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

In reply to L.C.:

My contribution to this discussion has been extensive (and initiated
it); I think it is VERY clear, in my earlier postings, where I am
attempting strict translation (or word-specific discussion of the
text) and where instead I state clearly that I am NOT following the
text closely, but remarking upon, or expanding upon it, in line with
my reflections on the philosophical content.

This includes, even more obviously, the use of square-bracket
parenthesis, to show where I am adding to the text.

Given this fact, and given that I often give multiple translations and
comments on the same passage(s) (nearly repeating and overlapping one
another), I AM NOT going to defend "[isn't it the case that...]"
appearing in square brackets, by way of a "more verbose" explanation
(stated as such) for a passage already so much discussed.

That being said: by all means proceed to make your own point as to
precisely what the passage says, and render my earlier comments
obsolete with better ones.  Such is the progress of science.

I raised this sutta for discussion, based on my own reading, and my
noticing the dire inadequacy of the translations: I am not handing
down tablets from the top of the mountain, I am not even issuing fixed
opinions or conclusions.

L.C. raises a VERY important point, perhaps too briefly, in relation
to the absence or presence of /vaa/.

Do the footnotes you allude to establish it as a fact that the Sri
Lankan version of the text omits /vaa/ "all the way through" as you
say (viz., sec. i through sec. iv)?

As per everything I've been saying, this would fundamentally change
the meaning of the text, viz., the presence or absence of /vaa/, and
the question of where there is no /na/, only one /na/, or two /na/
paired.

This very much changes "the moral of the story" from the incompetence
of translators, to the incompetence of modern redactors; evidently the
"compromise" of the text you allude to was carried out with no regard
to the content.  Any "compromise" between the two versions (if they
are two versions, as you say) would transform the meaning of the text.

E.M.