English
Indeed, the discussion of *o*-endings is especially intended here. Moreover, in the world, a rule (nīti) shines forth when stated in various ways; and this is a rule in the teaching, therefore it is stated in various ways. All these *o*-ending words, According to the method, Are declared masculine, For the sake of the Teacher's teaching. Any peculiarity among some of them, Which appears in the Pāḷi; I shall now explain that, In the context of the locative case. Indeed, by the method of "as in a forest thicket, on a blossoming branch," and so on; The masculine forms ending in *o* might sometimes be otherwise. And that form should be explained, As being indeed in the locative case; "The locative case is a designation of the locative," so some say. Therein we shall show some Sutta words: There is no self-doing, There is no other-doing, There is no human-doing, In a conditioned existence that has an end, In the seventh life, It should not be said thus, Fools and the wise, having run on and wandered through existence, will make an end of suffering. These should be taken in two ways, as singular and plural. And the one-form substitution for singulars and plurals should be understood. But those who say, “‘Vanappagumbe’ is a locative designation for a nominative singular,” should be told, “If ‘vanappagumbe’ is a locative designation for a nominative singular, and if that is the case, just as in ‘He cooks rice in a pot,’ where the sense of a base is possible, then what does ‘in the first summer month, in summer’ illuminate?” They might say, “We do not say, sirs, ‘This “vanappagumbe” is a locative,’ but rather, ‘It is a locative designation for a nominative singular.’” Even so, the fault is yours. Is it not true that even if it is said, “‘Give to the Saṅgha, Gotamī’ is a locative designation for a dative,” still, for those who hear the word “Saṅgha,” the sense of a base and the conception of a base arises, due to the Saṅgha being the base for the act of giving? For it is not possible to stop a mind that proceeds in this way. Therefore, here, this distinction should be taken: “Sometimes, even a nominative singular has a form like a locative.” When taken in this way, there is no contradiction. For in such instances, how could the Fortunate One, skilled in the varieties of language and compassionate to the world, make a locative designation when it should be designated as a nominative singular, as if causing confusion to the world by not designating it in that way? Therefore, taking only a slight commonality of words, one should not say, “It is a locative designation.” If you wish for a locative designation by taking a commonality of words, then you should also wish for “a plural designation of use for a nominative singular.” Moreover, similarly, if “‘attakāre’ is a locative designation for a nominative singular,” then due to the possibility of a base sense, the unintended meaning would be “There is nothing in self-doing,” not the intended meaning of “There is no self-doing.” Even if one takes it as “a plural designation of use,” the word for “not” for the meaning of use... because it would be a fault if it were to be said, but just as with the words 'is' and so on, the word 'is not' is also primarily connected, so 'attakāre' (in self-doing) is understood to be a locative case. Even in "Fools and the wise, having wandered and transmigrated, will make an end of suffering," if the locative case were taken as a 'locative case designation' or a 'designation of the instrumental case,' it would be a fault of not knowing how to say even "fools and the wise," but from the connection with the word "will make," "fools" and so on is understood to be a locative case. Just as in the word "the eye arose," pronounced with the insertion of 'ṃ', even though the locative case is similar in sound to the instrumental case in "give me the eye when asked," the meaning of the locative case alone appears to the listener, because it is stated by the verb "arose," and not the meaning of the instrumental case, which is a reversal of the case ending, because it cannot be expressed by the verb "arose." For when the Blessed One said "the eye arose," who would transform the phrase "the eye arose" and explain its meaning? Similarly, even though the locative cases "fools, wise" and so on are similar in sound to other locative and instrumental cases "fools, wise" and so on, the meaning of the locative case alone appears to the listener, because the meaning is to be taken according to its usage. Thus, "in the forest grove, in fools, in the wise" and so on should be essentially understood as pure locative cases, not as locative or instrumental cases due to mere similarity in sound. However, in the commentary to the Jātaka, the teacher said: "I desire three mountains, three intervals, Pañcāla, Kuru, and Kekaka; Beyond that, O brahmin, I desire, Heal me, O brahmin, who am overcome by desire." In the explanation of this Kāmanīta Jātaka, it is said: "'Kekake ca' is an instrumental case in the locative, and by that, it shows the country of Kekaka." And in saying this, he says, "He sees men, established in men," "sees In "I am in the world, among wealthy people" and similar phrases, because "among men, in the world, among the wealthy, among people" and so on mostly appear as locative singulars with the sense of a plural of usage, and the sense of singular or plural for each individual word is not clear, I think he speaks, assuming the common usage, "this too is similar." Indeed, teachers sometimes explain things differently according to their own preference. But this is our preference: "kekake" is a singular word, like "Pañcālā, Kuruyo" which are co-occurring terms, but because it denotes a country, it is spoken in the plural sense, like the word "Kuruyo". For the Blessed One would not, in co-occurring terms that should be indicated with the same case endings, as in "khattiya, brāhmaṇa, vessa" and so on, indicate the last one in the sense of a plural of usage. Nor is there any reason to say "Pañcālā" and "Kuruyo" are singular words, and then say "kekake" is a plural of usage. Therefore, "kekake" is a singular word. Thus, the teacher who clarifies sandhi rules, explaining that such words are indeed singular, said in his own treatise: "vanappagumbo (tree-bush) vanappagumbe (in the tree-bush), sukhaṃ dukkhaṃ jīvo (happiness, suffering, life), sukhe dukkhe jīve (in happiness, in suffering, in life)." And in the commentary, explaining their singular nature, he established the form to be proven as "vanappagumbo, sukhaṃ, dukkhaṃ, jīvo," and then stated the derivation of the forms "vanappagumbe, sukhe, dukkhe, jīve" by means of elision of the niggahīta and substitution of 'e' for 'a' and 'o'. That is in accordance with the Pāli method. Even by the teacher Kaccāyana, relying on the Pāli method, the word "dvipade tulyādhikaraṇe" (two words in apposition) was spoken as a word that is plural in its individual reference. Therefore, in the commentary, it says: "dve padāni tulyādhikaraṇānī" (two words are in apposition). And this "dvipade tulyādhikaraṇe" should be understood as being spoken like the word "aṭṭha nāgāvāsasate" (eight hundred abodes of nāgas) when it should be "aṭṭha nāgāvāsasatānī" (eight hundreds of abodes of nāgas). But some desire them to be locative singulars. There, if "vanappagumbe" is... in the locative case, and "kekake" is in the instrumental case. Here, in "esese eke ekaṭṭhe", these "esese" may also be in the locative case, or in the instrumental case. Just as these are not of such a kind, but are purely nominative cases, so too "vanappagumbe, kekake" and so on are not of such a kind, but are purely nominative cases. Thus, in every way, the formation of words like "vanappagumbe, bāle, paṇḍite, kekake", "viratte kosiyāyane, aṭṭha nāgāvāsasate, ke purise, esese" and so on, many such words, in masculine, feminine, neuter gender, pronouns, singular and plural forms, found in the excellent teaching, occurs solely by means of a single substitution for nominative singular and plural forms; this must certainly be accepted. Thus, the pure nominative nature of "vanappagumbe, bāle, paṇḍite" and so on, is extremely subtle and difficult to discern. By a faithful young man, having attended upon a teacher, and having diligently received his instruction, it should be known. Indeed, in the Buddha's word, in terms of sound, meaning, and intention, for those who ponder letters, various Pāli usages are seen, which are places where the eye of wisdom is confused. There, in terms of sound, this is a place of confusion: where "virattā kosiyāyanī" should be said, "viratte kosiyāyane" is seen as a feminine nominative case. Where "ko puriso" should be said, "ke purise" is seen as a pronominal nominative case. Where "kinnāmo te upajjhāyo" should be said, "konāmo te upajjhāyo" is seen as a compound word in the masculine gender. For "what is his name?" is indeed the compound "konāmo". Therefore, "what is the woman's name, what is the family's name" – this usage should also be understood. Where "Kva te balaṃ mahārājā" (Where is your strength, O great king?) should be said, "ko te balaṃ mahārājā" (Who is your strength, O great king?) is seen, where the word "ko" (who) is slightly similar in sound to the locative "kva" (where), for "kva" and "ko" are indeed slightly similar in sound to each other. Similarly, "here in winter and summer..." in these, here in winter and summer, he did not bind himself to that, he did not bind himself to that.” Other such examples should also be connected. From the perspective of meaning, this is a place of confusion: “who does not desire gold, gone by blind darkness” Here, the negative particle ‘na’ should be connected with ‘kata’. The meaning is: it is as if it were done, not done. Here, the negative particle ‘na’ functions as a simile, not as a negation. “The faithless, the ungrateful,