SuttaCentral
AN10.83:3.3: paripucchitā ca, no ca ohitasoto dhammaṁ suṇāti …
they ask questions, but don’t lend an ear …
I think “lend an ear” has generally been changed to “actively listen”, but it seems in this segment it has been forgotten.
Again in AN 8.82:1.9, also in AN 7.68:10.3, 10.5, and 11.1.
Thanks, gosh I really thought I had found all them. I think there’s something up with the Bilara search, it is returning no results for things that are there. If you notice any cases, I’ve opened an issue:
Well I am basically not using Bilara search. I hardly have any case of a simple search/replace, as the German language structure is usually more complex than English. And I don’t like to see 300+ results in just one column.
So my work is more time consuming on one hand, but the advantage is that when you walk slower and through a wider landscape, you see more. 
DN 9:2.3 comment:
This can be understood as answering the criticism voiced in dn8:22.2, that Buddha was afraid to speak in an assembly.
Better perhaps “the Buddha”, otherwise it sounds like a personal name.
Thank you for your guidance, Ayya @sabbamitta 
Bhante @sujato I have done as indicated, please kindly let me know if I need to take any further action and when I could double check if the fix went through (tagging @carmi too 
)
Reverence and respect
Fyi I’m travelling and will be out of contact for several days.
I can merge these too
Saccaṁ moghamañña is usually translated “other ideas are silly”, except for DN 9, where it is “anything else is wrong”.
DN9:33.16: Kasmā ca te, poṭṭhapāda, mayā anekaṁsikā dhammā desitā paññattā?
And why haven’t I taught and pointed out such things that are not definitive?
Strange as it is, but it seems the text is saying here that the Buddha did in fact teach and point out these things. Or am I wrong?
Earlier in the Sutta it says:
DN9:28.1: “Kasmā panetaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā abyākatan”ti?
“Why haven’t these things been declared by the Buddha?”
Here he did clearly not declare them.
Probably the statement in segment 33.16 (and again in 33.38) has to be understood that the Buddha did in fact teach these points, but he taught them as not definitive? He didn’t declare them as statements.
Is it grammatically possible to say:
And why have I taught and pointed out such things as not definitive?
?
(And respectively for the entire section.)
DN9:33.21: Idaṁ dukkhanti kho, poṭṭhapāda, mayā ekaṁsiko dhammo desito paññatto.
‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.”
The double closing quote should not be here. The Buddha continues speaking.
DN9:36.1: “Evameva kho, poṭṭhapāda, ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino:
“In the same way, the ascetics and brahmins who have those various doctrines and views …
You are abbreviating here and therefore summarizing (and the same again in segment 38.1), but I don’t think it is justified to use “doctrines and views” in the plural. The text only ever mentions one view, namely “the self is exclusively happy and is well after death”. Therefore I think it should be “the ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view”, in singular.
Comment DN 9:49.8:
This anticipates one of the great philosophical debates of sectarian Buddhists which gave rise to the Sarvāstivāda, the school whose core doctrine was that “all exists”. The Buddha describes past, future, and present with the three grammatical tenses.
Perhaps it would be good to mention that “all” in “all exists” refers to past, future, and present.
Kp8 Nidhikandasutta SuttaCentral
But by giving and morality,
restraint and self-control,
a women or man
keeps their savings safe.
In both chrome and firefox, the css for Bilara is slightly off. The main page content is hidden behind the top bar. Here I have made the top bar transparent so you can see what’s happening.
Comment DN 10:1.1.3
The same Subha earlier met the Buddha in mn99, which was before Pokkharasādi’s conversion, and again in mn135, where he asked about kamma. His father Todeyya was a prominent brahmin, often mentioned alongside Pokkharasādi. The two apparently lived not far from each other, as, according to the commentary, Todeyya was named for his village of Tudi outside of Sāvatthī (see Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī 4.3.94).
Should it not be “Todeyya was named after his village of Tudi”?
Comment DN 10:1.5.1
Cetaka is mentioned only here. The commentary says he was named for his home country of Cetī, which is roughly the modern region of Bundelkhand, about 500km south-west of Sāvatthī.
Is it correct in English to spell “500km” without space?
DN10:1.5.3: “bhavañhi ānando tassa bhoto gotamassa dīgharattaṁ upaṭṭhāko santikāvacaro samīpacārī.
“Master Ānanda, you were Master Gotama’s attendant. You were close to him, living in his presence.
“For a long time” is lacking.
DN10:2.20.1: Katamo pana so, bho ānanda, ariyo paññākkhandho, yassa bho bhavaṁ gotamo vaṇṇavādī ahosi, yattha ca imaṁ janataṁ samādapesi nivesesi patiṭṭhāpesī”ti?
But what, Master Ānanda, was that noble spectrum of wisdom that the Buddha praised?”
“Spectrum of noble wisdom”.
Thag1.33:1.1-2:
“Yathāpi ekaputtasmiṁ,
Just as a mother would be good
piyasmiṁ kusalī siyā;
to her beloved and only son;
Is there a particular reason why it must be a son, or could it be just a child?
Bahujanā ākiṇṇamanussā is sometimes translated “populous, full of people”, sometimes only “full of people”.
Uttari manussadhammā iddhipāṭihāriyaṁ karotī (or karissati, etc.) is elsewhere translated “perform a superhuman demonstration of psychic power”, but in DN 11 it is “perform a demonstration of superhuman psychic power”.
DN11:6.2: Idha, kevaṭṭa, bhikkhu parasattānaṁ parapuggalānaṁ cittampi ādisati, cetasikampi ādisati, vitakkitampi ādisati, vicāritampi ādisati:
In one case, someone reveals the mind, mentality, thoughts, and reflections of other beings and individuals:
It’s not “someone”, but “a mendicant”. It’s also not “in one case”.
The gods who come above the 33 are sometimes spelled “Yama”, sometimes “Yāma” (sometimes, for example in DN 11, there are also gods called “Suyāma”, so perhaps the other ones should be called Yāma?).
In this Sutta there is also this long list of gods that the mendicant visits, and the dialogs are abbreviated. The list starts with “But the gods of the Thirty-Three …” and ends with “the gods of Brahmā’s Host. They might know.”
Neither at the beginning nor at the end of the list the sentence is completed. I think “… are our superiors” should be inserted at some point, perhaps after “the gods of Brahmā’s Host”. So it would become:
But the gods of the Thirty-Three … the gods of Brahmā’s Host are our superiors. They might know.
DN11:80.2: Atha kho so, kevaṭṭa, bhikkhu yena brahmakāyikā devā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā brahmakāyike deve etadavoca:
Then he approached those gods and said,
Perhaps say “the gods of Brhamā’s Host” instead of “those gods”.
Comment DN 11:83.1:
Rather than trying to engage with Brahmā’s agenda, he keeps restating his question. This is a skillful way of dealing with a narcissist.
I would rather formulate “dealing with narcissistic personality traits” than “with a narcissist”. This sounds less derogatory of the person.
Bhante, in Suttas where the Buddha sits in his assembly on Uposatha days, you usually start by saying “Saṅgha of monks”, but then at some point switch to “Saṅgha of mendicants”. I am not sure what prompts this switch? Where do you see the difference?
Yes, but don’t worry, we’re completely rebuilding it.
DN12:13.7: Evaṁvādī so ye te kulaputtā tathāgatappaveditaṁ dhammavinayaṁ āgamma evarūpaṁ uḷāraṁ visesaṁ adhigacchanti, sotāpattiphalampi sacchikaronti, sakadāgāmiphalampi sacchikaronti, anāgāmiphalampi sacchikaronti, arahattampi sacchikaronti, ye cime dibbā gabbhā paripācenti dibbānaṁ bhavānaṁ abhinibbattiyā, tesaṁ antarāyakaro hoti, antarāyakaro samāno ahitānukampī hoti, ahitānukampissa sapattakaṁ cittaṁ paccupaṭṭhitaṁ hoti, sapattake citte paccupaṭṭhite micchādiṭṭhi hoti.
Now, there are gentlemen who, relying on the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One, achieve a high distinction such as the following: they realize the fruit of stream-entry, the fruit of once-return, the fruit of non-return, or the fruit of perfection. And in addition, there are those who ripen the seeds for rebirth in a heavenly state. The person who spoke like that makes it difficult for them. They’re acting unkindly, their heart is full of hostility, and they have wrong view.
Arahattampi has no fruit.
Purāṇañjasa in SN 12.65 is sometimes translated “ancient route”, sometimes “ancient road”.
The title of DN 13, Tevijjasutta, is translated “The three knowledges”. In the text, the term tevijja only occurs with reference to the “brahmins who are proficient in the three Vedas”. So I suggest to translate the title “The three Vedas”.
So mamassa antarāyo or so mama assa antarāyo is sometimes translated “it would stop my practice” and sometimes “would be an obstacle to me” (mainly in AN 5.77, AN 8.74, and AN 6.20, in some of them both versions are fond; and in DN 1 it’s in a somewhat different context).
DN27:28.5: samaṇopi kho, vāseṭṭha, kāyena sucaritaṁ caritvā vācāya sucaritaṁ caritvā manasā sucaritaṁ caritvā sammādiṭṭhiko sammādiṭṭhikammasamādāno sammādiṭṭhikammasamādānahetu kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapajjati.
An aristocrat, brahmin, peasant, menial, or ascetic may do good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They have right view, and they act out of that right view. And because of that, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
In all other cases in this Sutta the translation is in the segment with khattiya. Only here it’s in the segment with samana.
DN13:19.15: “Addhā kho, bho gotama, evaṁ sante tassa purisassa appāṭihīrakataṁ bhāsitaṁ sampajjatī”ti.
“Clearly that’s the case, sir.”
Should be “Master Gotama”, not “Sir”.
I am still linking this thread on DN corrections here.
Compare
DN13:30.1: “Evameva kho, vāseṭṭha, pañcime nīvaraṇā ariyassa vinaye āvaraṇātipi vuccanti, nīvaraṇātipi vuccanti, onāhanātipi vuccanti, pariyonāhanātipi vuccanti.
“In the same way, the five hindrances are called ‘obstacles’ and ‘hindrances’ and ‘coverings’ and ‘shrouds’ in the training of the Noble One.
versus
DN13:30.5: Imehi kho, vāseṭṭha, pañcahi nīvaraṇehi tevijjā brāhmaṇā āvuṭā nivutā onaddhā pariyonaddhā.
The brahmins proficient in the three Vedas are obstructed, shrouded, covered, and engulfed by these five hindrances.
The synonyms for the five hindrances are translated differently in the two instances (although in one case they are nouns, in the other one participles).
In DN 13, sahabyatā is sometimes translated “company”, sometimes “companionship”.
Changing ‘waiting’ to ‘waited’? Or ‘thinking’ to ‘thought’? Thanks 
From SN 35.240:
“But the jackal also saw the tortoise off in the distance grazing. So it went up to the tortoise and waiting nearby, thinking, ‘When that tortoise sticks one or other of its limbs or neck out from its shell, I’ll grab it right there, rip it out, and eat it!’”
The second * Dharmaguptaka Bhikkhu Pātimokkha exists in text here:
https://suttacentral.net/lzh-dg-bu-pm-2/lzh/taisho
But no link to this text shows up in any of the suttaplex cards.
In https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/vinaya/lzh-dg-vi there is a card for “Monks’ Rules (2nd)”
But clicking on that does not give the results I would expect of that. What I would expect is the same as for the Monks’ Rules (1st), which also has a link to the original text:
But instead I get:
And when clicking on those I just get the parallels, but no link to the actual text. In fact, I can only get to the actual Taisho text by reconstructing the URL link.
The same problem occurs for
https://suttacentral.net/lzh-sarv-bu-pm-2/lzh/taisho
Comment DN 14:1.1.2:
Kareri is evidently Miliusa tomentosa, known as hoom or kari in Hindi. It is related to the custard apple, not the curry tree (Murraya koenigii).
I think _Miliusa tomentosa_ should rather be spelled *Miliusa tomentosa*. It’s not a Pali word.
Comment DN 14:1.6.1:
The Koṇḍaññas (Sanskrit Kauṇḍinya) originated as the leading clan of the city of Kuṇḍina the capital of Vidarbha, which is probably modern Kaundinyapura on the Wardha River.
This should perhaps be moved to segment 1.6.3 where the name Koṇḍañña is actually stated (just as is the case with Gotama). But that’s really just a tiny nuance.
Warm greetings,
Inconsistent capitalization, one missed letter, and an extra space found in Patimokkha rule naming.
I made a list of the unique names of the Patimokkha rules as designated by Bhante Sujato that appear in the Taishō volumes offered on Sutta Central. I scraped the names for the rules from the json files fitting bilara-data-published/translations/en/sujato/name/vinaya/lzh-*-pm-*name_translation-en-sujato.json". (13 files).
I care about this because I wish to match the names used in Sutta Central when constructing a cross-referencing tool for studying the Vinaya.
Here is the list of unique names with detected inconsistencies. (Tab “Unique Titles”) Sutta Central PM Root Text - Google Sheets
Much appreciated,
Ayya Niyyānika
No you’re right. And my translation is inconsistent, because above I get it right. It’s a subtle point, but as you say the text is not saying that he said nothing about undefinitive points, but that he did say that they are undefinitive.
I think I have fixed all these. Also, in these passages dhamma really needs to be “teaching”, as it is paired with desita.
It seems nicer, yes.
right, thanks.
yes, good point.
Thanks! Also interesting to note here that it is considered normal that a woman has enough money to keep savings.
Ahh, I think that’s fine as-is.
Apparently not:
There is a space between the numerical value and unit symbol,
I’ve standardized a few such cases in the comments. But hmm, it feels like a no-break-space is probably warranted there.
fixed
Indeed, make it child.
Fixed, also revise translation for “crowded as hell” to disambiguate.
right, thanks.
