Re: Sn 1055 panujja viññāṇaṃ bhave na tiṭṭhe

Dear Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi,

You wrote:
<< (2) I don't see why Jim says that Pj II and Nidd-a II have "overridden"
Nidd II's reading of panujja as a 2nd person singular imperative in
favor of an absolutive. Both Pj II and Nidd-a take account of both
alternatives. Pj II says "... taṇhañca diṭṭhinivesanañca
abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇañca *panudehi, panuditvā ca*," and it then construes
the line separately by way of the two interpretations.  Nidd-a II simply
echoes Pj II.>>

I'm afraid I was mistaken in making that "overridden" remark. After
re-reading the passage (quoted below), I think the commentary is saying
that the phrase "bhave na tiṭṭhe" is only connected to "panujja" when
construed as an absolutive;  the imperative still latter being valid but not
in connection with the bhave phrase. Roughly it seems to be saying:remove
the 3 objects denoted and having done that, it (your viññāṇa) can not stand
or continue in (the two kinds of) existence.

Here is the Pj II passage in question:

Etesu nandiñca nivesanañca, panujja viññāṇanti etesu uddhādīsu taṇhañca
diṭṭhinivesanañca abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇañca panudehi, panuditvā ca bhave na
tiṭṭhe, evaṃ sante duvidhepi bhave na tiṭṭheyya. Evaṃ tāva panujjasaddassa
panudehīti imasmiṃ atthavikappe sambandho, panuditvāti etasmiṃ pana
atthavikappe bhave na tiṭṭheti ayameva sambandho.

I checked the Pāli Tipiṭakaṃ Concordance and found no tiṭṭhe listed as a 2nd
pers. sing. but only as a 3rd pers. sing. and a single imperative panujja
which is in our Nidd II passage, all the rest are absolutives.

Best wishes,

Jim