Re: what does sutta denote?

Ole,

I think the expression mātikādhara- is found in the Canon only in the set:
bahussutā āgatāgamā dhammadharā vinayadharā mātikādharā
This is not found in the Saṃyutta- and Khuddaka-, but it is in the
Vinaya as well as in the Dīgha-, Majjhima- and Aṅguttara-.

Buddhaghosa does indeed explain mātikādhara in terms of the two
Pātimokkha, but it seems to be only Buddhaghosa who does so and only in
the Aṅguttara commentary:

Mp II 189:
__bahussutā_ ti ekanikāyādivasena bahu buddhavacanaṃ sutaṃ etesan ti
bahussutā. __āgatāgamā_ ti eko nikāyo eko āgamo nāma, dve nikāyā dve
āgamā nāma, pañca nikāyā pañca āgamā nāma, etesu āgamesu yesaṃ eko pi
āgamo āgato paguṇo pavattito, te āgatāgamā nāma. __dhammadharā_ ti
suttantapiṭakadharā. __vinayadharā_ ti vinayapiṭakadharā. __mātikādharā_
ti dvemātikādharā.


Mp III 382:
__āgatāgamā_ ti dīghādīsu yo koci āgamo āgato etesan ti āgatāgamā.
__dhammadharā_ ti suttantapiṭakadharā. __vinayadharā_ ti
vinayapiṭakadharā. __mātikādharā_ ti dvepātimokkhadharā.

Dhammapāla the ṭīkākāra interprets it as referring to the mātikās in all
three piṭakas:

Vism-mhṭ:
suttageyyādi bahu sutaṃ etesan ti __bahussutā_. vācuggatakaraṇena,
sammad eva garūnaṃ santike āgamitabhāvena ca āgato
pariyattidhammasaṅkhāto āgamo etesan ti __āgatāgamā_.
suttābhidhammasaṅkhātassa dhammassa dhāraṇena __dhammadharā_. vinayassa
dhāraṇena __vinayadharā_. tesaṃ yeva dhammavinayānaṃ mātikāya dhāraṇena
__mātikādharā_.

Sāriputta also, even when commenting on Mp, rejects the position of
Buddhaghosa and suggests that it is more fitting to interpret it as both
the mātikā of the Vinaya and that of the Abhidhamma:

Mp-ṭ to Mp II 189:
  diṭṭhadhammikasamparāyikaparamatthabhedañhi yena sutena ijjhati, taṃ
sutaṃ nāma. ukkaṭṭhaniddesena dassento __ “ekanikāya … pe … bahussutā” _
ti āha. __āgato_ ti suppavattibhāvena svāgato. tenāha __ “paguṇo
pavattito” _ti. abhidhamme āgatā kusalādikkhandhādibhedabhinnā dhammā
suttantapiṭake pi otarantī ti __ “dhammadharā ti suttantapiṭakadharā”
_icceva vuttaṃ. na hi ābhidhammikabhāvena \Ne II 83] vinā nippariyāyato
suttantapiṭakaññutā sambhavati. __dvemātikādharā_ ti
bhikkhubhikkhunimātikāvasena dvemātikādharā ti vadanti,
“vinayābhidhammamātikādharā” ti yuttaṃ.

and elsewhere he follows Vism-mhṭ closely.

As you know, various scholars have argued that mātikā in this context
represents a kind of proto-Abhidhamma. I don't see this as exclusive.
Rather, I think Dhammapāla is essentially right. What is meant is any
kind of mātikā i.e. (sets of) keywords. So both the Pātimokkha and the
kind of material that develops into the mātikā lists of Paṭis and the
Abhidhamma works can be included.

We should probably see dhammadhara in terms of the shorter sequence
bahussuta- dhammadhara-. This is found in a wider range of texts,
including a number of the older verse texts (but not in the Majjhima-).
I can't find the commentarial gloss in the plural that you mention,
unless you mean Mp III 7:
__dhammadharan_ ti sutadhammānaṃ ādhārabhūtaṃ.
But I would have thought that it means 'teachings' here.

Lance


> The mahaapadesa passage mentions a list of learned monks who are
> dhammadharas, vinayadharas and maatikaadharas. The commentators appear to
> agree on the denotation of the last two: Vinaya denotes the Vinaya and
> maatikaa the two Paatimokkhas, which reflects a well-established tradition.
> The contrast between the two corresponds in all likelihood to that between
> Vinaye and Sutte of the mahaapadesa passage. But what about Dhammadhara ? It
> is tempting to take it as referring to the dhamma of the suttantas. But
> dhammadhara itself an ambiguous term. Commentators gloss dhamma in the
> plural dhammaanam: dhara (keeper) of the rules ?
>
> Ole
>