1“Mendicants, a cowherd with eleven factors can maintain and expand a herd of cattle. What eleven? It’s when a cowherd knows form …
2In the same way, a mendicant with eleven qualities can meditate observing impermanence in the eye … … meditate observing letting go. …”
“Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine’?”
“Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …”
“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’
The second time the view is mentioned, it should remain as stated the first time, as the Buddha is still referring to the wrong view (i.e., “It might not be / It will not be” should be changed back to “I might not be / I will not be”).
I can imagine this is a tricky one to keep track of – such a subtle (but crucial) difference!
NP 2 - Venerable, here rattaṁ’s literal translation is night.
NP 18 - Underscore error
NP 19 - Same here
NP 21 - Underscore error here as well and also pāḷi is mixed up with the English
NP 25 - the robe-clot) --> the robe-cloth
Here are the seven suttas having “might not be”. Some use “I”. Some use “it”.
Personally, the “it” makes more sense to me. I have always wondered about the utility of the advice “I might not be” given that a non-returner would just know that they will not be. However, “it might not be” is quite powerful advice for those on the fence between non-return and perfection. It is powerful because the “mine” sneaks into consciousness in exactly the way one bound for non-return would experience it–as subtle warning about the conceit “I am” that manifests as “perfection (i.e., it) might not be mine”.
In MN38, the phrase “are you not speaking only” confuses me because of the negation in “not”. I do not know what the “not” pertains to or if negation is at all in effect for any part of the sentence. If the Buddha had spoken the following to me, my only answer would be silence or “huh?”. I definitely would not have answered, “Yes, sir”.
“Are you not speaking only of what you have known and seen and realized for yourselves?”
“Nanu, bhikkhave, yadeva tumhākaṃ sāmaṃ ñātaṃ sāmaṃ diṭṭhaṃ sāmaṃ viditaṃ, tadeva tumhe vadethā”ti.
Given that an alternate translation of “nanu” is “certainly”, is the following statement semantically equivalent?
Are you only speaking certainly of what you have known and seen and realized for yourselves?
@sujato are you still checking this thread?
If so, in Subjects for Regular Reviewing (Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhāna Sutta) AN 5.57
you’ve used “review” or"reviewing" consistently throughout, but it seems a solitary “reflecting” has slipped into one verse:
6.1What is the advantage of often reflecting like this: ‘I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. Deeds are my womb, my relative, and my refuge.
I am still checking this thread, and in fact plan to update the translations this week some time. So thanks!
A tiny omission in Bhante Sujato’s translation of MN 35:
At that time several mendicants were walking meditation in the open air.
Tena kho pana samayena sambahulā bhikkhū abbhokāse caṅkamanti. [SC 7.1]
I suppose it should read ‘walking in meditation’ or ‘doing walking meditation’ (vel.sim.)
I remember reading this EBT phrase when I discovered and started walking meditation last year. Now my brain thinks “walking meditation” is normal English and I have absolutely no idea if it is correct or not even though I’ve tested as highly proficient in English.