In Sujato’s MN75, it uses both “suppose there was” and “suppose there were” (breaking parallelism). It should be just “were” (followed by sentences using “would”), which is the conditional mood, unless it’s in the past tense, which it didn’t look like it was supposed to be.
Generally, “material” has been changed to “of the flesh”, except for the neutral feeling in DN 22:
DN22:11.9: Sāmisaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedayamāno ‘sāmisaṁ adukkhamasukhaṁ vedanaṁ vedayāmī’ti pajānāti.
When they feel a material neutral feeling, they know: ‘I feel a material neutral feeling.’
The same for the painful feeling in MN 10:32.7 and the neutral feeling in MN 10:32.9.
In AN3.93:6.13 “grounded in the essential” has been changed to “established in the pith”. Segments 5.9 and 7.4 have similar constructions still with the old wording; although there the Pali form is different, patiṭṭhito versus patiṭṭhitāni. Perhaps the translation should still be the same?
In SN12.38 for word definitions regarding punabbhavābhinibbattiyā :
puna
indeclinable
- again
abbha
masculine, neuter ~ā, feminine
- a cloud; a thundercloud
But abhinibbatti → reborn, reproduced
It seems this line is lacking translation:
cp3:1.2: indapatthe puruttame;
In Cp 4 several lines are lacking throughout the text, and one line is duplicated:
cp4:1.1: “Kusāvatimhi nagare,
“When I was Lord of the Earth
cp4:1.2: yadā āsiṁ mahīpati;
when I was Lord of the Earth,
Probably one of them should be “in the city of Kusāvati”.
In Cp4, there are also several lines that have no translation (cp4:2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 7.1, 9.1, 9.3).
One could suspect that these texts have been translated while there have been some outages of Bilara where commits were not properly saved. All subsequent Cp texts are complete.
cp4:4.1: Ko pathe chattamādeti,
Who will take an embrella on a highway,
What is an “embrella”?
cp4:4.2: kopāhanā mudū subhā’;
who needs sandals, soft and pretty?
Add closing single quote mark.
In MN 28 point 7.1
It says “There comes a time when the exterior water element flares up.” This should be the earth element if we look at the general way the text is made up.
However, the pali mentions water here. Several translators have changed this to earth. So is this an error in the pali???
Checking the Chinese it mentions the destruction of the earth by flooding…
If water is what is meant here, another passage in this sutta (12.1) seems out of place where it is and seems to go more with this section in 7.1, especially as this section is then followed by the opposite case of water drying up.
1 Like
Then the Mallas said to Anuruddha,
Atha kho kosinārakā mallā āyasmantaṁ ānandaṁ etadavocuṁ:
Anuruddha should be Ananda?
1 Like
Suggestion for translations by Bhante @Sujato:
- SN36.31 “that that” > “than that” (multiple times): “even more spiritual that that not of the flesh”
- SN44.8 (perhaps also elsewhere), inconsistency “answer” versus “declare to be true”: "And what’s the reason why, when Master Gotama is asked these questions, he does not declare one of these to be true?” versus “that’s why they answer these questions when asked” & "that’s why he doesn’t answer these questions when asked” (tasmā tathāgatassa evaṁ puṭṭhassa na evaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ hoti) SN44.7 has the same Pali but different translation: "that’s why, when asked, he does not declare one of those answers to be true.” (tasmā tathāgatassa evaṁ puṭṭhassa na evaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ hoti) (I personally think “declare to be true” is better.)
- SN44.7, being nit-picky, but inconsistent capital: ‘a Realized One still exists after death’ … ‘A Realized One no longer exists after death’ … ‘a Realized One both still exists and no longer exists after death’ … ‘a Realized One neither still exists nor no longer exists after death’?”
- DN22 & MN10 (perhaps also elsewhere) inconsistent “material” versus “of the flesh” for sāmisa: “When they feel a pleasant feeling of the flesh, they know: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling of the flesh.’ When they feel a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, they know: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling not of the flesh.’ When they feel a material painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a material painful feeling.’ When they feel a painful feeling not of the flesh, they know: ‘I feel a painful feeling not of the flesh.’”
And more interpretive suggestions:
- I think the kāmaguṇa formula “sights known by the eye that are likable, etc.” should be translated “sights known by the eye, which are likable, etc.” In other words, it’s not a restrictive clause.
A.K. Warder wrote:
“When an adjective, or (all the) adjectives, follows its noun this usually indicates that it is being “predicated” of the noun, or in other words that the attribute in question is being emphasized. One should then translate “… who is/which is…”. If we use the terms “nexus” and “junction” then the word order adjective+noun usually indicates junction and the order noun+adjective (or equally another noun in the same case) indicates nexus. When there is no verb in the sentence, however, we understand a nexus regardless of the order; then the placing of a nexus-adjective first indicates emphasis of it (as in an argument).”
Notice in the kāmaguṇa formula the adjectives in question come after the noun. There’s also no (finite) verb here. In other words, it is an equational (or ‘nominal’) sentence. I’m not sure if such sentences can never be restrictive, as Warder seems to imply, but usually they’re not.
The philosophical idea here is deeper than it first seems, I believe, namely that all sense objects can be likable, all can be desired. Even ugly sights are desired by a blind man, for example. Think also of the leper in Magandiya Sutta burning his skin and finding it pleasant.
In verse in SN35.136 you already translate a very similar phrase in a “non-restrictive” way: “Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touches and thoughts, the lot of them—they’re likable, desirable, and pleasurable as long as you can say that they exist.” This is the only way it makes sense to me, both grammatically and contextually, because in the next veres their mere existence (which is deemed likable) is opposed to their cessation (which is deemed suffering). (I.e. the blind man desiring even ugly sights.) It’s not just pleasurable feeling which is opposed to painful feeling, if you understand what I’m trying to say.
In MA111 Anālayo/Bucknell also translate the kāmaguṇa formula as a non-restrictive (“which”) clause: "There are the five strands of sensual pleasure, which are desirable, delightful, attractive, connected with sensual desire, and extremely pleasurable. "
In MA178 translation the adjectives are even missing altogether: “You should know that “the hunter’s fodder” stands for the five strands of sensual pleasure: forms known by the eye, sounds known by the ear, odors known by the nose, flavors known by the tongue, and tangibles known by the body.” (MA204 may say the same, but I’ll have to check.)
In SN1.30 it is also said (in verse) that: “The world has five kinds of sensual stimulation, and the mind is said to be the sixth.” So by analogy to the mind, the five kāmaguṇa refer to the five senses as a whole, not just the pleasant aspects of them.
This idea would also agrees with AN9.38: “these five kinds of sensual stimulation are called the world in the training of the Noble One. What five? [The kāmaguṇa formula]” The “world” is not just sense objects that are desired; it is all sense objects, which can be desired.
Venerable Thanissaro also translates it as a non-restrictive: “Tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing.”
-
Brahmabandhu in Thig & Thag, “related to Brahmā”. I saw Keith translate brahmabandhur simply as “brahmin by birth” (i.e. brahmin kinsman) at Chandogya Upanishad 6.1. I think contextually it makes more sense: I was just a brahmin by lineage, now I am a brahmin by insight. MN84 has a whole list, brāhmaṇāva brahmuno puttā orasā mukhato jātā brahmajā brahmanimmitā brahmadāyādā’ti (“Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’”) but it does not include brahmabandhu, which implies that this term may mean something else, namely “brahmin by birth”. (?)
-
MN22 (sorry I can’t remember if I commented on this before): “The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent …” Pali has SO pecca bhavissāmi: “After death I will be that (i.e. that self/cosmos): permanent …”
1 Like
The translation of the DN 28 passage concerning dassana samāpatti (attainment of vision) is misleading. The relevant part is here:
Furthermore, some ascetic or brahmin attains that and goes beyond it. They understand of a person that their stream of consciousness is consistent on both sides: established in both this world and the next.
The problem here is the abbreviation and translation of atikkamma. It seems as though one is no longer perceiving the bones, but one still is. ‘and goes beyond it’ is left-over from a translation of the second attainment of vision. One sees the various impurities in the body, and then:
Atikkamma ca purisassa chavimaṁsalohitaṁ aṭṭhiṁ paccavekkhati.
I would translate this as something like:
… and, going beyond [that], they review a person’s bones with skin, flesh, and blood.
The third attainment would then be:
… and, going beyond [the vision of the body parts], they review a person’s bones (with skin, flesh, and blood). They understand of the person that their stream of consciousness is consistent on both sides …
The point being: the perception of the bones does not cease in the passage. One removes the impurities, sees the bones, then perceives the stream of consciousness in relationship it seems. This varies across schools in terms of interpretation, and the passage itself seems to have sometimes included the bones (Pāḷi, Sarvāstivāda?) sometimes not (Dharmaguptaka).
EDIT: I’m wondering if the ‘atikkamma’ should be read as referring to the ‘chavimaṁsalohitaṁ’ as well as a kind of summary of the other body parts around the bones? I.e. something like “going beyond a person’s skin, flesh, and blood, they review the bones.” Looking at the parallel in the Chinese DĀ, this also accords better with that passage (which IMO seems better well preserved):
“Ascetics and priests use various methods to enter a fixed samādhi of mind. Following that samādhi of mind, they visualize the removal of the external impurities of skin and muscle and only visualize white bones and teeth. This is the second attainment of vision. (DĀ 18)
This is from the Dharmaguptaka Dīrgha Āgama. I have not seen the Sanskrit Sarvāstivādin version, but Bhikkhu Dhammajoti offers a translation of a quotation of these dassanasamāpattis from the Mahāvibhāṣā, thus offering the Sarvāstivādin understanding indirectly. He translates:
- A bhikṣu observes truly that his body is filled with the 36 types of impurity: …
- Having observed thus, he further exeludes skin, flesh, etc. and observes only the bones in which consciousness moves.
So from the perspective of the Dharmaguptaka and Sarvāstivāda versions of these attainments, one transcends the skin/flesh/blood and observes only the bones. I believe the Theravāda commentary on these attainments also supports that they understood the text (although perhaps corrupted, having only 4 and not 5 attainments) as observing only the bones:
atikkamma cāti atikkamitvā ca. chavimaṃsalohitanti chaviñca maṃsañca lohitañca. aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhatī ti aṭṭhi aṭṭhīti paccavekkhati. aṭṭhi aṭṭhīti paccavekkhitvā uppāditā aṭṭhiārammaṇā dibbacakkhupādakajjhānasamāpatti dutiyā dassanasamāpatti nāma.
(This says the second attainment is done by reviewing “bones, bones” in the mind and, based on bones the second vision arises. There is no mention of reviewing the skin/flesh/blood; it is assumed to have been removed).
This reading of chavimaṁsalohitaṁ as standing for all of the body parts in a kind of exhaustive sense is also backed up by a usage of the phrase in the commentary. This is from the DN 2 commentary:
sabbāvato kāyassāti assa bhikkhuno sabbakoṭṭhāsavato kāyassa kiñci upādinnakasantatipavattiṭṭhāne chavi-maṃsa-lohit-ānugataṃ aṇumattampi ṭhānaṃ paṭhamajjhānasukhena aphuṭaṃ nāma na hoti.
Mettā
AN7.54 “…it’s an conceiving…” → “…it’s a conceiving…”
Bhante @Sujato, at AN8.90 you render the expression paccekaṭṭhāne as “in an isolated place”. This seems to be a mistake. The same expression occurs on the Parivāra, where the context requires a different meaning (here). The two commentaries respectively say the following:
Paccekaṭṭhāneti adhipatiṭṭhāne jeṭṭhakaṭṭhāne.
Paccekaṭṭhāne means in a position of authority or seniority.
and
Na kismiñci paccekaṭṭhāneti kismiñci bījanaggāhādike ekasmimpi jeṭṭhakaṭṭhāne na ṭhapetabboti attho.
Na kismiñci paccekaṭṭhāne means he should not be put in any fan-holding position, etc., or in a position of seniority.
The fan holding at first sight may seem a bit strange, but I would guess this refers to having the responsibility of looking after very senior monastics, which requires integrity.
Hmm yes, thanks for noticing.
I’m a little hesitant to adopt the commentarial reading. What does it really mean? jeṭṭhaka is “senior”, but you can;t just appoint someone to seniority. Okay, it can mean being an “elder” or “leader” as well, but still. Similar with adhipati, is this a canonical Vinaya concept at all? I suspect the commentary is reading its assumptions into an obscure word. By the time of the commentary, the notion of an adhipati of the Sangha was well established, so it would be tempting to find that in the canon.
An alternative: could this be a corruption of the Sanskrit pratyenas?
This could then have the sense, “the one who inherits possessions”. Just speculating, but I would like to have more support than the commentary in this instance.
The context in the Parivāra is a monk who is apakatatta, “not regular”, which could be a monk who is undergoing probation for a saṅghādisesa offence, or perhaps someone who has been ejected through the procedure of ukkhepanīyakamma, as suggested by the commentaries. The broader context in the Parivāra passage are the various penalties that apply to such a monk. Now since the penalties for a probationer and an ejected monk are very similar, it does not matter too much which is the correct interpretation.
But the fact that we are probably dealing with these specific penalties is helpful. That one should not stay by oneself fits with the penalties for Saṅghādisesa offences, but not for ejection offences. Still, the standard word for this is avippavāsa, “not stay apart”. I am not sure why they would want to introduce a new and obscure word, paccekaṭṭāna, for this in the Parivāra. So this seems unlikely to be the meaning. As for inheritance, well there is no rules about giving an inheritance to such monks, nor about them not getting an inheritance, and so this too seems unlikely to me. What we do know, however, is that many of the rules connected with probation concern lowering the probationer’s status. It might be that this is what the commentary is getting at.
Right, on reflection I think I was over-interpreting the idea of “position”. There’s no Vinaya concept of appointing someone to a “position of leadership” like, say an abbot (avasadhipati).
But it’s probably simpler than that. I think it just means “place”, i.e. literally the first seat in the line. Or, given the notion of “fan-holder”, which would seem to imply sitting somewhere that you can fan the elder monk, then “near the top”.
Thus we should read pati here in a positional sense, “nearby” or “towards”, thus “towards the first”, so render something like “should not be seated towards the top of the line”.
It remains an interesting usage. Normally pacceka has the sense “individual” as in Buddha or “truths” or Brahma (? which is what, a Brahma with no Brahmakayika deva?). So this would seem to be a distinct sense not found elsewhere.
But what’s especially odd is that it only appears in AN and the Parivara. It’s very unlikely that AN has just invented a Vinaya term. Normally both would be expected to draw on a passage from the main Vinaya books, but there is no such passage. Maybe this is a remnant of a lost Vinaya passage? If so, perhaps the source might be found in another Vinaya? @vimalanyani what do you think? Any chance this term could be chased down in a Chinese Vinaya?
(For other folks who have helpfully commented in this thread, don’t worry, I will get to your suggestions soon. It’s just, I’m at Bodhinyana and discussing this with ven Brahmali offline too!)
2 Likes
I don’t know, unfortunately. I mainly study the bhikkhuni vinayas, and they don’t usually cover these general topics.
AN8.62, there’s a couple of places where…
na ca atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya dhammānudhammappaṭipanno hoti;
…is translated as…
Understanding the meaning and the teaching, they don’t practice accordingly.
I don’t read pali, but by pattern comparison with other lines I suspect it might be…
Not understanding etc etc
it’s a bit of a tricky one. here, the phrases atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya are absolutives, referring to actions completed before the frame of the sentence. Literally, “having understood the meaning, having understood the teaching”.
Now, the sentence begins with a negative (na ca), but this applies to the sentence as a whole, negating the final clause. Literally:
And [they do] not, having understood the meaning, having understood the teaching, practice in accordance with the teaching.
In other words, they have learned the Dhamma, but they don’t practice it.
2 Likes
In the prose part of Ud 5.5, Venerable Ānanda says
nikkhanto majjhimo yāmo
which is currently translated to
It is the first watch of the night
but should be middle watch of the night.
1 Like
cp9:5.1: Ettakaṁyeva te āyu,
But you life lasts only so long,
Should be your life.
cp9:41.4: paṇṇasālaṁ sumāpaya.
with a hall of leaves.
There should be a closing quote mark—although the Pali doesn’t have one.
The queen in Cp 9 is sometimes spelled Maddi, sometimes Maddī.
1 Like
In iti22:
As a result, for seven eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding I didn’t return to this world again.
Satta vassāni mettacittaṁ bhāvetvā satta saṁvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe nayimaṁ lokaṁ punarāgamāsiṁ.
The first part ‘having developed loving kindness for seven years’ is left out of the translation somehow.
