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

Eisel Mazard wrote:
> I do not at all see how such a regular feature of the language as the
> use of relative pronouns is susceptible to such controversy as this:
>
>  
Well, neither do I. But I do not think there is any issue concerning the
use of relative pronouns. My interpretation of that seems to be the same
as yours.
>> 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.
>>    
>
> Or, we could read what the text actually says.
>
> The indefinite sense of /tattha/ with the relative pronoun is
> certainly not accidental,
I cannot understand what you mean by this.
>  nor is the (common) structure of the
> relative pronoun serving to introduce a conclusive clause with a
> definite pronoun.
>  
Not at issue.
> None of this would have the same meaning as a single noun in the
> locative --something the author was capable of writing, or chanting,
> if so desired.
>
> E.M
The point is that the use of tattha enables the use of the refrain:
yañ ca tattha tadubhaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati chandaraago ta.m tattha
sa.myojana.m.

This occurs thirty times in the Sutta, making it much easier to memorize
and chant. Otherwise, there would be six different variations of
different sizes and the rhythm would be lost. I think this would be
clear to anyone who has done much Pali chanting.

Lance