As noted by @LaiLing bhante @sujato’s translation of AN4.10 is wrong from section 7.1 to 7.3
And what is detachment from views?
Diṭṭhiyogavisaṃyogo ca kathaṃ hoti?7.2
It’s when you don’t truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco diṭṭhīnaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.7.3
So lust, delight, affection, infatuation, thirst, passion, attachment, and craving for views linger on inside.
Tassa diṭṭhīnaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ pajānato yo diṭṭhīsu diṭṭhirāgo diṭṭhinandī diṭṭhisneho diṭṭhimucchā diṭṭhipipāsā diṭṭhipariḷāho diṭṭhijjhosānaṃ diṭṭhitaṇhā sā nānuseti.7.4
This is called detachment from views.Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, diṭṭhiyogavisaṃyogo.
And what is detachment from views? It’s when you ((don’t)) truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.
Dont needs to be removed?
Thank YOU for providing this wonderful resource.
Started numbered discourses at Ven Dhammavuddho’s suggestion last Dec. Also sharing with about 10+ other dharma friends on whatsapp. My 81yo dad is not particularly interested though esp. when the discourse is long but that’s ok.
Thank you for your post! Could you perhaps expand on your message and include a link to the sutta and verse in question ? It may help in finding the exact position you noted.
If you have any more questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
We are glad you are gaining great benefit from Sutta central!
āhuneyyo is translated as “worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods” in AN 8.60, SN 11.3, SN 24.5, SN 41.10, SN 55.13, MN 7, MN 65, MN 76, MN 118, MN 125, DN 2, DN 16, DN 25, and DN 33.
It is translated as “worthy of offerings to the gods” in 59 Suttas—which I am too lazy to compile here now.
Maybe “offerings dedicated to the gods” would be clearer, as to the explanation in this thread.
I’m so pedantic sometimes. There’s a formatting inconsistency in Bhikkhu Bodhis MN9. Under the Birth section, “in a womb” is formatted differently for some reason. I’ve seen that formatting in other suttas; perhaps it’s intentional.
I mention it because I see the monks themselves discussing selection of words with great respect, formatting is the final flavoring to nudge things a tad.
There are two Suttas spoken to Māluṅkyaputta where he asks for a short Dhamma instruction. When asking for the first time the Buddha expresses some doubt, and he asks a second time.
“Sir, may the Buddha teach me the Dhamma in brief! May the Holy One teach me the Dhamma in brief! Hopefully I can understand the meaning of what the Buddha says! Hopefully I can be an heir of the Buddha’s teaching!”
In SN35.95 the same passage is translated:
(after “Sir, even though I’m an old man, elderly and senior,” which comes in the previous segment)
may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief! May the Holy one please teach me in brief! Hopefully I can understand the meaning of what the Buddha says. Hopefully I can be an heir of the Buddha’s teaching!”
To be consistent, in SN35.95 it should be
may the Buddha please teach me the Dhamma in brief! May the Holy one please teach me the Dhamma in brief! Hopefully I can understand the meaning of what the Buddha says. Hopefully I can be an heir of the Buddha’s teaching!”
It is however intentional: the different style indicates text that is added to the translation by the translator. What is broken is that there should be a tooltip that indicates this to the user, but that is missing. I’ve noted in here:
We keep this markup out of respect for the translator, but personally I disagree with this convention.
In Maë’s translation of MN118, we have "…des moines qui ont éliminé trois chaîneset affaibli… ". This should be ‘…chaînes et…’, as in the following paragraph. This is the kind of ‘big picture’ thinking you can expect from me.
Master Kassapa, I wish to perform a great sacrifice. Please instruct me so it will be for my lasting welfare and happiness.
Closing quote marks are lacking.
SN 10 blurb:
The “Linked Discourses with Spirits” contains 12 discourses with verses telling the encounters between the Buddha—or in one case the monk Anuruddha—and various spirits (yahhka). …
Hello.
I hope this letter finds you happy and healthy
Thank you, B. Sujato for translating the Nikayas. I maybe have found something which maybe needs some change. In the English translation, where does the word ‘‘gods’’ come from?
“Mendicants, a mendicant with five factors is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of veneration with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.
English translation here is “with (five) factors” when it appears for the first time (sc1.1)
However, for the second time (sc3.1) the translation is “with (five) qualities”
In AN3.16 the translation is “have (three) things”
In AN5.171 the translation is “with (five) qualities”
I wonder if they all should be “qualities.”
socati kilamati paridevati is mostly translated as “sorrow and pine and lament”, except for two cases where it becomes “sorrow and wail and lament”, namely in AN 4.184 and MN 148.
And I just noticed that in AN 6.63, the person in question “sorrows and pines and cries”.
In the formula of encompassing other people’s mind with one’s own mind we have sarāgaṁ vā cittaṁ ‘sarāgaṁ cittan’ti pajānāti.
Usually, in the English translation, people understand mind with greed as ‘mind with greed’, only in MN 10 and DN 22 they know them as such. The same for the other qualities.
In MN 104, vivādamūlāni is sometimes translated “roots of disputes”, sometimes “roots of quarrels”.
jarādhamma is translated “liable to grow old” in AN 4.255 and AN 4.182, and “liable to old age” in AN 5.48, AN 5.49, and AN5.50.
paññākkhandha paripūreti becomes fulfilling the “entire spectrum of wisdom” in AN 5.22, the “full spectrum of wisdom” in AN 4.21, and the “complete spectrum of wisdom” in DN 10—and likewise for other qualities like ethics, immersion, etc.