JUST THE MAIN QUESTION: I understand the Pali version of the MN10 here on SC is actually a DN22, without the expanded Truths section. And that is because it comes from the current standing Burmese version (the replacement story). Is the numbering and sectioning they use in their original similar/identical to what we see in the Pali version here at SC?
(There are numbers at the ends of sentences in brackets, specific wordings signifying the beginnings and endings of sections - which differ some other Latinized Pali sources - etc). I’m looking for a good conservative standard (even if odd).
(BACKGROUND TO THE QUESTION, not a required read)
I’m trying to understand the “standard” ways the sutta(s) ha(s(/(ve) either been numbered or titled (headings, passage titles etc) in their Latinized Pali formats. It actually seems quite difficult to make sense of this. (I think) I’ve seen the/a PTS version in addition to the Burmese version here. The PTS version I saw just looked confusing on the screen in plain text without a legend to make sense of it (many insertions, notes and distracting… well, "things). I’ve also spotted some cleaned up versions here and there. There seem to be random “cleanups” at the discretion of the English or other language version editors even of the Pali source etc). Too many unsystematic differences to figure out a pattern.
I’m looking for a good conservative standard (even if odd).
I’m seeing a large variety of sectioning solutions of MN10 amongst various translations and adaptions published here. And I’d like my adaption to adhere to the most academic, conservative standard at this point. Rather than an easy-read literary one.
I’m essentially doing a tedious and slow work of octangulating between Pali, English, French, Finnish, Russian, German and then a bunch of “extra” sources to see how different culture bases worked around some specific problems of nuanses Pali terms. Sometimes it is clear these are translations from someone’s English version rather than from Pali. It seems many sources have their own take even on the Latinized Pali somehow. And that seems unnecessary, even dangerous, really. My intention is to adopt a good Latinized Pali standard as far as the punctuation/numbering grammar of my own language allows it.