English
the nominal declension should be constructed. How? "Bhavābhavaṃ, bhavābhavāni. Bhavābhavaṃ, bhavābhavāni. Bhavābhavena, bhavābhavehi, bhavābhavebhi" and so on, should be constructed in a varied way. These are neuter singular and plural forms; The declension, when compounded, should be explained as such. Both the compounded word, and the uncompounded one; The word 'bhavābhava' in two ways, thus the wise one should distinguish. Neuter when compounded, masculine in other instances; But neuter mostly, should be said in the singular. "Existence and non-existence," thus the wise one should state the meaning of the compound; "Existence from non-existence," should be stated as the meaning of the uncompounded. It should be known as masculine, due to its use with 'nissakka'; Thus one should especially know, the word 'bhavābhava', being wise. Just as here for the word 'bhavābhava' the nominal declension is constructed, so too for "action and non-action, fruit and non-fruit" and so on the nominal declension should be constructed. Their meaning too, as appropriate, should be stated. Mostly these are in the singular form. Thus indeed, the special characteristic of the word 'bhavābhava' and others should be seen. Island of Lanka, Island of Lanka (acc.), by the Island of Lanka, for the Island of Lanka, Laṅ from the island of Lanka, from the island of Lanka, from the island of Lanka, of the island of Lanka, in the island of Lanka, in the island of Lanka, in the island of Lanka, O island of Lanka! This is a declension of a compound noun. It should also be applied to non-compound forms. Lanka, the island, Lanka, the island, by Lanka, the island, to Lanka, the island, from Lanka, the island, from Lanka, the island, from Lanka, the island, of Lanka, the island, in Lanka, the island, in Lanka, the island, in Lanka, the island, O Lanka, the island! This is a declension of a non-compound noun. This method is not applicable to "Jambudīpa" because the word "Jambu" alone does not refer to Jambudīpa, just as the word "Lanka" alone refers to Laṅkādīpa. However, this method of declension for non-compound nouns is especially useful for poets in poetic composition, and also for the Dispensation. Thus, ancient poetic compositions are seen in this non-compound form: "I worship the peak of Samantakūṭa, shining on the island of Lanka; the abode of the lord Sumanā, that path of the Buddha's footprint." In the Dispensation too, a Pāli passage in the non-compound form is seen: "A divine chariot appeared, for the glorious Videha," and so on. Just as this method is not applicable to "Jambudīpa," similarly, it is not applicable to "Nāgadīpa" and so on, just as the word "Jambu" alone does not refer to Jambudīpa, the word "Nāga" alone does not refer to Nāgadīpa, and so on. But, sir, in the ancient poetic composition, "We, the people of Jambu, worship that tooth of the Buddha, whose radiance is like the Jambu river," is the word "Jambu" said to refer to Jambudīpa, with the meaning of "people of Jambudīpa" being possible? It is true that the meaning "people of Jambudīpa" is possible, but the word "Jambu" alone does not convey the meaning of Jambudīpa. Rather, when "people of Jambudīpa" should be said, to avoid the fault of excessive syllables in a verse, the word "dīpa" was omitted, and "Jambunarā" was said. Thus, the word "Jambu," said by way of elision of the latter part, in relation to the word "nara" and by the power of the compound, is capable of expressing the meaning "people of Jambudīpa," but not by itself in a non-compound form. out of season, for indeed, when "Jambu" is said, Jambudīpa is not understood, but only the Jambu tree is understood. But sir, is this method used: "a crow is a servant, a crow a servant, by a crow a servant"? Is it not used? It is used. By the word "crow," a servant named Crow is spoken of. If so, in "Jambudīpa" also, taking the meaning "an island named Jambu," is this method used: "Jambu an island, Jambu an island, by Jambu an island"? It is not used, because the word "Jambu" does not apply to an island in the sense of a designation. The word "Jambu" applies to a tree in the sense of a designation, not to an island. Just as the term "citta" applies to a householder named Citta and also to the mind, as in "Citta the householder, Citta the mind, the mental," and so on. And just as the term "kusa" applies to a king named Kusa and also to kusa grass, as in: "Taking splendor, Kusa the jewel Verocana; King Kusa, mighty, went to Kusāvatī; Just as kusa, badly grasped, cuts the hand itself," and so on. Similarly, the word "kāka" (crow) applies to a crow and also to a servant with that name, as in "the crow caws, a servant named Kāka travels sixty yojanas," and so on. But the word "Jambu," unlike the words "citta," "kusa," "kāka" in the cases of householder, mind, etc., does not apply to an island in the sense of a designation. Therefore, only the method explained above should be considered. Just as in this case, the nominal word-series for the word "Laṅkādīpa" is constructed by compounding and by analysis, similarly, the nominal word-series for "Pubbavidehadīpa, Aparagoyānadīpa, Uttarakurudīpa, Assayujanakkhatta, Citramāsa, Vessantararājā, Setavattha, Dibbaratha," and so on, should be constructed by compounding and by analysis. And it should be understood that the words Pubbavideha and so on refer to Pubbavidehadīpa and so on. And it should be understood that when there is occasion to use the compound words "Dibbaratha" and so on, they should be made separate by analysis. For indeed, by analysis, "a divine chariot," and so on, the two words are in apposition. When there is the state of being connected with individual inflection due to the 'i' ending, the quality of easy pronunciation for maintaining the meter in verses arises. And this method is established as suitable for the teaching. For example, in the scriptures, many Pāḷi passages like "A divine chariot appeared, for the glorious Videha" are seen, thus words like 'Laṅkādīpa' become distinctive. Now, the distinctiveness of Bodhi, Sandhi, and others is spoken of – Bodhi, sandhi, vibhattā, āyu, dhātu, and pajāpati; Dāmā, dāma, and also saddhā, saddha, taṭa, taṭī, taṭo. Byañjana, byañjano, attho, attha, akkhara, akkharo; Ajjava, ajjavo, and also, maddava, gārava. Vaco, vacī, and others, are similar in form; Two or three genders arise, as far as possible, one should state. Among these, concerning the word 'bodhi', as in "Bodhi the prince," and as in "the noble disciple is called 'bodhī', an 'aṅga' (factor) of that 'bodhi' is 'bojjhaṅga'," thus for the word referring to a person, "bodhi, bodhī, bodhayo. Bodhiṃ, bodhī, bodhayo. Bodhinā" the nominal declension occurs in the masculine gender, following the pattern of 'aggi' (fire). But for the word referring to a tree, path, Nibbāna, or omniscience, "bodhi, bodhī, bodhiyo. Bodhiṃ, bodhī, bodhiyo. Bodhiyā" the nominal declension occurs in the feminine gender, following the pattern of 'ratti' (night). Some, however, say that "the word 'bodhi' referring to a tree is masculine." That should be considered, as it appears to contradict the scriptures. For in the scriptures, the masculine gender of the word 'bodhi' referring to a tree is not seen, but it is seen for the word referring to a person. And if the word 'bodhi' referring to a tree were masculine, like 'sāla', 'dhava', 'khadira', etc., then words like 'jambū', 'simbalī', 'pāṭalī', which refer to trees, would also be masculine. But for them, and for this (bodhi), even when referring to trees, the masculine gender is not found. If indeed the word 'bodhi' referring to a tree were masculine, then the word 'bodhi' referring to Nibbāna and omniscience would be neuter, like 'nibbāna' and so on, in the neuter gender... by the declaration of the meaning, such as Nibbāna, which was indicated by the Teacher. Those who say, “The word ‘bodhi,’ meaning a tree, is masculine,” I think they say it, having in mind the meaning stated as, “‘Bodhi’ means the knowledge of the four paths, and since the Blessed One attained it there, the tree is also called ‘bodhi,’” and by way of derivation, “‘Bodhi’ is that by which one awakens.” It should not be seen this way. Rather, it should be seen this way: When the teachers say, “‘Bodhi’ means the knowledge of the four paths, and since the Blessed One attained it there, the tree is also called ‘bodhi,’” they are taking the word for knowledge, which is feminine, ‘bodhi,’ as the name for knowledge, and by conceiving another designation for the meaning, they have superimposed it onto the tree, which is the place of awakening, and the tree is called ‘bodhi.’ Therefore, in such instances, no attention should be paid to derivation. For the derivation, “‘Bodhi’ is that by which one awakens,” cannot make the word ‘bodhi,’ meaning a tree, masculine, because usage is established by convention. Therefore, the followers of the teaching refer to the tree, which is itself not bodhi, as ‘bodhi’ by the feminine usage established by convention, because it is the place of the attainment of bodhi, or by the usage of the fruit, because it is the cause of bodhi. It is precisely with this meaning in mind that it was said, “‘Bodhi’ means the knowledge of the four paths, and since the Blessed One attained it there, the tree is also called ‘bodhi.’” Thus, the name of the tree is used in the feminine form, ‘bodhi.’ Therefore, the Venerable Sāriputta, the General of the Dhamma, the secondary Wheel-Turner, skilled in usage, said in feminine usage, “The true designation, which is ‘Buddha,’ is obtained by the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, at the root of the bodhi tree, together with the attainment of omniscience.” And also here and there, “the branch of the bodhi,” and “for what reason is it the Great Bodhi? And whose is it?” “That, as soon as it was released from his hand, rose eighty cubits into the sky; And having risen, it Then it released,