Re: what does sutta denote?

Dear Lance,

I'd need to check Hinueber's paper on the 9 angas to check what exactly
he wrote. The paper was written in 1994, before the digital Tipitakas
appeared, so he might have overlooked the examples you mention. In any
case, there seem to be no occurences in the 4 main Nikayas, and the
Apadana and Niddesa are usually considered to be later works.

I agree with your suggestion that the nine angas might have come later
into the account of the request for laying down the Patimokkha.The nine
angas don't really make sense in this context and the passage makes more
sense without them. Are there perhaps parallels to this passage in the
Vinayas of other early schools? Perhaps in the Posadhavastu? It would be
worthwhile to check but I don't have the materials here.

  (“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.”)

Regards,
                  Bh Nyanatusita





L.S. Cousins wrote:
>
> 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
>
>