The following paragraphs are repeated twice as an exact duplicate - looking at other translations the paragraphs are slightly different.
"When he had spoken, Kassapa said to the Buddha, “It’s hard, Master Gotama, to be a true ascetic or a true brahmin.”
“It’s typical, Kassapa, in this world to think that it’s hard to be a true ascetic or brahmin. But someone might practice all those forms of self-mortification. And if it was only because of just that much, only because of that self-mortification that it was so very hard to be a true ascetic or brahmin, it wouldn’t be appropriate to say that it’s hard to be a true ascetic or brahmin.
For it would be quite possible for a householder or a householder’s child—or even the bonded maid who carries the water-jar—to practice all those forms of self-mortification.
It’s because there’s something other than just that much, something other than that self-mortification that it’s so very hard to be a true ascetic or brahmin. And that’s why it is appropriate to say that it’s hard to be a true ascetic or brahmin. Take a mendicant who develops a heart of love, free of enmity and ill will. And they realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life, and live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements. When they achieve this, they’re called a mendicant who is a ‘true ascetic’ and also ‘a true brahmin’. "
There are some instances of multiple spaces in segment text that might throw off search programs. For example, “shall__resign” should only be “shall_resign” (read “space” for underscore).
1 mn/mn50_translation-en-sujato.json: "mn50:13.10": "In the same way, these shavelings, fake ascetics, riffraff, black spawn from the feet of our Kinsman, say, ‘We practice absorption me ditation! We practice absorption meditation!’ Slouching, downcast, and dopey, they meditate and concentrate and contemplate and ruminate.’ ",
2 mn/mn63_translation-en-sujato.json: "mn63:2.14": "I shall resign the training and return to a lesser life.” ",
3 an/an10/an10.39_translation-en-sujato.json: "an10.39:3.3": "Taking a stand against the teaching, ",
4 sn/sn22/sn22.1_translation-en-sujato.json: "sn22.1:2.5": "It will be for my lasting welfare and happiness.” ",
5 sn/sn7/sn7.20_translation-en-sujato.json: "sn7.20:2.3": "One who has undertaken domestic duties ",
6 kn/iti/vagga5/iti45_translation-en-sujato.json: "iti45:3.1": "“With minds at peace, alert,",
7 kn/ud/vagga1/ud1.8_translation-en-sujato.json: "ud1.8:2.1": "Now at that time Venerable Saṅgāmaji was sitting at the root of a tree for the day’s meditation. ",
8 kn/ud/vagga3/ud3.2_translation-en-sujato.json: "ud3.2:1.5": "I am unable to keep up the spiritual life. I shall resign the training and return to a lesser life.”",
40.5‘What do you think, great king?
Should be a double quotation mark.
8.1A mendicant might wish: ‘May I prevail over fear and terror, and may fear and dread not prevail over me. May I live having mastered fear and dread whenever they arose.’ So let them fulfill their precepts …
Should it be “dread” all three times? I’m not sure but the Pali seems to be the same.
2.1Then several mendicants robed up in the morning and, taking their bowls and robes, entered Sāvatthī for alms. Atha kho sambahulā bhikkhū pubbaṇhasamayaṃ nivāsetvā pattacīvaramādāya sāvatthiṃ piṇḍāya pāvisiṃsu. 2.2Then it occurred to him, Atha kho tesaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi:
Should it really be “him” and not “them”?
3422“… Without knowing or seeing, it would not be appropriate for me to take one side and declare, ‚This is the only truth, other ideas are silly.’
comma where there should be a single open quote.
11.3The Buddha’s confidence has been restored.” Pasādito bhagavā cātumeyyakehi ca sakyehi brahmunā ca sahampatinā bījūpamena ca taruṇūpamena cā”ti.
It really feels like the part left out should be included. At least from a story telling perspective. This doesn’t just seem like repetition. Otherwise how are the monks to know why they are suddenly being called back?
4.4“Anuruddha and friends, I hope you’re satisfied with the spiritual life?” “kacci tumhe, anuruddhā, abhiratā brahmacariye”ti?
Sorry if this isn’t a typo, but where does the “and friends” come from?
The text uses a vocative in plural anuruddhā, literally 'Anuruddhas". But by convention when addressing a group, the name of the senior is used in plural. It’s a bit unusual, normally it would be “mendicants”. If you just translate as “Anuruddha”, it sounds like the Buddha is just talking to one of them, which is a bit weird.
AN5.166:10.1: Atha kho bhagavā āyasmantaṁ udāyiṁ āmantesi: AN5.166:10.1: Then the Buddha said to Venerable Udāyī, AN5.166:10.2: “kaṁ pana tvaṁ, udāyi, manomayaṁ kāyaṁ paccesī”ti? AN5.166:10.2: “But Udāyī, do you believe in a mind-made body?”
Venerable Udāyi has a long “ī” in these two segments and in the blurb text to this sutta; everywhere else he has a short “i”.
Actually I see the opposite; his name is consistently spelled throughout with a long ī both in English & Pāli, and has a short i only in Pāli where he is being directly addressed. It looks correct to me. (Perhaps someone has already made the correction?)
TBH, it always sounds wrong to me, I prefer the spelling “Udāyin”. But I follow the conventions used by Ven Bodhi, who has Udāyī. I think it is correct throughout my translations, except for a couple of cases in the Theragatha, which I will fix.
The Pali uses udāyī for the nominative, udāyi for the vocative.
Looking now, I also see the long i throughout. What did I see before???
AN5.167:9.3: Mañcepi, āvuso, pare codeyyuṁ kālena vā akālena vā bhūtena vā abhūtena vā saṇhena vā pharusena vā atthasaṁhitena vā anatthasaṁhitena vā mettacittā vā dosantarā vā, ahampi dvīsuyeva dhammesu patiṭṭhaheyyaṁ— AN5.167:9.3: Even if others accuse me—at the right time or the wrong time, truthfully or falsely, gently or harshly, lovingly or with secret hate—I will still ground myself in two things:
“beneficially or harmfully” is lacking in translation—if my eyes don’t fool me …
Inconsistency in translation: Is “kusalesu dhammesu” about skillful teachings or skillful principles?
AN4.97:2.2: Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo khippanisantī ca hoti kusalesu dhammesu, sutānañca dhammānaṁ dhārakajātiko hoti, dhātānañca dhammānaṁ atthūpaparikkhī hoti atthamaññāya dhammamaññāya, dhammānudhammappaṭipanno hoti; AN4.97:2.2: It’s when a person is quick-witted when it comes to skillful teachings. They readily memorize the teachings they’ve heard. They examine the meaning of teachings they’ve memorized. Understanding the meaning and the teaching, they practice accordingly.
AN5.169:2.1: “Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso sāriputta, bhikkhu khippanisanti ca hoti, kusalesu dhammesu suggahitaggāhī ca, bahuñca gaṇhāti, gahitañcassa nappamussatī”ti? AN5.169:2.1: “Reverend Sāriputta, how are we to define a mendicant who is quick-witted when it comes to skillful principles, who learns well, learns much, and does not forget what they’ve learned?”
I’d think “teachings” is not bad here, because it’s all about learning.
26.1Then Raṭṭhapāla, having recited this verse while standing, went to King Koravya’s deer range and sat at the root of a tree for the day’s meditation. Atha kho āyasmā raṭṭhapālo ṭhitakova imā gāthā bhāsitvā yena rañño korabyassa migacīraṃ tenupasaṅkami;
Should it be “verses” plural? That’s what Bhante Bodhi has. It is also what it says before the verses.
You’re right that it’s inconsistent, but the correct reading is a bit curious.
The phrase in both cases is imā gāthā. Now, the texts rather consistently use imā gāthā for singular, and imā gāthāyo for plural. Feminine cases are often ambiguous, but the commentary confirms that the singular is intended, for its gloss includes imāya hi gāthāya which is unambiguously singular.
Obviously, however, there is a set of verses, so one would expect the plural. Hmm. It seems that either the text is faulty; or more verses were added to an original singelton; or gāthā is used here in the sense of “poem”.
I don’t think the latter is plausible, as it is such a stock idiom. More likely it is a minor editing foible. By policy, I prefer not to disguise apparent mistakes in the translation, so in this case I will make both of them singular.
Noticed the § symbols (only twice) in Ven. Bodhi’s translation of Sabbāsava Sutta.
Link: SuttaCentral
Probably a copy-paste error.
“What are the things unfit for attention that he does not attend to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him …as §6… and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he does not attend to. And what are the things fit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire does not arise in him**…as §6…**and the arisen taint of ignorance is abandoned. These are the things fit for attention that he attends to. By not attending to things unfit for attention and by attending to things fit for attention, unarisen taints do not arise in him and arisen taints are abandoned.
This is a shorthand used in the original files. We don’t, as a rule, correct these. I believe this is simply pointing to paragraph 6 in this translation.
“finger-snap” and “finger snap” are both used in Bhante Sujato’s translations. Perhaps we can settle on finger-snap since it is the only one in the Oxford dictionary?
“sn-blurbs:sn5.10”: “Māra asks the nun about who has created this being. Recognizing him, she points out that the word “being” is nothing more than a convention used to designate the aggregates, just as the word “cart” is used when the parts are assembled”,
Bhante, I noticed that on several occasions saṃvejanīyaṃ ṭhānaṃ and derivatives were rendered too consistent with “inspiring place” etc. This fits DN 16: idha tathāgato jāto’ti, ānanda, saddhassa kulaputtassa dassanīyaṃ saṃvejanīyaṃ ṭhānaṃ but is off in, for example, the Saṅgītisutta: saṃvego ca saṃvejanīyesu ṭhānesu saṃviggassa ca yoniso padhānaṃ (you rendered: “Inspiration, and making a suitable effort when inspired by inspiring places”). At times it is the context which demands a different reading and, in this case, also the aṭṭhakathā tradition: saṃvejanīyaṃ ṭhānanti jātijarābyādhimaraṇaṃ (suggestion: “grounds [suitable] to arouse [a sense of] urgency: birth, old age, sickness and death”). This is further corroborated by It-a: saṃvejanīyesu ṭhānesūti saṃvegajanakesu jātiādīsu saṃvegavatthūsu.
A purely contextual example is AN: evamevaṃ kho, bhikkhave, appakā te sattā ye saṃvejaniyesu ṭhānesu saṃvijjanti; atha kho eteva sattā bahutarā ye saṃvejaniyesu ṭhānesu na saṃvijjanti (you rendered: “so too the sentient beings inspired by inspiring places are few”, which I wouldn’t say is what is meant). I think the Buddha says here (paraphrased) that few beings feel a proper sense of urgency when confronted with old age, sickness etc. What do you think?
