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

Dear Ven. Nyanatusita,

> When the Buddha himself gave names to his discourses he used
> /pariyāya/, e.g. /madhupiṇḍikapariyāyo/, ///lomahaṃsanapariyāyo/,
> /ā//dittapariyāya/. I can't find /ā//dittapariyāyasutta /in the
> discourses itself in the Burmese CS edition of the SN and Vin, only in
> the headings and conclusions.
> If anyone can find a usage of sutta as part of a title of discourse,
> which is used by the Buddha or a disciple /inside /the body of the
> text of a discourse (not as part of a heading or conclusion), then I'd
> like to know about it.
>
I think it is entirely possible that the Buddha himself never referred
to his teachings as suttas, but we should remember that discourses which
give alternative names at the end are a rather special case.

It is perhaps a moot point whether the passage I mentioned in the
Mahāvagga counts as a conclusion. I took it as part  of the body text
because it did not seem to me to be a heading or conclusion of the
Mahāvagga. But it is perhaps  a moot point. Anyway I have not made much
study of Vinaya.
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Yes, this might be the case, but even then it shows how /sutta /was
> understood at a relatively early date by the compilers of the Vinaya
> Pitaka, i.e. as something which ties and keeps together smaller
> strands. This seems to have been the common understanding at the time.
> And it perfectly fits the way the Patimokkha, which is generally
> agreed upon as a very early text by scholars, is structured.
I don't have a problem with this.
>
> To return to my previous question regarding /anta /in /suttanta /as
> meaning ''inside'' or “included in”, in the sense of -/anta /in
> /g//āma//nta/: “inside the village (area)”: In the Pali commentaries
> and Tikas sometimes /suttantara ///is usedinstead of /suttanta/.
[section omitted]
>
> Perhaps then, if /anta /corrresponds to /antara, //suttanta /means
> something like “inside the sutta” or “part of the sutta” as being a
> part or fibre of the larger sutta body or thread of texts? This 
> agrees with the suggestion of Klaus.
>
Yes, this is a possibility, if Klaus is right. I am reserving judgement
on it for now because I would need to examine the usage of -anta more
widely and carefully before forming a definite opinion.
>
> Perhaps the usage of /sutta /in the /mahapadesa /does not refer to a
> body of discourses, but rather to a pattern or mode of teaching, i.e.
> as the “thread” or threaded, coherent pattern of a discourse, in the
> same the  way  it  is  used in the Netti? This you yourself suggest in
> your article 'Pali Oral Literature'. Nyanamoli also does so in his
> introduction to his Netti translation.
>
Well, I am glad you have read this. I thought that everyone who
discussed the mahāpadesa since had ignored my comments !
> Perhaps the term /s//uttanta /was used to distinguish the discourses
> of the Buddha from the legal text Patimokkha called Sutta?
>
That's  possible.

What I am  not convinced of is that in the list of threefold, later
fourfold, later ninefold or twelvefold dhamma, we are dealing  with an
earlier organization of the canonical texts into Nine Folds. Or, a
smaller number of Folds. That is  why people want to see sutta in these
lists as referring to the Pātimokkha (as opposed to including the
Pātimokkha).

This makes no historical  sense to me. There is no organization of monks
into reciters of the different  Folds. So how would they have been
transmitted ?

Lance Cousins