Re: Question on Sabhiya sutta commentary

Hi Bryan (and Petra)

if you wish, check out if the following makes sense to you, in the way it
presently seems to make sense to me:

These (doctrines) – because, the sixty two speculative views named in the
Brahmajāla (Sutta), taken together with identity view, are sixty three; and
because these (doctrines) of recluses who are followers of other sects
(are) doctrines [satthāni] born of disputation, dependent upon having to be
pointed out (i.e., learned), not in virtue of arising [i.e., (seemingly)
‘naturally’].  But, in virtue of arising [‘naturally’]: such as (for
example), the percept-word (i.e., perception constituted through a
linguistic term/category) [saññā-akkhara] ‘woman, man’, (which is) a
conventional name: in virtue of the wrong cogitation, tradition, etc. of
the ignorant (naïve), there arises this inverted perception: “It must come
into being/exist thus by its own material form [rūpena attanā]” (i.e., ‘it
is just what the conventional name says that it is, in virtue of its own
intrinsic material nature’).  In virtue of both such dependencies
(attachments), these (doctrines) arise, not (in virtue of) personal
experience [lit., ‘(seeing) what is in front of one’s own eyes’].

With metta,
Khristos


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]