Wait a second, this is a transmission of an old Indic text of the Sarvastivada school. The main contents of the text are highly probably of a pre-sectarian origin and stem from the same proto-version as the Pali discourse. Any descrepancy between this text and the Pali version will lend significant credence to my hypothesis, while if its semantics correspond to the Pali version one-to-one, my hypothesis will be refuted. You can’t deny the efficiency of using Chinese Agama texts because it would mean that almost the entire fruitful research by Ven. Analayo (some of his books and articles are available here) and a large chunk of Ven. Bodhi’s work were made in vain, which I honestly think is a point hard to prove. Moreover, if it turns out there is no or little punctuation in the ancient Pali manuscripts there will be literally no way to find out how one should punctuate the verse apart from looking into the Chinese version hoping it will be helpful. Finally, denying that you can use a later translation to clarify unclear points in the hypothesized original text equals to saying you cannot use the Septuaginta in the Bible studies, which is, honestly (and I am sorry if I sound rude), absurd.
It is not. Please kindly read the abstract provided for this book.
Moreover, one of the current theories regarding DN texts is that they were primarily directed at the non-Buddhist audience with the proselytizing purposes (just listen to the opening discourse of the Ven. Bodhi’s series of lectures on the MN or read pretty much any more or less scholarly book on the structure of the Nikayas). As such, they had to meet at least two requirements: they had to be understandable for Non-Buddhists and they had to be entertaining. The latter point explains why there is so much palaces and magic jewels and lute-playing gods in the DN. Refuting a Brahmanical householder in a quasi-dispute situation using a brilliant rhetoric device is certainly something that the audience could dig a great deal. But in order to appreciate it, they had to understand what ‘this Buddha’ was actually saying to the poor Kevaṭṭa. Now, this is all purely hypothetical, as I don’t have any hard evidence and don’t claim to be an Indologist, but that would certainly explain the form this Sutta is having now.
But even if it were a specific Buddhist term, it would be far from rational to think that the Pali discourses are literal transcriptions of the talks between the Buddha and some other people. The are rather re-tellings, second-hand accounts circulating for centuries in mostly Buddhist culture where you don’t have to explain to people what ‘khandha’ or ‘namarupa’ means. This is why I am sometimes surprised by how people conclude ‘the five khandhas’ might be of the pre-Buddhist origin because the Buddha didn’t explain the term to his first five disciples. I mean, it is possible, but the absence of an explanation in a text doesn’t mean anything. The Buddhists as the primary audience of these discourses for centuries didn’t need any explanation, so it could easily be deemed redundant. You don’t explain the priest to explain in each and every sermon or each and every theological text what ‘sin’ or ‘purgatory’ means.
on p. 65 (see the picture below).
I always get a little bit confused when it comes to asavas, fetters, roots and all that stuff 
Anyway, I should warn you 