I take what’s being said here, and note some points which I think are great. Here’s my take on it:
The Buddha initiates the discussion- he is known to like seclusion and generally says little, but enough to get the meaning across. Here is a more lengthy refutation of various positions usually done to dispel view which the audience might be clinging to, as it takes that level of thorough explanation.
My hunch is that they monks were believers of Brahma. And Brahmanism becomes refuted- the Buddha makes it easy, by including it as one of the elements on a progressive scale. He also counteracts (or records for posterity) any beliefs that could arise based on Nibbana. He clearly asked this sermon to be memorised. I suppose it is easy to believe in a God and Heaven whatever century you lived in and he differentiates out theistic belief from the beliefs projected on to Nibbana, which is a different beast.
He is speaking to Putajjana monks. Possibly newly ordained as they aren’t very learned. They are upset at having their former beliefs challenged by the Buddha. If someone is told to give up pleasures of the senses, they will likely become crestfallen and dejected. The Buddha is asking them to do this and also give up comforting beliefs about Mahabrahma, Prajapati etc. Their clinging leads to suffering and they are not happy with this discourse- its not a fantasy one with unicorns, rainbows, God, heaven, virgins etc.
If I may add a linguistic interpretation: Some terms are significantly rare in the EBT, and ‘Pajapati’ is one of them. I don’t think this is a coincidence but rather a sign of a specific transmission line from a decade when the Sangha spread into more Brahmin mainland and incorporated the deities of that region. References to Brahma and Sakka are abundant, they also appear as ‘real’ interlocutors in contrast to Pajapati.
We find references to him only in: SN 11.3, SN 22.79—AN 11.9—MN 22 (belong to the same voice), MN 1—MN 49 (probably same voice), DN 13, DN 21, DN 32.
It’s not too surprising that most references are in the MN and DN (which to me are compiliation-nikayas and therefore later).
So my additional interpretation would be not that the Bhikkhus in the sutta were followers of Prajapati but that the (monastic) audience of the reciters were coming from a subculture/region in which an idealization of Prajapati was common.
To answer your question, Bhikkhu Bodhi states they will make three bows to the Buddha, the statue presumably offscreen. The statue you see is Avalokiteshvara, or Kuan Yin bodhisattva, to which he is not bowing in the video, as far as I can tell.
Yes, this is the text critical principle known as lectio difficilior potior, “the more difficult reading is stronger.” And I would say it applies here. Although, as @Gabriel points out, the addition of a na is a very minor change - barely an alternative reading - it is still hard for me to see how scribes would make such a mistake. They would have come across the standard formulation time and again and I don’t know why they would get it wrong in one place. In any case, whichever reading is correct, it does not affect the overall message of the sutta.
I personally love the surprise that they were not happy. It shows me that identity view(sakkāyadiṭṭhi) is hard to see, hard to give up and overcome even though it is shown in all of its aspects directly by the Buddha to the monks (not to say to lay people).
If at the end, all monks were happy then identity view is not a big problem, and everybody can easily understand and recognize identity view after listening to that discourse.
MN1 is the first in this collection, and sakkāyadiṭṭhi is also the first fetter to overcome for a monk.
To me, that surprise statement is beautiful and to the point. However, this is just my own impression and understanding.
There is a discussion in DW and a member came up with the following interpretation.
I like to know your opinion specially from Bhante @sujato
Read the final paragraph again. “Delight is the root of suffering… the bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha’s words”
If they delighted in him saying that delight itself is the root of suffering, it wouldn’t make sense. This, in my opinion is an example of some dry humor in the Suttas which is not directly traceable to the Buddha but perhaps Ananda or later reciters.
