Dear Tharpa,

Yes, I can confirm that only the verses are considered the
canonical/sutta part of the Vimana stories. Same for the Dhp, Petavathu,
Theragatha, Therigatha and Jataka. The Snp, Ud, and Itv have mixed prose
and verse. You can confirm this if you check the DPR.

Personally, I prefered the translation of Pv and Vv in Minor Anthologies
Vol. IV by I.B. Horner to the more recent translation by U Ba Kyaw,
although the latter may be more useful academically. At the
recommendation of the monks I was with at the time, I only read the
verses and was able to get enough meaning out of them to be useful.

Best wishes,
BKh


Nina van Gorkom wrote:

>
>
> Dear Tharpa,
> I have this in hard cover and also 'Vimaana Stories, the commentary
> translated by Peter Masefield. When I compare the first Vimaana in
> Horner's translation with this commentary, the text is the same at
> the beginning, also the verses, but then there is much more
> elaboration in the Commentary translated by Masefield.
> It seems that the verses are the sutta text, because in the separate
> co. the words of the verses are elaborated on.
> Actually there is the same problem with the Jaatakas: the stories and
> the verses, and some say that the verses are the oldest. But I am
> just concerned with the contents and what I can learn from these
> texts for my daily life.
> Nina.
> Op 6-mrt-2011, om 20:49 heeft Tharpa het volgende geschreven:
>
> > PTS is generally pretty good about distinguishing translations of the
> > suttas from the commentaries. However, I have recently started reading
> > Vimaanavatthu: Stories of the Mansions, translated by I.B. Horner, and
> > it seems like maybe it mixes translations of the suttas and
> > commentaries
> > together.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]