Thank you for that! I’ve corrected some minor typos that I happened to see, but apart from that it looks good! 
1 Like
Thag1.27:1.1: “Dabbaṁ kusaṁ poṭakilaṁ,
With my chest I’ll thrust aside
Thag1.27:1.2: usīraṁ muñjapabbajaṁ;
the grasses, vines,
Thag1.27:1.3: Urasā panudissāmi,
reeds and creepers,
Thag1.27:1.4: vivekamanubrūhayan”ti.
and foster seclusion.
Thag3.5:3.1: Dabbaṁ kusaṁ poṭakilaṁ,
With my chest I’ll thrust aside
Thag3.5:3.2: usīraṁ muñjapabbajaṁ;
the grasses, vines, and creepers,
Thag3.5:3.3: Urasā panudissāmi,
and foster seclusion.
Thag3.5:3.4: vivekamanubrūhayan”ti.
It seems one line is missing in the translation of Thag3.5. Or rather, two lines are condensed into one, with “reeds” missing.
Compare the two:
DN1:2.37.1: Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino, aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti catucattārīsāya vatthūhi.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the final end, and assert various hypotheses concerning the final end on forty-four grounds.
versus
MN102:2.1: “santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhivuttipadāni abhivadanti.
“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who speculate and theorize about the final end, and assert various hypotheses concerning the final end.
In DN1, aparantakappikā aparantānudiṭṭhino is translated “theorize about the final end”, while in MN102 it’s “speculate and theorize about the final end”.
The translation “assert various hypotheses concerning the final end” stands for aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti in DN1 and for aparantaṁ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhivuttipadāni abhivadanti in MN102.
Adhimutti and adhivutti appear to be two different words, not just a spelling variant. But I am not sure if the difference is great enough to translate them differently.
The verb abhivadati is translated “assert” in DN1 and in MN102:2.1, while in the rest of MN102 it is translated “propose”; “assert” is then used for paññapeti in the rest of MN102.
In Thig16.1, sunakha is a “hound” in segment 62.2 and a “dog” in segment 62.4.
1 Like
Hope this thread isn’t closed! Let’s see if this gets through.
In SN 16.13, an “as” seems to be missing.
“In the same way, the true teaching doesn’t disappear as long the counterfeit of the true teaching hasn’t appeared in the world.”
might likely be
“In the same way, the true teaching doesn’t disappear as long as the counterfeit of the true teaching hasn’t appeared in the world.”
2 Likes
MN91.30.5 should be Brahmāyu not Divinityyu, to be consistent with the rest of the sutta
30.5 So the Buddha used his psychic power to will that Divinityyu would see his private parts covered in a foreskin.
Atha kho bhagavā tathārūpaṁ iddhābhisaṅkhāraṁabhisaṅkhāsi yathā addasa brahmāyu brāhmaṇobhagavato kosohitaṁ vatthaguyhaṁ.
also at 35.3 and 36.4 in the same sutta
3 Likes
Someone created a second problem with regex, lol.
3 Likes
Inconsistently… Let’s blame the cat
1 Like
In the blurb for Ud7.9
Wanderers of other sects try to keep the Buddha from drinking the water in a well.
But the text refers to householders as well: The brahmins and householders of Thūṇa (brāhmaṇagahapatikā). Perhaps, wanderers should be replaced with followers.
1 Like
The Pali doesn’t say anything of “other sects”. The “brahmins and householders” are, I think, simply the “inhabitants” of that Brahmin town.
1 Like
MN102:15.3: Paccattaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, ñāṇe asati parisuddhe pariyodāte yadapi te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā tattha ñāṇabhāgamattameva pariyodapenti tadapi tesaṁ bhavataṁ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṁ upādānamakkhāyati.
But in the absence of personal knowledge that is pure and bright, even the portion of knowledge they illuminate is said to be grasping on their part.
Should it not be “personal knowledge of this that is pure and bright” (like in the preceding segment)?
Comment to MN101:25.2:
The Brahmajālasutta also emphasizes how liberation from the “sixty-two” wrong views is achieved through insight into the “six fields of contact” (dn13.71.12).
The Brahmajālasutta is DN1, so you probably mean “DN1:3.71.12”. But perhaps DN1:3.72.1 would be the better reference.
2 Likes
A typo is spotted at MN143:5.2
Here Sāriputta skips over this straight to letting go, signfying that his teaching starts with an advanced level of insight.
1 Like
In the comment to MN6:2.1 there is the sentence
The word pātimokkha is defined in the canon as the “first and foremost” of skillful qualities (mukhametaṁ pamukhametaṁ at pli-tv-kd2:3.4.2; mokkhaṁ pāmokkhaṁ at vb12:9.1; cf. cnd5:45.3).
After _pātimokkha_ in “the word _pātimokkha_” there are two spaces.
The same in the comment at MN35:4.10 after “cloth”.
Hemp was beaten and washed in water before being woven into ropes or cloth. (Also at mn56:7.10; see an10.99:3.4 for an elephant’s “ear-washing”.)
1 Like
(I did only a quick search to check the following haven’t been mentioned, but not an exhaustive one so my apologies for duplicates.)
mn72:1.1 comment: “question the Buddha” → “questioning the Buddha” or …?
mn74:14.3 “letting go all” → “letting go of all”
mn133:2.1 has “summary recital” while comments at mn133:2.5 and 6.2 quote “recitation passage”
It looks like most of the translation uses “summary recital”, in which case also:
mn18:15.1 comment has “Passage for recitation”
mn137:2.1 comment “recitation passage”
mn134:6.4 comment “recitation passage”
mn133:1.3 comment: [an9.14 ]() → [an9.14]()
similar extra space in comments to:
dn16:1.16.1
sn1.20:1.3
sn47.12:1.1
mn94:33.3
mn139:14.3
mn68:6.2
mn33:12.2
sn7.11:6.3-4 Likely just the reader’s half awake, but just in case…this is ambiguous and I managed to parse it wrong, as “It goes [without turning back to where there is no sorrow]” rather than “It goes [without turning back] to where there is no sorrow” a few times, got confused, before I clued in.
sn22.78:1.4 number mismatch “royal elephants, bound with strong harness”
sn35.87:12.1 venerables → Venerables when used with proper names? In which case there are a couple dozen-ish other instances…(I used venerables [ĀA-Z] to search in the terminal.)
sn35.87:12.1 also: seat → seats ? There’s a bit of a mix throughout the suttas when “their” is plural.
sn35.116:8.16 seems like an incomplete sentence. Comparing with other instances, remove “When”?
sn35.133:4.5 reads like an incomplete sentence to me. But then there’s also sn22.55:10.3 which also does, so I’m leaning towards this reader being weird =)
Many many many thanks, Bhante!
3 Likes
SN 22.57:4.3 and SN 22.57:16.3 have the same Pali but different translations. Their contexts are essentially identical. Not sure if this was deliberate or a mistake…
1 Like
AN 3.70:25.2, AN 8.41:8.1, AN 8.41:8.2
«and music ; and»
Space between «music» and the semicolon.
SN 22.78:2.7
«very happy, living for ages in their divine palaces.»
AN 4.33:2.3
«very happy, lasting long in their divine palaces.»
«living for ages» vs «lasting long»
SN 22.78:2.10
«It turns out we’re short-lived, though we thought we were eternal!»
AN 4.33:2.6
«It turns out we’re transient, though we thought we were eternal!»
SN 22.78:2.11
«It turns out that we’re impermanent, not lasting, short-lived, and included within substantial reality.’»
AN 4.33:2.7
«It turns out that we’re impermanent, not lasting, transient, and included within substantial reality.’»
SN 22.78 uses «short-lived» while AN 4.33 uses «transient» in these segments.
SN 22.78:5.2
«so beautiful and glorious,»
AN 4.33:5.2
«so beautiful and famous,»
I think other places agreed with SN 22.78 and used «glorious».
AN 4.37:3.9, AN 4.164:3.9, AN 4.165:4.8, AN 4.198:11.8, AN 5.76:18.10, AN 5.140:11.9
«protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving restraint over it.»
I think most places used «protecting the faculty of mind, and achieving its restraint.»
«achieving restraint over it» vs «achieving its restraint»
Same thing with these about the faculty of sight:
AN 4.37:3.3, AN 4.164:3.3, AN 4.198:11.2, AN 5.76:18.4, AN 5.140:11.3, AN 10.99:20.2
«protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving restraint over it.»
I think most places used «protecting the faculty of sight, and achieving its restraint.»
It looks like this is used in the first post of typo threads. Unsure if it should be «people’s» instead. Just writing in case it should be changed in the next typo thread.
I saw «such-and-such» and «such and such» being used. I don’t know if there’s a difference or if they should all be the same.
DN 23:23.17 and DN 23:23.43 used «so and so» while everywhere else used «so-and-so». I’m not sure if DN 23 should change to «so-and-so», there might be a reason for not using hyphens there.
SN 41.3:2.4 and SN 41.3:4.12
«spoken of in “The Divine Net”.»
Maybe these should use single quotation marks instead.
Iti 76:2.3
«May I be be praised»
A «be» should probably be removed.
SN 22.28:2.1 and SN 22.28:2.3
live detached, liberated, with a mind free of
There were three other suttas with similar segments that didn’t have an «a» after «with», e.g.:
SN 35.17:2.1 and :2.2
live detached, liberated, with mind free of
MN 109:14.8
Now, mendicants, you have been educated by me in questioning with regard to all these things in all such cases.
SN 22.82:13.4
Now, mendicants, you have been educated by me in questioning with regards to all these things in all such cases.
«regard» vs «regards»
SN 22.82:5.4
‘In the future, may I be of such form, such feeling, such perception, such choices, or such consciousness!’
MN 109:7.4, SN 22.3:12.3, SN 22.3:13.3
‘In the future, may I be of such form, such feeling, such perception, such choices, and such consciousness!’
SN 22.82 uses «or such consciousness!’» while the others use «and such consciousness!’»
MN 109:7.1
“But sir, can there be disparity in desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates?”
SN 22.82:5.1
“But sir, can there be different kinds of desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates?”
MN 109:7.5
That’s how there can be disparity in desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates.”
SN 22.82:5.5
That’s how there can be different kinds of desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates.”
«disparity in» vs «different kinds of»
MN 109:14.4
But the Buddha, knowing that mendicant’s train of thought, addressed the mendicants:
SN 22.82:12.4
Then the Buddha, knowing that monk’s train of thought, addressed the mendicants:
SN 6.9:1.2 note
«Snp 3.10:3.3).| AN 10.89»
No space between the period and the «|»
1 Like
The note to SN 12.2:13.3. May be style choice or errors, with my corrections (additions) in bold:
Saṅkhāra is used in several ways in early Buddhism. In dependent origination and the five aggregates it means morally potent deeds performed by way of body, speech, and mind, so I translate as “choices”. This is not to be confused with the meditative stilling of active physical, verbal, and mental “processes” (SN 41.6:1.7). As a word for a cause or reason I translate it as “condition” (SN 48.40:5.3), and use the same word for the conditioned phenomena produced by causes (SN 22.81:5.5, AN 6.93:1.3, MN 102:4.5). Sometimes, such as in the bases for psychic power, it means “effort” (SN 51.1:1.3).
The note to SN 12.2:14.2. Correction in bold.
Since all good qualities are included in these four noble truths (MN 28:2.1), the most important quality in the Buddhist path is wisdom which overcomes ignorance (SN 48.54:1.1).
3 Likes
There is a typo in the note at DN26:1.15
Two parables on mindfulness expand this idea (SN 47.6, SN 46.7).
It should be SN47.7 instead of SN46.7.
2 Likes
I’m out of my depth on this one, so the Pāli experts here can dismiss this if I’m wrong.
In AN10.60, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā is translated as impermanence of all conditions instead of desirelessness for all conditions. The Pāli word used here is anicchā not anicca
The subsequent explanation seems to suggest that desirelessness is probably the right meaning.
It’s when a mendicant is horrified, repelled, and disgusted with all conditions.
2 Likes
Bhante’s comment at AN10.60:3.2 actually suggests the same thing:
Adopting the MS main reading of sabbasankharesu anicchasanna. This is the difficult reading, being not found anywhere else. The reading anicca is problematic since it is already found earlier, and since the contemplation is described in essentially emotional terms, non-desire seems more fitting.
2 Likes
I don’t see any note to that effect at AN10.60:3.2. There’s only a note on anabhiratasaññā variant. Where did you get this note from?
Never mind. I found it on another thread.
1 Like