Tibetan Vinaya texts wrongly placed in Discourses Section


As you can see here, the first 3 texts ostensibly do not belong in this section.

1 Like

I wonder if Ven. @Vimala would know why these ended up here.

1 Like

Thanks for noticing! Our Tibetan texts are neglected, so its good to have more eyes on them. :eye:


Also, pro tip, you might wanna list some of those Tibetan discourses as also being translations of Theravadin texts. There are a list of 13 lately translated suttas in the Tibetan Canon that were translated into Tibetan from Pali by two bhikkhus named Anandasiri and Nim Gyeltsen and constitute the latest portion of the Tibetan canon.

I know some people have been talking about a Tibetan translation of the Pali Canon. Part of that canon has already been translated into Tibetan. Tibetan should be listed among the current group of translation languages.

1 Like

I think I remember why this happened now. Basically these are Vinaya texts with parallels in the suttas. They exist only as parallels, and we probably added as such before we made the comprehensive set of parallels for the Vinaya.

(More details at the Github issue.)

Definitely we’d love to enhance our coverage of Tibetan generally. I wonder if that’s something you’d be interested in helping with? For example, each of these texts in that list could be furnished with a short blurb.

1 Like