3 posts were split to a new topic: Translation of
Yes, the phrasing is a bit awkward. The first āapproveā needs to stand, because it is the part of the standard expression I use in Sanghakammas throughout my translation. I could, however, change āapprovingā. I will consider it.
This is the official approval to build given by the Sangha. Prior to this one or more monks, ideally the whole Sangha, must have inspected the site.
2 Likes
In DN 9, the sentence āTassa yÄ purimÄ rÅ«pasaƱƱÄ, sÄ nirujjhatiā is translated as āThe perception of luminous form that they had previously ceases.ā
If this isnāt a typo, Iām curious as to how the adjective āluminousā comes into this translation.
AN 4.10:
And what is detachment from views? Itās when you donāt truly understand viewsā origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. So lust, delight, affection, infatuation, thirst, passion, attachment, and craving for views linger on inside. This is called detachment from views. Such is detachment from sensual pleasures, future lives, and views.
What a strange definition of detachment from viewsā¦ 
2 Likes
This should be ādo truly understandā¦ā, right? 
. I canāt highlight to copy and paste SC, on my iPhone.
1 Like
Yes, and also ādonāt linger on insideā.
1 Like
missing a 1. in title
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato#sc6
Not sure if this matters, but the following contains elisions that are not in parallel with the othersā¦
Furthermore, take a bad person who is very learned ā¦
an expert in the texts on monastic training ā¦
a Dhamma teacher ā¦
who dwells in the wilderness ā¦
who is a rag robe wearer ā¦
who eats only alms-food ā¦
who stays at the root of a tree ā¦
I think it should be
who is an expert in the texts on monastic training ā¦
who is a Dhamma teacher ā¦
Or you could cut it back to the āwhoā in all elisions.
1 Like
SN 12.12 Phagguna of the Top-Knot
#SC 2.2
āBut sir, who consumes the fuel for consciousness?ā
āko nu kho, bhante, viƱƱÄį¹ÄhÄraį¹ ÄhÄretÄ«āti?
Shouldnāt this be the fuel of consciousness (i.e. who consumes consciousness as fuel)?
2 Likes
Edited out to avoid confusion 
1 Like
Really? Strangeā¦ but thank you for explaining!
So again, to really get it right: If I want to know who is the person who is consuming consciousness as their food (fuel); the person who is feeding on consciousness, who is āeatingā consciousnessāthen I have to ask, āwho consumes the fuel for consciousnessā??
I would actually understand the fuel for consciousness to be what consciousness itself consumes as fuelā¦ (In the context of dependent origination, this would be choices.)
In this case Iād better cross out my reply too. 
1 Like
I had a look at the source and it appears you were right, - just goes to show context is everything 
āConsciousness is a fuel that conditions rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.ā
The above statement/quote from SN12.12 would mean that consciousness IS/generates the fuel.
In which case your suggestion āofā would be the correct interpretation.
Hmmm, will leave it to others more skilled 
Sorry for the confusionā¦
1 Like
No worries! 
At first I always think I feel confused because of lack of knowledge in English, but in this case I am not the only one to be confusedā¦ 
We should leave this up to the translator to decide.
1 Like
I do love your use of āNo Worriesā - spoken like a true Australian 
1 Like
What do you think where I have learned this? 
1 Like
Another way could be: āWho consumes the fuel āconsciousnessā?ā
1 Like
Hmm. Per DN33 the fuel for consciousness is four-fold:
Four bases for consciousness to remain. As long as consciousness remains, it remains involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it grows, increases, and matures. Or consciousness remains involved with feeling ā¦ Or consciousness remains involved with perception ā¦ Or as long as consciousness remains, it remains involved with choices, supported by choices, grounded on choices. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it grows, increases, and matures.
Consciousness is also a fuel for itself per MN143:
there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on consciousness.
Iād say that the self-referential nature of consciousness automatically allows either āforā or āofā.
1 Like
This is a translation question regarding valÄhaka deva.
In AN 5.197 and the suttas of SN 32 both Ajahn @sujato and B.Bodhi translate as āgods of the rain-cloudsā or ārain-cloud devasā. Yet, we encounter the same expression in other suttas in which both translators apparently choose ādevaā to mean ārain cloudā, even though valÄhaka already means cloud
SN 2.29, SN 22.102, SN 45.147, AN 3.94, AN 10.15, MN 46, MN 79-80, DN 17.
It seems it would be more consistent to choose either way, either as clouds or as Devas? The SN 32 suttas make it difficult though to argue for clouds-only, because they mention a rebirth as a valÄhaka deva. How would passages like SN 2.29 etc. look like if you translated as āgods of the cloudsā? E.g. āSuppose that after the rainy season the sky was clear and devoid of the cloud godsā?
When the Buddha became fully extinguished, Sakka, lord of gods, recited this verse:
Parinibbute bhagavati saha parinibbÄnÄ brahmÄsahampati imaį¹ gÄthaį¹ abhÄsi:
āAll creatures in this world
āSabbeva nikkhipissanti,
In the stanza above(DN16.36), it should be Brahmasahampati who recited the verse
1 Like