Bless us with your sparkling love 💖 let us know any mistakes and typos

[sabbamitta]

SN11.11:2.1: Mātāpettibharaṁ jantuṁ,
A mortal who respects their parents,

Here, “person” has been changed to “mortal”, but in the parallel passages in SN11.12:9.1 and SN11.13:14.1 it’s still “person”.

[WayChuang]

It will be great if you specify the sutta number.

[WayChuang]

There’s a typo in the note at MN100:2.2

There, her husband gets angry, goes to confront by the Buddha

[AdrianMagno]

Oh wow totally forgot , thank you

[sabbamitta]

SN11.22:2.1: Atha kho, bhikkhave, devā tāvatiṁsā yena sakko devānamindo tenupasaṅkamiṁsu; upasaṅkamitvā sakkaṁ devānamindaṁ etadavocuṁ:
So the gods went up to Sakka and told him what had happened. Indra replied,

Is it deliberate to call the same god once “Sakka” and once “Indra”?

---

The idiom idha kho taṁ, bhikkhave, sobhetha occurs in SN11.1, SN11.2, and SN11.4. The translation is “you can excel at this” in SN11.2 and SN11.4, and “you can excel here” in SN11.1.

---

AN5.233 and AN4.7 are both titled sobhanasutta. AN5.233 is translated “beautification” while AN4.7 is “grace”.

---

Comment to SN11.8:2.1:

The Upaniṣad says the “highest man” (uttamapuruṣa) is the one who rises up from his body and manifests in his own form as the perfect light (8.12.3). | The theme of effort is implicit when the Upaniṣad urges that that the Self “should be discovered, should be cognized” (so ’nveṣṭavyaḥ sa vijijñāsitavyaḥ). It is hidden from normal perception and requires a long spiritual training.

Duplication: “that that”.

And at SN11.8:2.2:

The Sutta substitutes attha (“goal, purpose, good”) for the Upaniṣad’s ātman (“Self”) in line with the dictum, “the goal is spoken of, but the self is not involved” (an3.72:6.3, an6.49:4.3). | For nipphadā (“accomplishment”), Pali normally uses the prefixed form abhinipphanna (“produced, manifested”) in this sense (mn101:29.3, sn47.10:6.11). And that is the form the root appears in the Upaniṣad, in the sense of the Self that “achieves” or “emerges into” in its own true form (8.12.2).

The “in” after “emerges into” seems to be too much.

[WayChuang]

One inconsistency is spotted in SN4.13. In the blurb, we have

The Buddha rests after being struck by stone splinters

whereas the text translates sakalikā as wooden spliters at SN4.13:1.3

Now at that time the Buddha’s foot had been cut by a wooden splinter.

[sabbamitta]

In Thag4.11:3.3, the term sobheti is translated “adorn”, while usually it is “grace”.

[WayChuang]

There is a typo in the blurb for SN6.5

The brahmā and his retinue are sutiably impressed.

[sabbamitta]

@Dogen

since these are the qualities Buddha mentions a layperson should cultivate in order to reach stream entry (therefore, they are not qualified yet to be called a “noble disciple” yet)?

But in the quoted passage it says that they have all these qualities, so I am not sure where you see the problem?

[Dogen]

@sabbamitta

But in the quoted passage it says that they have all these qualities, so I am not sure where you see the problem?

Oh, I was somehow reading it as “practices that lead to stream entry” for some reason. Brain-fart!

Thank you, Ayya.

[sabbamitta]

Comment to AN8.20:2.6:

Uddhastaṁ aruṇaṁ, nandimukhī ratti is very idiomatic, and nandimukhi is generally treated as “face”. The idiom is surprisingly not used in this sense in Skt. But some Skt uses of the term are for a son or Rudra, suggesting that here mukha is “cause”, i.e. “bringer of joy”. I take uddhasta as related to uddacca.

Instead of “a son or Rudra”, probably “a son of Rudra” is meant.

---

AN3.12:3.3: Imāni kho, bhikkhave, tīṇi rañño khattiyassa muddhāvasittassa yāvajīvaṁ sāraṇīyāni bhavanti.
These are the three places an anointed king should commemorate as long as he lives.

Perhaps it’s a deliberate abbreviation, but in case it’s not: “aristocratic” is missing here in translation.

---

Here again: maybe it’s deliberate, but I’ll just mention it.

In AN10.68 in segments 6.3-6.11 (translation all in segment 6.3), the order of vīriya and pañña is inverted in Pali, but not in translation.

---

There are five suttas with this setting:

Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā tadahuposathe bhikkhusaṅghaparivuto nisinno hoti

These are some of the few cases where bhikkhusaṅgha is translated “saṅgha of monks”, given the fact that for sangha acts on the uposatha day, the two communities are meeting separately.

However, this translation is not consistent. “Monks” is only used in segments that make explicit mention of either the uposatha day or the patimokkha recitation (like in AN8.20 and Ud5.5). In the Dhamma talks that follow, “mendicants” is used. This is confusing to readers.

I think we can basically imagine 2 scenarios:

1. The Buddha is sitting with the monks on an uposatha day and gives a Dhamma talk (or asks Ven. Sāriputta to do so), and the nuns are absent. Under this assumption, “monks” should probably be used throughout the entire sutta.
2. It is the uposatha day, and after having recited the patimokkha with their respective assemblies, the monks and nuns are now sitting together for a Dhamma talk. Under this assumption (which would not work for AN8.20 and Ud5.5), “mendicants” should be used throughout.

The way it is translated now would suggest that the first part of the sutta (which sometimes is only the introductory sentence) refers exclusively to the monks, and as soon as the actual Dhamma talk starts, the nuns are present as well. Which seems to be the least realistic scenario.

Another inconsistency is that in AN4.190, AN8.20, and UD5.5 we find “the Buddha was sitting surrounded by the Saṅgha of monks”, while in AN10.67 and AN10.68 it’s “the Buddha was sitting surrounded by a Saṅgha of monks”.

[WayChuang]

At SN19.1:1.8 Venerable Mark is inconsistently translated as Venerable Lakkhaṇa

So Lakkhaṇa said to Mahāmoggallāna,

[Pasanna]

Snp2.2 has a card title of ‘Carrion’ and a page title of ‘Putrefaction’

[Snowbird]

Card titles are fixed and site wide. Individual authors can choose their own translation title. It just so happens that Bhante Sujato made the card titles so most match. But when he changes the title to his translation he usually doesn’t change the card title. The Mills translation has an even more different title.

If I am understanding your report correctly.

[Pasanna]

Thanks for explaining Venerable

[WayChuang]

In the blurb for SN11.25

The Buddha recalls the words of Sakka warning of how anger crushes people like an avalanche

whereas the text have it as

For anger crushes bad people like a mountain.

Being not well-versed in Pāli, I don’t know which one is right because Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation agrees with the blurb.

[sabbamitta]

@WayChuang

I don’t know which one is right because Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation agrees with the blurb.

In any case the sentence in the blurb should close with a period.

[Nevs4511]

No snarl grows in them at alll,

Three l’s in ‘all’ in Snp 1.1

[Snowbird]

@WayChuang

In the blurb for

@WayChuang

whereas the text

Blurbs and texts are two different things, just as the titles of translations and the site titles are two different things, as I mentioned above. We can report internal inconsistencies within a translation, but not between titles, blurbs, and translations. Just think of them as two separate translations. We wouldn’t be reporting inconsistencies between two different translators’ works.

Of course it’s up to Bhante @Sujato if he wants to change the blurbs, but I haven’t heard him mention this before.

[Snowbird]

Considering this came up twice today, I’ve made a wiki in the Documentation > Development category:

Reporting inconsistencies on SuttaCentral.net

It is greatly appreciate if people can report errors they find in the translations on SuttaCentral.net. There will always be a pinned post for typos in the Feedback category. Add your report to that thread. Here are some things to keep in mind… Errors in legacy translations (especially from authors that are not active contributors) will not be corrected unless there is a serious issue. Blurbs and titles If you visit the suttaplex for a sutta, for example suttacentral.net/mn87 you can see th…

Perhaps @sabbamitta has additions/corrections to make.