[INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Fri May 14 16:21:42 UTC 2021

Thanks, Tim. The double-entendre has been on my mind too. You have no problem with "indicated meaning"? I am a bit reluctant to it because of possible confusion with figurative meaning (abhidhā vs. lakṣaṇā), which I don't think is intended.

Best wishes,
Aleksandar

Aleksandar Uskokov

Lector in Sanskrit

South Asian Studies Council, Yale University

203-432-1972 | aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu

________________________________
From: Lubin, Tim <LubinT at wlu.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 12:07 PM
To: Uskokov, Aleksandar <aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu>; INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>; Jim Ryan <jim_ryan at comcast.net>; Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Dear Matthew and Aleksandar,

Matthew, you say: “Once more, SŪC, and nothing to do with thread, …”  But we should remember that sūc- is also (indeed, most literally) connected with piercing (with a needle) and sewing.  Sūcī/sūcaka = needle, sūcita = pierced, sūcika = tailor, sūcitā = needlework.

So a double-entendre is involved here: the sūtras have “indicated meanings” but also “stitched meanings,” and so, paradoxically, the nirukti deriving it from sūc- is still an indication of a basic meaning of ‘thread’.

Best,
Tim

_________________________________________
Timothy Lubin
Jessie Ball duPont Professor of Religion and Adjunct Professor of Law
204 Tucker Hall
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, Virginia 24450

American Council of Learned Societies fellow, 2020–21
National Endowment for the Humanities fellow, 2020–21

https://lubin.academic.wlu.edu/<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flubin.academic.wlu.edu%2F&data=04%7C01%7Caleksandar.uskokov%40yale.edu%7C054a21af072a4333eaae08d916f26fb6%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637566052794485292%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Z%2B6Z%2FXFrflO62E37vCToHW5oI2N%2FylTlVZUaalELRa8%3D&reserved=0>
http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwlu.academia.edu%2FTimothyLubin&data=04%7C01%7Caleksandar.uskokov%40yale.edu%7C054a21af072a4333eaae08d916f26fb6%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637566052794485292%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DtU1OwSa2FMe%2FslXWPF5oCuvtXkhD7oWPmL6Y%2Bnzet8%3D&reserved=0>
https://ssrn.com/author=930949<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fssrn.com%2Fauthor%3D930949&data=04%7C01%7Caleksandar.uskokov%40yale.edu%7C054a21af072a4333eaae08d916f26fb6%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637566052794495247%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t1M9dOLJzjrGOI9rv0ud782XOrYPnKifiq4y3vvk4b8%3D&reserved=0>
https://dharma.hypotheses.org/people/lubin-timothy<https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdharma.hypotheses.org%2Fpeople%2Flubin-timothy&data=04%7C01%7Caleksandar.uskokov%40yale.edu%7C054a21af072a4333eaae08d916f26fb6%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637566052794495247%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=yexN3yChqABOkChz3%2FOpUkWhIY8H496tYSsn6ulxu%2BU%3D&reserved=0>

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
Reply-To: "Uskokov, Aleksandar" <aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu>
Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 at 11:09 AM
To: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>, Jim Ryan <jim_ryan at comcast.net>, "mkapstei at UCHICAGO.EDU" <mkapstei at uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for sharing this. The same idea appears as part of the definition found in Vācaspati’s Bhāmatī on BSBh 1.1.1 (and I imagine elsewhere) –

yathāhuḥ

laghūni sūcitārthāni svalpākṣarapadāni ca |

sarvataḥ sārabhūtāni sūtrāṇy āhur manīṣiṇaḥ ||

I have been thinking for a while about the best way to render this sūtrāṇi … sūcitārthāni in English and am currently leaning towards “sūtras are statements that index their meaning.” I wanted to avoid “indication” because of possible confusion with figurative meaning, but perhaps that is too cautious? What would you (the forum) suggest?

Best wishes,

Aleksandar

Aleksandar Uskokov

Lector in Sanskrit

South Asian Studies Council, Yale University

203-432-1972 | aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu

________________________________

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of Matthew Kapstein via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 2:25 AM
To: INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>; Jim Ryan <jim_ryan at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Dear friends,

Without wishing to prolong too much what has already been a very long (though highly informative!) thread (so to speak), I thought that this might be of some interest:

In the early 9th century Tibetan work, the “Two-Volume Lexicon” (sgra sbyor bam po gnyis pa), which was compiled by a team of Tibetan translators working under the guidance of a group of monastic scholars from Aparāntaka (Kashmir/Gandhāra/Bactria) and provides nirukta-style explanations of several hundred key terms in Sanskrit with Tibetan commentary, sūtra is glossed arthasūcanād sūtra [read, of course, arthasūcanāt sūtram].

Once more, SŪC, and nothing to do with thread, was prominent in the Buddhist understanding of the term.

Matthew

Matthew Kapstein
Directeur d'études, émérite
Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris

Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
The University of Chicago

________________________________

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces at list.indology.info> on behalf of Jim Ryan via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:42 PM
To: INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
Subject: [INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Dear all,

Thanks to all of you who contributed to this robust and quite informative “thread” (sūtra!) on the proper derivation of the Buddhist term sutta from the Sanskrit. I tossed a pebble in the pond, I thought, which made

ripples beyond expectations. A thorough treatment of the issue that leaves open, perhaps, a fillip of sorts (this said without having yet read Nathan McGovern’s article.) Of course, the philological question rather quickly

leads to deeper issues regarding the conceptualization of types of text among traditions. I hadn’t even considered Jain notions of sutta/sūtra, comments on which emerged along the way.

Best wishes,

Jim Ryan

California Institute of Integral Studies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20210514/b3f177c1/attachment.htm>