Talk:Pacittiya 1 (Theravadin Bhikkhupatimokkha)

From Wikivinaya

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