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

As L.C. can "get away with" Unicode, I shall here attempt to do the same.

The only variations in the pattern I here render in block capitals:

(i)
saññojanaŋ, kāyo phoṭṭhabbānaŋ saññojanaŋ
phoṭṭhabbā kāyassa saññojanaŋ
(ii)
saññojanaŋ, kāyo phoṭṭhabbānaŋ saññojanaŋ
NA phoṭṭhabbā kāyassa saññojanaŋ
(iii)
[Metaphor of the oxen, already discussed]
(iv)
NA saññojanaŋ, kāyo phoṭṭhabbānaŋ saññojanaŋ
NA phoṭṭhabbā kāyassa saññojanaŋ

I think it should be self-evident that we cannot, in good conscience,
translate the "single-NA" form (ii) as identical with the "double-NA"
form (found in the first paragraph of sec. iv, viz., following
directly after the metaphor).

1. There is certainly no basis to read the form stated in (iv) as if
it were tacit in the prior sections.  There is very good reason, in
terms of the content, to regard the monk's argument (in later
paragraphs of iv) as quite different from the question posed to him,
already discussed; he first answers the question, then goes on to make
his own point.
2. While it might be normal English grammar to translate "not...
not..." as neither/nor, there is no basis for the inference of an
"either/or" in the prior sections on the basis of these two negatives
in (iv); the fact that they first appear in (iv) seems to have been
ignored.
3. In addition to the glaring absence of a supposed dysjunction, there
is also the glaring absence of any question-word (interrogative
particle or otherwise), viz., nothing like "ki.m" as the translations
suppose.  Both the "either/or" construction, posing the two halves of
the phrase in mutual-opposition, and also the question form imputed by
the other translators, is their fantasy, not found in the text.
4. If we were to take the other translations seriously, in their
absurd rending of the two halves of the phrase as "opposite",
shouldn't we then regard (ii) as affirming the first proposition, but
denying the second?  It is a clear mis-representation of the text for
(ii) and (iv) to be given identical translations.

This all ought to be rather obvious (apparently it isn't); I would
prefer to discuss the relationship between what the text actually
says, and its philosophical content, rather than the relationship
between what it DOESN'T say, and its flawed translations.

E.M.