Please report any errors or typos!


Note to self:

Ekaṃsa is rendered as “a generalization”, or “generally”, in one place and as “definitively” in the other.


In AN3.69:

AN3.69:2.4: And so these many bad, unskillful things are produced in them born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by greed.

Should be: "… are produced in them, born, sourced, originated, and conditioned by greed. Comma after “them”.

The same again in segments an3.69:3.4, an3.69:4.4, an3.69:10.4, an3.69:11.4, an3.69:12.4.

AN3.69:5.5: That’s why such a person is said have speech that’s ill-timed, false, meaningless, not in line with the teaching and training.

Should be: "… is said to have speech… "

AN3.69:6.2: Kāyassa ca bhedā paraṃ maraṇā duggati pāṭikaṅkhā.
AN3.69:6.2: And when the body breaks up, after death, they can expect to be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Pali has only the “bad place”, English has the “full program”. :wink:


Some missing italics in The Brahmajāla Sutta? I dont think it’s a style thing or is it Bhante @sujato ? Maybe a problem with the markdown text?

There’s asterisks bracketing “this” and “that” throughout the Annihlilation section and the Extinguishment in the Present Life section.

Had to upload a screen shot here instead of quoting the text because D&D kept correcting the asterisks to italics!


This does not look right,appears to include extraneous reference. Dhp1.2 SuttaCentral

Also Dhp 1.3 has


ajinī ?


AN3.87:2.8: With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.

…they go from family to family.


Both these issues are in hand and are addressed in upcoming update.


AN3.93:6.1: When a farmer’s rice field is ripe,
AN3.93:6.2: they’d have the rice cut swiftly,
AN3.93:6.3: gathered swiftly,
AN3.93:6.4: transported swiftly,
AN3.93:6.5: made into heaps swiftly,
AN3.93:6.6: threshed swiftly,
AN3.93:6.7: the straw and chaff removed swiftly,
AN3.93:6.9: winnowed swiftly,
AN3.93:6.10: brought over swiftly,
AN3.93:6.11: threshed swiftly,
AN3.93:6.12: and have the husks removed swiftly.

The rice is threshed twice here. Maybe the second time we could grind it? :wink:

Actually, Bhikkhu Bodhi has “pounded” for the second one, and so has Nyanatiloka (“stampfen”—an activity done with the feet).

AN3.94:0.3: 94. Saradasutta
AN3.94:0.3: 94. Springtime

Isn’t it rather autumn than spring? That’s what the CPED says, just as do Bodhi and Nyanatiloka.


AN3.101:2.8: Yassa yassa ca abhiññā sacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiññā sacchikiriyāya tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati satiāyatane.
AN3.101:2.8: They become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.

AN3.102:3.7: Yassa yassa ca abhiññāsacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiññāsacchikiriyāya, tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati satiāyatane.
AN3.102:3.7: They become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by turning their mind toward insight, in each and every case.

Has the mind to be turned towards insight, or has it to be turned towards what they want to realize?


Is this thread or another appropriate for reporting an apparent typo in’s hosting of an english translation by someone other than Bhante Sujato?

If so, “thosebhikkhus” in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s MN 22.60 hosted here appears to miss a space between “those bhikkhus”.


AN3.119:2.2: Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco micchāājīvo hoti, micchāājīvena jīvikaṃ kappeti.
AN3.119:2.2: It’s when a noble disciple has wrong livelihood and earns a living by wrong livelihood.

I don’t see the “noble disciple” in the Pali—just “someone”. And the same for right livelihood in segment 5.2.


I think this falls into @Aminah’s department. :smiley:


Indeed, it does! Much thanks both! I’ve pushed the correction, but it will still take a while to show up on the site pending an update.


Most Venerable Bhante @Sujato! (I am just hoping in vain that criticism will go down better that way. :smiling_imp:)

I’ve just been reading your translation of the famous Kaccānagotta Sutta, SN 12.15 for the uninitiated. I like it, as I do most of your translations. But as so often, it is the odd thing I disagree with that tends to stand out.

You render the following Pali phrase:

Upayupādānābhinivesavinibandho khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena

as follows:

The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting.

The difficult question here, as you would obviously know, is the grammatical structure of the first long compound. It can be parsed in a number of ways, and I don’t have any problem with the way you separate out the last word vinibandha, “shackled”, as relating to the rest of the compound. What I am querying, however, is what that relationship should be. You have used the word “to”, suggesting perhaps an accusative or dative connection. I can see why this may work. At the same time the suttas normally speak of such shackling in regard to the five khandhas, and these other qualities are normally part of the shackle, not the things that we are shackled to. So to me a more natural reading would be to regard the relationship as instrumental:

The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.

What do you think?

And while I am at it, I might as well query you on another matter. I notice that in the same sutta, SN 12.15, you render majjhena as “by the middle way”. But the idea of the middle way is usually reserved for the noble eightfold path, not dependent origination. In fact, a way or a path is more like a practical procedure for getting you from A to B, whereas dependent origination is probably best regarded as a process. So would it be better to render majjhena simply as “by the middle”, or perhaps better as “by the middle principle”?


Thank you so much for thinking of us Bhante :pray: :rofl: Your new B is rather cool btw.

From the point of view of the English language alone, whose prepositions like to wander so much, your preference makes sense. I’m drawn (perhaps) to Chocolate Mud Cake through the forces of attraction, grasping, and insisting; I’m not drawn to those forces in themselves particularly at all. However I do see how Ven Sujato’s choice makes a stronger statement that suggests how difficult these forces are to throw off. If English were a ‘properly’ declined language it wouldn’t allow us to play with such delicious ambiguities.


Sure, seems reasonable.

Yeah, the current choice is not ideal, but I just can’t seem to read the alternatives as idiomatic. Probably “by the middle”. Thanissaro has “via the middle”.

Note the Sanskrit has anupagamya madhyamayā pratipadā tathāgato dharmaṃ deśayati, as do the Chinese versions. This would make it more important, I think, to not say “middle way” so as to preserve the uniqueness of the Pali.


Thank you for these reflection, Ajahn, they are very helpful! :pray:


This is true.

One of the principles of translation, however, especially if a passage is ambiguous, is that you would normally interpret it according to the most common meaning. For instance, it could be argued from Nikāya passages that you can crave to crave. Yet when the word craving is used without context it is likely to refer to something more common, such as craving for sensual pleasures.

The same thing is true of the words used here. It can certainly be argued that we attach to attachments (that is, we are shackled to them, which is basically the same thing), but the normal sutta meaning is that we are attached to worldly things or the five khandhas. I would argue such normal meanings should prevail when translating ambiguous passages.


Yes. Always give the least marked interpretation. I’m not able to interpret the Pali directly I’m afraid.


I am trying to translate MN101 from English. And I found a troublesome translation that I’m not sure which is the correct one. Because the meaning is rather different.

Sujato’s translation MN101.14.1 :

If at a time of intense exertion you did not experience painful, sharp feelings due to overexertion,

and if without intense exertion you did experience such feelings, it would be appropriate for the Jain venerables to declare this.

Yes > No
No > Yes

While Thanissaro’s translation:

“‘If it were the case that when there was fierce striving, fierce exertion, you felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment;

and when there was no fierce striving, no fierce exertion, you still felt fierce, sharp, racking pains from harsh treatment,

Yes > Yes
No > Yes

For Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation, I believe it is following the pattern of Thanissaro’s. The pāli that is being translated is:

Sace, āvuso nigaṇṭhā, yasmiṃ vo samaye tibbo upakkamo hoti tibbaṃ padhānaṃ, na tibbā tasmiṃ samaye opakkamikā dukkhā tibbā kaṭukā vedanā vediyetha;

yasmiṃ pana vo samaye na tibbo upakkamo hoti na tibbaṃ padhānaṃ, tibbā tasmiṃ samaye opakkamikā dukkhā tibbā kaṭukā vedanā vediyetha;

Is bhante Sujato’s translation the correct one? I suppose. But I couldn’t grasp the whole meaning of the passage with that translation.

While for the others translation, it should mean if the pain is still there both with or without exertion, then it is appropriate to say everything felt comes from past deeds.


Into which language?