English
Even when "tassā" is seen as an instrumental form, other instrumental forms like "sabbassā," "katarissā," etc., even if not appearing in the Pāli, are indeed understood as seen, because they share a similar grammatical function with each other, and what is appropriate, even if unseen, can be inferred from what is seen. "From whom am I lacking by what?" Here, "kassā" is an ablative form. Even when "kassā" is seen as an ablative form, other ablative forms like "sabbassā," "katarissā," etc., even if not appearing in the Pāli, are indeed understood as seen. "A certain monk in the Great Wood at Vesālī enticed a monkey with bait, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. And a certain monk becomes attached in mind to a certain woman." Here, "tassā" and "aññatarissā" are locative forms. Even when they are seen, other locative forms like "sabbassā," "katarissā," etc., even if not appearing in the Pāli, are indeed understood as seen. But sir, in "with that maiden," this "tassā" is said by case-inversion. Its meaning is "tāyā." Likewise, "From whom am I lacking by what?" this too is said by case-inversion. Its meaning is "kāyā." Even in "attached in mind to a certain woman," this "aññatarissā" is said by case-inversion. Its meaning is "aññatarissaṃ," is it not? That is not so. Because in such contexts of prose passages, case-inversion is not to be desired. But sir, prose... Even in the context of this word, in phrases like "Gotami, give to the Sangha," do the teachers say it means "to the Sangha" by case inversion? True. Yet in such places, two meanings arise, because locative and dative are desired as container and recipient. For example, for one who wishes to say "Give to the Sangha" (dative), the saying "Give in the Sangha" (locative) is not contradictory; it is indeed appropriate. Similarly, for one who wishes to say "Give in the Sangha" (locative), the saying "Give to the Sangha" (dative) is also not contradictory; it is indeed appropriate. Just as, even though 'alābu' and 'lābu' exist separately, in the phrase "gourds sink, stones float," for the sake of preserving the meter, the elision of 'a' occurs, and the elision of the letter is mentally understood. Similarly, even in phrases like "Gotami, give to the Sangha," having mentally conceived a case inversion, the teachers desire the inverted meaning "to the Sangha." Therefore, in phrases like "Gotami, give to the Sangha," "Having given a boon to Vessantara," a case inversion is appropriate. But in phrases like "to that girl" (genitive), it is not appropriate. And indeed, case inversion is mostly desired in verses like "My giving will never cease." Still, one might say, that Pāli passage which you brought forth, "he practices sexual intercourse with her," that is not a locative usage. For this word "tassā" is a genitive ending word, and the meaning "he practices sexual intercourse in the sexual organ of that female monkey" is possible, isn't it? That is not so, because in the commentary it is said, "'tassā' is a locative word." Furthermore, in the commentary itself, in this passage: "he trains, fulfilling the training in that training, and he trains, not transgressing in that training rule," the word "tassā" is stated as a locative word. But sir, is it not that even there, "tassā" is a genitive word in the locative sense by way of case inversion? "You are exceedingly skilled in the method of case inversion, you are indeed a case-inverter!" thus should you be told. You who... You transgress even the Pāli spoken by the elders who compiled it, you transgress even the words of the commentaries, we will bring you another explanatory Pāli text. If you are of the wise kind, you will come to understanding. If you are of the unwise kind, not letting go of your own grasp, you will not come to understanding, so pay attention to the Teaching and listen. "Therefore, let beings train right here" explaining the meaning of this Pāli, by the venerable Sāriputta, the chief disciple, general of the Dhamma, who was like the Teacher, with analytical knowledge, said "here" (idha) meaning "in this view, in this patience, in this liking, in this taking, in this Dhamma." Thus, the word "imissā" (in this) was spoken in the locative case. For it is understood as a form of the seventh case (locative) because it expresses the meaning of the word "idha" (here). Thus, even when "imissā" is seen as a locative form, other locative forms like "sabbassā" (in all) and "katarissā" (in which) are also considered seen in the Pāli, even if not explicitly present. We will bring you another Pāli text spoken directly by the Omniscient One, compassionate to all worlds, pay attention and listen: "Monks, it is impossible, there is no opportunity, for two Arahants, Fully Self-Awakened Ones, to arise in one world-system, neither before nor after each other." Here, "ekissā" (in one) is a locative form. Thus, even when "ekissā" is seen as a locative form, other locative forms like "sabbassā" (in all) and "katarissā" (in which) are also considered seen in the Pāli, even if not explicitly present. For not all usages are seen in their exact form in the Pāli and so on, some are seen, some are not seen at all. Here it is said – Words like "tassā", like "tāya", should be known in five places, by the wise, from the third case onwards. But for the three (feminine) nouns, it occurs by way of substitution; forms like "tassā" and "kassā", occur in the third case and onwards. Here is the explanation according to the Pāli method and the commentary method – He goes with that maiden, it was done by that maiden, he gives to that maiden, he departs from that maiden, This maiden is inferior to that maiden, this maiden is superior to that maiden, this belongs to that maiden, it is established for that maiden. This rare rule should be learned well, having paid careful attention, for the long-lastingness of the Teaching. Thus, in all ways, according to the Pāli commentaries, the unclear usage of the feminine gender should be understood. Having understood this, a wise person should conclude that "there is a difference in gender due to the specific declension patterns of the two words 'go' (cow)." For the word 'go' is not a clearly used word by necessity, like "man, woman, harem, water, teacher," etc., nor is it an unclearly used word by necessity, like "maiden, night, woman," etc. Thus, in the masculine gender, it is a clearly used word, like a root word, but in the feminine gender, it is an unclearly used word. Therefore, to make this meaning known to listeners, and for the attainment of extremely subtle and refined knowledge, the unique nominal declension pattern of the feminine gender 'go' ending in 'o' has been stated as "go, gāvī, gāvo. Gāviṃ, gavo," etc. Here, "gāviṃ" appears once, "go, gohī" etc. appear twice, "gāvo, gāvī, gāva" appear thrice, "gāviyā" appears five times. Thus, the unclear form is seen here in the words that appear five times, and this should be taken as the feminine gender. For apart from this method, there is no other method by which the word 'go' could be feminine. Therefore, this view of ours should be essentially accepted. However, the view of those teachers who speak of the non-distinction in the declension patterns of the two words 'go', masculine and feminine, is not to be essentially accepted. For if the declension pattern of the word 'go' in the masculine gender is similar to that of the word 'go' in the feminine gender, it would be like imagining masculine and feminine genders by equally applying the nominal declension patterns of the word 'mātugāma' (woman). Here, we will explain some gender agreement – of the nominal declension pattern of the masculine word 'go' ending in 'o' mentioned below. For example, "gāvuṃ, gāvaṃ, gāvenā" come once. "go, gohī" come twice. But "gāvo, gavo, gava" like "satthā, rājā" come thrice. There are no words here that come four or five times. Due to their absence, a clear pattern is seen. In the declension of "purisa" (man), "puriso, purisa" come once. "purise" comes twice. "purisā" comes thrice. Thus, a clear pattern is seen. However, in the declension of "kaññā" (maiden), "kaññaṃ" comes once. "kaññāhī" comes twice. "kaññāyo" comes thrice. "kaññā" comes four times. "kaññāyā" comes five times. Thus, an unclear pattern is seen. But for the masculine "satthā" (teacher), "sattharī" comes once. "satthū" comes twice. "satthā" comes thrice. Thus, a clear pattern is seen. In this way, in all masculine and feminine declensions, both clear and unclear patterns should be understood. In the declension of neuter nouns, "cittenā" comes once. "cittaṃ" comes twice. "cittānī" comes thrice. The same applies to "aṭṭhi" (bone), "āyu" (life), etc. Here, a pattern transcending both is seen. Although it seems a clear pattern is observed here due to the absence of words that come four or five times, nevertheless, because neuter words like "cittaṃ, aṭṭhi, āyū" do not behave like masculine words such as "gacchaṃ, aggi, bhikkhū" (which would show a clear pattern), and do not behave like feminine words such as "ratti, yāgū" (which would show an unclear pattern), but rather, transcending both, they take forms in a specific, gradual declension series, such as "cittaṃ, cittāni, cittā. Cittaṃ, cittāni, citte", therefore, their pattern should be seen as transcending both. The three-fold pattern in the Sanskrit language is not found. Therefore, it is not mentioned in any grammar texts. But it is found in the natural language of Magadhi, spoken by the Conqueror, which is the root language of all beings. Thus, it is stated in the Niruttimañjūsā: What then is this called gender? Some indeed say: “A woman has breasts and hair, A man has a beard. The middle of the two is this, The other is neither,” Because it is said, “distinctive breasts and hair are gender.” This is not always true, as rivers, halls, and trees have no connection with breasts and so on.