Then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. And they have set out on a path that meets with that same pit of coals.
I am curious about paṇidhāya, so I have been searching the suttas for it. Fortunately for me, in this case, the MN-a expands on it:
So the first bit seems pretty straightforward to me (although if I’m wrong please please tell me):
“Having set out”: There is certainly no wish for the pit of coals.
For the second, I am thinking aṅgārakāsuṃ ārabbha “with reference to the pit of coals.” Then could iriyāpathassa ṭhapito be “set in motion” or “set along the way” as in setting oneself on the path? Then would ṭhapitattā be like “setting oneself”? DPD resolves it as ṭhapita+attā but also I find sometimes DPD’s compound analyzer ain’t so great. (No shade on the DPD, it’s a marvelous tool and I love it.) I’m also really really weak both on compounds and on the syntax of reflexive pronouns.
Any help would be met with gratitude.
(For context, I have become curious about appaṇihita samādhi and started my deep dive just by looking at instances of paṇihita and forms of paṇidahati. Found some super-interesting stuff on it in Paṭis but that Pali is also giving me trouble so I’ll probably ask about it later.)
Fantastic! Thank you. So I was on right track. That it was the absolutive of ṭhapeti was what I was missing. This was helpful and I look forward to reading the article you gave me. Never seen this form before.
Edit: Dang, I don’t have access to that article it seems.
It actually has a number of shades of meaning. The general semantic field includes a sense of wishing or intending or directing. Pretty interesting stuff.
That is incorrect in my understanding of Sanskrit and Pali due to the following reasons:
After a past participle form (like ṭhāpita /sthāpita), the absolutive tvā cannot be attached. The tvā is normally attached either directly to the verb root (in this case it would be sthitvā in Sanskrit and something like ṭhatvā Pali) or a modified form of the verb root.
-tvāt (-ttā in Pali) is however appended after a past participle form
Sanskrit -tvā normally remains -tvā in Pali, and Sanskrit -tvāt becomes -ttā (to disambiguate it from Pāli tvā).
Nope sthāpayitvā is the causative form, sthitvā is the non-causative form.
Yes, it seems so. Actually, in that article the author (Ole Holten Pind) argues that the majority of such forms are not absolutives but periphrastic futures.
But such authorities as Oberlies and Hinüber say that we should interpret such cases as absolutives.
Yes, the paper is behind the paywall. I can send it to you, but it is long and difficult for anyone who is not a Pāli grammar nerd .
Rather, see Oberlies’ grammar (2019), §119.1. And Hinüber 1982, p. 134:
.