English
the Elder, holder of the Good Dhamma, Ānanda, a mine of jewels. And so on. Here, although “puññavanto” and so forth are repeatedly spoken in the plural in many places, sometimes they are singular. And their singular form is seen in the context of verses. Therefore, they should be taken as they are spoken. Thus, having known the distinction of words like himavantu and satimantu, the meaning of dual-gender words based on gender endings, the nominal declension of the basic form, and the similarity and dissimilarity of words should be established. Here, the word “sirimā” divides into two ways, due to its common sound, occurring in both genders. For in the sense of “a glorious man,” it is a masculine word ending in -ā; in the sense of “a goddess named Sirimā,” it is a feminine word ending in -ā. Both of these have the basic form ending in -u. Or else, the latter has the basic form ending in -ā. “He who has glory is sirimā” is the derivation in the masculine sense. “She who has glory is sirimā” is the derivation in the feminine sense. Although these two are similar in meaning due to sound and derivation, they should be understood as having different meanings because they refer to the meaning of a man and the meaning of a woman. This method should be applied in other similar cases. Sirimā, sirimā, sirimanto. Sirimantaṃ, sirimante. Sirimatā, sirimantena. The nominal declension is like that of the word guṇavantu. Sirimā, sirimā, sirimāyo. Sirimaṃ, sirimā, sirimāyo. Sirimāya. To be known by the method of kaññā to be explained. Thus, in the nominal declensions of words with similar sounds that are divided in two ways, The similarity and dissimilarity of words should be established. For even in the sense of having the same meaning, for the word "sirimā" which sounds dissimilar, no similarity of words is found in the nominal word-list with these words. Here this is said: The word "sirimā" is used in two ways, for males and females; It should be understood that it differs, here the masculine is intended. Thus, words dissimilar to "sirimā" such as guṇavā, satimā, etc., have been shown with their nominal word-lists. Now we will show other dissimilar words with their nominal word-lists. Such as: Rājā, brahmā, sakhā, attā, ātumā, sā, pumā, rahā; Daḷhadhammā and paccakkha-dhammā, and vivaṭacchadā. Vattahā and also vutta-sirā, and yuvā; Maghavā, addhā, muddhādi, should be known by the discerning. Here, only the word "sā" is an A-ending word with an A-ending base; the rest are A-ending words with an A-ending base. Rājā, rājā, rājāno. Rājānaṃ, rājaṃ, rājāno. Raññā, rājinā, rājūhi, rājūbhi. Rañño, rājino, raññaṃ, rājūnaṃ, rājānaṃ. Raññā, rājūhi, rājūbhi. Rañño, rājino, raññaṃ, rājūnaṃ, rājānaṃ. Raññe, rājini, rājūsu. Bho rāja, bhavanto rājāno, bhavanto rājā, or this is our preference. In the Niruttipiṭaka and other texts, the plural of "rājā" does not appear, but it does appear in the Cūḷanirutti. Even though it does not appear in the Niruttipiṭaka and other texts, just as in the Pāḷi text "netādisā sakhā honti, labbhā me jīvato sakhā" the word "sakhā" is used in both plural and singular, the plural of "rājā" should also be desired. Similarly, the plurals of "brahmā, attā," etc., are also formed in the same way, without any special change in form. And here, in the statement "a householder is one who, excluding a king, a royal official, a brahmin, is the remaining householder," the word "rājaṃ" is mentioned, but this does not appear in the Niruttipiṭaka. In the statement "sabbadattena rājinā," the word "rājinā" is used. It is said: “He pleases the king, he receives gifts from his master.” Here, “rājānaṃ” is stated in the sense of both the fourth and sixth cases. However, in the Kaccāyana and Rūpasiddhi grammars, the words “rājena, rājehi, rājebhi. Rājesu” are mentioned. These are not found in the Cūḷanirutti and Niruttipiṭaka. Their absence is more appropriate, as they are not seen in Pāḷi. Therefore, we have not mentioned them here. Indeed, when examining the Pāḷi tradition, we find such words only in compounds, and not elsewhere. Additional usages are: “dwelt upon by the Dhamma-king,” and “sent by King Sivi,” and “the banner-top of Pajāpati, the king of devas,” and “when the great king, the prosperity-increaser of the Sivis, was departing.” Thus, when examining the Pāḷi tradition, we find “rājena” and so on only in compounds, not merely in the Pāḷi tradition, but also when examining the ancient commentaries, we find them only in compounds, and not elsewhere. Even so, this point should be thoroughly examined. For who indeed is capable of fully discerning the method in the entire Tepiṭaka Buddha-word with its commentaries, except for those Arahants with analytical knowledge. Here, the nominal declensions of the word “rāja” when it is part of a compound are stated in two ways: as ending in ‘o’ and as ending in ‘ā’. Of these, those ending in ‘o’ are “mahārājo, yuvarājo, sivirājo, dhammarājo,” and so on. Those ending in ‘ā’ are “mahārājā, yuvarājā, sivirājā, dhammarājā,” and so on. Although “mahārājo” and so on are not found in Pāḷi and in the ancient commentaries, nevertheless, just as “sabbasakho” is found in Pāḷi in “sabbamitto sabbasakho, sabbabhūtānukampako” (a friend to all, a companion to all, compassionate to all beings), so too “mahārājo” and so on must necessarily be accepted. Thus, in compounds, “dhammarājena, dhammarājassā” and so on are seen. These are indeed forms ending in ‘o’, not forms ending in ‘ā’. Mahārājo, mahārājā. Mahārājaṃ, mahārāje. Mahārājena, mahārājehi, mahārājebhi. Mahārājassa, mahārājānaṃ. Mahārājā, mahārā From the great king, from the great king, by the great kings, by the great kings. Of the great king, of the great kings. In the great king, in the great king, in the great king, in the great kings. O great king, O great kings. Moreover, according to the methods of Kaccāyana's Cūḷanirutti, "bho mahārājā" should be understood as both singular and plural. Just as the nominal paradigm is to be constructed for the o-ending word "mahārājo", so too for other o-ending words such as "sivirājo", "dhammarājo", "devarājo", and so on. And this is the nominal paradigm according to the ā-ending: Great king, great king, great kings. Of the great kings, the great king, the great kings. By the great king, by the great king, by the great kings, by the great kings. To/of the great king, to/of the great king, to/of the great kings, to/of the great kings. From the great king, by the great kings, by the great kings. To/of the great king, to/of the great king, to/of the great kings, to/of the great kings. In the great king, in the great king, in the great kings. O great king, O great kings. Here too, according to the two methods of the treatise, "bho mahārājā" should be understood as both singular and plural. And just as the nominal paradigm is to be constructed for the ā-ending word "mahārājā", so too for other ā-ending words such as "sivirājā", "dhammarājā", "devarājā", and so on. Here, another nominal paradigm is presented, mixed with ā-ending and o-ending forms, combined with verbs to clarify the meaning: The great king, the great king stands; the great kings, the great kings stand. The great kings, he sees the great king; the great kings, he sees the great kings. Done by the great king, done by the great king, done by the great king; done by the great kings, done by the great kings, done by the great kings, done by the great kings. It is given to the great king, to the great king, to the great king; departed from the great king, from the great king, from the great king, from the great king; departed from the great kings, from the great kings, from the great kings, from the great kings. The possession of the great king, of the great king, of the great king; the possession of the great kings, of the great kings, of the great kings. Oh, king! Established in the great kingdom, in the great queen, in the great king, in the great king, in the great king, established among great kings, established among great kings. Oh great king, you stand! Oh great kings, oh great kings, you stand! Thus also in "crown prince, crown prince," and so on. Some might ask here, "Why did the author of the treatise make such a great effort and such great exertion in this place? Are there not some of these words found in the Buddha's teachings, and some not?" The discerning should tell them thus: "The author of the treatise made that great effort and that great exertion here for the benefit of the Dispensation, by producing excellent skill in both words and meanings for the listeners of the nine-fold teaching of the Master with its commentaries. And of these words shown by him, some are found in the Buddha's teachings, and some are not. Here, those found in the Buddha's teachings are taken as existing. Those not found are taken as existing in the ancient commentaries and so on, and by way of Pāli grammar." Here is a brief elucidation of the meaning: "Having said this, King Kaṃsa, the captor of Bārāṇasī, laying down his bow and quiver, entered into self-restraint." This is an example of the word "mahārāja" ending in -ā. Since the Pāli word "sabbasakho" exists, by that method, "mahārājo" is also seen as ending in -o, and should be conjugated according to the masculine gender. And for this reason, "the great king said to him," "when the great king was departing," and so on, are seen. Thus, when the ending in -o of the word "mahārāja" is established, the singular genitive "mahārājā, mahārājasmā, mahārājamhā" and the singular locative "mahārāje, mahārājasmiṃ, mahārājamhī" are indeed established, because even if they do not exist in Pāli, they must be taken by way of grammar. However, "rājena, rājassā" and so on are not to be taken by way of grammar. If you ask "Why?" Because "rājā, brahmā, sakhā, attā" and so on, are like " A man, a snake, are not in every way similar to each other. For their forms