>
>I don't understand why it is glossed that way yet. Elsewhere,
>Buddhaghosa does recognize that 'bandhu' is an epithet of Brahmaa at
>Sv I 254, Ps II 418, Ppk II 397. And even for 'paadaapacce' at Sv III
>862 he has 'mahaa-brahmuno paadaa . . . For the 'bandhu' gloss that
>you quote, Dhammapaala has: bandhana.t.thena bandhu, kassa pana
>bandhuuti aaha: maarassa bandhubhuute ti. (Sv-p.t III 47). Perhaps
>Buddhaghosa is merely adding a second interpretation. We also have to
>keep in mind that the gloss is likely not his interpretation, but
>comes from the old Sinhalese commentary he has translated into Pali.

Thanks, Jim, for the parallel passages and quotation from the tika.
That sort of info is very helpful and is the sort of thing that makes
posting here worthwhile.

About the question of interpretation vs translation. My understanding
of the strong claim as to Buddhaghosa's orthodoxy was that
essentially nothing he wrote was to be taken as his interpretation,
but he was rather faithfully preserving 100%-correct teachings
without adding anything or subtracting anything. It was such a claim
that I was responding to. I don't actually see how belief in his
infallibility can possibly help someone's practice, but since it
probably won't hurt their practice either maybe it's not worth making
a fuss about.

In any case this isn't something I especially wish to argue about in
this forum. It just came up while I was trying to read a line of
text and asking questions about it the way I normally do, and
suddenly I was being challenged to defend my methodology, since I
don't usually uncritically accept commentators' readings. And finally
I was asked to provide an example so that Nina could give it to a
friend on another forum who has vowed to refute any challenge to
Buddhaghosa's supposed infallibility.

best regards,

/Rett