English
However, the word 'āpa' (water) is not seen to be used in Pāli in the same way, in apposition with feminine pronouns or non-pronouns indicating plurality. If indeed the word 'āpa' were feminine, then like the 'ā' suffix from 'kaññā' (girl), an 'ā' suffix would come from 'āpa', or like the 'ī' suffix from 'nadī' (river), an 'ī' suffix would come. Neither exists. Because neither exists, all the rules stated for the feminine gender do not apply to it. Therefore, it is known that 'āpa' is not feminine. But sir, from the word 'go' also, there is no 'ā' suffix. Because of its absence, the rules stated for the feminine gender do not apply. If this is the case, why is 'go' itself feminine, but not this word 'āpa'? Here it is said: The word 'go' is not necessarily feminine; rather, it is masculine. However, in its feminine form, even without an 'ā' suffix from it, an 'ī' suffix optionally occurs. Other rules stated for the feminine gender also apply. For it, remaining in its natural state as always ending in 'o', is the cause for the production of its feminine forms, such as 'go' and 'gāvī'. Therefore, it becomes feminine. But for the word 'āpa', the 'ī' suffix and so on do not apply. Therefore, it should not be said that it is feminine. Or, just as the feminine gender is appropriate for the word 'go' due to its indistinct form of usage, it is not so for the word 'āpa'. For the word 'āpa', due to its clear form of derivation, an indistinct form of usage is not seen, by which it might be feminine. Those who are thus spoken to will be without an answer. Similarly, those who think "the word 'āpa' is always feminine and always plural," should be told: Just as from the word 'kaññā', which is feminine, when first placed as 'kaññā' with a short 'a', from the 'ā' suffix... The 'smiṃ' ending does not stand in its original form, but stands as 'kaññāyaṃ' or 'kaññāyā' due to its nature. Not so for the 'smiṃ' ending that follows the word 'āpo', which you have taken as feminine, and whose initial 'āpa' has been shortened to 'apa'. It does not stand in an altered form. Rather, it stands in its original form as 'āpasmiṃ maññatī'. If the word 'āpa' were feminine, the 'smiṃ' ending would not stand in its original form. And because the 'smiṃ' ending stands in its original form, therefore the word 'āpa' is not feminine. For indeed, in the eighty-four thousand Dhamma aggregates, in countless hundreds of millions of Pāli passages, not in a single Pāli passage does the 'smiṃ' ending, which follows feminine words that should be placed with an initial 'a' ending, stand in its original form. Thus spoken, they will be without an answer. Some here might say thus: 'The word 'āpa' is neuter, for in the Aṭṭhasālinī, 'water, however, that is little, has become excessively earthy' – its co-referential words are indicated in the neuter gender'. That is not so, because co-referential words can sometimes be indicated in the neuter gender even with the word 'āpa', just as with words like 'tama', 'vaca', 'sira', and so on, which belong to the 'mano' group. For in the word formations of ancient teachers, in 'darkness, struck down by the power of the True Dhamma, quickly vanishes from the hearts of trainable beings', here, the word 'vihataṃ', which is co-referential with the word 'tamo', is seen to be neuter. Similarly, in 'one who is difficult to speak to, because speech is painful for that person who is disagreeable and unpleasant', here, the word 'dukkhaṃ', which is co-referential with the word 'vaco', is neuter. In 'one whose head is bowed, he is 'avanatasiro' (one with a bowed head)', here, the word 'avanataṃ', which is co-referential with the word 'siro', is neuter. In 'those whose dust of defilements like greed is little in the eye of wisdom, they are 'apparajakkhā' (those with little dust in their eyes)', here, the word 'appaṃ', which is co-referential with the word 'rajo', is neuter. they show. Those teachers did not make such word formations to make known the neuter gender of words like 'avacasira' with those co-referential terms. Rather, they made them to show that co-referential terms can sometimes be in the neuter gender even when used with masculine words belonging to the 'mano' group, as in "sumano" (pleasant-minded) meaning "one whose mind is pleasant." Just as word formations like "vihatam" (destroyed) were not made to make known the neuter gender of words like 'avacasira', similarly, the word formations "omattam" (of little measure) and "adhimattapathavīgatikaṃ jātaṃ" (become of excessive earth-element nature) were not made to make known the neuter gender of the word 'āpo' (water). However, since the word 'āpo' is partially similar in nature to the words in the 'mano' group, co-reference with a neuter word is appropriate for 'āpo'. Therefore, in the Aṭṭhasālinī, the co-reference of a neuter word with 'āpo' is made, as in "omattam pana āpo adhimattapathavīgatikaṃ jātaṃ" (but the water, of little measure, has become of excessive earth-element nature). Even so, the word 'āpo' is partially similar in nature to the words in the 'mano' group in compound words, as shown by usages like "āpokasiṇaṃ" (water-kasina) and "āpogata" (gone to water). Therefore, the statement "omattam" and so on should not be taken as intended to make known the neuter gender of 'āpo'. Rather, it should be taken as intended to make known that sometimes such a word usage occurs due to a change in gender. The gender should be changed to "omatto" (of little measure, masculine) and "adhimattapathavīgatiko jāto" (become of excessive earth-element nature, masculine). If indeed the word 'āpo' were neuter, its accusative singular forms with the suffix 'ni' would be found in the Buddha's words and so on, but such forms do not exist. Furthermore, there is no neuter word ending in 'o' anywhere. Neuter words are only of three kinds: ending in 'ṃ' (niggahīta), ending in 'i', and ending in 'u'. Therefore, the neuter gender of 'āpo' is not appropriate. When this is said, they will be without an answer. Thus, the feminine gender of 'āpo' taken as ending in 'o' and neuter gender is not absolutely present. But for what is taken in the sense of 'niggahīta' (a specific grammatical form), neuter gender might occur somewhere, as seen in the usage: "Venerable Nāgasena, the ocean, the ocean, it is called; for what reason is water, water, called the ocean?" Here, some might say: "If, sir, for the word 'āpa' taken in the 'o'-ending form, there is no dual gender in the feminine and neuter genders, then what gender is the 'o'-ending word 'āpa'?" We say it is masculine. And if, sir, the word 'āpa' is masculine, then bring forth a Sutta so that the masculine gender of 'āpa' may be clearly understood and become worthy of conviction. "I will bring forth a Sutta, we have no burden in bringing forth Suttas," and having said this, these Sutta passages should be shown to them. That is to say: "Is water found?" "Yes." "Is there a doer, a maker of water, found?" "It should not be said so." "Is there past water?" "Yes." "Does one do what needs to be done with that water?" "It should not be said so." "One perceives water, one perceives in water." These are the Sutta passages. And here, by "is found" and so on, the singular number of the word 'āpa' is established; with that established, the plural number is also established. For only the singular number is prohibited in grammar, not the plural. And by "āpena" (with water), the feminine gender of the word 'āpa' is established as absent, because there is no 'ena' ending in the feminine gender. By "āpassa" (of water), "āpasmiṃ" (in water), the absence of feminine gender is also established, because there are no 'nā', 'smā', 'smiṃ' endings in their original form in the feminine gender. By "atīto" (past), the absence of feminine and neuter gender is established, because there is no 'o'-ending neuter gender, and no 'o'-ending feminine gender that is a quality-name. Moreover, in the words of the Buddha and so on, like "cittāni" (minds), "rūpāni" (forms), the absence of forms with 'sanikāra' (specific grammatical changes) is not seen, so the absence of neuter gender for what is taken as 'o'-ending is extremely clear. Something else should be said here: "Is there past water?" "Yes." Here, "past" By this O-ending word indicating the clear usage of 'āpa', the absence of its unclear usage and its usage in both ways is established. And when the absence of its unclear usage is established, the feminine gender is far off. And when the absence of its usage in both ways is established, the neuter gender is also even further off. Thus, the word 'āpa', taken with an O-ending, is never feminine or neuter. But in the Milindapañha, it should be understood as neuter, having come by way of a suppressed ending. And it should not be said here that "atīto" (past) and "tenā" (by that) are spoken by way of gender inversion, because the word 'āpa', which is the gender of the denoted object and follows the gender of the words it governs, has no feminine or neuter forms, like "kaññāya cittāni" (the thoughts of the maiden) and so on. Moreover, the Tathāgatas and the disciples of the Tathāgatas are skilled in usage. And because these very excellent persons, skilled in usage, have said "atīto āpo" (the past water) and so on, "atīto" and "tenā" should not be considered as spoken by way of gender inversion. Therefore, the word 'āpa', taken with an O-ending, which is in apposition to it, should be understood as masculine, singular, and, according to usage, both singular and plural. Because it should be conjugated as "āpo, āpā. Āpaṃ, āpe" and so on. Having heard such determined Sutta passages, surely those who argue for 'āpa' being feminine and plural will be speechless. Here someone might say: "Was the masculine and singular usage in Pāli not seen by the Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā teachers, that they described 'āpa' as feminine and plural?" No, it was not unseen;