In lzh-mu-bi-pm, np 14 and 15 are split incorrectly. Np 14 is the rule about requesting a new bowl when one’s bowl has less than five mends.
The procedure about “the assembly’s most inferior bowl” has been moved to the beginning of np 15, instead of being at the end of np 14.
This is the correct text:
Np 14: 若復苾芻尼有<span class=“t-gaiji”>鉢 減五綴。堪得受用。為好故更求餘<span class=“t-gaiji”>鉢 得者。泥薩祇波逸底迦。彼苾芻尼應於眾中捨此<span class=“t-gaiji”>鉢 。取眾中最下<span class=“t-gaiji”>鉢 。與彼苾芻尼報言。此<span class=“t-gaiji”>鉢 還汝不應守持。不應分別。亦不施人。應自審詳徐徐受用。乃至破應護持。此是其法。
Np 15: 若復苾芻尼自乞縷線。使非親織師織作衣。若得衣者。泥薩祇波逸底迦。
(I have corrected my pootle files for the translation.)
When I started the translation project, I was asked to also check all the parallels for the bhikkhuni pm on SC as I go through the rules.
But the more I look into it, the more I get confused… In the bhikkhu patimokkha, the parallel rules are easy to identify. In the bhikkhuni pm, things are much more messy. Rules resemble each other much less closely, are regularly broken into several pieces in various schools, and sometimes appear in different classes of offenses, such as a sanghadisesa in one school, and a pacittiya in another, etc. Sometimes, it is also not clear if two rules are actual parallels, or just rules that cover the same topic but originated from different incidents.
There are also rules that seem to stem from the same incident, but have developed in different directions and now cover different kinds of actions.
Do you have any guidelines how to differentiate between a full, a partial, and a resembling parallel in a vinaya context?
Not really, we just have to do our best. As you point out, the situation is so variable, it is difficult to create a clear set of principles. What I did was basically rely on my sources as best I can; the work of Waldschmidt and Nishimoto is the best in the field. So as long as they seem reasonable, I just followed them, and changed things only when it seemed necessary. With this kind of thing it’s usually a slow evolution of consensus (until someone throws it out!)
I found a few smaller mistakes in the parallels tables of Waldschmidt. There it’s quite obvious that a certain rule is parallel to something else, and I assume it’s just a typo. I’ll make a list and check if it has already been corrected on SC. If not, we should change it.
I’ll also look more into the Nishimoto tables.
Last year, I was given the json file for the parallels to update myself, but it seems that the file is outdated now. Can someone please send me the most recent file?
Or if it is easier, I could just post the updates here…
I would suggest that you make the changes directly to the file, so long of course that you’re confident you know what you’re doing. If not, then let’s sit down and work out how to do it.
Thanks for the link. I know how the file works, I’ve updated the parajikas last year already.
I’ve begun noting down the changes for the sanghadisesas and nissaggiya pacittiyas yesterday, but I’ve now come to the conclusion that it’s best to wait with the parallels until I’ve translated the whole patimokkha. There are sanghadisesas and nissaggiya pacittiyas that have parallels in the pacittiyas, and I believe there are also pacittiyas that have parallels in the sekhiyas. So I’d really need to have a full overview before making changes to the file.
Bhante @Sujato
In lzh mg bi pm - pc 117, two rules are under the same heading and should be separated. This is the current text:
若比丘尼。知食家婬處宿除餘時波夜提。餘 時者。風時雨時奪命時傷梵行時。是名餘時 若比丘尼。無商人伴向異國行波夜提。
But pc 117 is this:
若比丘尼。知食家婬處宿除餘時波夜提。餘 時者。風時雨時奪命時傷梵行時。是名餘時
and pc 118 is this:
若比丘尼。無商人伴向異國行波夜提。
All the following pacittiyas are thus incorrectly numbered. The last pc is now no. 140, but should be 141.
I am unsure how to modify my pootle file.
This is how it looks for pc 117:
I don’t know how to adjust the numbers in the third line for all the following pc rules.
Modifying the original text of PO files in Pootle is a hassle. So best to make a list of all such changes, and at the end of your project, we can make any and all such corrections as are needed, making sure that the parallels are properly adjusted if need be.
Occasionally I also find a bhikkhu rule that is incorrectly linked to its parallels. But since I’m not going to study all the bhikkhu rules in detail, it would be very difficult to correct single rules without messing up everything else.
Should I post them here, or just ignore them?
Thanks again for the info. Any mistakes can be posted here, we’ll get around to them at some point. What I might do is wait till your work is done, then look at updating anything that remains.
In the bhikkhu patimokkha, the parallel rules are easy to identify. In the bhikkhuni pm, things are much more messy. Rules resemble each other much less closely, are regularly broken into several pieces in various schools, and sometimes appear in different classes of offenses, such as a sanghadisesa in one school, and a pacittiya in another, etc. Sometimes, it is also not clear if two rules are actual parallels, or just rules that cover the same topic but originated from different incidents.
