danieLion wrote:This is probably a basic question. Using the Satipatthana Sutta as an example, why do some authors usually just cite it as just MN 10 (e.g., Thanissaro) while other authors cite it just as M I 55-63 (e.g., Analayo), and yet others cite it as both (e.g., Bodhi)? It makes following and comparing references frustrating! Anyone know any heuristics for this, preferably non-digital and/or off-line?
MN 10 is the sutta number.
M I 55-63 is pages 55-63 of volume I of the
Pali (not translated) version from the Pali Text Society (PTS). This allows for a more specific reference in a long sutta than just the Sutta number.
Sutta Central:
http://www.suttacentral.net is useful for searching. You can put in either style.
Note that there are some differences in reference numbers for the SN suttas between the translations on Access to Insight
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html Metta Net
http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/ and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. But the PTS page references should be the same...
danieLion wrote:On a related topic: I'm going to start purchasing Sutta Collections books, e.g., I'm looking at Bodhi's Majjhima Nikaya translation to start. How's that sit with the experts? Does the same go for his Anguttara Nikaya and Digha Nikayha translations?
After "In the Buddha's Words" I read the Nanamoli-Bodhi MN. There are many on-line talks on that Nikaya, from both Bhikkhu Bodhi, the Monks and Nuns at BSWA, and many others.
The Wisdom DN translation is by Maurice Walsh. Their SN, and upcoming AN are by BB.
http://www.wisdompubs.org/Pages/c_teachings.lassoI think they are the best available in English, with extensive notes and cross-references. In fact, they are the only complete modern translations, since the alternative PTS translations (which these supersede) are getting rather old (the BB translations are co-published with PTS).
Mike