[INDOLOGY] The Buddhist term sutta

[Gleb Sharygin]

Dear Prof. Ryan,

Esteemed colleagues mostly are pointing out here that such derivation is
not likely or necessary, but it does not change the fact that the early
Buddhist *suttas *are wordy dialogues (or monologues) that narrate the
matters in a rather lively manner, but the Brahmanic *sūtras *are terse and
extremely succinct coded messages, which do resemble "threads" (Sanskrit "
*sūtra*") as such. The contrast to me is very striking. How can we explain
it? For instance, assuming that *sūtra *and *sutta *are different words
(and "literary genres").

Kind regards,
Gleb Sharygin

PhD Candidate
Institute for Indology and Tibetology
LMU Munich

https://www.academia.edu/19790273/Misunderstood_origins_how_Buddhism_fooled_modern_scholarship_-_and_itself

пн, 10 мая 2021 г. в 21:22, Jim Ryan via INDOLOGY <
indology at list.indology.info>:

> Dear all,
>
> Sheldon Pollock in *The Language of the Gods in the World of Men *(p. 52)
> suggests that the Buddhist term “sutta” does not derive from the Sanskrit
> *sūtra,* but rather from *sūkta. *Sanskrit double consonant clusters do
> show regular assimilation, regressively and progressively, in Prakrit,
> where two different consonants become a double of one of them. I’m
> interested in hearing learned opinion on Pollock’s suggestion. I had not
> noticed this interesting detail, when I first read this book some years ago.
>
> James Ryan
> Asian Philosophies and Cultures (Emeritus)
> California Institute of Integral Studies
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20210511/92bf57d0/attachment.htm>