Good question, and the answer is not as simple as it should be. In fact, I in response to this I have rethought how we should deal with these, and if you’re interested you can read that here:
If we can implement this, it should stop these problems from occurring.
In any case, for now, I would say: For DN and Vinaya use the pts-cs numbers, for MN use nya numbers, for other sutta texts, use sc numbers.
But if it’s just for internal referencing, it doesn’t matter too much, they will all work.
If I was writing them, I’d probably use MN 3#nya3. For now, best to create links by hand to make sure they’re handled correctly. You can do something like this:
In the future, if my proposal works out, you will be able to simply use the unprefixed number and it will automatically use the correct system for that text. So you would just use MN 3#3 rather than MN 3#nya3, etc. (You can use the unprefixed numbers already, but what they actually mean is somewhat inconsistent.)
Yes, this will definitely be redone, hopefully sooner rather than later! We’ve been focussed on getting things done on the main site, as well as Pootle integration for translations, and have let the forum slip a little. But we haven’t forgotten.
Ok thanks. Why can’t we use the SC numbers for the DN & MN? Is it because you plan to make some changes to them later on?
Ok, I’ll try to use this format from now on.
Does the space has a purpose except clarity/easier reading?
Awesome, this is such a handy functionality. And it forces people to use the numbering you want otherwise the link does not work: an indirect and effortless standardization of the referencing system… a clever move!
No, the SC numbers are derived from the Mahasangiti edition, and are fixed. The problem is that the SC numbers are arbitrary and rarely used outside our ecosystem. The PTS numbers are introduced in the original Pali text of the PTS, and are widely used for referencing, and in addition, are included in most translations of these texts. Similarly, the nya numbers are used in Ven Bodhi’s text and are widely accepted.
What our segmented texts do is to build on these pre-existing systems and add granularity to them. So whereas Ven Bodhi might have, say, MN 4#5 (= section five of sutta four in the Majjhima) we divided it into MN 4#5.1, MN 4#5.2 and so on. So you can reference specific segments within a section, but you can still easily find the section in the Bodhi edition.
The field of Buddhist studies is plagued by incompatible reference systems, and we do not want to add one more!
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t know why I had in mind that you wanted to create a completely new referencing system which was also granular… while you seem to just want to add granularity to the prevalent exisiting one. Makes sense now!
But I don’t understand how it works presently in the texts I see online. The example you gave for example MN4#5:
You have 1 paragraph while Nyanamoli has 3…? so less granularity here actually?
Now with an example with granularity: MN 3#3 (sensu Nyanamoli) is sub-divided in 4 sub-paragraphs, but the referencing would here be
MN 3#3.3 to MN 3#3.6, while you seem to imply from the reply above that it should be MN 3#3.1 to MN 3#3.4… or am I missing something?
Ignore the SC numbers on the unsegmented text for DN and MN.
The granularity is added at the segment level, so you can only see it when the segmented view is enabled. On the segmented view, the numbers are labelled “SC”, but this is a bug, sorry! They should be Nya. Nya 5-7 is subdivided as Nya 5-7.1, Nya 5-7.2, and so on.
Oh I see now. The SC numbering is not the same depending on the view: ‘None’ vs ‘Side by side’ & ‘Line by line’.
Is there a way to enable the segmented view (and associated correct numbering) when only English is displayed? Sorry if this is obvious and I missed it but I cannot find how to do this yet!
