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

Feedback
22

Yes, that sounds much clearer to me, and it’s still very concise.

1 Like
23

It’s because of things like this that the Bilara approach is so valuable and (over time) will lead to a nicer and more consistent translation of the canon.

Well, it is already fairly consistent, and now we are ironing out the last remaining creases.

24

In some comments to DN 4, Pokkharasāti is still used instead of Pokkharasādi.

25

I was thinking about this the other day. I suspect that in the long term the major impact that our approach will have is the ability to continually improve and revise translations. Legacy translations are full of cases where there are mistakes, yet they just never get fixed. Over time we will get more and more precise, and at the same time, our translations can be used as the basis for future adaptations in ways we can’t predict.

Thanks, i’ve fixed this.

1 Like
26

I thought it was policy to not fix mistakes in the legacy translations. Or did you just mean old print translations?

1 Like
27

Hi there, I wanted to report that it seems that some of the legacy Portuguese translations of Snp suttas have been placed wrongly.

For example, while in bhante @sujato’s version of Snp5.2 we have a translation of the “Questions of Ajita”, in the Portuguese side of things we seen to have a translation of Tissa-Metteya’s question.

Aditionally, in the Portuguese translation we have a weird typo which has the term “agitaçÔes” rendered as “aHHagitaçÔes”

I wonder if this is an artifact of a bulk find and replace done at the back-end of things?

Thanks in advance for your attention and reply.

Reverence and respect, :anjal:

1 Like
28

I think one aspect of the crux is that the copyright is mostly in the hands of the publishers who want to make profit. It’s not very profitable to make new editions all the time in order to fix some typos or make small adaptations. Once a thing is printed it is basically frozen.

We fix simple and obvious typos if we find them. But we don’t change the choice of other translators to render a term in a particular way. This is how I understand the policy.

The Bilara translators have the freedom to change their own choices as often as they wish, as long as they are alive, which is the basis of the high degree of consistency and precision that we do already have and are continuously improving. (If a legacy translator would decide to do the same, they could of course do this as well. But many of them have already passed away.)

1 Like
29

Gabriel, I’m wondering if this is a fix that you would like to do yourself? i’d feel much more confident with your hand at the helm.

30

SN41.3:2.4: Yāni cimāni dvāsaáč­áč­hi diáč­áč­higatāni brahmajāle bhaáč‡itāni;
And also the sixty-two misconceptions spoken of in “The Divine Net”.

Should be single quotes; it’s a quote inside a quote.

31

Sadhu bhante! :anjal:
Yes, I can do it, but unsure of how to do it exaclty. As these are texts uploaded before the segmented translations were introduced, it would not be via Bilara interface, right?

1 Like
32

I think you need to clone the sc-data repository and then change the individual files. E.g.:

Then you would have to submit a merge request. I think.

1 Like
33

I always do it the “easy” way when I find a typo in a German legacy text: you can go to a file like this in the repository, click the pencil icon, make your edits, click “commit changes”, create a pull request. This then needs to be merged by one of the devs.

No need to clone, if you don’t want to.

2 Likes
34

Comment DN 8:21.8:

The Buddha repurposes the concept of “disgust of sin”, which here stands in the place of meditation (samādhi). Here the prefix adhi- has the sense “as regards”, not “higher”.

What’s the principal difference between adhisÄ«la, adhipañña, and adhivimutti on one hand (which are translated “higher”) and adhijeguccha on the other hand (which is not translated “higher”)?

Comment DN 14:2.18.10:

Yoniso maniskāra (“rational attention”) is a distinctively Buddhist term that literally means “attending by way of source or reason”. In early texts it is mostly used in reference to investigating causality, although over time it came to have a more general sense of “reflection, inquiry”.

In the comment, too, “attention” should be replaced by “application of mind”.

DN28:13.3: jānāti, bhante, bhagavā aparaáč puggalaáč paccattaáč yonisomanasikārā
The Buddha knows by rationally applying the mind to another individual:

The same construction is also in segments 13.5, 13.7, and 13.9, but the translation doesn’t follow.

SN55.40:2.3: taáč suáč‡Ähi, sādhukaáč manasi karohi; bhāsissāmī”ti.
listen and attend closely, I will speak.”

Should be “apply your mind well”.

SN35.87:11.2: “tasmātiha, āvuso channa, idampi tassa bhagavato sāsanaáč niccakappaáč sādhukaáč manasi kātabbaáč:
“So, Reverend Channa, you should apply your mind well to this instruction of the Buddha whenever you can:

versus

MN144:11.2: “tasmātiha, āvuso channa, idampi tassa bhagavato sāsanaáč, niccakappaáč manasi kātabbaáč:
“So, Reverend Channa, you should apply your mind well to this instruction of the Buddha whenever you can:

Sādhukaáč is lacking in the MN version—that might be by accidental loss? So I am not sure if the difference should be reflected in translation. Currently it’s not.

For much of MN 2, manasikāra is still rendered “pay attention” (there are many cases with no yoniso or ayoniso).

1 Like
35

Snp3.9:

They know their past lives,
and sees heaven and places of loss,
and has attained the ending of rebirth,
that’s who I call a brahmin.

Subject verb agreement.

I found this when comparing the MN version with the Snp version: https://diff.readingfaithfully.org/?one=MN98&two=snp3.9 There are several differences between the two but they are all rather insignificant.

1 Like
36

Hmm, I think that’s a mistake. I read it that way because he’s quoting; the locative form means “about” and the prefix adhi- sometimes reinforces that sense. But as you say, the phrase is parallel with other cases where “higher” works better. I just checked the commentary and it confirms the sense “higher”, so let’s do that.

Thanks I have changed this comment.

Right, thanks

Hmm, well I think it’s an unusual phrase, with niccakappa (which I have revised to “regularly”.) Could go either way, so best to keep the difference in the translation.

1 Like
37

AN4.192:1.3: Saáčvāsena, bhikkhave, sÄ«laáč veditabbaáč, tañca kho dÄ«ghena addhunā, na ittaraáč; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññena.
You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

Should in this Sutta and in the parallels at SN 3.11 and Ud 6.2 “when (in)attentive” also be replaced by “when (not) applying the mind”?

In AN 5.151 mamasikāra is rendered “introspect”. I am not sure whether this is still an old rendering or has been done deliberately.

In DN 25:7.16, “higher” has been added to “disgust of sin” in the text, but not in the comment.

In AN 11.8 mamasikāra is still rendered “awareness” throughout the Sutta.

38

Bhante @sujato can I do it this way?

39

No, here “attentive” works better.

No, I’ve changed it.

fixed, thanks.

okay, there and in similar “samadhi” contexts use “focus”.

Sorry Gabriel, I’m not sure what you’re referring to?

1 Like
40

I think this is what he is referring to; Ven. Sabbamitta’s method:

3 Likes
41

Right, okay then sure.

2 Likes