When it comes to legacy translations—i.e. translations that we have inherited from elsewhere—corrections will be limited to obvious typos and mistakes. While we try to source the best quality work we can, it’s not our job to edit or correct other peoples’ translations.
We do not make any changes to the original-language texts in Pali, Sanskrit, etc.
For website bugs, best open a new thread, as they can sometimes be a bit complex to figure out.
I strongly recommend against translating my notes.
My own notes (and indeed, I have usually also translated yours) are still far from being published. Some are just notes to myself, some are a bit closer to being publishable, but at some point (in the probably distant future) I will go over them all. Until then, no “publish” button will be pressed (actually, there isn’t even any yet for comments).
"dhp100:0.1": "Minor Collection100–115",
"dhp100:0.2": "Sayings of the Dhamma",
The verse number range should be at the end of the second line. BTW, I only found this by processing the file for an epub. I don’t have a sharp enough eye to see these things on my own.
I believe this is invalid code because a document can’t have multiple identical ids.
I had no idea that manuscripts listed this verse twice. I’m guessing there are no print versions that list it twice. And even having read the DhpA (in translation) several times, I never caught it. How odd. Have you considered not translating the second one?
One of the advantages of having texts in a machine-edible form, sooner or later any tiny glitch will show up.
Yeah, I’ll make it into one sutta. These kinds of things always trip up any systematization! Which is a testimony to the redactors, in that it happens so rarely.
Oh yes I have. Then people will say, “why isn’t it translated”?
The fact that they have separate commentarial stories is, it seems to me, sufficient justification for the idea that the duplication is early and worth representing.
Then the Buddha taught him step by step, with Ekamantaṁ nisinnassa kho brāhmaṇassa pokkharasātissa bhagavā anupubbiṁ kathaṁ kathesi,
a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. seyyathidaṁ—dānakathaṁ sīlakathaṁ saggakathaṁ;
And when the Buddha knew that Pokkharasāti’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: kāmānaṁ ādīnavaṁ okāraṁ saṅkilesaṁ, nekkhamme ānisaṁsaṁ pakāsesi.
suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Yadā bhagavā aññāsi brāhmaṇaṁ pokkharasātiṁ kallacittaṁ muducittaṁ vinīvaraṇacittaṁ udaggacittaṁ pasannacittaṁ, atha yā buddhānaṁ sāmukkaṁsikā dhammadesanā, taṁ pakāsesi—
Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, dukkhaṁ samudayaṁ nirodhaṁ maggaṁ.
in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in the brahmin Pokkharasāti: Seyyathāpi nāma suddhaṁ vatthaṁ apagatakāḷakaṁ sammadeva rajanaṁ paṭiggaṇheyya;
“Everything that has a beginning has an end.” evameva brāhmaṇassa pokkharasātissa tasmiññeva āsane virajaṁ vītamalaṁ dhammacakkhuṁ udapādi: “yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti.
the translation doesn’t line up with the pali here in DN3
The first sentence of the blurb “remorseful after being admonished by the Buddha on his deathbed.” is a bit puzzling to me. This doesn’t appear in the sutta, the Chinese parallel makes it even clear that it is set after the Buddha, and even the Pali version hints to this. Other than that Venerable Channa walks from Benares to Kosambi which is about 170km, so that would be strange after he has been on his deathbed.
This is an unclear antecedent problem. It was the Buddha who was on his death bed. The blurb is giving the background found in DN16.
I guess it could say, “after being admonished by the Buddha, who was on his deathbed, Venerable…” Kind of wordy, but more clear.
Edit: Actually the blurb is probably incorrect as well because Ven. Channa wasn’t present at the time. So “admonished” isn’t quite the right word. It was a punishment set down by the Buddha. Perhaps: Being remorseful after hearing the punishment given by the Buddha while the Buddha was on his deathbed, Ven. Channa…
Thank you for the clarification, but to be honest it doesn’t seem to me to be the same Ven. Channa as the one referred to in DN16. Especially his exchange with Ven. Ananda is quite beautiful and doesn’t give a hint of any previous punishment.
“I’m already delighted with Venerable Channa. Hopefully you’ve opened yourself up and cut through your emotional barrenness. Listen well, Channa. You are capable of understanding the teaching.”
Then right away Channa was filled with lofty rapture and joy,
“It seems I’m capable of understanding the teaching!”
…
“Reverend Ānanda, this is how it is when you have such venerables as spiritual companions to advise and instruct you out of kindness and compassion."
Indeed it does not, this is a problem with our back end.
I have adjusted the blurb:
Hearing that the Buddha, while on his deathbed, had announced a special punishment for him, Venerable Channa asks for teachings from the mendicants. Unsatisfied, he seeks out Ānanda, who teaches him the address to Kaccāyana (SN 12.15).
Ananda is very gentle. But he says:
Which means his inability to listen and respect his fellow monks, which was the reason the Buddha told them to give him the silent treatment. By asking for admonition he showed his change of heart.
ud3.3:4.3: “imāni, bhante, pañcamattāni bhikkhusatāni sāvatthiṁ anuppattāni bhagavantaṁ dassanāya.
“Sir, these five hundred mendicants headed by Yasoja have arrived at Sāvatthī to see the Buddha.
It’s Yasoja who speaks here, and he doesn’t say “headed by Yasoja”.
ud3.3:10.1: “Evamāvuso”ti kho so bhikkhu āyasmato ānandassa paṭissutvā—
“Yes, reverend,” replied those mendicants.
ud3.3:9.1: “Evaṁ, bhante”ti kho āyasmā ānando bhagavato paṭissutvā yena aññataro bhikkhu tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā taṁ bhikkhuṁ etadavoca:
“Yes, sir,” Ānanda replied. He went to one of mendicants and said, ud3.3:9.2: “ehi tvaṁ, āvuso, yena vaggumudātīriyā bhikkhū tenupasaṅkama; upasaṅkamitvā vaggumudātīriye bhikkhū evaṁ vadehi:
“Please, Reverend, go to the staying on the bank of the river Vaggumudā and say to them, ud3.3:9.3: ‘satthā āyasmante āmanteti, satthā āyasmantānaṁ dassanakāmo’”ti.
“Venerables, the teacher summons you. He wants to see you.”
In 9.1 it should be “one of the mendicants”.
In 9.2 it should probably be “go the the mendicants staying on the bank …”.
9.3 should open with a single quote and close with a single and then a double quote.
ud2.3:3.1: “Sukhakāmāni bhūtāni,
“Creatures love happiness, ud2.3:3.2: yo daṇḍena vihiṁsati;
so if you hurt them with a stick ud2.3:3.3: Attano sukhamesāno,
in search of your own happiness, ud2.3:3.4: pecca so na labhate sukhaṁ.
after death you’ll find no happiness. ud2.3:4.1: Sukhakāmāni bhūtāni,
Creatures love happiness, ud2.3:4.2: yo daṇḍena na hiṁsati;
so if you don’t hurt them with a stick ud2.3:4.3: Attano sukhamesāno,
in search of your own happiness, ud2.3:4.4: pecca so labhate sukhan”ti.
after death you will find happiness.”
This verse also is in Dhp 131-132. But there, the second line has “so if you harm them with a stick”.
ud4.5:3.1: Aññataropi kho hatthināgo ākiṇṇo viharati hatthīhi hatthinīhi hatthikalabhehi hatthicchāpehi. Chinnaggāni ceva tiṇāni khādati, obhaggobhaggañcassa sākhābhaṅgaṁ khādanti, āvilāni ca pānīyāni pivati, ogāhā cassa uttiṇṇassa hatthiniyo kāyaṁ upanighaṁsantiyo gacchanti.
A certain bull elephant was also living crowded by live crowded by other males, females, younglings, and cubs. He ate the grass they’d trampled, and they ate the broken branches he dragged down. He drank muddy water, and after his bath the female elephants bumped into him.
