Too spicy to fix probably as it’d imply changing the Pāli segmentation, just breaks convention. edit: (this may not be a convention, apologies - it’s the only times I saw it so far though):
SN12.35:1.7 one and another quote in the same segment.
SN47.19:2.1 half of two quotes in the same segment.
Yes indeed, the Pali loves quotation mark parties! I’ve seen up to fourfold nested quotes so far …
Checking just one, and the closing quote mark is actually there:
AN2.215-219:1.1: “Dvīhi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato yathābhataṁ nikkhitto evaṁ sagge.
“Anyone who has two things is raised up to heaven. AN2.215-219:1.2: Katamehi dvīhi?
What two? AN2.215-219:1.3: Akkodhena ca anupanāhena ca … amakkhena ca apaḷāsena ca … anissāya ca amacchariyena ca … amāyāya ca asāṭheyyena ca … hiriyā ca ottappena ca.
Freedom from anger and hostility … freedom from disdain and contempt … freedom from jealousy and stinginess … freedom from deceit and deviousness … conscience and prudence. AN2.215-219:1.4: Imehi kho, bhikkhave, dvīhi dhammehi samannāgato yathābhataṁ nikkhitto evaṁ sagge”.
Anyone who has these two things is raised up to heaven.”
Looks correct to me.
It’s frequent that quotes span across multiple segments. I can’t see any error in these two either.
The two rules 97 and 98 have a root text but no parallels listed. They also do not have a title in this list.
So this raises a few questions for me:
Why is there no title/subtitle as there is a root text (and translation). It seems to me that both these rules are about holding a different type of weapon.
Most of the time the Sekhiya rules are the same for Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis. So is that not the case here? It might well be the case that this is all correct but I just find it a bit puzzling. If they should be the same, then why are there no parallels connected to the entries in the Bhikkhu list.
This is again the case in: DN 4, DN 6, DN 12, DN 23, AN 3.63, AN 3.65, AN 5.30, AN 6.42, AN 8.86, SN 55.7, and perhaps others that I haven’t translated yet.
DN4:5.22: samaṇo tveva gotamo arahati bhavantaṁ soṇadaṇḍaṁ dassanāya upasaṅkamitun”ti.
it’s appropriate that he comes to see you.
Add closing quote mark.
DN4:24.6: Adhivāsetu ca me bhavaṁ gotamo svātanāya bhattaṁ saddhiṁ bhikkhusaṅghenā”ti.
Would you and the Order of monks please accept a meal from me tomorrow?”
Unusually, bhikkhusaṅgha is here translated “order of monks”. Further down in the Sutta when they actually go to Soṇadaṇḍa for the meal, the Buddha goes together with the “mendicant Saṅgha”.
DN4:26.9: Ahañceva kho pana, bho gotama, yānagato samāno yānā paccorohitvā bhavantaṁ gotamaṁ abhivādeyyaṁ, tena maṁ sā parisā paribhaveyya.
And Master Gotama, if, when I am in a carriage, I rise from my seat and bow to the Buddha, that assembly might disparage me for that.
Should be “get down from my carriage”, not “rise from my seat”.
DN4:15.4: Imesañhi, bho gotama, catunnaṁ aṅgānaṁ mante ṭhapayāma.
We could leave the hymns out of the five factors.
Out of the four factors. And in segment 16:4 it’s three factors.
In DN 5 the place is sometimes called “Khāṇumata” and sometimes “Khāṇumataka”. Is this intentional?
DN5:2.2: “samaṇo khalu, bho, gotamo sakyaputto sakyakulā pabbajito magadhesu cārikaṁ caramāno mahatā bhikkhusaṅghena saddhiṁ pañcamattehi bhikkhusatehi khāṇumataṁ anuppatto khāṇumate viharati ambalaṭṭhikāyaṁ.
“It seems the ascetic Gotama—a Sakyan, gone forth from a Sakyan family—has arrived at Khāṇumataka and is staying in a forest nearby.
Should be “and is staying nearby at Ambalaṭṭhikā”. The “forest nearby” has probably been copied from Icchānaṅgala.
DN5:11.5: “ahametaṁ dassukhīlaṁ vadhena vā bandhena vā jāniyā vā garahāya vā pabbājanāya vā samūhanissāmī”ti, na kho panetassa dassukhīlassa evaṁ sammā samugghāto hoti.
“I’ll eradicate this outlaw threat by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or condemnation or banishment!” But that’s not the right way to eradicate this brigand menace.
Dassukhīla is translated once as “outlaw threat” and once as “brigand menace” in the same segment.
SN2.30:3.1: Atha kho sahali devaputto makkhaliṁ gosālaṁ ārabbha bhagavato santike imaṁ gāthaṁ abhāsi: SN2.30:3.1: Then the god Sahalī recited this verse about the bamboo-staffed ascetic Gosala in the Buddha’s presence:
The name of the ascetic is here spelled “Gosala”, elsewhere “Gosāla”.
Unfortunately this is the down side of the PTS citation system. They are not exact to the sutta but to the page in their Pali edition. This kind of thing will be found throughout the complex dictionaries on SC because they are based on that system. Previously they weren’t linked at all.
“The world would become promiscuous” has generally been changed to “the world would become dissolute”, but not in Iti 42.
The word ajeḷakā is mostly translated “goats and sheep”, but in DN 5 it’s only “goats”.
AN3.66:47.5: So diṭṭheva dhamme nicchāto nibbuto sītibhūto sukhappaṭisaṁvedī brahmabhūtena attanā viharatī”ti.
So they live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, with self become divine.”
I am not sure how to understand this: has their self become divine? Does this not sound like Yājñavalkya rather than the Buddha …?
“Arrived at inevitability regarding the right path” has been changed to “arrived at surety in the right way”, but both in SN 25.1 and SN 25.10 there’s still one instance of the old version left.
DN30:1.12.9: Brahmāva suju subho sujātagatto.
and he’s straight, beautiful, and well-formed like Brahmā.
A note in DN 14, as well as an essay on this forum, says that the Buddha is not “straight like Brahma”, but “tall and straight”. But this segment is translated otherwise.
DN30:1.2.24: rasaggasaggī hoti …
He has an excellent sense of taste.
Should be “ridged taste buds”. Also in 1.2.35, there’s still the old wording.
Surely I’m not the only one that finds this humorous.
But when I look it up it appears that in British English this may be ok? In NA English I believe we only tackle problems, not people. Unless you are talking about football. Which is the image I got when I first read this.
I wonder if “takes on a group of Jain ascetics” might be accurate without the double meaning. “Confronts” might be less idiomatic, but perhaps gives the wrong connotation.
13.2‘Not until my spiritual path is successful and prosperous, extensive, popular, widespread, and well proclaimed wherever there are gods and humans.’ ‘na tāvāhaṁ, pāpima, parinibbāyissāmi yāva me idaṁ brahmacariyaṁ na iddhañceva bhavissati phītañca vitthārikaṁ bāhujaññaṁ puthubhūtaṁ yāva devamanussehi suppakāsitan’ti.
This isn’t a complete sentence. It appears you have dropped out the “parinibbāyissāmi yāva me” part. Same thing has happened in DN16. Of course one could infer what is the meaning. But if you wanted to quote that line it wouldn’t make sense.
In the phrase samanuyuñjantaṁ samanugāhantaṁ samanubhāsantaṁ, the first term is usually translated “pursue”, but in DN 8 I also find “engage”.
Compare
DN8:5.5: Ko ime dhamme anavasesaṁ pahāya vattati, samaṇo vā gotamo, pare vā pana bhonto gaṇācariyā”ti?
Who behaves like they’ve totally given these things up: the ascetic Gotama, or the teachers of other communities?”’
versus
DN8:7.3: Ko ime dhamme anavasesaṁ samādāya vattati, samaṇo vā gotamo, pare vā pana bhonto gaṇācariyā’ti?
Who proceeds having totally undertaken these things: the ascetic Gotama, or the teachers of other communities?’
“Behaves” versus “proceeds” for vattati. And the same further down for the disciples.
Ok, here goes, another round of corrections, with thanks to all those who have contributed. One happy day I will check such a thread and be able to note that all the suggested corrections were in fact already correct! But that day is not this day!
thx, fixed.
Fixed
It should really be “scattered” throughout, like bones are “scattered”.
Saṇṭhita is “stuck”, saṅkhitta is "constricted. I think all these cases have saṅkhitta.
One lifetime I will learn how tenses work. I think “This is the first knowledge they achieved” should work?
Use “rightful” for orasa, “true-born” for atraja.
That’s literally what is says. The Sanskrit is Bhāvitātman:
One whose soul is purified by meditation on the universal soul
It’s a common term in later Brahmanical texts, but I haven’t been able to identify it in any texts contemporary with the Buddha.
Elsewhere I have used “evolved”, use that here too.
Right, thanks!
do that!
Note I am now using “clear-eyed one” for cakkumanta and “seer” for isi.
The remainder of Iti corrections have been made!
Thanks, Venerable, I have fixed it.
For future reference, the easiest way for me to find it is to just quote the pali or the translation directly, then I can search it easily.
Right, thanks.
Right!
Indeed. Also, use Progenitor for Pajapati, and Creator for nimmāta instead of Author. This keeps the connection with paranimmita and other contexts. Progenitor also is a weird and strange word, which suits Pajapati, the strange and lonely god.
Ha ha, I just call it “a day”.
Umm, it does for me? In any case, we won’t change this until/unless we replace the component. (Too complicated to dig around the innards).
Hmm, yes. In retrospect, “bitterness” is not quite right for domanassa, as it conflicts with the same rendering of appaccaya. Use “displeasure” instead.
right, thanks.
Indeed
Actually the other way around, virājetvā is literally “having become dispassionate”, i.e. “losing attachment”. I have corrected 1.11.6
Thanks!
The former translation is from Walshe, and it sounds nice, but it is a delicate philosophical point. The sense of parinata when taken with the instrumental santataya is “transform”, not “spring into being”.
Because formerly I didn’t exist. Now, having not existed, I’ve transformed into the state of existence.
thx
No, “there” refers back to the previous passage.
Thanks
proceeding in that duty
thanks
Thanks
thanks
I think it’s okay as-is. The Pali just has samaya “occasions”. In the text it is clear from context that it means “proper occasions”, but that doesn’t come across if the title is just “Occasions”.
Hah, I’ve just been teaching this sutta and I still didn’t notice this!
Better:
he is the manifestation of principle, he is the manifestation of divinity
Compare dn27:9.6:
For these are terms for the Realized One: ‘the embodiment of principle’, and ‘the embodiment of divinity’, and ‘the manifestation of principle’, and ‘the manifestation of divinity’.
Wherever possible, I am now using “divinity” for Brahma and derivatives.
I had thought I had done that, but I had not.
Peasant is more general, basically any working class person, including farmers, but typically people living on the land rather than the more transient suddas (menials).
fixed
That’s right, porisa is basically the English idiom “man” as in “have your man send it up to the study”.
I’m not sure, in any case it seems to be okay now.
These verses occur a few times, so check the question as well:
When a mendicant slips five chains
they’re said to have crossed the flood.
And use the idiom “slips chains” for sangatigo throughout. (Bodhi has “surmount ties”, but “surmount” is not something you do when you are tied up!)
Good idea:
If you’re not tamed, trained, and extinguished yourself, it is quite impossible for you to help tame, train, and extinguish someone else. But if you are tamed, trained, and extinguished yourself, it is quite possible for you to help tame, train, and extinguish someone else.
in a good family
? I can’t find any offence
I think in our part of the world we’re equally exposed to Brit/Oz and US spellings, resulting in a terrible confusion. I just let my spellchecker tell me what to do.
Umm, it seems fine to me.
Ha ha, someone’s mind was undisciplined that day!
Right, gosh.
Actually no. When following the “reputation” trope, this passage usually ends with bhagavā’ti, but sometimes the close -ti is missing. The MS is inconsistent in its punctuation, but I think in dn3 it gets it right. @Brahmali maybe you want to adjust your translation here?
right, thanks. this is great spottage, how are you doing it???
It’s spoken by Vessavana, he addresses the Buddha with “marisa”. His lines continue till 11.2.
Yeah, ṭt doesn’t occur in Pali, it’s a typo.
Yes, it’s a bit unusual, we probably could split the segments, but it’s okay as stands.
Oh, very nice! The text is ambiguous as to number, but the commentary says “a place where offerings were made to the gods”, so plural it is.
But Gods’ Grove sounds fussy to me, in English we often drop the apostrophe in place names. Use “Godswood”, which duckduckgo tells me is in Game of Thrones.
Thanks
fixed, thanks
oops, fixed.
Right. This whole passage is hilarious, he was so precious about what people thought!
Right, yes.
No, it’s just carelessness, khāṇumatakā means “of khāṇumata”.
right!
Use “outlaw threat”. But brigand is such a good word, I shall have to try to use it somewhere else!
Gosāla (= “cowshed”)
As we all know, the two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
fixed
(Interesting case for translation. The Pali is sambheda “mixed up”, which technically fits “promiscuous”. But in English that is usually used in the sense of “having many serial sexual partners”, which is not really what is meant here.)
fixed
Indeed it does, it’s a phrase literally used in the Brahmanical texts countless times (brahmabhūtātmā).
Linguistically it challenges a long-held axiom of Buddhist studies, that the neuter brahman of the Upanishads in the sense of the cosmic divinity is not found in Buddhism, only the personal masculine Brahmā. Here the dompound is gramatically ambiguous, it could be either. But when the phrase is encountered in Brahmanical texts, no-one would take it as anything but the neuter cosmic brahman.
If the Buddha wanted to sound like an Upanishad, who are we to gainsay him?
thanks.
It’s a different word, here Brahmāva must be brahmā iva, “like Brahmā”. It’s either a pun or a result of a confused etymology.
thanks
Ha, I didn’t notice, as an old rugby player this sounds perfectly natural.
No, you’re right. Also use “shall”, it’s stronger.
Use “pursue”
Use “proceed”. Also it was a mistake to use “like” here, there is no “like” in the Pali, they have given it up.
Great, I think that’s all so far as the things I can correct in Bilara. Others things (blurbs, segment fixes, missing texts) I will proceed to address now.
Hmm, I have removed the blank entry. I’m not sure if it is a sheer mistake, or whether there was meant ti be a text there but I didn’t know anything about it. In either case, no point in showing a blank text.
It’s an unusual case, I have adjusted the data and I think it works ok now.
Looks like just an oversight. Preparing the Vinaya parallels was madness! Anyway I have added the missing data, and meanwhile translated a few of the untranslated Sanskrit rule names. One day I’ll get around to translating more of them, but in some cases there is literally nothing on the term except the entry here.
Hmm, that’s a mistake, I have compared with the original Mahasangiti edition.
Thanks so much to everyone who has helped! For the sake of everyone’s sanity, I’ll close this thread and open a new one.
This is a list of double quotation marks not being closed or opened (except for one name inconsistency):
