Indeed, yes, this is difficult problem, one that relates to the previous issue you mentioned, that of being able to link to the texts from the vol/page references in the dictionaries.
Essentially what we need is a robust data set for converting from vol/page references to the semantic references used on SC. This is not a trivial problem, as the two systems do not always map neatly on to one another.
This wonât be solved soon, but my hope is that it will be implemented at some point.
Meanwhile, when I need to find a vol/page reference, I look for it manually on the division page. It usually is not too hard.
Itâs an entirely ragged-edged fix, but it was exactly in effort to avoid the above (particularly when I typically donât know which sub division I should be looking in) that I figured Iâd just dump everything into a single searchable file given in this post.
Is there an explanation somewhere of the different numbering systems (and equivalences)?
B.Bodhi translations have subdivision numbers, and â[numbers]â referring to somewhere in the âoriginialâ? But then trying to find a passage in the CST4.0, different numbering (seemingly sequential across an entire volume rather than within one sutta).
Often it ends up I just start at begin (or end â which even closer to the target) of a sutta (in CST4.0), and scan forwards (or backwards) trying to follow alignment with the translation (and writting-in the numbers in my texts in case ever visit there again).
Maybe this kind of cryptic know-how is simply pre-requisite to study at more scholarly levels?
Also, for anyone not familiar with Access to Insight, they have the cross-references on the sutta summary pages, which can also be helpful for seeing the titles e.g. for the SN here
One of the more obscure features of SuttaCentral is SuttaCentral (on the sn page the name of the division links to the full version)
In the next version of the site there will be some significant architectural changes to âdivision pagesâ and also in the longer term some new search possibilities.
Because itâs not obvious that the feature exists. Unless you randomly click on the division title to see where it goes you wonât know about it. Itâs not like the link is labelled âfull division viewâ or something. Also âalways fullâ divisions like DN and MN donât normally have /full on the end (though you can add it manually) so itâs not self-evident how youâd do URL manipulation to turn a not-always-full division view into a full one.