[INDOLOGY] The Buddhist term sutta

[Andrew Ollett]

Since Rupert asked about the "wider Prakrit evidence," I can just cite the
following verse that is included in the "late canonical" Anuyōgadvāra of
the Śvētāmbara Jains (p. 91 of vol. 1 of Jambūvijayajī's edition):

Sūtram (giving a list of synonyms for suya, i.e., śruta, learning):
    suya-sutta-gantha-siddhanta-sāsaṇē āṇa-vayaṇa-uvadēsē
    paṇṇavaṇa-āgamē yā ēgaṭṭhā pajjavā-suttē

Cūrṇiḥ of Jinadāsa: gurūhiṁ aṇakkhātaṁ jamhā ṇō bujjhati tamhā pāsuttasamaṁ
suttaṁ (i.e. deriving *sutta*- from *supta-*)
Vivr̥tiḥ of Haribhadra: sūcanāt sūtram.
Vr̥tti of Hēmacandra: arthānāṁ sūcanāt sūtram.

The idea of taking *suttam* from the verbal root √*sūc *is clever (via
something like *sūk-tra-*), but of course √*sūc *is secondary from √*sū* (via
the noun *sū-cī́-*), so maybe it doesn't work.

Sanskrit of uktá- usually corresponds to vutta- in Middle Indic (including
Ardhamagadhi), and although utta- is used too under the influence of
Sanskrit at a later period.

Andrew



On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:15 PM Dan Lusthaus <lusthaus at g.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Dominik,
>
> The Aṅguttara passage contrasting sutta with vinaya would appear to pose
> sutta and vinaya as referring to two of what became three piṭakas
> (abhidhamma had yet to appear).
>
> Bhikkhu Bodhi translates that passage (and the following one) this way.
>
> “Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One
> I heard this; in his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is
> the discipline; this is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement
> should neither be approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it,
> you should thoroughly learn those words and phrases and then check for them
> in the discourses and seek them in the discipline.{893} If, when you check
> for them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline, [you find that]
> they are not included among the discourses and are not to be seen in the
> discipline, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Surely, this is not the word
> of the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been
> badly learned by this bhikkhu.’ Thus you should discard it.
>
> “But a bhikkhu might say: ‘In the presence of the Blessed One I heard
> this; in his presence I learned this: “This is the Dhamma; this is the
> discipline; this is the Teacher’s teaching!”’ That bhikkhu’s statement
> should neither be approved nor rejected. Without approving or rejecting it,
> you should thoroughly learn those words and phrases and then check for them
> in the discourses and seek them in the discipline. If, when you check for
> them in the discourses and seek them in the discipline, [you find that]
> they are included among the discourses and are to be seen in the
> discipline, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Surely, this is the word of
> the Blessed One, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One. It has been
> learned well by this bhikkhu.’ You should remember this first great
> reference.
>
> Bhikkhu Bodhi’s note {893} is interesting:
> Tāni padabyañjanāni . . . sutte otāretabbāni vinaye sandassetabbāni. Mp
> gives various meanings of sutte and vinaye here, some improbable. Clearly,
> this instruction presupposes that there already existed a body of
> discourses and a systematic Vinaya that could be used to evaluate other
> texts proposed for inclusion as authentic utterances of the Buddha.
> Otāretabbāni is gerundive plural of otārenti, “make descend, put down or
> put into,” and otaranti, just below, means “descend, come down, go into.”
> My renderings, respectively, as “check for them” and “are included among”
> are adapted to the context. Sandassetabbāni is gerundive plural of
> sandassenti, “show, make seen,” and sandissanti means “are seen.”
>
> Like Woodward, Bodhi will on occasion indicate when he finds the
> commentaries unhelpful or misleading.
>
> Dan
>
> On May 11, 2021, at 12:11 PM, Dominik Wujastyk via INDOLOGY <
> indology at list.indology.info> wrote:
>
> Interesting that in some of those citations, Dan, sutta is in the
> singular.  That suggests, to me, a genre rather than "texts".  (I'm not on
> secure ground here;  my Pali grammar is a bit rusty.)
>
> On another topic, my teacher Richard Gombrich also taught me that sutta
> could be *<sūkta .  But I'd like to note that he wasn't dogmatic about it.
> It was represented as a possibility.
>
> Best,
> Dominik
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bb7121b9/attachment.htm>