Please report any errors or typos!

Dear Bhante, thanks for patiently and thoroughly explaining why the inserted sentence was hung there. It’s clear now that segmenting all but mandates the placement, and bracketing some inserted words would cultivate a false impression of precision. This was very informative. Much appreciated!
Edit: Oh and thanks also for managing to be very encouraging while showing there was no error.



In the New Concise Pali English Dictionary “aññāṇa” is defined as “knowledge”, but in other dictionaries it is defined as “ignorance”. Does the word occur in the EBTs or commentaries meaning “knowledge”? If it does, it is surely worthy of a note in the New Concise Pali English Dictionary. Otherwise, the definition is wrong.



I believe that by adding the ‘a’ before the ‘nnana’ , it reverses the meaning ie becomes without knowledge = ignorance

1 Like

Hi @Viveka,

Thanks, for your reply!

That is also my understanding. But, if that is the case, the meaning should be given as “ignorance” not “knowledge” since the headword in the entry is “aññāṇa” = “a + ñ + ñāṇa” not “ñāṇa”.


Witness the knowledge of ignorance.
So I have seen.



Lol, okay. Actually it means both, depending on whether the initial a- is a shortened ā:

ā + (j)ñāṇa = aññāṇa = deep knowledge

a + (j)ñāṇa = aññāṇa = un-knowing

Both forms occur in the EBTs, and both should be listed in the NCPED.


Couldn’t find this one.
Bhante, are there any examples for this use?

Then there is this word aññā which means deep knowledge or enlightenment.
diṭṭheva dhamme aññā, sati vā upādisese anāgāmitā (SN 46.57).
Enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

Añña means another or other. Sometimes it is used as aññā.

Aññā vedanā, añño vedayati
The feeling is one thing and the one who feels it is another (SN 12.18).

There is aññāya (having known or understood) and aññāta (who knows/ has insight)


:open_mouth: :thinking:
…and now I see a critical advantage in studying suttas segment by segment bilingually.

Thank you, Bhante. :pray:


See Critical Pali Dict:

1 Like

Any examples from EBTs ?

3aññāṇa, n. [ sa. ājñāna], perceiving, knowledge; °-atthaṁ, for the sake of Arhatship ( cf. aññā), DN III 57,17 (= jānanatthaṁ, Sv; ājānanatthaṁ . . . vīmaṁsanatthaṁ, pt); AN I 199,13* (= do., Mp).

Word aññā has no ṇa at the end? Any grammatical form?

No, that’s just the stem. It’s a variant, normally in such cases the ṇa is omitted.

Hi, in the Mahāsuññatasutta MN 122, Bhante translated sambahulā as “several”, as in several monks dwelling together. “Several” is defined by Google as “more than two but not many”, and in my experience covers the range between a few and half a dozen.

The Buddha’s strong response advocating for seclusion made more sense when I re-read and noticed the Buddha noticed furnishings of sambahulā (which the insta-dictionary gives as “many”) monks dwelling together. “Many” means “a large number” - possibly dozens or hundreds of monks.

Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation also has it as “many”, and he added footnotes giving the Commentary’s explanation that “Beds, chairs, mattresses, and mats were prepared, and they were so close together that the dwelling looked like the residence of a society of bhikkhus,” and that the Buddha was thinking that as soon as they form a society and delight in society they will act in improper ways, therefore he expounded this discourse.

Most likely the Buddha wanted to get the message to monks dwelling together, although gathered for the good purpose of making robes, to instead seek seclusion, specifically because they were “many” monks and not merely “several” of them.

I’d like to suggest it be changed from several to many.

2.7 are there several mendicants living here?”
Sambahulā nu kho idha bhikkhū viharantī”ti.


This may not be a typo, but it doens’t need its own thread. SuttaCentral

Then the wardens of hell punish them with the five-fold crucifixion.

In Ven Nyanamoli’s translation it says “now” instead of “then”. I realize that “then” may be more consistent, however it implies a transition that isn’t really there. It seems like maybe in the text itself the transition is not clear, but to me, the “then” makes it feel like there is something missing in the text. However, maybe you feel like there is indeed a gap and decided to reflect this in the translation. I’d be curious to know if that is the case.

But as a reader, it stands out.

1 Like

In MN73 there is this Pali fragment that appears to be untranslated: SuttaCentral

tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇissasi, sati satiāyatane. (1)

The previous paragraph reads:
‘May I wield the many kinds of psychic power: multiplying myself and becoming one again; appearing and disappearing; going unimpeded through a wall, a rampart, or a mountain as if through space; diving in and out of the earth as if it were water; walking on water as if it were earth; flying cross-legged through the sky like a bird; touching and stroking with my hand the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful; controlling my body as far as the Brahmā realm.’

Bhikkhu Bodhi has:

“To the extent that you may wish: ‘May I wield the various kinds of supernormal power: having been one, may I become many; having been many, may I become one; may I appear and vanish; may I go unhindered through a wall, through an enclosure, through a mountain, as though through space; may I dive in and out of the earth as though it were water; may I walk on water without sinking as though it were earth; seated cross-legged, may I travel in space like a bird; with my hand may I touch and stroke the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; may I wield bodily mastery even as far as the Brahma-world’—you will attain the ability to witness any aspect therein, there being a suitable basis.[728]

Is the bolded part in the Bodhi text a translation of the Pali fragment I quoted above, or is the fragment subsumed into the following paragraphs in the Sujato translation?

In either case, the formatting is a little odd.


1 Like


“Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?

I suppose there should be “why on earth”… ?
I’m not sure but I thought it is worth to put into attention.

Also not the suttas, but SuttaCentral numbering information page, there is sentence:

Two editions for SN volume 1

For Volume i of SN, Sagātha-Vagga, there are two sets of volume/page numbers for each sutta.

I suppose it should be “For Volume I of SN” with Capital “I”.

:anjal: :slight_smile:

Number of texts in the Khuddakapātha and other KN collections

I read here that there are 8 texts in the Kp. When looking here I see actually 9.

Similarly for the Udāna: It has many more than 8 texts.

1 Like


They have laughing wisdom and swift wisdom, and are endowed with freedom.
hāsapañño javanapañño na ca vimuttiyā samannāgato.

Shouldn’t this mean ‘not endowed’?

Thanks, I have corrected this.

(The blurbs says “eighty”!)

1 Like

Indeed! Sometimes … :see_no_evil: