Sn 1055 panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe

Dear Pali Friends,

Suttanipāta verse 1055 (of the PTS edition; 1061 in the CST edition) reads thus:

1061.
Yaṃ kiñci sampajānāsi, (mettagūti bhagavā)

Uddhaṃ adho tiriyañcāpi majjhe;

Etesu nandiñca nivesanañca,
panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe.

The Cūḷaniddesa and Paramattha-jotikā both gloss this as if panujja applies to viññānaṃ, and leave the subject of tiṭṭhe as an unstated “you.” Both K.R. Norman and N.A. Jayawickrama follow Nidd 2 and Pj here. Norman renders: “… having thrust away enjoyment and attachment to these things, [and consciousness], you would not remain in [this] existence.” NAJ’s rendering is similar, ending with “you shall not remain in becoming.”

It seems to me intuitively, however, that viññāṇam should be taken, not as an object of panujja, but as the subject of bhave na tiṭṭhe. One might claim support for this from the following texts (and perhaps still others):

SN 12:12 (II 13): ‘Viññāṇāhāro āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo, tasmiṃ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṃ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’’’ti.

SN 12:38 (II 65): “Yato ca kho, bhikkhave, no ceva ceteti no ca pakappeti no ca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ na hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā. Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.”

SN 12:64 (II 102): ‘‘Kabaḷīkāre ce, bhikkhave, āhāre natthi rāgo natthi nandī natthi taṇhā, appatiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ. Yattha appatiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ, natthi tattha nāmarūpassa avakkanti. Yattha natthi nāmarūpassa avakkanti, natthi tattha saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi. Yattha natthi saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi, natthi tattha āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti. Yattha natthi āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti, natthi tattha āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ.”

SN 22:54 (III 55): ‘‘Rūpadhātuyā ceva, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Vedanādhātuyā ce… saññādhātuyā ce… saṅkhāradhātuyā ce… viññāṇadhātuyā ce, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.”

Is there a compelling reason, apart from their antiquity, to accept Cūḷaniddesa and Paramattha-jotikā as correct in their treatment of these lines, or could my alternative reading be defended? Would anyone have any thoughts about this?

Thank you.

With metta,

Bhikkhu Bodhi

-- 
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Chuang Yen Monastery
2020 Route 301
Carmel NY 10512
U.S.A.

To help feed the hungry and educate disadvantaged children around the world,
please check:
Our website: http://www.buddhistglobalrelief.org/
Our blog: http://buddhistglobalrelief.wordpress.com/

For my Dhamma lectures and teachings:
http://www.baus.org/en/?cat=9 (includes schedule of classes)
http://bodhimonastery.org/a-systematic-study-of-the-majjhima-nikaya.html
http://www.noblepath.org/audio.html
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL23DE0292227250FA

For my public photo albums:
http://picasaweb.google.com/venbodhi


Sabbe sattā averā hontu, abyāpajjā hontu, anighā hontu, sukhī hontu!
願眾生無怨，願眾生無害，願眾生無惱，願眾生快樂！
May all beings be free from enmity, free from affliction, free from distress. May they be happy!