Re: S IV 163

Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> I have spent some time on the problems of the syntax of the sentence yañ ca tattha tadubhayaŋ paṭicca uppajjati chandarāgo taŋ tattha saññojanan ti (S IV 163). In all occurrences of the phrase paṭicca uppajjati the subject of the sentence follows immediately after uppajjati. Consequently chandarāgo must be the subject of uppajjati.
Yes, that is a good point.

Perhaps then we should ignore the gender issue as regards yaṃ and taṃ
and translate literally as I originally did:

The chandaraaga which arises there in dependence upon both of these is the fetter there.

Or rendering tattha as eqhivalent to tesu:

The chandaraaga which arises in relation to these in dependence upon both of them is the fetter in relation to these.

But I can't say I feel happy with this. ? Influence of:

yañ ca tadubhayaṃ paṭicca uppajjati saṃyojanaṃ

Perhaps the chanting of the (Mahā)satipaṭṭhānasutta was sufficiently well-known to affect the syntax here.


> tattha is as I have mentioned in another post no doubt used with the value of a demonstrative pronoun in the locative (singular or plural as Sanskrit tatra). See S III 166 yo tattha (i.e. ruupa.m) chandaraago, ta.m tattha saññojana.m. A parallel about saññojana.m. without tattha and devoid of the ambiguities of the samyutta passages is found at M I 61. S IV 163 is odd. How are we, for instance, to interpret na yida.m brahmacariyavaaso on p. 163? The on-glide /y/ is understandable, bur what about ida.m ?
>
> O.H.P.
>  
This does occur elsewhere in SN and the reading is ancient:

Spk II 324 (to S III 144, cf. 148): _na-y-idaṃ brahmacariyavāso
paññāyethā_ ti ayaṃ magga-brahmacariya-vāso nāma na paññāyeyya.

I suspect that the form na yidaṃ brahmacariyavāso should be more
widespread, but has been normalized out.

I am not sure how to interpret it - idaṃ < iyaṃ = ayaṃ ?


LSC