English
By mind, by minds. with minds. Of the mind, of minds. From the mind, from the mind, from the mind, with minds, with minds. Of the mind, of minds. In the mind, in the mind, in the mind, in minds. Oh mind, oh minds, oh minds. This is the view of the Great Elder Yamaka. Although here the nominative plural "cittā" (minds) and the locative plural "citte" (in minds) are not present, nevertheless, since similar neuter words ending in -ṃ are seen elsewhere, and since in the Vibhaṅga Pāḷi it is seen "six minds are indeterminate," they should be understood. Therefore, the sequence should be understood as "cittaṃ, cittāni, cittā. Cittaṃ, cittāni, citte." For neuter nouns ending in -ṃ, the nominative and locative plurals sometimes occur as if they were masculine nouns ending in -o. And these, being in apposition with masculine, or their own gender, or no gender, or by themselves, are used in the scriptures. Here, hundreds of Pāḷi passages like these should be seen: "Four foundations of mindfulness. Four right efforts. All garlands come to this. For whom these riches exist. Four great elements. Three faculties. Two faculties. Ten faculties. Two great elements depending on two great elements, five consciousnesses, establishing four factors, I lie on the anthill, forms sounds tastes smells. In forms and sounds and also in tastes. Eye-consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms." Here, however, words like "satipaṭṭhānā" (foundations of mindfulness) should not be taken as having been spoken due to a gender inversion, since the word "satipaṭṭhāna" and others are not seen to be in the masculine gender ending in -o in the place of the first singular. But the words like "cattāro" (four) should be taken as having been spoken due to a gender inversion, since their apposition with neuter nouns ending in -ṃ, such as "satipaṭṭhāna" and others, is seen as a rule. Some might say here: Is it not the case that the usage "the mind is a phenomenon, the mind is a phenomenon, minds are phenomena" and so on Since the masculine form ending in -o for words like satipaṭṭhāna is observed. If that is the case, why did you say "the masculine form ending in -o is not observed in the first singular case for words like satipaṭṭhāna," and why is the neuter form ending in -ṃ exclusively accepted for words like satipaṭṭhāna? Is it not the case that, since we observe "satipaṭṭhāno dhammo, citto dhammo, cittā dhammā," and so on, we should say that in phrases like "cattāro satipaṭṭhānā," words like satipaṭṭhāna are used with a gender inversion? No, it should not be said. Why not? Because even in phrases like "satipaṭṭhāno dhammo, citto dhammo, cittā dhammā," a gender inversion for words like satipaṭṭhāna and citta should not be desired. For there, the Lord, the master of the Dhamma, desiring the Dhamma, spoke "satipaṭṭhāno, citto, cittā" to connect them with the masculine word "dhamma." Indeed, the bare words satipaṭṭhāna and citta are nowhere used in the masculine form ending in -o, but they are used in the neuter form ending in -ṃ. Thus, even in "citto gahapatī," referring to the masculine word "gahapati," the name "citta," which functions as consciousness, is attributed to a person by way of designation, making it a word for a person, and thus "citto" is said. If, however, consciousness itself, called citta, were intended, it would simply be said "cittaṃ." Therefore, in phrases like "citto gahapati, cittā itthī," a gender inversion should not be desired due to the dependent nature of words like citta. And just as here, so too in phrases like "satipaṭṭhāno dhammo, citto dhammo, cittā dhammā," a gender inversion should not be desired. However, in phrases like "cattāro satipaṭṭhānā," there are no words that satipaṭṭhāna and similar words could refer to, which would make them masculine. Therefore, the words "cattāro" and so on should be changed to "cattāri, sabbāni, etāni" in the neuter gender, and then the words "satipaṭṭhānā, sammappadhānā" These should be construed. In such places, some commentators desire elision of a case ending, as in "the signs that appeared before for the Bodhisattas, when they sat on the excellent seat." For elision is non-appearance. Therefore, a construction like "the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, all garlands" should be made. But some, thinking the word 'mālā' here in "all garlands come to me" is feminine, change the masculine word 'sabbe' to the feminine form and explain the meaning as "all garlands (feminine)". Although that seems more appropriate, it should not be accepted. For the Blessed One did not fail to know gender, nor was he unable to say "all garlands come to me" using two feminine words. He who uttered words of differing genders in this way. But the Blessed One, knowing and being able to speak, uttered words of differing genders, "all garlands come to me." Therefore, the masculine word 'sabbe' should be changed to the neuter form 'sabbāni', and construed with the word 'mālā' (which is neuter due to elision of the case ending), like the word 'tīṇindriyā' in the Vibhaṅga Pāḷi, so the meaning "all garlands (neuter)" should be taken, as in "whose are these riches" in some places. For here the meaning is "whose are these riches (neuter)". This should be noted here. The word 'mālā' is of two genders, feminine and neuter. Let its feminine gender stand, being easily understood. But in the neuter, it is "three garlands". And many neuter usages like "they worship the body of the Blessed One with garlands and perfumes" are seen. But if, sir, the word 'mālā' is of two genders, feminine and neuter, what fault is there in supposing the word 'mālā' here in "all garlands come to me" to be feminine? There is indeed a fault, due to the absence of concord between a feminine word and a masculine pronominal word. But for a neuter word with a masculine... because of the observed apposition with a word that is not an ending. And for this reason, expressions like "these are riches" are often seen in the scriptures. Here, however, they might say, "words like 'riches' are masculine due to a gender reversal, because they are conjoined with appositional words like 'these'." No, these are neuter. For if words like "riches" were masculine, then in some instances, in place of the singular, there would be words like "riches" ending in -o, conjoined with appositional words like "this" ending in -o. But since such forms do not exist, words like "riches, faculties, consciousnesses" are indeed neuter gender. This method is only found in the plural number. For neuter words, appearing like distinct masculine forms, can function with masculine words, just as neuters (eunuchs) wearing men's clothes can function with men; this is what should be understood here. Or perhaps they might turn the previously stated argument around again and say this: "In 'Citta the householder,' 'Citta the woman,' and so on, 'Citta' (masculine) means 'he has a mind,' 'Citta' (feminine) means 'she has a mind,' just as 'faithful' (masculine) and 'faithful' (feminine) are to be taken in the sense of 'having,' thus a gender reversal should be accepted. But in 'mindfulness the dhamma,' 'mind the dhamma,' 'minds the dhammas,' and so on, since such a meaning cannot be taken, it should be said 'mindfulness the dhamma,' 'mind the dhamma,' 'minds the dhammas' (all neuter forms for the first word), but due to a gender reversal, 'mindfulness the dhamma,' 'mind the dhamma,' 'minds the dhammas' (all masculine forms for the first word) is said, and so a gender reversal should be desired." That is not so, because in "Citta the householder" and so on, and in "mindfulness the dhamma" and so on, the words Citta and Satipaṭṭhāna, etc., are always desired to be masculine in relation to householder, dhamma, etc. Thus, even the word 'merit,' which is exclusively neuter, becomes masculine as 'merit the formation' when referring to formations. Similarly, the words 'lotus,' 'auspicious sign,' etc., which are exclusively neuter, also... By referring to the meaning, "The Blessed One is a lotus, the goddess is a lotus, the Blessed One is auspicious, the woman is auspicious" thus masculine and feminine genders arise. Even exclusively masculine words, like Kālāvaka and Gaṅgeyya, denoting specific elephants, by referring to their family, become neuter gender, as in "Kālāvaka and Gaṅgeyya." Indeed, by referring to them, in the commentaries, a masculine designation like "Kālāvaka and Gaṅgeyya" is seen. Thus, by referring to those specific meanings, destroying the original gender, and establishing another gender, a designation is seen. Not all those genders arise as other genders by means of taddhita (derivational suffixes). Rather, they arise as other genders only by referring to 'gahapati' (householder) and 'dhamma' (doctrine), etc. Therefore, in phrases like: "These are your dead sons, you who ate them before. Call the sons of Sivi. Having heard such doctrines, the wise become serene." Only in these cases should a gender change be accepted, because the words like 'dhamma' mentioned do not refer to anything else. But a gender change should not be accepted for words like 'citta' in phrases like: "Citta the householder, Citta the woman, the Dhamma of mindfulness, the mind's Dhamma, the mind's qualities," because they refer to the householder, Dhamma, etc. This conclusion should be understood here. And this is a point of confusion for some. Therefore, for the establishment of the True Dhamma, this rule should be carefully borne in mind by sons of good families endowed with faith. But Acariya Dhammapāla, who resided in Badaratittha Vihara, said: "In the Pāli passage 'immeasurable words, immeasurable letters, immeasurable syllables,' it should be understood that a gender change has been made in 'words, letters, syllables'." Here too, we say that "padā" is neuter gender, just like "indriyā, rūpā" and so on, because it is not a first singular ending in -o.