Wikivinaya:Standardizing the Structure

From Wikivinaya

---

Revision as of 04:39, 30 June 2006

Initial Suggestions

• Rule Acronym: I use "Bh" for "Bhikkhus'" and "Bhi" for "Bhikkhunis'", as in the new PTS edition of the Patimokkha. "Pj" for "parajika", "Sg" for "Sanghadisesa", "An" for "Aniyata", "NP" for "nissaggiya pacittiya", "Pc" for "pacittiya", "Pt" for "patidesaniya", "Sk" for "sekhiya" and I haven't found abbreviations for the Adhikarana-samatha dhammas yet. Perhaps we also need a style guide about things like Pali diacriticals (proper articles should be in UTF-8, never mind about behind the scenes discussions, for those we can use velthius or omit them when we're feeling lazy!)
• Summary of the origin story/ direct translation of key passages: we need to be very careful not to prejudice the intepretation by wrongly summarising the origin stories.
• Rule in Pali: when we eventually get around to including other Vinaya recensions in Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese etc. we may need to create parallel linked pages for each version, perhaps?
• Rule translation: I compare the PTS new edition with Ven. Nyanatusita's Patimokkha analysis - the PTS has better English but Ven. Nyanatusita's is more precise.
• main section of the Word-Analyis (padabhājana) translation, maybe also with Pali?
• Summary of the permutation-series
• Summary of the non-offence clauses
• Summary of the case examples (ruthlessly summarise extravagantly long, tedious repetitions but quote with an accurate translation meaningful specific case examples).
• How many factors of an offence are there? Usually one can categorise them under: 'object', 'perception', 'intention', 'effort' and 'result', many rules only have explicit explanations of object and effort, intention is implied and often the non-offence clauses are very relevant to the factor of intention.
• Define the factors: I usually quote the phrases from the Word-Analysis whenever possible, if a factor of an offence is only implied say so, if it is implied but made explicit in the comy. say so, if it is added by the comy. but seems to contradict the Word-Analysis or the Rule itself, say that.
• Points subject to differing interpretations: if there are reasonable differences of interpretation over certain points in a rule summarise the different interpretations fairly. If you agree with one or the other say so with reasons while not neglecting the reasons on the other side.
• Traditional interpretations, extrapolations etc. that are not directly based on the rule, may even be contradictory to it, etc. Summarise them politely and fairly and try to consider the causes and conditions by which they evolved. Remember if one finds something frustrating it probably means that one doesn't fully understand it. One may also feel equanimous about a mis-interpretation or wrong practice but still know that there is a duty to do something about it.

Bhikkhu Santi 00:39, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

• Please carefully avoid attributing something to the Buddha when it is not explicitly stated to be spoken by the Buddha in the Vinaya-pitaka - most of the Vinaya-pitaka actually does not claim to be directly spoken by the Buddha, so that leaves open the question of how it was compiled and composed. If a passage claims to be spoken by the Buddha, such as when it's phrased: "bhagavato etam-attha.m aarocesu.m" then say that the passage is presented as spoken by the Buddha. Otherwise, don't assume, or at least don't assert as unquestionable that every word and every phrase was spoken by the Buddha. That doesn't mean at all that I'm saying that we should not practice according to the parts that are not explicitly spoken by the Buddha, just that we should be clear about what is what.

Bhikkhu Santi 00:39, 30 June 2006 (EDT)