English
“This is he, these are they. This is he, these are they. He is this, they are these,” and so on, the series of words should be applied as appropriate. For example, “that Blessed One, self-existent, without a teacher. These, monks, are the two extremes, avoiding which the Middle Path was realized by the Tathāgata. This is the charioteer coming,” such varied applications are seen. Thus, a mixed series of words for pronouns should be applied. By me, for the skill of listeners, In the teaching, for those who see all, Everywhere in the teaching, very well, For the purpose of skill. With non-pronominal nouns, And indeed with pronominal words; All pronouns have been stated, In order, together. For those who have practiced these, Understanding subtle meanings; Will be without difficulty, Without doubt. Thus, in the Saddanīti treatise, Made for the skill of the discerning, In the movements of expression in the nine-fold canon with commentaries, The section on the series of nominal words for pronouns and demonstrative pronouns, Is the twelfth chapter. 13. The Series of Nominal Words for Numerals with Determination Now I shall speak, The rows of numerical nominals; To be applied with forms from the root ‘bhū’ And with others. Indeed, the series of nominal words for the pronominal numerals one, two, three, four, which we mentioned below, setting that aside, here the series of nominal words for the non-pronominal numerals five, six, seven, etc., is stated for the purpose of application with forms from the root ‘bhū’ and with other forms – Five, by five, with five, of five, in five. This should be understood in terms of the seven cases. “Five elements, five conquerors, five men, five lands, five maidens, five elements, five minds,” and so on, should be applied everywhere. Six, by six, with six, of six, in six, in six. For indeed, the Pāli says, “In six the world arises, in six one makes intimacy.” Seven, by seven, By seven, of seven, in seven. Eight, by eight, by eight, of eight, in eight. Nine, by nine, by nine, of nine, in nine. Ten, by ten, by ten, of ten, in ten. Thus, eleven. Twelve, twelve. Thirteen, thirteen, thirteen. Fourteen, fourteen. Fifteen, fifteen. Sixteen. Seventeen. Eighteen, by eighteen, by eighteen, of eighteen, in eighteen. All this should be taken in the plural sense. Nineteen, nineteen, and so on. By nineteen, in nineteen, nineteen monks stand, one sees nineteen monks, thus should it be joined with "maidens, minds" and so on. By nineteen monks the Dhamma was taught, done by nineteen maidens, done by nineteen minds, one gives robes to nineteen monks, one gives wealth to nineteen maidens, it is pleasing to nineteen minds, one departs from nineteen monks. Similarly, by maidens, by minds. Belonging to nineteen monks, similarly, to nineteen maidens, to nineteen minds. Established in nineteen monks. Similarly, should be joined with "in maidens, in minds." Nineteen, nineteen, by nineteen, in nineteen. Twenty, twenty, by twenty, in twenty. Twenty, twenty, by twenty, in twenty. Similarly, in twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, and so on. Thirty, thirty, by thirty, in thirty. Forty, forty, by forty, in forty. Forty, and so on. Fifty, fifty, by fifty, in fifty. Fifty, fifty, by fifty, in fifty. Sixty, sixty, by sixty, in sixty. Seventy, seventy, by seventy, in seventy. Seventy, and so on. Eighty, eighty, by eighty, in eighty. Ninety. Ninety, by ninety, in ninety. Thus, and in other ways, the forms of numbers should be taken. By nineteen, of nineteen, in nineteen. "Of ninety-six" and so on, of the forms of numbers... Some grammarians always use the word "ūnavīsati" (nineteen) in the singular feminine. Some say that "vīsati" (twenty) and so on up to "ānavuti" (ninety-nine) are singular feminine. But some say: Words in counting numbers, "vīsati" and so on, in the singular; in the sense of counted objects, in dual or plural, those up to ninety-nine are feminine. Here, the dual should be omitted, as it is absent in the Buddha's words. And for all of them, their aforementioned usage applies in some Pāli passages, but in some it does not. For words like "vīsati", "vīsaṃ", "tiṃsaṃ", etc., denoting counted objects, are seen used in the plural in Pāli, and in Kaccāyana, forms arising from all numbers are seen. Therefore, as far as possible and as far as the usage goes, their singular feminine form should be understood, like the words "atthi" (is) and "n'atthi" (is not). Indeed, the words "atthi" and "n'atthi", being particles, are used in both singular and plural, as in "I have sons, I have wealth. There is no love like oneself. There are no recluses and brahmins." Even though they are genderless, their feminine form is sometimes seen. For in the Abhidhamma, by the General of the Dhamma, the follower of the Dhamma-wheel, skilled in usage, one who establishes skillful usage, the singular feminine form "atthiyā nava. Natthiyā navā" (nine exist, nine do not exist) is shown. Therefore, for "vīsati", "vīsatiṃ", etc., as far as possible and as far as the usage goes, their singular feminine form should be understood. In this regard, some think that "hetuyā adhipatiyā" (by cause, by dominance) should be taken as a gender inversion. According to that view, the masculine form "hetumhi adhipatimhī" should be established, meaning "in the condition of cause, in the condition of dominance." Or else, these two, "hetuyā adhipatiyā", should be taken as masculine forms resembling feminine forms, because masculine forms resembling feminine forms like "hetuyo jantuyo" (causes, beings) also exist. But "atthiyā natthiyā" (of existence, of non-existence) is by way of gender inversion. It should not be taken as said, because the words "atthi" and "n'atthi" are without gender distinction. Indeed, the words "atthi" and "n'atthi" are not included in any of the three genders. Among these, the word "atthi" is differentiated as a verb or an indeclinable, as in "atthi, santi, saṃvijjati" (is, are, exists) and "atthikhīrā brāhmaṇī" (a brahmin woman with milk). But the word "n'atthi" is only an indeclinable. Thus, it is appropriate to speak of the words "atthi" and "n'atthi" and indeclinables as being without gender and number, because they do not function in terms of feminine gender, etc., or in terms of singular number, etc. And it has been said: "That which is similar in the three genders, and in all cases, and in all numbers, that which does not change is an indeclinable." Here, it might be said: "But venerable sirs, since the words 'atthi, sakkā, labbhā' are associated with the first case, according to the rule, how then is 'similar in the three genders' etc., said?" It is true that the word "atthi" is associated with the first case, and similarly the word "n'atthi" is to be taken by analogy with "atthi" and because they are a pair of words. But this statement, "similar in the three genders" etc., was said with reference to indeclinable words such as prefixes and particles, not with reference to each individual indeclinable word. Thus, among prefixes and particles, which are known as "indeclinables" and "avyayas," all prefixes are applicable to all cases and numbers. Among particles, however, some are appropriately associated with the first case, etc., and some are not associated with any case. Among these, those that are associated with a particular case are of that particular number. For in prefixes and particles, it is not possible to assign a specific number to each individually. But in a general sense, "similar in the three genders" etc., was said by the ancient teachers. And the teacher Kaccāyana, referring to this very meaning, said: "And from all prefixes, particles, etc., O venerable sirs." Indeed, from the word "āvuso" (O venerable sirs), not all cases are obtained, but only the first case, singular and plural, because it denotes the meaning of address. This is our understanding. Some, however, from all They say that all case endings are dropped from particles; that should not be accepted. "Atthi, sakkā, labbhā" - these are in the nominative. From such statements as "Divā, bhiyyo, namo" - these are in the nominative and accusative, and from the usage of particles like "atha, khalu, vata, vatha" etc., which are merely for filling out the sentence and have no case endings. Here it might be said: "Sir, since particles without case endings are possible, the words 'atthi' and 'n'atthi' should be stated without case endings. Then why are they stated with case endings as 'atthiyā nava, natthiyā navā'?" Because in every way, meaning cannot be indicated without case endings. If so, according to the statement "atthi, sakkā, labbhā" - these are in the nominative, the words "atthi" and "n'atthi" should be stated as nominative, by way of a dropped nominative case ending. Why, having not done so, are they stated in the locative case as "atthiyā, natthiyā"? It is true, the words "atthi" and "n'atthi" should be stated with the nominative case ending. However, in explaining the meaning "nine in the 'atthi' suffix, nine in the 'n'atthi' suffix," there is no place for the nominative, but there is for the locative. Therefore, it is said "atthiyā nava, natthiyā navā." Thus, when the locative form of "atthiyā" and "n'atthiyā" is established, their instrumental, dative, ablative, and genitive forms are also established. Therefore, in phrases like "atthibhāvo, atthitā" etc., the compound and derivative analysis "atthiyā bhāvo atthibhāvo" (the state of being is existence), "natthiyā bhāvo natthibhāvo" (the state of not being is non-existence), "atthiyā bhāvo atthitā" (the state of being is existence) etc., must necessarily be desired. What has been said by us, should not be said to "contradict the Pāli," because it has been said in accordance with the Pāli method. So be it. But why, sir, is the feminine gender indicated as "atthiyā, natthiyā"? Are not particles and prefixes without gender distinction?