Please report any errors or typos!



I think Sarandada should be Sārandada. At least that’s what it is in the Pali.

(BTW, is link sharing metadata still being worked on? Sharing links even here only gives the general site metadata. Only because of my ignorance does this seem like it should be simple to fix.)


I am master of three knowledges, attained in psychic power,
cxpert in comprehending the minds of others.


(has been implemented, currently in code review & testing)

split this topic #424

3 posts were split to a new topic: Translation of

split this topic #425

A post was merged into an existing topic: Translation of SN22.100 Gaddula Sutta The Leash


Yes, the phrasing is a bit awkward. The first “approve” needs to stand, because it is the part of the standard expression I use in Sanghakammas throughout my translation. I could, however, change “approving”. I will consider it.

This is the official approval to build given by the Sangha. Prior to this one or more monks, ideally the whole Sangha, must have inspected the site.


In DN 9, the sentence “Tassa yā purimā rūpasaññā, sā nirujjhati” is translated as “The perception of luminous form that they had previously ceases.”

If this isn’t a typo, I’m curious as to how the adjective “luminous” comes into this translation.



AN 4.10:

And what is detachment from views? It’s when you don’t truly understand views’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. So lust, delight, affection, infatuation, thirst, passion, attachment, and craving for views linger on inside. This is called detachment from views. Such is detachment from sensual pleasures, future lives, and views.

What a strange definition of detachment from views… :thinking: :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


This should be ‘do truly understand…’, right? :grin:. I can’t highlight to copy and paste SC, on my iPhone.


Yes, and also “don’t linger on inside”.


missing a 1. in title


Not sure if this matters, but the following contains elisions that are not in parallel with the others…

Furthermore, take a bad person who is very learned …
an expert in the texts on monastic training …
a Dhamma teacher …
who dwells in the wilderness …
who is a rag robe wearer …
who eats only alms-food …
who stays at the root of a tree …

I think it should be

who is an expert in the texts on monastic training …
who is a Dhamma teacher …

Or you could cut it back to the “who” in all elisions.


SN 12.12 Phagguna of the Top-Knot

#SC 2.2

“But sir, who consumes the fuel for consciousness?”
“ko nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāraṃ āhāretī”ti?

Shouldn’t this be the fuel of consciousness (i.e. who consumes consciousness as fuel)?


Edited out to avoid confusion :grin::smile:


Really? Strange… but thank you for explaining!

So again, to really get it right: If I want to know who is the person who is consuming consciousness as their food (fuel); the person who is feeding on consciousness, who is “eating” consciousness—then I have to ask, “who consumes the fuel for consciousness”??

I would actually understand the fuel for consciousness to be what consciousness itself consumes as fuel… (In the context of dependent origination, this would be choices.)

In this case I’d better cross out my reply too. :sweat_smile:


I had a look at the source and it appears you were right, - just goes to show context is everything :smiley:

‘Consciousness is a fuel that conditions rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.’

The above statement/quote from SN12.12 would mean that consciousness IS/generates the fuel.
In which case your suggestion “of” would be the correct interpretation.
Hmmm, will leave it to others more skilled :slight_smile: :rofl:
Sorry for the confusion…


No worries! :joy: At first I always think I feel confused because of lack of knowledge in English, but in this case I am not the only one to be confused… :grinning:

We should leave this up to the translator to decide.


I do love your use of ‘No Worries’ - spoken like a true Australian :sweat_smile: :smiley:


What do you think where I have learned this? :australia:


Another way could be: “Who consumes the fuel ‘consciousness’?”


Hmm. Per DN33 the fuel for consciousness is four-fold:

Four bases for consciousness to remain. As long as consciousness remains, it remains involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it grows, increases, and matures. Or consciousness remains involved with feeling … Or consciousness remains involved with perception … Or as long as consciousness remains, it remains involved with choices, supported by choices, grounded on choices. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it grows, increases, and matures.

Consciousness is also a fuel for itself per MN143:

there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on consciousness.

I’d say that the self-referential nature of consciousness automatically allows either “for” or “of”.