English
Truth is agreeable to the ascetic. He holds an umbrella for the Buddha. He praises the Buddha’— and so on, a word construction devoid of āyādeso. a distinction is seen. Thus, in many contexts of giving, such as the desire for giving, the form with the 'āya' ending for the dative singular is not seen. But it is seen in four places, such as in verbs of motion. Thus, "He would drag it to the root, few go to heaven," here it is seen in a verb of motion. Here, the meaning is "He would drag the root, few go to heaven." In "paṭikasseyya," because the root 'kasa' (to move) is qualified by the prefix 'pati,' the meaning becomes "he would pull." "This man is desirous of my welfare, who, having taken me, leads me to water," here it is seen in a verb of leading. Here, the meaning is "he leads me to water, he brings me to his dwelling-pit." "Reverends, desist from my word," here it is seen in a change of case. For the meaning is "desist from my word" in the sense of the ablative case. "My food for the great flock," here too it is seen in a change of case. For the meaning is "food for my great flock of geese" in the sense of the genitive case. Here, the intention is "my king of geese." "And we are dishonored by Dhanañcaya," here too it is seen in a change of case. For "we are dishonored by King Dhanañcaya" is the genitive case in the sense of the agent. Thus, where it should be "Dhanañcayassa" or "Dhanañcayena," not saying it thus, but saying "Dhanañcayāya" (dative case) is only appropriate in a change of case, due to the absence of a dative context like an act of giving. Therefore, the meaning "we are dishonored by King Dhanañcaya" should be taken. Other places of case change should also be sought. But thousands of forms with the 'āya' ending, such as "for dispassion, for tranquility, for cessation," occur in that sense. For the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, too, explaining the meaning of the Dhamma and Vinaya, said, "for the discipline of the dhammas. For this discipline is for blameless dhammas, not for existence or possessions," using the 'āya' ending in that sense. They used the word-form. Thus, forms with the 'āya' substitution for the dative singular are seen only in these four places: in the sense of going, in the sense of leading, in the change of case, and in the sense of 'for that purpose'. But not in any dative context whatsoever, such as giving or liking. Thus, in the Nirutti Piṭaka, the word-form with the 'āya' substitution is stated as "atthāya is a dative word," but such forms are not mentioned for words like 'purisa' (man), because such word-forms are not used anywhere. Even in the Kaccāyana grammar, in the explanation of the rule "āya for the dative singular, optionally," it is stated: "atthāya, hitāya, sukhāya for devas and humans." It is not stated as "purisāya," or "samaṇāya," or "brāhmaṇāya." Here it might be said: "But in that very explanation, 'Why dative? The mouth of a man.' 'Why singular? He gives to men.' 'Why optionally? He is a giver to a samaṇa or a brāhmaṇa.' Since these were stated, word-forms like 'purisāya, samaṇāya, brāhmaṇāya' etc. are shown to be possible by rule. However, due to the connection with the word 'mukha' (mouth), the plural form, and the optionality, 'purisāya' etc. do not occur. But in places without connection to 'mukha' etc., they must certainly occur." Here it is said: He who says, "Why dative? The mouth of a man," showing that "if there is an 'āya' substitution, it is only for the dative, not for the genitive," showed the word 'mukha'. And he does not show by that that "when a verb like 'deti' (gives) etc., which is in a dative context, is present in place of 'mukha', the 'āya' substitution occurs." He who says, "Why singular? He gives to men," shows that "the 'āya' substitution occurs only for the singular, not for the plural." He spoke the word "dadāti" (gives) to make known that "purisānaṃ" (to men) is a dative word, and not that "when a verb like 'deti' etc., which is in a dative context, is present, the 'āya' substitution for the dative singular..." the dative case is used for the purpose of. And when it is said, "For what purpose does one give to a monk or a brahmin?" it is understood that "the dative case is used optionally only in the sense of giving," and it does not indicate that the dative case is prescribed in relation to the act of giving and so on. If, however, the dative case were prescribed in relation to the act of giving and so on, the author of the commentary should have said "it is given to a man" and so on, just as he used "for the welfare, for the benefit" in the root examples for that purpose in the commentary, but it was not said. Why? Because such usage is absent in the Buddha's words and in the ancient commentaries. For in the Nirutti Piṭaka, that venerable Mahākaccāna, who had attained the analytical knowledges, shows only forms without the dative ending in "it is given to a man." And the elder, even when saying "for the purpose is a word of giving," without considering the act of giving and so on, indicated the form with the dative ending for the fourth singular. Therefore, that usage is understood as a usage for that purpose. Thus, for these reasons, it should be known that "the dative case is not prescribed in relation to the act of giving and so on." If so, would only "for the welfare, for the benefit" and so on, which are usages for that purpose, be the scope of the rule "the dative for the fourth singular," and not others? That is not so, others are also its scope. Which ones? "He would pull it up by the root, few go to heaven, he brings water, refrain, venerable sirs, from my word, food for the community," and so on. But "by going to heaven" and so on are not its scope because of the optional rule. But, sirs, if that is the case, the author of the commentary, after saying "for the welfare, for the benefit, for the happiness of gods and humans" in the root examples, should also have said "he would pull it up by the root" and so on. Why then does he say in the example, "for what purpose, or by going to heaven"? True, there is a reason for not saying it, listen to it – In "he would pull it up by the root, few go to heaven," the words "by the root, to heaven" are not pure words of giving. since it occurs in the sense of going, therefore they were not mentioned in the root examples. Similarly, in “he leads to water,” the word “to water” occurs in the sense of leading, and is not a pure dative expression, so it was not mentioned. In “Venerables, desist from my word,” the word “from my word” occurs in the sense of an ablative expression. In “food for the group,” the word “for the group” occurs in the sense of a possessive expression. In “they were not honored by Dhanañcaya,” the word “by Dhanañcaya” occurs in the sense of a possessive expression, and is not a pure dative expression, so it was not mentioned. Even in the example “to heaven,” the word “to heaven” is in the sense of going, due to its proximity to the word for going, and is not a pure dative expression, so it was not mentioned as “why, then, by going to heaven?” Thus, in this context, according to the method stated, and in accordance with the Buddha’s words and the method of the ancient commentaries, forms with the termination -āya for the fourth singular case are seen only in these four places: in the sense of going, and so on. They are not seen in any dative context whatsoever, such as giving or pleasing, this should be understood. But sir, in the usage of giving, “he gave sandalwood essence to the elder sister, a golden garland to the younger sister,” the form with the termination -āya for the fourth singular case is seen. Therefore, it should also be possible in usages such as: “it is given to the princess, the ornament pleases the princess, he holds the parasol for the princess, make obeisance to the princess, may there be welfare for the princess, he praises the princess.” So why do you say: “in accordance with the Buddha’s words and the method of the ancient commentaries, forms with the termination -āya for the fourth singular case are seen only in these four places: in the sense of going, and so on, and not in any dative context whatsoever, such as giving or pleasing”? You have gone astray, sir, for you do not understand our meaning. Our meaning here is this: all feminine nouns, in the singular form, in the third, fourth, and fifth cases, In seven or eight places, they are equal; a few are unequal. Therefore, setting them aside, in masculine and neuter genders, for words like "purisa" (man) and "citta" (mind) which remain in their original a-ending form, the forms with the "āya" ending for the fourth singular case are not seen in the Buddha's words or other texts, in the context of giving, liking, and so on, wherever the dative case applies. It is for this reason that "mūlāya" (for the root), "saggāya" (for heaven), ""dakāya" (for water), "vacanāya" (for speech), "gaṇāya" (for the group), and so on, in the three contexts of verbs of motion and action, and "abhiññāya" (for direct knowledge), "sambodhāya" (for full enlightenment), "nibbānāya" (for Nibbāna), and so on, these many hundreds of words of all three genders are seen in these four places, only in the sense of "for the sake of that". But they are not seen in pure dative contexts like "deti" (gives), "rocati" (likes), "dhāreti" (holds), and so on. And here it is said: The form of the fourth singular, joined with the "āya" ending, for non-feminine words, stands in four places. In the action of verbs of motion, and in the action of verbs of leading, in the inversion of the case ending, and in the sense of "for the sake of that" – thus one should specify. "He should go back to the root," "The little one goes to heaven"; Thus in the action of verbs of motion, it has been seen by us in the teaching. "He leads for water," thus, in the action of verbs of leading;