This thread is for anyone who notices any errors or bugs relating to texts on SuttaCentral, such as typos, translation errors, and the like.
We are happy to learn of any mistakes in any of our translations and will try to fix them ASAP. Note, however:
When it comes to legacy translations—i.e. translations that we have inherited from elsewhere—corrections will be limited to obvious typos and mistakes. While we try to source the best quality work we can, it’s not our job to edit or correct other peoples’ translations.
We do not make any changes to the original-language texts in Pali, Sanskrit, etc.
For website bugs, best open a new thread, as they can sometimes be a bit complex to figure out.
This must be a bug in Bilara, @blake please check this ASAP, the translated segment appeared in the wrong text here, and the corrected segment was still displaying the old translation here. When I try to fix it now in bilara, the changes don’t appear.
It seems the translation string at an1.306:1.2 was added to the wrong json file.
That’s just one extra benefit that comes with my workflow. After finishing a translation in Bilara I run scv-bilara’s pull-bilara script to pull my work to the Voice fork of bilara-data. And of course it doesn’t only pull my work. In my terminal I can see everything you have done!
By a Pali Dictionary, and as far as I learnt Pali, the devatā is Feminine noun, and the Nominative singular and plural can both be written the same. So I though for the whole sentence context, that there was a translation typo/error, and it should be :
’ certain deities of the company of the Thirty-Three were amusing themselves in the Garden of Delight’
But Bhante Sujato will know better than I.
Ven Bodhi’s translation is “a certain devatā of the Tavatiṃsa host”.
On page 73 of the introduction of Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Ven Bodhi writes:
Devatā is an abstract noun based on deva, but in the Nikāyas it is invariably used to denote particular celestial beings, just as the English word “deity,” originally an abstract noun meaning the divine nature, is normally used to denote the supreme God of theistic religions or an individual god or goddess of polytheistic faiths. Though the word is feminine, the gender comes from the abstract suffix -tā and does not necessarily mean the devatās are female. The texts rarely indicate their sex, though it seems they can be of either sex and perhaps sometimes beyond sexual differentiation
OK, I now read also the Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation at Sutta Central:
So comparing the 2 translations on the Sutta Central , and against the Pali root text. I think that Bhnate Sujato made a typo/mistake and the sentence in his translation should read:
“… a certain deity of the company of the Thirty-Three was amusing itself in the Garden of Delight …” NOT “…amusing themselves…”
Now, Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation has a redundant link <11>
“…in Nandana Grove, < 11 > supplied and endowed with the five cords of celestial sensual pleasure,…”
So that too needs to be edited.
“Themselves” seems suitable to me. For deities of either sex, “themselves” indicates “male or female”; for genderless deities “themselves” is also appropriate: it’s called the singular they. Hence, it covers the semantic range of the gender of devatā.
Of course, different translators make different choices. But that’s outside the scope of errors and typos.
Yes, that seems to be a formatting error. Well spotted!
Pali employs different words (i.e., subhanimittaṃ vs. subhanteva), and we’re using the word “feature” here in English to disambiguate. The problem is perhaps that the use of a definite article “the” can be misunderstood to be emphasis for beauty itself as a feature of interest. Anyone (like me) derailed by this understanding will have missed the alternate reading that one might be casually and heedlessly distracted by one or more beautiful features. Beautiful models often have a “good side” or “bad side” for the camera. These are features that catch the eye. And that thought suggested a possible solution.
I’m not sure what the fix might be, but I’ve noticed that switching to an indefinite article can reduce the misunderstanding:
There is a feature of beauty.
This simple change aligns with the third liberation in the sense that people such as artists, for example, can focus on beauty in all features, not just the eye-catching ones. By switching to an indefinite article, it is impossible to misunderstand that beauty itself is meant as the feature. I.e., we balance for a literal reading.
Interesting point! To me it didn’t cause this sort of confusion, though.
I understand the first example as beautiful objects perceived with the physical sense organs, whereas the second relates more to a refined sense of beauty in deep meditation. In the DN passage you are quoting it appears as part of a whole series of profound meditative states.
AN4.34:4.1: Yāvatā, bhikkhave, saṅghā vā gaṇā vā, tathāgatasāvakasaṅgho tesaṃ aggamakkhāyati, yadidaṃ cattāri purisayugāni aṭṭha purisapuggalā esa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho āhuneyyo pāhuneyyo dakkhiṇeyyo añjalikaraṇīyo anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassa. AN4.34:4.1: The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, straightforward, methodical, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.
Should be something like "The Saṅgha of the Realized One’s disciples is said to be the best of all communities and groups, namely the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings … "
Just as a point of housekeeping I’ve had a query about how some of the typos and errors are more like discussions. This makes it harder work to sift through them to ‘fix the errors’.
This is not to discourage the content of what is being said, but to perhaps be mindful if it may be better placed in the discussion category, which is for exactly this kind of thing… perhaps the ‘conclusion’ can then be posted in the feedback or translation category as a suggestion for a change
I actually wished to avoid a discussion and just wanted to point out a seeming ambiguity of grammar (i.e., beauty itself as a feature vs. the beautiful feature) that I lack the insight to resolve since I’m not sure what Bhante intended.
I’ve had a query about how some of the typos and errors are more like discussions. This makes it harder work to sift through them to ‘fix the errors’.
I actually wished to avoid a discussion and just wanted to point out a seeming ambiguity of grammar (i.e., beauty itself as a feature vs. the beautiful feature) that I lack the insight to resolve since I’m not sure what Bhante intended.