Talk:Pacittiya 1 (Theravadin Bhikkhupatimokkha)

From Wikivinaya

Revision as of 05:05, 24 July 2006

This rule currently functions only as as kind of template to be used for all rules. I now incorporated BKh's Vinaya Worksheet into it. DJti 11:26, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

One issue where I am still doubtful about is whether to include the 'factors of Offence' in rules where the Vinaya Pitaka itself doesn't mention any factors of offence. Ajahn Geoff ([1] does mention them, and also mentions they come from the K/commentary. Here, however, the setup is a bit different, and we plan to put the commentary on a seperate page, just to be clear. So the question is then whether to mention the factors of offence on the first page, if they are a commentarial affair. I have now chosen a kind of intermediate solution to this, but it's not quite satisfactory. DJti 11:34, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I changed it now, and it currently does not include the 'factors of offence' any more (in case they are not mentioned in the vibhanga). It is mentioned that the commentary did extrapolate factors of offence from the rule, and a link is provided.DJti 12:41, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I have filled in a little text. It appears that some of the headings you, DJti added into the top form don't display quite right. For example both the gray area field and modern day issues end up into the practicalities section. Is that what you intended? I'm not quite clear on the distinction you are making between the chart at the top and the sections further down the page. I think I would have been inclined to include those items I just mentioned in the sections toward the bottom. Or perhaps on the commentary page? If the rule pages are going to be very narrow, then perhaps everything that isn't in the canon should appear on a single commentary page. Then within the commentary page it would include comments from the relevant ancient commentaries and then other issues related to implementation. Just a thought. I can see this is going to be tricky BKh 20:17, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I added some more categories. I've always been fascinated by who agitated for the rules. If anyone can come up with a more succinct category than "Rule instigated by followers of other sects" that would be great. BKh 20:17, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

The table at the top filled the full width of the page once I added the related rules. Is that a bad thing? Another item that probably belongs in that section would be "corresponding Bhikkhuni rule" BKh

The table at the top I intended as a kind of overview and links-section. The main part of the text is currently set up to hold only things from the Vibhanga, and also to provide links to other relevant information. I will adjust the table a bit and make it less wide without removing anything from it. DJti 20:54, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

I read somehwere that the PTS information is usually included in other editions, it's become some kind of standard of finding information even in other editions of the Tipitaka. I don't know however what the information is that's included. So is it the page-numbers or something else? And what is the exact formulation they use when the put this information in in other editions? thank you. Here I have no resources on Vinaya except the commputer-resources which I gathered over the years. There a Thai tipitaka but I never used one of those. DJti 21:02, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

A further refinement on commentaries etc: I think we can just talk about what's in the Vibhanga here, and use our own words to discribe it, and also use other people's words if we choose, together with translations from the Vibhanga. The commentarial thing is just for when the commentaries put down further definitions of what, according to that commentary, it actually is that is treated in the rule, because they go too far sometimes just by redefining it. Also they sometimes lay down additional rules or derived offences. Also the extrapolated factors of offences belong with the commentary. These kinds of things we wanted on the commentaries page, just to avoid confusion.

Commentaries refers usually to the old pali commentaries. Ajahn Thanissaro's book is actually a commentary also in some ways, but is never called that. Gray areas and modern issues have a kind of commonality, in that knowing the gray areas is very usefull while moving around to other monasteries in the 'modern' world. Also gray areas frequently arise around the modern issues. That's why I put them together. But maybe they should better be seperated since they are different also. But I think they could appear together on the same page. Practicalities is something that covers both gray areas and modern issues I think. Maybe the two fields can be reduced to one field just called practicalities, which gives a link to Practicalities concerning Pacittiya 1 (Theravadin bhikkhupatimokkha). Then we would have the Vibhanga (this page), the commentaries and practicalities. Practicalities could also include comments about monastery rules (kor wat). If you know a better term which covers this we could use that also.

By the way thanks for your edits and additions, BKh. Grouping articles can also be done using lists, which was my idea for hatthaka the sakyan (I don't know if he was the first offender for other rules also). I think only in the end we will see how these things work out best. We will probably end up using both methods (categories and lists) at the same time. So we can add the info on instigation to the table at the top, also. DJti 21:29, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

PTS reference

Hello, I found PTS page 164 (in the Sri Lankan Tipitaka) of the pacittiya chapter of the Vinaya Pitaka (Pali Canon: vinaya pitaka, Pacittiya, book: 1): http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/tipitika.php?title=&record=1482

However, I can't find the rule. I can find some rules on the following page, though not the musavada one. Can you find it? I was thinking we could provide a link to the pali text from the box. Greetings, DJti 23:48, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Now I found it: http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/tipitika.php?title=vinaya%20pitaka&action=previous&record=1273

It seems the complete reference is something like:

[PTS Vol V - 4] [z Vin /] [f IV /] (for the precise book)

[PTS Page 001] [q 1/] (for the page in the book)

Maybe you could check this in the PTS edition? And also how it matches the reference to page 164? thank you, Greetings, DJti 23:55, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

OK, here goes. I am looking at the gray PTS Romanized Pali text Volume IV. It starts on the first page with the first Pacittiya. That is to say the first page of the actual text which is were the numbering begins. In the PTS English translation, The Book of Discipline on page 164 the rule begins. There are two types of headers in the English edition. On the left page (where this rule begins) the header indicates volume number and page number of the PTS romanized pali edition. The page nummbers are indicated in line in the English text. They are in square brackets where the end of that particular page would come, aproximately. So in this case page one of the romanized Pali edition ends about half way down page 165 in the English edition. It looks like this:

denied, acknowledge, [1] having acknowledgeed, deny

So this is one way that the two texts are cross refrenced (don't know if that is the proper term). For clarification, the top of page 166 (second left hand page) has the following in the header on the right side:

[IV.2

This indicates that this page can be found in the PTS romanized version on page 2. It appears that where a an English page contains part of two pages, an indication of this is given, such as IV. 8-9. I hope all that makes sense.

This is by no means a universal system, even from one volume to the next. I just looked in the edition I have handy for the Pavarana and there these romanized page numbers are in square brackets but are bold to distinguish them from another numbering system that I will try to explain below. And in that volume, there is no header at the top at all, so you are on your own to figure out what volume of the romanized Pali you are in.

It is my understanding that the use of the page numbers in the PTS romanized Pali is the most common method used. The abbreviation for this citation would be Vin. IV.1.

They just rang the lunch gong. Saved by the bell. I will try and write about the other method of numbering the text after lunch. Please offer corrections to what I have written as I hope to create an actual page explaining this. BKh 11:08, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

If you go to References to Pali Texts, to the section on Vinaya-pitaka, they explain what happened with the volume-numbers. In the English translations these were somehow switched so that 'Vin. I and II' ended up as 'The Book of the Discipline volume IV and V'. I also think the Pali version is the one that's used most commonly for references. Greetings, DJti 19:39, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Ah. I didn't know this explanation existed already. Let me know if what I explain below is also somewhere else on the wiki (I have been composing off line.) It's such a curious system and I have seen so many people confsed by it, seems like it would be a nice thing to have on the site somewhere. I'll also try to figure out a way to look at all the pages on the wiki so I know what is where already.

I believe that when they are refrencing the Pali version they use the abreviation Vin. and when they are refrencing the English, which they do from time to time, they use BD, for Book of DisciplineBKh 20:31, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Second type of notation system. There seems to be a second way of numbering passages. I believe it is also exclusive to PTS. It is more about rule numbers and section numbers. Part of what is confusing to me is that the rule numbers are used in the roman numeral form, as are the volume numbers of the romanized Pali editions. So at the top of two pages you have something like this:

[IV.15 spine of book IV. 2,3]

The first set of numbers before the spine of the book indicate Romanized Pali volume IV page 15. The second set of numbers on the second page indicates Rule IV section 2 subsection 3. You may or may not notice that the 2 is bold. This is critical to distinguish section numbers from subsection numbers. Another example:

[IV.16-17 spine V. 3, 2-3]

So this would be Romanized Pali Volume IV pages 16-17 and rule V section 3, subsections 2 to 3.

The way the section numbers and subsection numbers fall into the text is tricky. They are placed at the end of the section, at the end of the last line of the section. At the end of the section. They are placed in double straight lines. The section numbers are bold, as in the headers and the sub sections are in regular face. This seems to be easier to distinguish on a computer screen than it is in the text I am using. So if this paragraph were the end of section one, and there were no subsections it would look like this. ||1||

Then section two would start and you wouldn't know if there were going to be sub section until you got to the end of it. Lets say this paragraph was the end of the first sub section of section 2. There would be an indicator like this. ||1||

You will notice that the only difference between the end of section one and the end of sub-section one of section two is that for the section numbers they are in bold. So continuing on, lets say that this paragraph was the end of sub-section three of section two. Then there would be this indicator. ||3|| ||2||

Notice how when the end of a sub-section is being marked along with the end of a section, it is the sub section number that comes first and the section number second. This is the exact opposite of the way it is indicated at the top of the page in the header.

It appears that the same system is used for the section markings in both the English and the Romanized Pali. One should take this for granted, but I recommend not when it comes to these numbering systems.

Please let me know if this makes any sense and if it is worth while to spend time figuring this out and creating a page explaining it. Perhaps you already know this, but others may not in the future. Metta, BKh 20:31, 22 July 2006 (EDT)

Hello, I did not know this. I think the first system is easier, and propose using that system on WikiVinaya. The second system is more complicated, I get the basics of it, but I think I would have to see it for myself to readlly get it. The subject warrants a page on it, because it's quite fundamental information. Greetings, DJti 01:05, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

Red links

I have made several beginnings, so many of the red links from this article now appear aas blue. Some of the articles are just outlines, giving an idea of what can be included. Greetings, DJti 00:56, 24 July 2006 (EDT)