Please take note SA 346,
It should be (嬾墮) in the bracket .
Please take note SA 346,
It should be (嬾墮) in the bracket .
Thanks for the feedback. But I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you’re making here: can you please explain it more?
Please refer to sa346,
the darker line.
「以三法不斷故，不堪能離老、病、死。何等為三？謂貪、恚、癡，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離貪、恚、癡。何等為三？謂身見、戒取、疑，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離身見、戒取、疑。何等為三？謂不正思惟、習近邪道，及[懈怠心] ，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離不正思惟、習近邪道及[懈怠心] 。何等為三？謂失念、不正知、亂心，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離失念、不正知、亂心。何等為三？謂掉、不律儀、不學戒，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離掉、不律儀、不學戒。何等為三？謂不信、難教、(懈怠) ，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離不信、難教、嬾墮。何等為三？謂不欲見聖、不欲聞法、常求人短，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離不欲見聖、不欲聞法、常求人短。何等為三？謂不恭敬、戾語、習惡知識，復有三法不斷故，不堪能離不恭敬、戾語、習惡知識。何等為三？謂無慚、無愧、放逸，此三法不斷故，不堪能離不恭敬、戾語、習惡知識。
In the beginning of darker line ,
No faith , indocile , sluggish.
But , when referring to below sentence
no faith , indocile , laziness
So, the beginning sentence
sluggish Was a mistake .
Laziness is the correct one.
Also , please refer to :
Bhikkhus, dispelling three things, it is possible to dispel excitement, lack of restraint and evil virtues. What three? Lack of faith, stinginess and laziness. Bhikkhus, dispelling these three things, it is possible to dispel excitement, lack of restraint and evil virtues.
Bhikkhus, dispelling three things, it is possible to dispel lack of faith, stinginess and laziness. What three? Disrespect, unruliness and evil friendship. Bhikkhus, dispelling these three things, it is possible to dispel lack of faith, stinginess and laziness.
By the way , in AN 10.76
Stinginess was a mistake also.
Instead , should be indocile .
Oh, okay, well thanks for the explanation.
So in the first text, the two terms 懈怠 and 嬾墮 appear to be synonyms, or virtually so. As you can see from the definitions given in DDB in the above links, both are regarded as translations of the Pali/Sanskrit alasa; although in this case they seem to stand for the synonym kosajja.
Using different terms to translate the same original is common. Sometimes it’s justified, although here it seems to be a minor editorial sloppiness. If we were on Guṇabhadra’s editorial team, we might have suggested that he keep it consistent, but as he’s been dead for 1,500 years it’s a little late!
Regarding the second example, the Pali term here is avadaññu, an obscure term that appears only a couple of times in the canon. Nevertheless, the Critical Pali Dictionary gives the meaning “not affable, unkind, (niggardly)”, which agrees with Ven Bodhi’s “uncharitableness”. The Sanskrit appears in the positive form vadānya, where it means either “bountiful, liberal, munificent, a munificent giver” or “eloquent, speaking kindly or agreeably, affable”.
So it seems the translation is correct. In any case, as a third party translation we have no control over it. There are many, many mistakes in available translations, which is one of the reasons I am retranslating the whole thing.
So, in English sluggish and lazy is similar ?
Because in the sutta sentence , after the
Self View , doubts And attached to wrong rituals & rites , is ,
Inattentive , following wrong path , sluggishness ?!
Another thing , with regards to ,
No faith , stinginess , laziness ;
Does not the word " stinginess "
not a very good one ,
would " unkind speech "
a better substitute ?
And , may I ask , does the
avadaññu and dovacassatam synonym ?
Honestly, James, I really wouldn’t worry about those English translations. They are very poor, and riddled with mistakes. We only link to them for lack of a better option.
As for the meanings of avadaññu and dovacassatā, I would suggest consulting the dictionaries. They are not really synonyms. But if you look at the second meaning of vadānya in Sanskrit as quoted above, it can mean “speaking kindly, affable”, which is not all that far from sovacassatā, the opposite of dovacassatā. However they mean rather “easy to speak to, hard to speak to”, hence not really synonyms. Remember, avadaññu is extremely rare and it often hard to pin down the exact meaning of such terms.
Thanks , because I am
more familiar with Mandarin ,
English is not easy
for me . Pali is totally out ,
so, when there weren’t
any one to ask ,
I am rather confusing !
Thank you for your kindness.
No worries, your questions are most welcome.
I would recommend, if you want to refer to English translations on details, look to Ven Bodhi’s. If you don’t have access to them, well, I guess you’ll have to wait until mine are finished!
I agree, and in the meantime here’s a really poor translation from me!!
with metta :Anjali:
thinking unwholesome thoughts
(leading to unwholesomeness),
following the wrong path,
mental sluggishness –
(haven’t started on the path but will do it)
Is not here the first part
is being " not attentive "
or Inattentive ?
The first part, in pali is ayonisomanasikara. Here’s a post Manasikāra = ‘application of the mind’?) on what is yonisomanasikara and therefore the oppostive - ayonisomanasikara. I looked at this and found it difficult to find suttas to link it to ‘attention’. Attention is sati and wise attention could be called sati sampajanna. yonisomanasikara seems to be wise contemplation- it is a pre-requisite for Sotapatti or stream entry.
factors for stream entry:
FYI only ,
Below is the second part of the Sutta ,
Above darker words shows 嬾墮
were consistently applied .
Although the 懈怠 and 嬾墮
can be taken as similar ,
though not exactly the same ,
Would it be the error of
typing or printing ?
Any way , for the
Mandarin version ,
could Sutta Central
do any corrections
to " substitute " it
or not necessary ?
Sluggish is “like a slug”, so “slow”. It can imply laziness but doesn’t mean it.
Lazy is a character defect associated with “sluggish” slowness, lack of motivation, inattentiveness, etc.
They are similar but not exact.
The text is an ancient text, and we do not make any changes. It is normal and expected that there are these kinds of variations.
The Chinese text is ultimately derived from the Tripitaka Koreana.
This was edited and published in the 20th century as the Taisho edition.
It was digitized by CBETA.
We take the digital texts from CBETA and organize them by sutta so they can be used on SuttaCentral. We do not change a single character. While obviously we cannot guarantee that everything is perfect, in general each of these editions has an excellent reputation, and the text is regarded as a reliable representation of the text translated into Chinese.
What that means is that any mistakes most likely stem from the original translation.
An exception to this is when it comes to punctuation. This was added by the editors of the Taisho edition. It was done with varying degrees of care and accuracy, and should not be relied on, but treated as a suggestion only.
OK thanks bhante.