Not exact sutta in Petakopadesa? :-/

Upasaka_Dhammasara · June 25, 2020, 2:31pm

So I’m to reading it, but I feel the quoted verses to be the original Tripitaka that was once written down in Sri Lanka and India. But then this morning I found out about the sort of Buddhism there was before in Burma, which was highly influenced by Hinduism and they accepted the Theravada of Mahavihara. Then I remember Sri Lanka having revival mission sending monks to Burma. But what if Tripitaka was lost in Sri Lanka and in its revival phase had to use Tripitaka from Burma which might have added the Hinduism influence to it? Because since I started reading a little of Netti and now Petakopadesa. It’s hard to think we had the same as the earliest.

(Shin Arahan - Wikipedia)

The state of Sri Lankan Buddhism was so bad at this time that he could not find five bhikkhus in the whole island to ordain more monks and restore the monastic tradition; therefore, he sent an embassy to Burma, which sent back several eminent elders with Buddhist texts

So actually Burma helped Sri Lanka get probably Tripitaka seeing the conditions.

For example there is sutta qoute

He is divine, he is a monk, a bhikkhu.

Divine is actually as was said in Netti. Brahma. I think this was later omitted. But here obviosly is the way Buddha talks only once in Majjhima Nikaya. He says “ “As Brahmā and Sakka for those who understand.”

Excerpt From
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha
Nanamoli & Bodhi

This material may be protected by copyright.

I think as if South Asia tried to omit them not understanding what he means. And preventing misunderstanding in Sangha, that didn’t understand such comparison. So no one think in unity to Brahma. But of course he probably didn’t mean that.

sujato · June 25, 2020, 10:52pm

You are quite right, the Tipitaka was said to be lost in Sri Lanka and was restored from Myanmar and Thailand. Indeed, in Sri Lanka today, many of the older manuscripts are still in Burmese or Khom characters. The degree to which this affected textual transmission is not well understood. It is quite possible that corruptions occurred, although to be clear, the Petakopadesa has long been a problematic text, studied and passed down by few, and was probably corrupt long before then.

There are a very few manuscripts in Sri Lanka that predate the re-importing of texts from Myanmar. The oldest of these is the 13th century Dutiyaparakkamabahu Cullavagga, which SuttaCentral is currently transcribing. Once it is complete, we will, for the first time, be able to directly assess variations in transmission between the 13th century and modern manuscripts.

Upasaka_Dhammasara · June 25, 2020, 11:14pm

I just noticed that yesterday Bhante about the manuscript. It’s kinda sad all the detail of us not having early Tripitaka to compare etc. but interested in this project. Very nice. Actually it was interesting that Nepal had the earliest of Pali. I’m slowly reading Petakopadesa. I understand Bhikkhu was explaining about corruption in It in Netti introduction but I still think some of verses are really more archaic to imagine that maybe we have a kinda Mahavihara/Burmese Buddhism version now. Or it’s just word meaning being changed overtime because new generations. New masters. Maybe South Asia had different thought about preserving a teaching. But it’s interesting

Thank you.

Is this the official link for the manuscript project?

github.com

sujato/cullavagga/blob/master/dpcv-project.md

# Dutiya-Parakkamabāhu Cullavagga Transcription Project

*Bhante Sujato, August 2018*

![alt text](/dpcv-project-files/dpcv-nyanatusita-2004-001.jpeg "The manuscript in its wooden covers")

## Introduction

In the National Museum of Colombo there rests one of the oldest, and arguably most important, Pali manuscripts found anywhere in the world. It contains the Cullavagga, which consists of chapters 11–22 of the *Khandhaka* portion of the Pali Vinaya.

![alt text](/dpcv-project-files/dpcv-nyanatusita-2004-020.jpeg "A leaf of the manuscript and the decorative cover")

The sign accompanying the exhibit identifies it as object number NM-2995 69L1. The manuscript consists of 143 palm leaves in good preservation. It was acquired by the National Museum on the recommendation of Senarath Paranavitana, who made the initial identification of the king with Dutiya-Parakkamabāhu. The cover of the book is wood painted with depictions of deities, in a style similar to those of the Polonnaruva period. For further details one is referred to H.C.R. Bell, Annual Report 1901, Department of Archaeology.

The manuscript itself includes a note ([HPIM4634](/images/dpcv-microfilm/HPIM4634.jpeg), [HPIM4635](/images/dpcv-microfilm/HPIM4635.jpeg)) to the effect that the manuscript consists of 144 leaves, sized 23ʹ×2 ¼ʹ. It was purchased for Rs 1000 along with 38 other manuscripts from the late Mr. H.C.P. Bell’s estate on 12/1/1938.

The colophon in the manuscript says that it was copied during the reign of Parākramabāhu, identified as the second of that name, which would place it in the 13th century. This makes it probably the oldest manuscript in Sri Lanka, and one of the oldest in the world. The only older published Pali manuscript I am aware of is from Nepal, dated to the 8th or 9th century, and consisting of a few pages, coincidentally, also of the Cullavagga.

Apart from that, so far as I am aware, all our current sources for Pali texts date from manuscripts of the 18th and 19th centuries. There are old manuscripts in all Theravadin lands, though none so old as the 13th century; but they are rare, understudied, and so far as I know, unpublished.

This file has been truncated. show original

I don’t think there is going to be much difference let’s see. Since it’s after the revival of Sri Lanka.

sujato · June 25, 2020, 11:32pm

It is, although much has changed since that proposal was posted. Currently, about 10% of the manuscript has been typed.