That city where the cloth comes from is sometimes spelled Bārāṇasī, sometimes Bāraṇasī. Sometimes different spellings within the same Sutta. I think recent changes have gone from Bāraṇasī to Bārāṇasī, but it seems a few have been missed.
SN35.95:36.3: Sādhu kho tvaṁ, mālukyaputta, mayā saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṁ ājānāsi:
It’s good that you understand the detailed meaning of what I’ve said in brief like this. And he repeated the verses in full. SN35.95:41.1: Imassa kho, mālukyaputta, mayā saṅkhittena bhāsitassa evaṁ vitthārena attho daṭṭhabbo”ti.
This is how to understand the detailed meaning of what I said in brief.”
Quotes should close where the Buddha stops speaking and reopen where he starts again.
A certain wanderer is spelled Moḷiyasīvaka in SN 36.21 and Moliyasīvaka in AN 6.47.
When you brain says “their” and your fingers say “his”.
I’m looking at it thinking but why? And I keep looking and gosh there it is. Happens in a few places!
I love this sutta. Why?
Because it still has latex.
Indeed. BB has it as plural, and the reading brahmaṇā is found in the online BJT edition.
Probably not probably not?
indeed it should.
Indeed. also make sure to use sense doors not sense-doors
fixed.
nice!
I’ll change this to use “palash” (the modern Hindi name) instead of “parrot tree” (because it’s got nothing to do with parrots except the shape of the flowers.)
Where it is kimsuka use the other English name, “bastard teak”. This fits the odd sounding kinsuka “what the?” If we use “flame of the forest” or even “parrot”, the questions about what it looks like are less meaningful. But if it’s a “bastard teak” it’s understandable they’d get confused, just as with kimsuka.
here use territories and feeding grounds.
TBH “feeding ground” for gocara is probably the most accurate even for bhikkhus …
thnx
done
Use plain meditation subjects for immersion
thx, fixed.
Oddly, in Iti 53 the same phrase appears with ariyo added. The punctuation in the Pali is, unusually, obviously wrong.
There are probably going to be a few issues to deal with here, let’s do it in a separate thread. When you’ve finished, we’ll do them all. (Once we start messing with the segment numbers, Mara appears in many forms.)
Indeed it should?
what is
as they should.
Indeed.
It feels like an odd use of the ablative. I want it to read avisaññutto dukkhasmā.
Bhante, you are correct. In addition to that, I can see one more discrepancy, when comparing the first sentence to the second. I would change the both sentences as follows:
「托鉢僧侶たちよ、私は男性の姿形ほど女性の心を占領する姿形は他に一つも見ることはありません。 男性の姿形は女性の心を占領します。」
I think this is better. Thank you very much for finding mistakes!! Much appreciated.
SN36.31:1.1: “Atthi, bhikkhave, sāmisā pīti, atthi nirāmisā pīti, atthi nirāmisā nirāmisatarā pīti;
“Mendicants, there is material rapture, spiritual rapture, and even more spiritual rapture. SN36.31:1.2: atthi sāmisaṁ sukhaṁ, atthi nirāmisaṁ sukhaṁ, atthi nirāmisā nirāmisataraṁ sukhaṁ;
There is material pleasure, spiritual pleasure, and even more spiritual pleasure. SN36.31:1.3: atthi sāmisā upekkhā, atthi nirāmisā upekkhā, atthi nirāmisā nirāmisatarā upekkhā;
There is material equanimity, spiritual equanimity, and even more spiritual equanimity.
Should sukha here not be translated as “bliss”, standing in a sequence between rapture and equanimity, and being explained further down as the first three jhanas?
I’m not sure if this is the right place for coding mistakes. If not please direct me to the right place.
I uploaded the English translation of the Netti and it shows on the site except in the suttaplex (see image below) it says 0 English. Yet opening it up the English translations are there.
It’s Magadha. Māgadha is the adjectival form (via secondary derivation), meaning “of Magadha”.
In my defense, the MS text is not entirely consistent here. We usually find magadhesu viharati but sometimes also māgadhesu viharati; sometimes māgadhamahāmatto and sometimes magadhamahāmatto. etc.
… Worshipper’s home the sacred flame had been kindled and the oblation prepared. Wandering indiscriminately for almsfood in Sāvatthī, the Buddha approached Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper’s house.
SN30.4-6:1.12: Ayaṁ kho, bhikkhu, hetu, ayaṁ paccayo, yena midhekacco kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā opapātikānaṁ supaṇṇānaṁ sahabyataṁ upapajjatī”ti.
This is the cause, this is the reason why someone, when their body breaks up, after death, is reborn in the company of the egg-born phoenixes.”
Should be “spontaneously-born phoenixes”.
The village hatthigāma has three names in English translation:
village of Hatthi in AN 8.22 and SN 35.125
Hatthigāma in DN 16
Elephant Village in AN 1.248-257
Saṁyojaniyā is sometimes translated “prone to fetters”, sometimes “prone to being fettered”. Bhikkhu Bodhi, by contrast, has “things that fetter”. How can these variations be grammatically derived?
I’m not a huge fan of the essay, as for me it is too rooted in the objectifying world of the Abhidhamma. Of course it was one of his earliest works. He doesn’t discuss saṃyojanāniya directly, but it deals with related terms.
So BB tends to see the fetters as the objective things that fetters attach to. In his AN translation, he revised it slightly to “things that can fetter”. I personally feel that this approach rather disguises the sense of the Pali: it is the fetters that fetter.
I take it that these things prompt, or promote, or are liable to stimulate the fetters. Perhaps the are “fetterable”.
The Pali is quite vague in this instance. It’s a taddhita construction, and the -iya ending is rather unhelpfully defined as anekattha “of countless meanings”. It has a general sense of “pertaining to”.
I haven’t checked the commentary previously on this, but it says:
saṃyojaniyesu dhammesūti dasannaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ paccayabhūtesu tebhūmakadhammesu.
The things prone to fetters: the things of the three planes that have been produced by the cause of the ten fetters.
Paccayabhūta—“produced by the cause”—it is clearly crucial, for elsewhere the commentary says:
Saṃyojaniyāti bandhaniyā bandhanassa paccayabhūtā
“prone to fetters”: produced by the cause of the bonds of the bindable.
This is a bit different from my reading.
But I think in fact it is both: the “things that have been produced by the fetters” (i.e. the eye, etc.) are have been produced precisely because they are “prone to being fettered”. They stimulate new fetters here and now, resulting in more “things that produced by fetters” in the future.
I think the relation between such things and the fetters (or graspings or whatever) is more intimate than merely “an object”. They grown together with the fetters, produced and producing. So they are “apt” for fettering, they fit fetters hand in glove.
It’s a bit like I say with the upādānakkhandha. They are:
things that stimulate grasping.
things that are grasped, i.e. they are taken up at a new life.
things that perform grasping, i.e. the functional basis which makes grasping possible.
snp1.7 has Fire-Worshipper (correct spelling) and Fire-Worshiper (the latter missing a “p”)
Now at that time in the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper’s home the sacred flame had been kindled and the oblation prepared. Wandering indiscriminately for almsfood in Sāvatthī, the Buddha approached Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper’s house.
Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper saw the Buddha coming off in the distance
… I will speak.” “Yes sir,” Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper replied. The Buddha said this:
Also occurs in SN7.8 in the heading of the sutta and multiple times in the text.
With Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper
… milk-rice had been set out for the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper,
… he approached Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper’s home and stood to one side.
… Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper saw him standing for alms
… When he had spoken, the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper said to the Buddha, “Excellent, Master Gotama! …”
… When he had spoken, the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper said to the Buddha, “Excellent, Master Gotama! …” … And Venerable Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper became one of the perfected.
As long as one doesn’t have right view that is supramundane and undefiled, one’s view is defiled, so I applaud your openness to learn.
In MN 121, the translation of the syllable ceto, from the word cetosamādhiṁ, into ‘heart’, and ‘immersion of the heart’, and the translation of the word cittaṁ into ‘mind’, point towards a different aspect of experience, although in Pali they point to the same.
Although these words are translated as being different aspects, experiencing that they are one and the same is what samādhi is all about; that which searches finds that what is sought.
Thank you for your translation work, and for making the translations available for free on this website, it was very helpful on my path. A great service.