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

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)