Make a rainbow fall at our feet 🌈 tell us about our mistakes, typos, and other oversights

MN25:6.28: Yannūna mayaṁ yattha agati nevāpikassa ca nevāpikaparisāya ca tatrāsayaṁ kappeyyāma, tatrāsayaṁ kappetvā amuṁ nivāpaṁ nivuttaṁ nevāpikassa ananupakhajja amucchitā bhojanāni bhuñjissāma, ananupakhajja amucchitā bhojanāni bhuñjamānā na madaṁ āpajjissāma, amattā samānā na pamādaṁ āpajjissāma, appamattā samānā na yathākāmakaraṇīyā bhavissāma nevāpikassa amusmiṁ nivāpe’ti.
Why don’t we set up our lair somewhere the sower and his helpers can’t go? Then we can intrude on where the sower has sown the seed and enjoy eating it without being reckless. We won’t become indulgent, then we won’t become negligent, and then the sower won’t be able to do with them what he wants on account of that seed.’

Should be “and then the sower won’t be able to do with us what he wants”.

I’m not quite sure where to put this, but the numbering for the Thi-ap seems to be done a little different in the manuscript than with other texts (as I understand) I also know that you were moving away from including numbers in the text headings.

If you look at Thi-ap19 you can see that on the text itself it calls this 9. I realize that this is the “Asian” convention, but I think this could lead to confusion. Especially since the English translation uses the sequential system. I believe if people see a number before the sutta title they are expecting it to be the number of the sutta.

1 Like

Comment to MN 27:10.18:

One of the many Indic names for elephants, especially cows, is kareṇu (kaṇeru by metathesis), which, being from the root kara (“hand”), has the same meaning as the more common hatthi, namely “handy”. I think the kaṇerukā is the “leader of the cows”, i.e. the matriarch.

The feature that matters in the context is not so much that this cow elephant is a “leader”, but rather that it has tusks; for the elephant tracker sees tusk-marks.

MN30:9.1: Idha pana, brāhmaṇa, ekacco puggalo saddhā agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito hoti:
Next, take a gentleman who has gone forth from the lay life to homelessness …

It’s ekacco puggalo, i.e. “a certain person”, as is translated in segment 8.1 in this sutta.

There’s inconsistency in how ‘dhammā is translated in reference to the sensory input for the mental domain (manas/manāyatana). Sometimes it is translated as ‘thoughts’ and elsewhere as ‘ideas.’ It would be nice if this were standardized across Ven. Sujato’s translation.

1 Like


For agreement between subject and verb, it should read “These appear […]” (DN 19; f.n. 2 in sect. 6.1).

The place of the great quarrel is usually spelled “Kosambī” in English translation, only in Ud 4.5:1.2 and in SN 22.89:1.1 we find “Kosambi”.

MN128:6.9: Akkocchi maṁ avadhi maṁ,
“They abused me, they hit me!

This is a nested quote within the Buddha’s monologue, so single quote marks. The same for closing, and again in segments 6.13-14.

mayamettha yamāmase is translated “that we need restraint in this” in Thag 4.3 and Thag 8.1; it is translated “that here we need to be restrained” in Dhp 6 and MN 128.

Comment to MN 128:8.1:

Kimbila remembers these “Sakyan friends” in his verses at thag2.18. | This was in Ceti, not far from Kosambi. the introductory narrative is shared with mn28, to which the reader is referred for details. But this current sutta is the original narrative context.

  • Start “the introductory narrative” with capital
  • This narrative is shared with MN 31, not MN 28.

MN128:10.10: “Khamanīyaṁ bhagavā, yāpanīyaṁ bhagavā, na ca mayaṁ, bhante, piṇḍakena kilamāmā”ti.
“We’re keeping well, sir; we’re all right. And we’re having no trouble getting almsfood.”

It’s not bhante here, but bhagavā, and this has in the parallel in MN 31 been translated “Blessed One”.

The term obhāsañceva sañjānāmi dassanañca rūpānaṁ and related forms appear both in MN 128 and AN 8.64. I think both suttas report of the same experiences from different angles.

In AN 8.64, rūpā has been translated “visions” (but not consistently), in MN 128 it is “forms”. I think the same translation should be applied in both cases.

Therevada collection on monastic law
Vol 3 Bi Vb

Neither guides her : though teaching or through teaching ???


“The nuns of few desires complained and criticised them “how can nuns give the full admission to unmarried girls less than twelve years old ?” (1.5)- twelve years old or less than twenty years old ??

Without approval : approval to give the full admission has not been given though a legal procedure - or through a legal procedure ?


It seems this is for Ajahn @Brahmali . :pray:

1 Like

Thanks, @Moo! The changes have been made in bilara (the translation software), but it will take some time before they show up on the website.

1 Like

41無憂、42染 、43安穩,此事最吉祥

Formatting error for SuttaCentral Above is the right formatting.

MN34:2.1: “Bhūtapubbaṁ, bhikkhave, māgadhako gopālako duppaññajātiko, vassānaṁ pacchime māse saradasamaye, asamavekkhitvā gaṅgāya nadiyā orimaṁ tīraṁ, asamavekkhitvā pārimaṁ tīraṁ, atittheneva gāvo patāresi uttaraṁ tīraṁ suvidehānaṁ.
“Once upon a time, mendicants, there was an unintelligent Magadhan cowherd. In the last month of the rainy season, without inspecting the near shore or the far shore, he drove his cattle across a place with no ford on the Ganges river to the the northern shore among the Suvidehans.

Duplication “the the”, “to the the northern shore”.

The verse starts with a lowercase letter. And the first sentence is not an actual sentence. Not sure if that part matters though.


In the Patna Dharmapada suttaplex cards the root text origin is missing. This should be Margaret Cone:


This line is sometimes included and excluded from the verse. #23.5 is the same and #26.1 is different. The Pali is also formatted like that.





Redundancy in third line (DN 21, f.n. 3 in sect. 2.4).


“Uttamo” is attribute of “devo” here, not agreeing with “devalokamhi”. Confirmed by the commentary, it should read something like this in English: “I shall again become the highest god in [this] heaven realm” (DN 21), referring to Sakka’s exalted position.

I noticed that variant readings are now shown when you turn on show notes and variants in segmented texts.

However, the tooltip on the function “highlight text-critical details” reads:
Where applicable, highlight the text to show extra details such as variant readings, corrections, structure, etc.

So is the tooltip wrong with regards to variant readings? Is this function only useful in non-pali texts (as all pali texts are segmented so would all fall under the show notes and variants ... function. It’s just a bit unclear for me where this function is used.

MN35:25.2: “Idha, aggivessana, bhikkhu yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā yaṁ dūre santike vā sabbaṁ rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya disvā anupādā vimutto hoti;
“It’s when one of my disciples truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ And having seen this with right understanding they’re freed by not grasping.

Here it’s a mendicant, not one of my disciples. “It’s when a mendicant truly sees any kind of form at all …”

MN35:29.2: Atha kho nigaṇṭhaputto sake ārāme paṇītaṁ khādanīyaṁ bhojanīyaṁ paṭiyādāpetvā bhagavato kālaṁ ārocāpesi:
And Saccaka had delicious fresh and cooked foods prepared in his own home. Then he had the Buddha informed of the time, saying,

It’s “in his own park”, not “in his own home”.

So, Bhante @Sujato, at MN22 you have:

And how is a mendicant unbarred?


Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu niraggaḷo hoti?

This means, presumably, that you read aggaḷa as “bar”, following illustrious translators such as Bhikkhu Bodhi and I.B. Horner. Illustrious or not, I think they’ve all got it wrong. In the Vinaya Pitaka aggaḷa quite clearly means “door”. Here is my reasoning from the Appendix of Technical Terms in my new translation:

I.B. Horner translates aggaḷa as “bolt”, [1] as does Bhikkhu Bodhi in NDB, yet it is far from clear that this is the correct rendering. In a number of places, the Vinaya Piṭaka has a list of door appurtenances. This list includes a fairly detailed description of things that pertain to doors: a door panel (kavāṭa), a lintel (piṭṭha), [2] door posts (saṅghāṭa), a lower hinge (udukkhalika), an upper hinge (uttarapāsaka), a bolt post (aggaḷavaṭṭi), a bolt eye (kapisīsaka), a bolt (sūcika), a lockable bolt (ghaṭika), a keyhole (tāḷacchidda), a door-pulling hole (āviñchanacchidda), and a door-pulling rope (āviñchanarajju). Aggaḷa, however, is conspicuously absent. This makes it unlikely that aggaḷa should simply be equated with “bolt” or any other basic part of a door, especially since the above list contains two words that specifically mean bolt, namely, sūcika and ghaṭika.

Another possible meaning for aggaḷa is “door”, as suggested by DOP. Let’s have a look at some relevant contexts.

“Monks, imagine a light ball of thread placed on an aggaḷa-plank made entirely of heartwood.” [3]

Here it is hard to imagine that aggaḷa could have anything to do with a bolt. That it should refer to a door, however, makes good sense, and aggaḷaphalake would then mean something like a “door-panel.”

At bhikkhu pācittiya 19 aggaḷaṭṭhapanāya is glossed as dvāraṭṭhapanāya. Dvāra unambiguously means “gate” or “door”, and so that must be the meaning of aggaḷa too, at least in this context.

Then we have the fairly common expression aggaḷaṁ ākoteti. It is found, for instance, at DN 3:

“Having entered the porch, having coughed, he knocked the aggaḷa. The Buddha opened the door.” [4]

To translate this as “knocking (on) the door-bolt,” as I.B. Horner does, is not meaningful. “Knocking on the door/door-panel”, however, is straightforward.

The commentaries support this understanding of aggaḷaṁ ākoṭesi:

“The aggaḷa is the door in the doorway.” [5]

“Knocking the aggaḷa means apply a sign on the door with the tip of the nails.” [6]

“Knocking the aggaḷa means knocking (on) the door-panel with the tip of the nails.” [7]

At MN21 we have the compound aggaḷasūci, translated by Ñāṇamoli as “rolling-pin,” but it is hard to see how he might justify this. We have seen above that sūci, when used in conjunction with doors, means “bolt”. If aggaḷa too means “bolt”, the compound would not make sense. If aggaḷa means door, then an aggaḷasūci would be a “door-bolt.” This fits with the story in MN21 where “Mistress Vedehikā” hits her servant Kālī on the head and causes her to bleed.

If we take aggaḷa to mean a door or a door-panel, this also makes sense of the use of aggaḷa as a patch of cloth, as found in the non-offense clause to bhikkhu pācittiya 58 and in the Cīvarakkhandhaka at Mv 2.152. A patch and a panel have much in common, in that they both cover a hole. This explains the shared name. On the other hand, there is no obvious reason why a patch and a bolt would share a name.

I conclude from the above that “door” or “door-panel” is the main meaning of aggaḷa in the Vinaya Piṭaka. There are a few more references to aggaḷa that I have not mentioned, but they do not add much to the above. The only exception is the compound aggaḷaguttivihāro, “a dwelling kept safe by an aggaḷa.” In this case the obvious meaning of aggaḷa is “bolt” or “lock.” But even here it could refer to a door, with the existence of a bolt/lock being implied.

It is this last usage of aggaḷa which perhaps gives us the final clue to its meaning. I would suggest the aggaḷa is a complete door, including all the parts that go into a door. This is why aggaḷa does not appear as a separate part in the list quoted above. This is also why there is no need to mention the lock when a hut is said to be guarded by an aggaḷa – the lock is implied. In contrast, kavāṭa refers to a door-panel, and as such it is included in the door-part list. And a dvāra is a door in the sense of a door-way. It includes grand “doors” such as gates and gateways found at the entry points to villages and towns.

So aggaḷa means “door.” If it ever means “bolt,” this is no more than an extended meaning. It makes sense that this fairly rare word should have only a single overarching meaning rather than two quite distinct ones.

[1] E.g. at BD 2.258 and BD 4.342.

[2] In some cases, however, piṭṭha seems more likely to mean “doorpost” or “doorframe”. Mv 1.81: Mañco nīcaṁ katvā sādhukaṁ appaṭighaṁsantena, asaṅghaṭṭentena kavāṭapiṭṭhaṁ, nīharitvā ekamantaṁ nikkhipitabbo, “Holding the bed low, he should carefully take it out without scratching it or knocking it against the door or the door frame, and he should put it aside.” Perhaps the compound, piṭṭhisaṅghāṭa, simply refers to a doorframe.

[3] MN 3.311: Seyyathāpi bhikkhave puriso lahukaṁ suttaguḷaṁ sabbasāramaye aggaḷaphalake pakkhipeyya .

[4] DN 1.144: Āḷindaṁ pavisitvā ukkāsitvā aggaḷaṁ ākoṭesi. Vivari bhagavā dvāraṁ .

[5] DN-a 1.260: Aggaḷanti dvārakavāṭaṁ.

[6] MN-a 1.273: Aggaḷaṁ ākoṭesīti agganakhena kavāṭe saññaṁ adāsi.

[7] AN-a 9.4: Aggaḷaṁ ākoṭesīti agganakhena dvārakavāṭaṁ ākoṭesi.

The Majjhima commentary seems to support the above understanding:

“For these (that is, the five lower fetters) are called aggaḷa because they remain standing after closing the city gates, the mind, as (with) a door panel. Because of their removal and breaking, this is called niraggaḷa.”

Etāni hi kavāṭaṃ viya nagaradvāraṃ cittaṃ pidahitvā ṭhitattā aggaḷāti vuccanti. Tenesa tesaṃ nirākatattā bhinnattā niraggaḷoti vutto.

I would suggest that, once again, the abstract and metaphorical usage in the suttas should take the lead from the concrete usage of the Vinaya. Aggaḷa means “door”.


The term bahujanāhitāya bahujanāsukhāya bahuno janassa anatthāya ahitāya dukkhāya devamanussānaṁ (sometimes bahujanāhitāya bahujanāsukhāya, bahuno janassa anatthāya ahitāya dukkhāya devamanussānaṁ, with a comma after bahujanāsukhāya) is mostly translated “for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of gods and humans”, but occasionally it is “for the hurt and unhappiness of the people, for the harm, hurt, and suffering of many people, of gods and humans” (in AN 1.319, AN 2.39, AN 2.41).