Re: Mahasatipatthana Sutta in MN?

Dear Khristos,

Thanks, that's how it appeared to me as well.  The Thai Sayam Rattha
tipitaka calls it "satipatthana sutta", but still has the expanded text.
The printed Myanmar tipitaka here is as the VRI.

Oh, wait, here's a note from the Mahasi Sayadaw:

  >When the [Dhammacakkappavatana Sutta] was first given , for clear
understanding by his audience the Blessed One made elaborations on the
headings of the Noble Eightfold Path and expounded also on the four
foundations of mindfulness. But at the time of the First council, when
reciting the Dhammacakka sutta, the Noble Eightfold Path as such and as
a component of the Four Noble Truths was condensed in the form of a
heading only.

  >Do there exist expositions or exegeses on them separately in other
suttas being recited in condensed form at the First Council? The answer
is yes. *The Satipatthāna Sutta in Mūlapaṇṇāsa is a condensation of the
Mahā Satipatthāna Sutta the first portion only of which was recited at
the time of the First Council. But now at the proceedings of the Sixth
Great Council, the missing portions of the suttas had been filled up and
recorded, although the latter portions of the sutta were not mentioned
in the commentary to Mūlapaṇṇāsa.* Similarly some long suttas belonging
to some other Nikāyas were recorded in condensed form in Khuddaka Nikāya.

So, I guess that's the answer, that it was a decision of the Sixth
Sangayana to make the two suttas identical; strange, really, and it
doesn't explain the Thai edition, or maybe the Thai edition was part of
the impetus to change the Burmese?

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo

On 04/18/2012 04:19 AM, Khristos Nizamis wrote:
>
> Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
>
> Having just compared the texts of MN 10 and DN 22 side by side in the
> Chaṭṭhasaṅgītipiṭaka edition, it is clear that the
> Dhamm-ānupassanā-sacca-pabba
> is actually identical, i.e., the expanded version in both texts (as it
> appears also in DPR in both suttas), and this corresponds also with
> the WTE
> version.
>
> But obviously Bodhi, Thanissaro, and Soma, in their translations of MN 10,
> have used a text with an abbreviated version of the
> Dhamm-ānupassanā-sacca-pabba (which retains only the first introductory
> paragraph, up to the colophon "Paṭhamabhāṇavāro niṭṭhito").
>
> No doubt someone else can explain this interesting textual discrepancy and
> perhaps indicate the edition that Bodhi, Thanissaro, etc. have relied upon
> for their translations of MN 10.
>
> With metta,
> Khristos
>
> On 18 April 2012 07:49, Khristos Nizamis <nizamisk@...
> <mailto:nizamisk%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
> >
> > The romanised Chaṭṭhasaṅgītipiṭaka edition does indeed call MN 10
> > 'Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta', as does also the World Tipiṭaka Edition (cf.
> > http://studies.worldtipitaka.org/tipitaka/9M/1/1.10).
> >
> > Ven. Bodhi writes of MN 10 (which in his translation he calls
> > 'Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta', as do Thanissaro and other translators):
> "Virtually
> > the identical sutta is found as well at DN 22, though with an expanded
> > analysis of the Four Noble Truths attached, which accounts for its
> greater
> > length." (Middle Length Discourses, p. 1188, n. 133.)
> >
> > Perhaps translators have preferred the shorter title in order to
> > distinguish the Majjhima version from the (slightly longer, hence mahā-)
> > Dīgha version?
> >
> > With metta,
> > Khristos
> >
> >
> > On 18 April 2012 00:58, Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...
> <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Friends,
> >>
> >> Someone just let me know that the Satipatthana Sutta in the DPR's MN is
> >> actually the Mahasatipatthana Sutta from the DN, which doesn't really
> >> make sense. This is direct from the VRI tipitaka; can anyone confirm
> >> whether the Burmese tipitaka really calls both suttas
> "Mahasatipatthana"
> >> - it looks like the MN sutta is actually the DN one verbatim, even with
> >> the eightfold noble path in detail.
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >>
> >> Yuttadhammo
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


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