Please report any errors or typos!


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. :laughing:


Thanks again.

As for ratta, the literal meaning is indeed “night”, but it is used in the same way “day” is sometimes in English. If anyone says I will be gone for two days, it refers to two 24-hour periods. In Pali ratta is used for the same purpose. So whenever a 24-hour period is intended, ratta should be translated as “day”. If you have a look at Ajahn Thanissaro’s Vinaya work, you will see he makes the same point.


Sometimes but now always, for example, the auspicious nights of the uposatha. When it is talked about perceiving night as it is day and day as it is night. The watches of the night. The day and nights are relentlessly passing. These are the first examples that come to mind and some of them have day and night occurring together.

If this is the perceived case then perhaps simply translating “ratta” into “24-hour period” would mitigate confusion. Since in this context “day” and “night” neither mean their actual definition. However, to keep the translation as close to the Pāli as possible “night” would be the most accurate.


Wouldn’t “24-hour period” merely replace one sort of confusion with another? I mean it might be misunderstood to mean any old nychthemeron, when the Pali in fact denotes a particular nychthemeron, namely, one that lasts from dawn to dawn.


Okay, you win today’s prize. Have some pancakes! :pancakes:


Absolutely, best to be without any kind of confusion, no? Which is why I was suggesting to translate the pāli as it is. This would encourage us to understand the rule in it’s Ancient Indian context.

Indeed and from listening to Venerable Brahmali’s Vinaya course it means just that. If you have been with your robe within a 24-hour period, one not necessarily between dawn to dawn, it is a non-offense.


Really? I hadn’t heard the rule explained that way before. I was always taught that you committed the offence if you didn’t have your three robes with you at dawn, regardless of whether you had them with you at any other time in the previous 24 hours.


In his defense it is reasonable and does keep the spirit of the rule (not to be away from one’s robes long enough for them to grow mold), however, it can be problematic when put into practice. And also not in accordance with the rest of Theravāda.


Hi, is the Thig’s numbering correct? Seeking Kisa Gotami’s verses in the Elevens group I found Uppalavanna’s there instead. Found Kisa G placed in the 10s.

I’ve got 3 translations that place Kisa G in the 11s, Uppalavanna in the 12s, and have no verses numbered in the 10s.

BTW, plz plz plz consider adding Thig (PTS’s?) verse numbers. Armed only with Kisa G’s starting verse number (#213) I was simply unable to find her on SC, searching for some time until I resorted to a printed book to find her location by # of verses.



Introduction page

Under “Parallels” in the section “Content”:

“The existence of these parallels shows the connections between of the scriptures underlying all Buddhist traditions”

… shows the connections between of the scriptures underlying all Buddhist traditions.


That is the usual way it’s explained, at least in Thailand, stemming, I guess, from the Pubbasikkha. I haven’t looked at this question myself, but I believe @brahmali has come to a different conclusion.


Yes, it definitely would be good to do. There’s just so many things! This has been an outstanding issue for some time now.