At 12:28 AM 06-01-03, you wrote:

>1. How do the different copies of the Pali Tipitaka (Thai, Sinhala,
>Burmese) differ? I have a good idea of the difference between the
>Chinese Agama and the Pali Nikaya, but I am not clear about the
>distinctions of the variants of the Nikayas in Thai, Sinhala and
>Burmese (scripts).

Compared to the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas, the variant readings among the various Pali scripts are relatively minor. Among the Nikayas, we find variants by small chunks only.

If you have the CSCD, or most PTS Pali texts, you can find the variant readings as footnotes. (For CSCD, click on [F] when you see a sign something like two connected "S"s with two following digits.)

More often than not, they are extremely minor and do not change the meaning, such as "pathavi" as preferred in the CSCD, compared to "pa.thavi" given as a variant reading as in the Siihala, Syaama (Thai), Kamboja, and PTS version, shown as footnote in the CSCD. [Majjhimanikaayo > Muulapa.n.naasapaa.li > 1. Muulapariyaayavaggo > 1. Muulapariyaayasutta.m (which is the first sutta of MN)]

The Burmese seems to have adopted "pathavi" throughout the Pali scripture for consistency sake. The other versions have both "pathavi" and "pathavi" in different places.

I can't think of any place whereby the reading differs so much that the meanings seriously differs as well. Perhaps someone can point out one (if any).

>2. The CSCD claims to contain the 6th council version, but is the
>5th. What are the differences between the two versions?

I'm not saying that the CSCD contains the 5th council version. What I said was that Thai university researchers say that it seems to take that version as its source.

Anyhow, as I understand, some editing has been done in the sixth, such as
to correct grammatical errors (which can be controversial as scholars do disagree on certain grammar points).
to make similar words/phrase/suttas consistent (such as Karaniiyametta Sutta, which occurs in Suttanipaatapaa.li and Khuddakapaa.thapaa.li. FYI, there are a few very minor discrepancies between them within the CSCD itself. I would expect the Sixth Council editors to be able to weed out such obvious discrepancies in such a well-known sutta.)
to correct misspellings, etc.

>3. Which council versions do the following available tipitaka come
>from:
> (a) PTS Pali Tipitaka,

It is a result of comparison among various versions (but obviously not the CS which has yet to happen then), and, where it differs, make decisions as to which they think should be the case. Sometimes, they have a new reading of their own.

They are not always correct though. There's a big boo-boo in an earlier PTS Udana (ed. Steintal), where a sutta (I.5) clearly suggests that the Buddha said "aayasmaa Devadatto" was among the "braahmanaa", which he later qualify as "Those who, having ousted evil states, fare mindful at all times..." (tr. Masefield). That means "arahants", which Ven. Devadatta could not have been one. Masefield in his endnote express his surprise that "Neither Woodward nor Ireland seems to have noticed this rather obvious point."

Fortunately, later PTS translators (such as Norman and Masefield) do not stick to the PTS Pali texts, but refer to various versions at hand. It is quite common for them to differ with the early PTS Pali text editors in choice of readings.

> (b) Budsir: http://www.budsir.org

I can't remember for sure, but I think it's based on the Chulalongkorn edition. (There's another Thai edition called the Mahamakut. I think it goes by the two prime universities in Thailand. Does anyone have any idea which version is referred to as the Syaama edition in the CS?) I've no idea which council it is based upon.

However, based upon studies ancient scripts, Norman thinks that the Tipitaka may not have reached the Thais through the Burmese, but through a different route.

> (c) SLTP Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka:
>http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/ibric.htm

I'm not sure which council/edition it is based upon but expect it to lean closer to the Siihala edition.

As I was given the impression, this impetus for version is a dissatisfaction for the CS version. The Burmese scholar monks outnumbered the foreign ones at the council and did not pay enough attention to their views. That I think was very unfortunate indeed for the Sasana.


Even if we're happy with the CSCD (which is truly a magnificent production), it's good to have another (or more) source just in case you need to compare.

For example, in the CSCD's A"nguttaranikaayo > Dasakanipaatapaa.li > Jaa.nusso.nivaggo > Jaa.nusso.nisutta.m, we find this:

“Idha pana, braahma.na, ekacco paa.naatipaataa pa.tivirato hoti ...pe... sammaadi.t.thiko hoti. So kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa devaana.m sahabyata.m upapajjati. Yo devaana.m aahaaro, tena so tattha yaapeti, tena so tattha ti.t.thati. Idampi, braahma.na, a.t.thaana.m yattha.thitassa ta.m daana.m upakappati.

A "na" is missing before the last word. It should be
... ta.m daana.m na upakappati.

You should find the same in other versions. Yet, the CSCD version did not even have a footnote of variant reading. This is obviously a typographic error.


Sorry for not being able to give a more complete answer than the above, Yong Peng. I hope others in the group could throw more light, and correct me if I'm wrong.

peace

Kumâra Bhikkhu