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

Eisel and Jim,

Some thoughts on the sutta at S IV 163ff., variously known as the
Koṭṭhika and the Ko.t.thita Sutta.

The titles may not precede the printed editions or the 19th century
'Council' versions in date; we will not know for certain until there are
proper manuscript studies. In any case, the variation between Koṭṭhika
and Ko.t.thita is almost certainly because at an earlier date the form
Ko.t.thiya was in use. Without a knowledge of brahminical gotra names,
the form in -ika is natural, but with such Sanskritic knowledge the form
in -ita seems better. Such variations are results of the processes of
partial Sanskritization which created the current orthography of Pali.

A literal translation:
The chandaraaga which arises there in dependence upon both of these is
the fetter there.

Various issues arise:

1. Pa.ticca (pa.ti + icca) probably implies that e.g. eye and visible
object arise prior to chandaraaga and can therefore be easily understood
as able to occur without that. So the intention is to suggest that there
is a more simple sense process which occurs prior to the distortion of
it by chandaraaga. For an arahat at least no such distortion would occur.

2. Chandaraaga is most often explained by the commentaries with chanda
and raaga as weak and strong forms of craving respectively. But it is
understood as a karmadhaaraya compound (chando eva raago). So we could
also understand it as a form of chanda ('wish to do' or 'desire') which
is like passion. I take it that this is most probably the original usage
in Suttanta. For Abhidhamma this would be understood as chanda and raaga
occurring together in the same citta arising.

3. Tattha:     tattha is used and repeated in order to create a sutta
which can be chanted easily. So it can be understood as used instead of
the various terms in the locative. So, in the first case, it is in place
of cakkhusmi.m and ruupesu; in the last, instead of manasmi.m and dhammesu.

4. The meaning of dhammaa:     it is certainly not to be taken for
granted that in the Nikaayas has the sense of 'mental object'. In some
cases it clearly means 'things taught by the Buddha'. (I avoid
'doctrines' as pejorative in English.) In the formula of the four
satipa.t.thaanas it seems to have both these meanings. However, I find
it difficult to interpret it as anything other than mental objects in
the list of the twelve aayatanas as here. Mind has to be taken as
parallel to eye i.e. it is a sense organ for knowing mental objects, not
mentality in general. So dhammaa here means feelings, ideas, emotions,
mental activities and so on.

Lance