In MN 149,
“Someone who lives unaroused like this—unfettered, unconfused, concentrating on drawbacks—disperses the the five grasping aggregates for themselves in the future”
“the” appears twice.
With Metta
1 Like
MN81 & SN1.50 (Thanks to Ajahn Brahm for reading this [Bhante Sujato’s translation] during the recent retreat (power outage in Bodhinyana monastery, Ajahn was in Nollamara)):
Pāli: Ghaṭikāra (short i)
But English: Ghaṭīkāra (long i) and in (at least) one instance (MN81) Ghatīkāra
1 Like
DN16:5.16.4: Tatra ce ānando dhammaṁ bhāsati, bhāsitenapi sā attamanā hoti.
and uplifted by hearing him speak.
Unlike the wheel-turning monarch he is compared to, Ananda speaks on the Dhamma, which should perhaps be mentioned in translation.
The same in later segments, as well as in the parallels AN 4.129 and 130.
1 Like
SN 12.35 blurb:
A mendicant asks who possesses old and death, and the other factors.
Should be “old age and death”.
2 Likes
Typo at SuttaCentral
The brahmin Saṅgārava asks why sometimes verses stay in memory while other times they don’t. The Buddha replies that it is due to the presence of either the hindrances
ofOR awakening factors. He gives a set of similes illustrating each of the hindrances with different bowls of water.
Not sure if anything can be done about this one but DN 33 in n.22 of the Sixes in the original Pali seems to have the commas wrong:
Cha nibbedhabhāgiyā saññā— aniccasaññā anicce, dukkhasaññā dukkhe, anattasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā.
Shouldn’t it be:
“Cha nibbedhabhāgiyā saññā— aniccasaññā [comma here] , anicce dukkhasaññā [comma here] , dukkhe anattasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā”?
Like in n.26 of the Fives?
Of course this also appears when reading Bhante Sujato’s translation with the Pali on the side.
Snp 5.7 has two errors.
- The name does not end with the word “Sutta”
2.“One who has comes to an end—do they not exist?
With Metta
SN12.48:3.2: “‘Sabbaṁ natthī’ti kho, brāhmaṇa, dutiyametaṁ lokāyataṁ”.
“‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second cosmology.
From the second cosmology onward, the closing quote marks are lacking in the Buddha’s answers.
1 Like
Pli Tv Kd 10, 2.14.11:
The Prince then got up before King and went to bed after him. He willingly performed any services and was pleasant in his conduct and speech.
It should either be “the King” or “King Brahmadatta”
Ajahn @Brahmali
3 Likes
SN12.49:1.5: Kismiṁ sati saṅkhārā honti, kismiṁ sati viññāṇaṁ hoti, kismiṁ sati nāmarūpaṁ hoti, kismiṁ sati saḷāyatanaṁ hoti, kismiṁ sati phasso hoti, kismiṁ sati vedanā hoti, kismiṁ sati taṇhā hoti, kismiṁ sati upādānaṁ hoti, kismiṁ sati bhavo hoti, kismiṁ sati jāti hoti, kismiṁ sati jarāmaraṇaṁ hotī’ti?
When what exists do name and form come to be? What what exists do the six sense fields … contact … feeling … craving … grasping … continued existence … rebirth … old age and death come to be?’
saṅkhārā and viññāṇa are missing in translation.
Last phrase in SN 12.49 and SN 12.50:
amatadvāraṁ āhacca tiṭṭhati itipī”ti.
In SN 12.49 it’s translated: “one who stands knocking at the door of the deathless”.
In SN 12.50 (and elsewhere) it’s translated: “one who stands pushing open the door of the deathless”.
2 Likes
Ud. 5.1.6.2: the translation of line 6.2 seems to be missing.
At the SN 3.8 parallel the same line is translated: “one finds no-one dearer than oneself.”
1 Like
SN12.49:5.1: Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako evaṁ lokassa samudayañca atthaṅgamañca yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako diṭṭhisampanno itipi …pe…
A noble disciple comes to understand the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. Such a noble disciple is called ‘one accomplished in view’, ‘one accomplished in vision’, ‘one who has come to the true teaching’, ‘one who sees this true teaching’, ‘one endowed with a trainee’s knowledge’, ‘one who has entered the stream of the teaching’, ‘a noble one with penetrative wisdom’, and ‘one who stands knocking at the door of the deathless’.”
SN12.50:5.1: Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako evaṁ lokassa samudayañca atthaṅgamañca yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti, ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako diṭṭhisampanno itipi, dassanasampanno itipi, āgato imaṁ saddhammaṁ itipi, passati imaṁ saddhammaṁ itipi, sekkhena ñāṇena samannāgato itipi, sekkhāya vijjāya samannāgato itipi, dhammasotaṁ samāpanno itipi, ariyo nibbedhikapañño itipi, amatadvāraṁ āhacca tiṭṭhati itipī”ti.
A noble disciple comes to understand the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. Such a noble disciple is called ‘one accomplished in view’, ‘one accomplished in vision’, ‘one who has come to the true teaching’, ‘one who sees this true teaching’, ‘one endowed with a trainee’s knowledge’, ‘one who has entered the stream of the teaching’, ‘a noble one with penetrative wisdom’, and ‘one who stands pushing open the door of the deathless’.”
There is no mention of the “world” in the Pali, nor of the “practice that leads to its cessation”.
1 Like
Verse 416 is repeated twice on the page.
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.
1 Like
As noted in the original thread, this verse is repeated in the Pali. There aren’t even any variant readings, at least not in the editions I have seen.
Rather, the commentary gives two different origin stories, saying that the same verse was taught on two different occasions. This is very unusual, I can’t think of any other cases quite like this. Usually if a Sutta is repeated, it’s either regarded as the same discourse recorded in two places, or there are at least some small differences.
Perhaps during the time that the commentary was still fluid, two separate stories became attached to this verse. We know that the same verse can have different stories in different Dhammapadas. Then when the commentaries were finalized, unable to decide between them, they just decided to double the verse. But still, it seems odd: why not just tell the two different stories in the commentary? It’s very rare that the commentary would shape the formation of the canonical text.
Another possibility might be that these were originally two distinct verses with distinct stories, and due to textual corruption, or perhaps even dialectical change, the differences disappeared. It may have been only a couple of syllables. Perhaps a study of the other Dhammapadas would shed some light. The doubled verses don’t appear in all editions; the translation by KR Norman ignores this issue.
2 Likes
Thank you for the explanation @sujato!
Weren’t those stories registered for the first time in Buddhagosha’s commentary around 5th century CE? If thet might have influenced the original text so that every edition of the text contains this duplications, doesn’t it mean that the Dhammapada might be a quite late text?
SNp4.15:14.1: Yodha kāme accatari,
One who has crossed over sensuality here,
Why is yodha not translated as “warrior”?
Because it’s yo’[i]dha lit. “who here”.
It’s complicated. The stories themselves are much older than the commentaries. They probably originated in India, at least some of them, but were not as fixed or specified as the canonical texts. Different traditions attached different stories to the same verses. Which in some cases, perhaps as here, could simply be because the verse was taught more than once.
Even if this is a case where the commentary influenced the canon, then it’s important to bear in mind how limited this is. It’s one unique passage, and there’s literally zero textual changes, just a passage repeated word for word. So really what it would show is that, even if it is the case that the commentary influenced the canon, it did not make even the slightest material change to the content, merely the organization.
3 Likes
Hmm … of course the dictionary lookup doesn’t see it this way. But it’s true that “warrior” elsewhere is usually yodhājīva.