English
up to ten," it is countless. This method should be applied in other similar places. Four hundred thousand, six-fold supernormal powers, great might; Always surround Dīpaṅkara, the knower of the world. Here, "four hundred thousand" is in apposition with the two words "six-fold supernormal powers, great might" due to gender difference. Indeed, in such places, even a word denoting an uncountable number is neuter, therefore "four hundred thousand," "six-fold supernormal powers," and "great might" - these three words are in apposition. Or else, "six-fold supernormal powers, great might" should be understood as a genitive case in the sense of possession, meaning "of those with six-fold supernormal powers, of those with great might." In this sense, "four hundred thousand" becomes a numeral. This method should also be applied in phrases like "three hundred thousand, adorned women." The Pāli reads: "And those seven hundred wives, and seven hundred female slaves." Here, "satā" should be taken in the neuter sense as "satāni," not in the feminine sense. For "satā" is a neuter form, like "five resultant consciousnesses" and so on. There is no feminine form of the word "sata," nor is there a masculine form. If the word "sata" were of two genders, then it would have to be like "puriso" (masculine, ending in -o) and "kaññā" (feminine, ending in -ā). Neither of these two forms exists for "sata," therefore it is known that... the word 'sata' (hundred) is always neuter." But sir, in "those deities, seven hundred, noble," does not the word 'sata' appear as feminine? No, it is neuter. But sir, is it not in apposition with the word 'devatā' (deities)? True, it is in apposition, but it is still neuter. In such numerical contexts, apposition is not definitive. Thus, in "five hundred Paccekabuddhas, long-dwelling on this Isigili mountain," apposition of a neuter word with a masculine word is seen. Therefore, in "those deities, seven hundred, noble," it should be understood as "seven hundreds" (sattasatāni), in the neuter gender. In "having given seven hundred elephants" and similar phrases, the word 'sata' is also neuter. This rule should be applied in other similar instances. "With ninety thousand crores, the Great Sage was surrounded" is the Pāli text. Here, the meaning should be taken as "with ninety thousand crores of monks" or "by ninety thousand crores of monks," according to the primary meaning of the enumerated number. This rule should be applied in other similar instances. "A hundred thousand years, was the life of that Great Lord" is the Pāli text. Here, "a hundred thousand years" is the accusative case indicating continuous duration of time. Similarly, in the Pāli text "ten thousand years, he dwelt in the house." This rule should be applied in other similar instances. "From here, in the hundred thousandth eon, the Leader arose" is the Pāli text, and "in the ninety-first eon from here" is also a Pāli text. Here, "in the hundred thousandth eon" means at the end of a hundred thousand eons. "In the ninety-first eon" means at the end of ninety-one eons, the locative case being understood as a possessive-locative case. Thus, in "the holy life is lived in the Blessed One," the locative case is understood as "in the presence of the Blessed One," a possessive-locative case. This rule should be applied in other similar instances. "Even if there are thousands, hundreds, and myriads; We have no fear anything, among the beasts in the forest, is found. Pāli. This is its meaning: there, in the forest, if thousands and hundreds and myriads of beasts are found. Or, thousands of hundreds means hundreds of thousands, if hundreds of thousands and myriads of beasts are found, even if such beasts are found, "koci" means "kvaci" (anywhere/in any). Indeed, the word "koci" here functions like the word "ko" in "ko te balaṃ mahārājā" (what is your strength, O great king?), in the sense of "kva" (where/what). And this is an expression in the sense of a cause/reason. Therefore, the meaning to be taken is: "koci" (any/anything) means "kvaci" (anywhere/in any), on account of any single beast, not even a single beast, there is no fear for us. Or, "koci" means "anything, even a little bit". Here, however, "vāḷesu" (among the beasts) is in the locative case, in the sense of a cause/reason. On account of the beasts, not even a little bit of fear exists for us. This method should be applied in other similar places as well. All hundreds of thousands, thirty-six in circumference; And ten thousands, and one and a half hundreds. Commentary text. Here, because words that are similar in sound, case, gender, and number, or even dissimilar in sound, case, gender, and number, but similar in meaning, have a single connection even if they are far apart, while others, even if close, do not, therefore, "sabbaṃ" (all) should be connected with "parimaṇḍalaṃ" (circumference). And "chattiṃsā" (thirty-six) should be connected with "satasahassānī" (hundreds of thousands). This method should be applied in other similar places as well. Two hundreds of thousands, and four myriads; So much in thickness, is this earth reckoned. Commentary text. Here, "duve" (two) is an adjective, and "satasahassānī" (hundreds of thousands) is the noun to be qualified. Similarly, "cattārī" (four) is an adjective, and "nahutānī" (myriads) is the noun to be qualified. Thus, because "satasahassāni" (hundreds of thousands) and "nahutāni" (myriads) are to be qualified by "duve" (two) and "cattārī" (four), they become expressions revealing the meaning "two hundred thousand and four myriad". Even so, the number words like "duve" (two) with number words like "satasahassānī" (hundreds of thousands) Apposition was not taught by former teachers. But since, just as in [phrases like] "two ordinary people are spoken of," [and] "a hundred thousand monks," apposition is found because the words to be qualified refer to substances, not so in [phrases like] "two hundred thousand," etc., because the words to be qualified do not refer to substances, therefore, in such instances, apposition should not be accepted due to the absence of reason. If so, would these be devoid of mutual connection, like [phrases such as] "skillful, form, having eyes"? No, because they are taken in the sense of qualifier and qualified. If so, should apposition be accepted? No, due to the absence of a rule. For apposition is exclusively of qualities and their possessors, which are qualifier and qualified, not of others, even when they are qualifier and qualified. Here, "ettaka" is a word indicating measure. In "bahalattena" (by thickness), it is the instrumental case of qualification. By both, this meaning is shown: "This earth, by its thickness, is reckoned as two hundred thousand and four myriads of yojanas, so much." And for the word "ettaka," apposition should not be accepted with "two hundred thousand and four myriads" or with "vasundharā" (earth). For "ettaka" is an abstract neuter noun, which in grammar they call an adverb. Its meaning is "by this measure." Moreover, even for "two hundred thousand and four myriads," apposition with "vasundharā" should not be accepted, just like the word "sata" (hundred) in "a hundred of monks," because it is merely a word expressing number. Thus, "ettaka" is stated. But for "saṅkhātā" (reckoned) and "ayaṃ" (this), apposition with "vasundharā" is found. This method should be applied to all other similar instances as well. Ten here are white lines, lovely, delightful to see; Six are tawny, fifteen yellow, those are fourteen. (This is) the Pāli (text). Here, "six tawny, fifteen" means "six and fifteen," which is twenty-one. The meaning of the word “rājī” is to be taken as “line.” Similarly, “Many sons he had, ‘Of one name,’ I heard; Eighty, ten, and one, Named Inda, mighty.” This is the Pāḷi. Here, instead of saying “ninety-one,” it says “eighty, ten, and one.” For the sacred texts have a varied word-structure. This method should be applied in other similar instances. “Thirty men, ninety, All of them, each one, were determined; Whose equal I do not see, Roaming this very earth.” This is the Pāḷi. Here, “thirty thousand men and ninety hundreds” are meant by “thirty nāvutyo.” However, in this instance, it should not be taken that the word “sahassa” (thousand) was omitted after “tiṃsa” (thirty) and the word “sata” (hundred) after “navuti” (ninety), making it “tiṃsa nāvutyo.” For if it were taken this way, such a word-structure could be made anywhere, and if such a word-structure were made, the meaning would not be understood by listeners without instruction. Therefore, it should not be taken this way. Rather, it should be taken thus: “tiṃsa nāvutyo” is a phrase established by common usage. And since the meaning of a phrase established by common usage is understood by those who have previously grasped the convention, not by instruction, it should be taken that when King Brahmadatta spoke it, and also when the Teacher recounted that story, all people understood the meaning of the phrase without instruction. Thirty thousands indeed, And ninety hundreds too; Are called “tiṃsa nāvutiyo,” Spoken in the Umaṅga Jātaka. Because in the sacred texts there are Methods indeed, inconceivable; And expressions with deeply hidden meanings, Taught by the compassionate one. Therefore, the wise person should always Receive instruction in the profound Jinabhāsita, With its commentaries, Rightly attending to the teacher. For one devoid of a teacher’s instruction Does not find the essence of the meaning; And being devoid of the essence of the meaning, He falls away from the True Dhamma. But one who gains a teacher’s instruction, Endowed with the essence of the meaning; Protecting the True Dhamma, Does not fall away from the True Dhamma. Therefore, for the sake of the True Dhamma, This numerical garland was also spoken by me; With its applications, as appropriate, Together with…