HTML foible or academic notation?

Q & A
1

I found this strange translation at

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn55.3

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?

2

It’s the same as the original here: SN 5 55 3: Dīghāvu so there is no error. The translation is by Frank Woodward.

3

“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
4

Instead of the common mistake of

“The Buddha said life is suffering”

we would hae

“The Buddha said we be illing”

4 Likes