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

SN41.9:2.14: Labheyyāhaṁ, gahapati, imasmiṁ dhammavinaye pabbajjaṁ, labheyyaṁ upasampadan”ti.
Sir, may I receive the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence?”

Should be “householder” instead of “sir”. Also, it’s “in this teaching and training” instead of “in the Buddha’s presence”.

Good old translation memory! :woman_shrugging:

(I made the same mistake before noticing.)


The protagonist of SN 42.2 is called Tāḷapuṭa in English and Tālapuṭa in Pali. Shouldn’t we follow the Pali?


In https://suttacentral.net/sn-guide-sujato the “Book of the Six Sense Fields” is not listed in the ToC.

https://suttacentral.net/sn-guide-sujato

Not sure if this is the right place to report this…if not, please let me know what I should have done instead.

It seems that the final sentence here should refer to “them”, not “him” in https://suttacentral.net/sn46.54/en/sujato

“At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Koliyans, where they have a town called Haliddavasana. Then several mendicants robed up in the morning and, taking their bowls and robes, entered Haliddavasana for alms. Then it occurred to him,”

1 Like

Looks about like the right place. :smile:

1 Like

SN42.6:7.3: ‘osīda, bho sappitela, saṁsīda, bho sappitela, adho gaccha, bho sappitelā’ti.
‘Sink, good ghee or oil! Descend, good ghee or oil! Go down, good ghee or oil!”

Should be single closing quote.

1 Like

The Book of Causation (Nidānavagga) is the second of the five books of the Linked Discourses. It is named after the first and longest section, the Nidāna Saṁyutta. This deals with causation through the core Buddhist teaching of dependent origination, which explains how rebirth happens without a soul. The next three saṁyuttas can be seen as appendices to the Book of Causation, dealing with the elimination of the suffering of transmigration (SN 13), various sets of conditioned elements (SN 14), and the unknowability of the extent of transmigration (SN 15). The remaining six saṁyuttas are not related thematically. Instead, they are mostly grouped by person rather than subject.

In this paragraph in the SN essay, the highlighted sentence should rather be

The next three saṁyuttas can be seen as appendices to the Nidāna Saṁyutta.

They are all part of the Book of Causation.


SN42.8:6.5: ‘mayhaṁ kho satthā evaṁvādī evaṁdiṭṭhi—
‘My teacher has this doctrine and view:
SN42.8:6.6: yo koci pāṇamatipāteti, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayikoti.
‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’

Segment 6.6 should be in double quotes. Closing single quote mark at the end of segment 6.20.


SN42.8:8.1: ‘Bhagavā kho anekapariyāyena adinnādānaṁ garahati vigarahati, adinnādānā viramathāti cāha.
‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces stealing …

This abbreviated segment has an opening quote, but no closing, and so do subsequent segments. Either you close the quote here and reopen it further down, or you leave it open and remove the opening quotes further down.


SN42.8:1.5: ‘yo koci pāṇaṁ atipāteti, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci adinnaṁ ādiyati, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci kāmesu micchā carati, sabbo so āpāyiko nerayiko, yo koci musā bhaṇati sabbo, so āpāyiko nerayiko.
‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steal, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.

Should be “steals”.


SN42.9:4.5: “Ito so, gāmaṇi, ekanavutikappe yamahaṁ anussarāmi, nābhijānāmi kiñci kulaṁ pakkabhikkhānuppadānamattena upahatapubbaṁ.
“Well, chief, I recollect ninety eons back but I’m not aware of any family that’s been ruined merely by offering some cooked almsfood.

It’s 91 eons, no?


Blurb to SN 42.13:

The chief Pāṭaliya asks whether the Buddha the Buddha knows magic. He says he does—but that does not make him a magician.

One Buddha perhaps would do?


SN42.13:2.8: “Tena hi, gāmaṇi, taññevettha paṭipucchissāmi; yathā te khameyya, tathā taṁ byākareyyāsi—
“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like.

“Chief”, not “brahmin”.

SN42.13:3.10: ‘pāṭaliyo gāmaṇi jānāti koliyānaṁ lambacūḷake bhaṭe dussīle pāpadhamme, pāṭaliyopi gāmaṇi dussīlo pāpadhammo’ti, sammā nu kho so vadamāno vadeyyā”ti?
Pāṭaliya knows the Kolyian officers with drooping headdresses who are immoral, of bad character, so he too must be immoral and of bad character.”

Question mark instead of period.

SN42.13:7.5: ‘ambho, ayaṁ puriso rājaverī itthiṁ vā purisaṁ vā jīvitā voropesi,
‘Mister, that man is an enemy of the king who has murdered a man or a woman.

The way this sentence is worded is a bit ambiguous. It could mean

  • the man who is an enemy of the king has murdered a man or a woman,
  • or the king has murdered a man or a woman, and this man is an enemy of him.

MN 13 has a paragraph repeated twice. It is

"Furthermore, for the sake of sensual pleasures they don their sword and shield, fasten their bow and arrows, and plunge into a battle massed on both sides, with arrows and spears flying and swords flashing. There they are struck with arrows and spears, and their heads are chopped off, resulting in death and deadly pain. This too is a drawback of sensual pleasures apparent in this very life, a mass of suffering caused by sensual pleasures. "

One paragraph has “and plunge into a battle massed on both sides” and the other has “and charge wetly plastered bastions” So not exactly the same…

Ok, sharp eyes!

ok, thx.

@Suddhaso

Yes, do this, close each (as they are separate statements)

Indeed, it’s oddly specific!

Is this the first mention of police corruption in history?

that man is an enemy of the king, and he has murdered a man or a woman

But equally horrible!

Thanks, will fix. Noting also that I have rendered these two lines the same:

Labheyyāhaṁ, bhante, bhagavato santike pabbajjaṁ
Labheyyāhaṁ bhoto gotamassa santike pabbajjaṁ

But obviously they are different. It’s interesting that even at the point of ordination some folks still use the less reverent form “ascetic Gotama”. And with this form of address there is no vocative, with the sole exception at sn7.2:8.4.

Absolutely, welcome! Thanks for the correction, I have fixed it.

Not always, as the Pali has many variant readings for names, and generally we follow the most common usage. But in this case, yes, it’s a mistake. Note that Bodhi has Talapuṭa, which also appears to be a mistake. It’s tāla (palm leaves) + puṭa (basket), i.e. “palm frond basket”. An odd name, but then names are odd.

Ohh, that’s a tricky one. I think I’ve got it fixed.


Thanks everyone, all other errors are fixed!

3 Likes

BTW, I just standardized khadaniya bhojaniya as “cooked and fresh foods”. I also standardized the spelling of the town Nāḷandā.

2 Likes

I don’t see it in Bilara:

There are still a few that seem to have escaped the standardisation:

  • DN 30:1.13.2, 1.14.3, 1.14.6
  • AN 5.39:1.11, 2.4
  • AN 5.33:7.2
  • AN 6.42:1.9, 2.4
  • AN 8.86:2.1, 2.5
  • Ud 5.3:2.3, 2.4
  • AN 8.48:5.2
  • SN 7.2:2.5
  • AN 8.48:4.3
  • AN 8.46:13.2

I’ve only checked what I have already translated in order to check my own standardisation, so there may be others that escaped me.


Bhante I noticed that you have changed “unworthy talk” to “low talk”. I am wondering where you see the difference between the two. I think they are about similarly derogatory, so I am not sure what motivated the change. The Pali is tiracchāna (“animal”, compare German “Tier”), so it seems to be something not very intelligent perhaps. Could “pub debate” (“Stammtischgespräch”) be a good rendering? :thinking: :beers:

No, that doesn’t work, for we also have the same word here:

DN10:1.28.1: Yathā vā paneke bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā saddhādeyyāni bhojanāni bhuñjitvā te evarūpāya tiracchānavijjāya micchājīvena jīvitaṁ kappenti,
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still earn a living by low lore, by wrong livelihood.

On the pinned welcome page of D&D, the “Dear Friend” post says “Welcome to Discuss and Disover.”

2 Likes

SN42.13:22.2: Tatra ce tvaṁ cittasamādhiṁ paṭilabheyyāsi. Evaṁ tvaṁ imaṁ kaṅkhādhammaṁ pajaheyyāsi.
If you gain such mental immersion, you can give up that cause of uncertainty.

SN42.13:23.13: Tatra ce tvaṁ cittasamādhiṁ paṭilabheyyāsi, evaṁ tvaṁ imaṁ kaṅkhādhammaṁ pajaheyyāsi.
If you gain such mental immersion, you can give up that state of uncertainty.

I think “state of uncertainty” is right.


The name of the chief in SN 42.13 is sometimes Pāṭaliya, sometimes Pāṭaḷiya.


SN42.13:2.1: Ye te, bhante, evamāhaṁsu: ‘samaṇo gotamo māyaṁ jānātī’ti, kacci te, bhante, bhagavato vuttavādino, na ca bhagavantaṁ abhūtena abbhācikkhanti, dhammassa cānudhammaṁ byākaronti, na ca koci sahadhammiko vādānuvādo gārayhaṁ ṭhānaṁ āgacchati?
Do those who say this repeat what the Buddha has said, and not misrepresent him with an untruth? Is their explanation in line with the teaching? Are there any legitimate grounds for rebuke and criticism?

SN42.13:32.3: ajjatagge pāṇupetaṁ saraṇaṁ gatan”ti.
From this day forth, may Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

Since the Pali is abbreviated in the last segment, we can’t know which address Pāṭaliya uses. But as he addresses the Buddha as “the Buddha” right at the beginning, why should he revert to “Master Gotama” at the end? (He only calls him “ascetic Gotama” in segment 2.5, when he thinks he is a magician.)

Hmm, I will check further.

I think I have them all now!

This includes the verb lehati “to lick” which I think is unique in the EBTs.

I can’t find this, I think the reference is wrong?

“Low” is a bit more derogatory than “unworthy”. I dunno, I came to feel that the latter was a little overly specific.

Indeed.

Pāṭaliya

Ooh, well spotted! Also, while using bhagavā in this phrase is less common than Master Gotama (47 vs 72) it is found in the precious sutta, as well as others in this section. The perils of reconstruction!

1 Like

In German we have the word “lecker” for tasty, which also is related to “lick” (lecken).

Yes, it’s AN 5.30, not 39.

Or just of translation memory … :woman_shrugging: :smile:

1 Like

Okay, I’ve got that one. Let me know if you come across any more.

1 Like

I rather do like the lowing of cattle. It is rather peaceful. “Unworthy” was clearer as counterpart to Noble. :cow:

2 Likes

SN43.12:6.11: Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu uppannānaṁ kusalānaṁ dhammānaṁ ṭhitiyā asammosāya bhiyyobhāvāya vepullāya bhāvanāya pāripūriyā chandaṁ janeti vāyamati vīriyaṁ ārabhati cittaṁ paggaṇhāti padahati. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, asaṅkhatagāmimaggo …pe….
A mendicant generates enthusiasm, tries, makes an effort, exerts the mind, and strives so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development.

Add ellipses.

The same in segment 10.10.


SN43.14:0.1: Saṁyutta Nikāya 43.14–43
Linked Discourses 43.14

Should be “Linked Discourses 43.14–43”.

https://suttacentral.net/discourses?view=normal

In the “undeclared points” there are four statements about the status of a Realized One after death. The English translation usually has “the Realized One exists after death” (or doesn’t exist etc.). Only in SN 44.7:2.22 he survives instead.


SN44.7:3.1: “Ko nu kho, bho moggallāna, hetu ko paccayo, yena aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ evaṁ puṭṭhānaṁ evaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ hoti—
“What’s the cause, Master Moggallāna, what’s the reason why, when the wanderers who follow other paths are asked these questions, they declare one of these to be true?

SN44.8:2.1: “Ko nu kho, bho gotama, hetu, ko paccayo, yena aññatitthiyānaṁ paribbājakānaṁ evaṁ puṭṭhānaṁ evaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ hoti:
“What’s the cause, Master Gotama, what’s the reason why the wanderers who follow other paths answer these questions when asked?

Two different translations for the same sentence. (And subsequently the same in the negative for “Master Gotama”.)


SN44.9:4.7: ‘acchecchi taṇhaṁ, vivattayi saṁyojanaṁ, sammā mānābhisamayā antamakāsi dukkhassā’ti.
cut off craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit have made an end of suffering.

Closing quote mark (single) is lacking.

That’s an incorrect URL. I think you may have got there via the Introduction pages, where I have no corrected the URLs. Let me know if you got there another way!

done

indeed it should, thanks.

use this form:

“What’s the cause, Master Moggallāna, what’s the reason why, when the wanderers who follow other paths are asked these questions, they declare one of these to be true?

No, here I am framing the close -ti as “he says that …” so no quotes are required.

1 Like