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

Eisel,

I have identified the source of the problem. You are using the BJT
online version. This fills in the peyyālas of the printed edition. That
was done to facilitate searching, but it may have been a mistake. (One
for which I was partly responsible, I fear.) In this particular case the
peyyāla has been filled in incorrectly. So the na has been omitted in
many cases. I have now checked against the printed edition.

We can be confident that two occurrences of na are intended in each case
and that is so for the BUDSIR and VRI online versions, as in the PTS
edition with slight variations in the handling of the peyyālas.

Lance Cousins


Eisel Mazard wrote:
> L.C.,
>
> As the actual writ of the text is now in question, I would draw your
> attention back to your comment of Aug. 27th:
>
> "I read two occurrences of na."
>
> Could you confirm this?  As you know, I took some time to make it
> clear precisely where I was discussing the fact problem (viz., 1 /na/
> vs. 2), and I reproduce the "table" (so to speak) here:
>
> -----
> (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
> -----
>
> Thus, under what I've called section (ii), there is only one "na", but
> I am not saying this about (iv).
>
> Are you saying that the PTS has two "na" in precisely this part of the
> text, viz., section (ii)?
>
> E.M.
>