Re: Omission in the Visuddhimagga Pali?

Dear Jim,

It is not precisely my solution: the PTS edition (Ee 1920) in fact
punctuates with a comma:
Imesa.m channa.m sikkhaapadaana.m,
Kuhanaa ti ...

On the construction of yaani taani, I think the Mahaa.tiikaa is correct:
tattha yaani taani eva.m paññattaani cha sikkhaapadaanii ti sambandho

I take that to mean that eva.m is the continuant to yaani taanni.

There is in any case no doubt that the Mahaa.tiikaa is referring back to
Vism 16 and hence does not provide any evidence to support the notion of
missing text.

If imesa.m is to be understood as the continuant to yaani taani, then
there is still no evidence to support any notion of missing text.

Lance

Jim Anderson wrote:
> Dear Ven. Nyanatusita (and Lance),
>
> After giving your question some thought, I have to admit that the
> incomplete phrase at the end of I.60 is problematic. I don't agree with
> Lance's solution of placing the phrase at the beginning of the next
> paragraph but unfortunately I don't yet know how best to resolve the
> problem. It appears that para. 60 is just one sentence albeit a complex one.
> One observation is that there is a long relative clause beginning with
> "yaani taani" and ending with "cha sikkhaapadaani" and would seem to
> require a main clause to complete the sentence. Perhaps this is the role of
> the concluding "imesa.m channa.m sikkhaapadaana.m". Para.s 42 and 84
> offer some help. It is possible that the commentator intentionally left the
> concluding part incomplete.
>
> It should be noted that the list of six items are worded as offences and not
> training precepts as the translation would have us believe.
>