[INDOLOGY] Buddhist "sutta"

Fri May 14 17:41:04 UTC 2021

The Suśrutasaṃhitā (Sū 3.12) has another verse of the kind:

sūcanāt sūtraṇāc caiva savanāc cārthasantateḥ /
ṣaṭcatvāriṃśadadhyāyaṃ sūtrasthānaṃ pracakṣate //

The old Nepalese transmission of the text reads “sādhanāc cārthasantateḥ“ in pāda b.

best,
Andrey
On 15. May 2021, 02:28 +0900, Uskokov, Aleksandar via INDOLOGY <indology at list.indology.info>, wrote:
> Thank you. Yes, I use "figurative meaning" for lakṣaṇā consistently, though I've seen others use "indication," which is why the concern. The context is clear, though, yes.
>
> 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 12:54 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"
>
> Aleksandar, it depends on whether one wants to restrict the use of ‘indicated (meaning)’ to lakṣita/lakṣaṇā.  I would think there are other, better renderings available for the latter when it is contrasted with abhidhā: ‘indirect’, ‘figurative’, ‘suggestive’, etc., vs. ‘direct’, ‘literal’.  I realize that ‘indicate’ is within the range of meanings of forms of lakṣ- (in the basic sense of ‘target, thing aimed at’), but to my ear ‘indicate’ leans more to directness (lit., ‘pointing to’), and thus accords well with the “pointy” directness of sūc-.
> Anyway, I would think that the absence of anything to do with literal vs. figurative meaning in the context should be enough to avoid confusion, no?
>
> 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/
> http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin
> https://ssrn.com/author=930949
> https://dharma.hypotheses.org/people/lubin-timothy
>
>
>
> From: "Uskokov, Aleksandar" <aleksandar.uskokov at yale.edu>
> Date: Friday, May 14, 2021 at 12:21 PM
> To: "Lubin, Tim" <LubinT at wlu.edu>, 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"
>
> 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/
> http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin
> https://ssrn.com/author=930949
> https://dharma.hypotheses.org/people/lubin-timothy
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210515/62b52ac3/attachment.htm>