Ajahn @Brahmali - At Pli-Tv-Kd 20:26.1.1 youâve mistranslated Tena kho pana samayena aññatarÄ bhikkhunÄ« sikkhaáč paccakkhÄya vibbhami as
On one occasion a nun verbally renounced the training and disrobed.
Youâve taken the present participle in a gerundive sense, which it can have, but not when followed by an aorist verb. In this case, it should be taken in an instrumental sense, as the subsequent rule makes clear. The correct translation here should be:
On one occasion a nun disrobed by verbally renouncing the training.
True of course. But itâs also the case that words have multiple connotations, and itâs hard if not impossible to tell which the Buddha was getting at (if not multiple at the same time).
So Iâm not convinced yet, but that may also be because I havenât checked the Brahmanic references for myself. It is true of course that the Buddha often turned earlier ideas around. I recently argued here this may even be the case for the infamous ajÄta âUnbornâ.
In defense of the âproperâ idea, we may also consider that the references to nibbÄna as an Äyatana are not self-standing. By which I mean, in Ud8.1 the Äyatana of nibbÄna is mentioned alongside the formless Äyatanas (among other things) which would arguably be the âproper place/sphereâ to certain Brahmins. In SN35.117 the Äyatana is mentioned alongside the six sense Äyatanas. I think those are the only two instances.
While others argue this shows that the nibbÄna-Äyatana is also an experience, Iâd argue the opposite. The Buddha is telling people that the âproper placeâ (or whatever) is the cessation of these other Äyatanas.
But I do still think the âdryâ idea of âopportunity/case/instanceâ has a lot going for it also.
According to DPD, gavipphala is in fact a kind of Indian grape, although Iâm not sure how it arrives at that. The commentary says âany fruit from a vineâ. Iâll change it to âgrapeâ.
Perhaps, although Iâm thinking in that case âproper sphereâ is more like it is for the senses, namely that the state of rebirth fits together with the meditation attainment, they are the âproper sphereâ for each other, as is the eye and sights.
Yes, sometimes if you canât capture the affect, a dry translation is best, and let the affect arise from context.
Still contemplating this one!
right, thanks.
No, itâs what is âfit to be communicatedâ, âfit to tellâ, as supported by the Pali and Skt dictionaries. In Iti 63 itâs an expansion of the three time periods, which links us up with the vacanapatha, i.e. language is bound via tenses to the expression of things subject to time, paáčiccasamuppanna, and thus not Nibbana. The commentary is correct as an explanation (what is communicable are the five aggregates) but not as a definition (communicable doesnât mean the five aggregates).
No, the phrase echoes the stock paáčisaáč khÄ yoniso cÄ«varaáč paáčisevati, and this context is clear from its other appearance at snp3.12:40.3, where it is part of the reflection on ÄhÄra.
Seems far fetched tbh. This use of ahosi is common, eg. in MN 2. Also note that Adhimutta begins his verses with a reflection about those who are scared because of their deeds in the past.
See, the thing is, I think the Buddhaâs use of kÄya in meditation is beautiful and subtle, and through understanding it more deeply Iâve understood my own meditation and improved my ability to communicate it. And Iâm loathe to lose this grace because of the insistent misunderstanding of meditators who imagine their tingly feelings are jhanas.
Nonetheless, youâre right, Iâll change it. Iâll also adjust the third jhana to fit, âexperiencing for themselves the bliss of which the noble ones declareâ, which I think is better anyway.
And I added this note:
As a meditator proceeds, their subjective experience of the âbodyâ (kÄya) evolves from tactile sense impressions in the âcoarse bodyâ of matter (olarikakÄya), to the settling of the breath and physical energies in the body and mind (kÄyapassaddhi), to the interior mental experience of bliss and light of the âsubtle bodyâ (sukhumakÄya) or âmind-made bodyâ (manomayakÄya), to being a âbody witnessâ (kÄyasakkhÄ«) of the formless attainments (mn70:17.1), to the direct realization of the highest truth of Nibbana âwith the bodyâ (mn70:23.2: kÄyena ceva paramasaccaáč sacchikaroti). Along the way, the sense of âphysical bodyâ recedes and kÄya refers to direct personal experience.
Itâs possible I looked at the suttas from one particular angle for a bit too long. On second thought, even without changing your translation I think it can still be read in the way Iâm suggesting. So forget about my comment.
Ah, that explains it. And I can relate. But the translation âbodyâ will actually take away these subtleties for 99% of readers instead of reinforce them.
Sadhu. I think on the whole thatâs the worse evil. Nice note as well.
I think thatâs a mistranslation, it should be, âYouâre the tutor of tutors for manyâ
ooh, semicolon!
This idiom is used very widely, and I vary the translation per context. However, I will remove any phrasing with âseeâ in it, except where this is explicitly mentioned (dassanÄya upasankamati).
I was using âseeâ in the English sense of âvisitâ but in ancient India it had the more pregnant sense of the âseeingâ of a holy person (darshan). Weâd perhaps be justified in translating this as âbehold the Buddhaâ, except itâs just the ordinary word used in Pali.
yes, bho should be âworthy sirâ.
It should be:
polite, and likable and agreeable to the people
use colon
Indeed they should.
use âproceed having undertakenâ
Use âhe saidâ. Itâs not an emphatic form.
Hmm, letâs use âprinciplesâ and try to disambiguate âtraditionsâ.
I was trying to say âlesser of two evilsâ: âThe somewhat less unpleasant of two poor choices.â But please ignore me whenever I use English expressions inappropriately.
Anyway, thanks again for going through my notes and replying to them in such detail, Bhante. That helps keeps me inspired to keep commenting in the future, as well as have a similar close look at my own translations & writings.
i also found a few instances where I used âentertainâ here, now all say âamuseâ.
I turns out there was a broken close tag. Thanks, it should be fixed now.
thanks
Oh, thatâs a very marginal case. We can leave it. Itâs ultimately caused by the fact that the same verse is spoken twice in a row, a very unusual case. Itâs possible an earlier version had some small feature to distinguish them. Nonetheless, the commentary accepts that they are the same and explains that they were given on two separate occasions, supplying separate background stories for each.
In our Pali edition, these background stories are represented by named headings for each verse. These are not translated, as they really come from the commentary. In our source text (MS edition) such headings lack a defined number as we find in the text (the structure is defined in XML). However, in our system, each text string needs a number, so we assign a zeroth level number to them. So if the first line of the verse is 416:1, the heading is 416:0.
Fine, except in this case the verse numbering continues for the two verses: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. By convention, we donât allow both 416:5 and 416:5.0 (because they are the same), so we have to make it 416:5.0, 416:5.1. Youâll find this kind of situation occurs a few times thru the canon, but itâs usually not as noticeable as here.
This is an interesting case. The verb forms are optative (âwouldâ), although this is obscured by the fact that the first verb, bhÄvetha, takes the form more commonly associated with the imperative plural (âshouldâ). However, here it is singular so must be the rare reflexive third person optative. This agrees with the following verbs.
Now, the optative occurs very commonly and may be translated âwouldâ or âshouldâ; both Norman and Bodhi opt for âshouldâ here. Typically, I prefer âwouldâ, as the imperative conveys âshouldâ more strongly. In this case, the subject is the paáčážita, the âastute oneâ who is defined by the fact that they choose to do what is good. Thus it can be expected that they âwouldâ do what is good, so Iâll standardize to this.
Meanwhile, reviewing this point made me look more closely at the lines, which are quite unusual in how they transgress the verse boundaries. I think the most logical way to divide the eight lines of the two verses is 2:3:3. Iâve revised my translation to more closely follow the Pali syntax.
As for other issues in these verses, Iâve standardized them and in some cases adjusted the translation too.
Iâll leave it for now. I think as a Vedic term itâs safe to say it indicated only males.
Itâs the materials that are delicate. Also, standardize to âcloakâ for pÄvuraáča, and meanwhile correct some verses in DN 30.
keep this one, standardize the rest.
Use âlay lifeâ. Iâve checked the phrasing, the remaining variations are valid, since the verb is somethings pabbaja (gone forth) or nikkhamma (renounced), requiring slightly different syntax.
Yes, also change to âimmersed and unified in samÄdhiâ
In this case use semicolon, because the line is a semi-independent one, which is not tightly linked to what follows.
There are two different readings, but âone of unrivaled energyâ is likely correct.
Keep âwhat wise personâ, itâs less literal but more readable.
As Iâm sure Sabbamitta is fascinated by Beaver! The cycle of life! But we are honored to have both of them, and indeed all who help out.
Actually use âchainâ.
Yes, use âwholeâ vs. âincompleteâ. Elsewhere it can also be âcompleteâ.
Correct to âchapterâ.
No, these are editorial remarks added by redactors. As such they are not the same speaker, and in fact are not direct speech at all. The Pali text assumes the same speaker proceeds to the end, but this is a mistake.
thanks, fixed these.
thanks!
In fact, diáčáčheva dhamme applies to the subsequent phrase, so it should be:
freedom of wisdom. And they live having realized it with their own insight in this very life
But I think itâs okay to abbreviate this very common phrase sometimes.
Oh yes, she is! And even more so as @Beaver has also been very helpful in pointing out a lot of the most subtle mistakes in my German translation, despite the fact that they donât understand any German!
Interesting, from this the Buddha refers to MahÄkaccÄna as bhikkhu. I think he normally refers to well-known people by their names.
Yes, youâre right. Iâve redone the translation, sticking much more closely to the abbreviatins in the Pali. Also, the segmenting is wrong in this passage, Iâll fix it in New Bilara when we get started there.
Prefer the positive form. And the âwithâ form. The âand haveâ construction is only required when using the negative forms.
It really has to be âmoralâ as itâs identified with the 10 paths of wholesome action.
I fixed the rest, thanks.
thanks, fixed.
I love funky space thingys! Thanks for these.
Indeed, there should be.
Nothing is too trivial here!
These can vary per context, as the titles in the site are used generally for any translation, so they do not represent any one specific translation.
It is true of course that the Buddha often turned earlier ideas around. I recently argued here this may even be the case for the infamous ajÄta âUnbornâ.
On second thought, even without changing your translation I think it can still be read in the way Iâm suggesting. So forget about my comment.
And I can relate. But the translation âbodyâ will actually take away these subtleties for 99% of readers instead of reinforce them.
Sadhu. I think on the whole thatâs the worse evil. Nice note as well.
