English
in taddhita, 'dvayaṃ dvayaṃ' (two by two). Tayo, tayo, tīhi, tībhi, tiṇṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ, tīhi, tībhi, tiṇṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ, tīsu. These are masculine forms. Tisso, ti sso, tīhi, tībhi, tissannaṃ, tīhi, tībhi, tissannaṃ, tīsu. These are the feminine forms. In the Cūḷanirutti, "tissannannaṃ" appears for the dative and genitive plural, but in the Niruttipiṭaka, it is "tiṇṇannaṃ". If these are repeatedly examined in the three Piṭakas with their commentaries, and found, they should be accepted. Tīṇi, tīṇi, tīhi, tībhi, tiṇṇaṃ, tiṇṇannaṃ, tīhi, tībhi, tiṇṇaṃ, tiṇṇannaṃ, tīsu. These are the neuter forms. However, in some Pāli passages, the elision of the ṇ in the word tīṇi also occurs, as in "dve vāti vā udakaphusitānī" (two drops of water). "Monks, because the three faculties were developed and cultivated by the bhikkhu Piṇḍolabhāradvāja, he declared gnosis" – this is an example of the existence of the word "tiṇṇannaṃ". The forms that have been stated, "tisso, tīṇi, tayo"; In compounds, these should be of the nature of "ti". Because in a compound with "tissa", together with the following word, one should indicate "tivedanaṃ" (three feelings), "ticittaṃ" (three minds), and "tilokaṃ" (three worlds). Here, the neuter gender is commendable due to common usage; but some also desire the masculine here, as in "tibhavo khāyate" (the three existences are consumed). Cattāro, caturo, cattāro, caturo, catūhi, catūbhi, catubbhi, catunnaṃ, catūhi, catūbhi, catubbhi, catunnaṃ, catūsu. These are the masculine forms. Catasso, catasso, catūhi, catūbhi, catubbhi, catassannaṃ, catunnaṃ, catūhi, catūbhi, catubbhi, catassannaṃ, catunnaṃ, catūsu. These are the feminine forms. It is stated that the word "catunnaṃ" is seen in the feminine gender in the Cūḷanirutti, the Niruttipiṭaka, the Pāli canon, and the commentaries. Thus, in the Cūḷanirutti, "catunnaṃ" appears in the feminine gender, and in the Niruttipiṭaka, "catunnaṃ kaññānaṃ" (of four maidens) appears. In the Pāli canon, in the Soṇadaṇḍa Sutta and others, "the ascetic Gotama is dear and pleasing to the four assemblies" appears. And in the commentaries, in the Suttanta commentary, "catūhi acchariyabbhutadh endowed with us, dear and pleasing to the four assemblies.” In the Sattilaṅgha Jātaka Commentary it is said: “His teacher knows the skill of leaping over four spears.” Four, four, by four, by four, by four, of four, by four, by four, by four, of four, in four. These are neuter forms. “Cattāro” (masculine), “catasso” (feminine), and “cattārī” (neuter) are sounded; The form in a compound state, becomes of a four-fold nature. Here, a skilled grammarian should indicate the examples in order: “four-fold, four-gabled, four truths.” These, starting from two, are always pronominal plurals, not singulars. However, in the Cūḷanirutti, “catassannaṃ” is stated for all three genders, which seems to be not acceptable for consideration. Now, the nominal paradigms of the words “tumha” (you) and “amha” (I/we) are stated. In these, when one speaks of the person addressed, the “tumha” forms are used. You (sg.), you (sg.), you (pl.). You (sg.), you (sg.), you (sg.), you (sg.), you (pl.). By you (sg.), by you (sg.), by you (pl.), by you (pl.). To you (sg.), of you (sg.), of you (pl.), of you (pl.). From you (sg.), from you (sg.), from you (pl.), from you (pl.). To you (sg.), of you (sg.), of you (pl.), of you (pl.). In you (sg.), in you (sg.), in you (pl.). Here, they should be joined with phrases like “you man, you woman, you mind.” In reference to oneself, the “amha” forms are used. I, I, we, we. Me, me, us. By me, by us, by us. To me, of me, of us, of us, of us. From me, from us, from us. To me, of me, of us, of us, of us. In me, in us, in us. Here, however, from the Pāli passage “kathaṃ amhe karomase” (how shall we do?), it should be understood that just as there is a reflexive form “tumhe,” there is also a reflexive form “amhe.” Another form “ahakaṃ” should also be desired. For its existence, the Pāli passage “ahakañca cittavasānugā bhāsissaṃ” (and I, following my mind, will speak) is an example. Here, “ahakaṃ” means “ahaṃ” (I). Here, it should be joined with phrases like “I man, I maiden, I mind.” should be joined. These are forms common to all three genders. However, in Kaccāyana’s Cūḷanirutti and Niruttipiṭaka, “tumhākaṃ amhākaṃ” is stated as the plural of the second case. In Kaccāyana, “tumhānaṃ amhānaṃ” is stated as the plural of the first and second cases, and “tumhaṃ amhaṃ” is stated as the singular of the fourth and sixth cases, and also as the plural of the first and second cases. But in Cūḷanirutti and Niruttipiṭaka, “tumhaṃ amhaṃ” is stated as the singular of the second case, and “tumhe amhe” is stated as the plural of the fourth and sixth cases. These should be examined, and if they are found in the suttas with their commentaries, they should be adopted. As for the words tumha and amha, when compounded with subsequent words, usages like “maṃdīpā” and so on arise from the mouth of the Tathāgata and others. For instance, from the mouth of the Tathāgata: “Ete gāmaṇi maṃdīpā maṃleṇā maṃsaraṇā” (These, chief, are my islands, my refuges, my shelters). From the mouth of those skilled in grammar: “tayyogo mayyogo” (your connection, my connection). And in poetry, from the mouth of poets: “tvaṃmukhaṃ kamaleneva, tulyaṃ nāññena kenacī” (Your face is like a lotus, not like anything else), and “candena tvaṃmukhaṃ tulyaṃ” (Your face is like the moon). Here, “I am an island for these” means maṃdīpā. “I am a refuge for these” means maṃleṇā. Similarly, maṃsaraṇā. “Connection with you” means tayyogo, meaning connection with the word tumha. “Connection with me” means mayyogo, meaning connection with the word amha. “Your face” means tvaṃmukhaṃ. It should also be explained in the plural sense as “tumhākaṃ mukhaṃ tvaṃmukhaṃ” (your faces). And here, from seeing “maṃdīpā” and so on in Pāli, and “tvaṃmukhaṃ” in poetry, tvaṃvaṇṇo (your color), tvaṃsaro (your sound), maṃmukhaṃ (my face), maṃvaṇṇo (my color), maṃsaro (my sound) and so on should be taken. There, “You are an island for these” means tvaṃdīpā, or “You (plural) are islands for these” means tvaṃdīpā. “Your color” means tvaṃvaṇṇo. “My face” means maṃmukhaṃ, or “Our face” means maṃmukhaṃ—these are the explanations. This method applies to other similar instances. In compounds, tumha and amha become with subsequent words: “tvaṃmukhaṃ” and “maṃdīpā,” “tayyogo mayyogo.” Here it is asked, “Is this all for the words tumha and amha?” form, or is there something else?” There are “te me” and so on. If so, why were the word-chains not stated separately? There is a reason for not stating them. Here is that reason: “Te me vo no” are forms, which are separate from the word; Therefore, they are not mentioned by me in the nominal lists. Here, we will explain the meaning of the words “me,” “vo,” and “no.” The meaning of “te” has already been stated. Since the commentators say that the word “mayaṃ” is used where “mayā” should be, and “mayā” where “mayaṃ” should be, we also speak in the same way. The word “mayaṃ” appears in the sense of “we” in phrases like “permitted and acknowledged, we are both endowed with the three knowledges.” In “having relied on us, born of gold, they are small and tender,” it is in the sense of designation. In “mind-made, feeding on joy, self-luminous,” and so on, it is in the sense of production. “Mind-made” means produced by the mind alone, without an external cause. In “I wish I could make a hut entirely of clay,” and so on, it is in the sense of modification. In “made of giving, made of virtue,” and so on, it is merely for filling out the phrase. In “your seat is splendid, made of gold,” it should be understood in the sense of modification or merely for filling out the phrase. For when the meaning is that gold itself is golden, then the word “mayaṃ” should be understood in the sense of modification, meaning “golden” is a modification of gold. It can also be said to be in the sense of production. But when the meaning is that “golden” is produced from gold, then the word “mayaṃ” should be understood merely for filling out the phrase, meaning “golden” is just gold itself. The word “me” appears in the instrumental case in phrases like “it was obtained by me with difficulty, enough now of proclaiming it.” The meaning is “by me.” In phrases like “Venerable Sir, may the Blessed One teach me the Dhamma in brief,” and so on, it is in the dative case, and they say the meaning is “to me.” In phrases like “before my enlightenment, monks, while I was still a Bodhisatta, not yet fully enlightened,” and so on, it is in the genitive case, and they also say the meaning is “of me.” Here it is said: In the instrumental, in the dative, and in the genitive case it appears; The word “me” should thus be understood by the wise one who sees the method. Here, having established We shall now clarify the meaning of the words "te" and "me" as explained by the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, in order to elucidate their intention and remove the doubts of listeners. For the Aṭṭhakathā teachers explained the meaning of "te" and "me" as "tuyhaṃ" and "mayhaṃ" when used in the dative sense (for giving), and as "tava" and "mama" when used in the genitive sense (of possession). How can such a distinct rule, shown by them without confusion, be found in the Tipiṭaka with its commentaries, which is the word of the Buddha? For the words "tuyhaṃ" and "mayhaṃ", which convey the meaning of "te" and "me", and the words "tava" and "mama", are used indiscriminately in both the dative and genitive senses. Here are some examples of their usage: "I give this to you." "I decide for you." "With your flesh and fat, and with the marrow, brahmin, I shall offer a sacrifice." "For this is your father, the lion among men." "But where is your mother?" "The offering should be given to me alone, not to others." "The offering should be given to my disciples alone, not to others."