Anonymous Mahāthera bhikkhu who knew Ven. Ñāṇasumana personally pointed to Path Press editor that that the addition to SAKKĀYA (b) of Notes on Dhamma is Ven. Ñāṇasumana’s work and not Ven, Ñāṇavīra’s as had been assumed (cf. ‘Editor’s Foreword’, 2nd para.). That the addition of a text was from a loose slip of paper which was inserted into the manuscript believed to have written by Ven. Ñāṇavīra, confirmed from his marginal notes to Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript (See the note here). Now it is known to us that Ven. Ñāṇasumana intended to make ‘extra notes’ to complement Ven. Ñāṇavīra’s according to his understanding and practice (he was inclined to samatha bhāvanā). Also just by considering the change of style one can see it is not longer Ven. Ñāṇavīra. Besides, as the Venerable Mahāthera pointed to us, from a Dhamma point of view it is wrong: anulomikāya khantiyā samannāgato need not be dependent upon “initiation of samatha bhāvanā”.
Therefore, please, cross out from your copy of Note on Dhamma the passage on pp. 84-5, note (b) from “I.e., by falling away from this samatha bhāvanā practice…” to the end of the note.
Our sincere apology for the mistake.
The Editor
I wasn’t sure where to leave this message, but I notice under p. 561 of errata to CtP under Camus there is ‘The Rebel, 61’. I think this should be ‘The Renegade, 61’ as it is a story from Exile and the Kingdom..I hope this is correct..
With thanks
N C