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

Feedback
367

MN54:16.4: sace so gijjho vā kaṅko vā kulalo vā taṁ maṁsapesiṁ na khippameva paṭinissajjeyya, so tatonidānaṁ maraṇaṁ vā nigaccheyya maraṇamattaṁ vā dukkhan”ti?
MN54:16.4: If that vulture, crow, or hawk doesn’t quickly let go of that scrap of meat, wouldn’t that result in death or deadly suffering for them?”

Everywhere else this is “deadly pain”, not “deadly suffering”.

AN2.63:1.1: “Yasmiṁ, bhikkhave, adhikaraṇe ubhato vacīsaṁsāro diṭṭhipaḷāso cetaso āghāto appaccayo anabhiraddhi ajjhattaṁ avūpasantaṁ hoti, tasmetaṁ, bhikkhave, adhikaraṇe pāṭikaṅkhaṁ:
“In a disciplinary issue, when both sides continue to bring up settled issues—with contempt for each other’s views, resentful, bitter, and exasperated—is not settled internally, you can expect that this disciplinary issue will be
AN2.63:1.2: ‘dīghattāya kharattāya vāḷattāya saṁvattissati, bhikkhū ca na phāsuṁ viharissanti’.
long, fractious, and troublesome, and the mendicants won’t live comfortably.

Somehow the syntax here seems wrong; not sure how it should actually be. Perhaps “If a disciplinary issue … is not settled internally”?

The same again in AN 2.63:2.1.

Also compare

AN2.63:1.2: ‘dīghattāya kharattāya vāḷattāya saṁvattissati, bhikkhū ca na phāsuṁ viharissanti’.
long, fractious, and troublesome, and the mendicants won’t live comfortably.

with

AN2.63:2.2: ‘na dīghattāya kharattāya vāḷattāya saṁvattissati, bhikkhū ca phāsuṁ viharissantī’”ti.
won’t lead to lasting acrimony and enmity, and the mendicants will live comfortably.”

“will be long, fractious, and troublesome” as opposed to “won’t lead to lasting acrimony and enmity”.

In AN 7.56, the term uttari nissaraṇaṁ is once translated “escape beyond” (segment 6.1), and another time “higher escape” (segment 6.4).

Comment to MN 56:30.3:

Upāli is playing on the dual senses of vaṇṇa as both “praise” and “beauty”. In doing so, he implicitly answers the Buddha’s question: he is adept at poetic improvisation (paṭibhāna).

It’s not the Buddha’s question, but the Jain Ñātika’s.

The phrase seyyathāpi nāma balavā puriso dīghalomikaṁ eḷakaṁ lomesu gahetvā ākaḍḍheyya parikaḍḍheyya samparikaḍḍheyya; evamevāhaṁ samaṇaṁ gotamaṁ vādena vādaṁ ākaḍḍhissāmi parikaḍḍhissāmi samparikaḍḍhissāmi is translated

  • in MN 35: “I’ll take him on in debate and drag him to and fro and round about, like a strong man would grab a long-fleeced sheep by its fleece and drag it to and fro and round about!”
  • in MN 56: “I’ll take him on in debate and drag him to and fro and round about, like a strong man would drag a fleecy sheep to and fro and round about!”

MN56:10.3: Yathā taṁ sutavatā sāvakena sammadeva satthusāsanaṁ ājānantena evamevaṁ dīghatapassinā nigaṇṭhena bhagavato byākataṁ.
The Honorable Tapassī has answered the ascetic Gotama like a learned disciple who rightly understands their teacher’s instructions.

Should be: “The Jain ascetic Dīgha Tapassī has answered the Buddha …”. The wording is not exactly the same in the different occurrences in this sutta.

It’s interesting that Upāli addresses the Buddha right from the beginning in a respectful way, such as Buddhists would do, not Jains. Already in his first sentence he uses bhante, and here he uses bhagavato.

MN56:29.4: Pabhinnakhīlassa vijitavijayassa;
rid of barrenness, victor in battle;

I am wondering: is khīla not rather a pillar? Barrenness is khila, as far as I understand it. So: “the pillar broken, victor in battle”?

purindada is mostly translated “Purindada the Firstgiver” (SN11.12, SN11.13, MN56), but in DN20 it is “Purindada the Fortbreaker”.

Note to MN57:1.2:

The Koliyans were south-eastern neighbors of the Sakyans, with whom they had close ties in marriage and customs. | Haliddavasana (“yellow-clothes”) is also the scene of sn45.54, which discusses similarities and differences between Buddhism and wanderers when it comes to meditation.

It’s not SN45.54, but SN46.54.

1 Like
368

Your recent translation makes many of the suttas very clear and understandable for someone who finds them normally very difficult to comprehend, Venerable Sujato. Thank you very much for all of your hard work in translating them. Your translations are invaluable.

2 Likes
369

MN64:5.4: Tassa sā sakkāyadiṭṭhi thāmagatā appaṭivinītā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ.
That identity view is entrenched in them, not eliminated: it is a lower fetter.

Should be “substantialist view” instead of “identity view”.

AN2.14:1.1: “Dvemā, bhikkhave, tathāgatassa dhammadesanā.
“There are, mendicants, these two ways of teaching the Dhamma.

It seems the Realized One has disappeared from the English translation. It should probably be “There are, mendicants, these two ways for the Realized One to teach the Dhamma”, or “in which the Realized One teaches the Dhamma”, or something along these lines.

Again the same in segment 1.4.

MN65:13.1: “Evaṁ, bhante.
“Yes, sir.”
MN65:13.2: Accayo maṁ, bhante, accagamā yathābālaṁ yathāmūḷhaṁ yathāakusalaṁ, yohaṁ bhagavatā sikkhāpade paññāpiyamāne bhikkhusaṅghe sikkhaṁ samādiyamāne anussāhaṁ pavedesiṁ.
“I made a mistake, sir. …

The same person continues to speak, so no closing quote mark behind “sir” and no opening quote mark at the beginning of the next segment.

MN65:24.5: So bhikkhūhi vuccamāno nāññenaññaṁ paṭicarati, bahiddhā kathaṁ na apanāmeti, na kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti, sammā vattati, lomaṁ pāteti, netthāraṁ vattati, “yena saṅgho attamano hoti taṁ karomī”ti āha.
When admonished by the monks, he doesn’t dodge the issue, distracting the discussion with irrelevant points. He doesn’t display annoyance, hate, and bitterness. He proceeds properly, he falls in line, he proceeds to get past it, and he says: ‘I’ll do what pleases the Saṅgha.’

Use double quote marks; it’s a third level nested quote.

370

mn102:1.1 comment, missing closing paren after ([dn1]()

1 Like
371

AN9.35:13.2: tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṁ pāpuṇāti sati sati āyatane.
They are capable of realizing it, in each and every case.

The change to “they are capable of realizing those things, since each and every one is within range” should probably also be applied here and in subsequent similar segments; again in AN 5.28, AN 5.23, AN 5.68, and AN 6.71.

AN8.64:3.1: So kho ahaṁ, bhikkhave, aparena samayena appamatto ātāpī pahitatto viharanto obhāsañceva sañjānāmi, rūpāni ca passāmi;
So after some time, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, I perceived light and saw visions.

“Alone” and “withdrawn” are absent from the Pali.

“Perspectives” has been changed to “rounds”, but not in the title of SN 22.56.

372

Minor nitpicking with SNP3.1 sec 18.3

English Pāli Devanagari
‘Up north, O King, on the slopes “Ujuṁ janapado rāja, …
of the Himalayas, lies the land Himavantassa passato; …
of a native among the Kosalans, Dhanaviriyena sampanno, धनविरियेन सम्पन्नो,
full of wealth and strength. Kosalesu niketino. कोसलेसु निकेतिनो।

The English translations for the last two lines appear to be swapped, i.e., the English “full of wealth and strength” should map to the Pāli “Dhanaviriyena sampanno”, shouldn’t it? I’m guessing that since there’s the usual ‘danda’ (vertical line used to indicate the end of a sentence or a passage or paragraph) after the last line, the Pāli sequence is right. I understand that the current English sequence reads better for English speakers, but it’s mapped to the wrong Pāli words if someone’s looking for a literal 1:1 translation. Is this intentional?

1 Like
373

It is normal for two different languages that they don’t have the same syntax. Especially in verse, this can lead to swapping lines or even longer parts like pairs of lines or so in translation. I understand that the intention isn’t to give a word-by-word translation, but to transfer the meaning into the target language in a way that is well readable in that language. You shouldn’t have to violate the grammar and syntax of the target language.

2 Likes
374

Asekha is usually translated “adept”, but in a few cases it is “master”, namely in AN2.35, AN5.108 (but “adept” in the title), Iti59, and SN22.76.

Oḷārika attabhāva is translated “a solid corporeal form” in DN18 und DN19, and “a solid incarnation” in AN3.127.

Comment to MN116:6.13:

Satthar (“teacher”) is used in both Buddhism (usually for the Buddha) and Iainism. Pavattar (“roller-forth”, “proclaimer”) has a similar sense. | Sarabhaṅga (“arrow-breaker”) was a forest hermit in Daṇḍaka. See note at mn56:13.27. | Lomahaṁsa means “hair raising”.

Should be “Jainism” instead of “Iainism”.

There are these two segments in MN66:

about the Buddha:

MN66:2.2: Āpaṇe piṇḍāya caritvā pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkanto yenaññataro vanasaṇḍo tenupasaṅkami divāvihārāya.
He wandered for alms in Āpaṇa. After the meal, on his return from almsround, he went to a certain forest grove for the day’s meditation.

and about Venerable Udāyī:

MN66:3.2: Āpaṇe piṇḍāya caritvā pacchābhattaṁ piṇḍapātapaṭikkanto yena so vanasaṇḍo tenupasaṅkami divāvihārāya.
MN66:3.2: He wandered for alms in Āpaṇa. After the meal, on his return from almsround, he went to a certain forest grove for the day’s meditation.

The translation is identical in both cases, however the Pali is not. In the first case, it has yenaññataro vanasaṇḍo, in the second yena so vanasaṇḍo. I think the second should be something like “to that forest grove” instead of “to a certain forest grove”.

375

I don’t think it is clear enough in this sn55.30

A noble disciple who has these four things is guaranteed long life, beauty, happiness, fame, and sovereignty, both human and divine.

that all five factors are both human and divine. I’m not sure how to punctuate it to make it more clear. I can only think that you would need to use ellipses and include “both human and divine” with “long life”.

Of course if you have Pali turned on it is a bit more clear what is happening:

1 Like
376

The Russian translator of the Digha Nikaya is quoted as А.Я. Сыркина (example: SuttaCentral). I happen to own a printed copy of this translation and may confidently say the translator’s name is actually А.Я. Сыркин.

The confusion stems from the title page of the printed edition:

IMG_20240603_155216
IMG_20240603_1552161920×2560 267 KB

In Russian, phrases like translated by A.Ya. Syrkin may be rendered using two different noun forms, either Nominative or Genitive: перевод А.Я. Сыркин (perevod A.Ya. Syrkin) or перевод А.Я. Сыркина (perevod A.Ya. Syrkina) respectively. The latter form is actually the grammatically sounder one but it has an unfortunate peculiarity of being homonymous to the Nominative form of the female surname Сыркина (Syrkina). In other words, without a wider context, one cannot really decide whether перевод А.Я.Сыркина means translated by A.Ya. Syrkin or translated by A.Ya. Syrkina. Hence the confusion.

I do in fact have access to the wider context at the very least by being able to check the contents page of the printed edition

IMG20240603152402
IMG202406031524021920×1440 150 KB

It unequivocally proves that the translator’s name is А.Я. Сыркин.

2 Likes
377

Upanāha has been changed from “hostility” to “acrimony”. But at AN10.23:7.16, there’s still a “hostility” left; also at MN40:6.13.

The four Pali terms chanda, dosā, mohā, bhaya are usually translated “favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice”, but at AN4.20:3.3 it’s “favoritism, hatred, stupidity, or cowardice”.

MN66:12.1: Seyyathāpi, udāyi, gahapati vā gahapatiputto vā aḍḍho mahaddhano mahābhogo, nekānaṁ nikkhagaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ dhaññagaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ khettagaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ vatthugaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ bhariyagaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ dāsagaṇānaṁ cayo, nekānaṁ dāsigaṇānaṁ cayo;
Suppose there was a rich man, affluent, and wealthy. He had a vast amount of gold coin, grain, fields, lands, wives, and male and female bondservants.

This second man is, unlike the first poor one, not a puriso, but a gahapati vā gahapatiputto vā.

MN66:25.2: idaṁ kho ahaṁ, udāyi, aniñjitasmiṁ vadāmi.
This belongs to the imperturbable.

“This belongs to the imperturbable, I say.”

dhp6:3: Ye ca tattha vijānanti,
But those who do understand this,
dhp6:4: tato sammanti medhagā.
for that is how conflicts are laid to rest.

It feels like this is not a proper sentence in English.

BTW, I like your change for “laid to rest”. :heart:

MN67:14.5: imāni, bhikkhave, cattāri bhayāni udakorohante pāṭikaṅkhitabbāni.
These are the four dangers that anyone who enters the water should anticipate.

The Pali syntax here is slightly different than in the parallel at AN4.122. In segment 14.2, the translation accommodates for that (“Mendicants, when you go into the water you should anticipate four dangers.), but here it is copied from AN4.122.

So here it should be “These are the four dangers that you should anticipate when you enter/go into the water”.

MN67:16.2: Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco kulaputto saddhā agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajito hoti:
It’s when a gentleman has gone forth from the lay life to homelessness, thinking:

In this Pali idiom (or some slightly different wordings), the term saddhā is sometimes translated “in faith”, sometimes “out of faith”, and sometimes, like here (and in oter segments in this sutta), it is lacking.

MN67:17.7: Tassa evaṁ hoti: ‘mayaṁ kho pubbe agāriyabhūtā samānā yaṁ icchāma taṁ khādāma, yaṁ na icchāma na taṁ khādāma; yaṁ icchāma taṁ bhuñjāma, yaṁ na icchāma na taṁ bhuñjāma; yaṁ icchāma taṁ sāyāma, yaṁ na icchāma na taṁ sāyāma; yaṁ icchāma taṁ pivāma, yaṁ na icchāma na taṁ pivāma;
They think: ‘Formerly, as laypeople, we used to eat, consume, taste, and drink what we wanted, not what we didn’t want.

Here it is “we used to eat”, in the parallel passage at AN4.122 it is “I used to eat”. And so the following segments.

MN67:20.1: Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri bhayāni, idhekacce puggale imasmiṁ dhammavinaye agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajite pāṭikaṅkhitabbānī”ti.
These are the four dangers that a gentleman who goes forth from the lay life to homelessness in this teaching and training should anticipate.”

The parallel passage in AN4.122 has idhekaccassa kulaputtassa (gentleman), but here it is idhekacce puggale.

378

On a translated text page (a leaf), such as https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato?lang=en, the last element of the breadcrumb, DN 1, is not a link.
One would expect that in such pages, the last element of the breadcrumb DN 1 to be a link to https://suttacentral.net/dn1?view=normal&lang=en

Note that currently, when clicked to such (non hyperlink) last element DN 1 it adds a > at the end. (This behaviour does not happen to non-leaf pages such as https://suttacentral.net/dn-pathikavagga). Illustration:

Discourses > DN > Pāthikavagga > DN 1
when DN 1 is clicked then it is transformed into
Discourses > DN > Pāthikavagga > DN 1 >

1 Like
379

AN11.11:6.1: Puna caparaṁ tvaṁ, mahānāma, attano sīlāni anussareyyāsi akhaṇḍāni acchiddāni asabalāni akammāsāni bhujissāni viññuppasatthāni aparāmaṭṭhāni samādhisaṁvattanikāni.
Furthermore, a noble disciple recollects their own ethical conduct, which is unbroken, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.

There is no “noble disciple” in the Pali; it’s rather “you should recollect …”.

380

In Basic Passages 6, Gems, para 8 – the first line should be punctuated “As a well-planted boundary pillar…”

Less significantly, in para 6 just above that, better to omit the comma at the end of the first line. Or you might punctuate it thus: “The eight individuals, praised by the good, …” where the first comma has been inserted.

381

DN13:10.2: Kiñcāpi, bho gotama, brāhmaṇā nānāmagge paññāpenti, addhariyā brāhmaṇā tittiriyā brāhmaṇā chandokā brāhmaṇā bavhārijjhā brāhmaṇā, atha kho sabbāni tāni niyyānikā niyyanti takkarassa brahmasahabyatāya.
Even though brahmins describe different paths—the Adhvaryu brahmins, the Taittirīya brahmins, the Chāndogya brahmins, the Cāndrāyaṇa brahmins, and the Bahvṛca brahmins—all of them still lead someone who practices them to the company of Brahmā.

Four groups of brahmins in the Pali have become five in translation; and again in segment 10.4.

AN6.73:1.4: Kāmesu kho panassa ādīnavo na yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭho hoti.
And the drawbacks of sensual pleasures haven’t been truly seen clearly with right wisdom.

AN6.73:2.4: kāmesu kho panassa ādīnavo na yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya sudiṭṭho hoti.
And the drawbacks of sensual pleasures have been truly seen clearly with right wisdom.

Compare the two segments: the Pali is identical, but the English is not. The second segment is in the positive round, so you might think this time the disciple has seen the drawbacks. But it is all about qualities you have to give up, so you have to give up the “not seeing”.

I had followed you in this, and it took me until just now to notice it.

1 Like
382

The comment to text

With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and crush mind with mind.

in MN 20 is

As a last resort, the meditator forcibly crushes unwholesome thoughts and makes themselves think unwholesome thoughts

but should be think wholesome thoughts.

3 Likes
383

Some suggestions based on the offline edition of 2023-12-04. Sorry if outdated or if I repeat earlier comments by me. (@Sujato)

On the translations, some minor points some a bit more meaningful:

  • Throughout: parinibbāna: Final extinguishment versus full extinguishment. You use both throughout the canon, for the noun and verb forms. Would be better if it were consistent.
  • SN12.17: Ma hevaṃ as ‘not so’. I suggest ‘don’t say so’, as this phrase is usually translated elsewhere. The commentary also glosses: “mā evaṃ bhaṇi.” Sanskrit parallel has avyākṛtam idaṃ mayā as the answer instead. So the questions have invalid assumptions built in.
  • SN12.70: “far or near: all choices—with right understanding”. ‘Choices’ is in italics instead of just ‘all’ like the with other khandhas.
  • SN22.55: chindeyya orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni, “cut off the five lower fetters”. ‘Five’ is not in the Pāli.
  • SN22.85: “But now that I’ve heard the teaching from Venerable Sāriputta[,] I’ve given up that misconception” (add comma)
  • SN35.66 (and similar discourses in the sequence): sattapaññatti. Judging by brāhmaṇapaññatti in DN4 and attapaññatti in DN15, this seems to mean ‘description of a being’ not ‘what is known as a sentient being’. The commentary to the preceding sutta says, in Bodhi’s footnote: “the description of Mara is the description, name, appellation ‘Mara.’” (Mārapaññattīti māroti paññatti nāmaṃ nāmadheyyaṃ.)
  • SN35.136: “But when ideas perish, fade away, and cease, gods and humans live in suffering. […] When ideas perish, fade away, and cease, the Realized One lives happily.” I think this means the Buddha lives happily now because of the future fading away of the six senses, which devas can’t consider to be happiness; see the subsequent verses. Could dhammavipariṇāmavirāganirodhā be some sort of ablative of reason, somewhat similar to “maraṇato bhayaṃ”, fear due to [future] death?
  • SN44.1: atthi te koci gaṇako vā muddiko vā sankhāyakosankhāyako vā, “Is there any accountant or finger-tallier or reckoner”. Te is genitive, so “do you have any accountant …”
  • Snp5.7: “intent on the ultimate liberation of perception”. You follow Niddesa’s adhimutto, but it’s not grammatically equal to MN105, since Snp5.7 uses the locative. Based on vimutto it means something like “liberated into the highest liberation with perception”. Since in the higher āyatanas perception disappears, the state of nothingness is the highest liberation that still has it. This basically says that they are reborn in the realm of nothingness, not that they are still intent on anything, which is probably not possible in that state. It is what the tattha in tiṭṭhe so tattha refers to.
  • Snp5.11: dīpaṁ anāparaṁ, “island of no return”. It’s unclear what you mean by this. Context indicates it to be synonymous to verse 1, dīpaṁ […] yathāyidaṁ nāparaṁ siyā, “an island so this [old age and death] may happen no more”.

On general wording:

  • DN1: “Suppose you were to ask me whether […] whether a Realized One neither still exists nor no longer exists after death. If I believed there was, I would say so.” I think “there was” is an awkward way to refer to a Realized One still existing or not. Perhaps, “If I believed that to be the case, I would say so.”
  • Thag17.3: “Defilements ended, detached, he has got over clinging and become quenched.” > “became quenched”?

On footnotes:

  • At DN2: “the denial of moral duty towards ones’ [one’s] parents”
  • At DN15: “The “cessation of perception and feeling” (saññāvedayitanirodha) is a culminating meditation state of supreme subtlety that leads directly to awakening. The state itself, like all meditation states, is temporary, but afterwards the defilements are gone forever.” In AN5.166 it is said one can attain saññāvedayitanirodha without becoming enlightened, so it doesn’t lead “directly” to awakening. That it can only be attained by non-returners and enlightened ones I think is a commentarial idea.
2 Likes
384

In MN68, upasaṁharati is translated “focus” in segment 9.4, and later on it is “apply” throughout.

Uḷāravedā uḷārapāmojjā is “sublime joy and gladness” in MN68:9.3, but only “joy and gladness” in segment 24.3.

MN68:24.7: Attamano āyasmā anuruddho bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandīti.
Satisfied, Venerable Anuruddha and friends approved what the Buddha said.

I think this refers only to Venerable Anuruddha, not to the entire group. Āyasmā can be both nom singular or plural, and anuruddho is clearly singular.

1 Like
385

Hello Bhante, I believe there is a typo in AN5.151

They listen with scattered and scattered mind.

4 Likes
386

So Ud8.3 has been updated with

“There is, mendicants, that which is free of rebirth, free of what has been produced, made, and conditioned."
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ."

As is Ajataṁ in one other place, but in most of the canon, it’s still “unconditioned” and “unborn” and all. Are these all going to be updated as well?

1 Like