And also, the PTS edition.
It’s a bit odd, but I’m not sure anything is omitted. Note that you are linking to and reading the legacy site, which as the name implies, is there for legacy purposes only. It will not be updated or corrected in future. The translation you are looking at is that of IB Horner.
The term sabbapaṃsukūlika is found only here and Pacittiya 40, where it clearly refers to food. So it is certainly broader than just the three robes, and it would seem it includes basically any rubbish. The commentary shere says:
Sabbapaṃsukūlikenāti ettha cīvarañca mañcapīṭhañca paṃsukūlaṃ vaṭṭati, ajjhoharaṇīyaṃ pana dinnakameva gahetabbaṃ
Ven Brahmali’s current translation is “one who uses only discarded things”, which I think is correct, yes?
Bhante @sujato, I appreciate your reply. I found bhante brahmali’s translations are much better than any other, on controversial parts, such as kathina civara.
I’m guessing you already know this but at https://suttacentral.net/an8.51/en/sujato#9
“If a female is able to realize the fruits of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection once she has gone forth. Sir, Mahāpajāpatī has been very helpful to the Buddha. She is his aunt who raised him, nurtured him, and gave him her milk. When the Buddha’s birth mother passed away, she nurtured him at her own breast. Sir, please let females gain the going forth from the lay life to homelessness in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.”
The first sentence isn’t a sentence. It looks like Bhante Bodhi had to add a little bit in his translation to have it make sense. I’m trying to figure out ways to make it all grammatical, but the only thing I can come up with is to use an elapses for “trailing off speech.” (See How to use ellipses for pauses and trailing speech) I’m not sure if it can be justified, but it seems strange to be ungrammatical. I haven’t noticed that anywhere else in the translations.
“If a female is able to realize the fruits of stream-entry, once-return, non-return, and perfection once she has gone forth… Sir, Mahāpajāpatī has been very helpful to the Buddha. etc.
Indeed, this is a case where it appears to me that the Pali text is corrupt. Compare the Lokuttaravada version of the same passage (which is missing in our parallels!). Loosely translated.
yato khalu bhagavan purimakānāṁ tathāgatānām arhatāṁ samyaksaṁbuddhānāṁ catvāro parṣāyo abhūṁsuḥ bhikṣu-bhikṣuṇī upāsakopāsikā |
Since Buddhas in the past had four assemblies consisting of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen;
ime catvāri śrāmaṇya-phalāni sayyathīdaṁ | śrota-āpatti-phalaṁ yāva agraphalam arhatvaṁ | bhavyo eteṣāṁ mātṛgrāmo pi eko apramatto ātāpi vyupakṛṣṭo viharanto sākṣīkartuṁ |
and since females—dwelling alone, diligent, keen, withdrawn—are capable of realizing these four fruits of the spiritual path, namely stream entry, once-return, non-return, and arahantship,
sādhu bhagavan mātṛgrāmo pi labheya tathāgata-pravedite dharma-vinaye pravrajyām upasaṁpadāṁ bhikṣuṇī-bhāvaṁ |
it would be good, sir, were females to gain ordination in the teaching and training proclaimed by the Realized One.
duṣkara-kārikā ca bhagavato mahāprajāpatī gautamī pāyikā poṣikā janetrīye kāla-gatāye stanyasya dāyikā bhagavāṁś ca kṛtajño kṛta-vedī
Mahāpajāpatī has done a hard task for the Buddha. She is his aunt who raised him, nurtured him, and gave him her milk when his birth mother passed away.
The text hear certainly flows better and hangs together as a more coherent statement. the syntax is, admittedly, somewhat extended, but that is not unusual. Normally I’d assume that the more terse Pali version is earlier, but given the hanging clause in the Pali passage, I cannot help but suspect some textual corruption.
@brahmali, like Ven Bodhi, smooths out the passage by inserting “if that it so [and considering that] …”. Now, in translation, one should allow for such things, and treat a text with compassion, assuming that it probably does make sense. However in this case I cannot see anything in the syntax to justify this. It really just looks like a broken sentence to me, so I leave it that way in my translation. There are one or two other cases where I have taken a similar approach.
Could following it with an ellipses indicate that? Just a thought.
I think there is a ā missing from the title of this Jataka: https://suttacentral.net/ja145/en/chalmers. I think it should be Rādha. There is another jataka with the same name and it has the ā. https://suttacentral.net/ja198/en/rouse
This is the last bit of comments and errors that I’ve made and found. The English translation stops at Pc 50.
A permuation is bolded in NP 1
In Pc 19 the pāli is out of place
In Pc 20, a sentence of a permutation has no green text
In Pc 25, there is a random footnote, wasn’t sure if this was intentional or not.
Pc 32 “get by by” one of my grammar pet peeves. I was thinking “get by walking” or “get by with walking” However, not a big deal.
Pc 33 there is another sub story after the final ruiling.
Pc 40 has the English mixed up in side-by-side view: "One might even suspect him of eating human flesh!”
From Pc 50 onwards there is no English, looking forward to reading the rest… to be continued.
Thanks so much for your efforts. The rest of the translation, which includes the remainder of the Vinaya Piṭaka (apart from the Parivāra), will hopefully be up on SuttaCentral quite soon.