Re: What's does the "anta" in Suttanta mean?

I have had a quick look at the Klaus article. I can't really assess
whether he is right about the original usage of sūtra in Vedic
literature. I will have to ask around for the opinions of Vedicists.

But if it is true that sūtra did not refer to short statements
originally, then I see no reason for ever interpreting sutta in the
Nikāyas as referring to the Pātimokkha.

The list of kinds of dhamma
later referred to as Aṅgas do not seem to me to require this. The
context at M III 115 where we have sutta, geyya and veyyākaraṇa only
does not seem at all related to Vinaya matters. And this may be the
earliest reference.

I suspect that if the idea that sūtra originally refers to short
statements had not been accepted, no-one would have argued that sutta in
these contexts referred to the Pātimokkha.

The fact that the names of texts vary does not prove that the usage of
sutta as part of the names of texts is late. It seems clear that they
were happy to give multiple names to the same text from an early date. I
think it is only in written literature that we want a single separate
name. Oral literature does not work that way. In any case some names
with sutta at the end are embedded into the texts (e.g. in the Mahāvagga).

It seems that you misunderstand me. I did not refer to multiple names of suttas but to the fact that sometimes -sutta is used in the title at the conclusion of the discourse and sometimes -suttanta. In the PTS edition of the Majjhima Nikāya the first 50 suttas end in “-suttaṃ” (e.g., Mūlapariyāyasuttaṃ), the next 28 in “-suttantaṃ” (e.g., Kandarakasuttantaṃ). A footnote in M II (p.22, fn. 3) states that some manuscripts use -suttanta while others -sutta.

In A I 60 discourses are referred to as suttanta not as sutta : Dveme, bhikkhave, tathāgataṃ abbhācikkhanti. Katame dve? Yo ca neyyatthaṃ suttantaṃ nītattho suttantoti dīpeti, yo ca nītatthaṃ suttantaṃ neyyattho suttantoti dīpeti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve tathāgataṃ abbhācikkhantī’’ti.

Cf. A I 69: Ye te, bhikkhave, bhikkhū duggahitehi suttantehi byañjanappatirūpakehi atthañca dhammañca paṭivāhanti   etc.

In the Kathavatthu suttanta is also used many times with reference to discourses quoted: Attheva suttantoti?

The simile of the flowers tied by a string (see below) suggests that sutta as Pātimokkha might be derived from sūtra: “string,” while suttanta as used for discourses might be derived from sūkta “good saying” Sūkta = su + ukta means “(something) well said” or “wise saying,” (see MW 1240) and is used as a designation for inspired hymns in the Ṛg Veda. This derivation was suggested by Dayal in his book Bodhisattva Doctrine.

In the introduction to the Suttavibhaṅga (Vin III 8 f.) the Buddha said that the brahmacariya under some of the previous Buddhas did not last long because these Buddhas “were idle in teaching Dhamma in
detail to disciples; and they had little sutta, verse, …, the training for their disciples was not made known, the Pātimokkha was not recited.” The Buddha likened disciples of those Buddhas who let the brahmacariya disappear to loose flowers on a board that are scattered by the wind since they are not tied together by a string (suttena asaṃgahitattā.).

Ko nu kho, bhante, hetu ko paccayo, yena bhagavato ca vipassissa bhagavato ca sikhissa bhagavato ca vessabhussa brahmacariyaṃ na ciraṭṭhitikaṃ ahosī’’ti? ‘‘Bhagavā ca, sāriputta, vipassī bhagavā ca sikhī bhagavā ca vessabhū kilāsuno ahesuṃ sāvakānaṃ vitthārena dhammaṃ desetuṃ. Appakañca nesaṃ ahosi suttaṃ geyyaṃ veyyākaraṇaṃ gāthā udānaṃ itivuttakaṃ jātakaṃ abbhutadhammaṃ vedallaṃ. Apaññattaṃ sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ. Anuddiṭṭhaṃ pātimokkhaṃ. Tesaṃ buddhānaṃ bhagavantānaṃ antaradhānena buddhānubuddhānaṃ sāvakānaṃ antaradhānena ye te pacchimā sāvakā nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā te taṃ brahmacariyaṃ khippaññeva antaradhāpesuṃ. Seyyathāpi, sāriputta, nānāpupphāni phalake nikkhittāni suttena asaṅgahitāni tāni vāto vikirati vidhamati viddhaṃseti. Taṃ kissa hetu? Yathā taṃ suttena asaṅgahitattā. Evameva kho, sāriputta, tesaṃ buddhānaṃ bhagavantānaṃ antaradhānena buddhānubuddhānaṃ sāvakānaṃ antaradhānena ye te pacchimā sāvakā nānānāmā nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā te taṃ brahmacariyaṃ khippaññeva antaradhāpesuṃ.


Since the Pātimokkha, the training rules and Brahmacariya are specifically referred to here it seems to me that the simile of the flowers not tied to the board primarily refers to the Patimokkha. Sariputta also understood it in this manner since he requests the Buddha to recite the Patimokkha: Etassa, sugata, kālo! Yaṃ bhagavā sāvakānaṃ sikkhāpadaṃ paññapeyya  uddiseyya pātimokkhaṃ, yathayidaṃ brahmacariyaṃ addhaniyaṃ assa ciraṭṭhitika’’nti. ‘

Perhaps suttanta means ''inside what is well said'' ? su + ukta + anta? Similar to gāmanta?

Best wishes,
                       Bh Nyanatusita

Lance Cousins
>> He, therefore, assumes that sūtra in the sense of short text is a
>> later development, whereas originally it referred to texts which were
>> compiled out of various sources, and are thus comparable to a thread
>> spun from individual fibres .
>> The Patimokkha or Sutta is like a thread or string consisting of
>> fibres of many short rules, which, like the Brahmanical suttas need
>> to be explained by a commentary, the Suttavibhanga. It makes good
>> sense to call it a sutta.
>
> Agreed.
>>
>>> Thus there would be no problem for using sutta (derived from sūtra,
>>> not sūkta) for Buddhist dhamma texts.
>>
>> Yes, there is no problem, but it is good to be aware that the word
>> /sutta /in the Pali Canon, except perhaps for the general designation
>> /sutta /as one of the nine angas of the Buddhavacana, was used with
>> reference to the Patimokkha, while the individual discourses of the
>> Buddha in the Nikayas were referred to as /suttanta/. In commentarial
>> Abhidhamma texts there are the /suttantabh///ā/janiya /method and the
>> /abhidhammabh///ā/janiya /methods of analysis.
>>
>>> according to Klaus the word sutta in the beginning probably was used
>>> for a collection of Dhamma texts,
>>
>> Does he take sutta as one of the nine angas to be referring to this
>> collection?
>
> He discusses that. von Hinüber thinks that sutta in the list of nine
> stands for the Pātimokkha. Klaus accepts this interpretation
> eventually for the list of 4 (1-3, and 8 of the list of nine), but
> rather thinks that sutta in the list of nine also refers to the Suttas
> in the Suttapiṭaka (here he is not completely convincing to my
> opinion). The single reference for sutta outside the list of nine
> aṅgas, where sutta definitely does not refer to the Pātimokkha (DN II
> 123,30ff.; AN II 167,33ff.), but to the discourses, according to
> vHinüber is late, i.e. ca. 30 or 50 years after the death of the
> Buddha. This is refuted by Klaus, because he thinks this passage (the
> four mahāpadesas) does not make sense as a text compiled after the
> death of the Buddha.
>