Dominik,
The Aṅguttara passage contrasting sutta with vinaya would appear to pose sutta
and vinaya as referring to two of what became three piṭakas (abhidhamma had yet
to appear).
Bhikkhu Bodhi translates that passage (and the following one) this way.
“Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One I
heard this; in his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is the
discipline; this is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement should
neither be approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it, you should
thoroughly learn those words and phrases and then check for them in the
discourses and seek them in the discipline.{893} If, when you check for them in
the discourses and seek them in the discipline, [you find that] they are not
included among the discourses and are not to be seen in the discipline, you
should draw the conclusion: ‘Surely, this is not the word of the Blessed One,
the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been badly learned by this
bhikkhu.’ Thus you should discard it.
“But a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One I heard this; in
his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is the discipline; this
is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement should neither be
approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it, you should thoroughly
learn those words and phrases and then check for them in the discourses and
seek them in the discipline. If, when you check for them in the discourses and
seek them in the discipline, [you find that] they are included among the
discourses and are to be seen in the discipline, you should draw the
conclusion: ‘Surely, this is the word of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the
Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been learned well by this bhikkhu.’ You
should remember this first great reference.
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s note {893} is interesting:
Tāni padabyañjanāni . . . sutte otāretabbāni vinaye sandassetabbāni. Mp gives
various meanings of sutte and vinaye here, some improbable. Clearly, this
instruction presupposes that there already existed a body of discourses and a
systematic Vinaya that could be used to evaluate other texts proposed for
inclusion as authentic utterances of the Buddha. Otāretabbāni is gerundive
plural of otārenti, “make descend, put down or put into,” and otaranti, just
below, means “descend, come down, go into.” My renderings, respectively, as
“check for them” and “are included among” are adapted to the context.
Sandassetabbāni is gerundive plural of sandassenti, “show, make seen,” and
sandissanti means “are seen.”
Like Woodward, Bodhi will on occasion indicate when he finds the commentaries
unhelpful or misleading.
Dan
> On May 11, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Interesting that in some of those citations, Dan, sutta is in the singular.
> That suggests, to me, a genre rather than "texts". (I'm not on secure ground
> here; my Pali grammar is a bit rusty.)
>
> On another topic, my teacher Richard Gombrich also taught me that sutta could
> be *<sūkta . But I'd like to note that he wasn't dogmatic about it. It was
> represented as a possibility.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
