Re: Mahasatipatthana Sutta in MN?

Dear Khristos,

I checked the BJT after sending the email and it follows the original,
without expanding on the truths.  It could be that Bodhi and Thanissaro
are just using older translations they have from before, though I've
heard that Thanissaro follows the Thai version, which has the expanded text.

Glad to have some answer anyway, good to make sure that the texts we are
using are as they should be, more or less :)

Best wishes,

Yuttadhammo

On 04/18/2012 10:53 AM, Khristos Nizamis wrote:
>
> Dear Ven. Yuttadhammo,
>
> thanks for the quotation from the Mahasi Sayadaw. That's informative.
>
> Ñāṇamoli (ed. and trans.), Mindfulness of Breathing (Ānāpānasati), BPS
> 502S, first published 1952, also says refers to MN 10 and DN 22 and says
> the latter deals with the cattāri ariya-saccāni “in greater detail”. The
> publication date indicates why, then.
>
> Bodhi cites three Pāli sources for his translation of the Majjhima:
> (1) the
> romanised PTS edition (first published 1888-9), (1) the Burmese-script
> Buddhasāsana Samiti edition (1954-56), published in connection with the
> Sixth Council, and (3) the Sinhala-script Lanka Buddha Mandalaya edition
> (1964-74).
>
> From what you say, then, the Burmese edition used by Bodhi ought to have
> the expanded text for MN 10, as revised at the Sixth Council. I wonder
> which version the Sinhala edition has; presumably it too follows the Sixth
> Council revision? The PTS edition has the shorter text, which is entitled
> just ‘Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta’: I remembered that I had an early HTML Tipiṭaka
> transcribed (poorly) from the PTS which confirms this. Or check how far
> apart the PTS page numbers P 1.62 and P 1.63 are from each other in MN 10
> on DPR, and it’s pretty clear.
>
> So Bodhi and Thanissaro, who would have known about the Sixth Council
> revision to MN 10, chose to translate according to the earlier version
> (e.g., as recorded in the PTS edition). It would be interesting to know
> their reasons (perhaps a sense of textual or historical purism?).
>
> Anyway, none of this actually affects any point of the doctrine; but
> it has
> been an educational exercise, nonetheless. Thanks for raising the question
> (and to your friend, who spotted it).
>
> With metta,
> Khristos
>
> On 18 April 2012 12:01, Yuttadhammo <yuttadhammo@...
> <mailto:yuttadhammo%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > 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>
> > > <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>
> > > <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]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


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