@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!
This seems like a stretch. Perhaps @llt would like to comment, but I can’t see anything justifying this as a parallel.
Not a parallel.
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.
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?
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.
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 …
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)?
You’re in America now. What you meant was “create many opportunities for personal growth”.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
You’ve passed another one of my sneaky tests! Congratulations, you win a cake
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: