Re: what does sutta denote?

Dear Ole and Lance,

  As far as I know there is no occurence of the word “Paatimokkhasutta”
anywhere in the Pali. Dr. von Hinueber apparently has adapted the
Sanskrit usage (Praatimok.sasuutra) in his paper on the Patimokkhasutta
(in German) but I don't agree with him. The use of Praatimok.sasuutra
might have originated from a misunderstanding, on the part of those who
translated the Paatimokkha into Sanskrit, of sutta in Paacittiya 73, in
the Pátimokkha conclusion and in the word Suttavibhanga. Hinueber
himself  mentions in another paper that neither sutta nor suttanta occur
in any of the titles of texts referred to in the five Pali nikaayas.

  It seems to me that Sutta in suttaagata (in Paacittiya rule 73 and in
the Paatimokkha conclusion) and in the word Suttavibhanga, is a synonym
for the Paatimokkha because the structure of the Paatimokkha is one of
of concise rules, suttas, strung together (sutta/suutra) into one string
. (In a similar way, the "Rule" of Saint Benedict is made up of
individual rules.)

  There is a passage where sutta is being used both as one of the nine
angas and in the sense of a string, and where the last usage seems to
stand for the Paatimokkha: In the introduction to the Suttavibhanga, Vin
III 8 f., the Buddha said that the brahmacariya under some of the
previous Buddhas did not last long because these Buddhas (Book of
Discipline I 15:) "were idle in preaching dhamma in detail to the
disciples; and of these there was little sutta, verse, … , the training
for their disciples was not made known, the Pátimokkha was not
recited.": "… appakañ-ca nesa.m ahosi sutta.m geyya.m … vedalla.m,
appaññatta.m saavakaana.m sikkhaapada.m anuddi.t.tha.m Paatimokkha.m."
Those disciples who let the brahmacariya disappear were likened by the
Buddha to loose flowers on a board that are scattered by the wind since
they are not tied together by a string/thread: "suttena
asa''ngahitattaa." (Cf. Saamagaamasuttanta; MN 104.) Ven. Saariputta
then requested the Buddha to declare the training and to recite the
Paatimokkha, but the Buddha declined saying that he would not do so
until the conditions causing taints/outflows (aasavaa) appeared in the
Sangha.

  The other divisions of the navanga might also refer to the structure or
content matter of the texts in the Canon rather than to the titles of
texts, i.e., one suttanta can contain veyyaakara.na, gaathaa and
abbhutadhamma. For example, see MN 49, esp. M I 330, and the
Dhammacakkapavattana-veyyaakara.na, which contains an udaana and an
abbhutadhamma (i.e. an earthquake). Likewise a few Jaataka stories are
found in the Vinaya Pi.taka.

  Regards,
                 Bh Nyanatusita

>
>
>>
>> Ole Holten Pind wrote:
>> > Lance,
>> >
>> > One of the most interesting passages in which sutta is found is D
>> II 124 = A II 168. It occurs in the locative singular-sutte-and
>> contrasts with vinaye. Buddhaghosa starts out explaining that sutta
>> in this connection refers to Vinaya and sutte means suttavibha.nge.
>> He goes on explaining that vinaye means the khandaka and he quotes an
>> interesting-and I would say original style paatimokkhasutta:
>> vinayaatisaare from the cullavagga II 306 where other similar suttas
>> are quoted. This means that the canonical passage on this
>> interpretation only refers to the paatimokkhasutta and the khandaka.
>> > Then Buddhaghosa continues explaining the passage in such a way
>> that it covers all of the then known canon, which is understandable
>> as he would like to see the passage as one involving all of the
>> canon. However, I tend to think that the first explanation which I
>> assume is based upon older material is the right one.
>> >
>> > Lamotte devoted a well-known article to this passage and rejected
>> Buddhaghosa´s interpretation as fantastic. However, he overlooked
>> that sutte cannot mean "in the sutras." Even the Buddhist Sanskrit
>> tradition imitates the loc. sg. However, we have no reason to believe
>> that monastic discipline and the rules of the paatimokkha were not of
>> greater concern to the early Buddhists than the suttantas. I believe
>> that this interesting text was inserted in the
>> Mahaaparinibbaana-suttanta by its redactors to illustrate how to
>> proceed when claims about discipline would be raised after the
>> cremation of the Buddha and he no longer could be addressed as an
>> authority on matters of discipline. Conflicts that were started by
>> questions related to discipline are well-known. It is highly unlikely
>> that the text would have dealt with the authenticity of the canonical
>> texts as a whole. Thus questions relative to the authenticity of the
>> canonical text are not at stake on this interpretation.
>> >
>> > Ole
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >>
>>
>> 
>