To Māgaṇḍiya

Identity

Segment range snp4.9:1.1–13.4. Sn 835–847 (13 verses). Received title Māgandiyasutta — after the named interlocutor, a Brahmin named Māgandiya (Sanskrit Mākandika) who offers the Buddha his daughter in marriage. The sutta is the AV's only dialogue sutta with genuine dialogical engagement — Māgandiya speaks at vv. 2, 4, 6 (Sn 836, 838, 840), not just as a reciter's speaker-tag. It is also the AV's first 4-recension sutta: Pāli, Chinese Yizujing, Sanskrit (Hoernle 1916), and Gāndhārī (Split Arthapada) all preserve portions directly. The sutta is the primary locus of the canonical Mahākaccāna–AV link: Sn 844 is exegeted by Mahākaccāna at SN 22.3 — the foundational external attestation of the AV's reception-history.

Text and form

Triṣṭubh throughout (Norman 2001 p. 347). No speaker-tags of the reciter-added kind seen at Snp 4.7 — the dialogue structure is carried by the verses themselves. Māgandiya's interlocutor-verses (Sn 836, 838, 840) are marked by their rhetorical direction ("what do you say then?", "then how do you know dhamma?") rather than by extrametrical tags.

Architecture.

• vv. 1–6 (Sn 835–840) — Opening dialogue. v. 1 (Buddha): the famous autobiographical methuna-refusal ("even with my foot I would not wish to touch [Taṇhā, Arati, Ragā]; what then of this body full of urine and excrement?"). vv. 2, 4, 6 (Māgandiya): interrogations pressing the Buddha to state what he does claim as purity. vv. 3, 5 (Buddha): the no-position thesis applied to purity.
• vv. 7–13 (Sn 841–847) — Buddha's sustained muni-description. Māgandiya does not speak again; the sutta's closing seven verses are monologue. This is the muni-description core that cross-recensional evidence (Gāndhārī + Chinese) establishes as pre-recensional shared material.

The shift from dialogue at vv. 1–6 to monologue at vv. 7–13 is a structural datum the cross-recensional witnesses bear on: the Gāndhārī Split Arthapada preserves only Sn 841–844 (vv. 7–10), precisely the monologue core; the Yizujing independently suppresses Māgandiya's dialogue-verses. Two independent non-Pāli witnesses converge on the monologue core as the stable verse-material, suggesting the dialogue-frame of vv. 1–6 is either a Pāli-recension overlay or Pāli-recension preservation of material the other recensions dropped.

Content

The Buddha opens with his autobiographical refusal: on seeing Māra's daughters Taṇhā, Arati, and Ragā, Chandopi me nāhosi methunasmiṁ — "I had no desire for sexual intercourse; even with my foot I would not wish to touch this, full of urine and excrement."

Māgandiya challenges: if you reject even a gem of a woman whom many kings desire, what view, what precept, what way do you claim, then? What purification-doctrine is yours?

The Buddha's response is the AV's signature no-position move: not by view, not by tradition, not by knowledge, not by precept-and-vow — nor by the absence of these — do I say purity comes. Abandoning them, not grasping, the peaceful one, independent, does not long for existence.

Māgandiya parrots back, pressing: "then you think what is dhamma is folly; some by their view attain purity?" The Buddha: grasping at a view in investigation, you became stupefied; here you did not see even the tiniest perception — therefore you hold me as confused.

The sutta then turns to the muni-description monologue. Thinking oneself equal, superior, or inferior — the one who thinks this would dispute by it; but for one who is unshaken in the three modes of conceit, "equal" and "superior" do not hold. By what would the brahmin call something true or false — by what would he engage in dispute? He in whom neither equal nor unequal exist, by what could he oppose another?

Okaṁ pahāya aniketasārī — "abandoning home, a homeless wanderer, the muni makes no intimacies in the village; empty of sensual desires, not foregrounding [anything] — how could he enter into dispute with people?" And so the closing four verses: unattached to sight, sound, taste, touch; the sage (vedagū), having passed to the further shore, is not intimate with any views, with any knowledge, with any philosophic speculation.

Key passages

v. 1 (Sn 835) — the foot-image.

Disvāna taṇhaṁ aratiṁ ragañca, / Nāhosi chando api methunasmiṁ; / Kimevidaṁ muttakarīsapuṇṇaṁ, / Pādāpi naṁ samphusituṁ na icche.

Seeing Taṇhā, Arati, and Ragā, I had no desire for sexual intercourse. What would this body full of urine and excrement be — I would not wish to touch it even with my foot.

The Buddha's autobiographical refusal. The foot-image (pādāpi naṁ samphusituṁ) survives verbatim in the Yizujing (以足觸尚不可) — one of the strongest direct cross-recensional word-correspondences in the AV.

v. 5 (Sn 839) — the no-position thesis.

Na diṭṭhiyā na sutiyā na ñāṇena, / Sīlabbatenāpi na suddhimāha; / Adiṭṭhiyā assutiyā añāṇā, / Asīlatā abbatā nopi tena; / Ete ca nissajja anuggahāya, / Santo anissāya bhavaṁ na jappe.

Not by view, nor by tradition, nor by knowledge, nor by precept-and-vow does one say purity comes — nor by their absence either. Letting these go, not grasping, the peaceful one, independent, does not long for existence.

The four-claim formula here appears in its alternative diṭṭha-suta-ñāṇa-sīlabbata form (with ñāṇa "knowledge/rationale" in the slot that Snp 4.4, 4.5, 4.12 fill with muta) — Lee's strongest internal evidence for reading muta as "rationale" across the AV. The verse also carries Hoernle's Sanskrit-interpolation flag: see Choice-points.

v. 8 (Sn 842) — the three-modes-of-conceit formula.

Samo visesī uda vā nihīno, / Yo maññati so vivadetha tena; / Tīsu vidhāsu avikampamāno, / Samo visesīti na tassa hoti.

"Equal, superior, or inferior" — one who thinks this would dispute by it. But one unshaken in the three modes [of conceit], "equal" and "superior" do not hold of him.

The samo / visesī / nihīno triplet is the AV's signature anti-conceit grammar, shared with Snp 4.5:4.3 and Snp 4.7:9.3. Gāndhārī Split Arthapada met="842" preserves this verse at ~95% stem-level cognate agreement (samo / viś̱eṣ̱o / vihino ↔ samo / visesī / nihīno; mañati / vivaṯea / tiṃsa vis̱aṣ̱o avig̱apamana ↔ maññati / vivadetha / tīsu vidhāsu avikampamāno). See Cross-recensional witnesses.

v. 10 (Sn 844) — the homeless sage, the five-witness verse.

Okaṁ pahāya aniketasārī, / Gāme akubbaṁ muni santhavāni; / Kāmehi ritto apurakkharāno, / Kathaṁ na viggayha janena kayirā.

Abandoning home, a homeless wanderer, the muni makes no intimacies in the village; empty of sensual desires, not foregrounding [anything] — how could he enter into dispute with people?

The most densely-attested verse in the AV. Five witnesses: (1) Pāli Snp 4.9, (2) Pāli SN 22.3 Haliddakāṇi where Mahākaccāna quotes and exegetes the full verse at Kuraraghara — the primary canonical external attestation of the AV's Mahākaccāna-reception, (3) Pāli Mahāniddesa mnd9 gloss, (4) Gāndhārī Split Arthp met="844" (partial; [aku]…v(e) mu(ṇi) (sa)tha(vaṇi) (ka)me(h)[i] (rito) (apu)rekharaṇa kasa no vig(r)iś̱a janena ka(r)ye), (5) Hoernle Sanskrit coverage range (Frag. IV rev., specific reading lacunary in our extract but within attested span). No other AV verse has this breadth of attestation.

Choice-points

v. 5 (Sn 839) / v. 6 (Sn 840), the Adiṭṭhiyā-asīlatā four-line interpolation. Hoernle 1916 (p. 716 footnote) flags the four Pāli lines Adiṭṭhiyā assutiyā añāṇā / Asīlatā abbatā nopi tena — which appear in near-identical form at both Sn 839 (Buddha's speech) and Sn 840 (Māgandiya's echoing reply) — as probable Pāli-only interpolation: "The four lines, within square brackets, in the Pāli version, would seem to be an interpolation. There was, apparently, no counterpart to them in the Sanskrit version." The Sanskrit Frag. IV obv. transitions directly from what corresponds to Sn 839c to the lines corresponding to Sn 840f–g, without the intervening four-line pair.

The Pāli repetition of the same four lines across two consecutive verses is stylistically unusual in the AV (which prefers variatio between interlocutor-turns). Hoernle's reading: either the lines were introduced into both verses by a Pāli-stream copyist working from a source that doubled them, or they were added as parallel-formula amplification in both verses. Either way, the Sanskrit witness does not positively attest the four-line pair. The caveat is real — the Sanskrit witness is fragmentary and could have contained the lines — but the inference from the Sanskrit verse-flow being more economical without them is a direct text-critical pressure against the standard Pāli reading.

v. 5 (Sn 839), the four-claim formula form. The verse uses Na diṭṭhiyā na sutiyā na ñāṇena, sīlabbatenāpi… — the alternative four-claim formula with ñāṇa in the slot that Snp 4.4 and 4.5 fill with muta. Lee 2024 (pp. 168, 209 nn. 10) uses this internal alternation as primary evidence that muta and ñāṇa are interchangeable in the AV's ascetic-claim-bases formula — supporting her reading of muta as "rationale" rather than as "sense-experience" across the AV. Snp 4.9's ñāṇa-form is the strongest internal philological evidence the AV provides for Lee's reading.

v. 7 (Sn 841), momuhato dahāsi. Māgandiya's final intervention (v. 6) accuses the Buddha of presenting a confused doctrine; the Buddha responds at v. 7: "grasping at a view in investigation, you became stupefied; from this you did not see even the tiniest perception — therefore you hold me as confused." Gāndhārī Split Arthp preserves the closing formula momuado ḍahas̱(i) (← momuhato dahāsi) at met="841" — the formula's cross-recensional stability confirms it as a pre-recensional unit.

v. 13 (Sn 847), vedagū closing. The sutta closes on the sage as vedagū ("knowledge-gone") who has passed beyond — the Brahmanical veda vocabulary re-appropriated as the Buddha does in Snp 4.4:5.3 (vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṁ). The re-appropriation is characteristic of the AV's treatment of Brahmanical religious vocabulary.

Vocabulary and commentary

Lexical profile. Diṭṭhi-debate and muni-description vocabulary concentrate here, with several signature AV formulas present: the three-conceit triplet samo / visesī / nihīno (v. 8, shared with 4.5, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14); the diṭṭha-suta-ñāṇa-sīlabbata four-claim formula (v. 5) as the alternative form of the standard diṭṭha-suta-muta-sīlabbata; the okaṁ pahāya aniketa-sārī formula (v. 10, the AV's signature homeless-wanderer epithet); purakkharāno (v. 10, cf. Snp 4.3:7.1 purekkhatā); apurakkharāno / na purekkharonti recurrences across the AV. Methuna (v. 1) echoes Snp 4.7's focal vocabulary.

The Buddha's opening address to Māgandiya evokes the three daughters of Māra (Taṇhā, Arati, Ragā) — a canonical detail preserved in the Yizujing's frame (the Buddha recalls having rejected the three daughters previously) and consistent with the standard Māra-triad of SN 4.25 and the Padhāna-sutta (Snp 3.2) cross-references.

Mahāniddesa (Mnd 9). Covers all thirteen verses. Standard Niddesa operations: the ten-fold avyākata schema on the "what is your view?" interrogation at v. 4; the seven sallas on salla (v. 10 context); the 22-defilement cascade on ritta; the three-fold pariññā on viññāya dhamme. The Niddesa's treatment of v. 10 is notable for being quoted in near-full form at SN 22.3 — Mahākaccāna's exegesis of Sn 844 at Kuraraghara takes the same verse-lemmata and applies a parallel word-gloss method, and the Mahāniddesa's gloss structure parallels Mahākaccāna's exegetical moves. Chapter 5 treats this as evidence for a shared exegetical tradition linking the Niddesa and the SN 22.3 Mahākaccāna discourse.

Cross-recensional witnesses

Pāli: full; 13 verses. With Hoernle's flag on the Sn 839–840 four-line pair (see Choice-points).

Sanskrit (Hoernle 1916 Fragments III + IV). Coverage: Sn 835 onwards with lacunae; directly attested Sn 836, 837, 838, 839 (partial), 841 (probable), 842 (partial), 843 (partial), 844 (partial). The range extends through Sn 847 but specific preservation thins. Key cross-recensional finding: the four Pāli lines at Sn 839c–d and Sn 840c–d (Adiṭṭhiyā assutiyā añāṇā, Asīlatā abbatā nopi tena) are apparently absent from the Sanskrit witness — Hoernle's interpolation claim, discussed above.

Gāndhārī (Split Arthapada scroll). The Split Arthp is a 1st-c.-BCE / 2nd-c.-CE Kharoṣṭhī birch-bark scroll (Allon 2024) covering Snp 4.9 through 4.16, with coverage beginning at Sn 841 (Snp 4.9 v. 7). Snp 4.9 is the AV's first sutta with direct Gāndhārī verse-level attestation. Four verses preserved (Sn 841, 842, 843, 844, with Sn 841 heavily damaged and Sn 844 partial).

Stem-level cognate analysis (Sn 842, the three-modes-of-conceit verse):

Gāndhārī	Pāli	Status
samo viś̱eṣ̱o us̱a va vihino	samo visesī uda vā nihīno	~95% cognate; standard sound-correspondences
yo mañati so vivaṯea kena	yo maññati so vivadetha tena	kena / tena function-word divergence
tiṃsa vis̱aṣ̱o avig̱apamana	tīsu vidhāsu avikampamāno	near-direct cognate
samo viś̱eṣ̱o avi na tas̱a bho(ṯ)[i]	samo visesīti na tassa hoti	avi / iti function-word divergence; bho(ṯ)i / hoti dialectal variant

Nineteen of twenty stems are direct cognates; two function-word pairs diverge. Similar near-verbatim correspondence holds for Sn 843 and Sn 844 (partial for 844). The muni-description core (vv. 7–10) is pre-recensional-divergence shared material. Sn 843 preserves an uncompressed na asti in Gāndhārī where Pāli contracts to natthi — a small marker that the Gāndhārī form in places is older than the Pāli contraction.

Crucially, the dialogue-frame verses (Sn 836, 838, 840 — Māgandiya's speeches) are not in the Gāndhārī scroll. The Gāndhārī coverage picks up precisely at Sn 841 — the verse where Māgandiya falls silent and the Buddha's monologue begins. Combined with the Yizujing's independent suppression of the dialogue-verses (see below), two independent non-Pāli witnesses converge on the absence of Māgandiya's dialogue-verses. This is the strongest cross-recensional evidence so far for a Pāli-recension overlay on an originally monologic muni-sermon.

Chinese Yizujing YZJ-9 摩因提女經 ("Mākandika's Daughter Sūtra") at [T0198_p0180a13]–[T0198_p0180c02]: 16 verses = 13 parallel + 3 added (Lee 2024 Table 2). The Chinese title centres on the daughter rather than the father — a narrative choice consistent with the Yizujing's general framing preference (the sutta-verses are occasioned by the daughter's attempt to marry the Buddha).

The frame narrative elaborates the Māgandiya story: Māgandiya's daughter sees the Buddha's 32 marks of a great man and falls in love; the father offers her; the Buddha delivers the autobiographical methuna-refusal in verse, with the direct quotation "I had previously seen the three evil daughters [of Māra] and did not wish to cling to even evil-fornication; how then should I embrace this urine-and-excrement, which I would not touch even with my foot?" ([T0198_p0180a29]) — the foot-image (以足觸尚不可) survives in Chinese.

Dialogue-frame suppression: the Yizujing preserves the Buddha's verses (Sn 835, 837, 839, 841–847) but drops Māgandiya's interlocutor-verses (Sn 836, 838, 840). The verse-text at [T0198_p0180b05]–[T0198_p0180c02] is entirely Buddha-speech. Combined with the Gāndhārī Split Arthp starting at Sn 841 (post-dialogue), the convergent suppression across two independent recensions is strong evidence for the muni-description core as pre-recensional shared material and the dialogue-frame as a Pāli-recension feature.

Coverage note. Snp 4.9 is the AV's most cross-recensionally evidenced sutta — directly attested in all four recensions, with Sn 844 as a five-witness verse. The cross-recensional work confirms (a) the muni-description core as pre-recensional-divergence shared material, (b) the dialogue-frame as Pāli-specific (or the other recensions suppressed it independently), and (c) a probable Pāli-copyist interpolation at Sn 839–840. No other AV sutta supports this level of primary-text triangulation.

Internal cross-references

Within the AV. The samo / visesī / nihīno triplet (v. 8) is shared with Snp 4.5:4.3 and Snp 4.7:9.3. The Dhammesu niccheyya samuggahītaṁ four-sutta formula appears at v. 3 (Sn 837 in its verse position) linking to 4.3:6.2, 4.5:6.4, 4.13:13.2. Okaṁ pahāya aniketasārī (v. 10) — the homeless-wanderer formula — echoes across the AV's goal-portraits (cf. anoko at Snp 4.2:5.4, aniketa-cārī at Snp 4.16:14.4). The alternative diṭṭha-suta-ñāṇa-sīlabbata form of the four-claim formula at v. 5 is internal evidence for Lee's reading of muta as "rationale" across 4.4, 4.5, 4.12.

Cross-AV–PV. The methuna-refusal vocabulary (Nāhosi chando api methunasmiṁ) echoes Snp 4.7's focal methuna-concern; the two suttas' sharing of the vocabulary is one of the AV's internal thematic links. The vedagū closing (v. 13) parallels Snp 4.4:5.3 (vidvā ca vedehi) and recurs in the Pārāyaṇa's closing portraits.

Within the Khuddaka. SN 22.3 Haliddakāṇisutta at Kuraraghara in Avanti is the sutta's most important prose-Nikāya cross-reference: Mahākaccāna quotes Sn 844 wholesale (aṭṭhakavaggiye māgaṇḍiyapañhe) and exegetes it word-by-word for the householder Haliddakāṇi. This is the earliest canonical attestation of the AV as a named collection (see Chapter 1 §1.2) and the primary external evidence for the Mahākaccāna–AV exegetical link (Chapter 8).

MN 18 Madhupiṇḍikasutta shares the papañca-saññā-saṅkhā diagnostic vocabulary with Snp 4.11 Kalahavivāda (see Part II 4.11), and MN 18's Mahākaccāna-exegesis-of-a-brief-Buddha-saying is the same exegetical template as SN 22.3 — both instantiate the Mahākaccāna-as-expander-of-brief-sayings role canonically established at AN 1.197. The Pāli canonical picture of Mahākaccāna is constituted partly by his AV exegetical role.

Prose-nikāya uptake. Beyond SN 22.3, the sutta's methuna-content is thematically connected to MN 75 Māgandiyasutta — the prose-Nikāya "Māgandiya Discourse" on the cause of craving — though the two texts are formally independent (MN 75 is prose, Snp 4.9 is verse).

Reception and external attestation

Mahāniddesa: Mnd 9 covers all thirteen verses. The verse-level glosses parallel Mahākaccāna's SN 22.3 exegetical moves, suggesting a shared exegetical tradition (Chapter 5).

Paramatthajotikā II: frames the sutta with the Māgandiya-and-daughter narrative — the elder brahmin who, having seen the Buddha's 32 marks on an alms-round, follows him to offer his daughter; the Buddha's autobiographical refusal is spoken on the occasion. Pj II's framing aligns with the Yizujing's — the two traditions converge on the daughter-offering occasion (see 4.4 Suddhaṭṭhaka for the parallel convergence on the darśan-critique reading).

Aśoka Bhabru edict: not identified among the seven dhamma-paliyāyāni.

Peṭakopadesa: no verse of Snp 4.9 is cited in Pe chapter 1's AV-extraction. But the SN 22.3 Mahākaccāna-exegesis of Sn 844 is the canonical counterpart — SN 22.3 functions as the AV's primary external exegetical anchor independently of the Pe.

SN 22.3 Haliddakāṇi at Kuraraghara, Avanti. The canonical anchor for the Mahākaccāna–AV link. Mahākaccāna, when visited by the householder Haliddakāṇi, is asked to explain the Buddha's brief saying from aṭṭhakavaggiye māgaṇḍiyapañhe — the Aṭṭhakavagga's Māgandiya-question. Mahākaccāna quotes Sn 844 in full and provides a systematic word-gloss: okaṁ = rūpadhātu (the form-element as home); aniketasārī = anupādiyanto (not grasping); santhava = taṇhā-santhava (intimacies of craving); etc. The exegesis is Mahākaccāna's primary canonical demonstration of the AV-exegetical role for which AN 1.197 names him as etadagga ("foremost in explaining the meaning of brief utterances"). The geographic datum is significant: SN 22.3 is set at Kuraraghara in Avanti — the region traditionally associated with Mahākaccāna's home ministry — placing the AV's primary canonical exegesis in the Avanti-corridor that Chapter 9 treats as the locus of the AV's downstream transmission.

Reading

Snp 4.9 is the AV's diṭṭhi-debate set-piece in dialogue form, its autobiographical-Buddha-vignette, and its most cross-recensionally documented sutta. Four recensions preserve portions; Sn 844 is the AV's most densely-attested verse (five witnesses across four traditions plus Mahākaccāna's exegesis). The sutta is the natural centrepiece for any treatment of the AV's external reception: SN 22.3's Mahākaccāna-exegesis of Sn 844 at Kuraraghara establishes both the AV as a named canonical collection and Mahākaccāna as its canonical expounder, two foundational data for Chapters 1 and 8.

The Buddha's opening autobiographical methuna-refusal is the most direct first-person content in the AV. Nāhosi chando api methunasmiṁ … pādāpi naṁ samphusituṁ na icche — "I had no desire for sexual intercourse; I would not wish to touch it even with my foot." The foot-image travels: it survives verbatim in the Yizujing (以足觸尚不可), and the Māgandiya-and-daughter narrative frames it in both the Chinese and the Pj II Pāli commentary. The autobiographical register is unusual enough in the AV (compare only the first-person saṁvega narrative of Snp 4.15 Round 1) that it marks 4.9 as a special case — one of two AV suttas where the Buddha speaks directly about his own biography.

The cross-recensional finding that shapes how the sutta should be read is the convergent absence of the dialogue-frame across the Gāndhārī and Yizujing witnesses. The Gāndhārī Split Arthapada's coverage of this sutta begins precisely at Sn 841 — the verse where Māgandiya falls silent and the Buddha's seven-verse monologue begins. The Yizujing independently suppresses Māgandiya's interlocutor-verses at Sn 836, 838, 840. Two independent non-Pāli witnesses, from traditions that had no contact with each other, both preserve the monologue-core (vv. 7–13) and drop the dialogue-frame (vv. 1–6). This is the strongest primary-text case in the AV for verse-core / dialogue-overlay as a compositional-history hypothesis. The Pāli-recension either preserves a dialogue-frame the other recensions lost, or added it from a source the other recensions did not share. The convergent absence across two independent witnesses weights the latter reading — the dialogue-frame is more economically explained as Pāli-recension accretion than as common ancestor followed by double independent loss.

Sn 844 — the homeless-sage verse — is the case-study any extended treatment of the AV's pre-recensional status requires. Gāndhārī's [aku]…v(e) mu(ṇi) (sa)tha(vaṇi) (ka)me(h)[i] (rito) (apu)rekharaṇa kasa no vig(r)iś̱a janena ka(r)ye matches Pāli's Okaṁ pahāya aniketasārī, Gāme akubbaṁ muni santhavāni, Kāmehi ritto apurakkharāno, Kathaṁ na viggayha janena kayirā at roughly 90% stem-level cognate agreement — the surviving portions are word-for-word the same text in two Prakrit dialects. Mahākaccāna quotes the same verse at SN 22.3 and gives it a full word-gloss exegesis. The Mahāniddesa glosses it. Hoernle's Sanskrit coverage range includes it. This is the AV's densest primary-text anchor — one verse that one can trace across every transmission-stream we have access to, with the canonical Mahākaccāna-exegesis providing the exegetical pedigree.

Hoernle's text-critical flag on the Adiṭṭhiyā-asīlatā four-line pair at Sn 839–840 is the sutta's most substantive textual-correction claim. The Sanskrit flow from Sn 839c to Sn 840f–g is more economical without the intervening four-line repetition; the Pāli has the same four lines in back-to-back verses in a pattern unusual elsewhere in the AV. Hoernle's "would seem to be an interpolation" is appropriately hedged — the Sanskrit witness is fragmentary — but it is direct primary-text pressure against a specific Pāli reading, and it points toward a simpler two-verse exchange at Sn 839–840 than the Pāli preserves. Chapter 4's stratigraphic reading should note the flag.

Lee's alternate-form reading of the four-claim formula receives its strongest internal evidence at this sutta's v. 5: diṭṭha-suta-ñāṇa-sīlabbata (with ñāṇa where 4.4 / 4.5 / 4.12 have muta) is the alternation Lee uses to argue muta and ñāṇa are interchangeable in the AV's claim-bases formula. Snp 4.9's ñāṇa-form is what gives the reading its philological ground; no other AV sutta provides the alternation in-text.