Thanks Jim and Suan for the interesting material.

If I understand correctly ,then, there are alternative sets of 'top
level' categories for dividing up the Buddhavacana.

The most common one is the threefold division into the three
Pi.takas. From the point of view of this division, it would not be
correct to include the Vinaya or Abhidhamma in the Khuddakanikaya for
the reason I mentioned early, that it would nest two pi.taka's inside
each other. So I was right so far.

However, if you choose _another_ system, there are Five Nikaayas
which are the topmost categories. The first four are (presumably) the
Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas, and the Fourth is
the 15-itemed collection referred to in the previous division as the
Khuddakanikaya together with both the Vinaya and the Abhidhamma. In
this system, a Nikaaya is a more encompassing category than a
pi.taka: the exact opposite state of affairs from the usual system.

Is this right?

Further, in that case the text quoted by Suan seems to need a slight
modification:

"khuddakapaa.thadhammapadaadayo" needs to be a single compound
meaning [beginning with the Khuddakapaa.tha and the Dhammapada]

Since these two named texts are the usual first two items in the list
of contents of the Khuddakanikaya it is natural for them to be in an
-adi construction like this to refer to the whole collection. Also,
if they are written separately, 'khuddakapaa.tha' is left without a
case ending. So I conclude the text as presented in Suan's post (and
presumably the edition he quotes from) is in error and needs this
amendment.

So would a translation be as follows? (Items in brackets are supplied
for clarity).

"What is the Khuddakanikaaya? The entire Vinaya-basket, the
Abhidhamma-basket, and the formerly shown fifteen-item [set of texts]
beginning with the Khuddakapaa.tha and the Dhammapada; having
established four nikaayas, the remaining Buddhavacana [is the
Khuddakanikaaya]."

Is this right?

I would say that I think it's a bit tricky of Suan to call the
Abhidhamma part of the Khuddakanikaaya since it seems to me that the
DEFAULT system of division, unless you specify otherwise, is the
3-fold pi.taka-based division. And in that system, Suan's statement
would be wrong. But that is not important since as I understood it,
the essential point he wanted to make is that the commentary
considers the Abhidhamma to be Buddhavacana. And that does seem to be
supported by this passage.

Best regards,

/Rett

>
>I'd just like to add more to Suan's source for the inclusion of the
>Abhidhammapi.taka in the Khuddakanikaaya. It is also found in the
>introductory sections of the commentaries to the Vinayapi.taka and
>Diighanikaaya. This is all part of the different ways in which the
>Buddhavacana can be divided up. Here's a brief overview from the
>Vinaya commentary (Sp I 16):
>
>onefold: by way of taste (rasavasena)
>twofold: by way of the dhamma and the vinaya
>threefold: a) by way of the first, middle, and last (words of the
> Buddha); & b) by way of the pi.takas (in which the
> suttantapi.taka is divided up into five nikaayas -- not to be
> confused with the following)
>fivefold: by way of the nikaayas
>ninefold: by way of the a"ngas
>eighty-four thousandfold: by way of units of the dhamma
> (dhammakkhandhavasena)
>
>The commentary (Sp I pp. 16-30) goes into much more detail.
>
>Best wishes,
>Jim
>
>Suan wrote:
> <<Dear Rett, Gunnar Gallmo, Thomas Law and all
>
>Here is the source that describes Abhidhamma Pi.taka as belonging to
>Khuddakanikaayo.
>
>"Katamo khuddakanikaayo? Sakalam vinayapi.takam,
>ABHIDHAMMAPI.TAKAM, khuddakapaa.tha, dhammapadaadayo ca pubbe
>dassitaa pañcadasappabhedaa; .thapetvaa cattaaro nikaaye
>avasesam buddhavacananti."
>
>The above quote can be found on page 25 of A.t.thasaalinii, the
>Commentary On Dhammasanganii (Roman script). >>