Please report any errors or typos!


This is a translation question regarding valāhaka deva.
In AN 5.197 and the suttas of SN 32 both Ajahn @sujato and B.Bodhi translate as ‘gods of the rain-clouds’ or ‘rain-cloud devas’. Yet, we encounter the same expression in other suttas in which both translators apparently choose ‘deva’ to mean ‘rain cloud’, even though valāhaka already means cloud
SN 2.29, SN 22.102, SN 45.147, AN 3.94, AN 10.15, MN 46, MN 79-80, DN 17.

It seems it would be more consistent to choose either way, either as clouds or as Devas? The SN 32 suttas make it difficult though to argue for clouds-only, because they mention a rebirth as a valāhaka deva. How would passages like SN 2.29 etc. look like if you translated as ‘gods of the clouds’? E.g. “Suppose that after the rainy season the sky was clear and devoid of the cloud gods”?


When the Buddha became fully extinguished, Sakka, lord of gods, recited this verse:
Parinibbute bhagavati saha parinibbānā brahmāsahampati imaṃ gāthaṃ abhāsi:

“All creatures in this world
“Sabbeva nikkhipissanti,

In the stanza above(DN16.36), it should be Brahmasahampati who recited the verse


Hi. The new translations are great, thank you. In DN 3 towards the end, it says Brahmayu and I think it should be Pokarasati. Thanks :grinning:

split this topic #446

2 posts were split to a new topic: SN With Channa passage

split this topic #448

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: SN With Channa passage


SN 40.2 shows no parallels, but I believe SĀ 501 is a parallel to this sutta.


‘You don’t understand this teaching and

Not 100% sure, but am wondering if this is mean to be a double quote mark.

Many thanks for highlighting! This isn’t so much a typo, but I have added to the list of things to follow up on.


Add vocative Sariputta:


In SN 22.80: “Yet earnest and gentlemen take it up for a good reason.”

The “and” here seems superfluous.


Legacy translations are left as is. Bhante Sujato translates this as follows in his supported translation, where “and” is a bit more required:

Yet earnest and respectable people take it up for a good reason.


What I had quoted was from Ven. Sujato’s translation on SuttaCentral. Can you help me find the version that you quoted above?


Oh wow. You’re quite right. I was searching on Voice, which showed otherwise. Apparently there are two versions running around. :thinking:

Here is the text from Bilara:

“Yet earnest and respectable people take it up for a good reason.”,

Bhante Sujato, I prefer “respectable people” as more inclusive. I find “gentlemen” somewhat archaic.



Thanks for clearing that up, Karl. I think the original “gentlemen” was the translation of kulaputtā, meaning “sons from a good family”. But fortunately the PED has another meaning for putta that can just mean “child or descendant”, making the more inclusive “people” an accurate translation too.


In this chapter of the Dhammapada, translation by Bhikkhu Anandajoti, the whole page is shown in capital letters. Is this on purpose?


Indeed, I have recently changed my rendering to “gentleman”.

It is a very hard term to convey, as it refers to a social status in a different society. Literal translations like “son of family” or Ven Bodhi’s “clansman” don’t really convey the idea that these are scions of the respectable. Something like “person of respectable family” is correct, but very clumsy! I tried a number of variations, and nothing really worked well.

The word “gentleman” is, I believe, the closest we have to a similar term in English. The problem with it is that it is gendered, which is why I avoided it earlier. But my translation does not aim to eliminate gendered terms, only to not impose gendered ideas where they are not justified by the text. And when I looked closer, it seems that kulaputta is, in fact, a gendered term. The expected kuladhīta does indeed occur (“daughter of family”) but only in a workaday sense, indicating the women of the clan; it does not have the same “elite” connotations of kulaputta. So I felt that “gentleman” ended up being a reasonably good fit.


This is accepted English idiom: to and fro



“Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
What four?
People who value anger, or denigration, or material possessions, or honor rather than the true teaching.
These are the four people found in the world.

Should probably replace “the four” with simply “four”.

Use of “the four” normally indicates complete coverage of all people, whereas “four” used alone typically indicates “a subset of people”. The following stanza introduces four more people who value the true teaching. The sutta introduces two groups of four people and uses the subtly different enumerations to drive home its point. Yet the enumerations are partial and together cover the set of all people as two sets of four.


These are the four people found in the world.

The reader will still assume “the” at first glance, which will reinforce the magic of the sutta upon re-reading.


Was away visiting Wat Pah Nanachat for the past few weeks. Continuing my read through and review of the Vibhaṅga.

Saṅghadisesa 9acetic


Saṅghadisesa 13 – HTML shows up just about everywhere.


Dear Sirs,
In Ven. Sujāto’s translation of Saṃyutta Nikāya, Māhāvagga, Anuruddha Saṃyutta,
#1- Pathama rahogata sutta,
ekaṃ samayaṃ āyasmā anuruddho sāvatthiyaṃ viharati
appears to be rendered as:
At one time Venerable Sāriputta was staying near Sāvatthī

Seems a simple typo.
Best regards,