Dear Mahinda,

I had thought that "missattaaya" was probably a mistake, as a dative
ending doesn't seem right. In the PTS ed. of 1906, "missattaa" is
mentioned among the 3 variant readings given in the footnotes. Dr.
O.H. Pind has suggested the possibility of a "missitataaya" (missita +
taa).

Regarding your message with the translation and notes, I have this to
say:

> tasmaa ta.m gavesanto sandhaavissanti attho.

Your translation:
"The meaning is that (therefore) I travelled on
(sandhaavissa.m), looking for him."

I think it would make better sense to place "The meaning is that" in
front of "because" at the beginning of the whole passage.

And also in:

> (Commentary says the house is the sense of self and ignorance
> is the builder of it.)

Isn't craving (ta.nhaa) the builder? (kaaraka.m ta.nhaava.d.dhaki.m,
in the same commentary on p. 128). The metaphor for "avijjaa" is
represented by "gahakuu.ta.m" the ridge-pole of the house
(avijjaasa"nkhaata.m ka.n.nikama.n.dalampi, pp. 128-9). I take it that
"ka.n.nikama.n.dalam" (lit. ear-circle ??) is a gloss for -kuuta.m but
I get confused by such translations as "ridge-pole".

Best wishes,
Jim

> Dear Jim, Nina,
>
> I see that there is a big mistake in my previous post. It is

'missattaaya'. > The correct reading is 'missattaa' (Skt mi'sratvaat)
and that is actually > how it is found in the DhpA edition of Ven.
A.P. Buddhadatta (the same monk > who wrote the The New Pali Course)..
The two acceptable readings are this > and 'missataaya' (Skt
mi'ratayaa), both abstract nouns The first is from > a neuter form
(missatta.m =Skt mi'sratvam) and hence the -aaya ending would > result
in a dative word. The second is from a feminine from (missataa =Skt >
mi'srataa) and the -ya ending is OK. The required case is ablative,
giving > the sense "due to the fact of being mixed/tied up with".

>
> Mahinda