SuttaCentral
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”.
missing a 1. in title
https://suttacentral.net/mn113/en/sujato#sc6
Not sure if this matters, but the following contains elisions that are not in parallel with the others…
Furthermore, take a bad person who is very learned …
an expert in the texts on monastic training …
a Dhamma teacher …
who dwells in the wilderness …
who is a rag robe wearer …
who eats only alms-food …
who stays at the root of a tree …
I think it should be
who is an expert in the texts on monastic training …
who is a Dhamma teacher …
Or you could cut it back to the “who” in all elisions.
SN 12.12 Phagguna of the Top-Knot
#SC 2.2
“But sir, who consumes the fuel for consciousness?”
“ko nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāraṃ āhāretī”ti?
Shouldn’t this be the fuel of consciousness (i.e. who consumes consciousness as fuel)?
Edited out to avoid confusion 
Really? Strange… but thank you for explaining!
So again, to really get it right: If I want to know who is the person who is consuming consciousness as their food (fuel); the person who is feeding on consciousness, who is “eating” consciousness—then I have to ask, “who consumes the fuel for consciousness”??
I would actually understand the fuel for consciousness to be what consciousness itself consumes as fuel… (In the context of dependent origination, this would be choices.)
In this case I’d better cross out my reply too. 
I had a look at the source and it appears you were right, - just goes to show context is everything 
‘Consciousness is a fuel that conditions rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.’
The above statement/quote from SN12.12 would mean that consciousness IS/generates the fuel.
In which case your suggestion “of” would be the correct interpretation.
Hmmm, will leave it to others more skilled 
Sorry for the confusion…
No worries! 
At first I always think I feel confused because of lack of knowledge in English, but in this case I am not the only one to be confused… 
We should leave this up to the translator to decide.
I do love your use of ‘No Worries’ - spoken like a true Australian 
What do you think where I have learned this? 
