Notes on the segmentation of Pali Vinaya with Brahmali's translation


Bi Pc 68 segment 34

na aññaṃ āṇāpeyya “dve vassāni neva anuggaṇhissāmi na anuggaṇhāpessāmī”ti dhuraṃ nikkhittamatte āpatti pācittiyassa.

In the Pali this whole passage is in one segment.

In the English there is not only a paragraph brake in between but even a horizontal rule. The first part na aññaṃ āṇāpeyya is actually the gloss to the term Na anuggaṇhāpeyyāti, and what follows then is something different; the English formatting seems more logical. In other rules similar passages are indeed consisting of two different segments.

So I put it in the same segment but mark “needs work”.


Bhikkhuni Pacittiya 51–70 are done; impatiently waiting for the next portion! :wink: :sunflower:


Excellent! There are only 26 rules left of the pācittiyas. Since you are doing so well, I might as well send them all in one go.


Thank you! I’ll let you know what I’ve done portion by portion so that you know what’s available for you again. :sunflower:


Good idea!


Bi Pc 72 segment 38

That an unmarried girl who is eighteen years old should be told to say this:

Should be only That unmarried girl…—is corrected.


Bi Pc 76 segment 21

English: The Buddha criticized them, “… How can the nun Caṇḍakāḷī consent to not being approved to give a full ordination, and then criticize it afterwards?

Shouldn’t it be criticized her?—I changed it.


Yes, thank you. This is the sort of error that occurs because of uncritical copying and pasting.


Pc 71–80 are finished. :hibiscus:


Sādhu! Sādhu!! Sādhu!!!


Bi Pc 86 segment 25, final ruling:

If a nun who wears a hip ornament, she commits an offense entailing confession.

The who should be omitted—fixed.


Bi Pc 91–93 segments 26–27:

Sikkhamānā nāma—dve vassāni chasu dhammesu sikkhitasikkhā.

The Pali only names the Sikkhamana, and in the Englisch all three kinds of persons are mentioned; there are no extra segments for the other two, so I put them together with the Sikkhamana in segment 27 and marked “needs work”.

(The English treats three rules in one, the Pali has them separate.)


Bi Pc 96 segment 13:

The nuns of few desires

Normally there are the ellipses at these passages, and the Pali also has them here. So it sould be The nuns of few desires …—corrected.


Bhikkhunivibhaṅge pācittiyakaṇḍaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ! :anjal:


Thanks for bringing this up. Two segments of the Pali are missing on Pootle, the one concerning novices and the other concerning female lay people. They will have to be inserted. The “needs work” marker is appropriate.


Yay! Thank you, Speedy Gonzales! (In Pali: sīgha-saṇgāma-pisāca. What do you think? I have to confess it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue!)

I hope to keep you on my team for a long time. I am getting attached to you, I think. :worried: Just messing around. But, once again, I really am grateful for your excellent work. :grinning:


It is still not clear to me what is the difference between “confessing” (Pacittiya) and “acknowledging” (Patidesaniya)?? :thinking: :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

The character of these two classes of rules seems quite similar to me.


Bi Pd 2(–8) segment 6

Pali: Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhuniyo telaṃ viññāpetvā bhuñjanti.

English: At that time the nuns from the group of six ate oil after asking for it … ate honey after asking for it … ate sugar after asking for it … ate fish after asking for it … ate meat after asking for it … drank milk after asking for it … ate curds after asking for them.

Here again, like in Pc 91–93, some rules that are separate in the Pali are put together in the English.

And in later segments it continues in that in the Pali the first item (telaṃ) is mentioned, while the English mentions the last one (curds).

In segment 43 again only one item in Pali and the whole list in English.

Marked “needs work” each time.


There is very little difference. Both categories of offences are cleared by confession. The difference is that for the pātidesanīyas the confession formula is included within the rule. There may be historical reasons for why we are stuck with two classes, for instance, that the pātidesanīya rules where laid down before the Buddha decided on the more generic pattern of the pācittiya rules. Maybe. We shall probably never know.


Bi Sk 1–75 segment 58

Again, all the 75 Sekhiya rules are summarised in one, only the first and last one are given explicitely. At the end of the last one it says:

Pali: Pannarasamasikkhāpadaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ.
English: The fifteenth training rule is finished.

(The Pali lookup tool doesn’t give me any number for Pannarasama)—shouldn’t it be the 75th rule?