Dear John,

Only a few days ago I emailed John Bullitt about his Unified Tipitaka Reference
System, which is a very useful effort towards some form of standards standards. (See
his Access to Insight website for thise.) Here is the portion I wrote to him that is
also relevent to our discussion:

My main rationale has been simplicity and readability, transmuting the oral tradition
into a reading audience so that they do not find the Suttas too formidable.

For example, I use 1 letter for the Nikayas: D, M, S, A. & books of the Kh where
possible (such as B = Buddha,va.msa, C = Cariyaa,pi.taka).
2 letters for other "2nd level" works: Dh, Sn, Pm.
In the case of the Niddesa, there is a bit of problem: I think it is advantageous to
put the main part of the title at the head, viz:

Nm = Maha Niddesa
Nc = Cuu.la Niddesa

This is not perfect but it works for an internal system like the Sutta Discovery
series.
3 letters for Abhidhamma, and other "3rd level" works: Vbh, Dhs, etc.
4 letters or more for the works (please refer to attached Textual Conventions).
In this way, the Commentaries' initials would appear neat, eg DA MA SA AA DhA SnA PmA
VbhA, etc

I also use a lot of headings and sub-heading, and footnotes for terms and concepts
that I think the regard may come across for the first time. These translations are
actually teaching notes.

> Your comment re the sutta referencing is very wise. My only
> additional comment would be to put the PTS page number in roman
> numerals since that is the way it is so often done, and it helps
> differentiate it, thus avoiding confusion with Nipaata number, etc.

While roman numbers do stand out distinctly against Arabic (or Indian) numbers, they
become unwieldy (to the eye and mind), when it comes to large numbers. For example,

Dukkara Sutta: S XXXVIII.16 or S xviii.16/4:260 (here obviously S 38.16/4:260 is
simpler).
I use a dor to separate the sa.myutta and the sutta number, and use a colon to
separate vol:page. This applies mutatis mutandis to Anguttara citations. I suppose
the roman numbers work better with Anguttara nipaatas as there are only 11 (xi) of
them, but for the sake of consistency, it is good to use arabic for all.

>
> Also, in the Anguttara, it is common to show the vagga number as well
> as the sutta number for the first 2 nipaatas. Thus for the first
> vagga - AN1.1.1-10/I 1-2, and for the second one - AN1.2.1-10/I 3-5.
> What do you think?

Yes, this part is sometimes confusing for some, as a lot of short suttas are packed
together. To aggravate matters, there are occasions (thankfully rare) where the
sections numbers etc are not given or in error. Sometimes I find the PTS numbering
and Bodhi's number for example, differ.

Anyway to answer your question: yes, it is very good idea to cite the first 2
nipaatas as "A nipaata.vagga.sutta/vol:page" in full, or either as "A
nipaata.vagga.sutta<.section>" or simply as "A vol:page".

I still feel that roman numerals should be interred with Caesar, so to speak. Anyway,
I still say we should use what we are comfortable with, as in the final analysis
these are all tools for awakening.

I have also worked on my own Textual Conventions (which I have been using for the
past decades). I am willing to share with anyone wishing to look at it or help to
improve it, or even merge it with a better system.

Sukhi

Piya