Re: Trans. & Philosophy of SN-1:18:5 [Ko.t.thita Sutta]

CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM.

Although I tried to be brief, and also to avoid criticizing the other
translators at too much length, I think some confusion is inevitable
with the little I've said.

In particular, I must specify that I was not making an abstract
generalization when I remarked (above):

"The supposed strength of this argument is that, were we to imagine the
question as "either/or", then we may read the answer as "neither/nor";
likely the interpretation started with the latter (viz., looking at
the metaphor later on in the passage), to then read the question at
the beginning in these terms."

This is a very specific claim, reflected in the writ of the text.

I would summarize the sutta in four parts:
   (i) the interlocutor's thesis (or "the question" posed)
   (ii) the direct reply of the monk
   (iii) the metaphor (alluded to, too briefly, above) that serves to
introduce the following
   (iv) the monk's sermon.

The "sermon" (naturally enough) proceeds with the same logic/structure
as the metaphor that introduces it, but it is NOT a direct answer to
the question --that has come and gone in section (ii).

The sermon contains various interesting doctrinal material, and the
monk seems to think it is important to explain to the interlocutor
that the Buddha does taste food, and does see forms, etc., but does
not feel any passion for them (likewise for doctrines); this is
SALIENT material, but it does not follow the logical form of the
thesis (i) --indeed, it is not posed as an answer to the question.

As stated,
   1. In the question (i) there is no dysjunction, viz., no particle to
imply "either/or"
   2. In the answer (ii) there is no dysjunction, and there is only a
single "na" in the second half of the pattern phrase; thus, there are
two grounds for deeming this could not be a "neither/nor" statement.

What I did not state clearly enough (but adumbrated):
   3. In the metaphor that serves to introduce the sermon (iii) we do,
for the first time, have the appearance of the dysjunction "vaa".

(Thus, as I said, the translators may have been reading this metaphor
(iii) and then mis-interpreting the interlocutor's thesis (i) in its
terms.)

   4. The monk goes on to give a sermon that is introduced by the
metaphor; here, we find the use of both the dysjunction "vaa" and also
some double "na" constructions (na... na...).  In this part of the
text, "neither/nor" appears; but it is neither part of the logic of
the interlocutor's "question", nor part of the direct answer to it.

The change in structure and meaning comes (obviously enough) when the
monk speaking switches from answering Ko.t.thita's point (in precisely
Ko.t.thita's terms, with precisely Ko.t.thita's logical structure) to
instead making a point of his own: beginning with the metaphor of the
two oxen.

I did not mean to sound overly harsh or critical of the other
translators; thus, perhaps I was too brief in stating precisely what I
thought their error was (in my opinion).

To my eyes, the text does not support the presumption that the
material in the monk's sermon (iv) is somehow tacitly stated in the
interlocutor's thesis (i) --be it as tacit logical structure or stated
content-- but this is a natural enough mistake to make, in trying to
make sense of a repetitious text, to assign ONE sense, to apply to all
variations.

However, I think the variations are themselves of "binding"
significance (e.g., one "na" or two!).

E.M.