English
in the scriptures and so on, wherever a place of confusion for listeners is seen, there, for the listeners... For the benefit of people, by clearing up objections, having removed doubt, it is necessary to speak again. Therefore, we shall say something here. Indeed, sirs, in Pāli, the form "brahmacārayo" in "saññate brahmacārayo" and "apace brahmacārayo" is said to be like "aggayo," the form of "aggi" which ends in 'i'. But instead of saying it that way, should it not rather be said as "brahmacārino," like "daṇḍino," the form of "daṇḍī" which ends in 'ī'? True. There, because it is desired as an 'i'-ending word, as in "brahmaṃ carati" becomes "brahmacāri," just as "munāti" becomes "muni." Like the forms "munayo" and "aggayo," the form "brahmacārayo" occurs. But elsewhere, by taking the sense of 'habitual practice,' as in "brahmaṃ caraṇasīlo" becomes "brahmacārī," just as "dukkaṭaṃ kammaṃ karaṇasīlo" becomes "dukkaṭakammakārī." In such a case, when taken as an 'ī'-ending word, the form "brahmacārino" occurs, like "dukkaṭakammakārino," and like "daṇḍino," the form of "daṇḍī," an 'ī'-ending word, derived from "daṇḍo assa atthīti daṇḍī." Thus, the Pāli passage is seen: "Indeed, these are practitioners of Dhamma, practitioners of equality, practitioners of the holy life, speakers of truth, virtuous, of beautiful qualities, they will declare." Thus, the accusative/vocative plural form "brahmacārayo" is appropriate for the 'i'-ending derivation. Again, the accusative/vocative plural form "brahmacārino" is also appropriate for the 'ī'-ending derivation. Therefore, the word paradigms should be taken as "brahmacāri, brahmacārī, brahmacārayo" following the pattern of "aggi," and "brahmacārī, brahmacārī, brahmacārino" following the pattern of "daṇḍī." But why does the Venerable Buddhaghosa, in "as ascetics shine, adorned with the adornment of virtue," not use the form "yatayo," which is like "aggayo," the form of "yati" which ends in 'i'? Why does he instead show the form "yatino," which is like "daṇḍino," the form of "daṇḍī" which ends in 'ī'? Is this not seen as a careless writing? For example, in "roosters, jewels, staffs, Sivakas, O gods, they are angry..." When examined grammatically, should it be "yatayo" with the form ending in "i" because it is an "i"-ending word? This is not a careless mistake. Just as in "one who is accustomed to speaking is a speaker," taking the sense of "habitual action," and combining it with an "ī"-ending, there is no fault. Therefore, "one who is accustomed to striving is a yati," thus, having this sense of habitual action in mind, the form "yatino" with an "ī"-ending, which is like the dative or genitive singular but is an accusative plural form, was shown by the venerable Buddhaghosa. The vocative plural form is also similar. However, where the sense of habitual action is not taken, as in "He who discerns both worlds, is therefore called a muni," and "one who strives, who makes effort, is a yati," the "i"-ending form is taken in the sense of an agent. There, just as "munayo, maṇayo, sivayo" are forms ending in "ayo," so too "yatayo" is an accusative plural form ending in "ayo," and a vocative plural form. Thus, it should be understood that for masculine words ending in "ī," in these three cases, the forms always end in "ayo." If so, how about masculine words ending in "i" like sāramati, suddhadiṭṭhi, sammādiṭṭhi, micchādiṭṭhi, vajirabuddhi, saddā, etc.? Even though these are designated as ending in "i," because they are compound words, they do not follow the "aggi" (fire) paradigm, but rather, as appropriate, they follow the "daṇḍī" (staff-bearer) paradigm, so their forms always end in "ino." Thus, the Pāli text "asāre sāramatino" (those who perceive essence in the non-essential) shows the accusative plural form ending in "ino." The vocative plural form should also be understood as similar. But, sir, in the Kaccāyana grammar, in "atthe visāradamatayo" (those whose minds are skilled in meaning), since the accusative plural reading of a masculine compound word ending in "i" is seen to end in "ayo," should not words like sāramati, etc., also have forms ending in "ayo," like "visāradamatayo"? No, they should not. Because in the Buddha's teaching, a form similar to "visāradamatayo" for masculine compound words ending in "i" is not seen. But, sir, in the Buddha's teaching, "These five advantages, householders..." They are householders, speaking kindly to each other. It is said that in the Buddha's teaching, for masculine nouns ending in -i in compounds, forms like "visāradamatayo" (wise-minded ones) which end in -yo, are not seen. Why is this said? Here it is stated: because of dissimilarity. In words like "gahapati" (householder), the word "pati" (master) is inherently masculine, it does not become masculine after being feminine before the compound. Therefore, in such cases, forms like "gahapatayo, jānipatayo" (householders, spouses) ending in -yo, and "senāpatayo, senāpatino" (generals) ending in -yo and -no, are used as nominative plural and vocative plural. Thus, the commentary text "tattakā senāpatino" (those generals) is seen. However, in words like "sāramati" (wise-minded), "suddhadiṭṭhi" (pure-visioned), "sammādiṭṭhi" (right-visioned), "micchādiṭṭhi" (wrong-visioned), "vajirabuddhi" (diamond-intellect), the words "mati" (mind) and "diṭṭhi" (view) are feminine before the compound, and later become masculine through a Bahubbīhi compound. Therefore, in such cases, forms like "sāramatino, suddhadiṭṭhino, sammādiṭṭhino, micchādiṭṭhino, vajirabuddhino" ending in -no, are used as nominative plural and vocative plural. It should be understood that these are similar to the dative, genitive, and ablative singular forms. How about "seṭṭhi" (chief), "sārathi" (charioteer), "cakkavatti" (wheel-turner), "sāmi" (master)? Here, this distinction should be known: in some texts, the final vowel is long: "seṭṭhī, sārathī, cakkavattī, sāmī". In other texts, the final vowel is short: "seṭṭhi, sārathi, cakkavatti, sāmi". Although the short vowel is seen for these, it is understood that they are pronounced with a short vowel because forms like "seṭṭhino, sārathino" are seen in the nominative case and so on. Therefore, the explanation should be taken as follows: "He has excellent wealth, or a high position." a merchant. One who tames horses and the like, is a charioteer. One who makes the wheel turn, is a wheel-turner. One who has something, is a master. The words for "having that nature" like "horse-tamer" and "having" are of the same form as "daṇḍī" (one having a staff) and "bhūmisāyī" (one sleeping on the ground), ending in -ī, not in -īno. Another explanation: A charioteer is one who drives horses and the like, ending in -ī. Thus it is said: "One who drives men to be tamed is a tamer of men." A wheel-turner is one who turns the wheel. Thus, taking the -ī ending in the sense of agent, and disregarding the -i ending that is sometimes found, in accordance with the Buddha's words, forms like "sārathino" (of the charioteer) and "cakkavattino" (of the wheel-turner) which end in -īno, should be construed in the manner of "daṇḍī" (one having a staff), avoiding forms like "daṇḍinī". Thus, forms like "seṭṭhino" (of the merchant), "sārathino" (of the charioteer), "cakkavattino" (of the wheel-turner), and "sāmino" (of the master) are to be understood as ending in -īno. Here we will give some examples of usage. "Father, three merchants are very helpful to us." And "Having finished their meal, they said, 'We great merchants will go.'" And "The charioteers said." And "Two wheel-turners." And so on. Although in some places a short vowel reading is seen, like "seṭṭhi" and "sārathi", that reading is not naturally short, but should be understood as a shortening of a long vowel. Its declension should be understood in the manner explained. How about "Mahesī"? Although the word "mahesī" is indicated here as ending in -ī, because it has the same declension as the word "isi" (sage), and the word "isi" has the same declension as the word "aggi" (fire), its declension should be made in the manner of "aggi". But isn't the sense of "having that nature" seen here, "Mahesī is one who seeks great aggregates of virtue and other qualities"? Therefore, shouldn't its declension be made in the manner of "daṇḍī", like the word "bhūmisāyī"? It should not be made, because the sense of "having that nature" is not possible. For this word, "Mahesī is one who sought, investigated, and stood having investigated great aggregates of virtue and other qualities." the meaning of 'being' is suitable. It refers only to the occurrence among the Buddhas and other noble ones who have completed their tasks. This word, 'isi', is somewhat similar to 'īsakaṃ', and is pronounced with a long vowel only at the end of a compound, but with a short vowel in the sandhi-viggaha 'mahā isi mahesī'. Since it is appropriate to form its declension by taking the short vowel, the form 'saṅgāyiṃsu mahesayo' (the great sages sang) is seen with an 'i'-ending. Nowhere in the Tipiṭaka, with its commentaries, is the form 'mahesino' seen as a nominative, vocative, or plural, like the dative or genitive singular form. Therefore, even though it is pronounced with a long 'ī', its declension should be made as if pronounced with a short vowel: 'mahesi, mahesī, mahesayo. Mahesiṃ, mahesī, mahesayo. Mahesinā'. Moreover, where the word 'mahesī' refers to a chief queen, it is feminine. In that case, its declension should be made according to the feminine pattern, as will be explained: 'mahesī, mahesī, mahesiyo. Mahesiṃ, mahesī, mahesiyo. Mahesiyā'. What about the word 'hatthī'? If the word 'hatthī' is taken with a long 'ī' as 'hattho assa atthī' (it has a hand/trunk), the form 'hatthino' occurs. Thus, the usage 'vane hatthino' (elephants in the forest) is seen. If the same word, in the same sense, is taken with a short vowel, the form 'hatthayo' occurs. Thus—