Thanks, Ayya. Now I see what’s going on. The reason it is listed as a mention is because the entire Aṭṭhaka-vagga is mentioned at the end of the Cammakkhandhaka. So I think it is right after all. Sorry about the false alarm.
4 Likes
Thank you for checking this out. But then it would be wrong to say that it is only number #44 that is referring to the Aṭṭhaka Vagga and we should list it more general. Would you agree?
1 Like
I don’t even understand what the #44 stands for. What is it all about?
1 Like
SN 56.11
“dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā ariyasaccaṁ” is translated at #SC 4.8 as well as at #SC 8.1 as “the noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering”. At #SC 8.2 and 8.3 it is translated as “the noble truth of the practice that leads to cessation of suffering”, the “the” lacking.
I think it should be “the cessation of suffering” everywhere.
1 Like
I’m sorry Ajahn @Brahmali. I did not see your post earlier.
The #44 stands for the paragraph in the text that is supposed to be the parallel. So in this case paragraph 44, which highlights if you click on it: SuttaCentral
So in this case this is the middle paragraph of chapter 9.
1 Like
Thank you, Ayya. So it refers to the Suttacentral paragraph numbers, in this case SC 44. I did look it up, but in the English translation, which is lacking these numbers.
The problem, then, is that the paragraph number is incorrect. It should be SC 55, which is where the reference to the Aṭṭhakavagga is found.
2 Likes
Thanks so much Ajahn. I will change it.
2 Likes
In the Suttanipata 3.10 (English trans. by Laurence Khantipalo Mills) we have an error.
“Paduma Hell” (the rebirth destination of Kokaliya, the foolish monk who slandered Sariputta and Moggallana) has accidentally been inserted where “Abbuda Hell” should be. In the exposition of the various hells, the Abbuda hell (not the Paduma hell) is the important ‘reference-hell’, the one that is described by the simile of the cartload of sesamum seeds being emptied, and which is then multiplied by twenty, again and again, until it finally reaches the value of one single Paduma Hell, which was Kokaliyas destination.
Here is the passage in question:
That Kosalan cartload of twenty measures of sesame seeds would be more quickly used up in that way than would a lifetime in the Paduma Hell.
Khippataraṃ kho so bhikkhu vīsatikhāriko kosalako tilavāho iminā upakkamena parikkhayaṃ pariyādānaṃ gaccheyya, na tveva eko abbudo nirayo.
Here we see that the Pali original says Abbuda Hell.
1 Like
MN 79 Bhikkhu Sujato’s translation
“Sir, suppose there was a beryl gem that was naturally beautiful, eight-faceted, well-worked. When placed on a cream rug it would shine and glow and radiate. Such is the splendor of the self that is sound after death.”
Should be “found” not “sound”
1 Like
Jataka 97, paragraph 2
The young man did as he was bidden, and taking provisions for the journey wandered from village to village till he cane to a certain town.
3 Likes
SN 7.12
again and again, the sky god sends rain;
Punappunaṃ vassati devarājā;
Not really a typo, just a suggestion for precision. Devarājā is lit. ‘god-king’, an epithet of a few gods, but mainly Sakka - which poses no big challenge since Vedic Indra is closely associated with rain. So ‘sky god’ is more mysterious than necessary. A literal translation, or Sakka/Indra would be a better fit I suppose.
1 Like
Actually, for those like me who do not encounter Sakka/Indra nor god-kings on a daily basis, the Sci-Fi “sky god” is a very comfortable proxy for the informed or literal translations. If I was curious, I would look up devaraja and learn all about god-kings who send rain. As it is, the words register without interrupting reading.
King of gods could just be translated as God, couldn’t it?
I think king of God’s (like Zeus) differ from Abrahamic God.
In the sutta, sakka is different from mahabrahma
Surely devaraja doesn’t mean mahabrahma.
I feel Abrahamic God correspond with mahabrahma. While devaraja correspond with sakka, Zeus/Odin.
But now I realize it is just a personal opinion.
In AN 7.50 “of” instead of “or” as follows.
“an ascetic of brahmin”
With Metta
1 Like
This really isn’t an error, but I didn’t want to start a new thread. Feel free to split off if you like.
In SuttaCentral there is this bit…
“As a renunciate, the one who was a giver would surpass the other in five respects. They’d usually use only what they’ve been invited to accept—robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick—rarely using them without invitation.
Bhikkhu Bodhi says “specifically offered to him.” To me “using them without invitation” sounds like using them without permission. If it really needs to say invitations, could it say “special invitation”?
When living with other spiritual practitioners, they usually treat them agreeably by way of body, speech, and mind, rarely disagreeably. As a renunciate, the one who was a giver would surpass the other in these five respects.”
As I understand it in this translation “they” is being used as a third person singular without gender, which I think is good. But here the meaning is unclear because there are two “theys.” Cpuld it be rephrased to
They are usually treated agreeably by way of body, speech, and mind by the other spiritual practitioners they live with, rarely disagreeably.
Just an idea.
From Venerable Brahmāli’s Vinaya section
It is around this time that sectarian tendencies are starting to form in the monastic Order, and this is roughly the cut-of-point for the common heritage of all Buddhists.
cut-off-point
3 Likes