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

L.C.,

> 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.

If we agree, we agree.

I had thought your comments were intended to pose a new
interpretation, involving the locative, in relation to the "direction"
of the binding.  Evidently, you just intended this comment to clarify
for someone who actually doesn't understand the text, at a very
rudimentary level.

The closest cognate to the Pali prefix /Sa.m/ is English /Syn/, via Greek.

"Syn-" words indicate a coming together, with no clear direction
(though not true ambitransitivty).

Although "connect" (cf. con- vs. syn-) and "link" would only translate
part of the meaning of the Pali term, the uni-directional transivity
of "fetter" (as a verb) also provides a partial and misleading
translation (so too, "obstruct" or "bind", variously).

It is patently absurd to say that one ox bind the other, or literally
fetters the other; this is neither the question nor the answer.  The
"indefiniteness" of the correlative clause (inasmuch as there...
there...) is consistent with this, where as "from there to there", or
a clear locative, etc., might have another meaning.

The monk remarks that people say in "correct speech" that one ox is
"tied up with" the other; the phrasing is supposedly similar to what
he goes on to say the body being tied up with sensations.  The body
does not "fetter" sensations, nor vice-versa --nor is there any
question of it.  The direction of the relationship between the two is
not what is questioned by the interlocutor, nor what is addressed in
reply.

In translation, it seems that whoever made this mistake first was hung
up on the supposed directional transivity of the verb: but the body
does not refrain nor obstruct nor bind sensation.  By first reading
"ox 1 binds ox 2" as if it were clearly transitive, and then foisting
an indirect object meaning (dative) onto a pair of genitive nouns
indicating accompaniment, and then making all the other errors I've
noted, the texts descends from sense into nonsense -- of a very
philosophical kind.

E.M.