English
by fifteen sections. In the reading, "thousands of suttantas and seven hundred suttas," it should be construed as seven thousand suttantas and seven hundred suttas. But in some places, the reading is also "seven thousand suttas and seven hundred suttas." "Saṃyutta collection" means the collection of the Saṃyutta Nikāya. "Indicated before" means indicated in the description of the Suttanta Piṭaka. To summarize and show what has been said in another way, it is said, "excluding the four Nikāyas, the rest of the Buddha's word." Indeed, what was specified by "the entire Vinaya Piṭaka" and so on, is here said in a summarized form in another way. Therefore, it is said, "excluding these four" and so on. "Other than that" means the rest, other than those four Nikāyas. "All of this" means all of this Buddha's word. "Of nine divisions." Here, how is it of nine divisions? Indeed, by the nine divisions established, other than It should be free from mutual confusion. And if so, the Geyya-parts, etc., would be non-Sutta in nature. Or, the Geyya-parts, etc., would be Sutta in nature. In that case, the Sutta as a distinct Sutta-part would not exist. If this were so, the Teaching would become eight-fold. Moreover, it is said in the commentary: ‘A Sutta with verses is Geyya, a Sutta without verses is Veyyākaraṇa (Exposition).’ And a Sutta, being either with verses or without verses, both are included by these two categories. And there is no Sutta, devoid of both, and without special designations like Udāna, etc., which could be a Sutta-part. Or, if somehow there were a distinct Sutta-part, would the Maṅgala Sutta, etc., not be included in the Sutta-part category, due to having verses, like the Dhammapada, etc.? Or would they be included in the Geyya-part category, due to having verses, like the Sagāthakavagga? And similarly, for the sections with verses in the Ubhatovibhaṅga, etc.? It is said: Sutta is the general rule, The others are specific rules; With their own signs, established by usage, Supported by others, not by themselves. Of the fault as stated, There is no room for it here; Therefore, without confusion, The Teacher's nine-fold Teaching. Indeed, for all the Buddha's words, 'Sutta' is the general rule. Thus, from sayings like ‘so much of that Blessed One's teaching is Sutta-come, Sutta-included,’ ‘in the Sutta-division of Sāvatthī,’ ‘five hundred Suttas in the Sakavāda,’ the term 'Sutta' is seen even in the specific divisions of Vinaya and Abhidhamma. And for this reason, Venerable Mahākaccāna said in the Netti (Netti, Saṅgahavāra): ‘The nine-fold Suttanta-investigation.’ There, indeed, the investigation, search, and analysis of meaning of the nine-fold teaching, in terms of Sutta, etc., is called ‘the nine-fold Suttanta-investigation.’ But in its specific parts, Geyya, etc., are specific rules established by their respective characteristics. Thus, the characteristic of Geyya is its being with verses. Indeed, even in the world, they call a text with verses or a prose text with verses 'Geyya'. But in the absence of verses, having asked a question and answered The non-existence of verses is the sign of the explanation's existence. Indeed, question and answer is called "byākaraṇa." Byākaraṇa itself is veyyākaraṇa. If that is so, even for those with verses, etc., which proceed by way of asking questions and giving answers, would the state of explanation arise? It does not arise. Because designations like "geyya" are exclusive, and the rule of exclusiveness is stronger than inclusiveness, and because it is specified "when there is no verse." Thus, in the Dhammapada and so on, which are bound by verses only, even though they have verses, and in special suttas with verses of joy and knowledge, and connected with phrases like "this was said," and connected with wonderful phenomena, the designations of Gāthā, Udāna, Itivuttaka, and Abbhutadhamma are established respectively. Here, even when there is a connection to another designation's cause, it is by the strength of exclusive designations that designations like Gāthā are established. Likewise, even when there is a state of being bound by verses, in those that reveal the Buddha's past lives' conduct and experiences, the designation of Jātaka is established. And even when there is a state of question and answer, and a state of having verses, in some suttas, because of the attainment of knowledge, the designation of Vedalla is established. Thus, by that and that cause like having verses, etc., in those various suttas, designations like Geyya are established. The specific classifications like Geyya and so on are distinct from the Sutta category. Whatever here is devoid of the causes for Geyya and other categories, that is the Sutta category, because it proceeds by the general designation, avoiding specific designations. But if that is so, a sutta with verses is Geyya, a sutta without verses is Veyyākaraṇa, so the objection remains that the Sutta category is not possible, isn't it? It does not remain. Because it has been clarified. Indeed, it was clarified before that when there is an absence of verses, the state of question and answer is the sign of the explanation's existence. And what was said: "Because of the presence of verses, the Maṅgala Sutta, etc., would not be included in the Sutta category," that is not so, because it is established. Indeed, the Sutta nature of the Maṅgala Sutta, etc., is well-established. For they are not known by their verse nature, like the Dhammapada, Buddhavaṃsa, etc., but rather by their Sutta nature. Therefore, indeed, eight The naming was done, saying, "What is the name of this Sutta?" And what was said, "Because it has verses, it should be included in the Geyyaṅga," that also is not so. Because it is together with another. For "being together" is, in meaning, with another. And "sagāthakaṃ" means "with verses." And in the Maṅgala Sutta and others, there is no Sutta passage that is free from verses, which could be called "with verses." But is it not possible to say that a collection of verses is different from the verses, and thus, by virtue of that, it is "sagāthakaṃ" (with verses)? That is not so. For there is no such thing as a collection that is separate from its parts. And what was said, "In the Ubhatovibhaṅga and others, the passages with verses should be included in the Geyyaṅga," that also is not from another. For those verses themselves are included in the Jātaka and others. Therefore, the Ubhatovibhaṅga and others do not have the nature of Geyyaṅga because of them. Thus, the non-intermingling of the Sutta and other constituents should be understood. Now, explaining and showing the nine constituents, the Sutta and others, it is said, "Therein, the Ubhatovibhaṅga, Niddesa, Khandhaka, Parivāra," and so on. Therein, Niddesa refers to the Aṭṭhakavagga, which appears in the Suttanipāta beginning with: "For one who desires desires, and that desire is fulfilled; Indeed, he becomes joyful, having obtained what he wishes." (Sn 772) And the Pārāyanavagga, which appears beginning with: "By what is the world enveloped? (Thus spoke the venerable Ajita;) By what does it not shine forth? What do you say is its anointing? What is its great fear?" (Sn 1038) And the Khaggavisāṇa Sutta, which appears beginning with: "Having laid down the rod towards all beings, not harming any one of them; He should not desire a son, much less a companion; He should wander alone, like a rhinoceros horn." (Sn 35) The Niddesa, which is made by the Venerable Dhammasenāpati Sāriputta Thera, in the manner of the Teacher, by way of explaining their meanings, is called Mahāniddesa and Cūḷaniddesa. Thus, it should be understood that here, the inclusion of Niddesa in the Sutta constituent is shown by the Venerable Buddhaghosa Acariya. And elsewhere also, in the Dīghanikāyaṭṭhakathā... And so forth, everywhere, in Ubhatovibhaṅga, Niddesa, Khandhaka, and Parivāra, the Niddesa's inclusion in the Sutta-aṅga is thus shown. Even by the Elder Acariya Dhammapāla, in the Nettipakaraṇa Commentary, its inclusion in the Sutta-aṅga was thus stated. Some, however, say the Niddesa's inclusion is in two divisions: Gāthā and Veyyākaraṇa. This was said by the Elder Upasena in the Niddesa Commentary – "That (Niddesa) among the three Piṭakas: Vinaya Piṭaka, Suttanta Piṭaka, Abhidhamma Piṭaka, is included in the Suttanta Piṭaka; among the five great Nikāyas: Dīgha Nikāya, Majjhima Nikāya, Saṃyutta Nikāya, Aṅguttara Nikāya, Khuddaka Nikāya, it is included in the great Khuddaka Nikāya; among the nine divisions of the Teacher's Dispensation: Sutta, Geyya, Veyyākaraṇa, Gāthā, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Jātaka, Abbhutadhamma, Vedalla, it is appropriately included in the two divisions of Gāthā and Veyyākaraṇa." Here, then, because of the nature of question and answer in some parts of the Niddesa, its inclusion in the Veyyākaraṇa division may indeed be appropriate. But how can its inclusion in the Gāthā division be appropriate? This should be investigated here. Indeed, like the Dhammapada and others, the state of being solely composed of verses is the characteristic for its being a Gāthā division. Indeed, in the Dhammapada and others, which are solely composed of verses, the designation 'Gāthā' is established. And in the Niddesa, no section composed solely of verses is found. Indeed, only the verses spoken by the Perfectly Enlightened One, those included in the Aṭṭhakavagga and so forth, were merely expounded upon by the General of the Dhamma. Indeed, those original verses, included in the Aṭṭhakavagga and so forth, which are to be expounded, even though brought in for the purpose of explaining their meaning, are distinct because they are included in the Suttanipāta. Thus, they do not count as Niddesa, even though they appear in the Ubhatovibhaṅga and so forth, they do not obtain that designation, just like the verses included in the Jātaka and so forth. Therefore,