Re: Omission in the Visuddhimagga Pali?

Dear Lance,

> 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.

I haven't met with the term "continuant" to describe the second of a pair of
correlatives before.  My understanding of "yaani taani eva.m paññattaani cha
sikkhaapadaani" differs from yours. I take it to mean: whatever are those
six training precepts enacted thus (on account of the six aapatti-s). So I'm
tentatively taking "imesa.m" as the continuant instead of "eva.m". If you
take the latter, wouldn't "yaani taani" then have to qualify the quoted six
aapatti-s instead of the six training precepts ?

> 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.

I agree on both points.

Best wishes,
Jim