Re: Numbering schemes adopted for Vinaya Piṭaka

Hi Petra,

Thanks a lot. I see that the references I got was "in Vinaya Mahavagga (Vin I 197)". I was able to trace the references with Mv V 13, and yes, the story of Soṇa visiting the Buddha, and Mahākaccāna asking him to ask Buddha some questions in context of the climate and conditions in Avantidakkhiṇāpatha.

There, in para 2 it says:

अथ खो भगवा बहुदेव रत्तिं अज्झोकासे वीतिनामेत्वा विहारं पाविसि। आयस्मापि खो सोणो बहुदेव रत्तिं अज्झोकासे वीतिनामेत्वा विहारं पाविसि। अथ खो भगवा रत्तिया पच्‍चूससमयं पच्‍चुट्ठाय आयस्मन्तं सोणं अज्झेसि – ‘‘पटिभातु तं, भिक्खु, धम्मो भासितु’’न्ति। ‘‘एवं, भन्ते’’ति खो आयस्मा सोणो भगवतो पटिस्सुणित्वा सब्बानेव अट्ठकवग्गिकानि सरेन अभासि। अथ खो भगवा आयस्मतो सोणस्स सरभञ्‍ञपरियोसाने अब्भानुमोदि – ‘‘साधु, साधु, भिक्खु। सुग्गहितानि खो ते, भिक्खु, अट्ठकवग्गिकानि, सुमनसिकतानि सूपधारितानि। कल्याणियापि वाचाय समन्‍नागतो, विस्सट्ठाय, अनेलगलाय, अत्थस्स विञ्‍ञापनिया। कतिवस्सोसि त्वं, भिक्खू’’ति? ‘‘एकवस्सोहं, भगवा’’ति। ‘‘किस्स पन त्वं, भिक्खु, एवं चिरं अकासी’’ति? ‘‘चिरं दिट्ठो मे, भन्ते, कामेसु आदीनवो, अपि च सम्बाधा घरावासा बहुकिच्‍चा बहुकरणीया’’ति।

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

Meanwhile, I was curious to find out the efficacy of the other citation style. I wanted to understand how western scholars give citations. So I tried to look for DPPN. Btw, what does it stand for? Anyway, I looked up GRETIL. In fact, I didn't even know about the existence of GRETIL until I read your email. So thank you again for telling me about this resource. Do I understand correctly that you say that this is the same as the PTS? It says "Input by the Dhammakaya Foundation 1989-1996" along with a PTS Copyright notice. Here is the link to the Vinaya. http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/2_pali/1_tipit/1_vin/vin4s2ou.htm

If you search for page 197:

Tena samayena . . . Anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. tena
kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū jivhānicchā-
rakaṃ bhuñjanti --pa--.
na jivhānicchārakaṃ bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā ka-
raṇīyā.
na jivhānicchārakaṃ . . . āpatti dukkaṭassa.
anāpatti asañcicca --pa-- ādikammikassā 'ti. ||49||
Tena samayena . . . Anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme. tena
kho pana samayena chabbaggiyā bhikkhū capucapukā-
rakaṃ bhuñjanti --pa--.
na capucapukārakaṃ bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā ka-
raṇīyā.
na capucapukārakaṃ . . . ādikammikassā 'ti. ||50||
kabaḷavaggo pañcamo.
Tena samayena buddho bhagavā Kosambiyaṃ viharati
Ghositārāme. tena kho pana samayena aññatarena brāh-
maṇena saṃghassa payopānaṃ paṭiyattaṃ hoti. bhikkhū
surusurukārakaṃ khīraṃ pivanti. aññataro naṭapubbako
bhikkhu evam āha: sabb'; āyaṃ maññe saṃgho sītikato 'ti.
ye te bhikkhū appicchā te . . . vipācenti: kathaṃ hi nā-
ma bhikkhu saṃghaṃ ārabbha davaṃ karissatīti --pa--.
saccaṃ kira tvaṃ bhikkhu saṃghaṃ ārabbha davaṃ akāsīti.
saccaṃ bhagavā. vigarahi buddho bhagavā: kathaṃ hi
nāma tvaṃ moghapurisa saṃghaṃ ārabbha davaṃ karissasi.
n'; etaṃ moghapurisa appasannānaṃ vā pasādāya --pa--.
vigarahitvā dhammiṃ kathaṃ katvā bhikkhū āmantesi: na
bhikkhave buddhaṃ vā dhammaṃ vā saṃghaṃ vā ārabbha
davo kātabbo. yo kareyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā 'ti. atha kho
bhagavā taṃ bhikkhuṃ anekapariyāyena vigarahitvā dubbha-
ratāya --pa-- evañ ca pana bhikkhave imaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ
uddiseyyātha:
na surusurukārakaṃ bhuñjissāmīti sikkhā ka-
raṇīyā.

This has nothing to do with the story of Soṇa meeting the Buddha. As such, GRETIL says very clearly: "These files are provided by courtesy of the Pali Text Society for scholarly purposes only. In principle they represent a digital edition (without revision or correction) of the printed editions of the complete set of Pali canonical texts published by the PTS. While they have been subject to a process of checking, it should not be assumed that there is no divergence from the printed editions and it is strongly recommended that they are checked against the printed editions before quoting."

Given all this, I'd really like to understand why Vinaya citations are ever given with page numbers from PTS or whatever other edition, instead of the excellent citation style like Mv V 13. Why don't we adopt the citation styles used to refer to the discourses in the Sutta Piṭaka, which is in line with citations like Mv V 13? In a citation like Vin I 197, how do you know that 197 is the page number? Even if you know that it is the page number, how do you know that this refers to the pages in the PTS edition? Also, what if PTS decides to print a new edition and pages move around? How do you know which year's printed edition this refers to? It doesn't appear to me that this citation style is ever helpful in identifying the right passages, unless one accidentally happens to have a copy of the same edition.

When I wrote papers in physics and engineering journals I indicated page numbers with something like 'pp' or 'pages'. But it always included the title of the paper along with author names, journal names, year of publication etc. How is this citation style friendly to anyone? Or is this convention so widely understood in the Buddhist academic world that non-elite Buddhists like me are expected to know this convention?

Thanks,

Balaji

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 10:05 AM, petra kieffer-pülz kiepue@... [palistudy] <palistudy@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Dear Balaji,

regarding the Vinaya there exist two type of references, either to Volume and page (which always refers to the PTS edition, also to be found in GRETIL now) or to books (Mv = Mahāvagga, Cv = Cullavagga, P = Parivāra), and chapters (first number) and sub chapters (second, and third numbers). A Mv I 197 does not exist. Either you have Mv I plus a number up to 79 or you have Vin + I for the volume in which you find the Mahāvagga, and a number referring to the page. I guess you got the reference from DPPN. There it is clearly Vin I 194ff. And there you will find the story of Soṇa. If you want the other type of reference, it is in Mv V 13.

Best,
Petra

Am 10.12.2016 um 18:36 schrieb Balaji balaji.ramasubramanian@...com [palistudy]:

Dear friends,

I wanted to find the Pāḷi original of Mv.I.197 - a reference I got from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in this forum a few months back regarding the story where Ven. Soṇa is urged by the Buddha to chant the Aṭṭhakavagga and is then praised for his excellent chanting. I appreciate this help very much. I wanted to read it in Pāḷi from the Tipiṭaka itself.

Now, I find the Chaṭṭha Saṅghāyana - CSCD (www.tipitaka.org) and Adroid Tipiṭaka (Digital Pāḷi Reader) to be very helpful free resources in getting the Pāḷi originals in various scripts. I can read in the Devanāgarī, Roman, and with some effort even in the Thai script, although mostly I prefer the Devanāgarī. I have found every Sutta in the Sutta Piṭaka very easily so far. For example, if the reference says AN 4.56, I know that I need to look up the Anguttara Nikāya, check the book of fours catukkanipātapāḷi, and look at the fifth chapter titled rohitassavaggo and find the Sutta there. Again, if someone says MN 61, I can easily go to Majjhima Nikāya, and since I know it is divided into three books of 50 suttas each, I check the second book majjhimapaṇṇāsapāḷi, and since each chapter has ten Suttas each, I look up the second chapter bhikkhuvaggo, and find the Sutta there.

But I am a little puzzled by the numbering scheme adopted for the Vinaya Piṭaka. I have been a total failure at tracing down Mv.I.197. I see that the Mahāvagga has several khandhakas, of which the first one is mahākhandhaka. Does the I.197 refer to 197th paragraph in the mahākhandhaka or the 197th section, or what? No matter which way I try to interpret the reference, I am unable to find it. If I assume it is the 197th numbered paragraph, I find that the mahākhandhaka has only 131 numbered paragraphs. If I assume that it is the 197th section, then there are only 67 sections in the mahākhandhaka. If I assume that the in the referencing scheme 'Mv.I.197', the Roman numeral I has no meaning, and look for the 197th section in the Mahāvagga counting all the sections in each chapter, then also I find that I end up with karaṇīyadoḷasaka in the kathinakkhandhaka which if anyone reads, will know immediately that it has nothing to do with the story of Ven. Soṇa's chanting.

So I am completely puzzled by this numbering scheme. So I wanted to find out what was up. My plan was to visit Abhayagiri Buddhist monastery and request the monks there to help me find the reference. But for about a month I couldn't make a visit - maybe I will go there in 2017. Meanwhile, since I got this reference from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, I visited a local Sri Lankan Buddhist temple in the south Bay area where I live, and asked them for help. And the Sinhalese Tipiṭaka edition they have has the same numbering schematization in CSCD - I haven't checked completely, but at least the mahākhandhaka seems to be the same.

It appears that in the west scholars use a completely different numbering scheme, and I have no clue where their numbering actually comes from. Are the references coming from the PTS? And if so, how come the PTS numbering scheme is so completely out of whack with the Sinhalese and Burmese editions? I will go to Abhayagiri and Metta Forest monasteries to see if the schematization in the Royal Thai edition is also the same as the CSCD, but I suspect it would be roughly the same.

I would also appreciate if someone can help me understand the history behind the numbering schemes used. Where do they come from, are they different for the different editions, and if so why? Why did PTS adopt a completely different numbering scheme and not simply go with a more traditional schema where we number Suttas as MN II.2.1 instead of MN 61?

Thanks,
Balaji