Dear Jim and Rett,
I am enjoying this exchange. First of all, it concerns a detail and as Rett
also says, <I don't see why this should in any way detract from
Buddhaghosa's deserved reputation, or the
reputation of the commentarial tradition of which he was the custodian.>
I see here that this does not distracts from the message of the sutta, from
understanding in general the khandhas, ayaatanas, dhaatus, and this is what
matters.
However, when there seems to be a discrepancy, there is the possibility that
we are missing a subtle point. Of course, as Rett says, there can be
discrepencies in the manuscripts, and we do notice them. But as far as I
know these concern usually minor matters. But it is always good to study the
different texts and compare them.
Buddhaghosa edited the oldest commentaries, and as I see it, these were
rehearsed at the three Great Councils, together with the Tipitaka, the
Abhidhamma included.
But now to the text. I have the co in Pali, but sutta in English. I come to
a different conclusion.
See below:

> Rett wrote:

In D27 at the end of section
four, (PTS Diigha Nikaaya, Vol iii, page 81, line 20 ) the bhikkhus
are disparagingly referred to by brahmins as 'bandhupaadaapacce'
which means 'offspring of the feet of the kinsman'. Kinsman (bandhu)
is an epithet of Brahman, from whose mouth the brahmins are said to
originate. This context has already been established, since a few
lines earlier the brahmins describe themselves as 'mukhato jaataa
brahmajaa'.

This is an allusion to the Rig Veda X,19,13 "His mouth was the
Braahman...from his two feet the ´Sudra was born". (Macdonell, page
201)

Buddhaghosa, in the Sumangalavilaasinii (vol iii, p862) misses that
'Bandhu' is an epithet of Brahman, and instead glosses: bandhuu ti
maarassa bandhubhuute maarapakkhike. either "Allies of Maara" in acc
plural (-uu), or if singular perhaps locative of sense. 'in the
sense: ally of maara'. In any case Buddhaghosa has given the wrong
meaning for the word 'Bandhu' at that point in the commentary by
missing that it is just an epithet.

Nina: First we read how brahmans considered themselves. After that we have
deprecating words about the recluses. Footborn, and this is used here in a
disparaging way, after all, the brahmans are disparaging the samanas. That
is why Buddhaghosa adds here: allies of Maara. Also PED at the
end:<bandhupaadaapacce applied as contemptuous epithet.> It must be this way
when we see the whole context. We coculd easily miss the subtle point. But
then the Tiika can help us.
And as Jim said, < 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).>

Appreciating the input of both of you,
Nina.

op 24-01-2004 00:23 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@...:

>
> 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.