Upvote:1
Do you mean like these for the Sutta Pitaka?
These pages list out the numbers and names of the suttas, and even provide a one-line description.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/index.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html
Upvote:2
Leigh Brasington has published a Sutta Number cross reference here: http://www.leighb.com/suttanbrxref.htm
In addition SuttaCentral now seems to to be able to get the full referencing using the following URL format: https://suttacentral.net/sn/full where sn means Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN). AccessToInsight also has similar index format e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html
Also in the Piya Tan's translations there are multiple cross referencing schemes. E.g. Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta has S 56.11/5:420-424 = Mv 1.6.16-31 @ V 1:10-12 • Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta Mv 1.6.32-37 (V 1:12 f) • Pañcavaggiya Pabbajjā
in the even pages. If you know the Sutta by same then you can use LIST & INDEX of Suttas & Essays 2002-2013, Sutta Glossary Index early Buddhism and related terms Vol1 & Vol2 by Piya Tan and if there is translation you can find the header. The index also has simplified numbering.
Reference:
Upvote:2
Additional site for sutta crossreferencing.
https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2018/05/navigating-sutta-numbering-schemes.html
https://palistudies.blogspot.com/2020/02/sutta-number-to-pts-reference-converter.html
Upvote:12
(UPDATED)
After some digging, it seems that indeed there is no one standard that can be truly relied upon to work for all version of the tipitaka, at least for the Samyutta and the Anguttara. For the Digha and the Majjhima, it's pretty simple to say DN 22 or MN 10, and I think the order and numbering is pretty consistent across the board.
And no, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any such chart as you are looking for. We discussed this some time ago on the Yahoo! Pali Study list (2011) and as John Kelly said:
For the Nikayas, clearly there is no issue for DN and MN. It is SN and AN that are problematic. The problem arises because the original Pali has no numbers and the various editions of the Pali (Be, Ce, and so on) use differing numbering schemes based on how their editors choose to separate the suttas.
What we do have:
http://www.suttacentral.net has a full concordance for all of the nikayas between the system used internally by the Pali Text Society and the system employed by Bhikkhu Bodhi (and ATI and the DPR). For example (picked at random):
ID Title Vol/Page SN 28.1 Vivekaja SN iii 235 SN 28.2 Avitakka SN iii 235 SN 28.3 Piti SN iii 236 SN 28.4 Upekkhā SN iii 237 SN 28.5 Ākāsānañcāyatana SN iii 237 SN 28.6 Viññāṇañcāyatana SN iii 237 SN 28.7 Ākiñcaññāyatana SN iii 237 SN 28.8 Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana SN iii 237 SN 28.9 Nirodhasamāpatti SN iii 238 SN 28.10 Sūcimukhī SN iii 238
ID
here refers to the international standard: samyutta #28, sutta #1-10.
Vol/Page
refers to the PTS volume (three) and page numbers 235-8.
So, given a reference like "SN 28.5" or "SN iii.237", you could check this chart and see that the first refers to the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta, and the second may refer to one of five suttas, including the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta. Given that these are the two most common systems in use, this is probably the best you are going to get.
Also, as noted, ATI has notations for all of its suttas (it uses the international standard), and gives both the PTS and Bodhi page numbers. They also have a conversion chart for the Samyutta between the VRI and "modern" systems (the DPR actually accords with the modern system in its numbering).
Further, the VRI Tipitaka (and the Digital Pali Reader based on it) has notations for volume and page numbers of each of the major versions of the Tipitaka (Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan and PTS), in case you come across that sort of notation.
Finally, as a bonus, the DPR has a title search function, by which you can do the opposite - given a sutta title, you can track down where it is in the tipitaka.
So, sorry to fudge my answer again and again, but here it is in (hopefully) final form.