Re: what does sutta denote?

Ole,

The problem with this argument is that the list of three, four or nine
literary forms is specifically a description of dhamma. But dhamma
doesn't necessarily include vinaya; rather, the two are contrasted. So
while sutta in Vinaya contexts may well refer to the Pātimokkha and
derive from sūtra, that is unlikely to be the case in this list.

In this list it seems to be a synonym for suttanta or suttanta may refer
especially to larger discourses. If so, sutta should correspond to
Sanskrit sūkta; so Pali sutta in the Nikāyas (or in this list) would be
equivalent to suvutta.

It does seem correct that sutta does not appear in the plural. (The
exception is various uddānas and the like that are part of some,
probably later, editing process.) This could be taken to mean that the
term sutta is actually later than suttanta. That would depend on how one
explains the form -anta-. Or, suttanta may have been felt to be a
weightier form, giving more respect.

We may note that the list of nine literary forms is largely an
Aṅguttaranikāya list. It does not occur in either the Dīghanikāya or the
Saṃyuttanikāya. In the Majjhimanikāya (M III 115; cf. Peṭ 9f.; Nett 128)
we meet the early form: suttaṃ geyyaṃ veyyākaraṇaṃ. Probably we have
suttaṃ here rather than suttantaṃ to obtain a sequence of waxing
syllables and to put suttaṃ in first place.

And of course the sāsana is only referred to as ninefold (navaṅga or
navavidha) in very late portions  of the Canon.

Lance


Ole Holten Pind wrote:
> sutta is mentioned first in the old list of literary form in the Pali canon
> sutta.m, geyya.m, etc. Now sutta (always referred to in the singular)
> denotes the Paatimokkha (presumably an early form) - commented in the
> Suttavibha.ga of the Vinaya. sutta contrasts with suttanta (often referred
> to in the plural in the Pali canon) the assumed speeches of the Bhagavat.
> 
> Ole Holten Pind
>