MN 88 Sujato error, puts in a golden rule where the pāḷi has silver rule

 

MN 88: Bāhitikasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (wrong)

“But what kind of bodily behavior is skillful?”“Katamo pana, bhante, kāyasamācāro kusalo”?

“Blameless behavior.”“Yo kho, mahārāja, kāyasamācāro anavajjo”.

“But what kind of bodily behavior is blameless?”“Katamo pana, bhante, kāyasamācāro anavajjo”?

“Pleasing behavior.”“Yo kho, mahārāja, kāyasamācāro abyābajjho”.

“But what kind of bodily behavior is pleasing?”“Katamo pana, bhante, kāyasamācāro abyābajjho”?

“Behavior that results in happiness.”“Yo kho, mahārāja, kāyasamācāro sukhavipāko”.

“But what kind of bodily behavior results in happiness?”“Katamo pana, bhante, kāyasamācāro sukhavipāko”?

“Bodily behavior that leads to pleasing yourself, pleasing others, and pleasing both,“Yo kho, mahārāja, kāyasamācāro nevattabyābādhāyapi saṁvattati, na parabyābādhāyapi saṁvattati, na ubhayabyābādhāyapi saṁvattati.

B. Bodhi translation of same passage (correct)

14. “Now, venerable Ānanda, what kind of bodily behaviour is uncensured by wise recluses and brahmins?”

“Any bodily behaviour that is wholesome, great king.”

“Now, venerable Ānanda, what kind of bodily behaviour is wholesome?”

“Any bodily behaviour that is blameless, great king.”

“Now, venerable Ānanda, what kind of bodily behaviour is blameless?”

“Any bodily behaviour that does not bring affliction, great king.”

“Now, venerable Ānanda, what kind of bodily behaviour does not bring affliction?”

“Any bodily behaviour that has pleasant results, great king.”

“Now, venerable Ānanda, what kind of bodily behaviour has pleasant results?”

“Any bodily behaviour, great king, that does not lead to one’s own affliction, or to the affliction of others, or to the affliction of both, and on account of which unwholesome states diminish and wholesome states increase.

Such bodily behaviour, great king, is uncensured by wise recluses and brahmins.”

Proof that Sujato is wrong: (frankk comments)

Detailed in these two articles.

SN 55.7 The golden rule and silver rule

Proof: A-byāpāda is non ill will, not 'metta', as Theravāda Commentary claims

Anticipating Sujato's justification

He would probably argue that the silver rule is "pleasing",

to not overtly do an evil action by means of body, speech, mind,  (silver rule)

is also pleasing.

The problem is, Sujato translating  abyābajjho 

as "pleasing" (golden rule) instead of "not leading to affliction" (silver rule) slants the meaning.

In other words, someone reading his English translation is not going to assume the unusual interpretation of "pleasing" that he's adopting.

Similar to in the Suttas where they use the unusual definition of fourth jhāna and nirvana being "sukha" happy, 

is a special case, 

and not to be viewed as the usual rule.

In the technical sense, nirvana does not have sukha, dukkha, or any vedana at all.

4th jhāna does not have sukha vedana. 

So this translation needs to change, because we're talking about a very common,

important activity here; conduct of body, speech, mind needs to be non-evil, non-wrong (silver rule),

not an unusual situation where ambiguous unusual shades of meaning of a word "pleasing" could be seen as a silver rule.

People reading Sujato's translation will think one needs to be a boot licker, 

always having to "do something" to "please" someone,

rather than to simply "don't be a jerk, don't do something to someone you wouldn't them to do to you." (silver rule, as explicitly detailed in article linked above,  SN 55.7)

I believe Sujato commits this error in several other similar situations for other terms, 

for example translating abyāpāda ("non ill will", silver rule), as "love" .

Conclusion: gold and silver rules are distinct, not the same, not interchangeable