Yes. I just added āDN28ā for us to confirm during testing. There will probably be edge cases that keep popping up (e.g., the problems with numbers we keep on having).
1 Like
AN 7.51
At SC 1.1 Saį¹yogavisaį¹yogaį¹ vo, bhikkhave, dhammapariyÄyaį¹ desessÄmi is translated āMendicants, I will teach you an exposition of the teaching on the bound and the unbound.ā
At SC 5.12 the Buddha summarizes: Ayaį¹ kho, bhikkhave, saį¹yogo visaį¹yogo dhammapariyÄyoāti., and this is translated āThis is the exposition of the teaching on connection and disconnection.ā
Throughout the whole sutta āboundā and āunboundā are used in English; to keep it consistent this should also be the case for the last paragraphāor is there a special reason to change it here?
2 Likes
Thanks, this is fixed. It was a bug in how the IDs were made. We have tested and checked these a variety of ways, yet still this eluded us!
Are you sure about that? These are all excellent, and now fixed.
Both: sarassati is pali, sarasvati is sanskrit. Itās one of those cases where the sanskrit form is probably better known.
No, they are current. Where a translator wishes to indicate that terms have been added, we represent that. I donāt recommend it as a practice, but t is possible to do.
Thanks, fixed. And I also fixed an inconsistency in the subject of the sentences
Well, the compound could be read either way, but if it was āone perceives not-formā, then it would imply one was perceiving the formless realms, which is obviously not what is intended.
Indeed. The segment breaks often fall on natural breaks in the text, but not always. We canāt predict how a translator might handle this, so it needs to be done in the client. @karl_lew, perhaps we could configure the playback to add a gap at the end of the segment only if it ends with punctuation?
Well, this is an interesting one. I notice that I had not been consistent, so I have fixed that now.
The Pali is tidiva, literally the ātriple deityā. Ven Bodhi has ātriple heavenā. But it is really just a poetic abbreviated form, probably archaic, for the tavatimsa, or āGods of the Thirty Threeā. In fact, the origin of this lies in the very ancient conception of the godhead as a trinity. As time went on, the āthreeā gods were multiplied to a āsuper-threeā, i.e. āThirty Threeā.
So literally it would be the āGods of the Threeā. But since it is a simple synonym of Tavatimsa, I use āGods of the Three and Thirtyā, lending an archaic and poetic flavor to the translation.
Itās hard!
Actually no, it seems we have a problem in processing the lists correctly. Check
https://staging.suttacentral.net/dn28/en/sujato
And also
https://staging.suttacentral.net/an4.161/en/sujato
Fixed!
4 Likes
Iām not trying to argue, but how in the world is someone supposed to guess that is the meaning of the gray text? The standard for that, as I know, is square brackets. I agree itās not beautiful. But it seems either the meaning should be clear or the indication shouldnāt be there at all. Just my $.02
They are not supposed to guess. The tooltip tells you what it means. Does it not work for you?
Oops, i was wrong and you were right; at least, mostly. There is a problem, but it is in the CSS. Chrome and FF handle this case differently. Weāll have to figure out some fix.
2 Likes
Oh, they donāt, actually. I was going to suggest using tool tips.
| Name | Firefox |
|---|---|
| Version | 64.0.2 |
| Build ID | 20190108160530 |
Windows 10, no adblocker
Doesnāt work on chrome either.
Oh, yes, it looks like you have to have the ātextual informationā on to see the tooltips, it should be on by default. maybe the styling should only be apparent when activated, too?
I noticed in MN 87, paragraph 4:
Then Queen MallikÄ addressed the brahmin NÄįø·ijaį¹ gha: āPlease, brahmin, go to the Buddha, and in my name bow with your head to his feet. Ask him if he is healthy and well, nimble, strong, and living comfortably. And then say: āSir, did the Buddha made this statement: āOur loved ones are a source of sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distressā?ā
Seems like made is the incorrect verb tense.
Indeed, thanks, fixed now.
On AN 6.63 (penetrative),
āCetayitvÄ kammaį¹ karotiā is translated as āFor after making a choice one actsā, is a bit unusual for ācetanaā usually translated as āintentionā
When people ask another āWhat is your favorite color?ā, the answer usually involves a choice. But it is a choice without action. Bhanteās translation here clarifies the meaning of intention as āchoice leading to actionā. Although Iām a fan of consistency, I do like alternate phrasing that clarifies meaning. This allows me to search for English phrasing first then search for Pali text second to get the broader scope of translations.
1 Like
.
1 Like
Just noticed that instead of feeling, craving has been put in there in DN.15
_"That is, contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. When thereās no contact at all, with the cessation of contact, would craving still be found?ā _
"cakkhusamphasso sotasamphasso ghÄnasamphasso jivhÄsamphasso kÄyasamphasso manosamphasso, sabbaso phasse asati phassanirodhÄ api nu kho vedanÄ paƱƱÄyethÄāti?
With Metta
4 Likes
There already is a topic to address issues like this:
2 Likes
@Nimal thanks for the error message. Iāve just moved your post to the existing topic for this, 
2 Likes
Bhante @sujato
This is not an error or typos but I just like to ask the question here.
If moderators think this is worthwhile discussing please create a new post.
Just a matter of interest, why did you translate Naga as a dragon, not as a snake?
To me, the dragon reminds the dinosaur or a Chinese dragon.
I believe here Naga is referring to an Arahant.
Bhante @sujato Just a suggestion.
If I were you I will leave the full translation of the following. That is the crux of this Sutta. In my opinion full translation should be provided for the main pont of any of the suttas.
==========
āIn the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the sake of purification of mind. ā¦ Purification of knowledge and vision is only for the sake of extinguishment by not grasping.
āEvameva kho, Ävuso, sÄ«lavisuddhi yÄvadeva cittavisuddhatthÄ, cittavisuddhi yÄvadeva diį¹į¹hivisuddhatthÄ, diį¹į¹hivisuddhi yÄvadeva kaį¹
khÄvitaraį¹avisuddhatthÄ, kaį¹
khÄvitaraį¹avisuddhi yÄvadeva maggÄmaggaƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhatthÄ, maggÄmaggaƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhi yÄvadeva paį¹ipadÄƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhatthÄ, paį¹ipadÄƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhi yÄvadeva ƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhatthÄ, ƱÄį¹adassanavisuddhi yÄvadeva anupÄdÄparinibbÄnatthÄ.
The spiritual life is lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not grasping.ā
AnupÄdÄparinibbÄnatthaį¹ kho, Ävuso, bhagavati brahmacariyaį¹ vussatÄ«āti.
Oops, well spotted, I have fixed it now.
As a general rule, I translated the names of non-human beings to an approximate English equivalent. This is in line with my even more general policy of translating everything unless it was really impossible. Of course, the names of non-human beings in Pali only map very loosely onto those in English; but it is worth bearing in mind that the English meanings also change drastically, as do the Pali. An obvious case is yakkhas, which in later literature typically have a negative sense, a ferocious demon, but in the suttas is most often ambivalent if not positive. Thus using the Indic term can be even more misleading, so I have used āspiritā.
In the case of nÄga, we find four main meanings:
- A large snake, probably king cobra
- A powerful and dangerous non-human spirit in serpentine form (ādragonā)
- Elephant
- In metaphorical sense, a āspiritual giantā.
In MN 23, there is series of interesting metaphors, each of which can be read on multiple levels. On one hand, of course it is to be expected that a snake would live in an ant-hill. However the border between an ordinary snake and a mystical dragon is far from clear-cut. It is common in modern Hinduism to find nagas worshiped in an anthill. Given that the Buddha identified it with the arahant, it seems a better reading than āsnakeā.
I wrote on this here:
8 Likes
Hello,
In Majjhima Nikaya 142, Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta, there is a typo at the very end. The sutta ends with 5 short verses. The third one pertains to a gift being purified by neither the giver nor the recepient if both persons are of immoral character. It reads:
When an unethical and untrusting person,
gives an improper gift to ethical persons,
not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
I declare that gift is not very fruitful.
But actually, it should read like this:
When an unethical and untrusting person,
gives an improper gift to unethical persons,
not trusting in the ample fruit of deeds,
I declare that gift is not very fruitful.
3 Likes