Dear Frank et al,

The industry standard for the Pali abbreviation of the texts is the
one used by the largest and most authoritative of all Pali-English
dictionaries, A Critical Pali Dictionary (CPD) published by the The
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen. In the
Epilegomena of Vol. I, it gives a double standard for the
Diighanikaayo (D or DN), Majjhimanikaayo (M or MN), Sa.myuttanikaayo
(S or SN), & A"nguttaranikaayo (A or AN). Judging by fascicle 17 of
Vol. II (1990) the single letter is now the preferred one. The new A
Dictionary of Pali by M. Cone also adopts the CPD standard but uses
only D, M, S, & A for the nikaayas. The Suttanipaato is Sn (sn should
be avoided). I find it convenient to use D, etc. when referencing the
vol. and page no. of the PTS edn. eg. D II 192 and to use DN, etc.
when referencing the sutta location number eg. DN XXII or DN 22, SN
XXII.49 or SN 22.49, etc. Vin is the one used for Vinayapi.taka. I
don't know where on the web one could find a comprehensive listing if
such is available.

Best wishes,

Jim

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan <fcckuan@...> wrote:
>
>
> > --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Piya Tan wrote:
> > > Are good reasons why DN, MN, SN, AN is better than
> > using D, M, S,
> > A? What about Sutta Nipata, which has to have a
> > longer abbreviation?
>
> That's what I would like to know. Was there a good
> reason why the longer abbreviation method is now the
> current standard, and who set this standard? ATI uses
> SN=samyutta and sn=sutta nipata. If you're going to
> set a new standard, then why not avoid that kind of
> ambiguity with case sensitivity.
>
> What ever the most widely accepted standard is, I'll
> go along with it. I'm just confused how this new
> standard came about, since books that I deem pretty
> important like B.Bodhi's nikaya translations, seem to
> use the "old" standard.
>
> -fk