SN46.35 to SN46.38

Thank you so much for all your hard work!

There is a difference between the TOC and the contents for the aforementioned suttas.

TOC entry SN 46.35 Yoniso - Content - SN46.35 Ayoniso­ma­nasikā­ra­sutta
TOC entry SN 46.36 Buddhi - Content - SN46.36 Yoniso­ma­nasikā­ra­sutta
TOC entry SN 46.37 Āvaraṇa - Content - SN46.37 Buddhisutta
TOC entry SN 46.38 Anīvaraṇa - Content - SN46.38 Āvara­ṇa­nīvara­ṇa­sutta

I’ve also checked the sutta titles (only) against and they agree with the Content (in SuttaCentral).

However, Wisdom Publication English Translation (single-volume edition 2000) agrees with the TOC (in SuttaCentral).

Thank you for all the inspiration to pick up Pali. It helped me seek the correct passage. WY

1 Like

@Sujato: just to clarify: it is the Pali texts that do not agree with the Pali TOC. Of course the various translations might also be either the one or the other. What to do with this?

@waiyin, you might find this hard to believe, but I just came across this issue a couple of days ago! I’m translating this portion and noticed it. The problem here is that one sutta has been separated into two (35 and 36) while another two suttas have been combined into one (38), so the overall numbering of our edition and Bhikkhu Bodhi’s matches up, so we didn’t notice the glitch.

(When we did the basic data for the 4 nikayas, it was before we used our current Pali text. so we based our numbering system on Bhikkhu Bodhi’s. This is, I think, a good choice, both because he gets issues such as this right, and because his editions are well known. However there are one or two places like this where they don’t quite match up.)

In this case, BB’s text is clearly correct, and I think we should adjust the Pali text to match it. We can put a note in the metadata to clarify this. I’m travelling now, and will fix it when i get settled.

1 Like

I have now fixed this on github, it will show up on the site in due course.

1 Like

@Sujato, can you also have a look if this has any effect on the parallel listings?

Umm, yeah, this is confusing. I had expected that the change would in fact correct the parallels, which would be (I assume) based on the correct (i.e. Bodhi) numbers rather than the MS numbers. However looking at the parallels as they are I am not really sure exactly what is going on; many of these don’t seem to be parallels at all.

Maybe could I ask for you to roll back my changes on Master temporarily? Then I can check what the parallels were as listed on SC up till now, and compare with the new listings on staging.

OK. I think that’s done. In any case, you can always find a backup of the old files in my fork:

I think I have sorted this out for now. You can re-revert the main text if you like.

As far as I can determine, the actual parallels are:

  • sn46.34,sn46.37#2,sa707#t0189c14-t0189c20
  • sn46.37,sa707#t0189c14-t0189c26

sa705 is a false parallel, it uses another term and should be removed.

On /ll/sn46.34, /ll/sn46.36, we pull in sn47.37 as parallel for some reason. This is a mistake, it is not a parallel.

On /ll/sn46.38 we have a long list of new parallels. As far as I can determine, most or all of these are not in fact parallels. I’m not sure what is going on here.

In any case, with the corrected text and the above listed parallels we should be okay.

I’ve reverted the text.

I have also changed the German accordingly as well as the Myanmar (with the help of Ayya Gunasari).
pt, es, id and ru seem to be OK.
@LXNDR, can you check the Russian, @Gabriel_L can you check the Portuguese and maybe also Spanish and @seniya can you check the Indonesian?

I’ve also checked si (Sinhala), and they seem to be OK too, but I’m less sure about these because the difficulty in reading a different script. So @arunalakmal, would you be able to check this?

zh (Chinese), vn (Vietnamese) and th (Thai) seem to be incorrect but I’m not certain. Can you (or somebody) have a look?

@vimala i’ve checked SN 46.35 - 38 and there’s correspondence between Russian and English translations

if some other texts need checking too please let me know

1 Like


I now have the following series:

For sn46.33-34:

[“sn46.33-34”, “~sa704”, “~sa706”, “~sa707”, “~sa708”, “~sa709”, “~an5.51”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.35-36”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.39”, “~sn46.40”]

For sn46.34:

[“sn46.34”, “sn47.37#2”, “sa707#t-linehead0189c14-#t-linehead0189c20”]

For sn46.35-36:

[“sn46.24”, “sa704”, “sn46.35-36”, “~an5.51”, “~sa705”, “~sa706”, “~sa707”, “~sa708”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sa725”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.33-34”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.39”, “~sn46.40”]

For sn46.37:

[“sn46.37”, “sa707#t-linehead0189c14-#t-linehead0189c26”]

For sn46.38:

[“sa705”, “sa707”, “sn46.38”, “~an5.51”, “~sa704”, “~sa706”, “~sa708”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sn46.39”, “~sn46.40”]

So from the last list, sn46.38 should be a full parallel to sa705 and sa707 and partial to a whole list of others: sa704-sa710 (excepting 705 and 707) as well as sn46.23-24 and sn46.39-40.
Can you check what is really true about this?

I checked the sinhala translations against the Pali for below and those are correct.

pi/sn46.35 - si/sn46.35
pi/sn46.36 - si/sn46.36
pi/sn46.37 - si/sn46.37
pi/sn46.38 - si/sn46.38

1 Like

As far as i know, the list I sent you yesterday is complete, so all these are false parallels. But let me check it once more.

By the way, do you know where these came from? Are they from the cross-references, or our original data?

They come from the email you sent me on the 30th May. I had flagged some issues in the parallels and this is what you wrote:

[‘sn46.34’, ‘sa705’, ‘’, ‘’]
[‘sn46.36’, ‘sa705’, ‘’, ‘’]
[‘sn46.37’, ‘sa705’, ‘’, ‘’]

In the original tables only 34 and 36 are mentioned. 37 should definitely be removed. however I think all these are misidentified. sa705 lists the five hindrances and then the seven bojjhangas to remove them. But none of these mention the five hindrences. 34 comes closest, as it says that the bojjhangas are avarana, etc. In fact this sutta seems to be artificially divorced from the previous, which mentions the hindrances but not the bojjhanga. So perhaps we should regard sn46.33-34 as a cluster that is parallel with sa705. However this also includes an extensive simile, so should be partial at best. I would rather say that sn46.38, which is currently not assigned a parallel, is the best fit for sa705. it’s basically the same, with a short passage in the middle plus a repetition. sa707 is similar, with an added set of verses not found in the pali.

Given the strong thematic unity of this set of texts, perhaps we should identify them all as partials.

In addition, sn46.35 and 36 are another cluster, which appear to be a single sutta that has been separated. These are similar to sn46.24/sa704. sn46.23/sa709 also belongs as a partial. sa710, while not having a full parallel, is another variation on the theme. ditto for an5.51. However, its partial ea-2.19 doesn’t belong here so is part of a separate group.



Lol, okay. I will revisit and see how wrong I am!

@Vimala, I have checked the ID translation of SN 46.35-38, which are in match with the English translation…


Perhaps @llt can help with something. In SA 705 we have the phrase 不退法, which according to the dictionary probably stands for something like aparihāniyadhamma, “not liable to decline”. This sutta is listed as a parallel with SN 46.34. However, there the defining phrase is anāvaraṇā anīvaraṇā, which is quite unusual and distinctive. My sense is that the Chinese is a distinct passage and should not be listed as parallel.

The relevant parallel for SA 705 should instead be SN 46.36, which has the phrase:

bojjhaṅgā bhāvitā bahulīkatā buddhiyā aparihānāya saṃvattanti.

(buddhiya is a misspelling for vuddhiya, i.e. “growth”)

Do you have any thoughts on this?

#True and real

So I’ve gone over all these, and these are my results. There were a number of problems. I seem to have gone too far in my previous list, including texts on the basis of mere thematic affinity, which I have no trimmed back to include only those with a clear textual connection. In addition, there was confusion because of the mistaken sutta boundaries in the Pali text. This confirms that we have made the right decision to change this, as the parallels now make more sense. In addition to all these problems, I think there were a couple of mistakes in the original data, where texts were mistakenly identified or omitted.

Hopefully this list should be better.

["sn46.33", "an5.23#1-2","~an3.101","~sa1246"]


["sn46.35","sn46.24","sa704", "~sn46.23"]


["sn46.37", "sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c25","sn46.39#2-3"]

["sn46.37#1", "an5.51#2"]


Note SA 709 is not a parallel for SN 46.23.

@llt, could you also have a look at the Chinese sn46.35-sn46.38 and match these up with the pali?
And @sujato, could you have a look at the Thai?
I think both of those languages are wrong right now, just as the Vietnamese.

I’m still left with a few loose ends. Are these still OK?

[“ea-2.19”, “~an5.51”]
[“an5.55”, “~an5.51”]
[“sn46.24”, “~sa725”]

And how about sn46.40 and sn46.39 (apart from the link with sn46.34)? I guess most of that is wrong too.

Right now I’ve got:

[“sn46.39”, “sa708”, “~an5.51”, “~sa704”, “~sa705”, “~sa706”, “~sa707”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sn46.33-34”, “~sn46.35-36”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.40”]

[“sn46.40”, “sa706”, “~an5.51”, “~sa704”, “~sa705”, “~sa707”, “~sa708”, “~sa709”, “~sa710”, “~sn46.23”, “~sn46.24”, “~sn46.33-34”, “~sn46.35-36”, “~sn46.38”, “~sn46.39”]

I also noticed an inconsistency within your data:

[“sn46.37”, “sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c25”,“sn46.39#2-3”]
[“sn46.37#1”, “an5.51#2”]

The two portions of sa707 are overlapping so these first two statements are also related.
From the first and third statement: an5.51#2 has to be related to sa707 and sn46.39#2-3 also.

So I suggest to make the these statements into this:

[“sn46.37#1”, “an5.51#2”, "sn46.39#2, “sa707#t0189c14-#t0189c20”]