No, the translation is correct. (Na hi nūna so) The point is he died of snakebite because he neglected to develop metta for snakes.
This is a processing bug, we will not fix it now, but when the Vinaya is fully updated.
Not sure if this is a mistake, but @brahmali will!
Yes, this is the point of the different translation: Gods of the Four Great Kings does not mean the same thing as the “Four Great Kings”. I have used this construction consistently for all the orders of gods. Brahmali makes it more explicit: “gods belonging to the heaven of the four great kings”, but this is, it seems to me too wordy, especially given that in the Suttas such phrases appear much more commonly than in the Vinaya.
There’s no need to check, I was aware of this and the translation is correct. To make it more obvious, perhaps we could use, “Gods Under the Four Great Kings”. On the other hand, it is also true to say that the form in Pali is not hugely explicit, and the understanding of such distinctions is rather a matter of implicit subtext. I’m concerned that by making it explicit we are over-determining the text. I’ll consider this.
Penelope means “weaver”( = Jālinī). She was Odysseus’s wife, forever weaving while waiting the return of her husband; the weaver in mythology is closely linked with idea of a fate in which we are trapped, not unlike the role of craving. By translating in this way, I was hoping to draw attention to the fact that this term has a rich mythic context.
Thanks, we’ll add these.
Thanks. In fact I had already removed the Pali. It does not seem required.
Yes, this is clearly a mistake, now corrected. Thanks once again.
Ha, I missed that subtle difference! Maybe it’s a bit too subtle, or I’m a too coarse reader, but I understand your reasoning.
Bhante, This does not make sense to me. If he died because he neglected the Buddha should have told him “you should not have neglected”.
In other words the Buddha should have told him " you must have spread a mind of metta" in which case the snake would not have bitten.
Ven; Thanisaro translates as follows.
“Then it’s certain, monks, that that monk didn’t suffuse the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will. For if he had suffused the four royal snake lineages with a mind of good will, he would not have died after having been bitten by a snake"
Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as follows.
“Surely bhikkhus, that bhikkhu did not pervade the four royal families of snakes with a mind of loving kindness. For if he had done so, he would not have been bitten by a snake and died”.
Linking to external mythologies will perhaps create more confusion than intended.
The use of Penelope is quite evocative to me. Later generations may not have personal familiarity with Homer’s work, but that would be another translator’s challenge.
Jalini means “craving” elsewhere, which isn’t really a good name for anybody!
“For them there is no craving—
“Yassa jālinī visattikā,
In this way, the use of Penelope seems boldly appropriate.
However, from AN6.61 we have:
And craving is the seamstress,
The one point of confusion might arise from the Homeric point of view is that Penelope exemplifies the virtue of fidelity as expressed through her weaving. In other words, Penelope’s weaving might not be quite the same as the AN6.61. Penelope weaves threads of ethics, not craving. Right? And perhaps that is borne out in Jālinī’s ascendance to the Thirty-Three. She is a deity!
However in the Thirty-Three…she is wooing Anuruddha. Oh dear. It was craving after all.
And look! Bhante’s use of Penelope has got us all thinking and investigating!
I think you’re misreading the English idioms.
“You must have spread a mind of metta” does not mean “you should have spread a mind of metta”. It means “it surely was the case that you spread a mind of metta”.
Likewise, “you mustn’t have spread a mind of metta” means “it surely was the case that you did not spread a mind of metta.”
My translation means substantially the same thing as the other ones you quoted, it just expresses it a little differently.
Perhaps. it’s a debatable choice, for sure.
Good point, although there it has a different sense, rather than a person.
Ahh, well, for that you really should listen to my ongoing course on Buddhism and Mythology @ the Buddhist Library. Mythic ideas are pre-ethical, so that different ethical perspectives can be grafted on at a later date according to the perspective of the storyteller. The Weaver, as an extremely old archetype, is neither good nor bad but may appear in either form in different stories.
Nonetheless, the problem remains that Penelope is a single specific instance of the weaver. Perhaps a more generic term would be better.
Then simply keeping her name as Jalini seems appropriate to me. While in Sri Lanka I met a tuk-tuk driver and his name was Kalu. Meaning Black. Quite a number of people have names that directly translate to a noun or quality.
Exactly this and why should they now have to investigate into why jalini doesn’t directly translate into Penelope.
But not necessarily investigating the Dhamma. A potential outlet for papanca. Color me overly critical but I think when translating the words of the Buddha one should remain as close to them as possible.
"It’s normal that, while other women carry the infant in the womb for nine or ten months before giving birth, not so the mother of the being intent on awakening. She gives birth after exactly ten months. This is normal in such a case.
It’s normal that, while other women give birth while sitting or lying down, not so the mother of the being intent on awakening. She only gives birth standing up. This is normal in such a case."
Not so of the mother of the being?
Yes I get it now. Thanks
It appears some words are missing in the following translation all the way.
By the way what is the detailed meaning of “saupanisam”? Is there a better translation?
I say that dispassion has a vital condition.
Virāgampāhaṃ, bhikkhave, saupanisaṃ vadāmi, no anupanisaṃ.
For some reason the words pāda and māsaka aren’t italicized. Occurs throughout the entire ruling.
Also not sure if this was intentional - at the end of the “Definitions” section.
“Excluded from the community: Community:”
It’s a mistake. The underscore is supposed to be converted to italics, but it hasn’t happened for some reason. In the next iteration of the vinaya translation, this will be corrected. Thanks so much for pointing out these mistakes. Please keep it coming!
In DN33, which I have listened to more than anything in my life, I consistently miss a crucial point. Namely the enumeration of the immeasurables:
A mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion …
equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
And after all these months of repeated listening, I fail to recall any but the first or second immeasurables. I would propose a simple addition that would assist the reader and listener. That simple additon would be to simply include “They meditate spreading a heart full of” to the last two enumerations:
They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing…
They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.
The current lack of repetition creates a cognative gap, a pothole of continuity. The word “rejoicing” is simply too short to stand out as an enumeration, especially while listening (vs. reading). And its brevity also derails the understanding of the last stanza. The four immeasurables become one and a half.
Indeed, it is only just today that I learned about the four immeasurables. On Wikipedia. Now having seen them, I can fill in the four immeasurables of DN33 on my own while listening.
I agree with the experience of a ‘cognitive gap’ with such abbreviated enumerations, especially when listening.
It may be helpful, if not too much of a task, to allow for the entire sutta to be spread open with no abbreviated sections.
Pressing the … would open up the abbreviations or perhaps a setting to read the full sutta.
Voice.suttacentral.net does expand one sutta, MN1, in this manner. Although helpful to some, it has proven annoying to others. The ellipses are easily expanded by humans, but it has proven quite difficult to automatically expand them throughout the 4000 suttas translated in the four nikayas. It is, however, possible with effort. The greatest challenge is dealing with all the special cases.
All in Pr2
- timbarusaka, tula, alhaka, dona (all have the italic error) – I’m sure you already know, just being thorough.
“You should not use elsewhere the dwelling furniture of somewhere else.” - I get the gist of the sentence as it is currently, however, it’s a bit incoherent.
“When Thullananadā found out about this…” (additional a)
Excellent! It’s great to get all this sorted out.