Re: what does sutta denote?

Dear Ole,

I agree that it is likely that that sutte in D II 124 = A II 168 refers
to the Patimokkha / Suttavibhanga and the Vinaya to the Khandhakas..
This Cullavagga passage is quite interesting, the rule-discussion with
Vinayaatisaare you mentions refers to the Uposatha-sa.myutta, while the
next one, which is also referring to a rule in the Khandakas, refers to
the Vinaya-vatthu. This could indicate that when the second council took
place, and/or when it was recorded, the Mahavagga and Cullavagga did not
exist as titles yet and that there were collections called
Uposatha-sa.myutta and Vinaya-vatthu, which are now (part of?) the
Uposatha-kkhandhaka and the Campeyya-kkhandhaka of the Maha and
Cullavagga. I don't know if the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya contains a
Vinaya-vastu but it does contain a Posadha-vastu.
Regards,
                 Bhikkhu Nyanatusita




>
>
> 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
>
>