I read from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s SN (General Intro) that Joy Manne’s finding pointed that DN and MN are largely to attract new converts whereas SN is more for experienced Buddhist (incl. those who are more advanced in meditative practice). This is very interesting for me as a new student because I have always wonder why some suttas are more storied-base whereas others are just statements.
May I ask: is Manne’s generally accepted?
And, does it mean that - I know this is a far too general assumption, still - for a beginner, when I wanted to look for doctrinal definitions, it is easier to start with SN?
Doctrinal definitions are usually found in suttas called vibhaṅga. Many of those are in fact in the SN, but there are also some in the MN. See for example Bhante Sujato’s note on SN 12.2:1.2:
An “analysis” (vibhaṅga) is a discourse that defines the terms of a particular teaching. It acts as a key for unlocking the meaning of that teaching wherever it appears. Special attention should be paid to the meanings of these terms, and they should be borne in mind whenever considering the topic. This allows us to both fix the intended meanings and exclude a range of false interpretations. | We find “analysis” discourses for the truths (MN 141), elements (MN 140), the six senses (MN 137), kamma (MN 135, MN 136), the path (SN 45.8), mindfulness (SN 47.40), the faculties (SN 48.9), and the bases of psychic power (SN 51.20). The category is not always clear-cut. For example, the “analysis” of mindfulness does not really define the terms, and the Satipaṭṭhānasutta acts more as a classic analysis despite not being called that. The aggregates lack an analysis, but see SN 22.56. The idea of the “analysis” lead to the creation of the Abhidhamma book of that name (Vb 1), which draws on the analysis discourses and elaborates them further.
Very interesting that you mentioned vibhaṅga, and thanks, friend.
I have not touched on the treatises yet and at sometimes am intentionally wanted to stick with the Nikayas first as not to mix up myself with the early period and what are to be written at a later stage.
My question was mis-leading. It should be “… when I wanted to look for suttas related to doctrines of a certain topic, is it eaiser to start wtih SN?” you have indirectly answer this too. Thanks again!
I was primarily meaning to refer to the vibhaṅgasuttas found in the Nikayas; Bhante only mentions in his note that the vibhaṅgabook of the Abhidhamma later on developed from the idea of a vibhaṅga in the Nikayas.
True, but different monks could specialize in preaching to different audiences. And newly ordained monks were probably assigned to different recitation groups based on their personalities and interests.
Also, some tail end DN suttas have extensive lists not quite in line with what you’d teach to newcomers, and MN is full of doctrinally complex (more complex than certain passages on SN, in fact) topics.
The first few DN suttas that all have the same training outline might indeed be redacted with a newcomer in mind, but that could hardly point to DN being exclusively for new converts.
It’s the first 13, i.e. 38% of the suttas. Of course there is plenty in many of those suttas besides the series on ethics. But if we take as a given that these suttas existed as such at the time of compilation, it seems clear that they were put together because they shared this section. We don’t have any other suttas in the canon outside of this vagga with this exact sequence. There are ethics series elsewhere but none of them are… long.
