Character error in “Hatthaka of Ãḷavī” at SN 17.23:1.4 & SN 17.23:1.5, AN 2.132:1.2 & AN 2.132:1.3, AN 4.176:3.2 & AN 4.176:3.3.
Wow, sharp eye!
Indeed.
And hey, how’s the hip?
Hip hip hooray! (That’s Karl’s words.)
On a more serious note, the hip joint functionality is already very good. I am just very tired after loosing a lot of blood and not being able to sleep much (there are certain positions I am not allowed to take yet with the operated hip, and I hardly know how to lie down).
I haven’t started doing any real work yet, just having a look around here and there in order to keep connected.
one sees them vanish as they’re experienced again and again
Phussa phussa vayaṁ passaṁ
SN 36.2
they see it vanish with every touch
Phussa phussa vayaṁ passaṁ
Snp 3.12
then
For whatever it thinks it is, it tuens out to be something else.
Ud 3.10
For whatever you imagine it is, it turns out to be something else.
Snp 3.12, MN 113, Snp 3.8
Different renderings for the same phrase.
I saw both «toward» and «towards» being used. I’m pretty sure both can be used. Just wondering if they all should be e.g. «toward».
A minor error in the segmentation of the root text at pli-tv-bi-vb-np10:2.3 - The “…pe…” should go at the beginning of the next segment (pli-tv-bi-vb-np10:2.4 the definition) not in the term segment
There’s a big chunk of DN 2 which is repeated (not elided) in a slightly different version in DN 10, but a lot of it is identical in the root text, and I noticed in my first pass over Sīlakhandhavagga that Ven Sujato’s translation of one or the other sutta still has some of the older renderings, or just other minor differences of this kind. I think there are other examples, but that’s the one I clearly remember.
Should I be reporting this kind of thing on my second pass?
Yes It would help contribute to many beings’ experience of the translations.
I’ll track these and report them as I proceed. In the meantime, here are what notes I already made before surrendering to doubt.
DN2:74.1 a mendicant regards them thus as a debt
DN10:2.12.1 a mendicant regards them as a debt
After the vocative address of the interlocutor, the two root texts are identical:
bhikkhu yathā iṇaṁ yathā rogaṁ yathā bandhanāgāraṁ yathā dāsabyaṁ yathā kantāraddhānamaggaṁ, evaṁ ime pañca nīvaraṇe appahīne attani samanupassati.
DN2:77.1 without applying the mind and keeping it connected
DN10:2.15.1 without placing the mind and keeping it connected
Again the two root texts after the vocative are both:
bhikkhu vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāvaṁ avitakkaṁ avicāraṁ samādhijaṁ pītisukhaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.
DN 2:84.3 someone with clear eyes were to take it in their hand and check it
DN 10:2.22.2 someone with clear eyes were to take it in their hand and examine it
Tamenaṁ cakkhumā puriso hatthe karitvā paccavekkheyya
And here are some differences in segmentation of otherwise identical texts in nearly identical contexts. In these cases, text that is a single segment in one sutta has been split into more than one segment in the other sutta.
DN 10:2.16.1 corresponds to DN 2:78.1 and DN 2:78.2
DN 2:81.2 corresponds to DN 10:2.18.2 and DN 10:2.18.3
DN 10:2.22.1 corresponds to DN 2:84.1 and DN 2:84.2
DN 10:2.22.2 splits into three segments, DN 2:84.3 thru DN2:84.5
I’m not sure if this kind of segmentation variation needs to be reported, but it’s certainly an instance of the kind of thing that makes the work I’ve been trying to do more difficult.
Dear Bhante @Sujato,
could you please review possible edits of typos from this reply (especially sutta references in Saṁyutta Nikāya guide):
And also here are some more:
in General guide:
diacritic ṅ in Saṅgha
and after which he modeled the governance of the Sangha
redundant colon, previously in this list there were no colons
Merchants (vessa):
redundant s in hamamsi:
Pali: eso hasmasmi
If approved, I can make these changes and commit them to github
Thank you
In the MN13:14.3, the note refers to SN2.8, but Rāhu isn’t mentioned in that sutta. Instead, Rāhu can be found in SN2.9 and SN2.10.
“Rāhu”s mouth’: force open the mouth with a skewer, put in oil and wick, and light it so it burns like the sun swallowed by the titan Rāhu (SN 2.8).
Oh, there’s a typo there. Should be “Rahu’s mouth”
Different renderings for same phrase.
DN 8:18.6 It’s when a mendicant gives up killing living creatures. They renounce the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of sympathy for all living beings.
Idha, kassapa, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho lajjī dayāpanno, sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharati.
DN 2:43.2 It’s when a mendicant gives up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of sympathy for all living beings.
Idha, mahārāja, bhikkhu pāṇātipātaṁ pahāya pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. Nihitadaṇḍo nihitasattho lajjī dayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtahitānukampī viharati.
DN 8:18.6 is an example of what I’ve taken to calling an “anchor segment”, part of the series of interrupted segments in the long elision that help show where the altered texts fit in.
There is a difference in punctuation in the two root texts, but it doesn’t seem to motivate this very slight difference in translation.
mn88:19.3 intentionally “cloak” instead of “cloth” that’s elsewhere e.g. 18.10?
There are a bunch of hinky little differences between DN22 and MN141 in the definition of the Noble Eightfold path section. If you just use a text comparison tool they will all pop out. Nothing major but the irregularity might impede searching.
The title of SN3.7 should be judgement instead of judgment
In DN23 there is a note:
Wondering if the cedilla under the n is an error. It’s that way once in a Wikipedia entry. Is that some fancy transliteration? The Devanagri, जैमिनीय उपनिषद्-ब्राह्मण, looks like it just has a regular ṇ.
‘Then is this your view: “A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death
DN 29
‘A realized one neither still exists nor no longer exists after death’?”
SN 24.18
Looks like sometimes it says ‘still exists’ and other times just ‘exists’ for the undeclared points.
There is a typo in the blurb for SN3.8
**Pasandi** asks Queen Mallikā who is most dear.
It should be Pasenadi