You are right; this error has already been caught.
Well, grammatically it’s “to whom” (kassa), but “To whom on earth …” doesn’t sound right. Hmm. I’m not sure that it’s strictly grammatical, but the sentence as is sounds okay to me. Am I wrong?
Yeah, that’s a bug in the programming.
This is an odd idiom, in that it is often quite ambiguous as to whether the whole phrase is spoken by the same person or not. It makes sense to read it either way. The MS Pali text punctuates as you have indicated, taking the resonse as a genuine question. But there are none of the normal markers of a different speaker: no vocative, no close -ti. So I follow Ven Bodhi in taking these as a single speaker, and the question as a rhetorical one.
As a non-native speaker, I read the whole first part “Foolish man, … known me to” as an idiom that (at least in my language) would be formed using when (I haven’t even consider whom to be an option).
Would this be a correct way of forming (the simplified version of) the question above: “Q: Whom did I teach in that way”, “A: Him”.
I don’t know whether “Foolish man, whom on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?” is grammatically correct but it sounds less ambiguous, at least to my ears. Your thoughts?
Here you have founder as a verb.
It means to submerge, collapse, come to grief
Did You Know?
Founder comes from Middle English foundren, meaning “to send to the bottom or “collapse.”
That word came from the Middle French verb fondrer, and ultimately from the Latin noun fundus, meaning “bottom.”
When something “founders,” it usually hits the bottom in one sense or another.
A foundering horse - that is, a disabled one - is likely to collapse to the ground.
When a ship founders, it sinks to the bottom of the sea.
“Founder” has a broader, figurative sense, too - if your marriage or your career is foundering it isn’t doing well and is therefore headed downward.” Founder Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
SN 38.16 Two possible errors.
The title page reads
"14. A Question… " I think it should be
“16. A Question…”
Last sentence reads
“will it take them long them to become a perfected one?” “Not long, reverend.””
I think it should be
“will it take them long to become…”
MN 3
Second paragraph
If you become heirs in the teaching, not in material things, they won’t point to you, saying: ‘The Teacher’s disciples live as heirs in the teaching, not in material things.’ And they won’t point to me, saying: ‘The Teacher’s disciples live as heirs in the teaching, not in material things.’ So, mendicants, be my heirs in the teaching, not in material things. Out of compassion for you, I think: ‘How can my disciples become heirs in the teaching, not in material things?’ “
I think it should read “they will point to you…” plus “And they will point to me…”
MN 97 #sc 2.8
“… a brahmin named Dhanañjani.”
diacritical lacking: should be Dhanañjāni
MN 97 #sc 26.1
“Then Dhanañjāni the brahmin, having approved and agreed with what the Buddha said, got up from his seat and left.”
Actually, the talk had been given by Sariputta…
It is noticed that three verses attributed to Arahant Bhikkhuni Ven Kisagotami Theri appear to be those relating to the lay life of Arahant Bhikkhuni Ven Patacara Theri.
Please find below the three versus which I think relate to the lay life of Arahant Bhikkhuni Ven Patacara Theri but, attributed to Arahant Bhikkhuni Ven Kisagotami Theri in SuttaCentral, for your information, comments & any action, as appropriate. The link to the Chapter 10 that I read on Friday 20th July is, also, given:
Going along, about to give birth,
I saw my husband dead.
Giving birth in the road,
I hadn’t reached my own home.
Two children deceased,
my husband dead in the road
— miserable me!
My mother, father, & brother
were burning on a single pyre.
“Your family all gone, miserable,
you’ve suffered pain without measure.
Your tears have flowed
for many thousands of lives.”
It, possibly, could be a mix-up of verses during the data migration.
No, the texts are correct. It seems that this episode from Kisagotami’s life, mentioned in her Therigatha verses at Thig 10.1, was later adopted into the story of Patacara, whose own Therigatha verses at Thig 5.10 make no mention of these events. The confusion is noted on Wikipedia.
Patacara was a well known nun, who is mentioned many times as a teacher by the other nuns. Yet her verses are quite short—apparently she wasn’t much of a poet! My guess is that over time the tradition expanded her story by introducing events from elsewhere.
The same process may be observed in many places, not least the life of the Buddha. The 4 divine messengers, for example, are introduced from the life of Vipassi in DN 14, while the account of disillusionment with the sleeping women is from the first chapter of Khandhakas, where it occurs to Yasa.
Incidentally, if anyone is interested in the traditional stories of these and other nuns, there is a nice presentation by Bhikkhu Anandajoti:
#9.2: ‘I shall not grasp feeling born of eye contact … #9.9: feeling born of mind contact, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on mind contact.’
should be: feeling born of mind contact, and there shall be no consciousness of mine dependent on feeling born of mind contact.’
)
