Re: Sn 1055 panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe

Dear Bryan, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Petra et al,

I've been focussing on how the 3 commentaries (Pj II, Nidd II, Nidd-a II)
interpret Sn 1055, Here are some of my observations so far.

1) I think all three agree that tiṭṭhe is 3rd pers. sing, opt. If it were
the 2nd pers. wouldn't they have glossed it with tiṭṭheyyāsi instead of
tiṭṭheyya ? Apparently Geiger also includes an -eyya form in the 2nd sing.
opt.

2) It seems that Pj II and Nidd-a II have overidden Nidd II's reading of
panujja as a 2nd pers. sing. imp. in favour of an absolutive. DOP II
s.v. nudati gives only nudiyā as its absolutive  Nidd-a II (which includes
much from Pj II) glosses panujja with "atīva khipa" (2nd sing. imp.). It is
worth noting that Niruttidīpanī gives a passive panujjati in addition to
panudīyati.

3) It seems that all three include viññāṇaṃ as an object of panujja along
with nandi and nivesana. I have not been able so far to make sense of an
absolutive panujja with a 2nd or 3rd pers. tiṭṭhe as the main verb. But if I
take panujja (2nd imperative) as the main verb then "bhave na tiṭthe" could
be construed as an explanatory note on viññāṇa (it cannot remain in
existence). I think the removal of viññāṇa could not happen until the
arahant passes away permanently. The term panujja is just part of a series
of imperatives covering the events passing thtrough the four supramundane
paths as best explained in Nidd-a II.

Best wishes,

Jim
ps to Bryan: I recently heard that Newfoundland which originally had
no moose now has a 100,000. They say you can't see the forest for the moose.