It’s not the literal translation; it’s the order of the sentences I meant to note. The formula, if you will.
2 Likes
Yes, but I meant that seems to be correct.
1 Like
Ah, Venerable, you are correct! It’s a rather odd deviation because all of the other contrasting states start with what is the wholesome or superior state of mind and then the unwholesome or not superior state. Wow, I was totally confused 
Thanks!!
2 Likes
Kañcana is usually “lustrous gold”, but in AN8.45:10.3 it’s “pure gold”.
MN87:5.3: “idaṁ te, mallike, samaṇena gotamena bhāsitaṁ:
“Mallika, your ascetic Gotama said this:
“Mallikā” should end in long ā.
1 Like
DN 1:1.10.4
«and music .’»
DN 2:45.3
«and music .»
DN 8:14.11 note
«“mortify the flesh” .»
DN 16:1.16.1 note
«Moggallāna at SN 47.14 .»
The SN 47.17 URL in this note says «sn47.14%20/en/sujato» instead of «sn47.14/en/sujato» so it takes you to the suttaplex card instead of your translation like the other suttas linked in that note.
DN 19:10.2 note
«ekārāmataṁ .»
MN 12:45.7 note
«“mortify the flesh” .»
All of these have a space before the period.
AN 7.66:1.2, SN 47.1:1.2, and SN 52.9:1.1
«staying near Vesālī, in Ambapālī’s Mango Grove.»
SN 47.2:1.1
«staying near Vesālī, in Ambapālī’s mango grove.»
SN 47.2 is the only one of these four that didn’t capitalize «mango grove». There were some other suttas that capitalized «x’s mango grove» and some that didn’t, examples:
MN 56:1.2
«At one time the Buddha was staying near Nāḷandā in Pāvārika’s mango grove.»
AN 8.26:1.1
«At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha in Jīvaka’s Mango Grove.»
AN 7.66:1.2, SN 47.1:1.2, SN 47.2:1.1 and SN 52.9:1.1 were the only ones that had a comma before «in» in these kinds of sentences, all the others like AN 8.26:1.1 and MN 56:1.2 didn’t.
27 places
«living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life.»
2 places
«living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life.»
9 places
«living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very life.»
Thag 3.8:3.2 and Cp 1:5.2
«the heaven of the Thirty-three.»
Thag 10.1:8.4
«the heaven of the thirty-three.»
Thag 10.1 didn’t capitalize «thirty» like Thag 3.8 and Cp 1.
AN 5.34:9.3, SN 3.21:15.5, SN 3.21:21.5, and SN 7.18:4.2
«the heaven of the Three and Thirty»
DN 21:1.2.6
«the heaven of the gods of the thirty-three»
DN 16:6.28.5
«the gods of the Three and Thirty»
Most places
«the gods of the thirty-three»
Don’t know if the «thirty-three» vs «Three and Thirty» difference in all of these are on purpose.
AN 4.8:4.1
«Though you teach that this teaching leads to the goal of the complete ending of suffering, it doesn’t lead there for one who practices it»
MN 12:26.1
«The teaching doesn’t lead those who practice it to the complete ending of suffering, the goal for which it is taught»
Same Pali, I think.
AN 7.56:1.9
«keeping him on his right»
I think it should be «keeping him on their right» like SN 1.31:16.2
MN 146:14.5
«Then those nuns bowed to the Buddha respectfully circled him, keeping him on their right, before departing.»
AN 3.126:4.6
«He bowed to the Buddha and respectfully circled him, keeping him on his right, then he left.»
MN 146 has «before departing» and AN 3.126 has «then he left.» I think it’s usually «before leaving» instead.
I think both AN 3.126:4.6 and MN 146:14.5 should have «bowed and respectfully circled the Buddha» instead of what they have now. MN 146 is missing an «and» between «Buddha» and «respectfully» if they shouldn’t.
DN 3:1.6.1
«keeping him to his right»
I think it should be «keeping him on his right».
Thig 13.3:21.2
«circling him to his right»
Snp 5.1:35.2
«and circled him to his right»
I don’t know if these should also change from «to» to «on».
MN 91:6.1
«and respectfully circled Brahmāyu before setting out»
Is it missing «keeping him on his right» between «circled Brahmāyu» and «before setting out»?
MN 104:6.4 and MN 104:711.6
«the teacher, the teaching, and the Saṅgha»
AN 6.36:1.4 and AN 6.36:2.6
«the Teacher, the teaching, and the Saṅgha»
These two suttas have the exact same segment except for the capitalization of «the Teacher»
MN 77:6.70
«the teacher, the teaching, and the Saṅgha.»
Has the same wording here, but doesn’t capitalize.
Other places, like AN 7.59:3.2, that had «the Teacher, the teaching, the Saṅgha» always capitalized «the Teacher».
DN 20:5.9
«The teacher knew that over five hundred»
DN 20:22.3
«Thereupon the Teacher addressed»
MN 24:16.6 and MN 24:17.9
«the teacher’s instructions»
I think MN 24 might have been the only time where «the Teacher’s instructions» didn’t get capitalized.
MN 137:22.1, :23.1, and :24.1
«the Teacher teaches Dhamma»
AN 3.60:2.7
«the teacher teaches Dhamma»
I’m not really sure when to capitalize «the teacher» and «the teacher’s», and I didn’t look at this throughly. So maybe this is an inconsistency to look at.
There were some «a teacher» vs «a Teacher» differences also in places like MN 3. MN 3 had some «disciples of a «teacher» and some «disciples of a Teacher», not sure if that’s on purpose.
AN 6.36:2.7
«which is for the detriment and unhappiness of the people»
AN 6.36:1.5, MN 104:6.5, and MN 104:7-11.7
«which is for the detriment and suffering of the people»
«unhappiness» vs «suffering»
AN 6.36:2.2
«They’re jealous and stingy … devious and deceitful … with corrupt wishes and wrong view …»
MN 104:7-11.2
«They’re jealous and stingy … They’re devious and deceitful … They have corrupt wishes and wrong view …»
I think the only difference in Pali was «…» in AN 3.63, and «…pe…» in MN 104.
DN 1:1.15.2
«double- or single-fringed»
DN 2:50.2 and AN 3.63:3.10
«double-or single-fringed»
DN 1 has a space after «double-» but the others don’t.
2 Likes
In AN10.30, the term mettūpahāraṁ upadaṁsesī occurs several times and is each time translated “conveying your manifest love”. In MN89, mittūpahāraṁ is used instead, and it is translated “conveying your manifest love” in segment 9.4 and “demonstrate such friendship” in 19.5.
MN89:13.7: Idha panāhaṁ, bhante, bhikkhū passāmi;
But here I’ve seen the mendicants
In previous occurrences of the same phrase the translation uses present tense, “but here I see the mendicants …”.
MN89:17.13: Aññadatthu bhagavantaṁyeva okāsaṁ yācanti agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajjāya.
Invariably, they ask the ascetic Gotama for the chance to go forth.
Should be, “they ask the Buddha …”.
2 Likes
From comment to MN90:1.1:
Ujuññā was a Kosalan town at which discussed asceticism with the naked ascetic Kassapa in dn8.
It should probably be “at which the Buddha discussed asceticism …”
The term kacci te, bhante, bhagavato vuttavādino occurs when someone is checking whether what they’ve heard has indeed been said by the Buddha. The translation is sometimes phrased as a question, “Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said?” (SN42.12, SN42.13, MN90, DN8), sometimes as a statement, “I trust that those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said” (AN3.57, AN4.193, AN8.12, MN55, MN71).
1 Like
I felt there were some inconsistencies in the capitalization of «a realized one». There are some that I know is a typo like DN 1:2.27.18 and DN 2:32.16 which have «whether A realized one», the «A» shouldn’t be capitalized. The previous and next segment in DN 1 and 2 have «whether a realized one», but DN 1:2.27.20 and DN 2:32.18 have «whether a Realized One».
SN 44.4:1.5, SN 44.4:1.12, SN 44.4:1.14, and SN 44.4:2.7
«‘A realized one»
I think these should be «‘a realized one». There are some other ones that have to capitalize if I’m wrong.
SN 44.6:2.2
«‘A realized one»
The only capitalized «A», 19 other places had «‘a realized one»
SN 24.36:2.7
«‘a realized one»
Every other view that arises in this sutta capitalizes the first word, so I’m guessing it should be «‘A realized one».
AN 7.54:3.5, AN 7.54:3.6, and AN 7.54:5.4
«‘a realized one»
All the others in AN 7.54 used «‘A realized one»
AN 10.96:7.8 and AN 10.96:13.10
«‘A Realized One»
All the others in AN 10.96 used «‘A realized one»
DN 9:27.8
«‘A Realized One»
The three segments before it used «‘A realized one»
MN 63:6.14 and MN 63:7.17
«‘A realized one»
All the other quotes didn’t start with a capitalized word.
SN 44.3:4.1 and SN 44.3:4.5
«‘does»
All the other quotes used «‘Does». I’m guessing SN 44.3:4.5 should change to that, but I don’t know about SN 44.3:4.1.
There were some segments that ended with «had left, the Buddha addressed the mendicants». Of them only DN 2:102.1 ended with a comma, all of the others ended with a colon.
They started a bit different:
AN 3.78:3.2, AN 8.24:2.2, AN 10.93:17.1, AN 10.94:14.1, MN 51:7.1, and SN 48.42:6.1
Started with «Then, not long after»
DN 2:102.1, MN 89:21.1, MN 146:15.1, and MN 146:27.1
Started with «Soon after»
AN 6.49:4.1
Started with «And then, soon after»
I was wondering if this and AN 6.49:3.1 should change to «Then, not long after» since that is what AN 3.78:3.2 has. Those segments and the three before them were basically the same in those suttas.
I don’t know if you should standardize the beginning of these segments. It looked like both «not long after» and «soon after» were used around the same amount of times in your translations so these differences might be on purpose.
SN 35.95:3.2
«May the Holy one»
I think it should be «Holy One».
SN 35.88:18.7, MN 123:2.3, and Thag 17.3:32.4
«completely extinguished»
SN 35.88:20.2
«completely quenched»
Should «completely» change to «fully»?
MN 145:8.1
«and said to him,»
SN 35.88:19.1
«and asked him,»
Same Pali, I think. And the next segments were the same except for the «completely»/«fully» difference.
DN 16:4.2.6 note
«This four also found at AN 4.1:2.3 and AN 7.66:14.4.»
I don’t know if it should be something like «These four are also».
SN 55.22:1.4, SN 55.21:1.4, SN 12.65:7.9, MN 82:41.11, MN 56:13.2, DN 11:1.4, DN 11:2.4, AN 5.180:3.1
«successful and prosperous, populous, full of people»
DN 16:5.18.4, DN 17:1.3.7
«successful, prosperous, populous, full of people»
DN 16:5.18.5, DN 17:1.3.8
«successful, prosperous, populous, full of spirits»
MN 81:3.1, MN 81:5.1
«successful and prosperous, populous, full of humans»
DN 26:23.8
«successful, prosperous, populous, full of humans»
DN 26:23.7 and AN 3.56:1.3
«full of humans»
«full of humans» vs «full of people» in most of these. Looked like the latter was used more. If they all should be like that then DN 26:23.7 and maybe AN 3.56:1.3 (unsure if this sutta should change) would also have to change to «full of people».
There were some that had «successful, prosperous», and some that had «successful and prosperous». I don’t know if they should all be the same there or if there was something in the rest of the sentences that made them different there.
AN 3.56:2.2 and AN 3.56:3.4
«And so many people perish.»
AN 3.56:4.2
«And so many humans perish.»
«people» vs «humans»
AN 3.56:1.1
«well-to-do Brahmin»
I felt «brahmin» wasn’t capitalized much, so I don’t know if this should change to a lower case «b». There was one other sutta I saw capitalized it in AN 6.54:7.3, :7.5, :13.2, :19.1, «Brahmin Dhammika» but that might be correct.
AN 3.37:6.3
«Sakka, lord of gods, is not»
AN 3.38:3.3
«Because Sakka, lord of gods, is not»
Should AN 3.37 also use «Because»?
AN 3.37:9.2 and AN 3.38:6.2 both used «Because» and they also had the «Why is that?» segment before them like AN 3.37:6.3 and AN 3.38:3.3.
1 Like
Comment to Ja23:1.1:
A wounded warhouse urges its rider to take one last stand.
Probably “warhorse” is meant.
In the title of this Jataka (segment 0.4), “a past life story” is lacking.
Kd 1 (Brahmali trans.) has a mistake: Upaniṣad is misspelled as Upaniṣa in the first note
According to Bhikkhu Sujato’s notes to the parallel verse at Ud 1.4, huṁhuṅkajātika brāhmaṇa refers to a brahmin who utters the syllable huṁ . In the Chāndogya Upaniṣa, this syllable, like the syllable om , had a ritualistic purpose with mystical connotations. In the verse below, “the brahmin … who does not murmur mystical mantras”, brāhmaṇa … nihuṁhuṅka , is intended to capture the idea that a true brahmin, a perfected individual, does not utter such syllables. See https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on-the-brahmin-who-said-hu.
Funnily, I noticed that mistake while trying to note this here instead:
The note includes a link which ends with a full stop - since it isn’t a hyperlink, if you were to try to look for that reference you would probably copy-paste it, which would lead to nothing if you didn’t intentionally exclude the full stop. Removing a single full stop is pretty much the definition of splitting hairs but I think it might be a good idea to remove it from the note (or turn it into a hyperlink…?) personally.
3 Likes
Calling for Ajahn @Brahmali 's attention. 
3 Likes
At AN 10.14:7.2 lacks the article “a” in “same way, monk or nun”.
Sutta Nipata PDF, pp 14 (and also the Snp introduction on the website)
Scripture is nor like the news, nor like a novel or a tweet. It
stays with you. It gets into your bones. It sinks into them and stays
there. Words and phrases turn up when you least expect them.
Perspectives and resonances shape how you see the world. When
you learn scripture, you might forget some things, but you never
unlearn them.
first “nor” should probably be “not”
Girimānanda sutta 9th saññā : SC edition has used the “anicchāsaññā” rather than anicchasaññā (Which I remember that BJT edition in Sinhala takes as anicchasaññā and may be there is a doubt about the exact term to use here)
Yet if we follow that “anicchāsaññā” is the correct one then the translation should be something other than impermanence. May be something like “undesirable” ?
And what is the perception of the impermanence of all conditions?
Katamā cānanda, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā?
It’s when a mendicant is horrified, repelled, and disgusted with all conditions.
Idhānanda, bhikkhu sabbasaṅkhāresu aṭṭīyati harāyati jigucchati.
This is called the perception of the impermanence of all conditions.
Ayaṁ vuccatānanda, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā.
The term arogo paraṁ maraṇā is mostly translated "healthy after death, except for four cases, where it is “free of disease after death”: MN79, MN102, DN9, SN24.41.
In SN1.10, “long for” for pajappanti has been changed to “pray for” in segment 3.2. The same should perhaps happen in segment 4.1.
Pahāsi saṅkhaṁ na vimānamajjhagā is translated “they gave up judgement, did not fall into conceit” in SN1.20:25.1 and “assessment was given up, conceit rejected” in SN1.34:6.1.
MN_65 Horner
2x monte instead of monks
So, Bhaddāli, the monte investigate this monk in such a way that this legal question of his is settled quickly.
1 Like
Note on MN136 reads “Of of then” where it should probably say “One of them” or “Of them, one”
There are several monks named Udāyī and it is not easy to distinguish them. Of of then was known for his stupidity (AN 6.29:3.3). | Ummagga is from ummujjati , just below, “uprising, emergence”.
1 Like
AN 10.89:12.3
«pink lotus hell»
I think everywhere else had «Pink Lotus hell».
SN 6.10:5.1 and AN 10.89:14.1
«When he said this, one of the mendicants asked the Buddha,»
Snp 3.10:7.1
«When he said this, one of the mendicants said to the Buddha,»
«asked» vs «said to»
AN 10.89:7.1, AN 10.89:16.1, and Snp 3.10:9.1
«A person is born
with an axe in their mouth.»
SN 6.9:2.1 and SN 6.10:7.1
«A man is born
with an axe in his mouth.»
«person» and «their» vs «man» and «his»
AN 3.143:2.1
«a mendicant with three qualities»
AN 3.144:1.1, AN 3.145:1.1, and AN 11.10:2.1
«a mendicant who has three qualities»
(AN 11.10 also has three more «A mendicant who has» segments)
«with» vs «who has»
AN 3.143:2.1, AN 3.144:1.1 and :1.4, and AN 3.145:1.1 and :1.4
«They are the best among gods and humans.»
AN 11.10:2.1, :2.4, :3.1, :3.5, :4.1, :4.4, :5.1, and :5.4
«They are best among gods and humans.»
AN 11.10 didn’t have a «the» like the other suttas.
MN 2:12.2
«lives restraining the faculty of the eye.»
AN 6.58:3.2
«lives restraining the eye faculty.»
MN 2:12.4
«they live restraining the faculty of the ear … the nose … the tongue … the body … the mind.»
AN 6.58:3.4
«they live restraining the ear faculty … the nose faculty … the tongue faculty … the body faculty … the mind faculty.»
Maybe these should match.
MN 2:20.2
«or cruel thought that has arisen, but gives it up, gets rid of it, eliminates it, and obliterates it.»
AN 6.58:7.4
«or cruel thought that has arisen.»
I don’t know if these should match since I think MN 2:20.2 and the equivalent segments in AN 6.58 were the same except for some «…» vs «…pe…» and:
AN 6.58:7.3
«paṭisaṅkhā yoniso uppannaṁ byāpādavitakkaṁ»
MN 2:20.2
«uppannaṁbyāpādavitakkaṁ»
MN 2:20.1
«should be given up by dispelling?»
AN 6.58:7.1
«should be given up by getting rid?»
MN 2:20.3
«someone who lives without dispelling these things do not arise when they are dispelled.»
AN 6.58:7.6
«someone who lives without getting rid of these things do not arise when they are gotten rid of.»
These segments had the same Pali.
MN 2:20.4
«should be given up by dispelling.»
AN 6.58:7.7
«should be given up by getting rid.»
Maybe these should match.
MN 2:21.1
«It’s when a mendicant, reflecting rationally»
AN 6.58:8.2
«Take a mendicant who, reflecting rationally»
That was the only «It’s when a mendicant» in MN 2, everywhere else in MN 2 has «Take a mendicant who», I think.
1 Like
MN91:4.1: Tena kho pana samayena brahmāyussa brāhmaṇassa uttaro nāma māṇavo antevāsī hoti tiṇṇaṁ vedānaṁ pāragū sanighaṇḍukeṭubhānaṁ sākkharappabhedānaṁ itihāsapañcamānaṁ, padako, veyyākaraṇo, lokāyatamahāpurisalakkhaṇesu anavayo.
Now at that time the brahmin Brahmāyu had a pupil named Uttara. He too had mastered the Vedic curriculum.
Normally, māṇava is translated “student”.
MN91:6.1: “Evaṁ, bho”ti kho uttaro māṇavo brahmāyussa brāhmaṇassa paṭissutvā uṭṭhāyāsanā brahmāyuṁ brāhmaṇaṁ abhivādetvā padakkhiṇaṁ katvā videhesu yena bhagavā tena cārikaṁ pakkāmi.
“Yes, worthy sir,” replied Uttara. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled Brahmāyu before setting out for the land of the Videhans where the Buddha was wandering.
The term padakkhiṇaṁ katvā is not translated; “keeping him on his right” should be added.