John Kelly Pali course 2023: Warder lesson 15b

Question 1:
paṭissutvā - having agreed with (absolutive)
paṭissuṇitvā - having agreed with (absolutive)

The first spelling is used in the reading passage for lesson 14, while the second version comes up in the bhikkhuni patimokkha a number of times e.g Pc 45:
Yā pana bhikkhunī bhikkhuniyā “ehāyye, imaṁ adhikaraṇaṁ vūpasamehī”ti vuccamānā “sādhū”ti paṭissuṇitvā sā pacchā anantarāyikinī neva vūpasameyya, na vūpasamāya ussukkaṁ kareyya, pācittiyaṁ.

Are they simply variant spellings or is there some difference?

Question 2:
Warder gives padīpeyyaṁ in the vocabluary for lesson 15, a neuter noun meaning lamp. But there is also padīpa a masculine noun. Is there a difference in meaning or usage?

1 Like

I share your difficulty; so often it feels like really unstable and shifting ground.

When we were doing high school French there were lists of idioms to memorise every week. I‘ve not found this to be case with Pali. @johnk @stephen is there a list of idioms available anywhere for us to refer to?

Here is the PED entry:

Paṭissuṇāti [paṭi+śru ] to assent, promise, agree aor. paccassosi Vin i.73; D i.236; S i.147, 155; Sn p. 50, and paṭisuṇi SnA 314; ger. ˚suṇitvā freq. in formula “sādhū ti patissuṇitvā” asserting his agreement, saying yes S i.119; PvA 13, 54, 55; & passim; also paṭissutvā S i.155

Padīpiya & Padīpeyya Padīpiya & Padīpeyya (nt.) [padīpa+(i) ya] that which is connected with lighting, material for lighting a lamp, lamps & accessories; one of the gifts forming the stock of requisites of a Buddhist mendicant (see Nd2 523: yañña as deyyadhamma). The form in ˚eyya is the older and more usual one,

So it seems padīpeyya implies the material for a lamp (padīpa).
Interestingly, the Pali word for ‘lamp’ is generally padīpa, the ‘be an island’ (dīpa) phrase is sometimes mistakenly translated as ‘lamp’.


ko nu kho papa bho jānāti madanīyā kāmā

Ajahn Brahmali: But, Sir, who knows? The sense pleasures are intoxicating.

Question: What is the function of papa here, please?

This should read “pana”.

From the Mahāgovinda sutta.
(CST #307: “Ko nu kho pana, bho, jānāti, madanīyā kāmā?“)


Thank you so much :pray: :sunflower:

If the sentence is in fact: ko nu kho pana, bho, jānāti , madanīyā kāmā?

Then, the translation should be: Then, Sir, who knows that the sense pleasures are intoxicating?

Are you referring to the question mark being in a strange place? Yes, it seems so.

The question is, ‘Ko nu kho pana, bho, jānāti’

1 Like

Thank you very much :lotus: :pray:

1 Like

Thanks, this helps. I’m still struggling to find a searchable verb conjugation because DPD calls this a past participle – in effect, an adjective but how would I find a 3ps verb conjugation for this? Or it doesn’t exist and I’ll let it go?

(Chuckles I also figured out that PED will not interpret capital letters in searches (unless it’s a proper name, I guess). DPD will interpret a capital letter as either lowercase or capital in searches).

Is this what you are looking for?

Anvāgacchati [anu + ā + gacchati] 1. to go along after, to follow, run after, pursue; aor. anvāgacchi Pv. iv.56 (= anubandhi PvA 260). — 2. to come back again J i.454 (ger. ˚gantvāna). — pp. anvāgata (q. v.)

(I placed the past p. In the U Chicago search box. Not sure what you mean about capital letters. )

1 Like

Indeed it is. Just scratchin’ my noggin on how I deduce the pp for entry into the search box. That is, somehow getting from Samannāgata (adj.) [saŋ+anvāgata] to anvāgacchati while understanding anu + ā + √gam + ta* :crazy_face: I’ll keep working on it with you all!

I don’t have Warder in front of me, but I think you mean he only presents the entry’s breakdown into prefix and root without giving the actual Pali word?

Yes, that can be a challenge. Understanding Warder is much harder than understanding Pali, hence my general avoidance !
It seems geared towards philologists. .

1 Like

Yes, it can be a bit of a detective chase, Beth! The search options box on the online PED is really handy for delving down. When clicked off, it won’t just look in the entry word of PED but through the whole definition, and then you can pursue other links from there. See

where I have highlighted that tick box.


I wouldn’t overly worry. You will start developing a “feel”. If I come across anything with gam or gato my gut feeling is that gacchati is likely involved. I’ve never tried to work out the phonological rules; I would only make the attempt if I decided I wanted to write a Linguistics paper. :wink:


Q: Is this why the accusative is used? Also, if this is so, could one have also used the locative?

jānāhi yadi vā taṃ bhavantaṃ Gotamaṃ tathā santaṃ yeva saddo abbhuggato, yadi vā no tathā

Ajahn Brahmāli states that he takes the accusative here to be a specification of state (Warder pp. 17-18), which would explain santaṃ being in the accusative. Thus:

…[the report] in reference to the honourable Gotama being true…

Whereas in John’s translation, how is this accounted for:

Find out whether or not it is true that this honourable Gotama is just as reported.

Or, sadly, am I splitting hairs again, trying to understand how this accusative is translated? When I reviewed this today, I got stuck/confused.

1 Like

Not sure exactly what your question here is, Beth. Maybe you are splitting hairs, but I don’t know about what exactly.

As AB states, santaṃ is accusative of state agreeing with taṃ bhavantaṃ Gotamaṃ, “that Blessed Gotama being thus”.

@johnk thank you!

The confusion was not understanding why the locative isn’t used here for a specification of state. I was seeing the accusative and trying to form a translation with a direct object. My brain kept saying whether the report about the honourable Gotama is true (or not) but this phrasing didn’t seem to fit the accusative. I’m sure that, in context, I would have just translated it like that and let it go (as that’s likely the only translation that would have made sense).

I went down the rabbit hole when comparing how Warder talks to the use of locative for in reference to and similar phrasing.

Admittedly :roll_eyes: missed the present participle of atthi which didn’t help! Which is why I keep going back over these lessons…

All is well now :hugs:

1 Like

Yes, recognizing santa as potentially the present participle of atthi is a tricky one! The more you see it, the more it’ll become familiar.

All is well now :hugs: