English
like "by a king, by Brahmā, by a friend, by oneself, by a self, by a dog, by a man" are dissimilar. Therefore, they cannot be known by rule. Since they are thus difficult to know, in Pāli and in ancient commentaries, only the directly stated words should be taken. However, in the case of words like "mahārāja" (great king), when their ending in "o" is established, the taking of the rule "these words are like 'purisa' (man)" is seen. Therefore, we have stated "mahārājā, mahārājasmā" (great king, from the great king) and so on, by rule. Just as in: "This is indeed difficult for you to know, that you lie like one dead; from whose hand, when being pulled, the stick does not let go." Here, "hatthā" (from the hand) and in "fear born from one's own stick," "daṇḍā" (from the stick) are seen as the singular ablative of an "o"-ending word. Thus, "uragā, paṭaṅgā, vihagā" (from a snake, from a grasshopper, from a bird) and so on, should also be taken as singular ablatives of "o"-ending words. And just as in "Do not despise the fanged one, the jackal is my life-giver," "maññavho" (do not despise) and in "The pure associate with the pure, you who are mindful, associate," "kappayavho" (associate) are seen as verb forms. Thus, "gacchavho, bhuñjavho, sayavho" (go, eat, lie down) and so on, should also be taken. And those skilled and expert in the teaching do take such word forms. Therefore, we have also stated "mahārājā, mahārājasmā" and so on, by taking the rule. If there is no taking by rule, how will the nominal declensions be complete? They are complete only when there is such taking. Thus, in the Buddha's word, hundreds of thousands of nominal words and verbs, each individually, are not found conjugated with the seven or eight nominal cases in singular and plural, and with the ninety-six verbal conjugations. But by rule, they are found. Therefore, by rule, we have established "mahārājā, mahārājasmā" and so on. "Great kings stand, great kings, you..." But these [forms] are seen in [the passage]: "Then indeed the four great kings with a great army of yakkhas and a great army of kumbhaṇḍas." Those four great kings, from all four directions; stood blazing brightly, in the Kapilavatthu forest. And they are said because they are seen. And [forms] like "Mahārāja" are also said only after seeing the Pāli [text] and the Pāli method. In non-compounds, we do not see [forms] like "rājaṃ" or "rājenā". Therefore, this point should be thoroughly considered. For this is a difficult point to know for one of heroic birth. But if, venerable sirs, you should see [forms] like "rājaṃ" or "rājenā" in non-compounds in the Buddha's word or in the ancient commentaries, then please pay careful attention. For who indeed is capable of knowing all the distinctions of usage in the Buddha's word in every way, except for the great Arahants with penetrating analytical knowledge? For this was said by the Blessed One – One free from craving, unattached, skilled in etymology and words; the combination of letters, and their preceding and succeeding [forms], he knows. Brahmā , brahmā, brahmāno. Brahmānaṃ, brahmaṃ, brahmāno. Brahmunā, brahmehi, brahmebhi, brahmūhi, brahmūbhi. Brahmassa, brahmuno, brahmānaṃ, brahmūnaṃ. Brahmunā, brahmehi, brahmebhi, brahmūhi, brahmūbhi. Brahmassa, brahmuno, brahmānaṃ, brahmūnaṃ. Brahmani, brahmesu, bho brahma, bho brahme, bhavanto brahmāno. Or according to the preference of the Elder Yamaka, "bho brahmā" is plural. But here, [forms] like "brahmūhi" are seen in the commentary's words, as in "by wise men, by devas, by Brahmās". And [forms] like "brahmūnaṃ" are seen in the commentary's words, as in "the voice of the Brahmās arises" and "desire-passion, the sensual defilement, does not arise in the Brahmās' abodes etc.". And [the form] "brahme" is seen in the direct speech: "I did not speak of violence, the sublime Dhamma among humans, O Brahmā." Thus, the words "brahmūhi, brahmūbhi, brahmūnaṃ, brahme" are stated. These, however, are not found in the Cūḷanirutti, Niruttipiṭaka, or Kaccāyana [grammar]. Sakhā, sakhā, sakhin. O friends, companions. Friend, friend, friend, of a friend, friends, companions. By a friend, by friends, by friends, by friends, by friends. To a friend, of a friend, of friends, of friends, of friends. From a friend, from a friend, from friends, from friends, from friends, from friends. To a friend, of a friend, of friends, of friends, of friends. In a friend, among friends, among friends. O friend, O friends, O friend, O friends, O friends, O friends, O friends, O companions. According to the Elder Yamaka, "bho sakhā" can also be plural. If it is argued that in Pāli, in the Suvaṇṇakakkaṭa Jātaka, the word "sakhā" spoken with a long vowel in "hare sakhā kissa nu maṃ jahāsī" is a vocative singular, and therefore the Elder Yamaka's view is not appropriate? No, it is not inappropriate. Because in the Manojajātake, the word "sakhā" can be both singular and plural, as in "netādisā sakhā honti, labbhā me jīvato sakhā." Thus, in the first line it is plural, but in the second line it is singular. Therefore, the Elder Yamaka used the word "sakhā" in the place of the vocative plural. And here, in accordance with the reading "sabbamitto sabbasakho, sabbabhūtānukampako," the nominal declension of the word "sakha" found in a compound becomes "sabbasakho, sabbasakhā, sabbasakhaṃ, sabbasakhe," etc., like a masculine noun. The analysis of the compound here is: "a friend to all people," or "all people are friends to him," thus "sabbasakho," like "sabbaverī" (an enemy to all). Self, self, selves. Self, self, selves. By self, by self, by selves, by selves. Of self, of selves. From self, from selves, from selves. Of self, of selves. In self, in selves. O self, O selves, O selves. Here, however, one rejects the self and cherishes what is dear. "If you go to Pañcāla, you will quickly abandon yourself; Like a deer fallen on the path, great fear will come." In the Pāli texts, the word "attaṃ" is used, meaning "self." Here it is said, "by oneself or by what belongs to oneself." But from the Pāli reading "by oneself," it is. In the Cūḷanirutti, the genitive-dative singular "of oneself" is found, this is not seen in Kaccāyana or in the Niruttipiṭaka. In some places, "in oneself" is found. All these should be understood by examining the Buddha's teaching with its commentaries. "Self, selves, selves. Self, selves, selves. By self, by selves, by selves," and so on, speaking in the manner of a masculine noun, one should say, "O self, O selves, O selves." There, in compounds of the word atta, "one whose self is developed, one whose self is developed. One whose self is developed, one whose self is developed. By one whose self is developed, by those whose selves are developed, by those whose selves are developed," the nominal declension should be formed in the manner of a masculine noun. Dog, dogs, dogs. Dog, dogs. By dog, by dogs, by dogs. To dog, to dogs. From dog, from dogs, from dogs. Of dog, of dogs. In dog, in dogs. O dog, O dogs. Sā is called a dog. And here are example phrases: "where no dog is present. Dogs indeed ward off the boar." Some, however, say that in the second and third cases, etc., of the word sā, the forms are "saṃ, se. Senā," and so on, that is not appropriate. For those forms "saṃ, se. Senā," and so on, are not seen in the Buddha's word, nor in the commentaries, etc., nor in the Niruttipiṭaka. Thus, however, it is said in the Niruttipiṭaka: "A dog stands, dogs stand. He sees a dog, he sees dogs. Done by a dog, done by dogs, done by dogs. Given to a dog, given to dogs. Issued from a dog, issued from dogs, issued from dogs. Possession of a dog, possession of dogs. Established in a dog, established in dogs. O dog, O dogs." Therefore, the nominal declension should be taken in the manner stated in the Niruttipiṭaka. Here this should be said – just as in phrases like "dissatisfied with his own wives," for the word sa, which means "one's own" and is masculine, in the sense of "this is his own," the forms are "he, she. Him, e. By Sena, by Sehi, by Sebhi. Of Sassa, of Sānaṃ. From Sā, from Sasmā, from Samhā, by Sehi, by Sebhi. Of Sassa, of Sānaṃ. In Se, in Sasmiṃ, in Samhi, in Sesū— thus are the forms according to the masculine gender, not so are the forms of the word "sā" which means dog. Or just as in phrases like: "They harm, born of oneself, like the fruit that splits the tree. Their own deeds torment, Kosala, dissatisfied with Sena, seized him alive"— in these and similar instances, for the word "sa" meaning "one's own," which is in the neuter gender, the forms are: Saṃ, Sāni, Sā. Saṃ, Sāni, Se. By Sena, by Sehi, by Sebhi. Of Sassa, of Sānaṃ. From Sā, from Sasmā, from Samhā, by Sehi, by Sebhi. Of Sassa, of Sānaṃ. In Se, in Sasmiṃ, in Samhi, in Sesū— thus are the forms according to the neuter gender, not so are the forms of the word "sā" which means dog. If this is so, why did those teachers state "Saṃ, Se. Senā" in the second and third cases? And why did they state "Sā, Sasmā, Samhā" in the fifth case? And "Se, Sasmiṃ, Samhī" in the seventh case? All this is without reason, a reasonless grasp taken by mere conjecture. For the word "sā" meaning dog is by nature ending in "ā," not by nature ending in "a" like the words for masculine or neuter. There is no such nature by which its forms would be like these. Nor is it like "Rājā, Brahmā, Sakhā, Attā" and so on, which first were "a"-ending and then acquired "ā"-ending. Rather, it is always by nature "ā"-ending, like the word "go" (cow) is always by nature "o"-ending. And for a word always by nature "ā"-ending, such forms do not occur. Therefore, in the Netti-piṭaka, they were not stated by the venerable Mahākaccāna, who possessed the analytical knowledge of the Dhamma. Even if they might think: "Just as 'attaṃ, attenā' are taken, so 'saṃ, senā' should be taken." They should not be taken, because of the dissimilarity