SuttaCentral
Just noticed an inconsistency:
To my understanding the both are not quite the same.
Interestingly, the two translations, taken together, span the nuances of understanding “fuel for the lack of faith.” In other words, I think the concept being translated is something like “not discerning the truth or fallacy of a teaching,” which is a bit too esoteric in expression. Yet words failed me in trying to think up a simple phrase that combines both translations.
Pārājika 4
Sanghadisesa 1
Saṅghadisesa 2
Saṅghadisesa 4
Do let me know if I’m being overly meticulous.
No, this is great stuff, please keep it coming. Both of the things you mention here are significant errors, and I am glad to get them sorted out. There is no such thing as too meticulous in my book. 
Saṅghadisesa 5
Saṅghadisesa 6
Also throughout the permutations it reads:
“build one whose site”
“build one which” – this flows better. “build one whose” – feels a bit awkward.
Not so much an error just a feeling I get when reading. Perhaps, “build one on whose site is approved” might flow better.
Thanks so much. I have incorporated most of it, but in a few cases I have had to disagree.
This is actually meant to be a flow-on sentence.
The singular verb agrees with “flock”: “A flock of birds feed …”
To get a bit of context, here is a fuller extract from the text:
A monk appoints someone to build him a hut. If they build one whose site has not been approved, where harm will be done, and which lacks a space on all sides, he commits one offense entailing suspension and two offenses of wrong conduct. …
It doesn’t seem all that problematic to me, but perhaps I am just blind to this! What about merely substituting “a hut” for “one”:
A monk appoints someone to build him a hut. If they build a hut whose site has not been approved, where harm will be done, and which lacks a space on all sides, he commits one offense entailing suspension and two offenses of wrong conduct. …
If anyone else has an opinion on this issue, I would appreciate hearing from you!
Yes this reads much better. Certainly not all that problematic it just stumped me at times when reading through. Particularly when the prior sentence didn’t directly mention “a hut”. I read again using the alteration you mentioned above and there was no confusion.
Blurb for DN 17 Mahāsudassana Sutta
“An elaborate story of a past life of the Buddha as a legendary king how renounced all to practice meditation.”
… a legendary king who renounced all…
Blurb to DN 25 Udumbarika Sutta
“This discourse gives a specially good example of dialog between religions The Buddha insists that he is not interested to make anyone give up their teacher or practices, but only to help people let go of suffering.”
Add a period after “religions”.
Saṅghadisesa 7
/dn16/en/sujato#1.5.2
I think Sarandada should be Sārandada. At least that’s what it is in the Pali.
(BTW, is link sharing metadata still being worked on? Sharing links even here only gives the general site metadata. Only because of my ignorance does this seem like it should be simple to fix.)
I am master of three knowledges, attained in psychic power,
cxpert in comprehending the minds of others.
https://suttacentral.net/sn8.12/en/sujato#6.4
Aside:
(has been implemented, currently in code review & testing)
Yes, the phrasing is a bit awkward. The first “approve” needs to stand, because it is the part of the standard expression I use in Sanghakammas throughout my translation. I could, however, change “approving”. I will consider it.
This is the official approval to build given by the Sangha. Prior to this one or more monks, ideally the whole Sangha, must have inspected the site.
In DN 9, the sentence “Tassa yā purimā rūpasaññā, sā nirujjhati” is translated as “The perception of luminous form that they had previously ceases.”
If this isn’t a typo, I’m curious as to how the adjective “luminous” comes into this translation.
AN 4.10:
And what is detachment from views? It’s when you don’t truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. So lust, delight, affection, infatuation, thirst, passion, attachment, and craving for views linger on inside. This is called detachment from views. Such is detachment from sensual pleasures, future lives, and views.
What a strange definition of detachment from views… 
This should be ‘do truly understand…’, right? 
. I can’t highlight to copy and paste SC, on my iPhone.
Yes, and also “don’t linger on inside”.
