Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Variant readings, CS version, various Tipitakas (Re: [Pali] Re: New Pali Tipitaka Project)

Expand Messages
  • Ong Teng Kee
    There are too many in maha tika mula tika etc where the readings have completely meaning in thai and burmese.Just look at mahatika in BUDSIR version from
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      There are too many in maha tika mula tika etc where the readings have completely meaning in thai and burmese.Just look at mahatika in BUDSIR version from mahamakut.The budsir has mahamakut tipitaka .jataka com,mahatika,vinaya com,sarathadipani etc but the rest of the com are chula series.Sixth council only used mahamakut because chula are new version after 1960.






      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@...>
      Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:33:23 +0800
      To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Variant readings, CS version, various Tipitakas (Re: [Pali] Re: New Pali Tipitaka Project)

      > At 12:28 AM 06-01-03, you wrote:
      > >1. How do the different copies of the Pali Tipitaka (Thai, Sinhala,
      > >Burmese) differ? I have a good idea of the difference between the
      > >Chinese Agama and the Pali Nikaya, but I am not clear about the
      > >distinctions of the variants of the Nikayas in Thai, Sinhala and
      > >Burmese (scripts).
      >
      > Compared to the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas, the variant readings among the various Pali scripts are relatively minor. Among the Nikayas, we find variants by small chunks only.
      >
      > If you have the CSCD, or most PTS Pali texts, you can find the variant readings as footnotes. (For CSCD, click on [F] when you see a sign something like two connected "S"s with two following digits.)
      >
      > More often than not, they are extremely minor and do not change the meaning, such as "pathavi" as preferred in the CSCD, compared to "pa.thavi" given as a variant reading as in the Siihala, Syaama (Thai), Kamboja, and PTS version, shown as footnote in the CSCD. [Majjhimanikaayo > Muulapa.n.naasapaa.li > 1. Muulapariyaayavaggo > 1. Muulapariyaayasutta.m (which is the first sutta of MN)]
      >
      > The Burmese seems to have adopted "pathavi" throughout the Pali scripture for consistency sake. The other versions have both "pathavi" and "pathavi" in different places.
      >
      > I can't think of any place whereby the reading differs so much that the meanings seriously differs as well. Perhaps someone can point out one (if any).
      >
      >
      > >2. The CSCD claims to contain the 6th council version, but is the
      > >5th. What are the differences between the two versions?
      >
      > I'm not saying that the CSCD contains the 5th council version. What I said was that Thai university researchers say that it seems to take that version as its source.
      >
      > Anyhow, as I understand, some editing has been done in the sixth, such as
      > to correct grammatical errors (which can be controversial as scholars do disagree on certain grammar points).
      > to make similar words/phrase/suttas consistent (such as Karaniiyametta Sutta, which occurs in Suttanipaatapaa.li and Khuddakapaa.thapaa.li. FYI, there are a few very minor discrepancies between them within the CSCD itself. I would expect the Sixth Council editors to be able to weed out such obvious discrepancies in such a well-known sutta.)
      > to correct misspellings, etc.
      >
      >
      > >3. Which council versions do the following available tipitaka come
      > >from:
      > > (a) PTS Pali Tipitaka,
      >
      > It is a result of comparison among various versions (but obviously not the CS which has yet to happen then), and, where it differs, make decisions as to which they think should be the case. Sometimes, they have a new reading of their own.
      >
      > They are not always correct though. There's a big boo-boo in an earlier PTS Udana (ed. Steintal), where a sutta (I.5) clearly suggests that the Buddha said "aayasmaa Devadatto" was among the "braahmanaa", which he later qualify as "Those who, having ousted evil states, fare mindful at all times..." (tr. Masefield). That means "arahants", which Ven. Devadatta could not have been one. Masefield in his endnote express his surprise that "Neither Woodward nor Ireland seems to have noticed this rather obvious point."
      >
      > Fortunately, later PTS translators (such as Norman and Masefield) do not stick to the PTS Pali texts, but refer to various versions at hand. It is quite common for them to differ with the early PTS Pali text editors in choice of readings.
      >
      >
      > > (b) Budsir: http://www.budsir.org
      >
      > I can't remember for sure, but I think it's based on the Chulalongkorn edition. (There's another Thai edition called the Mahamakut. I think it goes by the two prime universities in Thailand. Does anyone have any idea which version is referred to as the Syaama edition in the CS?) I've no idea which council it is based upon.
      >
      > However, based upon studies ancient scripts, Norman thinks that the Tipitaka may not have reached the Thais through the Burmese, but through a different route.
      >
      > > (c) SLTP Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka:
      > >http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/ibric.htm
      >
      > I'm not sure which council/edition it is based upon but expect it to lean closer to the Siihala edition.
      >
      > As I was given the impression, this impetus for version is a dissatisfaction for the CS version. The Burmese scholar monks outnumbered the foreign ones at the council and did not pay enough attention to their views. That I think was very unfortunate indeed for the Sasana.
      >
      >
      > Even if we're happy with the CSCD (which is truly a magnificent production), it's good to have another (or more) source just in case you need to compare.
      >
      > For example, in the CSCD's A"nguttaranikaayo > Dasakanipaatapaa.li > Jaa.nusso.nivaggo > Jaa.nusso.nisutta.m, we find this:
      >
      > “Idha pana, braahma.na, ekacco paa.naatipaataa pa.tivirato hoti ...pe... sammaadi.t.thiko hoti. So kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa devaana.m sahabyata.m upapajjati. Yo devaana.m aahaaro, tena so tattha yaapeti, tena so tattha ti.t.thati. Idampi, braahma.na, a.t.thaana.m yattha.thitassa ta.m daana.m upakappati.
      >
      > A "na" is missing before the last word. It should be
      > ... ta.m daana.m na upakappati.
      >
      > You should find the same in other versions. Yet, the CSCD version did not even have a footnote of variant reading. This is obviously a typographic error.
      >
      >
      > Sorry for not being able to give a more complete answer than the above, Yong Peng. I hope others in the group could throw more light, and correct me if I'm wrong.
      >
      > peace
      >
      > Kumâra Bhikkhu
      >
      >
      > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
      > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
      > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
      > [Mailing List] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali
      > [Discussion] http://tipitaka.suddenlaunch.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >

      --
      _______________________________________________
      Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
      http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

      Meet Singles
      http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
    • abhidhammika <suanluzaw@bodhiology.org>
      Dear Venerable Kumaara Bhikkhu How are you? Happy New Year! You wrote: For example, in the CSCD s A nguttaranikaayo Dasakanipaatapaa.li Jaa.nusso.nivaggo
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Venerable Kumaara Bhikkhu

        How are you? Happy New Year!

        You wrote:

        "For example, in the CSCD's A"nguttaranikaayo > Dasakanipaatapaa.li >
        Jaa.nusso.nivaggo > Jaa.nusso.nisutta.m, we find this:

        "Idha pana, braahma.na, ekacco paa.naatipaataa pa.tivirato
        hoti ...pe...
        sammaadi.t.thiko hoti. So kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa devaana.m
        sahabyata.m
        upapajjati. Yo devaana.m aahaaro, tena so tattha yaapeti, tena so
        tattha
        ti.t.thati. Idampi, braahma.na, a.t.thaana.m yattha.thitassa ta.m
        daana.m
        upakappati.

        A "na" is missing before the last word. It should be
        ... ta.m daana.m na upakappati.

        You should find the same in other versions. Yet, the CSCD version did
        not even have a footnote of variant reading. This is obviously a
        typographic error."

        Thank you for pointing out the missing "na" in the above paragraph in
        the CSCD.

        As you noted, it is merely the typing error of the compilers of the
        VRI CSCD.

        It is nothing to do with Cha.t.tha Sangayana Edition oF Pali
        Tipi.taka published in Myanmar.

        I think you should write to Vippasana Research Institute with your
        findings of such errors so that the future editions of CSCD do not
        contain them.


        With five-fold touch bow,

        Suan Lu Zaw

        http://www.bodhiology.org











        --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@p...> wrote:



        > At 12:28 AM 06-01-03, you wrote:
        > >1. How do the different copies of the Pali Tipitaka (Thai,
        Sinhala,
        > >Burmese) differ? I have a good idea of the difference between the
        > >Chinese Agama and the Pali Nikaya, but I am not clear about the
        > >distinctions of the variants of the Nikayas in Thai, Sinhala and
        > >Burmese (scripts).
        >
        > Compared to the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas, the
        variant readings among the various Pali scripts are relatively minor.
        Among the Nikayas, we find variants by small chunks only.
        >
        > If you have the CSCD, or most PTS Pali texts, you can find the
        variant readings as footnotes. (For CSCD, click on [F] when you see a
        sign something like two connected "S"s with two following digits.)
        >
        > More often than not, they are extremely minor and do not change the
        meaning, such as "pathavi" as preferred in the CSCD, compared
        to "pa.thavi" given as a variant reading as in the Siihala, Syaama
        (Thai), Kamboja, and PTS version, shown as footnote in the CSCD.
        [Majjhimanikaayo > Muulapa.n.naasapaa.li > 1. Muulapariyaayavaggo >
        1. Muulapariyaayasutta.m (which is the first sutta of MN)]
        >
        > The Burmese seems to have adopted "pathavi" throughout the Pali
        scripture for consistency sake. The other versions have
        both "pathavi" and "pathavi" in different places.
        >
        > I can't think of any place whereby the reading differs so much that
        the meanings seriously differs as well. Perhaps someone can point out
        one (if any).
        >
        >
        > >2. The CSCD claims to contain the 6th council version, but is the
        > >5th. What are the differences between the two versions?
        >
        > I'm not saying that the CSCD contains the 5th council version. What
        I said was that Thai university researchers say that it seems to take
        that version as its source.
        >
        > Anyhow, as I understand, some editing has been done in the sixth,
        such as
        > to correct grammatical errors (which can be controversial
        as scholars do disagree on certain grammar points).
        > to make similar words/phrase/suttas consistent (such as
        Karaniiyametta Sutta, which occurs in Suttanipaatapaa.li and
        Khuddakapaa.thapaa.li. FYI, there are a few very minor discrepancies
        between them within the CSCD itself. I would expect the Sixth Council
        editors to be able to weed out such obvious discrepancies in such a
        well-known sutta.)
        > to correct misspellings, etc.
        >
        >
        > >3. Which council versions do the following available tipitaka come
        > >from:
        > > (a) PTS Pali Tipitaka,
        >
        > It is a result of comparison among various versions (but obviously
        not the CS which has yet to happen then), and, where it differs, make
        decisions as to which they think should be the case. Sometimes, they
        have a new reading of their own.
        >
        > They are not always correct though. There's a big boo-boo in an
        earlier PTS Udana (ed. Steintal), where a sutta (I.5) clearly
        suggests that the Buddha said "aayasmaa Devadatto" was among
        the "braahmanaa", which he later qualify as "Those who, having ousted
        evil states, fare mindful at all times..." (tr. Masefield). That
        means "arahants", which Ven. Devadatta could not have been one.
        Masefield in his endnote express his surprise that "Neither Woodward
        nor Ireland seems to have noticed this rather obvious point."
        >
        > Fortunately, later PTS translators (such as Norman and Masefield)
        do not stick to the PTS Pali texts, but refer to various versions at
        hand. It is quite common for them to differ with the early PTS Pali
        text editors in choice of readings.
        >
        >
        > > (b) Budsir: http://www.budsir.org
        >
        > I can't remember for sure, but I think it's based on the
        Chulalongkorn edition. (There's another Thai edition called the
        Mahamakut. I think it goes by the two prime universities in Thailand.
        Does anyone have any idea which version is referred to as the Syaama
        edition in the CS?) I've no idea which council it is based upon.
        >
        > However, based upon studies ancient scripts, Norman thinks that the
        Tipitaka may not have reached the Thais through the Burmese, but
        through a different route.
        >
        > > (c) SLTP Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka:
        > >http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/ibric.htm
        >
        > I'm not sure which council/edition it is based upon but expect it
        to lean closer to the Siihala edition.
        >
        > As I was given the impression, this impetus for version is a
        dissatisfaction for the CS version. The Burmese scholar monks
        outnumbered the foreign ones at the council and did not pay enough
        attention to their views. That I think was very unfortunate indeed
        for the Sasana.
        >
        >
        > Even if we're happy with the CSCD (which is truly a magnificent
        production), it's good to have another (or more) source just in case
        you need to compare.
        >
        > For example, in the CSCD's A"nguttaranikaayo > Dasakanipaatapaa.li
        > Jaa.nusso.nivaggo > Jaa.nusso.nisutta.m, we find this:
        >
        > "Idha pana, braahma.na, ekacco paa.naatipaataa pa.tivirato
        hoti ...pe... sammaadi.t.thiko hoti. So kaayassa bhedaa para.m
        mara.naa devaana.m sahabyata.m upapajjati. Yo devaana.m aahaaro, tena
        so tattha yaapeti, tena so tattha ti.t.thati. Idampi, braahma.na,
        a.t.thaana.m yattha.thitassa ta.m daana.m upakappati.
        >
        > A "na" is missing before the last word. It should be
        > ... ta.m daana.m na upakappati.
        >
        > You should find the same in other versions. Yet, the CSCD version
        did not even have a footnote of variant reading. This is obviously a
        typographic error.
        >
        >
        > Sorry for not being able to give a more complete answer than the
        above, Yong Peng. I hope others in the group could throw more light,
        and correct me if I'm wrong.
        >
        > peace
        >
        > Kumâra Bhikkhu
      • Kumaara Bhikkhu
        ... I ve done that, avuso. There has been at least six such emails to them. Something such as the CSCD is invaluable to the Buddhism world and so is worth
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 7, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:43 PM 07-01-03, abhidhammika <suanluzaw@...> wrote:
          >I think you should write to Vippasana Research Institute with your
          >findings of such errors so that the future editions of CSCD do not
          >contain them.

          I've done that, avuso. There has been at least six such emails to them. Something such as the CSCD is invaluable to the Buddhism world and so is worth making perfect.

          However, they rarely ever respond. At one time that they did, the sender mentioned about having received many feedback of errors from others too. He said they were questioning source of their texts.

          peace

          Kumâra Bhikkhu
        • Ong Teng Kee
          I just like to add that chula do produce their own 90 vol of cdrom tipitaka only/translation in thai script only by Pra dhammapitaka.They did print all sixth
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            I just like to add that chula do produce their own 90 vol of cdrom tipitaka only/translation in thai script only by Pra dhammapitaka.They did print all sixth council tika in thai script because no scholars in thai like to edit the texts.
            In sutta mala (saddniti vol 3)sutta 1319,1311 two pathavi are correct and kaccayana sutta 668 (in its tika)too.
            In later attayojana like those by shan monk -nanakitti and grammar tika explain a lot about which words they think I correct.Should it be cha or jha etc.
            We still have no idea why lanna thai reading are longer/unusual in verse and prose.See their dhammapada by PTS.see bodhi refuse to tran them in his sagathavagga verse because he didn't find com on it.Only deva living aroud there for a long time be able to tell where they get the leaves.
            The most important thing about pali eng etc translation is we have to use any theravadin countries nisaya.Bodhi should at least look at 3 burmese nisaya in books or leaves if not thai and sri lanka.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Ong Teng Kee" <ongtk@...>
            Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 06:27:32 -0500
            To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: Variant readings, CS version, various Tipitakas (Re: [Pali] Re: New Pali Tipitaka Project)

            > There are too many in maha tika mula tika etc where the readings have completely meaning in thai and burmese.Just look at mahatika in BUDSIR version from mahamakut.The budsir has mahamakut tipitaka .jataka com,mahatika,vinaya com,sarathadipani etc but the rest of the com are chula series.Sixth council only used mahamakut because chula are new version after 1960.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Kumaara Bhikkhu <venkumara@...>
            > Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 19:33:23 +0800
            > To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Variant readings, CS version, various Tipitakas (Re: [Pali] Re: New Pali Tipitaka Project)
            >
            > > At 12:28 AM 06-01-03, you wrote:
            > > >1. How do the different copies of the Pali Tipitaka (Thai, Sinhala,
            > > >Burmese) differ? I have a good idea of the difference between the
            > > >Chinese Agama and the Pali Nikaya, but I am not clear about the
            > > >distinctions of the variants of the Nikayas in Thai, Sinhala and
            > > >Burmese (scripts).
            > >
            > > Compared to the differences between the Agamas and the Nikayas, the variant readings among the various Pali scripts are relatively minor. Among the Nikayas, we find variants by small chunks only.
            > >
            > > If you have the CSCD, or most PTS Pali texts, you can find the variant readings as footnotes. (For CSCD, click on [F] when you see a sign something like two connected "S"s with two following digits.)
            > >
            > > More often than not, they are extremely minor and do not change the meaning, such as "pathavi" as preferred in the CSCD, compared to "pa.thavi" given as a variant reading as in the Siihala, Syaama (Thai), Kamboja, and PTS version, shown as footnote in the CSCD. [Majjhimanikaayo > Muulapa.n.naasapaa.li > 1. Muulapariyaayavaggo > 1. Muulapariyaayasutta.m (which is the first sutta of MN)]
            > >
            > > The Burmese seems to have adopted "pathavi" throughout the Pali scripture for consistency sake. The other versions have both "pathavi" and "pathavi" in different places.
            > >
            > > I can't think of any place whereby the reading differs so much that the meanings seriously differs as well. Perhaps someone can point out one (if any).
            > >
            > >
            > > >2. The CSCD claims to contain the 6th council version, but is the
            > > >5th. What are the differences between the two versions?
            > >
            > > I'm not saying that the CSCD contains the 5th council version. What I said was that Thai university researchers say that it seems to take that version as its source.
            > >
            > > Anyhow, as I understand, some editing has been done in the sixth, such as
            > > to correct grammatical errors (which can be controversial as scholars do disagree on certain grammar points).
            > > to make similar words/phrase/suttas consistent (such as Karaniiyametta Sutta, which occurs in Suttanipaatapaa.li and Khuddakapaa.thapaa.li. FYI, there are a few very minor discrepancies between them within the CSCD itself. I would expect the Sixth Council editors to be able to weed out such obvious discrepancies in such a well-known sutta.)
            > > to correct misspellings, etc.
            > >
            > >
            > > >3. Which council versions do the following available tipitaka come
            > > >from:
            > > > (a) PTS Pali Tipitaka,
            > >
            > > It is a result of comparison among various versions (but obviously not the CS which has yet to happen then), and, where it differs, make decisions as to which they think should be the case. Sometimes, they have a new reading of their own.
            > >
            > > They are not always correct though. There's a big boo-boo in an earlier PTS Udana (ed. Steintal), where a sutta (I.5) clearly suggests that the Buddha said "aayasmaa Devadatto" was among the "braahmanaa", which he later qualify as "Those who, having ousted evil states, fare mindful at all times..." (tr. Masefield). That means "arahants", which Ven. Devadatta could not have been one. Masefield in his endnote express his surprise that "Neither Woodward nor Ireland seems to have noticed this rather obvious point."
            > >
            > > Fortunately, later PTS translators (such as Norman and Masefield) do not stick to the PTS Pali texts, but refer to various versions at hand. It is quite common for them to differ with the early PTS Pali text editors in choice of readings.
            > >
            > >
            > > > (b) Budsir: http://www.budsir.org
            > >
            > > I can't remember for sure, but I think it's based on the Chulalongkorn edition. (There's another Thai edition called the Mahamakut. I think it goes by the two prime universities in Thailand. Does anyone have any idea which version is referred to as the Syaama edition in the CS?) I've no idea which council it is based upon.
            > >
            > > However, based upon studies ancient scripts, Norman thinks that the Tipitaka may not have reached the Thais through the Burmese, but through a different route.
            > >
            > > > (c) SLTP Buddha Jayanti Tipitaka:
            > > >http://www.gold.ac.uk/history/ibric.htm
            > >
            > > I'm not sure which council/edition it is based upon but expect it to lean closer to the Siihala edition.
            > >
            > > As I was given the impression, this impetus for version is a dissatisfaction for the CS version. The Burmese scholar monks outnumbered the foreign ones at the council and did not pay enough attention to their views. That I think was very unfortunate indeed for the Sasana.
            > >
            > >
            > > Even if we're happy with the CSCD (which is truly a magnificent production), it's good to have another (or more) source just in case you need to compare.
            > >
            > > For example, in the CSCD's A"nguttaranikaayo > Dasakanipaatapaa.li > Jaa.nusso.nivaggo > Jaa.nusso.nisutta.m, we find this:
            > >
            > > “Idha pana, braahma.na, ekacco paa.naatipaataa pa.tivirato hoti ...pe... sammaadi.t.thiko hoti. So kaayassa bhedaa para.m mara.naa devaana.m sahabyata.m upapajjati. Yo devaana.m aahaaro, tena so tattha yaapeti, tena so tattha ti.t.thati. Idampi, braahma.na, a.t.thaana.m yattha.thitassa ta.m daana.m upakappati.
            > >
            > > A "na" is missing before the last word. It should be
            > > ... ta.m daana.m na upakappati.
            > >
            > > You should find the same in other versions. Yet, the CSCD version did not even have a footnote of variant reading. This is obviously a typographic error.
            > >
            > >
            > > Sorry for not being able to give a more complete answer than the above, Yong Peng. I hope others in the group could throw more light, and correct me if I'm wrong.
            > >
            > > peace
            > >
            > > Kumâra Bhikkhu
            > >
            > >
            > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
            > > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
            > > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
            > > [Mailing List] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali
            > > [Discussion] http://tipitaka.suddenlaunch.com
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > >
            > >
            >
            > --
            > _______________________________________________
            > Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
            > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
            >
            > Meet Singles
            > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
            >
            >
            > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            > Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only.
            > [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
            > [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
            > [Mailing List] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali
            > [Discussion] http://tipitaka.suddenlaunch.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >

            --
            _______________________________________________
            Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
            http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

            Meet Singles
            http://corp.mail.com/lavalife
          • Ong Yong Peng <ypong001@yahoo.com>
            Dear Ven. Kumara, Teng Kee and Lu Zaw, thanks for all the information. I read them with keen interest as I am a history guy, it is quite a pity that such
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Ven. Kumara, Teng Kee and Lu Zaw,

              thanks for all the information. I read them with keen interest as I
              am a 'history' guy, it is quite a pity that such information are not
              widely available in English.

              metta,
              Yong Peng.

              --- Ong Teng Kee wrote:
              > I just like to add that chula do produce their own 90 vol of cdrom
              tipitaka only/translation in thai script only by Pra
              dhammapitaka.They did print all sixth council tika in thai script
              because no scholars in thai like to edit the texts.
              > In sutta mala (saddniti vol 3)sutta 1319,1311 two pathavi are
              correct and kaccayana sutta 668 (in its tika)too.
              > In later attayojana like those by shan monk -nanakitti and grammar
              tika explain a lot about which words they think I correct.Should it
              be cha or jha etc.
              > We still have no idea why lanna thai reading are longer/unusual in
              verse and prose.See their dhammapada by PTS.see bodhi refuse to tran
              them in his sagathavagga verse because he didn't find com on it.Only
              deva living aroud there for a long time be able to tell where they
              get the leaves.
              > The most important thing about pali eng etc translation is we have
              to use any theravadin countries nisaya.Bodhi should at least look at
              3 burmese nisaya in books or leaves if not thai and sri lanka.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.