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

Dear Ven. Nyanatusita,

>> 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.
>>
>
> But in the Patimokkha itself and in the Suttavibhanga it is referred
> to as /sutta/: /suttāgato/,//etc. And also in the definition of a monk
> who can instruct bhikkhunis, etc. it is referred to as such: /
> //ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena svāgatāni honti
> suvibhattāni suppavattīni suvinicchitāni //suttaso//anubyañjanaso; //
> //
> /Other particular texts are not referred to in this manner as far as I
> can see.
Of course, the Pātimokkha is referred to as sutta in Vinaya literature.
That is certainly the case.
>> 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.
>>
>
> Perhaps the understanding of sutta meaning a string of short
> statements was the commonly accepted meaning?
> An earlier usage that is different does not mean that later it was
> also understood as such.
>
>> 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 was Petra who argued that the names of suttas are late and so are not
evidence for early use of sutta as a designation for the discourses.
> Can you give a reference?
I was thinking of Vin I 35, but although the version from the Burmese CD
has Ādittaparyāyasutta, the PTS edition has only Ādittaparyāyaṃ; so we
are back at the problem of lack of proper Ms studies.
>
> 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
> “-/sutta//ṃ/” (e.g., /Mūlapariyāyasutta//ṃ/), the next 28 in
> “-/suttanta//ṃ/” (e.g., /Kandarakasuttanta//ṃ/). 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  
> e/tc./
> /
>
>
> 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./
>
If it proves to be the case that earlier Vedic sources have only the use
of sūtra for short statements, then this would be convincing. But if
Klaus is right and this is not the case, then there is no need for a
separate derivation.
>
>
> 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
> (s/uttena asa//ṃgahitattā/.).
>
> Ko nu kho, bhante, hetu ko paccayo, yena bhagavato ca vipassissa
> bhagavato ca sikhissa bhagavato ca vessabhussa brahmacariyaṃna
> ciraṭṭhitikaṃahosī’’ti? ‘‘Bhagavā ca, sāriputta, vipassī bhagavā ca
> sikhī bhagavā ca vessabhū kilāsuno ahesuṃsāvakānaṃvitthārena
> dhammaṃdesetuṃ. Appakañca nesaṃahosi suttaṃgeyyaṃveyyākaraṇaṃgāthā
> udānaṃitivuttakaṃjātakaṃabbhutadhammaṃvedallaṃ.
> Apaññattaṃsāvakānaṃsikkhāpadaṃ. Anuddiṭṭhaṃpātimokkhaṃ.
> Tesaṃbuddhānaṃbhagavantānaṃantaradhānena
> buddhānubuddhānaṃsāvakānaṃantaradhānena ye te pacchimā sāvakā nānānāmā
> nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā te taṃbrahmacariyaṃkhippaññeva
> antaradhāpesuṃ. Seyyathāpi, sāriputta, nānāpupphāni phalake
> nikkhittāni suttena asaṅgahitāni tāni vāto vikirati vidhamati
> viddhaṃseti. Taṃkissa hetu? Yathā taṃsuttena asaṅgahitattā. Evameva
> kho, sāriputta, tesaṃbuddhānaṃbhagavantānaṃantaradhānena
> buddhānubuddhānaṃsāvakānaṃantaradhānena ye te pacchimā sāvakā nānānāmā
> nānāgottā nānājaccā nānākulā pabbajitā te taṃbrahmacariyaṃkhippaññeva
> 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. /‘
>
>
Most scholars would take this passage to be rather late, since it
contains reference to the six past Buddhas as well as to all nine kinds
of dhamma.

Lance Cousins