Bring the happiness that most people only dream about: tell us our mistakes

In SN35.244:

Then two strong men grab would grab each arm and drag them…

SN35.223:1.1: “Cakkhu, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ …pe… jivhā dukkhā …pe… mano dukkho.
“Mendicants, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are suffering. …”

No ellipses and closing quote here—the Sutta still goes on.

iti91:2.10: tathūpamāhaṁ, bhikkhave, imaṁ puggalaṁ vadāmi gihibhogā parihīno sāmaññatthañca na paripūretī”ti.
I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the ascetic life.

Closing quote is lacking.

Thag 1.9, Thag 16.8, Thag 21.1, and MN 86 all have

I arrived at the the best

One “the” less would do.


MN 128 has the following:

“Suppose a person was to grip a quail too tightly in this hands …”


Comments also still showing in the following three suttas

Shackles 22.117

Burning Chaff 22.136

In ones self 22.150


DN 2:

They’re unable to cause pleasure, pain, or neutral feeling to each other.

Should read:

They’re unable to cause pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain to each other.

1 Like

SN35.231:4.3: “Evaṁ, bhante”.
“Yes, sir.”

No closing quote mark, the answer still continues for the next 2 segments.

AN7.74:1.4: ‘appakaṁ, brāhmaṇa, jīvitaṁ manussānaṁ parittaṁ lahukaṁ bahudukkhaṁ bahupāyāsaṁ mantāyaṁ boddhabbaṁ, kattabbaṁ kusalaṁ, caritabbaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, natthi jātassa amaraṇaṁ.
‘Brahmins, life as a human is short, brief, and fleeting, full of suffering and distress. Be thoughtful and wake up! Do what’s good and lead the spiritual life, for no-one born can escape death.

It seems to me brāhmaṇa is singular, not plural. Although it seems a bit strange that Araka should address only one of his many hundreds of disciples.

For others engaged in giving alms:
161 What kind of result do they reap?
What kind of future destiny?

And deeply respectful towards the Saṅgha:
166 What kind of result do they reap?
What kind of future destiny?

Should those numbers be there be there?

1 Like

SN35.235:7.1: Tattha, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati:
A noble disciple reflects on this:

Should be a learned noble disciple.

SN35.240:2.14: Yato tumhe, bhikkhave, indriyesu guttadvārā viharissatha, atha tumhehipi māro pāpimā nibbijja pakkamissati, otāraṁ alabhamāno—
When you live with your sense doors restrained, Māra will leave you disappointed, since he can’t find a vulnerability,

Indriyesu guttadvārā is here translated “with sense doors restrained”, but usually (and earlier in this Sutta) it’s “with sense doors guarded”.

abhijjhādomanassā pāpakā akusalā dhammā has usually been translated “bad unskillful qualities of desire and aversion”. In SN 35.244 it is “bad, unskillful qualities of desire and grief”.

‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, awakened, blessed.’

Missing “teacher of gods and humans”. I only caught this because of using my comparison tool. I would have never caught it otherwise.


The same tree should ideally be always referred to by the same name. The palāsa tree is called “parrot tree” in AN 10.67, AN 10.68, and MN 68 and “flame-of-the-forest” in SN 56.32.

And “parrot tree” is also used for kiṁsuka in SN 35.245.

But this seems to be the same tree?ṁsuka

In SN 35.247, visaya and gocara are sometimes translated “territory” and “feeding ground”, sometimes “domain” and “territory”. Elsewhere I’ve seen “domain” and “territory”.

The sudhamma hall of the gods of the 33 is usually translated “Hall of Justice”, only in SN 11.4 and SN 35.248 it is called “Sudhamma Hall”.

SN33.16:0.1: Saṁyutta Nikāya 33.16–20
Linked Discourses 33.16

Should be “Linked Discourses 33.16–20”.

samādhismiṁ gocara or samādhissa gocara is sometimes translated “meditation subjects for immersion”, sometimes “mindfulness meditation subjects for immersion”.

SN36.5:1.6: ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ‘bhikkhu sammaddaso acchecchi taṇhaṁ, vivattayi saṁyojanaṁ, sammā mānābhisamayā antamakāsi dukkhassā’ti.
they’re called a mendicant who has cut off craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has made an end of suffering.

“Who sees rightly” is lacking in translation.

While doing the patimokkha line by line for the bhikkhunis I spotted this one in the pli-tv-bi-pm at Pc 138

Yā pana bhikkhunī orenaddhamāsaṁ nahāyeyya aññatra samayā, pācittiyaṁ. Tatthāyaṁ samayo “diyaḍḍho māso seso gimhāna”nti “vassānassa paṭhamo māso” iccete aḍḍhateyyamāsā uṇhasamayo, pariḷāhasamayo, gilānasamayo, kammasamayo, addhānagamanasamayo, vātavuṭṭhisamayo, ayaṁ tattha samayo.
yampi caññā samaṇuddesā labhanti bhikkhunīhi saddhiṁ dirattatirattaṁ sahaseyyaṁ, sāpi te natthi,

I’m sure no one, novices or otherwise, wants to sleep with a smelly nun, but I don’t think this is meant to be here? It looks like it come from Pācittiya 148

1 Like

In AN 9.20:

It would be more fruitful develop the…

should be “…fruitful to develop…”


Another extremely trivial difference. an11.1 vs. an10.1

“Sir, what is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?”
“Sir, what’s the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?”

1 Like

SN36.6:1.3: Tatra, bhikkhave, ko viseso ko adhippayāso kiṁ nānākaraṇaṁ sutavato ariyasāvakassa assutavatā puthujjanenā”ti?
What, then, is the difference between an ordinary unlearned person and a learned noble disciple?”

It’s the other way around: the noble disciple comes first.

This is so in all other places that I have seen, except for AN 8.6:2.3 where there is also the wrong order.

SN36.6:1.25: Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ‘assutavā puthujjano saññutto jātiyā jarāya maraṇena sokehi paridevehi dukkhehi domanassehi upāyāsehi, saññutto dukkhasmā’ti vadāmi.
They’re called an unlearned ordinary person who is attached to rebirth, old age, and death, to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, I say.

saññutto dukkhasmā is not translated. The same with visaññutto further down.

1 Like

There is a minor error in Japanese translation of an1.6

「托鉢僧侶たちよ、私は男性の姿形ほど女性の心を占領し続ける姿形は他に一つも見ることはありません。 男性の姿形は男性の心を占領します。」

“Mendicants, I do not see a single sight that occupies a woman’s mind like the sight of a man. The sight of a man occupies a woman’s mind.”

男性の姿形は男性の心を占領します ( The sight of a man occupies a man’s mind.)

Should be 男性の姿形は女性の心を占領します (The sight of a man occupies a woman’s mind.)


Hi @OneUserNameHere
Welcome to the D&D forum!
I just moved your first post to the relevant current superthread for text typos and mistakes.

Anyway, We hope you enjoy the multiple resources here available: may these be of assistance along the path. Should you have any questions about the forum, please feel free to contact the @moderators .
suaimhneas (on behalf of the moderators).


Incorrect verb tense in MN 58:

If your boy was to put a stick or stone in his mouth, what would you do to him?

should be were

Also, is this comma necessary?

I’d hold his head with my left hand, and take it out…

Not sure if this is at all important…

In the patimokkha at Bu Pc92 (Bhikkhuni Pc166)

Tatridaṁ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇaṁ, dīghaso nava vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṁ cha vidatthiyo, idaṁ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇanti.

Tatridaṁ sugatassa sugatacīvarappamāṇaṁ, dīghaso nava vidatthiyo sugatavidatthiyā, tiriyaṁ cha vidatthiyo, idaṁ sugatassa sugatacīvarapamāṇanti.

sugatacīvarapamāṇanti is spelled with single p the second time it appears in the Bu version (and pp in the Bi version).

In the Pāḷī text of both patimokkhas the word Preliminaries appears (in English) in the Pubbakaraṇaṁ