Dheerayupa, I’m looking at your post and want to do some more research before I can respond properly! Hmm… 
1 Like
Encountered this sentence during this morning’s study of MN32:
Svāgataṁ āyasmato ānandassa bhagavato upaṭṭhākassa bhagavato santikāvacarassa.
I mistakenly assumed all the words ending in -assa were genitive, which makes no sense. Dative doesn’t make logical sense either, until I looked up svāgataṃ and saw that it always pairs to a dative…
So - if I understand correctly, because the speaker (Ven. Sāriputta) is extending a welcome to/for Ven. Ānanda, then his name & the immediate adjective āyasamato would take the dative.
Just checking that I understand correctly - upaṭṭhākassa and santikāvacarassa also take the dative, despite being separate relative clauses, because they describe Ven. Ānanda & need to agree with his case declension? I’ve grouped cells based on what I think the clauses are.
Adding to my confusion - the other translations below chose to render santikāvacarassa as an adjective or a whole other clause, so I didn’t realize immediately that it was a noun in the dative form - possessed by the Blessed One. (Still trying to get used to the idea that a genitive subject can possess something besides a nominative or an accusative)
Bh. Sujato: Welcome to Ānanda, the Buddha’s attendant, who is so close to the Buddha.
Bh. Bodhi: …welcome to the venerable Ānanda, the Blessed One’s attendant, who is always in the Blessed One’s presence.
This all looks correct to me, Karunā. Well done.
1 Like
Thanks, John! Appreciate your checking in on this thread for our extracurricular questions.
On third look, everything dative makes sense -
“Welcome to/for Ven. Ānanda, to/for the Blessed One’s attendant, to/for the Blessed One’s close companion.”
Greetings, a question here.
In our latest Gair & Karunatillake class with John Kelly, we reviewed this from AN 3.66:
“Anabhijjhāti kho ahaṁ, sāḷhā, etamatthaṁ vadāmi. Aluddho kho ayaṁ, sāḷhā, anabhijjhālu neva pāṇaṁ hanati, na adinnaṁ ādiyati, na paradāraṁ gacchati, na musā bhaṇati, parampi na tathattāya samādapeti, yaṁ sa hoti dīgharattaṁ hitāya sukhāyā”ti.
Of note is the word anabhijjhā, the antonym of which, abhijjhā, appears earlier in the sutta. It sparked my interest as a synonym for alobho (& lobho).
The standard (uninspiring 
) definition seems to be non-coveting (as a synonym for non-greed).
According to DPD, the use of anabhijjhā (and its antonym, and various declensions) is hardly used anywhere else except in the Aṅguttaranikāya. When I did more research, it seems to appear more frequently later on, beginning with the Abhidhammapiṭaka. (I don’t know my Tipiṭaka and commentaries histories very well yet, so I may be misstating this.)
Does this term become a standard in certain Theravada traditions in place of alobho (& lobho) or in addition to? If so, why? I had never heard it before in teachings.
2 Likes
Abhijjā is used in one of the most important suttas in the canon, the Satipaṭṭḥāna - MN 10 and it’s longer sibling DN 22.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ;
vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ;
citte cittānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ;
dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
2 Likes
It’s found in all the nikāyas, though very often in its adjectival form, anabhijjhālu. That it occurs with greatest frequency in the AN is because this is the nikāya that has the greatest number of suttas on the three sucaritas and the ten kusala kammapathas. In both of these schemes it occurs as one of the three kinds of mental good conduct, manosucarita.
4 Likes