Ud 2.10, ocurred --> occurred
“an4.6:9.2”: “who has much learning, and has memorized the teachings;”,
“an4.6:9.3”: “like a pendant of river gold,”,
Lacking spaces at the end of lines.
AN 3.36: Messengers of the Gods
Then the wardens of hell thrown them down and hack them with axes. …
AN4.10:7.2: Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco diṭṭhīnaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.
AN4.10:7.2: It’s when you don’t truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape.
It’s when you truly understand…
Should be “imperfect” rather than “imprefect” in first stanza of Cūḷabyūha Sutta Snp 4.12.
Each attached to their own views,
They dispute, and the experts say,
“Whoever knows this understands the Dhamma,
Whoever rejects it is imprefect.”
Whatsoever monk takes a couch, chair, stool, blanket, pillow or mat belonging to a community of monks and laying it himself on fehe earth
Seems a typo; “the”?
I shall not pour out pour out the remains of a meal from the inside of my bowl.
I believe both of those may be legacy unsupported translations included verbatim on SC.
AN 3.37 The Four Great Kings (1st)
“And on the fifteenth day sabbath” (could it be day of the sabbath?)
Dear friends, after way too long I am finally catching up on corrections here. Just to note, the reason for the delay has been that we are switching our translation engine over and I wanted to wait until we were closer to launching the new system, which took longer than hoped.
Meanwhile, I will try to get everything in this thread, but please help me out if I’ve missed something. Certain systematic changes, such as revising the way of handling repetitions, I will note down and check separately.
When I’ve finished this process, I’ll close down this thread and open another, it’s getting too long!
It seems fine as is.
This is deliberate, I chose to omit the negative form in the repetitions. It rapidly becomes wearying!
No! I wrote about this in A Swift Pair of Messangers. The idea is that it is a condition that is both essential and strongly conducive, i.e. “vital”.
This is on a to-do list, I agree with you.
This seems correct, maybe it has been fixed.
Indeed, well-spotted, this is my mistake. It is a subtle issue, as the negatives are part of a compound, so the compound can be parsed both:
- not listing to a good teaching
- listening to a not-good teaching
Not that the same ambiguity attends to the neighboring term Asappurisasaṃsevo. (Also note in passing that the spelling is inconsistent in the MS edition: assaddhamma in AN 10.62, asaddhamma in AN 10.61. The former could be translated as “horse teaching”, but I think we can safely rule that out!)
In both cases, Ven Bodhi translates as “not hearing the Good Dhamma” and “not associating with good people”.
At the time I wrote this note:
BB has “not listening to the true teaching”. But where this negative form is used in MN 110, it has Asappuriso, bhikkhave, assaddhammasamannāgato hoti, which must mean “a bad person possesses an untrue teaching”. There, BB has “an untrue man is possessed of bad qualities” which agrees with the syntax I am proposing. Admittedly, there the context show dhamma must be “qualities”, while the association of dhamma here with savana shows that here it should be teachings. Similarly, below BB has “not associating with good persons” for asappurisesevana, but at SN 35.246 we have Asappurisasevito ceso maggo, na ceso maggo sappurisehi sevito. “This path is frequented by bad people, not by good people.”, which there BB translates as “This is a path followed by inferior people; it is not the path followed by superior people.”
However I clearly forgot to revise my earlier rendering, which I will do now!
Indeed, it should be improved. Our devs are working on other things, hopefully they will have time soon!
Rūpa began life as the idea of what is “seen”, i.e. something that shines or is visible. It still keeps the connotation, even after its use has become much broader. In the context of jhana, the term rūpa does not mean simply “body” or even “sight”, but rather a subtle apparition or vision that manifests to the mind, which these days is usually called nimitta. The rūpajjhānas are the states of meditation that are based on such visions of “luminous form”.
Well, I certainly wasn’t attached to the view of having a correct translation! Thanks, fixed.
Thx, fixed, and extra points for the cute visualization!
Indeed, my mistake. The inclusion of “solid food” as one of the four fuels makes it clear that it must be “consciousness as fuel” rather than “fuel for consciousness”.
It’s a tricky one. Word for the sky commonly have a “divine” connotation. Think of the English idiom, “the heavens” or “heavenly bodies” for example. It doesn’t necessarily have a religious connotation. If we say, instead, “raised her eyes to heaven” it may or may not have a religious aspect, depending on context.
The problem as I see it is this. If we translate consistently as “god” we risk over-determining the “animist” implications, and I am not convinced that is justified. On the other hand, by leaving it out we may be imposing a de-animizing modern spirit on the text.
I am not really sure which way to go, so have more-or-less followed BB’s lead. But I’ll put it on a 2-do list for further consideration.
Thx, it’s been fixed.
Excellent, thx, fixed now.
Indeed, well spotted.
That’s not the case now, it must have been a bug.
It’s got to do with the structure of suttas. In the introduce, it says, “there are four people …” then in the recapitulation, “these are the four people”, i.e. the four people referred to in the introduction.
Indeed, thx. (for future reference, it’s helpful to mention the ID number of the sutta, in this case sn 52.1 )
Hmm, wonder why. In any case, I have changed the translation, I hope it is okay now!
Yes, this bug is fixed in Bilara, will be live soon.
This is a front end bug, will be fixed soon.
Thanks, I have adopted your suggestion.
Thx, have accepted all suggestions. And those in your following posts too!
Indeed, fixed now.
may there be many more!
Not sure exactly what you’re pointing to, but presumably the repeated ellipsis? If so, fixed!
Indeed it is! Thanks for noticing. For context on this, see Ven Bodhi’s note to sn22.55 in Connected Discourses. Note that I follow his interpretation, which
essentially requires me to ignore the reading of the text, which has apparently become confused, and translate according to context.
It’s probably a little archaic. I have re-rendered it more consistently with elsewhere as:
Aren’t you speaking only of what you have known and seen and realized for yourselves?
More to come!
In this Pv story SuttaCentral
The speaker changes from Ven Sariputta to Ven Moggallana. This is a typo. It should be Sariputta throughout.
Indeed, I have fixed it. Normally we don’t correct third-party errors, but this one is clear I feel it’s justified.
Thanks, fixed! Note that a little further down the Pali varies from paccavekkhati (reviews) to paṭisañcikkhati (reflects). I don’t think there’s any real difference in meaning.
To me it sounds like fine English? But if someone wants to explain why it’s wrong, I’m all ears.
Indeed it is. Both thag and thig number the sections consecutively, not according to the number of verses. Not every number has a set of verses with a matching number: eg., there is no set of “ten” verses in thig. It’s a bit confusing, I know, I was confused by it too! But it is the system used by Thanissaro and Muninda, and appears to have originated in Mrs Rhys-Davids’ English translation (see pg. 106). The PTS Pali edition, on the other hand, avoids adding numbers, while the BJT edition assigns the nipāta numbers, i.e. the set of eleven verses is section eleven. That is arguably clearer, but it is not the system we’ve adopted, sorry about that!
That’s just a stylistic choice, avoid excess repetition.
On reflection, I should change “archery and swordsmanship” throughout to “the sword and the bow”.
This is a sign used in the source text to indicate a passage not found in the mainline text, but about which there may be a note or variant reading.
Corrected to Gaṅgā
It seems okay to me?
Yikes, okay thanks, well-spotted!
Yes, I’ve changed to “in that place there’s …” both here and MN 129 for clarity.
No, not Vangisa! But rest easy, this is fixed in Bilara.
Indeed it does, thanks.
Sujato finds this amusing.
That’s correct. Word of the year!
Well, I guess at that point they are probably not going to be fixated on grammatical niceties, but I will fix it anyway!
Hello hello! But yes, I have been correcting typos too long and am getting silly!
Indeed, I am probably being overly-consistent here.
Hmm, actually, on reflection best take “Then” out. Usually atha or atha kho serve as grammatical grease, sliding from one event to the next, and readily represented with “then”. But here we have, rather bluntly, sentences that begin tamenaṃ, i.e. just “he/they”. Better to keep the bluntness in the translation.
The wardens of hell punish them with the five-fold crucifixion.
Actually, the phrase is translated in a previous segment. the problem is that the Pali has an extended syntactic construction, with a relative phrase separated from the demonstrative by a lengthy stock passage.
yāvadeva ākaṅkhissasi … ( ) … tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇissasi, sati satiāyatane
Whenever you want (to do this incredible thing) you’ll be capable of realizing it, in each and every case.
English buckles under such constructions (as IMHO the Bodhi translation shows), so I have fudged it by bringing the closing clause forward:
Whenever you want, you’ll be capable of realizing the following, in each and every case:
No, it’s correct as-is. The “on earth” idiom can be used with a variety of question words.
In the early days of SC (from whence this passage has survived with little change!) we discussed this and decided to use lower case for volumes for the sake of disambiguation. We’re probably not very consistent, though.
Indeed yes, thanks.
No, it should be consisntent: he is supposed to be speaking in the future of a past event, so “I’ve been reborn” is right in both cases.
Made all definitive.
Hmm, it’s not really needed, but I can see that it makes it easier to parse. I’ll add it. Also accepted other suggestions.
Corrected here, an3.88, and an9.12.
Indeed, my mistake.
Interesting, it may well be that this is what is described here. However, there are two distinct words in Pali.
I made the following note:
Saradasamaya is between the vassa and the hema. Since it’s before the cold it can be considered as “autumn”. But autumn conveys a distinct set of connotations. What is evoked here is the clear skies that follow the rainy season, a familiar and refreshing experience to one living in such climates.
the “extend the mind” variant is correct, or at least it’s what I want to say. This is a case of a rendering that I changed, the “turning” variant escaped the change.
Yes, I think it seems fine. Maybe there is some variation in editions.
Note that in the second clause, there appear to be two negations, but in fact they both simply qualify different synonymous clauses" “if there were no exertion and no striving, you did experience …”. Thus just one negation can be used in translation.
To be continued!
sunlight/sunshine? Are their two different words in Pali?
I believe that in the most common usage, “walking meditation” is
present participle (walking) used as an adjective to modify a noun (meditation). So the whole thing becomes a noun.
What you are doing is treating walking as a verb and meditation is a noun used as an adverb. I don’t think this is common.
Let’s think about breathing meditation. Could you say
several mendicants were breathing meditation
I’d say absolutely not. You would say
several mendicants were doing breathing meditation
several mendicants were practicing breathing meditation
So I think, although it is more wordy, it should be one of these:
several mendicants were practicing walking meditation
several mendicants were walking in meditation
several mendicants were doing walking meditation
I think your economy of language is too confusing since it goes against the most common usage.
As an aside, I’ve spent more than a year trying to construct an argument against “robing up.” Perhaps now is the time to state my case.
This is interesting to me. I knew about the original meaning of rūpa as what is seen, but I’m curious to know more about how light comes into play as part of its original meaning. Can you point me toward any early sources for this understanding (or works discussing it)?
Thank you @Snowbird for articulating my thoughts.
Syntactically, having the participle ‘walking’ function with verbal rection over ‘meditation’ doesn’t seem right to me.
Hey thanks for the clarification, I’m convinced and will change it.
It’s not immediately obvious what the best approach is here, though. Ven Bodhi has “walking back and forth”, which to my mind doesn’t really convey that they were doing a spiritual practice. The Pali is just caṅkamati, so it doesn’t really have any physical sense of “back and forth”.
Clearly they are doing something like what we would call “walking meditation”, although it is not so clear that they would be doing a formal meditation method as we would imagine. More likely, I think, early walking meditation was simply being mindful while walking. This might not be 100% the case, but I think it’s a reasonable generalization.
I’d like the translation to keep the emphasis where the Pali has it, on the verb caṅkamati “to walk, to wander”. If we say, “to practice walking meditation” it shifts the emphasis rather.
Instead, it’d be better to keep the main verb as “walking”, and use an adverb to qualify it as a spiritual practice. “Walking meditatively” is clumsy, so I think I’ll say:
At that time several mendicants were walking mindfully in the open air.
Sorry, I don’t have sources to hand right now. If I get the chance I’ll publish something.
This is a really weird one. It occurs in about 10 suttas, all in the same samyutta. It must have been some regex error, but I have no idea how it crept in there.
Seems fine now. Must have been a glitch.
End of line spaces must be handled by software for consistency.
Already fixed, thx.
Already fixed, thx.
What can I say? I’m imprefetc.
If anything, it should be “the sabbath of the fifteenth day”.
In the Buddhist calendar, the uposatha (loosely “sabbath”) usually falls on the fifteenth day, but twice per season it falls on the fourteenth day. I’ll consider changing the wording.
And I’m done!
@mods, can I ask you to close this thread. Meanwhile, I’ll start up a new thread, and new typos can go there.
Everyone, you’ve done amazing things! After 631 posts over nearly two years. It’s incredible that so many errors have been noticed and fixed, and together we have made the Dhamma better for everyone. Thank you so very much!
Indeed. Thank you for sharing all those thoughts. Fascinating.
Closed at Bhante’s request, Please keep reporting errors and typos! here.