“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.
The Buddha disagrees with a Jain ascetic on the question of whether physical or metal deeds are more important. When he hears of this, the Jain disciple Upāli decides to visit the Buddha and refute him, and proceeds despite all warnings.
Yes, it’s a bit clumsy, but the point point of the passage is lost if we do not notice the pun between sāka = teak, saka= own, and sakya.
That’s more of an editorial change: I don’t feel we should second-guess the intentions of the translator and editor.
Yes: in the former case it is just “sangha”, in the latter it is “bhikkhusangha”.
Thanks yes, that’s better.
Thanks, I have corrected this case.
As for an automated spellcheck/correction for our texts, I agree it would be a good thing. Leaving aside the new translations we are making, typically we simply adopt the texts from other sources, and must rely on them to do proofreading, as we do not have the resources to check so many texts in so many languages. Our focus is on producing new texts, and to be honest, even in the English, there are so many mistakes in the older texts that it is a major job to fix them all. In the PTS dictionary, for example, I have personally made over a hundred thousand changes; not all of them are errors, to be sure, but it gives you an idea of the scope. An automated tool can help highlight possible errors, but then we have the challenge of applying that to all languages, and even harder, finding reliable volunteers to check the possible errors in each case. For my translations, a team of four proofreaders worked hard for many months, and as you can see in this thread, we are still finding errors. The other issue is that with the legacy texts, often the translations themselves are not very good. So we can easily spend a lot of time and effort making corrections to things that really should simply be replaced. Having said all that, it would certainly be a good idea to build a spellcheck or other tester into our new translation engine, let me think about it. Meanwhile, if yourself or anyone else wishes to take up the task of correcting translations in any particular language, let us know and we will help!
Agreed, the positive sense is conveyed by “accomplished”.
No: it is arogya, 'sound" or “healthy”.
Maybe, but I can’t see that it’s justified by the Pali.
I see your point, but the text is as I have translated. I guess the point is that women are considered to be a “shark” for one who is ordained, but not in the lay life. Note that Pali uses two distinct terms for women: itthī is the regular word, used in opposition to purisa, “man”. But when speaking of monks in this kind of context, i.e. the struggles of sexuality in the holy life, the texts usually use mātugāma. This, I believe, is a somewhat colder, more distancing term, and I translate it as “female”.
(Apologies for the gendered terms here, I am sure the Buddha would have said men are sharks when talking to the nuns!)
Thanks, fixed. (The name is usually spelled Mahākoṭṭhita in the Sinhalese manuscripts, and Mahākoṭṭhika in the Burmese. Even though I use a Burmese text as my main source, I usually follow Ven Bodhi in preferring the Sinhalese spellings, which are more familiar.)
I am glad I could be of service!
Not sure what the problem is, it looks fine to me.
Thanks yes, a typo.
Sometimes you wish you could say it was deliberate …
It’s a triple-nested quote! The Buddha is speaking (first “”), relating an earlier conversation (‘’) in which he quotes a Jain tenet (second “”). Thus in the passage you quote, the close double quote is indicating the end of the Jain tenet, while the close single quote indicates the end of the Buddha relating the former conversation. It’s not easy to get all these right, but in this case it is correct.
Okay, that’s a bad mistake!
Indeed, and the same thing happens at AN 6.63. There is some variation in the Pali tradition as to whether this phrase should be included (the same goes for “illness is suffering”). A translation should capture this variation, not erase it, so I have changed my translation.
There was a study by Marcus Bingenheimer that rather conclusively showed the correct form to be rati. Normally I am reluctant to correct the Pali text, but in this case it was such a clear example of textual corruption I felt it was justified.
Indeed yes, fixed.
Thanks, fixed. And just a word of caution: the jataka translations are very archaic and should probably be regarded as retellings rather than the more strict translations we find for the suttas.
Indeed. I was following my earlier translation of thag here. perhaps “lord god” would be better.
Interesting, do you have any citations for this?
I agree it’s a little odd, but it’s a subtle point, and i’m not 100% sure I understand it. Literally it has yācita “requested”. It seems the point is that a monastic may make use of general stores, that is, things offered for the use of the whole Sangha, but the subject of this discourse, due to their merit, is usually personally requested or invited to accept things and need not use the stores. This would justify BB’s “specifically offered to him”, but I can’t help feeling this may be over-interpreting the text a little. It doesn’t really say anything about being specifically offered, this is an inference derived from a more general understanding of how the Sangha works. Hmm, I’m not sure …
Indeed it should, thanks.
As always, thanks to all those who have taken the time to help me fix my mistakes.
As just a note in passing, you may notice some minor edits happening in addition to this thread: i am making small adjustments to the translations as I record them. You can see these under “audio edit” here:
This is actually not as clear-cut and in the end an inference. Indra and Varuna share both the occasional epithet devaraja, and being the rain gods. But since Indra is the main character of the Rgveda he gets more exposure. Probably Indra’s association goes back to his victory against Vrtra (many places, but also RV 1.32-33) who was holding the waters back. Subsequently he is credited with the release of the rivers, and then also with raising the sun into the sky.
The various descriptions, in the RV, of the Indra-Vrtra battle are said to be clearly indicative of the phenomena of thunderstorm, lightning, and rain. Heaven and earth tremble with fear when Indra strikes Vrtra with his bolt. (Dandekar, vṛtrahā indra, 1950)
Rain is just such a universal phenomenon that also a few other gods got associated with it. But in the combination with devaraja only Indra and Varuna, and again more often Indra.
See e.g. RV 4.26.2 with Indra saying
I gave land to the Ārya; I (gave) rain to the pious mortal.
I led the bellowing waters. It is my will that the gods followed.
And RV 6.44.12
Like the thunderer the rain clouds, Indra stirs up bounties of horses and cattle.
AN 4.67 “Mendicants, that monk mustn’t have spread a mind of love to the four royal snake families.”
It should be “Mendicants, that monk must have spread a mind of love to the four royal snake families”.
Then he approached the Gods of the Four Great Kings (cātumahārājikā) and said… When he said this, those gods said to him:… But the Four Great Kings (cattāro mahārājāno) are our superiors.
Basically we have two different groups here, the ones belonging to the Four Great Kings (cātumahārājikā) and the Four Great Kings themselves (cattāro mahārājāno). The two need a somewhat different translation, otherwise the text doesn’t make sense. Perhaps the already used ‘companions’ (sahabya) would be a simple solution?
Do you think it’s necessary to check all cātumahārājikā in the suttas and check if the Kings themselves are meant or if it’s a synonym?
But DN11 in this passage talks about progression all the way up to Sakka and then Brahma’s host. How could the Gods of the Four Great Kings be
simple companions of the Four Great Kings?
I’ve had similar difficulty with the relative order of the gods who delight in creation and the gods who control the creation of others. I myself like making things so the order of gods in the suttas seemed skewed until I realized that I always worked for those who controlled my creation.
In other words, I think this is a progression, not an unordered list that would justify “companions”. I do confess that the notion of gods and kings of compass directions befuddles me in a round world given to magnetic pole flipping every few eons.