7 posts were split to a new topic: The Dhammapada & Dhammapada-style EBTs
This is my own inclination here just thought the wording “for doing it” in reference to sexual intercourse is a bit juvenile. However, if one was trying to abstain from using the words “sexual intercourse”, the words coitus, congress, or copulation are all suitable alternatives.
Again just personal taste here.
Thanks, this is a good point. I have translated the Pali literally, but in this case perhaps unnecessarily so. I shall consider rephrasing it.
Ah I see now – kammaniyañceva, meaning reading or fit for an act. Well in that case, no harm in sticking close to the pāli.
And one more for the day.
“he is be dealt with” – should be “he is to be dealt…”
Could you say “doing the act?”
I also find “doing it” to be a bit juvenile. In my head I imaging someone snickering after they say it.
i[quote=“Snowbird, post:470, topic:9548”]
I have never done it in a chair or while sitting. Therefore the conclusion that the act is actually sex may be unfounded.
Given the Vinaya’s excrutiatingly detailed prohibitions on orifice use elsewhere, I find the ambiguity of “the act” significant. It could be as simple as a touch of regretful lustful longing. Or it could be far more.
“When it had been died” —> “When it has been dyed”
“Whatever acetic” —> “Whatever ascetic”
NP 6 - he commit an offense —> he commits an offense
NP 7 - he commit an offense —> he commits an offense
Also occurs in the permuations of NP 7
The same error as above in NP 9’s permutations – “he commit an offense”
“and stands six time” --> “and stands six times”
Also, a lot of (all?) the Pali texts from the Sutta Nipata have some non-sutta reference text in them (e.g. “Chulachomklao Pāḷi Tipiṭaka 2436 (1893)” here).
Is this normal?
Same goes for a lot of the Pali suttas from the Udana & Itivuttaka.
Blurb text to SN 12.18:
A wanderer named Timbaruka approaches the Buddha while he is on alms round and asks whether pleasure and pain are created by oneself, by another, by both, or by chance. Explaining why he rejects all these options, the Buddha asserts that suffering arises due to conditions.
The wanderer Timbaruka doesn’t approach the Buddha on alms round but just goes up to him, exchanges greetings and sits to one side. The one who met him on alms round was Kassapa the naked ascetic in the previous sutta. Also, in this sutta it is not about suffering, but about pleasure and pain (correct in the first sentence, not so in the last). Probably a copying error.
A wanderer named Timbaruka asks the Buddha whether pleasure and pain are created by oneself, by another, by both, or by chance. Explaining why he rejects all these options, the Buddha asserts that pleasure and pain arise due to conditions.
Actually, I looked at the Pali and something very interesting is happening.
- Timbaruka is asking about pleasure and pain (sukhadukkhaṃ)
- The Buddha answers about suffering (dukkhakkhandhassa)
And what makes this so fascinating is that the Buddha is answering Timbaruka’s real question, which is about choices. Timbaruka is overthinking things and wondering whether choices should be made regarding pleasure/pain for one’s self or an other. We conventionally make choices based on pleasure or pain and Timbaruka is lost trying to find out what the basis for making correct choices by trying to walk backward from pleasure or pain to a trustworthy basis for choice.
And the Buddha cuts through the confusion with surgical precision and gently suggests to Timbaruka that the extremes of “me” and “you” are best avoided by choosing the middle way (i.e., “us”). The problem disappears when one cuts the cake and the other chooses their half. Then there is no pleasure or pain and the entire mass of suffering and consciousness evaporates.
Thank you for a new sutta to read!
SN 12.25 With Bhūmija
Sāriputta is asked by Venerable Bhūmija as to the origin of pleasure and pain. He replies that the Buddha teaches that pleasure and pain originate by conditions. Moreover, all those who offer opinions as to the source of suffering are themselves part of the web of conditions, as they cannot state their views without contact. Ānanda reports the exchange to the Buddha, who praises Sāriputta’s answer.
Should be “who offer opinions as to the source of pleasure and pain” (that’s what it says in the sutta).
“Reverend, the Buddha said that suffering is dependently originated.
“Paṭiccasamuppannaṃ kho, āvuso, sukhadukkhaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā.
Should be: the Buddha said that pleasure and pain are dependently originated.
#sc 5.1 and again #sc 9.1
“Consider the ascetics and brahmins who teach the efficacy of deeds. In the case of those who declare that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, it’s impossible that they will experience that without contact.”
Ellipses are lacking at the end of the segment.
Hi, the translation says he “stood” to one side, but the Pali says that he sat.
My 1st correction!
How about “private and concealed seat convenient [for intimacy].”
NP 13 - if he makes on --> if he makes one
NP 14 - As I’ve come to understand this rule it’s referring primarily to sitting rugs instead of blankets.
NP 15 - This rule I also wonder about the use of “sitting-blankets”. In regards to the picture below, it’s just a question of grammar. “if you, too, will stay in the wilderness”
“In the case of those ascetics and brahmins who declare that suffering is made by oneself, it’s impossible that they will experience that without contact.”
Ellipses are lacking at the end of the segment.
Ignorance is a condition for choices.
“Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā;
Quotation marks are lacking at the beginning of the sutta.
This is called death. …
idaṃ vuccati maraṇaṃ.
Ellipses should be removed, nothing has been abbreviated here.
Such a noble disciple is called ‘one accomplished in view’
Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhikkhu diṭṭhisampanno itipi
Should be "Such a mendicant … "
For this sentence in Vinaya Pac 40 the English translation is erroneously provided below on the Pali line, but should appear alongside This monk is big and strong: One might even suspect him of eating human flesh!”
Also, the informal description of Pac 40 states that it concerns food and drink. “A monk who consumes unoffered food or drink must confess the offense.” But this isn’t the rule that regulates drink, other than allowing water, so I’m thinking it should say food alone.
Why is some of the text in green? Is that an editing convention?
SN 12.29 Ascetics and Brahmins
They understand choices, their origin, their cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation.
saṅkhāre parijānanti, saṅkhārasamudayaṃ parijānanti, saṅkhāranirodhaṃ parijānanti, saṅkhāranirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadaṃ parijānanti.
For the sake of consistency it should perhaps be “They completely understand choices …”