and so on, receive names like "āpo" by way of their object. Thus it is said. And they might say thus: "But sirs, is not the Pāli phrase 'aṅguttarāpesu' seen in the plural?" They should be told: "You have not entered the right path, for you do not know the usage of words. The plural 'aṅguttarāpesu' is spoken by convention for even a single country, like the plurals 'among the Kurus,' 'among the Aṅgas,' 'of the Aṅgas,' 'of the Magadhas,' and so on, not referring to the meaning of 'water.' For in 'aṅguttarāpesu,' the meaning of 'water' is secondary. The primary meaning is that of a country, spoken with a masculine plural, just as in 'āgatasamaṇo saṅghārāmo' (a monastery where monks have arrived), the meaning of 'monk' is made secondary, and the primary meaning is that of 'monastery,' which is spoken by the word 'āgatasamaṇo.' Therefore, taking the meaning of 'water' as secondary, the meaning to be understood is: 'in that country called Aṅguttarāpa.' Thus, the Pāli phrase is seen: "He dwells in Aṅguttarāpa, at Āpaṇa, a market town of the Aṅgas." There, those for whom there is water to the north of the Mahī river are called Uttarāpas. And those who are Aṅgas and Uttarāpas are Aṅguttarāpas. Among those Aṅguttarāpas. Thus, the plural is for a single country, not for the meaning of 'water.' Therefore, it is said in the commentary: "in that country of Aṅguttarāpa." When told thus, they will be speechless. Yet, those who say thus: "The word 'āpa' is feminine and plural." They should be asked: "Venerables, on what grounds do you say 'the word "āpa" is feminine and plural'?" Being asked thus, they might say thus: "That country is indeed Aṅga, but there is water to the north of the Mahī river. Because of its proximity to those waters, it is called Uttarāpa." And also: "The waters of the Mahī river are to the north of that country. Because of its proximity to those waters, that country is called Uttarāpa." Such a special word formation, devised by former teachers, is seen. Therefore, we say it is feminine and plural. it appears excessively. But it is constructed by taking the opinion of grammarians in the science of words. And the science of words is not always helpful to the Buddha's teaching; it is only partially so. Therefore, in the Kaccāyana treatise, to avoid including what is desired and undesired, the characteristics were stated: "Indeed, it is consistent with the Buddha's words, and the gender is produced." If the word "āpa" is feminine and plural, how is the word "āpo" formed? By making the nominative plural from the word "āpa," and then making the 'o' substitution for it, the word "āpo" is formed, like the word "gāvo." This example is flawed. For the word "gāvo" is formed from the word "go," which always ends in 'o'. Thus, when 'yo' follows, the 'o' at the end of "go" is substituted with 'āvā', and then the 'yo' is substituted with 'o', and "gāvo" is produced. But in the word "āpa," there are no two substitutions. When it comes to the Buddha's teaching, the word "āpa" has become naturally ending in 'a', not naturally ending otherwise. Even when told this, they, holding in their minds "This alone is true, nothing else," and being stubbornly attached and unwilling to let go, and being in a state of "It is not easy to understand a well-spoken word by being contrary to it," would say: "Just as the word 'gāvo', why would the word 'āpo' not be feminine and plural?" Then these suttas passages should be shown to them. What are they? "One perceives water from water, having perceived water from water, one conceives water, one conceives in water, one conceives 'water is mine', one delights in water." Having shown these suttas passages, they should be asked: "What case is this word 'āpaṃ'?" Surely, wishing for the word "āpa" to be only plural, they will say: "It is the accusative plural." They should be told: "Is not the 'yo' case ending not heard?" They would say: "The 'yo' case ending is not heard because of a substitution." Whatever you wish, sirs, that you speak from your mouth. "As for 'āpato', what do you say about this, sirs?" "This 'āpato' is also 'plural..." We say "akaṃ topaccayanta" because the 'to' suffix occurs in both singular and plural meanings. Thus, you, desiring only the plural form, say "the word 'āpo' is also plural," and "this 'āpato' is also a plural form with the 'to' suffix." But in "āpasmiṃ maññati" (he perceives in water), what case ending and what substitution is this 'āpasmiṃ' formed from? Surely, they, thus questioned, will be without an answer. Likewise, those for whom it is thus: "the word 'āpa' is feminine and plural," they should be asked: "That which, taking the grammatical opinion of the teachers, is said as 'yā āpo' (which water) and 'tāsaṃ' (of them), there, in the saying 'kiṃ tāsaṃ' (what of them), should the meaning be given by bringing in the word 'āpānaṃ', or 'āpassā'?" If [you say] "the meaning should be given by bringing in the word 'āpānaṃ'," then it should be said "yā āpā" (which waters), like the phrase "yā kaññā tiṭṭhantī" (which maiden stands). But if there is no word 'āpā', and if the word 'āpo' itself is plural, then in "tāsaṃ" (of them), the meaning should be understood by bringing in the word 'āpassā'. If [you ask] "Why?" Because, according to your opinion, if 'āpo' is plural even though it is individually singular, then it is appropriate to say 'āpassā' as plural and combine it with the word 'tāsaṃ'. This being the case, the word 'āpānaṃ' must be non-existent. But just as "puriso, purisā. Purisaṃ, purise" and "go, gāvo, gavo. Gāvu" are singular and plural forms, so too, there should be singular and plural forms like "āpo, āpā. Āpaṃ, āpe". This being the case, it should not be said that "the word 'āpa' is only plural." Those who speak thus, their statement is flawed and difficult to refute, because singular Pāli forms like "āpaṃ maññati āpasmiṃ" (he perceives water, in water) are seen in the Mūlapariyāya Sutta, and because definitions stated in the singular, such as "āpo is that which flows and reaches various places" are seen in the Visuddhimagga and other texts. That Indeed, in Pāli, the word 'go' is included in the feminine gender. It is seen to be used in apposition with feminine pronouns and non-pronouns indicating plurality, as in "those cows, strike them with a stick from here and there," and "these are givers of food and strength," and so on.