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


Thanks for your response! :anjal:


Finished Pc 83–87 :anjal:

If you can send me the next portion for tomorrow, Ajahn @brahmali, that would be great.

Again coming back to your previous reply to my question (which in fact makes a lot of sense to me):

In Pc 86 segment 39 I came across the following passage: “karoti vā kārāpeti vā, payoge dukkaṭaṃ.” And the translation goes: “if he makes it or gets it made, then for the effort he commits an offense of wrong conduct.”

There is no “āpatti”, but still the translation says “offense”.


Thank you, that’s a good observation. I suspect there may be a few such cases lurking around. I shall look into it and then make any appropriate changes.

The next five rules are on their way. :slightly_smiling_face:


Another one at Pc 88, segment 36.


You don’t need to mention individual cases of the same issue. I will deal with this problem globally later on. But I’d love to hear about any other problems you discover.


Pc 88–92 are done. The next portion would then be the Patidesaniya rules. If you could send them for tomorrow, Ajahn @brahmali—thanks! :grin:


Working on the Patidesaniya rules:

At the beginning of the first rule the order between the title(s) and the first sentences seems to be slightly different in the Pali and the translation. I am leaving the translation as is, but marking it “needs work”.


What is the difference between Pacittiya and Patidesaniya rules, between “confession” and “acknowledgement”? They seem very similar to me. Is there a different kind of procedure for “confessing” and “acknowledging”?


Pd 3, segment 42: “Monks, if you have be invited, I allow you to eat staple or non-staple food after personally receiving it from a family designated as in training."

corrected to

"… if you have been invited… "


Done the 4 Patidesaniya rules. :grin:

The Sekhiyas are fairly short, so probably you can make a bit bigger portions than five, Ajahn @brahmali. :pray:


An observation while working on the Sekhiya rules:

There is some inconsistency in how the segments are divided. So far (I’m at rule 16 now) in most cases the non-offense segments are divided into 2:

  • Anāpatti— (There is no offense:)
  • asañcicca, assatiyā, ajānantassa, gilānassa, vāsūpagatassa, āpadāsu, ummattakassa, ādikammikassāti. (if it is unintentional … if he is the first offender.)

But in some cases there are 3 segments: The last case, ādikammikassāti (if he is the first offender) is in an extra segment.

Should I mark these cases “needs Work”? Or maybe there is a reason for the inconsistency?

@sujato, @brahmali?


Maybe I’ve already found the answer: Maybe it’s because in these cases in the Pali the section is abbreviated: only the first and last cases are mentioned explicitly, with just “pe…” in-between.


Sekhiya 18, segment 15:

“The eighth training rule is finished.” corrected to “… eighteenth…”.


Sorry—I just saw that in the Pali it also says “eighth”… so changed it back!


Yes, this is because the text is divided into chapters of ten. As for the ādikammikassāti being on a separate line, this is not ideal. I would suggest “needs work”.


OK then, I’ll do that.


Next question, Bhante @sujato and Ajahn @brahmali:

Sometimes some of the rules are very similar, and in part identical, like for example Sk 29 and 34. And there is this issue here:

  • Segment 10 Sūpo nāma is not translated in both cases
  • Segment 11 dve sūpā— in both cases
  • Segment 12 muggasūpo, māsasūpo. in rule 29, muggasūpo, māsasūpo hatthahāriyo. in rule 34.
  • Segment 13 Hatthahāriyo samasūpako piṇḍapāto paṭiggahetabbo. in rule 29, Samasūpako piṇḍapāto bhuñjitabbo. in rule 34.

Two issues:

  1. Segment 10 should be translated and probably marked as “definition”
  2. The division between segments 12 and 13 seems more logical the way it is made in rule 34.

I am setting “needs work” in both cases.


I have translated sūpo nāma dve sūpā as “There are two kinds of bean curry”. A more literal translation might read: “There are two bean curries that are called bean curry.” But I feel this is too cumbersome and so I have simplified it. I am quite satisfied with this and so there is no need to mark it with “needs work”.

As for the segmenting of the Pali text, this inconsistency goes back to poor editing by the MahāSaṅgīti team. I will leave it up to @sujato to decide whether this should be changed or not.


OK, thanks for the clarification. In this case I am wondering why “sūpo nāma” and “dve sūpā” are two different segments. It reminded me the pacittiya rules where under “definitions” we have “term” and “gloss”. So it looked to me like “sūpo nāma” is the term and “dve sūpā” together with the following is the gloss.

I leave the “needs work” for the sake of looking into the segmentation.


As a rule, if the improper segmentation is merely because of punctuation, there is no objection to fixing it. But if it is a deeper editing issue then it gets complicated.