> My interpretation also explains the
>noun phrase dukkha.m ariyasa.m which is usually translated as "The Noble
>Truth about Suffering." This is grammatically impossible, and scholars have
>therefore concluded that the transmission is erroneous. On my interpretation
>this problem disappears completely: ariyasacca.m is evidently apposition to
>dukkha.m: suffering, which is a reality to an ariya (or ariyas).

Hi Ole,

Thanks for joining this group and for your very helpful and interesting contributions.

I'm basically convinced by your reasoning above, though there might be a side-point that could raise a quibble. I'm not sure that the most usual translation is "noble truth about suffering". Typing that into google (with the quotation marks) gives about 3 pages of hits. On the other hand "noble truth of suffering" gives 41 pages of hits.

The two phrases might initially appear to have the same meaning. For example we say 'the bitter truth of the matter' which could just as well be rewritten 'the bitter truth about the matter'.

However in the case of 'the noble truth of suffering' a better comparison might be statements like 'the state of Michigan'. Just as this is an apposition meaning 'the state which is Michigan', we could rewrite 'the noble truth of suffering' as 'the noble truth which is suffering'. There is no ownership or partitive relationship involved in that idiomatic use of 'of'. This is actually how I've always instinctively read it, and I believe it's closer to your reading. Of course it still doesn't take the added step of reading ariyasacca as a tappurisa, or reflect your semantic rereadings of the components of the compound.

Again, this is a bit of a side point, and is more related to the topic of translating into English. As I said I find your overall position very convincing.

best regards,

/Rett