I have followed the Mahāsaṅgīti Pali, which is also supposed to be the basis also for the Pali on SuttaCentral. I am not sure why SuttaCentral in this case deviates from MS. I am happy with either approach, and will leave the decision to the creative director, @sujato.
Fifteenth is correct. The sekhiyas are divided into seven chapters, of which the first six have ten rules each. That leaves 15 rules for the last chapter. Pannarasama means “precisely fifteen”, sama meaning “even”, as in an even surface.
As these chapters are all very much summarised there wasn’t much left to do—and so we can say now:
Pācittiyapāḷi niṭṭhitā.—The Canonical text on confession is finished!!!
And now I’d like to take a break from the Vinaya. I’ll go on retreat from Dec 26–Jan 6, and don’t want to start with the Khandakas before that. This also gives you a last period to work on them quietly before you have to miss them for some time, Ajahn @brahmali.
The entire bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga completed. That’s a digital milestone. You deserve several rounds of You have definitely deserved a break. Have a splendid retreat!
Actually, it is not quite the case that Pācittiyapāḷi niṭṭhitā. There are two rules left in the nissaggiya pācittiyas that are still on @greenTara to do list. I am not sure if she is too busy to do these, in which case it might be better if you would do these as well. Tara, would you still like to do these, or do you think it might be better for Sabbamitta to take over? Let’s see what Tara has to say and then we can decide how to proceed.
There is a difference in the perception of others.
One confesses an unsuspected offense.
One acknowledges a suspected offense.
I will be back from retreat on Sunday, so I will finish these within a week, if that is ok.
There’s some fault in the text there, I will resolve it when I finalize the markup for your translation.
Absolutely! Please keep on enjoying your retreat.
I have completed entering the material that I have.
Great! That means the entire bhikkhunī-vibhaṅga is now complete.
Would you like to continue with this work? If so, the next part to upload to Pootle is the Mahāvagga, which consists of ten chapters or Khandhakas. This material is quite different from the pātimokkha rules, and for this reason it may take you longer, at least initially. You will probably have to look more carefully at the Pali to match it with the English translation.
If you would like to give it a shot, I would be delighted. Please let me know when you would like to start and I will email you an appropriate section at that time. We just wouldn’t be able to do this, or it would be much delayed, without the help of kind volunteers.
With much metta from Muar in Malaysia.
Yes, I would like to continue the work. My plans for January are to take two separate one week retreats at MABA, so I will have two weeks of non-retreat time to work on the translation.
That’s great news. Would you like the file straight-away?
There are several cases where a long repitition of earlier material is condensed into something like “and told him all that had happened.”
My memory is fuzzy - Do we have a convention about how to align this?
My inclination is to associate this English with the final segment of the Pali.
Also, there is a phrase:
“He does not regard it as an offense, but there are other monks do.”
It should be either:
“He does not regard it as an offense, but other monks do.”
“He does not regard it as an offense, but there are other monks that do.”
What do you suggest?
I have checked some of the earlier occurrences and it seems the English is associated with the first segment of the Pali rather than the last. So I would suggest continuing in that fashion.
As for the mistake, I would suggest: “He does not regard it as an offense, but there are other monks who do.” In fact in these situations I am always confused whether “that” or “who” is correct. “Who” seems right to me because we are dealing with people, but I’ve noticed many people to use “that”. Any comment?
I reflexively used “that” without thinking about it. I had to google the grammar:
So apparently both are correct. “Who” is used when it is desired to emphasize that one is talking about a group of people. In this case the emphasis seems unnecessary since we clearly say “monks”. So it comes down to personal preference. If you prefer “who”, I’m fine with that.
So you are fine with “that”? If I was confused before …
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Ok, so go with “who” then.