Make us happy: tell us about our mistakes, errors, and typos

Continuing on from:

Thanks for letting us know what we can improve! :pray:

  • When it comes to legacy translations—i.e. translations that we have inherited from elsewhere—corrections will be limited to obvious typos and mistakes. While we try to source the best quality work we can, it’s not our job to edit or correct other peoples’ translations.
  • We do not make any changes to the original-language texts in Pali, Sanskrit, etc.
  • For website bugs, best open a new thread, as they can sometimes be a bit complex to figure out.

Just going through all your revisions in order to see in how far they may affect my own translations (this is keeping me busy for a couple days …), and I find in AN4.37:1.1:

“Mendicants, a mendicant who has four qualities can’t decline, and ihas drawn near to extinguishment.

Should of course be “has drawn near”.


Sorry, no. That must have been a misunderstanding. You once told me you did not want the marker but that was way back so I thought it was a mistake.


In AN8.57:1.1 and AN8.58:1.11 there are two cases of aṭṭhahi dhammehi where “factors” have remained instead of “qualities”.

In AN9.11:9.2 you have “abundant, expansive, measureless” for vipulena mahaggatena appamāṇena; everywhere else it’s “abundant, expansive, limitless”.

You’ve changed the translation for pariggaha from “possessiveness” to “ownership”—except for DN34, where “possessiveness” is still left.

I’m not yet finished with the revision … :wink:


Oh, lol, well I guess I changed my mind.


Thanks, fixed. (turns out I can find these with the simultaneous English/Pali search on Bilara! I don’t use that enough.)

Thanks, I’ve fixed both of these. Keep them coming!


Yeah, there’s still a bit:

In DN19:45.12, you have replaced “possessions” by “possessiveness”. In segments 46.1 and 46.3, still in the same context, it has still “possessions”. I am not sure if this is deliberate. Actually, what is given up is “a large or small fortune”, for which “possessions” fits better than “possessiveness”. So I am not sure why you changed the first one. The great steward interprets the Brahma’s verses—why should he change the terms in his interpretation? Why should he define “possessions” when the Brahma speaks of “possessiveness”?



There are two terms here, lābha (= “possessions” in this context) and mamatta (= “possessiveness”). I’ve made sure the translations are consistent.

Although mamatta is presented here in a concrete way, for which “possession” would indeed fit, the word itself is an abstract formation from mama “mine”, so it literally means “mine-ness”, i.e. “possessiveness”. It’s not used anywhere, so far as I know, for the actual possessions (i.e. lābha).

Perhaps the purpose of giving the concrete example was to emphasize that giving up possessiveness is not just changing your attitude, you have to actually change your life.


Thanks for the reply, I will try to reflect the same in German.


Thanks so much for publishing the Sutta Nipata! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Looking at the overview page, I see a typo in the blurb for the Mahavagga:

more nomrally found in prose texts

Should be “more normally”.


@Sabbamitta should be remembered as “the one who corrects most rapidly…” :rofl:


Etadaggaṁ sāvikānaṁ padujukārānaṁ yadidaṁ sabbamittā.
Evaṁ taṁ dhāremi!


uposatho upavuttho mahapphalo hoti mahānisaṁso mahājutiko mahāvipphāro occurs in 6 Suttas, in one case (AN8.44:1.3) in abbreviated form.

The English translation is usually “the sabbath … is very fruitful and beneficial and splendid and bountiful”, except for AN8.44:1.3, where it is “the sabbath … is very fruitful and beneficial and glorious and effective”.

1 Like

Thanks, it’s fixed now.

1 Like

AN 4, 134

bhante should line 3 say ‘and’ ?

1 Like

Thanks, fixed now! :pray:

1 Like

AN 6.37

“This Veḷukaṇṭakī, Nanda’s mother, is preparing a religious donation for the mendicant Saṅgha headed by Sāriputta and Moggallāna.
“esā, bhikkhave, veḷukaṇḍakī nandamātā upāsikā sāriputtamoggallānappamukhe bhikkhusaṅghe chaḷaṅgasamannāgataṁ dakkhiṇaṁ patiṭṭhāpeti.

chaḷaṅgasamannāgataṁ is missing in translation

(And Nanda’s mother lives in the village Veḷukaṇṭa, so Veḷukaṇṭakī might not be her name. Isn’t it more likely that it means “from Veḷukaṇṭa”?)


Seniya, if someone formerly ordained in another sect wishes to take the going forth, the ordination in this teaching and training, they must spend four months on probation. When four months have passed, if the mendicants are satisfied, they’ll give the going forth, the ordination into monkhood.
“Yo kho, sabhiya, aññatitthiyapubbo imasmiṁ dhammavinaye ākaṅkhati pabbajjaṁ, ākaṅkhati upasampadaṁ, so cattāro māse parivasati; catunnaṁ māsānaṁ accayena āraddhacittā bhikkhū pabbājenti, upasampādenti bhikkhubhāvāya.

The person’s name is Sabhiya, not Seniya.


Verdict by memory

Kd.14.4.1 to) that which had been done. Then this reasoning arose in the mind of the venerable Dabba the Mallian as he was meditating in solitude: “Perfection was realised by me seven years after my birth.

The first sentence seems incomplete. Several sentences from the Pali are missing in translation, but not sure if that’s maybe intentional. Ajahn @Brahmali


For Ajahn @Brahmali:

pli-tv-bu-vb-pc81:1.4: Tena kho pana samayena saṅghassa ekaṁ cīvaraṁ uppannaṁ hoti.
Just then the Sangha had obtained a robe,
pli-tv-bu-vb-pc81:1.5: Atha kho saṅgho taṁ cīvaraṁ āyasmato dabbassa mallaputtassa adāsi.
which it gave it to Dabba.

One “it” should be enough. :smiley:

1 Like

This is I.B. Horner’s translation, not mine. @Sujato, could we perhaps remove this translation, and make into some sort of legacy? The way it is presented now, it is quite easy to mistake it for mine, as even Ven. Vimalanyani has done. I believe you told me some time ago that I.B. Horner’s translation should not be displayed. Alternatively, removing my name from what is really just I.B. Horner’s work would go a long way towards clarifying things.


A seemingly redundant stanza in dhp383-423/en/sujato:

They’ve given up craving, and have gone forth from lay life; they’ve ended craving to be reborn: that’s who I call a brahmin.

They’ve given up craving, and have gone forth from lay life; they’ve ended craving to be reborn: that’s who I call a brahmin.