erratum A Mahåthera bhikkhu (anonymous), who knew Ven. Ñå~asumana (a student of Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra’s) personally, has pointed out to the editors at Path Press that text appended to footnote sakkåya (b) of Notes on Dhamma (2009) is not Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra’s, but is, rather, the work of Ven. Ñå~asumana. This added text was (as noted in the Editor’s Foreward, p. 4) taken from a loose slip of paper which was inserted into the manuscript, and believed to have been written by Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra; a belief reinforced by the marginal notes in Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra’s copy of Kierkegaard’s Concluding Scientific Postscript (see the notes in Seeking the Path, Path Press Publications, 2010, p. 517). It is now known that Ven. Ñå~asumana made additional notes of his own, to complement those of Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra, according to his own understanding and practice (Ven. Ñå~asumana was inclined to samatha bhavanå). Not only is the writing style of the appended text quite different from that employed by Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra, but, as pointed out by the Ven. Mahåthera, the view expressed therein is incorrect (in fact, anulomikåya khantiyå samannågato need not be dependent upon “initiation of samatha bhåvanå”), and this incorrect view is nowhere supported in any of Ven. Ñå~av⁄ra’s other writings. Therefore, please strike or block out text from note (b), pp. 84-5, beginning, “I.e., by falling away from this samatha bhåvanå practice…” to the end of the note. We sincerely apologize for this error. —The Editors
www.pathpress.org | www.nanavira.org | www.pathpresspublications.com