Dear Venerable Kumaara Bhikkhu

How are you? Happy New Year!

You wrote:

"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."

Thank you for pointing out the missing "na" in the above paragraph in
the CSCD.

As you noted, it is merely the typing error of the compilers of the
VRI CSCD.

It is nothing to do with Cha.t.tha Sangayana Edition oF Pali
Tipi.taka published in Myanmar.

I think you should write to Vippasana Research Institute with your
findings of such errors so that the future editions of CSCD do not
contain them.


With five-fold touch bow,

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@...> wrote:



> 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