Thanks. In fact I had already removed the Pali. It does not seem required.
Yes, this is clearly a mistake, now corrected. Thanks once again.
Thanks. In fact I had already removed the Pali. It does not seem required.
Yes, this is clearly a mistake, now corrected. Thanks once again.
Ha, I missed that subtle difference! Maybe itâs a bit too subtle, or Iâm a too coarse reader, but I understand your reasoning.
Bhante, This does not make sense to me. If he died because he neglected the Buddha should have told him âyou should not have neglectedâ.
In other words the Buddha should have told him " you must have spread a mind of metta" in which case the snake would not have bitten.
Ven; Thanisaro translates as follows.
âThen itâs certain, monks, that that monk didnât suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake"
Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as follows.
âSurely bhikkhus, that bhikkhu did not pervade the four royal families of snakes with a mind of loving kindness. For if he had done so, he would not have been bitten by a snake and diedâ.
With Metta
Linking to external mythologies will perhaps create more confusion than intended.
The use of Penelope is quite evocative to me. Later generations may not have personal familiarity with Homerâs work, but that would be another translatorâs challenge.
Jalini means âcravingâ elsewhere, which isnât really a good name for anybody!
âFor them there is no cravingâ
âYassa jÄlinÄ« visattikÄ,
In this way, the use of Penelope seems boldly appropriate.
However, from AN6.61 we have:
And craving is the seamstress,
The one point of confusion might arise from the Homeric point of view is that Penelope exemplifies the virtue of fidelity as expressed through her weaving. In other words, Penelopeâs weaving might not be quite the same as the AN6.61. Penelope weaves threads of ethics, not craving. Right? And perhaps that is borne out in JÄlinÄ«âs ascendance to the Thirty-Three. She is a deity!
However in the Thirty-ThreeâŠshe is wooing Anuruddha. Oh dear. It was craving after all.
And look! Bhanteâs use of Penelope has got us all thinking and investigating!
I think youâre misreading the English idioms.
âYou must have spread a mind of mettaâ does not mean âyou should have spread a mind of mettaâ. It means âit surely was the case that you spread a mind of mettaâ.
Likewise, âyou mustnât have spread a mind of mettaâ means âit surely was the case that you did not spread a mind of metta.â
My translation means substantially the same thing as the other ones you quoted, it just expresses it a little differently.
Perhaps. itâs a debatable choice, for sure.
Good point, although there it has a different sense, rather than a person.
Ahh, well, for that you really should listen to my ongoing course on Buddhism and Mythology @ the Buddhist Library. Mythic ideas are pre-ethical, so that different ethical perspectives can be grafted on at a later date according to the perspective of the storyteller. The Weaver, as an extremely old archetype, is neither good nor bad but may appear in either form in different stories.
Nonetheless, the problem remains that Penelope is a single specific instance of the weaver. Perhaps a more generic term would be better.
Then simply keeping her name as Jalini seems appropriate to me. While in Sri Lanka I met a tuk-tuk driver and his name was Kalu. Meaning Black. Quite a number of people have names that directly translate to a noun or quality.
Exactly this and why should they now have to investigate into why jalini doesnât directly translate into Penelope.
But not necessarily investigating the Dhamma. A potential outlet for papanca. Color me overly critical but I think when translating the words of the Buddha one should remain as close to them as possible.
DN 14
"Itâs normal that, while other women carry the infant in the womb for nine or ten months before giving birth, not so the mother of the being intent on awakening. She gives birth after exactly ten months. This is normal in such a case.
Itâs normal that, while other women give birth while sitting or lying down, not so the mother of the being intent on awakening. She only gives birth standing up. This is normal in such a case."
Not so of the mother of the being?
Yes I get it now. Thanks
Bhante @sujato
It appears some words are missing in the following translation all the way.
By the way what is the detailed meaning of âsaupanisamâ? Is there a better translation?
I say that dispassion has a vital condition.
VirÄgampÄhaáč, bhikkhave, saupanisaáč vadÄmi, no anupanisaáč.
Also not sure if this was intentional - at the end of the âDefinitionsâ section.
âExcluded from the community: Community:â
Itâs a mistake. The underscore is supposed to be converted to italics, but it hasnât happened for some reason. In the next iteration of the vinaya translation, this will be corrected. Thanks so much for pointing out these mistakes. Please keep it coming!
In DN33, which I have listened to more than anything in my life, I consistently miss a crucial point. Namely the enumeration of the immeasurables:
Four immeasurablesâŠ
A mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole worldâabundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion âŠ
rejoicing âŠ
equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole worldâabundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
And after all these months of repeated listening, I fail to recall any but the first or second immeasurables. I would propose a simple addition that would assist the reader and listener. That simple additon would be to simply include âThey meditate spreading a heart full ofâ to the last two enumerations:
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicingâŠ
They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole worldâabundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
The current lack of repetition creates a cognative gap, a pothole of continuity. The word ârejoicingâ is simply too short to stand out as an enumeration, especially while listening (vs. reading). And its brevity also derails the understanding of the last stanza. The four immeasurables become one and a half.
Indeed, it is only just today that I learned about the four immeasurables. On Wikipedia. Now having seen them, I can fill in the four immeasurables of DN33 on my own while listening.
I agree with the experience of a âcognitive gapâ with such abbreviated enumerations, especially when listening.
It may be helpful, if not too much of a task, to allow for the entire sutta to be spread open with no abbreviated sections.
Pressing the ⊠would open up the abbreviations or perhaps a setting to read the full sutta.
Voice.suttacentral.net does expand one sutta, MN1, in this manner. Although helpful to some, it has proven annoying to others. The ellipses are easily expanded by humans, but it has proven quite difficult to automatically expand them throughout the 4000 suttas translated in the four nikayas. It is, however, possible with effort. The greatest challenge is dealing with all the special cases.
All in Pr2
âYou should not use elsewhere the dwelling furniture of somewhere else.â - I get the gist of the sentence as it is currently, however, itâs a bit incoherent.
Excellent! Itâs great to get all this sorted out.
Yes, I started this thread to talk about just this very issue. Perhaps it could be discussed there since this thread is for errors and typos.