@yeshe.tenley set me off another rabbit hole with Bhante @sujato’s translation here:
I’ve seen this sutta in such a translation (Ajahn Thanissaro has a similar translation in beauties), but it makes little sense to me. Who decides what a pretty thing is? I find the sight of a cat pretty. Someone else finds it terrifying. Thus “World’s pretty things” sounds weird to me in this context. It sounds like some things are “World’s pretty things” outside of any personal bias or spiritual development.
I think this verse is better explained by Rhys Davids in Kv 8.4:
(Rhys Davids)
“The manifold of objects in the world—
This in itself is not `desires of sense.’
Lustful intention is man’s sense-desires.
That manifold of objects doth endure;
The will thereto the wise exterminate”
Delving into the word, we have √cit as in “mark” here. -ra affix as explained in Māgadhabhāsā:
-ra: It is said that upasaggo saṃ + √hana and others take affix ra – with > √hana → gh (e.g. saṃ + √hana + ra + si [o] → saṅgho; Kacc 538).
-ra: (a) A a few abstracts are formed with the help of this affix. (b) It is often preceded by the vowels a and i (e.g. madhu [“honey”] + ra → ma, dhura – “sweet” or + si [o] → madhuro – “something having a sweet taste”; Kacc 367).
So it’s something like “Something having a distinct quality”. In fact we use remarkable in English for a similar purpose - it means something leaves a strong impression, has a distinct flavor.
But does that really mean pretty? We should take a look at other examples in how it’s used.
Here we have all 16 times the word citrani appearing in the canon. Extending the search to citra we have 45 results. Quite a few of them are the repetitions of the same verse, and some are in Jatakas. Seems like a word that isn’t used quite in principle Nikayas, so it’s hard to get a good read on it.
MN 82 has citra translated as diverse for example:
(Bk. Sujato)
Sensual pleasures are diverse, sweet, delightful;
Kāmāhi citrā madhurā manoramā,
appearing in disguise they disturb the mind.
Virūparūpena mathenti cittaṁ;
Seeing danger in sensual stimulations,
Ādīnavaṁ kāmaguṇesu disvā,
I went forth, O King.
Tasmā ahaṁ pabbajitomhi rāja.
Thag 15.1 has this:
(Bk. Sujato)
There are so many pretty things
“Bahūni loke citrāni,
in this vast territory.
asmiṁ pathavimaṇḍale;
They disturb one’s thoughts, it seems to me,
Mathenti maññe saṅkappaṁ,
attractive, provoking lust.
subhaṁ rāgūpasaṁhitaṁ.
Context doesn’t make an unambiguous case that it should be pretty here. This could easily be There are so many different things as well, or colorful.
Because sometimes it’s used as rainbow apparently, like in Ja 485:
(W.H.D. Rouse)
“The Himalaya rainbow-hued, most fair it is to see:
What shall I do, O fairy mine, now I behold not thee?
Citrāni himavato pabbatassa,
Kūṭāni dassanīyāni;
Tattheva taṁ apassantī,
Kimpurisa kathaṁ ahaṁ kassaṁ.
Or DN 20:
(Bk. Sujato)
Those who seize the dragon kings by force—
Ye nāgarāje sahasā haranti,
Heavenly, twice-born birds with piercing vision—
Dibbā dijā pakkhi visuddhacakkhū;
swoop down to the wood from the sky;
Vehāyasā te vanamajjhapattā,
their name is ‘Rainbow Phoenix’.
Citrā supaṇṇā iti tesa nāmaṁ.
Or in Kd 15:
(Bk. Brahmali)
“You shouldn’t use colorful bowl rests, decorated like a wall.
“Na, bhikkhave, citrāni pattamaṇḍalāni dhāretabbāni rūpakākiṇṇāni bhittikammakatāni.
If you do, you commit an offense of wrong conduct.
Yo dhāreyya, āpatti dukkaṭassa.
I allow ordinary bowl rests.”
Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, pakatimaṇḍalan”ti.
In short, citrani has very few hits in the canon that allow us to ascertain the meaning. From Vinaya & Phoenix examples, colorful can be well established. Everywhere else where pretty is used, I don’t think context makes it clear that that’s the meaning there.
“World’s pretty things” to my ears, sounds highly subjective, and so out of place in this sutta. It assumes that an arahant can be like “Oh, this girl is pretty, but I have no desires for her.” And what if some other person doesn’t consider her pretty? Etc.
Maybe words like “Varied, distinct, manifold, noticeable”, also used by Rhys Davids, could fit this sutta better. Perhaps, even “colourful” or “shiny”, keeping closer to the translation by Ven. Sujato.
Do things stay “pretty” or “colourful, distinct, varied” etc.? I think it’s an important distinction, “colorful” things staying “colorful” but no longer being “pretty” (as in, no longer being an object of desire).
Respectfully. 