Dear Bh Nyanatusita and Lance,
<As far as I know there is no occurence of the word “Paatimokkhasutta” anywhere in the Pali>
You are right. The term paatimokkha is used at M III 10; A I 98; IV 206 and V 70 to denote the rules recorded in the sutta. When commentators refer to the sutta it is usually glossed as paatimokkha.
<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>
This is also my view.
<appakañ-ca nesa.m ahosi sutta.m geyya.m … vedalla.m, appaññatta.m saavakaana.m sikkhaapada.m anuddi.t.tha.m Paatimokkha.m.>
This lovely example should be added to those I mention above.
I think that the distinction between sutta = paatimokkha and Vinaya = khandhaka is worth while reflecting upon especially in the context of the well-known Diigha passage. The cullavagga sutta Vin II 306-7: vinayaatisaare dukka.tam unlike the rest of the suttas quoted, which have parallels in the paacittiya, refers to Mahaavagga II.8.3 and IX.3.5 that is the khandhaka.
Regards,
Ole
>
>
>>
>> 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
>> >>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links