In an email dated 20/1/03 Robert quoted the Migajaala Sutta, a sutta which I intend to use for my class in connection with the Thera Bhikkhu Sutta (S 21.20). Both of them deal with the teaching on solitude.
I quote from Robert's translation (or the translation he quotes):
(1) TRANSLATION
(S 35.63, last para)
"A person living in this way -- even if he lives near a village, associating with monks and nuns, with male & female followers, with king[s] & royal ministers, with sectarians & their disciples -- is still said to be living alone. A person living alone is said to be a monk. Why is that? Because craving is his companion, and it has been abandoned by him. Thus he is said to be a person living alone."
I like this translation, but when I checked with the Pali there is an importany error (I think) as regards the translation (in bold):
"A person living alone is said to be a monk."
The Pali is: atha kho eka,vihaarii ti vuccati.
and which Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "he is still called a lone dweller." The two translations are widely different in sense.
(2) PROBLEM OF TENSE
The sutta's last two sentences pose an interesting problem:
ta.nhaa hi'ssa dutiyaa sa'ssa pahiinaa tasmaa eka,vihaarii vuccatii ti.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation [emphases mine]:
"Because craving is his partner, and he has abandoned it; therefore he is called a lone dweller."
Robert's translation [emphases mine]:
"Because craving is his companion, and it has been abandoned by him. Thus he is said to be a person living alone."
In both the Pali sutta's syntax is faithfully reflected, but I think the spirit is amiss. The translations seem to connote that there is still craving in the monk, but he has removed it: then a self-contradiction.
As such, for greater clarity, I think we should render the modern idiomatic English as:
"Because craving was his companion but it has been abandoned. Thus he is said to be a lone dweller."
Sukhi.
P.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]