SuttaCentral

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


#222

Hi Ajahn @brahmali, I’m back now from retreat with renewed energies, but I’d still like to wait a few more days before continuing here. I have a very busy week right now, and I’ll come back here as soon as things become a bit smoother. :anjal:


#223

Please take your time. It’s supposed to be enjoyable and at your convenience. :grinning:


#224

Kd 9 segment 265:
Ñatticatutthe ce, bhikkhave, kamme paṭhamaṃ ñattiṃ ṭhapeti, pacchā tīhi kammavācāhi kammaṃ karoti, yāvatikā bhikkhū kammappattā, te āgatā honti, chandārahānaṃ chando āhaṭo hoti, sammukhībhūtā na paṭikkosanti, dhammena samaggakammaṃ.

Everywhere else, the dhammena samaggakammaṃ is in an extra segment, probably that should also be the same here. Marking “needs work”.


#225

Kd 9 segments 409, 410, 411 have the Pali terms
ummattakassa, bhikkhave …
khittacittassa, bhikkhave …
vedanāṭṭassa, bhikkhave …
,
and there seems to be no English translation for those three. The next English term is “of one who has been ejected for not recognizing an offense …” which should belong to “āpattiyā adassane ukkhittakassa, bhikkhave …”.

Just leaving these three segments empty (or probably just a question mark), marking “needs work”.

Note: These three kinds of people do not occur in this list on other occasions.


#226

Thanks @sabbamitta. This is a typical case where I have just copied and pasted without looking carefully. I have now added the translations for the three missing segments. I have also undone the “needs work” box.


#227

Kd 9 segment 573, Pali Tamenaṃ codeti., and in the next segment Saṃgho vā sambahulā vā ekapuggalo vā—‘

In all other instances, these two are in one segment; marking “needs work” (actually, I need to put something into the English text box in order for the “needs work” to work, so I put a question mark).


#228

Kd 9 segment 690
parivāsārahassa parivāsaṃ deti mūlāyapaṭikassanārahaṃ mūlāya paṭikassati …

These are in one segment, should be in two different ones. “Needs work”.


#229

Kd 9 segment 799
Just noting as something inconsistent (as it is in the Pali we are of course not going to change it):

one deserving a procedure of censure …

It is in the section where the order does a procedure of censure against all this various kinds of people who deserve something else, but here the “procedure of censure” is applied against “one deserving a procedure of censure”, and this should not be in the section of illegitimate procedures, but of legitimate ones.

Added: The inconsistency goes further on: In the closing segment of this section (808) it says “applies resolution through recollection to one deserving full ordination, that procedure is illegitimate, not in accordance with the Monastic Law”. So it seems this isn’t the section of “procedure of censure” after all, but the section of “resolution through recollection”… ??? :thinking:

Anyway, the Mahasangiti isn’t free of errors.

Added again: I think I’ve misunderstood this section. It seems it is just abbreviated on a still deeper level, representing the full set of possible permutations. And so the “one deserving censure” in one place doesn’t directly have anything to do with the “procedure of censure” mentioned in the other place. :bulb: :eyeglasses:


#230

I’m having trouble figuring out where to split the translation for Kd 7 segments:
256: Bhikkhu atthatakathino cīvaraṃ ādāya pakkamati anadhiṭṭhitena;
257: nevassa hoti “paccessan”ti, na panassa hoti “na paccessan”ti.
Would I split the following at (a) or (b)?
A monk who has done the robe-making ceremony takes robe-cloth and leaves the monastery.(a) He has not decided (b) whether he will return or not.

(And let me know if such questions go elsewhere!)


#231

As much as I understand the Pali, anadhiṭṭhitena means “not decided”, and this is the last word of the first segment here. So I’d guess the segment break should be at (b).

But I’m of course not the expert…


#232

Thanks! I’ll at least run with that for now =) I could guess the form around nevassa…na panassa but they were eluding me in actual definition.


#233

Yes. The lookup tool only gives a question mark for nevassa, and for panassa only says something about pana which is not very elucidating.

But in any case this question is of such earth-shaking importance… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:—I’d actually think that whichever way you choose to do it is fine. :grin:


#234

Teehee!


#235

What you have done is fine. The Pali syntax does not match always the English, and so you sometimes get this kind of problem. But it’s not really a problem! :grinning:

Nevassa is a contraction of na + eva + assa, “not of him”. When combined with the verb hoti and the quotation marker ti, it means “he does not think”. Panassa is pana + assa, “and of him” or “moreover he does not think”.


#236

Thank you! Also now I know to look into pronouns and little glue-y words - muchly appreciated!


#237

Campeyyakkhandhako niṭṭhito! :sparkler:

My goodness, what have they been thorough, these Vinaya compilers! And a little bit compulsive, don’t they?

Whatever can go wrong in a legal procedure, and in whichever order all these problems can arise… and in whichever ways they can be disputed afterwards… !

This poor example monk, he has to walk endlessly from one monastery to the next, and still doesn’t manage to get properly censured! And afterwards (after that procedure of censure seems still to have come about in some mysterious way) he is going through the same trouble again, trying to get the procedure lifted. At least that keeps him fit… :walking_man:

So please, Ajahn @Brahmali, from tomorrow on I can work on another Khandhaka. :anjal:


#238

Wonderful! Efficient as always.

Yes, parts of the Khandhakas are a bit OCD. But they vary quite considerably. The next Khandhaka, which I will send you shortly, is quite different. You will see what I mean when you get it.


#239

And do we actually learn anything new in this Khandhaka? I don’t really see something. It’s a very thorough variation on the well-known fact that humans make mistakes, and then start debating on them. What exactly this procedure of censure is like, and the other procedures mentioned, we have as little a clue after reading it as we had before. So I very much hope these things are explained elsewhere! :grin:

(Pretty sure they are.)

To me this Khandhaka still points out the value in putting much care into doing procedures the proper way: This makes everybody feel safe!


#240

I suppose it depends on how much you already know about Sanghakamma. You are quite well-educated in this, but for most it is probably not so obvious. Also, it is good, I suppose, to have a chapter like this for reference. I is so easy to forget all the little details.

Yes, they are explained in the appropriately named Kamma-khandhaka, Khandhaka number 11.


#241

Help needed!

When trying to submit any text to Pootle, it says “server error”… so I can’t do anything any more.

Bhante @sujato? @blake?

Edit: Right now, after a few mintes’ break, it works again, but the problem has already occurred for a short time before. So it seems to be quite unstable.