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

Feedback
82

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
83

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?

84

Good morning,

Not sure if this is a typo or I didn’t get enough sleep.

Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 12.20.52
Screen Shot 2022-01-10 at 12.20.521272×427 73.4 KB

1 Like
85

SNp4.15:14.1: Yodha kāme accatari,
One who has crossed over sensuality here,

Why is yodha not translated as “warrior”?

86

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
87

Hmm … of course the dictionary lookup doesn’t see it this way. But it’s true that “warrior” elsewhere is usually yodhājīva.

88

Good point. It turns out that elsewhere I translate a similar phrase “fragrant casket”, so I’ll use that here too.

Thanks, fixed.

? 梵釋 is “Brahmā and Śakra”, this is correct.

Oops, no my bad. I think I must have messed up a segmenting correction. The segment breaks are different here and in sn35.95, they should be reconciled. Probably I lost some text somewhere.

89

@/ja30/en/chalmers

Is it true, Brother, as they say, that you are passion-test?

Should be passion-tost (the term appears twice in the last paragraph).

@/uv-kg12/en/rockhill

“All created things are impermanent;” when one has seen this through knowledge, lie is no longer afflicted by pain: this is the way to perfect purity.

Should be he (the next two paragraphs have a similar ending).

He who has wisdom for a weapon, diligence as his might, who is reflective, well composed, and who delights in meditation (samādhi), having comprehended the origin and destruction of worldly (existence), will obtain perfect emancipation: he who has comprehended the ending of worldly (existence), lie, I declare, is called “one who has put an end to worldly (existence) and has arrived at the other (shore).”

Also he.

I’ve also seen a great deal of punctuation mistakes throughout the Jātakas, but I’m thinking of submitting those through git. Could someone point me to the right directory? Is it this one?

2 Likes
90

I think so! Fix typos on lines 1180 and 1436 by thesunshade · Pull Request #115 · suttacentral/sc-data · GitHub :slight_smile:

91

jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti is usually translated “Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be”.

Only in SN 35.113 it is “Rebirth is a condition that gives rise to old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress”.

DN22:14.4: ‘iti rūpaṁ, iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo;
Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.

Opening single quote mark is missing at beginning of segment.

92

Something seems to be missing in Ud3.7
https://suttacentral.net/ud3.7/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=main/pts&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

The ids skip from 2.2 to 3.2. I noticed because I was looking for pts-vp-pli30 located at 2.3.

1 Like
93

I think there are quite a few Udana Suttas with peaces missing.

94

Yes, I was in fact hesitant to post since I wasn’t sure if this one had already been covered. :frowning:

1 Like
95

Blurb to SN 12.64

The Buddha the story of how his awakening came about through investigation into dependent origination. He compares it to man discovering and ancient city, lost and overgrown with weeds.

Should be “The Buddha tells the story …”, and "He compares it to a man …“.

Blurb to SN 12.66

The right way to investigate inside oneself is to see how suffering is created craving and attachment, stimulated by pleasant experiences.

Should be “how suffering is created by craving and attachment”.

The expression sakalikaṁ sakalikaṁ kareyya—sometimes abbreviated—is in some cases translated “chop it/them into splinters”, in others “chop it/them into little bits”.

SN12.66:13.5: ‘ayaṁ te, ambho purisa, āpānīyakaṁso vaṇṇasampanno gandhasampanno rasasampanno so ca kho visena saṁsaṭṭho.
‘Here, mister, this bronze cup of beverage has a nice color, aroma, and flavor.

“But it’s mixed with poison” has been forgotten in translation, probably because of segmenting inconsistency in the Pali. What has been two segments further up is all in one segment here.

There’s also a comment to this Sutta (SN 12.66), on the drinks that can be consumed as an alternative to the poisoned beverage:

Reading ahitaya dukkhaya, following PTS and BB. As for Bhatthalonika/matthalonika, I have no idea what it means. The only meaning I can extract from the dicts is mattha=brains. Which, okay, “salted brain” might be tasty, but i’m not sure this is what it means. Comm says Bhaṭṭhaloṇikāyāti saloṇena sattupānīyena. But I also have no idea what this means. upaniya is to infer, bring it. Is satta “beings=meat”? Then this would be meat broth as opposed to grain broth for lonasoviraka? Maybe! Either way, i find BB’s “porridge” just a bit humorous; I can’t image a thirsty man drinking porridge! Lacking a solution, the simile works fine with just three drinks.

As to loṇasovīraka, in the New Concise Pali English Dictionary I find “vinegar” as a possible meaning for sovīraka. How about (diluted) vinegar with a bit of salt? That sounds like a good recipe for quenching thirst.

SN12.68:1.1: Ekaṁ samayaṁ āyasmā ca musilo āyasmā ca paviṭṭho āyasmā ca nārado āyasmā ca ānando kosambiyaṁ viharanti ghositārāme.
At one time the venerables Musīla, Saviṭṭha, Nārada, and Ānanda were staying near Kosambī in Ghosita’s monastery.
SN12.68:1.2: Atha kho āyasmā paviṭṭho āyasmantaṁ musilaṁ etadavoca:
Then Venerable Saviṭṭha said to Venerable Musila:

This Venerable is sometimes spelled “Musīla”, sometimes “Musila”. Pali has no “ī”. (The blurb to this Sutta also has “ī”.)

SN12.70:5.1: “Api pana tumhe āyasmanto evaṁ jānantā evaṁ passantā anekavihitaṁ iddhividhaṁ paccanubhotha—ekopi hutvā bahudhā hotha, bahudhāpi hutvā eko hotha; āvibhāvaṁ, tirobhāvaṁ, tirokuṭṭaṁ tiropākāraṁ tiropabbataṁ asajjamānā gacchatha, seyyathāpi ākāse; pathaviyāpi ummujjanimujjaṁ karotha, seyyathāpi udake; udakepi abhijjamāne gacchatha, seyyathāpi pathaviyaṁ; ākāsepi pallaṅkena kamatha, seyyathāpi pakkhī sakuṇo; imepi candimasūriye evaṁmahiddhike evaṁmahānubhāve pāṇinā parimasatha parimajjatha, yāva brahmalokāpi kāyena vasaṁ vattethā”ti?
“But knowing and seeing thus, do you wield the many kinds of psychic power? That is, multiplying yourselves and becoming one again; going unimpeded through a wall, a rampart, or a mountain as if through space; diving in and out of the earth as if it were water; walking on water as if it were earth; flying cross-legged through the sky like a bird; touching and stroking with the hand the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. Do you control the body as far as the Brahmā realm?”

“Appearing and disappearing” is lacking in translation.

SN12.70:14.3: “Ājāneyyāsi vā tvaṁ, susima, na vā tvaṁ ājāneyyāsi, atha kho dhammaṭṭhitiñāṇaṁ pubbe, pacchā nibbāne ñāṇaṁ.
“Reverend Susīma, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of natural principles. Afterwards there is knowledge of extinguishment.

“Reverend” has erroneously been copied from a previous segment.

96

For me this should be months inplace of years?

‘Friend, the Koliyan lady Suppavāsā was with child for seven years, and for seven days it was lost in the womb, but now she is happy and healthy, and has born a healthy son.

https://suttacentral.net/ud2.8/en/anandajoti

1 Like
97

Hmm … I don’t know how this came about to be pregnant for seven years, but that’s what the Pali says indeed.

1 Like
98

Also, SuttaCentral’s policy is to not correct other people’s translations. You’d have to bring that up with the translator.

99

Oh I’m just trying to make sense. It doesn’t make sense when I saw again bhante. But i wasn’t actually correcting. It’s like trying to make sense of it

100

Sure. It’s meant as a astounding event. It must have been a hard time for the poor mother!

101

Like still there is something that doesn’t make sense in the story after. Sariputta talks to the boy. Wow so fast. It doesn’t say baby but boy.

Then venerable Sāriputta said this to that little boy: “Can you bear up, little boy? Can you carry on? Do you have any pain?”
“How, reverend Sāriputta, can I bear up? How can I carry on? For seven years I have been living in a bloodbath.”