English
True, this point is extremely subtle. Nevertheless, relying solely on the authority of ancient teachers, we state the determination. Just as numerical words like "vīsati" (twenty) etc., are in themselves not substances... Even in their naming role, for words naming substances, like *latā*, *mati*, *ratti*, *itthī*, *yāgu*, *vadhū*, their feminine gender is approved by grammarians. Likewise, for words not naming substances, like *atthi* (there is) and *n'atthi* (there is not), their feminine gender is sometimes approved by those skilled in the Dhamma. Thus, the Venerable Dhammasenāpati said: "Nine for *atthiyā*, nine for *natthiyā*." Alternatively, "atthiyā" and "natthiyā" should be taken as indeclinable particles, ending in the seventh case, free from gender. One should not object here, saying: "Such indeclinable particles are not mentioned by former teachers, therefore this statement should be rejected." Indeed, in the Canon, various kinds of indeclinable particles are found, even those not specified by the revered ones. Nor should an objection be raised regarding terms like "hetuyā" (by cause), "adhipatiyā" (by dominance), "atthiyā" (by existence), "natthiyā" (by non-existence), saying: "These are incorrect words." For, in the words of the Buddha, who, by the immeasurable power of perfected perfections, and with unobstructed knowledge, directly perceived the entire sphere of the knowable as an āmalaka fruit in the palm of his hand, one will certainly not find the babbling of others. But, sir, are not these words "hetuyā," "adhipatiyā," "atthiyā," "natthiyā" the words of the Elder Sāriputta, because he laid them down? For when the Tathāgata taught in the Tāvatiṃsa heaven, these terms were not present. If that is so, why do you call them "Buddha's words"? Indeed, they are the Buddha's words. For the method was given to the Venerable Sāriputta by the Tathāgata. And he, the chief disciple, who had attained the analytical knowledges and was like the Teacher, having received the method from the Teacher, embellished the expression. Indeed, all noble ones who have attained the analytical knowledges do not speak incorrectly, being highly skilled in the distinctions of language. Therefore, this usage of the noble ones should be understood as beyond the scope of others. Now, the declension of *sata* (hundred) and similar words is stated – A hundred, hundreds, O hundreds. A hundred, hundreds, O hundred. By a hundred, by hundreds, by hundreds. To/of a hundred, to/of hundreds. From a hundred, from a hundred, from a hundred, from hundreds, from hundreds. In/on a hundred, in/on hundreds. In a hundred, in a hundred, in a hundred, in hundreds. Thus 'thousand', 'thousands' should be construed. Ten thousand, hundred thousand, ten hundred thousand; here too, the same rule applies. Herein is the usage: "a hundred monks, a hundred women, a hundred thoughts." "A hundred of monks, a hundred of women, a hundred of thoughts." In 'thousand' and so on, the same method applies. And in this way, and otherwise, word-forms occur. Koṭi, koṭī, koṭiyo. To be understood by the method of 'night'. From one onwards, up to ten, as it proceeds; That number then, is predominant in the counted object, so the teachers say. From twenty up to a hundred, that number, however, is then; Predominant in the number, and predominant in the counted object, so they explain. Furthermore – From twenty up to a koṭi, that number, indeed, is then; Predominant in the number, and predominant in the counted object, so one should indicate. Thus, "having abandoned eighty koṭis of gold, he went forth" – such a Pāli passage is seen. And "those whose defilements are destroyed, stainless, amounted to a hundred koṭis" – such a Pāli passage is seen. In this place, however, by making all number-word forms clear, for the sake of discerning ones gaining subtle knowledge, I will bring forth and show a passage from the Udāna Pāli with its commentary, and another Pāli passage and a commentary statement – "Indeed, Visakha, for whom there are a hundred dear things, for them there are a hundred sufferings. For whom there are ninety dear things, for them there are ninety sufferings. For whom there are eighty... (and so on)... for whom there are seventy. For whom there are sixty. For whom there are fifty, for whom there are forty, for whom there are thirty. Indeed, Visakha, for whom there are twenty dear things, for them there are twenty sufferings. For whom there are ten. For whom there are nine. For whom there are eight. For whom there are seven. For whom there are six. For whom there are five. For whom there are four. For whom there are three. For whom there are two. For whom there is one dear thing, for them there is one suffering." Therein, 'a hundred dear things' means a hundred objects to be loved. Some also read 'a hundred dear (object)'. And here, because from one up to ten, the number is predominant in the counted object, therefore, the Pāli passage comes with 'for whom there are ten dear things, for them there are ten sufferings' and so on. Some, however, recite it as, "For whom there are ten dear ones, for them there are ten sorrows," and so on, but that is not good. Because from twenty up to a hundred, the numbers are predominant in terms of the counted objects and predominant in terms of the numbers themselves, therefore, even there, taking the predominance of the counted objects, the Pāli text comes as, "For whom, Visākhā, there are a hundred dear ones, for them there are a hundred sorrows," and so on. And for all for whom there is one dear one, for them there is one sorrow—this is the reading, not "of sorrow." For in one sequence of words, the teaching of the Blessed One is of one flavor. Therefore, the Pāli text should be understood in the manner stated. This much is the Udāna Pāli passage with its commentary. Now another Pāli passage and a commentary passage are presented: "A hundred elephants, a hundred horses, A hundred mule-drawn chariots; A hundred thousand maidens, Adorned with jeweled earrings; Are not worth a sixteenth part Of a single step." This is the Pāli text. Here, "a hundred elephants" and so on are the qualified terms, and "thousands" is the qualifier. Therefore, the word "hundred" should be combined with the word "thousands," and "elephants" and so on should be taken as subordinate terms, thus the meaning is to be understood. A hundred thousand elephants. A hundred thousand horses. A hundred thousand mule-drawn chariots. A hundred thousand maidens adorned with jeweled earrings. This is the understanding of the meaning based on the predominance of the counted objects. However, based on the predominance of the numbers, this meaning should also be understood: "a hundred thousand of elephants, a hundred thousand of horses, a hundred thousand of mule-drawn chariots, a hundred thousand of maidens adorned with jeweled earrings." This method should be applied in other similar instances. "Himālaya, the five mountains, a hundred yojanas high"—this is a commentary passage. Here, combining the word "five" with the word "hundred," as in "there are not a hundred pearl-oysters," the meaning should be understood based on the predominance of the number, that Himālaya, the mountain, is five hundred yojanas high. And "five hundred" is a usage indicating the absolute conjunction of distance. This method is also to be applied elsewhere. should be applied in similar instances. The word "sataṃ" (hundred) is singular in phrases like "I am a hundred, I am a thousand." It is plural in phrases like "Then a hundred and one glorious ones followed." Similarly, "sahassa" (thousand) and other numbers can be both singular and plural. For example, in "A hundred thousand yakkhas attend upon him," "satasahassaṃ" (hundred thousand) is singular. In "He will have more than a thousand sons," "sahassaṃ" (thousand) is plural. "In a hundred thousand aeons, and four incalculable ones; A city named Amara, delightful and beautiful." This is the Pāli. Here, "kappe ca satasahasse caturo ca asaṅkhiye" is a plural usage in the sense of possession. Therefore, the meaning to be taken is "at the end of a hundred thousand great aeons and four incalculable ones," where "matthake" (at the end) is an ellipsis. The meaning is "at the end of four incalculable ones exceeding a hundred thousand aeons." This method should be applied in other similar instances. "In a hundred thousand aeons, and four incalculable ones; Whatever was done in that interval, all that ripens to enlightenment." This is the Pāli. Here, "kappe" is a plural usage due to continuous association. "Satasahasse kappe" is a masculine and usage designation due to its connection with the word "kappe." Indeed, it is in apposition with the word "kappe." "Caturo ca asaṅkhiye" are plural usages due to continuous association. But incalculable ones of what? Since nothing else is mentioned and aeons are mentioned, the meaning "of aeons" is understood from the context. For it is not proper to take something unmentioned while rejecting what is mentioned. The word "ca" (and) is for summation, meaning "four incalculable great aeons and a hundred thousand great aeons." This method should be applied in other similar instances. "Thousands of pots, and many hundreds of jars." This is the Pāli. Here, "ghaṭā" means "of pots." This is a nominative case in the sense of possession. "Many thousands of pots" - this is the meaning. "And many hundreds of jars" means many hundreds of jars. Here, the elision of 'ni' should be understood. This method should be applied in other similar places. For ten or twenty thousand, there was an awakening to the Dhamma; The awakening of one or two, is countless in number. Here, "ten or twenty thousand" means ten thousand and twenty thousand. "Awakening to the Dhamma" means penetration of the Four Noble Truths. "One or two" is merely a heading, meaning that by the method of "one and two and three and four...