Re: what does sutta denote?

Dear Ven. Nyanatusita,

Some specific comments:
>  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.
Yes, I agree.
>  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.
>  
If OvH says this, it is an error. See for example:

Ap II 546 Mahānidānasuttantaṃ sutvā taṃ pariyāpuṇiṃ

and in the Cūḷaniddesa (cited after VRI):
  bhagavā [Ne 149] pañca Jātakasatāni bhāsanto attano ca paresañ ca
atītaṃ ādisati, Mahāpadāniyasuttantaṃ {Mahādhaniyasuttaṃ (Se) } bhāsanto
attano ca paresañ ca atītaṃ ādisati, Mahāsudassaniyasuttantaṃ bhāsanto
attano ca paresañ ca atītaṃ ādisati, Mahāgovindiyasuttantaṃ bhāsanto
attano ca paresañ ca atītaṃ ādisati, Maghadeviyasuttantaṃ bhāsanto
attano ca paresañca atītaṃ ādisati.

Probably he said (or meant to say): in the four Nikāyas.
> 
>  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.)
>  
Perhaps. Or sutta in these compounds is simply plural. Of course, the
notion of a sūtra made up  of sūtras is standard in brahminical literature.
>  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.
>  
To me it seems that what has happened here is that the passage
originally read:
appakañ ca nesaṃ ahosi suttaṃ  apaññattaṃ sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ
"and they had a small Thread (i.e. Pātimokkha), the training rule(s)
were not ordained to his disciples .. ."

Then under the influence of the previous kilāsuno ahesuṃ sāvakānaṃ
vitthārena dhammaṃ desetuṃ the word suttaṃ has been reinterpreted and
expanded into the list of the nine kinds of dhamma.  Note that for this
to happen it is sufficient initially to have the intrusion of only a
single akṣara: pe.

Lance