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

Eisel,


I in fact agree with the general philosophical drift of what you are
saying. It is some of the details of how you get there that I have a
problem with.

> For the first half of the phrase pattern, I would propose something
> along the lines of:
>   "[For] the eye bound with forms, forms [are] the eye's fetter."
> Or more verbosely,
>   "[Concerning] the eye fettered with forms, [isn't it the case that
> these very] forms [are what we mean to say are] the eye's fetter[?]"
>  

I cannot understand how you are construing kin nu . . . cakkhu rūpānaṃ
saṃyojanaṃ . . .

It is not possible for saṃyojanaṃ to agree with cakkhu, since it doesn't
agree with jivhā below. So it must function as a noun as elsewhere, not
as any (other) kind of verbal form.

> If the relation of the first part to the second is not the comparison
> of two mutually exclusive opposites, but, simply, the second part is
> more precise than the first, then we need not impute "either/or".  In
> reading the answer, too, this relieves us of trying to construe a
> "neither/nor".  There is only a single negating particle, in the
> second part of the phrase-pattern, e.g.:
>
>   / mano dhammaana.m sa~n~nojana.m | na dhammaa manassa sa~n~nojana.mi || /
>  

I read two occurrences of na.


The issue  as regards occurrences of vaa is rather a good example of why
we are still dependent on the PTS edition for serious work. Only that
gives usable references to Mss.

Notes 5 and 6 of the PTS edition on p. 163 reveal that its Sinhalese Mss
read:

Cakkhu cāvuso rūpānaṃ saṃyojanam abhavissa || rūpā cakkhussa saṃyojanaṃ
abhavissa

So the two occurrences of vā here derive from the Burmese. Feer had in
fact only two Burmese Mss for this section. One at least must have
derived directly from the Burmese 5th Council version. The second
(Paris) Ms may also have done so. (I am not sure offhand of its date.)

What this suggests to me is that there were in fact two versions of this
Sutta in the Ms tradition. Version A omitted vā in this context all the
way through. That is evidenced by the Sinhalese Mss. Version B included
vā all the way through i.e. after rūpā etc. What we now have in the
printed editions is a compromise between the two with the vā included
only in the conditional clause.


Lastly, both you and Jim seem to think that tattha after yaṃ would make
it indefinite. I am not familiar with this usage. Glancing at
dictionaries and modern grammars, I do not seem to find it. Can you
justify it, please ?


LSC