That’s the other English reading of it. In English, I do think both readings could be valid. As I was writing it though, I realized I hadn’t gone to the translation on this thought, and the source text does not seem to allow the same notable ambiguities that the English text does.
If you read closely, you can hear me disproving my own claims as I dug into more of the supporting source reasoning for the thought.
Perhaps the reason they translated it that way was for narrative flow, or to assist in memorization or some such. It’s amazing how many times digging into the source language can knock bad ideas off their perches!
That’s the other English reading of it. In English, I do think both readings could be valid. As I was writing it though, I realized I hadn’t gone to the translation on this thought, and the source text does not seem to allow the same notable ambiguities that the English text does.
If you read closely, you can hear me disproving my own claims as I dug into more of the supporting source reasoning for the thought.
Perhaps the reason they translated it that way was for narrative flow, or to assist in memorization or some such. It’s amazing how many times digging into the source language can knock bad ideas off their perches!
👍