SN46.35 to SN46.38

[waiyin]

@sujato, I am aghast at the amount of ‘work’ this little report came up with, but I guess that’s the way of the world, what samsara ‘means’. (One only has to look at one’s mind to see the same.)

Just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed (again) your reading of the story of Nandopananda (in your reading of MN6). Thank you! Thank you!

[sujato]

@waiyin

I am aghast at the amount of ‘work’ this little report came up with

Me too! It’s a complex set of interrelations. But its only when attention is drawn that we can correct and improve things, so thank you once more.

@waiyin

I enjoyed (again) your reading of the story of Nandopananda (in your reading of MN6)

[sujato]

Yes, the Thai is quite confused here. @Dheerayupa can you look at this for us?

[sujato]

Let me go through this bit by bit.

@Vimala

[“ea-2.19”, “~an5.51”]

This seems like a stretch. Perhaps @llt would like to comment, but I can’t see anything justifying this as a parallel.

@Vimala

[“an5.55”, “~an5.51”]

Not a parallel.

@Vimala

[“sn46.24”, “~sa725”]

This is not a parallel. Instead, SA 725 parallels a group of pali texts that we have missed in our current lists.

sn46.36#1 = an5.52
sn46.36#2 = sn47.45

sa725 is a partial parallel of an5.52, sn46.36, and sn47.45.

@Vimala

The two portions of sa707 are overlapping

This is correct. sn46.34 parallels the second part of sn46.37, as noted. The lines in sa707 simply correspond with this. I’m not sure what the problem is here?

[Vimala]

Thanks for that.

@sujato

The two portions of sa707 are overlapping

This is correct. sn46.34 parallels the second part of sn46.37, as noted. The lines in sa707 simply correspond with this. I’m not sure what the problem is here?

Just the notation: it seems to me more logical and clean to use a different notation as I suggested, separating the two paragraphs.
If you have

[“sn46.37”, “sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c25”,“sn46.39#2-3”]
[“sn46.34”,“sn46.39#3”,“sn46.55#23”,“sn46.37#2”,“sa707#t0189c21-t0189c25”]
[“sn46.37#1”, “an5.51#2”]

Then the third statement is always incorrect. Because an5.51#2 is also corresponding to sn46.39#2 and sa707#14-20 but this is not mentioned. So when you would look at the parallels for an5.51, you would only see sn46.37 and not the others.

[Dheerayupa]

Dear Ajahn,

I’ve checked the first five of the Nīvaraṇa Vagga in SN, and found that the Thai version of 46.31 and 46.32 are true parallels to the English version, but …

46.33 and 46.34 and 46.35 are not…

Will look at them all tonight, ka.

[sujato]

Oh, okay, I see your point now. Fine, do it as you suggest.

[Vimala]

Thanks Dheerayupa,

The pali source was changed for sn46.35 - sn46.38 (see very first post).
So can you check if text of the pali matches the thai for these 4 suttas (or otherwise the English, because the English is correct too)?

Great if you check the others as well.

Thanks again!
Ayya Vimala

[Vimala]

I’m afraid that if you change one thing with these parallels, you open up another can of worms

@sujato

Instead, SA 725 parallels a group of pali texts that we have missed in our current lists.

sn46.36#1 = an5.52
sn46.36#2 = sn47.45

sa725 is a partial parallel of an5.52, sn46.36, and sn47.45.

Now I have already the following parallels listed for an5.52. So how about those:

[“an5.52”, “ea32.2”, “~sa767”]

And I’m still left with this other question:

@Vimala

And how about sn46.40 and sn46.39 (apart from the link with sn46.34)? I guess most of that is wrong too.

Right now I’ve got:

[“sn46.39”, “sa708”, “~an5.51”, “~sa704”, “~sa705”, “~sa706”, “~sa707”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sn46.33-34”, “~sn46.35-36”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.40”]
[“sn46.40”, “sa706”, “~an5.51”, “~sa704”, “~sa705”, “~sa707”, “~sa708”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sn46.33-34”, “~sn46.35-36”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.39”]

[sujato]

@Vimala

if you change one thing

Yeah, the IDs are so fundamental to everything.

@Vimala

open up another can of worms

You’re in America now. What you meant was “create many opportunities for personal growth”.

@Vimala

Now I have already the following parallels listed for an5.52. So how about those:

[“an5.52”, “ea32.2”, “~sa767”]

Sorry I missed these, I thought I checked the parallels. Also, i made a complete dunderheaded mistake, sn46.36 doesn’t belong here at all. It’s a typo for sn 47.5.

So, what’s happening here is we have a template of the “heap of the (un)wholesome”. In the negative form, this is the five hindrances. Some texts only have the negative form (ea32.2, an5.52), some texts have only the positive form (sn47.45), while others have both. While the negative form is always the hindrances, the positive form may be the 4 satipatthanas (as sn47.45, sn47.5), the 7 bojjhangas (sa725), or the 8-fold path (sa767). This variation is why they are partial.

Since all these texts employ this template, I think they should all be at least partial parallels of each other. But in some cases we can specify them more precisely.

• sn47.5#1 = an5.52 = ea32.2 (these are negative only)
• sn47.5#2 = sn47.45 (positive, 4 satipatthanas)

For the rest, I would suggest declaring them all as partial of each other.

###sn46.39

sn46.39 = sa708, so that’s clear. These are full parallels because of the overall argument of the text. Nevertheless, while sn46.39 frames the nivarana/bojjhanga contrast in terms of nivarana/avarana, sa708 does not, so it’s excluded from this set.

Note also that I have added another passage to the “positive half”, i.e. sn46.55#24.

[“sn46.37#1”, “an5.51#2”, "sn46.39#2, “sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c20”]
[“sn46.34”,“sn46.39#3”,“sn46.55#23”,“sn46.37#2”,“sa707#t0189c21-t0189c25”,“sn46.55#24”]

The rest are false parallels.

###sn46.40

This is defined by the use of andhakaraṇā acakkhukaraṇā and its opposite for the hindrances/bojjhangas. As such the only full parallel is sa706. In addition, we can list iti87 as partial for both of these; it employs the same template, but applied to kusala/akusala-vitakka.

The rest of these are false parallels and can be dropped.

[llt]

@sujato

This seems like a stretch. Perhaps @llt would like to comment, but I can’t see anything justifying this as a parallel.

Judging only on the content of the texts themselves, it’s difficult to see how they could be parallels in a meaningful sense.

[sujato]

Thanks. Always good to know I’m not totally off base!

[Vimala]

@sujato

What you meant was “create many opportunities for personal growth”.

…and this will create even more opportunities for your personal growth: I have sn47.5 already listed too

[“sn47.5”, “sa611”]

From what I can glean from the chinese lookup tool - this is indeed a parallel - both the negative and the positive form are mentioned, with the positive 0171b25-0171c01 and the negative 0171c02-0171c04. But I could be completely wrong.
Or should I just declare sa611 as partial to the whole lot as well.

sn46.39

@sujato

Note also that I have added another passage to the “positive half”, i.e. sn46.55#24.

But sn46.55#24 only reads:

Evaṃ vutte, saṅgāravo brāhmaṇo bhagavantaṃ etadavoca: “abhikkantaṃ, bho gotama … pe … upāsakaṃ maṃ bhavaṃ gotamo dhāretu ajjatagge pāṇupetaṃ saraṇaṃ gatan”ti.

So I very much doubt it if that can be a parallel at all. I take it you mean sn46.55#23, which is about the bojjhaṅgā.

sn46.55 also has another few parallels:

[“an5.193”, “sf124”, “sf186”, “sn46.55”]

But at least an5.193 does not talk about the bojjhaṅgā so it is more a common theme.

@sujato

sn46.39 = sa708, so that’s clear. These are full parallels because of the overall argument of the text. Nevertheless, while sn46.39 frames the nivarana/bojjhanga contrast in terms of nivarana/avarana, sa708 does not, so it’s excluded from this set.

So you mean to say that I should not list sa708 at all in relation to sn46.39?

[sujato]

@Vimala

Or should I just declare sa611 as partial to the whole lot as well.

No, it’s a full parallel to SN 47.5. And the line numbers are correct, except the “negative half” starts a line earlier, at 0171c01.

@Vimala

I take it you mean sn46.55#23

You’ve passed another one of my sneaky tests! Congratulations, you win a cake

@Vimala

So you mean to say that I should not list sa708 at all in relation to sn46.39?

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. sn46.39 is a full parallel to sa708. However this should remain independent of the sets of relations defined according to avarana/nivarana (as this phrasing is not used in sa708). So:

["sn46.39","sa708"]
["sn46.37#1", "an5.51#2", "sn46.39#2, "sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c20"]
["sn46.34","sn46.39#3","sn46.55#23","sn46.37#2","sa707#t0189c21-t0189c25","sn46.55#24"]

[Vimala]

I think we are finally done with those parallels. Maybe you want to check on staging.