English
"She is not my wife." "My hermitage is well-made." "Omniscience is dear to me." "Dear one, my mother's face is of one kind, yours is of another." "My master will die now." "It is given to you." "It is praised for you." "It is praised for me." "Renunciation pleases me." "Your son." "Both are my parents." Thus, they are used indiscriminately. Indeed, in the Cūḷanirutti, the Elder Yamaka Mahāthera stated the non-difference of the fourth and sixth cases: "The fourth and sixth cases are everywhere non-different; and the plural of the third and fifth." If that is so, do the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, when they say things like: "In 'Homage to you, noble man. Homage to you, Buddha, hero,' etc., it is in the dative sense by means of the word 'tuyhaṃ', for the meaning is 'to you'. In 'What is your vow? What is your holy life?' etc., it is in the genitive sense, for the meaning is 'your'," do they then "explain inappropriately" or "fail to see what should be seen"? They explained appropriately, and they saw what should be seen. For they held that "even grammar, in part, is in conformity with the teaching." Out of compassion for others, taking the method from grammar, they explained the meaning of 'te' and 'me' as 'tuyhaṃ' and 'mayhaṃ' for the dative case, and as 'tava' and 'mama' for the possessive case. In grammar, the forms of the dative and genitive cases are entirely dissimilar. But in the Dispensation, they are similar. Therefore, making the dative and genitive forms commonly used in the Dispensation similar in function to the specially used dative and genitive forms in grammar, out of compassion for others, the rule for 'tuyhaṃ' and 'mayhaṃ' to be used in the dative sense and the rule for 'tava' and 'mama' to be used in the possessive sense was shown. Since this rule is out of compassion for others, this fault is due to compassion itself, not to the Commentators. For by that very compassion was such an explanation made by them. Some might say here: "Indeed, sirs, by relying on grammatical principles, the Commentators, by explaining 'te' and 'me' when used in the possessive sense as 'tava' and 'mama', showed the rule of case inversion in possessive contexts like 'with your flesh and fat' and 'this is not my wife'. And similarly, by relying on grammatical principles, by explaining 'te' and 'me' when used in the dative sense as 'tuyhaṃ' and 'mayhaṃ', they showed the rule of case inversion even in dative contexts like 'food is not pleasing to you' and 'renunciation is pleasing to me'." Is it possible to say this? No, it is not possible. Because 'tuyhaṃ', 'mayhaṃ', 'tava', and 'mama' are used indiscriminately in both senses, even in prose passages, just as in verses. Indeed, in such places, whether in a verse or a prose passage, case inversion is not to be desired. Rather, it is to be desired only in places like these: "I am afraid of that kingdom." "Why indeed should I be afraid of that happiness?" If, relying on grammatical principles, case inversion were to be desired in phrases like "with your flesh and fat," then, relying on grammatical principles, even in phrases like "He gave a gift of a beloved son to the brahmin." "The brahmin's father gave." "Brāhmaṇāyā" and so on, the meaning of case inversion should be stated, because fourth and sixth case forms are used separately in the scriptures. If this is so, what is the fault? Indeed, there is a fault, because in the Buddha's teachings, in the Tipiṭaka with commentaries, fourth and sixth case forms with the 'āya' ending are not found in contexts of giving or salutation. Therefore, in stating the meaning of case inversion with "brāhmaṇāyā" and so on, this is the fault: the assumption of what does not exist. Since, moreover, making case inversion in such instances is blameworthy, therefore, even in "tuyhaṃ maṃsena medenā" and so on, case inversion should not be desired. Indeed, fourth and sixth case forms are seen as non-distinct, as in "he gave to the man, the man's wealth, he gave to the brahmins, the brahmins' property." Thus, in the scriptures, these words (sa, naṃ) generally occur in the sense of dative (recipient) and genitive (possessive). Their occurrence should be shown by usages like "the wise one is a giver of the best." Here, in "the wise one is a giver of the best," when the word "aggassa" (of the best) occurs in the sense of dative, referring to the reception of an action, then it occurs in the sense of "a giver to the Triple Gem, which is the best." But when it occurs in the sense of genitive (possessive), being the object in relation to an action, then it occurs in the sense of "a giver of the best offering." Thus, in every way, inversion is not your refuge. Similarly, relying on the grammatical rule, since the word "mayhaṃ" (my/to me), which you firmly hold to be a dative expression, is seen in designation in the sense of genitive (possessive), case inversion is certainly not your refuge. Thus: "A bird named Mayhaka, roaming mountain caves, having climbed a ripe fig tree, cries 'Mine! Mine!'" Here, "mayhako" is the name of a certain bird species. Indeed, because of its greedy behavior, it is called "mayhako" (from the root "ke, re, ge" meaning "to cry out," preceded by the word "mayhaṃ") because it cries out and shouts, "This too is mine, this too is mine." Here is the word analysis – if The words "tuyhaṃ mayhaṃ" are always in the dative case, while "tava mama" are in the genitive case. If this is so, then the All-Knowing One, skilled in worldly usage, should not have designated that bird as "mayhako" (mine, dative), because it would imply an unlimited dative sense. Rather, it should be designated as "mamako" (mine, genitive), due to its limited genitive sense. If it is argued that "mayhako" here is said due to a reversal of cases? No, because in the realm of designation, a change in case is out of place and has no scope. Moreover, the word "mayhaṃ" itself stands as a case ending, by becoming a single word with the particle "ka". Even so, the word "mayhako," which denotes a specific bird, while remaining in the nominative singular, also slightly indicates a genitive sense, like the words "sujampati" (king's husband) and "rājapurisa" (king's man). For this reason too, a reversal of cases is not your refuge. Thus, it is established that in the designation "mayhako," the word "mayhaṃ," which is part of the word, should not be considered a reversal of cases, and similarly, a reversal of cases should not be desired in the words "tuyhaṃ," "tava," and "mama." Therefore, it should be understood that the rule stated by the commentary teachers, out of compassion for others, relying solely on grammatical principles, is shown for the words "tuyhaṃ," "mayhaṃ," "tava," and "mama," even though they commonly occur in both dative and genitive senses. Thus – "Tuyhaṃ mayhaṃ" – these words, the teachers said are in the dative; "Tava mama" – in the genitive, taking the rule from the scriptures. Even so, there is no such rule in the Pāli canon; And some distinction of theirs, has been seen by us, listen to that. Where both genitive and dative senses, can occur together; The uses of "tuyhaṃ mayhaṃ" – these words, are not hard to find. "Tava mama" – these words, mostly occur in the genitive; Where they are in the dative, those uses are rare. The words "tuyhaṃ mayhaṃ" rather than "tava mama" in the teaching, in thousands of texts, occur in the genitive sense. All these principles are extremely subtle and very difficult to discern. by those of pure birth, it should be well considered. Now, among the words 'vo' and 'no', the word 'vo' is seen in the sense of 'for oneself', 'for use', 'for the agent', 'for the recipient', 'for the possessor', and 'as a mere filler'. For example, in "Are you, Anuruddha, united and harmonious?" it is seen in the sense of 'for oneself'. In "Go, monks, I will send you forth," it is for 'use'. In "You should not dwell near me," it is for 'the agent'. In "I will teach you, monks, the discourse on the forest thicket," it is for 'the recipient'. In "All of you, Sāriputta, have spoken well," it is for 'the possessor'. In "Those of you whose bodily actions are pure," it is merely 'a filler'. Therefore, it is said: In 'for oneself' and 'for use', in 'for the agent' and 'for the recipient'; and in 'for the possessor', and likewise as 'a filler'; in these six places, the word 'vo' occurs. The word 'no' occurs in the sense of 'for oneself', 'for use', 'for the agent', 'for the recipient', 'for the possessor', 'for emphasis', 'in the sense of 'nu' (interrogative particle)', 'for negation', and 'as a mere particle'. For example, in "We would go to the village," it is seen in the sense of 'for oneself'. In "May the king's cooks not cut us up today," it is for 'use'. In "No marriage with nāgas has ever been made by us," it is for 'the agent'. In "Share the kingdom with us," it is for 'the recipient'. In "Our Teacher, the Blessed One, has arrived," it is for 'the possessor'. In "There is no one equal to the Tathāgata for us," it is for 'emphasis'. In "Do you, great king, remember?" it is in 'the sense of 'nu'', and it can also be used in questions. In "One should speak only well-spoken words, and not utter ill-spoken words," it is for 'negation'. In "They do nothing for us in the assembly," it is merely 'a particle'. Therefore, it is said: In 'for oneself' and 'for use', in 'for the agent' and 'for the recipient'; in 'for the possessor' and 'for emphasis', in 'the sense of 'nu'' and 'for negation'; and likewise as 'a mere particle', the word 'no' occurs. Now, a brief mixed word-list for pronouns is given as appropriate: He who, they who. That which, those which. By whom, by him. The rest should be elaborated. She who, they who (fem.). That which, those which (fem.). By whom (fem.) and those. The rest should be elaborated. That which, those which. The rest should be elaborated. In this way, the three genders should be applied.