A possible note?

[stu]

Continuing the discussion from Please report any errors or typos!:

@sujato

But shouldn’t arati be ‘aversion’ instead? Is the translation maybe commentarial or interpreted differently?

There was a study by Marcus Bingenheimer that rather conclusively showed the correct form to be rati. Normally I am reluctant to correct the Pali text, but in this case it was such a clear example of textual corruption I felt it was justified.

(If appropriate) I wonder if this could be included as a note. It looks kinda odd reading side-by-side. I found a reference for the study that you cite at p.124 here: https://mbingenheimer.net/publications/bingenheimer_StudiesInAgamaLit_2011.pdf