HTML foible or academic notation?

I found this strange translation at

Herein, Dīghāvu, do you dwell contemplating impermanence in all the activities, conscious of ill in impermanence, conscious of there being no self in what is ill, conscious of abandoning, of dispassion, of cessation.

I didn’t see “ill” in other alternative translations. Is it some obscure academic notation or an HTML foible?

It’s the same as the original here: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.55.003.wood.pts.htm so there is no error. The translation is by Frank Woodward.

“Ill” is an archaic translation, a rather good one in fact. If you consider it as the opposite of “well”, “ill” has traditionally a much broader application. Of course we wouldn’t use it today; not to mention, it’s hell on the poor OCR!

1 Like

Instead of the common mistake of

“The Buddha said life is suffering”

we would hae

“The Buddha said we be illing”

4 Likes