[INDOLOGY] The Buddhist term sutta

[Stefan Baums]

Dear Tim,

> is there any unambiguous attestation of such a doublet sutta
> with the meaning sūkta/suvutta, e.g., in a context not referring
> to scripture?

I would not necessarily expect to find it, since the nature of
linguistic doublets is semantic specialization (or division of an
originally broader semantic range). A classic example from English
is wine (the drink) vs. vine (the plant), both borrowed from Latin
vinum at different times. In our (hypothetical) example, OIA sūkta
would then early on have become sutta “canonical text” and have
acquired an opaque specialized meaning, and su-vutta “well-spoken”
would be a later, clarifying formation (in parallel with
replacement by subhāsita), since due to the phonetic change sutta
could no longer convey that meaning clearly.

But again, there is no positive evidence for P sutta < OIA sūkta.
Some of us (myself included) find it tempting semantically and for
the historical connection it would provide with Vedic terminology,
but Philipp’s first-century-CE example for a meaning “[corpus of
authoritative] knowledge” from the Carakasaṃhitā suggests that the
meaning “canonical Buddhist text” (or similar) could be derived in
purely semantic terms from OIA sūtra (taken as “guideline” rather
than Ñāṇamoli’s “thread of argument”).

All best,
Stefan

-- 
Stefan Baums, Ph.D.
Institut für Indologie und Tibetologie
Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität München