Re: S IV 163

Eisel,

I have added in square brackets what the PTS reads, ignoring minor
spelling variations and the like.

LSC

Eisel Mazard wrote:
> I am going to ask for a small degree of patience and co-operation from
> all in simply establishing WHAT exactly the text is that we're
> discussing: L.C. has suggested that there is a crucial inconsistency,
> perhaps one that originally existed in a comparison between MS
> traditions, but it has now been internalized, and existing as an
> inconsistency within the PTS edition, perhaps within all of the
> Burmese council derived texts?
>
> I am using the vertical line instead of the comma, and two vertical
> lines, similarly, for the double-danda (viz., the end of the
> sentence).  I am not inserting any commas where the text lacks them
> --merely (as of this moment) to try to establish exactly what the text
> is (viz., not controverting O.P's suggestion).  You'll see that I'm
> using line-breaks (carriage returns) simply to make the text easier to
> read, not reflecting any mark in the source.
>
> In a few places, I use block capitals to draw attention to variations
> (such as one /NA/ vs. two).
>
> I'm going to proliferate the roman numerals through to the end of the
> sutta.  Here is the pattern as I am reading it:
>
> (i)
> Kinnu kho āvuso sāriputta [...]
> mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ |
> dhammā manassa saññojananti ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> (ii)
> Na kho āvuso koṭṭhita [...]
> Mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ |
>  
[PTS: Na mano dhammānaṃ saṃyojanaṃ]
> NA dhammā manassa saññojanaŋ ||
>
> (iii)
> [...] Na kho āvuso
> kāḷo balivaddo odātassa balivaddassa saññojanaŋ |
> NAPI odāto balivaddo kāḷassa balivaddassa saññojanaŋ |
> yena ca kho te ekena dāmena vā yottena vā saŋyuttā |
>  
[PTS omits te]
> taŋ tattha saññejanaŋ ||
>
> (iv)
> Evameva kho āvuso [...]
> NA mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ |
> NA dhammā manassa saññojanaŋ ||
> Yañca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati
> chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojanaŋ ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> [NB: the paragraph introducing "brahmacariya" to the conversation is
> here passed over without comment or quotation, as it does not have a
> phrase in parallel structure, etc., that could serve to elucidate the
> matter at hand]
>
> (v)
> Mano vā āvuso dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ abhavissa |
>  
[PTS the same, but earlier in the paragraph, footnotes indicate for
Sinhalese Mss:
cakkhucāvuso and jivhācāvuso
so almost certainly the same was true for Mano]

> dhammā vā manassa saññojanaŋ abhavissa |
> na idaŋ brahmacariyavāso paññāyetha sammā dukkhakkhayāya |
> yasmā ca kho āvuso na mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ na dhammā manassa saññojanaŋ |
> yañca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojanaŋ |
> tasmā brahmacariyavāso paññāyati sammādukkhayāya ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> (vi)
> Tadamināpetaŋ āvuso pariyāyena veditabbaŋ [...]
>  
[PTS follows one Burmese Ms and reads:
Iminā petaṃ]
> NA mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ |
> NA dhammā manassa saññojanaŋ |
> yañca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojanaŋ ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> (vii)
> Saŋvijjati kho āvuso bhagavato mano |
> jānāti bhagavā manasā dhammaŋ |
> chandarāgo bhagavato natthi |
> suvimuttacitto bhagavā ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> (viii)
> NA mano dhammānaŋ saññojanaŋ |
> NA dhammā manassa saññojanaŋ |
> yañca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojananti ||
>  
[PTS the same]
> [END]
>
> E.M.
>