SuttaCentral
Hi Venerable,
The translations are actually the same. The only difference is that Ven. Suddhāsa has spelled out what is contracted in my rendering. I have followed the contractions of the Pali text, marked by ellipses points.
If you come across anything else you think might be problematic or unclear or whatever, I would love to hear from you.
I confess I haven’t really studied ven Suddhaso’s translations. What would say his style or approach is, say compared to Brahmali’s or mine?
I’d say that Brahmali tends to be a little bolder with the text, preferring a somewhat more dynamic style than mine. Which is odd, since he’s doing the legal texts and I’m doing the poetry: maybe we should swap? But we share the aim of trying to communicate in plain speech. I try to learn from some of Brahmali’s phrasings. But at the same time, there are cases where a more literal approach is useful, for example, when it comes to rendering the same phrase in positive and negative forms.
“Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?
SuttaCentral
This sentence doesn’t seem grammatical to me…
Hello Ajahn. Oh okay, now I understand. The Pāli definitely requires a more critical reading then—can’t just leave it up to the text to do all the work it seems. Thanks for your reply!
Hard to say, but I know he tends to favor plain but literal readings over style, in particular not adding or excluding words/phrases unless absolutely necessary. Most words he’ll translate, but he’s also okay with leaving some terms untranslated. Also, he does consider readability but it’s not his main concern. But of course I’m speaking for him! 
Edit: Another thought, too, Ajahn @Brahmali, did you ever translate the sekhiya rules? Seems like only the Pāli is on Suttacentral.
That seems reasonable. And there’s certainly something to be said for that approach.
Everything is translated, but it’s not yet ready to publish. Brahmali is working on revisions and we hope to have it finalized sooner rather than later. This year, I hope! But meanwhile, know that the texts on SC are out of date, and the Vinaya situation is a bit unclear, with a mixture of older versions of Brahmali’s work and Horner’s. Not very satisfactory, but it will be better soon.
Just pointing out the slightly different phrasing in the two refrains. I found the second version clearer, where in the first one I had to look carefully to discern that the 3 things were actually 6, once for thoughts and then repeated for perceptions.
“Mendicants, when a mendicant has six qualities they live unhappily in the present life—with distress, anguish, and fever—and when the body breaks up, after death, they can expect a bad rebirth.“Chahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhaṃ viharati savighātaṃ saupāyāsaṃ sapariḷāhaṃ, kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā duggati pāṭikaṅkhā.1.2 What 6? Katamehi chahi?1.3Sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts and perceptions.Kāmavitakkena, byāpādavitakkena, vihiṃsāvitakkena, kāmasaññāya, byāpādasaññāya, vihiṃsāsaññāya—1.4When a mendicant has these six qualities they live unhappily in the present life—with distress, anguish, and fever—and when the body breaks up, after death, they can expect a bad rebirth.imehi, kho, bhikkhave, chahi dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhaṃ viharati savighātaṃ saupāyāsaṃ sapariḷāhaṃ, kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā duggati pāṭikaṅkhā.
2.1When a mendicant has six qualities they live happily in the present life—without distress, anguish, or fever—and when the body breaks up, after death, they can expect a good rebirth.Chahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu diṭṭheva dhamme sukhaṃ viharati avighātaṃ anupāyāsaṃ apariḷāhaṃ, kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā sugati pāṭikaṅkhā.2.2What six? Katamehi chahi?2.3Thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. And perceptions of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness.
In places where attaha and dhamma occur next to each other, like in atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya, dhamma is most of the time translated as “the teaching”, but a few times it is “the text”.
For example:
In Khuddaka Nikāya, Khuddakapāṭha, Dhammapada, Udāna, Theragātā, Therigātā have Japanese translation listed. The author name is spelled Shoda Taikan, but his name is actually Shoda Daikan.
I know he knows SC, and his students use it. Please change his name from Taikan to Daikan. 
In the reflection on the use of almsfood, the phrase yāvadeva imassa kāyassa ṭhitiyā yāpanāya is usually translated “only to sustain this body”. Only in DN29 it is “only to continue and sustain this body”.
In DN 30 we find the term bāhiraka (segment 1.3.4) which is translated as someone “outside of Buddhism” here and in MN 142. Elsewhere it is just “outsider”.
I am a bit apprehensive putting the word “Buddhism” into the Buddha’s mouth. I don’t think he ever referred to his teaching as “Buddhism”.
DN30:1.4.1
Yampi, bhikkhave, tathāgato purimaṁ jātiṁ purimaṁ bhavaṁ purimaṁ niketaṁ pubbe manussabhūto samāno daḷhasamādāno ahosi kusalesu dhammesu, avatthitasamādāno kāyasucarite vacīsucarite manosucarite dānasaṁvibhāge sīlasamādāne uposathupavāse matteyyatāya petteyyatāya sāmaññatāya brahmaññatāya kule jeṭṭhāpacāyitāya aññataraññataresu ca adhikusalesu dhammesu.
In some past lives, past existences, past abodes the Realized One was reborn as a human being. He firmly undertook and persisted in skillful behaviors such as good conduct by way of body, speech, giving and sharing, taking precepts, observing the sabbath, paying due respect to mother and father, ascetics and brahmins, honoring the elders in the family, and various other things pertaining to skillful behaviors.
“by way of body, speech, …”—mind is lacking in translation.
AN1.98-139 I think there is a formatting issue, or lack of text or something.
number 118-128
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching like having many wishes … having few wishes … lack of contentment … contentment … improper attention … proper attention … lack of situational awareness … situational awareness … bad friends … good friends … pursuing bad habits and not good habits. Pursuing bad habits and not good habits leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.”
No, this is just how these abbreviated Suttas are. They all follow the same pattern, with just one different phrase which is what you see between the ellipses. You have to imagine the entire pattern built with each individual phrase.
The pattern is:
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching like {phrase}. Pursuing {phrase} leads to the decline and disappearance of the true teaching.”
To be repeated with each one of them.
These abbreviations are already in the Pali manuscript, so they are not an invention by the translator.
Oh, and I see in this case we still have the good sides in between the bad ones. Of course for phrases like “having few wishes”, etc., the pattern is different:
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that leads to the continuation, persistence, and enduring of the true teaching like {phrase}. Pursuing {phrase} leads to the continuation, persistence, and enduring of the true teaching.”
So the two patterns are alternating.
“Long-lived” is spelled with a hyphen for example in DN33:3.1.109, 3.1.122, 3.1.131 and without, “long lived”, in DN30:1.11.3.
There are different stylistic choices, but in my experience hyphens are used when the hyphenated word is a compounds adjective.
So in DN33, we have:
But a person has been reborn in one of the long-lived orders of gods.
In that case, I would leave the hyphen, as long-lived is a adjective.
In cases like:
‘The Gods of Brahmā’s Host are long-lived, beautiful, and very happy.’
I probably would not have used a hyphen.
In DN30
He’s long lived, preserving his life for a long time.
I would also not have used a hyphen.
SN 32 3-12 “I would be reborn in the company of the cool clouds!’”
Should be “gods of the cool clouds”
SN 56.35
“For an earnest and gentleman this is sufficient reason to submit. “
Should be “For and earnest gentleman…”
I have left this thread for far too long, and am only now getting around to these updates. Hopefully I will catch them all.
Thanks, fixed.
Hopefully such issues are fixed in the upgrade, if not, let me know.
Thanks, fixed.
It’s part of a series of abbreviated suttas.
Indeed! Fixed now.
Thanks, fixed.
Fixed.
Yikes! Fixed.
Fixed
Indeed. I try to avoid unnecessarily fussy use of punctuation, but it’s probably justified here.
I’m not sure what the problem is here, it looks correct to me.
Thanks, fixed.
Not an error, just different translation choices. The phrase yogo karaṇīyo means something like "apply yourself to yoga, where yoga can have a general sense of “effort”, but also more specifically, “meditation”. The text abbreviates inconsistently, sometimes mentioning the four noble truths, others not, so I translate with the first couple of times then leave it out.
Fixed.
I’m not sure that we’re going to fix that. Dictionaries are hard!
Thanks, fixed.
Fixed. Interestingly, DN and MN have just samaṇo here, while AN has paṭhamo samaṇo.
Okay. I have expanded it.
Thanks, fixed.
Thanks.
Indeed it has!
Lol, I had to see your hint before I saw the mistake!
If only it were Kealms, alas. Fixed.
More to come.
Thanks, fixed.
Thanks, fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
It’s just really hard to keep these 100% straight, but I have adjusted these contexts.
Fixed!
Thanks, I have fixed these.
Indeed, the variant seems to be correct.
I think it’s fine, “wheel of Dhamma” is stated just prior.
I’ve added it in all cases except where it is repetitious.
Nope, just a mistake.
thanks, fixed.
Thanks, that’s corrected.
Well spotted, thanks.
Thanks, fixed.
Inexpert in typing, perhaps?
I don’t think so, one is “hard to be”, one is “hard to know”.
Indeed, fixed.
Good point. Also I fixed the other issues here.
Indeed.
Indeed, good point.
Yes, well-spotted.
This is an interesting case. The sentence as stands is a literal translation:
yāva vijāyāmi yadi vā kumārako yadi vā kumārikā
Until I give birth, whether it’s a boy or a girl!
The phrase yāva vijāyāmi has been used in this normal, obvious sense several times prior. The problem is that the sentence is perfectly sensible, it just doesn’t make sense! It seems to me that it is meant to represent her distressed state of mind. So I resisted trying to normalize it.
I’ll use “endurance” for thitdhatu.
Indeed.
Thanks, I have standardized the rendering.
True, but in this case I do translate them.
Right.
I think it reads better as is.
No, it’s either “the path to company with” or “the path to the company of”.
Someone can explain the English grammar here, but I’m pretty sure that’s right!
Past me was an optimist.
I have adjusted these. Note that in some cases the aorist is clearly used in a current sense, eg. Ananda is his attendent.
oops!
Thanks.
Thanks, fixed.
fixed.
Fixed.
fixed.
indeed.
Indeed, actually I overlooked sacchikatvāva, i.e. sacchikatvā eva.
This has been fixed.
This is actually a tricky point, and I will revise my renderings.
We have the common phrase ariyassa vinaye, which must mean “the teaching of the Noble One (i.e. the Buddha)”. Yet there is no corresponding "ariyassa dhamme* or anything similar. We always have ariyadhamma as a compound, which could be “teaching of the Noble One”, “teaching of the noble ones”, or “noble teaching”.
However, it looks like we should render it as “teaching of the noble ones”, as per the stock passage:
assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto
The parallel phrase sappurisadhammassa akovido proves that this must mean “teaching of the noble ones”. Of course, it’s not necessarily 100% consistent, nevertheless, I’ll translate it this way as i can’t see any contextual reason not to.
No, I think it was an oversight.
Thanks, that’s fixed. As have the rest of these.
Indeed, thanks, that’s fixed.
Thanks, fixed.
I can’t lie, it was fun!
I’ll standardize this.
Thanks, fixed.
Fixed
Excellent!
It’s surprisingly tricky to keep these straight, I have tried to fix it.
Use wail throughout, it is an overt show of emotion.
use understand throughout.
Use root of arguments throughout.
I think there are contextual justifications for this.
use entire throughout.
fixed.
It’s given as a resembling parallel. They both discuss practices of non-Buddhist ascetics, this seems understandable. Still, it seems like a stretch, I agree. I’ll remove it.
This is fixed in staging.
oops, fixed.
Hopefully this is fixed in the new version! Let us know if it persists after upgrade in coming weeks.
Here khīṇāsava is an adjective and hence is governed by the number of bhikkhu, i.e. singular. We know from other contexts that the āsavā are always counted as plural.
Also, while khīṇa can have the sense of “diminished”, here and usually it has the sense “ended”.
See BB’s note 2000 on this point. Sinhalese and PTS have ādi-, and this unusual reading is supported by the Chinese parallel at SA 549. Lectio difficilior FTW!
Fixed.
It varies per context, but should be consistent in context.
I’ve tried the make it consistent.
Indeed
Fixed.
Fixed.
also fixed.
Huh, deleted.
fixed.
Seems fine to me. Maybe I’m the silly man after all?
Hmm, okay, I have expanded it.
This may vary per context, let me know if it looks inconsistent within a given context.
Oops, our mistake, apologies to the translator!
Fixed.
True, although I was aiming at clarity. Still, I have fixed it.
Fixed
Thanks for the explanation.
use hyphen throughout.
That’s probably a difference that is too subtle for me!
fixed
fixed
Seems fine to me.
And that’s it!
Thanks once more to all of the diligent mistake finders! I believe I have caught up with all these. They will appear when the staging site is promoted to production, which will hopefully be very soon.
Wow, these are many! Thanks for fixing them all!!
Looks like you forgot one, in AN 4.192:7.4.
