Oskar von Hinüber (1994: “Die Neun Aṅgas,” p. 132) approvingly cites Mayrhofer’s judgment (EWA III/ 492) that the derivation from sūkta is “entbehrlich”; he cites a long discussion of the term in Buddhaghosa’s Atthasālinī 19.15–26 as evidence against it.

Tim Lubin

From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
Reply-To: Andrew Ollett <andrew.ollett@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 10, 2021 at 3:28 PM
To: Jim Ryan <jim_ryan@comcast.net>
Cc: INDOLOGY <INDOLOGY@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] The Buddhist term sutta

Dear Jim,

See Max Walleser's 1914 book, footnote on p. 4:

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.87981/page/4/mode/2up

K. R. Norman and Gombrich accepted this suggestion. I suppose Pollock got it from Gombrich.

Andrew

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:22 PM Jim Ryan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

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@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology