English
the deity Candimā is called "candimā." Another interpretation: "candimā" means "one who has the moon." Here, "cando" refers to the deity Candimā, but the moon-mansion, which is his dwelling place, is called "candimā." Thus, in phrases like "Rāhu, release the moon, the moon dwells in a jewel-made mansion," etc. The deva-son Canda is called "Canda". "Indeed, a young monk, Who applies himself to the Buddha's teaching; He illuminates this world, Like the moon freed from clouds." In such instances, however, The moon-mansion, his dwelling place, Is called "Candimā". Thus, it should be understood That both "Canda" and "Candimā" Are names for both the deva-son Canda And the moon-mansion. Therein, "pāpimā, puttimā, candimā" These words, from "pāpa" and other terms, Are understood to have been formed By means of the suffix "imantu", In the sense of "that which has it". But sir, should they not be formed By means of the suffix "mantu" alone? No, because "mantu" is nowhere found After an "a"-ending word. But sir, even if that is so, From "pāpa", "putta", "canda", First adding the "i" increment, And then applying the "mantu" suffix, Is it not possible to form them? It is possible, as far as the form itself is achieved, But the method is not good. For if, from "pāpa", "putta", etc., Which are "a"-ending words, After adding the "i" increment, The "mantu" suffix were applied, Then it would follow that from other "a"-ending words, Like "guṇa", "yasa", etc., After adding the "i" increment, The "mantu" suffix should also be applied. Indeed, in hundreds of thousands of Pāli texts, Nowhere is the "mantu" suffix seen Together with an "i" increment After "a"-ending words like "guṇa", "yasa", etc. Rather, because it is inappropriate, From "a"-ending words like "pāpa", "putta", etc., Without adding the "i" increment, Only when the "imantu" suffix is applied, Do "pāpimā", "puttimā", and so on, become formed. Even if this is so, sir, Why is only the "mantu" suffix mentioned In Kaccāyana's grammar, And not the "imantu" suffix? Both have been mentioned. How is this known? Because there, After stating these four suttas In a contiguous, "a"-ending word manner: "From tapa, sī; from daṇḍa, ika, ī; From madhu, ro; from guṇa, vantu," In the middle, another sutta is stated differently: "From sati and others, mantu." And then, in a contiguous, "a"-ending word manner, The sutta "From saddhā, ṇā" is stated. Therefore, it is understood That in that context, By means of the sutta stated in a dissimilar way, Namely "satyādīhimantū", The "imantu" suffix has also been mentioned. And this is the nature (of the text). of the wise, in whatever way, expressing their intention. Here, the second meaning should be taken by way of sandhi of the essence. For thus, its first meaning is "with 'sati' and others, 'mantu'", its second meaning is "with 'sati' and others, 'imantu'". Thus, just as in the usage "seto dhāvati" (the white one runs), in the sutta "satyādīhi mantū", the attainment of two meanings occurs due to being associated with different entities. Therefore, by this sutta, which possesses extremely subtle and profound meaning, in some places, the 'mantu' suffix is desired after 'sati', 'gati', 'setu', 'go', etc. In some places, the 'imantu' suffix is desired after 'sati', 'pāpa', 'putta', etc. This should be understood. Since the word 'sati' is taken as a type of these, due to having the same formation as 'gati', 'dhī', 'sethu', 'go', etc. by way of 'mantu', and as 'pāpa', 'putta', etc. by way of 'imantu', therefore the meaning of the sutta is thus: "From 'sati' and others, 'mantu', from words of the 'sati' type, the 'mantu' suffix occurs, and the 'imantu' suffix too, as appropriate, in the sense of 'that which has that'". This is the intention here: Just as in "satimā", the 'mantu' suffix occurs after 'sati', which ends in 'i', similarly, in "gatimā", "dhīmā", "setumā", "gomā", etc., the 'mantu' suffix occurs after words ending in 'i', 'ī', 'u', 'ū'. And just as in "satimā", the 'imantu' suffix occurs after 'sati', which ends in 'i', similarly, in "gatimā", "pāpimā", "puttimā", etc., the 'imantu' suffix occurs after words ending in 'i', 'a'. Thus, from words of the 'sati' type, the 'mantu' and 'imantu' suffixes occur as possible. If it is so, why was it not said "satyādito imantu mantū" like the sutta "daṇḍādito ika ī" which prescribes two suffixes? There is a reason for not saying it that way. For if the sutta "satyādito imantu mantū" had been stated like the sutta "daṇḍādito ika ī", then by the simultaneous mention of 'imantu' and 'mantu', just as the two forms "daṇḍiko daṇḍī" arise from the word 'daṇḍa', two dissimilar forms would have to be desired from 'sati', 'gati', etc., and that is not the case. Therefore, "s From the very beginning, "This 'mantū' is not said." Moreover, if it were said thus, due to many syllables, there would be a burden on the text. And because a Sutta should be concise, unambiguous, meaningful, profound in its import, all-encompassing, and faultless. And in Kaccāyana's grammar, mostly such Suttas are seen, profound in meaning, within the scope of very clear knowledge, like "in the word of the Upājha, a vowel is elided in a vowel," and so on. This too is one of them. Therefore, "this 'mantū' is not said from 'sat' and so on." Even if the Sutta instruction is not made thus, for the sake of grasping 'imantu' as well, it should be understood that "mantū from 'sat' and so on" is said by way of being associated with a different case ending. Another method: In "sī from 'tap' and so on," the plural ending of the word ending in 'ta' is not very clear, because the 'ta' suffix occurs in both singular and plural meanings. But here, in "mantū from 'sat' and so on," the plural meaning of the 'hi' word is extremely clear. Therefore, it should also be understood that the 'imantu' suffix occurs by the taking of the plural. "But sir, even without the 'imantu' suffix, 'pāpī' (sinful) means 'he has sin,' and 'pāpī' itself is 'pāpimā' (sinful one) when the 'mā' suffix is applied in its own sense, then 'pāpimā,' 'puttimā' (one with sons), and so on, are formed, just as the word 'chaṭṭhamo' (sixth) is formed with the 'ma' suffix in 'chaṭṭhamo so parābhavo' (that is the sixth downfall)?" "You are very learned in grammar, you are indeed to be called very learned in grammar, but you do not know the ways of words. And the ways of words are manifold. Thus, 'chaṭṭho' itself is 'chaṭṭhamo.' The way of words to be construed according to the masculine gender is in 'sutta itself is suttanta' (discourse itself is end of discourse) and so on. The way of words to be construed according to the feminine gender is in 'deva itself is devatā' (god itself is goddess) and so on. The way of words to be construed according to the neuter gender is in 'diṭṭhi itself is diṭṭhigata' (view itself is gone to view) and so on. Among such ways of words, which way of words do you speak of regarding 'pāpī itself is pāpimā' and so on? And in 'satthā (teacher), rājā (king), brahmā (Brahmā), sakhā (friend), attā (self), sā (that), pumā (man)' and so on, which way of words do you speak of? Into which word ending do you think it is included, and in which nominal declension do you think it should be construed?" When he was thus asked, he will surely be silent, having seen nothing further, therefore such a method should not be adopted. For in such a method, forms like "by the evil one, of the evil one" etc. do not succeed, but they do succeed by this *imantu* suffix method, therefore this very method is more commendable and should be properly kept in mind by the venerable ones. Here is an illustration: "This is indeed the victory of the Buddha, the glorious one, And the defeat of Māra, the evil one; The hosts of gods, rejoicing at the Bodhi-maṇḍa, Then proclaimed the victory of the Great Sage." And, "Adorned with branches, leaves, and fruits, a mighty tree with a trunk." *Pāpimā*, *pāpimā*, *pāpimanto*. *Pāpimantaṃ*. The rest is to be understood, this method applies also to "*khandhimā*, *puttimā*" etc. Now, according to the usage, we shall explain some distinction of *himavantu*, *satimantu*, etc. *Himavantu* (the snowy one) is a mountain. *Satimaṃ* (mindful) is a monk. *Bandhumaṃ* (kinsman) is a king. *Candimaṃ* (moon) is a devaputta. Of *satima* (the mindful) monk. Of *bandhuma* (the kinsman) king. The mind of *iddhima* (the powerful one) and of another arises at the same moment. Such distinctions are to be understood. Moreover, here, "*āyasmantā*" is a word to be spoken for two, and "*āyasmanto*" is a word to be spoken for many, this distinction also should be understood. For it is said: "One announcing to two should say 'May the venerable ones bear in mind,' and one announcing to three should say 'May the venerable ones bear in mind.'" Here, "three" is merely a topic of discussion, by which it is shown that it applies to four, five, and even more than a hundred. For many Pāḷi texts like "The four Pārājika rules, venerable ones, have been recited" are established by taking many. There, "*āyasmantā*", being said with reference to only two in the context of Vinaya usage, is not universally applicable. For it does not occur in other usages apart from Vinaya usage. But "*āyasmanto*" occurs everywhere, so the distinction between the two should be understood. There, "*himavanto*" mostly occurs in the singular, but sometimes also in the plural, therefore the Elder in the Nirutti-piṭaka says: "Himavā stands, him standing, having. “Like the Himavanta mountain” – this singular form should be taken according to the literal Pāli. And the literal Pāli is: Far off, good people shine, like the Himavanta mountain; Here, bad people are not seen, like arrows shot in the night. I, at that time, was a great and mighty Nāga king; named Atula, meritorious and radiant. Having movement, having mindfulness, and having steadfastness, was that ascetic;