Does the underlined “can” need to be changed to “cannot”?
The content of the sutta says Sariputta cannot comprehend the minds of the Buddhas.
2 Likes
Essay on Numbered Discourses segment 50:
I believe that we an indeed discern traces of these meanings in the Aṅguttara
Should be “can” instead of “an”.
1 Like
In:
https://suttacentral.net/patthana1.1/en/agganyani
Under 4. Contiguity condition (anantara paccayo):
Preceding indeterminate s phenomena are related to subsequent indeterminate phenomena by contiguity condition.
It looks like the lonely ‘s’ is a typo.
2 Likes
Trumpet flowers occur without hyphen in DN 14, and trumpet-flowers with hyphen in SN 48.69, Thig 13.1, and Thig 13.3.
1 Like
Digha Nikaya 11: Kevaddha Sutta, pali term translation in verses at the end
“Consciousness that’s invisible,‘Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ,
infinite, entirely given up:anantaṁ sabbatopabhaṁ;
This translation of sabbatopabhaṁ is inconsistent with:
PTS dictionary on SuttaCentral: from every side/in every respect light/radiant
Maurice Walshe, 1995. Long Discourses of the Buddha: ’all luminous’
Bhikkhu K. Nanananda, 2014. Magic of the Mind, Ch.10: ‘lustrous on all sides’
I reported this inconsistency 28 days ago but my post was passed over. But I don’t understand why Bhante Sujato translated sabbatopabhaṁ differently to PTS dictionary and also to other translators. Can you please explain.
1 Like
His detailed reasoning is given in
Whose consciousness is invisible, infinite, and all-radiant?
2 Likes
The brief description for “The Cowherd” (AN11.17) here reads “Likelwise.” I guess this is a typo for “Likewise.”
Nitpick: AN 5.144 has 5 contemplations:
the repulsive in the unrepulsive,
- the unrepulsive in the repulsive,
- the repulsive in both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, and
- the unrepulsive in both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.
- A mendicant would do well to meditate from time to time staying equanimous, mindful and aware, rejecting both the repulsive and the unrepulsive.
However, the numbered list actually starts with the second, “the unrepulsive in the repulsive”, leading the first, “The repulsive in the unrepulsive” not numbered at all.
I’ll get to the other issues soon, thanks everyone for posting. meanwhile, as it happens I recently had a chat with Ven Suddhaso on this very point:
I don’t care about consistency with PTS (or anyone else really) so much as accuracy. In this case, there is an alternate reading sabbato pahaṁ and it was long ago pointed out (I think by Nyanamoli) that in many respects this looks like a better reading. Previous discussion here:
Which includes a quote from Ven Analayo’s article.
Discourse parallels to the Kevaḍḍha-sutta extant in Sanskrit and Tibetan do not qualify the invisible consciousness as luminous. The same holds for a discourse quotation in the Mahāvibhāṣā. A reference to the present passage in the Ratnāvalī also does not mention any luminosity.
One of the basic principles I apply in my translations is the “principle of least meaning”. This means that when faced with a translation choice, I try to translate in a way that does not overburden the text with meaning.
That this is the case with the rendering “luminous” is attested by the many, many attempts to use this passage to support a pseudo-eternalist view of Nibbana as a state of consciousness. If this idea were well-attested elsewhere, other quotes would be used. The fact that this, a contested line without support of parallels, in a very specific narrative verse context, is so constantly called upon to redefine the very nature of the Buddha’s awakening should be a red flag.
This is exactly the fallacy I try to avoid with the “principle of least meaning”. It’s inconceivable that the Buddha would have avoided a clear and straightforward description of the goal of his practice, leaving only to a highly unusual chance encounter to reveal. Rather than freighting this one word with a meaning that invites a reassessment of the whole of the Buddha’s philosophy, it’s more plausible to see it saying the same thing as the Buddha said countless other times: let go of everything, even refined states of consciousness.
Not to say, however, that the reading sabbato pabhaṁ requires an eternalist interpretation. More likely it would simply refer to samadhi. But history shows that a lot of people are really determined to make the Buddha an Upanishadic non-dualist.
2 Likes
Thig13.4:23.1:
“See Sundarī coming,
liberated, free of attachments.
desireless, detached,
her task completed, without defilements.”
Either the period after “attachments” should become a comma, or else “desireless” should be capitalized.
2 Likes
AN 4.21
“the entrie spectrum of wisdom” should be “…entire…”
3 Likes
Dhp 383–423: Brāhmaṇavagga—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)
Looks like there is a repetition for: Dhp416 (& subsequent ‘error’ in titles till the end)
Jaṭilattheravatthu
They’ve given up craving,Yodha taṇhaṁ pahantvāna,
and have gone forth from lay life;anāgāro paribbaje;
they’ve ended craving to be reborn:Taṇhābhavaparikkhīṇaṁ,
that’s who I call a brahmin.tamahaṁ brūmi brāhmaṇaṁ.
Jotikattheravatthu
They’ve given up craving,Yodha taṇhaṁ pahantvāna,
and have gone forth from lay life;anāgāro paribbaje;
they’ve ended craving to be reborn:Taṇhābhavaparikkhīṇaṁ,
that’s who I call a brahmin.tamahaṁ brūmi brāhmaṇaṁ.
PS - Master Yoda here?
1 Like
SN22.62:13.4:
Nindāghaṭṭanabyārosaupārambhabhayā”ti.
For fear of blame, attack, and condemnation.”
byārosaupārambha is lacking from translation (compare AN 4.30:8.4).
MN140:5.1:
“kaṁsi tvaṁ, bhikkhu, uddissa pabbajito? Ko vā te satthā? Kassa vā tvaṁ dhammaṁ rocesī”ti?
“In whose name have you gone forth, reverend? Who is your Teacher? Whose teaching do you believe in?”
The Buddha addresses Pukkusāti with “bhikkhu”, not with “āvuso”. There may still be one or two other occurrences of this in MN 140.
From SuttaCentral
Well done, Ānanda. You who are superior people have conquered the problems of famine; later generations will despise even rice and meat
At this time, while Venerable Sāriputta was in seclusion, he thought, “For which Buddhas did the spiritual life not last long? For which Buddhas did the spiritual life last long?”
instructed an sangha of a thousand monks, reading their minds and saying,
The first raining rule on expulsion
1 Like
I notice that the word āyasmā is not translated in some of the occurrences. I think it should be translated in all the places because it is how we respect the senior monks. IMO there is a big difference in just reading Sāriputta instead of Venerable Sāriputta for example.
With Metta
2 Likes
The description for SN47.12 here reads:
Sāriputta boldly claims that no-one has ever, or will ever, be more enlightened than the Buddha. He admits that he can read the minds of all the Buddhas, but he understands a principle of the Dhamma:
I believe this should read that Sariputta admits that he CANNOT read the minds of all the Buddhas.
2 Likes
the description of 51.25 here reads:
The four bases for psychic power lead to perfection or once-return.
It should say “never-return,” not “once-return.”
EDIT: The same problem at the description of SN54.4 here. Maybe there are more examples of this….keep your eyes peeled.
Personally, I agree with this. Especially if you come from a Buddhist environment. Not using a term of respect (especially when it is in the Pali) is really shocking.
[Technically this isn’t a typo, so it probably belongs in a new thread if it hasn’t been discussed already]
1 Like
MN140:18.5:
kaṇṇacchiddaṁ nāsacchiddaṁ mukhadvāraṁ yena ca asitapītakhāyitasāyitaṁ ajjhoharati, yattha ca asitapītakhāyitasāyitaṁ santiṭṭhati, yena ca asitapītakhāyitasāyitaṁ adhobhāgaṁ nikkhamati, yaṁ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ ākāsaṁ ākāsagataṁ aghaṁ aghagataṁ vivaraṁ vivaragataṁ asamphuṭṭhaṁ maṁsalohitehi upādinnaṁ—
the ear canals, nostrils, and mouth; and the space for swallowing what is eaten and drunk, the space where it stays, and the space for excreting it from the nether regions.
The last part of the segment yaṁ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ ākāsaṁ ākāsagataṁ aghaṁ aghagataṁ vivaraṁ vivaragataṁ asamphuṭṭhaṁ maṁsalohitehi upādinnaṁ— doesn’t appear in translation.
Requests:
saying, “Give to me; you should to give to me.”