English
Others say: “There is nothing called gender in ultimate reality. It is merely a conventional usage, established by worldly agreement, that is called gender.” This is the conclusion here. A word can be of all genders: *taṭaṃ* (neuter), *taṭī* (feminine), *taṭo* (masculine). If gender were ultimately real, how could such mutually contradictory forms be included in one thing? Therefore, it should be understood that: the usage of an unclear form for any meaning is feminine gender, the usage of a clear form is masculine gender, the usage of a form that is neither is neuter gender. Here, however, the state of being an unclear form, etc., should be taken in terms of a connected series of nominal words, not in terms of individual words. Thus, in “girl, man, mind,” and “girls, men, minds,” the state of being an unclear form, etc., is not seen in each individual word. But since the state of being a clear form, etc., is established in terms of a connected series, then, by virtue of being parts of a whole, the state of being an unclear form, etc., is indeed established for each individual word. Some, however, without considering the connected series called a string of nominal words, desire the state of being an unclear form, etc., in terms of individual words. They should be told: “If the state of being an unclear form, etc., were in each individual word, then in that case, words like ‘girl, men, teacher, virtuous, king’ would have similar sounds due to the sound of ‘ā’, and words like ‘man, teachers, girls’ would have similar sounds due to the sound of ‘o’, and words like ‘mind, man, girl’ would have similar sounds due to the sound of ‘anusāra’ (nasalization), thus, there would be a possibility of mutually similar sounds.” how could there be an unclear mode of expression? Even if they say this: “It could be so, but their difference is hard to discern.” They should be told: “Do not say that, even Nibbāna, which is harder to know, is known through a person capable of explaining it. Therefore, speak after careful examination.” And having said this, they should then be asked a further question: “What gender are the words ‘bodhi’ and ‘āyu’?” Knowing, they will say: “The word ‘bodhi’ is both feminine and masculine, and the word ‘āyu’ is both neuter and masculine; these words are of two genders.” They should be told: “If the words ‘bodhi’ and ‘āyu’ are of two genders, then how could there be an unclear mode of expression and a clear mode of expression for two words ‘bodhi’ established as a single word, with absolutely identical sound? And how could there be both a mode of expression free from both (unclear/clear) and a clear mode of expression for two words ‘āyu’ established as a single word, with absolutely identical sound?” When told this, they will surely find nothing further and be speechless. But those skilled in words, taking the method from grammar, say: “That which is ‘eso’, ‘esā’, ‘etaṃ’, and in which meanings there is common usage among people; ‘Feminine, masculine, neuter’ are those nouns called.” Their intention is this: “‘This man,’ ‘this woman,’ ‘this king,’ ‘this female,’ ‘this creeper,’ ‘this neuter thing,’ ‘this mind’”— in such meanings as man and so on, in which there is common usage among people with ‘eso,’ ‘esā,’ ‘etaṃ,’ in those meanings those nouns are called “masculine, feminine, neuter genders,” and through that, others too. By those who say this, this distinction was not shown: “By this particular mode, ‘eso,’ ‘esā,’ ‘etaṃ’ and other nouns obtain masculine and so on gender.” But it was shown by those grammarians who know the method of the Dhamma: “An unclear mode of expression of any meaning whatsoever is feminine,” and so on. Some, however, say: "A term that expresses meanings of unclear form is feminine gender." This should not be accepted. For if a term that expresses meanings of unclear form is feminine gender, then terms like 'woman', 'wife', 'thorn', 'bush', and so on, would also be feminine genders, because their meanings are of unclear form. If, however, a term that expresses meanings of clear form is masculine gender, then terms like 'deity', 'faith', 'knowledge', and so on, would also be masculine genders, because their meanings are of clear form. Or again, if a term that expresses meanings of unclear form is feminine gender, and a term that expresses meanings of clear form is masculine gender, then it would not be possible to speak of one and the same thing with two genders at one moment – "You are a yakkha wishing my welfare, You are a deity wishing my benefit; I will do that word for you, You are my teacher." And if a term that expresses meanings of neither clear nor unclear form is neuter gender, then for things of neither clear nor unclear form, like grass and trees, there being no rule "this is such-and-such," the gender assignment would be contradictory. Moreover, by saying "gem of wisdom" (neuter) and "the pair of disciples Sāriputta and Moggallāna" (neuter), the meanings of those terms would also be said to be of neither clear nor unclear form. Moreover, even one shore would not be spoken of with three genders: "taṭaṃ (neuter), taṭī (feminine), taṭo (masculine)." And even one knowledge would not be spoken of with three genders: "paññāṇaṃ (neuter), paññā (feminine), pajānanā (feminine), amoho (masculine)," and so on. Therefore, not accepting that method, only the method stated before should be accepted. In the world, the lower body of women is clear, the upper body is unclear, the breast flesh is unclear, and even their movements, etc., are unclear. Indeed, women, when walking, walk unclearly, when standing, lying down, sitting, eating, consuming, they consume unclearly. Even seeing a man acting unclearly, people say: "He walks, stands, lies down, sits, eats, consumes like a woman." Thus, just as women mostly... Because they are of an unclear nature, so too, whatever terms for any conscious or unconscious thing are mostly of an unclear nature, these are called feminine gender. For example? "Maiden, deity, daughter, grass, faith, night, woman, gruel, bride," and so on. For men, however, the lower body is unclear, the upper body is clear, the chest muscles are clear, and even their movements are clear. Indeed, men walking, walk clearly; standing, lying down, sitting, eating, they eat clearly. Even seeing a woman performing movements clearly, they say, "She walks like a man," and so on. Thus, just as men are mostly of a clear nature, so too, whatever terms for any conscious or unconscious thing are mostly of a clear nature, these are called masculine gender. For example? "Man, woman (female folk), harem, water, tree, delusion, teacher," and so on. And just as neuter beings are of a nature free from both, so too, whatever terms for any conscious or unconscious thing are of a nature free from both, these are called neuter gender. For example? "Mind, form, women's quarters, wife, drama, jewel, knowledge, bone, life," and so on. Thus, for all nominal terms – Clear and unclear natures, A nature free from both; This is the characteristic of gender, To be known from its usage. This difficult-to-penetrate place, a dense forest, made clear of bushes and tangles, has been shown; it should be well considered. Thus, since the feminine gender, etc., arises from the nature of terms being of an unclear nature, etc., dependent on context for all nominal words, so too, for both words "go" (cow/ox), their respective feminine gender, etc., should be understood from their nature of being of an unclear nature, etc., dependent on context. This is the determined classification of nominal word series for feminine gender ending in -o. The nature of ending in -o, the feminine ending in -o. The gender section is completed. Thus, in every way, the six kinds of feminine genders, ending in -ā, -i, -u, and -o, are completely understood. But among these, the variation that is sometimes seen for some -ā ending and -ī ending words, by means of the substitution of -e for the nominative singular ending, is now stated. For example – You, Radha, do not know, When midnight has not yet come; You lament uselessly, At the dispassionate Kosiyāyanī. In this Radha Jātaka, where it should be said as "virattā" (ending in -ā), it is said as "viratte" by means of the substitution of -e for the nominative singular ending. Similarly, where it should be said as "kosiyāyanī" (ending in -ī), it is said as "kosiyāyane" by means of the substitution of -e for the nominative singular ending. Therefore, the commentator explained the meaning as: "viratte kosiyāyane means 'our mother, the brahmin woman Kosiyāyanī, became dispassionate towards our father, devoid of love'." But, sir, should it not be said that in Pāli, because of "viratte" and "kosiyāyane" by means of the substitution of -e for the nominative singular ending, "there is also a feminine gender ending in -e"? It should not be said. Because those forms are special forms derived from -ā and -ī endings. For, being established by means of substitution, there is no separate feminine gender ending in -e. Therefore, only the aforementioned six kinds of feminine genders should be understood. Thus, of feminine genders, Adorned with various methods; This word-garland has been divided by me, For the sake of the teaching of the Self-Existent One. This sun of Saddanīti, With its multitude of rays of excellent decisions; Dispelling the darkness of doubt, Whose lotus of intellect would it not make bloom? Thus, in the Saddanīti treatise, made for the sake of skill Of those discerning in the ways of expression In the nine-limbed, with commentaries, three Piṭakas, The division of the word-garland of feminine nouns The Eighth Chapter. 9. Word-garland of Neuter Nouns Now, having made the opinion of former teachers as a guide, we shall state the word-garland of nouns for neuter genders ending in a nasal, of the basic form like "bhūtaṃ" and so on – Mind, minds. Mind, minds.